Hegel'sContestedLegacy:RethinkingtheRelationbetweenArtHistoryandPhilosophyJason
GaigerItiswidelyacknowledgedthattheideasoftheGermanphilosopherGeorgWilhelmFriedrichHegelplayedavitalroleintheformationofthemoderndisciplineofarthistoryandthathisattempttodiscernunderlyingstructuresofmeaninginthehistoricaldevelopmentofartprovidedanimportantstimulusforfigtiressuchas
AloisRiegl,HeinrichWlfflin,andMaxDvorak.However,itisequallywidelyac-ceptedthatHegel'sowntheoryofartincludingthehighlyproblematicnotionofahistoricallyunfolding"worldspirit"(Weltgeist)isboundupwithasetofmetaphysicalcommit-mentsthatarenolongertenabletoday.TospeakofHegel'scontestedlegacyis
thustoinvitethequestionwhetherthereremainsanythingtocontestintheworkofaphilosopherwhoselastpubliclecturesonaestheticsweregiveninBerlinin1829.Aslongagoas1907BenedettoGrocepublishedabookwiththetitleWhat
Ls LivingandWhat Ls DeadinHegel'sPhilosophy.^Intheintervening
centurynumerouseffortshavebeenmadeto salvage isolatedelementsthat
can be putto usewithin
analternativetheoreticalframework.Nonetheless, it isscarcely
controversialto
claimthatthechallengetoconstructacompletesystemofknowledge,inwhichtheplaceofartissecuredinadvance
by a "science of logic," no
longercompelsconviction.^Ifspeculativeidealismhascollapsedasacoher-entphilosophicalproject,itwouldseemthattheLecturesonAestheticscanbequarriedforcriticalinsightsconcerningparticularartworks,andperhapsformoregeneralclaimsconcerningthechangingculturalandhistoricalfunctionsofart,withouthavingtoengagewiththesubstantivebodyofideasthroughwhichtheseinsightsweregenerated.Onthisview,whateverrecognitionmightbeaccordedtoHegelasoneofthe"foundingfathers"ofthediscipline,hisworkbelongstoarthistory'shistoryratherthantoitspresentconcerns."^ThisassessmentofHegel'ssignificancetypifiedbyHansBelting'sobservationthata
workable"aestheticsofcontent"mustfirstbe"severedfromitsdogmaticmooringinHegel's'system'"remainsdominantamongarthistorians.^By
con-trast,thereis
anexceptionallyvigorousdebatetakingplaceamongphilosophers,forwhomthequestionofHegel'scon-temporaryrelevancehas,
if
anything,gainedinimpetusoverthelasttwodecades.Theguidingthreadforunderstandingthisnewcriticalapproachistobefoundin
JrgenHaber-mas's assertionthat Hegel was the first
philosopherforwhommodernityitselfbecameaphilosophicalproblem.^Accord-ingtothisinterpretation,Hegel'srelevancetousresidesinhisrecognitionthatunderthespecifichistoricalconditionsofmodernity,thatistosay,aftertherejectionofallmerelyexternalclaimstoauthority,beitintheformofreligiousdoctrineorbrutepoliticalpower,reasonmustfindameansof
groundingits own claimsto rationality without
recoursetopriorsuppositions:therefusaltoobeyany
externalauthoritywithoutexaminingits warrantorentitlementalso
extendstoreasonitself.ForHabermasandothercontemporaryphilos-ophers,Hegel'sanalysisofthesocialityofspirit,orGeist,shouldbeunderstoodas
anexplanationofhow we
arebothsubjecttotheclaimsofreasonandyetalsoresponsibleforinstitutingthenormsandvaluesthroughwhichreasonbe-comesactiveinourlives.^Itis
notdifficulttoseethatthisreconstructionofHegel'sviewsalsohasprofoundconsequencesforhistheoryofart.Ratherthanreadingthelecturesonaestheticsasacolorfulbutimprobablesetofillustrationstothemarchoftheworldspirit,philosopherssuchasMartinDonougho,DieterHen-rich,StephenHoulgate,andTerryPinkardhavefocusedontheunderlyingproblemofart'sstatusandfunctioninrela-tiontootherformsofknowledgeandexperience.'^Inthewords
of Robert Pippin, perhapstheleading exponentof
thisapproach,Hegelis"thearttheoristforwhomthelinkbe-tweenmodernityandanintensifyingself-consciousness,bothwithinartproductionandphilosophically,aboutartitself,isthemostimportant."**
A
reassessmentofHegel'saestheticsisparticularlytimelyinlightofthenewcriticaleditionsofhisworkthathavebeenpublishedinGermany.As
weshallsee,accesstotheoriginalauditors'transcriptsofthelecturesprovides
aninsightintoHegel'sphilosophythatis stronglyatvariance withthe
versionpresentedby his critics
andoffersusafreshopportunitytoreconsiderhis views.Beforegoing into
Hegel'sphilosophy,it is usefulto
lookatthereasonsforthecomparativeneglectofHegel'saestheticswithinthedisciplineof
arthistory. ErnstGombrich'scritiqueof Hegelas theproponentof a
mystifyingtheory of artthat isimmunetocorrectionby
empiricalevidencestillcommandswidespreadassent,eventhoughfewcontemporaryarthisto-riansacceptGombrich'sconceptionofproperly"scientific"knowledgeorhiscontentionthattheappropriatemodelofinquiryis
tobefoundinthewritingsofKarlPopper.^Gom-brich'sblanketidentificationofHegelwitha"metaphysical"traditionofthinkinginwhichagencyis
attributedtohypos-tatizedentities,whetheritbethe"spiritofapeople"(
Volks-geist)orthe"will to
art"(Kunstwollen),andhiscondemnationofthistraditionasaformof"mythmaking"thataccordsexplanatoryvaluetounitaryprinciplesarerootedinhisconvictionthat"thehabitof
talking interms of collectives, of'mankind,''races,'or'ages'. .
.weakensresistancetototali-tarianhabits ofmind."'"This
formulationis
clearlyindebtedtoPopper'sanalysisoftheriseoftotalitarianismandhisdenunciationofHegelinThe
Open SocietyandIts Enemies.^
^However,itisalsodecisivelyshapedbyGombrich'sexperi-enceofexileandtheneedtoworkthroughtheinheritanceoftheViennaschoolofarthistory.Gombrichhadalreadyquestionedthe"facilityofthecorrelation"betweenartworksandthe"spiritoftheage,"aswellasthe"unreflectingas-sumptionthatonecanmakeaninferencefromonetotheother,"inareviewofanessaybyErnstGarger,whichheHEGEL'
SCONTESTEDLEGACY179publishedin1937 whenhewas
justtwenty-eightyearsold,'^ThecurrentresurgenceofinterestinthewritingsofRieglandotherViennaschoolarthistoriansaffordsavantagepointfromwhichtoquestionsomeofthesimplificationsofGombrich'saccount,
andthe ways in
whichGombrich'sideasintheirturnhavebeensimplified,whileacknowledgingtheentanglementof
art andpolitics in late-nineteenth- and
early-twentieth-centuryarthistory,I draw
onrecent"nonmetaphysical"interpretationsof
He-gel'sphilosophy^whoseadvocatesincludeAnglo-AmericananalyticphilosopherssuchasRobertBrandomandJohnMcDowellaswellasphilosophersworkingwithintheso-calledContinentaltraditioninordertosketchoutthelin-eamentsof
analternativeand,I
hope,moreproductiveread-ingofHegel'slecturesonaesthetics,"Farfromvitiatinghisposition,theidentificationofunresolvedandpotentiallyirresolvabletensionsbetween,forexample,theconceptofart
andits
historicalmanifestationsorbetweenart'ssensuousnatureanditsrationalcontentlendshisworkmuchofitscontemporaryinterestandhelpstosecureitsrelevancetoaperiodinwhichtraditionalframeworksandnarrativeshavelost
theirhold. The most challenging, but also
potentiallythemostrewardingfeattiresofHegel'saestheticsbecomeappar-entonlyif
we addresshis claimsconcerningthedeephistor-icalnessof art,andwe
shouldthereforeresistthetemptationtoadoptafragmentaryoratomisticapproachtobroaderquestionsofmeaning.Thisallowsmeto
addresstherelationbetweenart historical andphilosophicalinquiry
andto
inves-tigatewhetherthe"fatefuldivision"inauguratedbyHegelresidesnot,asBeltingmaintains,intheseparationofthehistoricalstudyof
art
fromcontemporaryproblemsandcon-cernsbutintheseparationofarthistoryandphilosophy,whichonceworkedso
closelytogether.ThedisputeoverthecorrectinterpretationofHegel'sideasthushasbroaderim-plicationsforarthistoriansworkingtoday,foritbearsnotonlyonthediscipline'stroubledrelationtoitspastbutalsoonitsrelationtoother,contiguousfieldsofknowledgethatresideonthefaultlinebetweenhistoricalandtheoreticalunderstanding.Conceptionsand
MisconeeptionsofHegel'sPhilosophyCriticalresponsestoHegel'sphilosophyhavebeensharplypolarizedsincethedivisionintorightandleftHegeliansintheyearsimmediatelyfollowingthephilosopher'sdeathin1831,'*
Thephilosopherwho was
laudedfordiscoveringthe"rationalinthereal"throughhis
investigationoftheorgani-zationofthePrussianstateandthedoctrinalclaimsofProt-estantism^whichcharacterizedhimasanunquestioningapologistofthestatusquowasalsoidentifiedasthemostactiteanalystofthe"contradictions"ofmodernsociety,whose
dialecticalmethodandradical"sublation"
(Aufhebung)ofChristianitypro'videdtheresourcesforarevolutionaryoverthrowofestablishedvalues,LudvgFeuerbachdeclaredthathehadsucceededinturningHegel'smethodofcriticalanalysisbackagainstspeculativeidealism,whileKarlMarxfamouslyinsistedthathehadplaceddialecticsonitsfeet,whereasHegelleftitstandingonitshead,'^Boththinkersemphasizedtheradicalhistoricismandimplicitsocialcri-tiquethat
was
containedwithintheapparentlystaticconfinesofHegel'ssystem.TheirinterpretationpicturedHegelasadynamicandpotentiallydestabilizingthinkerwhoseideascouldbedeployedagainst
theforcesofreactionandconser-vatism.ThepowerfulinfluenceexertedbyHegel'sphilosophythroughoutthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturiesis
due,atleastinpart,tothewayinwhichsubsequentmovementsincluding,besidesMarxism,existentialism,phenomenology,pragmatism,and,morerecently,deconstructionsoughttodefinethemselvesthroughoppositiontohiswork,therebysettingintrainacomplexprocessofrejectionandretrieval.AsKaterinaDeligiorgihasastutelyobserved,thereceptionhistoryofHegel'sthought"is
shapednotonlybythosewhosawthemselvesaspreservinghisteachingsbutalsobythosewho
criticisedthem,"' This also holdstrueforthedisciplineof arthistory,
whichemergedinits
modernforminGerman-speakingcountriesinthewakeofHegel'saesthetics.The"criticalhistoriansofart,"touseMichaelPodro'shelpfulterm,remaineddeeply
indebtedto Hegel'sideas while
atthesametimesubjectinghisapproachtofar-reachingcriti-cisms.^^ItisdiffictiltnowtoteaseapartthevariousstrandsthatlinkedtogetherHegelianism,Neo-Kantianism,andovertlyempiriciststances.
Thechargesthatidealismhadcutitselfadriftfromthenaturalsciencesandthatitwasinade-quatelyresponsivetohistoricalfactswerecounteredbythematerialrichnessofHegel'sphilosophyanditssuccessinidentifyingmeaningfulpatternsof
orderwithinanotherwiseoverwhelmingmass of data. In seeking to "go
beyond"Hegel,thecriticalhistoriansofartdrewfreelyonawiderangeofintellectualresourceswiththeaimofextendingaswellascorrectinghisconceptionofartastheproductofahistori-callyspecificconstellationofideasandvaluesthatisnone-thelesssubjecttoitsown"immanent"processesofdevelop-ment.Oneofthereasons
why Gombrich'snarrativeof
theHege-lianoriginsofarthistoryhasprovedsoenduringisthatitimposesaretrospectivesenseoforderonadenselycom-pactedsetoftheoreticalandmethodologicaldebates.Thecentraltask
of his essay "InSearchofCulturalHistory"firstdeliveredas a
lecturein1967istoshowthatthedisciplineofarthistoryisconstructedonHegelianfoundationsthatcouldnolongerbeartheweightoftheedificetheywereintendedtocarry.'*Goinbrichidentifiesarosterofarthis-torians,includingJakobBtirckhardt,ErwinPanofsky,andJohanHuizinga,as
wellasRiegl,Wlfflin,andDvorak,whorejectedtheidealistpremisesofHegel'smetaphysicsbutnonetheless
continuedto operate with his theory of history.
IfGombrichisrightthattheveryprojectofKulturgeschichte,orculturalhistory,
"has beenbuilt, knowingly andunknowingly,onHegelianfoundationsthat
have
crumbled,"thereremainsatheoreticaldeficitattheheartofthedisciplinethatcanbemadegoodonlybyextirpatingthelastremnantsofHegel'sphilosophyandconstructingamorerobvistexplanatoryframework.''*ThemodelforthisistobefoundinPopper'sinterpretationofthe"logicofscientificdiscovery,"inwhichfalsificationthroughempiricale'videnceplaysakeyroleinestablishingthevalidityofscientificknowledge.Atthesametime,Gombrichplacesfaithinmorelocalizedstudiesinwhichattentionisfixedontheachievementsofindividualartistsratherthanbroadhistoricalperiods.""Itisunsurprising,then,thatGombrich'sargumentsare80BULLETI
NJ UNE2011VOLUMEXCI I
INUMBER2directedforthemostpartatHegel'sphilosophyofhistoryratherthanthelecturesonaesthetics.Heputsfoi-wardanumberof
powerfulcriticismsof
Hegel's"exegeticmethod,"focusinginparticularontheproblematicideaofaunified"spiritofthepeople"thatisrevealedinthereligiousviews,culturallife,andmoralcommitmentsof
aparticularnationorsociety as wellas inits
politicalconstitution,legalsystem,andcharacteristicmodesofthought.Therecognitionthatthesedifferentelementsareinterconnectedinmyriadwaysshouldnot,accordingtoGombrich,leadustomaketheunfoundedanddeeplymisleadingsuppositionthat"all
as-pectsofaculturecanbetracedbacktoonekeycauseofwhichtheyaremanifestations."^'ThetvnHegelianpostu-latesofthe"spiritofthe
age" and"thespiritof
thepeople"restontheassumption"thateverythingmustbetreatednotonlyas
connectedwitheverythingelse, butas a symptomofeverythingelse."^'^
Whatmakesthisassumption"metaphysi-cal"ratherthan"agenuinelyscientificsearchforcausalconnections"isits"aprioricharacter."^**DrawingonPop-per'slines
of reasoning inThe Poverty of
Historicism,Gombrichcontendsthatthedeficienciesoftheholisticapproachbe-comeobviousoncewe
acknowledgethat"thereis noneces-sary connectionbetweenany one
aspect of a group'sactivitiesandany other."^"* Thisinsightformsthe
basis ofGombrich'slifelongattemptto identifyand slay the
metaphysical"giants"that he believedhad
emergedfromHegel'sphilosophy;
"aes-thetictranscendentalism,""historicalcollectivism,""histori-caldeterminism,""metaphysicaloptimism,"and"dialecticalrelativism."^^Gombrichis
primarily concernedwith the afterlifeof
theseideasinthedisciplineofarthistory.However,giventheweightthatGombrichplacesontheconceptof"spirit,"it
isworthpausingtoexaminethecomplexrolethatthistermplaysinHegel'sphilosophy.Hegel'sobsei-vationintheLec-turesonthe
PhilosophyofWorld Historythat"spiritisessentiallyactive; it makes
itself intothat whichit is in itself, into its owndeed, its own
creation" can be recast in more
acceptableformbytranslatingtheGermanwordGeist as
"mind"ratherthanspirit.Onthis"nonmetaphysical"reading,Hegelissimplyreminding
us that the social and cultural world is the
productofhumandecisionmakingandthatourcharacterandiden-tity are
formed,atleast inpart,throughtheinstitutionsthatwecreate.^''But
whenhegoesonto say that"it is thesamewiththespiritof anation;itis
aspecificspiritwhichmakesitselfintoanactualworldwhichnow
existsobjectivelyin
itsreligion,itsrituals,itscustoms,constitutionandpoliticallaws,"heseemstoposittheexistenceofanindependentforceorpowerthatexercisesagencyonasupraindividuallevel.Hegelfrequentlyspeaksof"reason"and"spirit"as
iftheywereobjectiveforcesthataresomehow"realized"throughhumanactions.ThisprovidesthebasisforwhatHoulgateterms"theinfamousHegelianAbsolutewhichissupposedtobetheall-powerfulpuppetmastergoverninghistoryandusinghumanbeingsasthevehicleforitsschemes."
Houlgatecontendsthatthis is "an
absolutefiction"and,furthermore,"SuchanAbsolutedoesnotexistinHe-gel'sphilosophybutonlyinthemindsofhiscritics."^^
He-gel'sformulationofthemanifestationofreasoninnatureandhistory,orwhatheterms"theIdea,"describesnota"transcendentpower"
but rather"the rationalitythatisinher-ent inthe
worlditself;theworld'sownimmanentlogic."^*Analternativestrategy,pursuedbyPippin,istoconcedethatHegeldoesmakehighlyproblematicmetaphysicalclaims
aboutthe nature and activity of "spirit." Whenit
comestospecificproblemsconcerning,forexample,thenatureofmoralactionor
the exercise of agency withinnorm-governedsocial institutions,
though, he consistently furnishesan
expla-nation"intermsinternaltothetopicatissue"ratherthanrelyingonhisconceptionofthe"unfoldingoftheAbso-lute."^^Followingthisinterpretation,Hegel'sview
of"spirit"as an extrapersonalforcecan safely be set to one side
since ithas no practicalbearing on the issues that really matter. I
willreturntotheseissues, but forthemomentit is
importanttonotethepowerfuldissentingvoicesincontemporaryHegelstudiesandthephilosophers,includingFrederickBeiser,SebastianGardner,
and Rolf-PeterHorstmann, who argtie
fortheindispensabilityofHegel'smetaphysicalcommitments.'**"Beiser,for
one, contendsthatthe
nonmetaphysicalinterpre-tationrepresentsanillegitimate"domestication"ofHegel'sideasandthat"the
tendencytoreadthemetaphysical themesandissuesout
ofGermanidealism"removespreciselythoseelementsthatare"challengingtoourownwaysofdoingphilosophy."""Whatgivesthesedebatestheirsenseofur-gencyis
thenotionthatHegel'sanalysisofthe"sociality"
ofthenorms,practices,andinstitutionswithinwhichrationalchoicesaremadeaffordsagenuinealternativetomethod-ologicalindividualismandthusoffersa"live"
set of
possibil-itiesforphilosophersworkingtoday.Atleastinitially,theselargertheoreticalquestionsdonotappearto
haveany directbearingonGombrich'sanalysis
ofthedeleteriousconsequencesofHegel'sideasforthedevel-opmentofarthistory.HisdiagnosisofthepersistenceofHegelianmodes
of thinkingor what he
terms"Hegelianismwithoutmetaphysics"restsontheunderstandingthatthecriticalhistoriansofart,whilerejectingHegel'saccountoftheoperationof
reasoninhistory,continuedto assumethatthereis
anunderlyingunitythatlinksallthemanifestationsof a culture;
attempts to replacethe worldspirit with the "willto art"(Riegl),
the "history of vision"(Wlfflin),orchanging"conditionsof
production"(Marx)onlyreproducethesameproblems in a
differentguise.'^'^ Once we relinquishthe
Hege-lianmodelandexaminetheempiricalevidence,weareforcedtoacceptthateventhemosthomogeneoussocietiescontainconsiderableinternaldiversity,thatthespheresofscience,
jurisprudence,andpoliticsoverlapanddivergeinunpredictableways, and
that the various arts rarely develop
intandemwithoneanother.^'''Havinglearnedfromthe mis-takes of our
predecessors, we can place art history on a
secureempiricalfootingandfinallylaytorestthespecterofitsHegelianpast.AssooftenwithGombrich,however,thecoherenceandpersuasivenessofthestoryhewantstotellisbeliedby
theacknowledgmentofgreatercomplexity,whichispushedtothemarginsbut
neverfullysuppressed.Althoughheappearstoputforwardarallyingcry
fora"returntothefacts,"herecognizes that the facts cannot speak for
themselves andthatwithoutsome"principleofrelevance,"thehistorianis
con-frontedwithan"infinitearrayofdocumentsandmonu-ments."Indeed,"historycouldnot
be writtenatall" withoutHEGELSCONTESTED
LEGACY181a"preconceivedidea"thatenablesus to
discernorderandmeaningratherthansimplyaccumulatingisolatedunits
ofinformation.^''Thetask of the arthistorian is notmerely
todescribe the empirical diversity of artworks but to analyze
theunderlyingvisualandconceptualschematathroughwhichartists at
differenthistoricalperiodshaverepresented theworld.Contraryto what
we mightexpect, in thesepassagesandelsewhere in his work,
Gombrichrelies on what is, per-haps, thekey insighton
whichHegel'sphilosophyis based:therealizationthatthemindplays
anindispensablerole inthe structuring of experienceandthat we
thereforeneed tochallengeall claims to "immediacy.""'''
Gombrich'srichly
in-formativeandwide-ranginginvestigationsintotopics as di-verse as
thepsychology of pictorialrepresentationand theinterplay of
traditionandinnovationin historicallearningprocesses rest on the
contentionthat thereis noperceptionwithoutconception:seeingand
knowingare inextricablyboundup with each otherin
visualexperience."'TheHegelianprovenance of
theseideas^whichreceivedtheirclassicformulationin Hegel'scritiqueof
"sensecer-tainty" in the opening section of the Phenomenology of
Spiritisobscuredby Gombrich'suncriticalacceptanceof the
consis-tentlyright-Hegelianinterpretativeapproachhe found atwork in
art history.'^ Starting out fromthe mantra "one doesnotarguewiththe
Absolute,"he
maintainsthatHegel'sentirephilosophyshouldbeunderstoodas
"anexten-sion . . . of theChristianinterpretationof
providentialhis-tory."*** This interpretationdepends on a strongly
metaphys-icalreading of therelationbetweenHegel'sScienceof
Logicandhispracticalphilosophy,whichsupposedly"repeats itsessential
and inevitable dialectical steps as an
ascentthroughthelogicalcategories."^^GombrichassumesthatHegelworkedout
his views in advancein accordancewith theexigencies of his system
and then simply "applied" the resultsto the various domains of art,
science, morality, and so
forth.HeconcedesthatHegel"displayedmuchskilland evenpoeticgiftin
presentingthedevelopmentof thearts as alogical process accompanying
and reflecting the imfolding ofthe spirit.""' However, it is only
whenthe"clappering of hisconceptual mill falls silent" that his
"genuine love of art" cancome to
thefore.*"Theunderlyingassumptionhereis thatphilosophical
reflectiondistorts or obscures ourpurportedlymorenaturalresponses
to artandthatHegel'sattempt tograsp the
interrelationbetweendifferentdomains of experi-ence is drivenby a
spurioussearch for unity, in which heimposes the orderhe claims to
discover.Gombrich'scriticisms of Hegelaredeeplyentangled
inrecentGermanhistoryandhis dualassimilationandrejec-tion of
themethods of theViennaschool of arthistory inwhichhe was
trained,but which in the work of figures suchas
JosefStrzygowskiandHansSedlmayrhadbeentaintedwithracismandright-wingideology.*^ForGombrich,
notonly Hegel'sideasbutalsothose of Rieglare to
beviewedthroughthelens of
theirsubsequentadoptionandreinter-pretation by art historians who
gave their support to NationalSocialism, His willingnessto evaluate
earlier thinkers onthebasis of their inheritance in art history is
made explicit in Artand Illusion, where he grounds his
assertionthat "[t]he'will-to-form,'theKunstwollen,becomes a ghost
in themachine,drivingthewheels of artisticdevelopmentaccording to
'in-exorablelaws,' " not throughstudy of Riegl'swritings
butthroughreferenceto Sedlmayr'srevisionaryaccount of
the"quintessence" of Riegl's teaching.'*'' Gombrich finds there
insummaryformthedoctrines he spent a lifetimeopposing,includingthe
statementthat"spiritualcollectives"possessindependentrealityandthatthereis
sucha thingasthe"meaningfulself-movementof theSpiritwhichresults
ingenuinehistoricaltotalitiesof events."'*'* In a review of
aFestschriftpublishedfor Sedlmayr in 1964,Gombrichpre-sented a
forcefulcritique of themethod of "structuralanal-ysis,"
contendingthat"failure to speakoutagainsttheene-mies of
reasonhascausedenoughdisastersto justifythisbreachof Academic
etiquette.'"**Togetherwithcolleaguessuch as
OttoPachtandGuidoKaschnitz von Weinberg, Sedlmayr had sought to
turnRiegl'sideasintoarigorous"scienceof art
history"thatwoulddisclose the structural principles underlying the
formalorga-nization of individual works of art as well as
largerprocessesofhistoricalchange.Theambiguitiesattendanton
Riegl'snotion of Kunstwollen were to be replaced by the more
neutralanalysis of
"structure,"butSedlmayralsodeclaredthatthiselusive concept shouldbe
understood in terms of"objectivespirit," withits
strongHegelianresonance,andthat it pos-sessedthecharacterof a
"supra-individualwill" withits ownrealityand"power[Kraft]."*^
Already in 1936, in a criticalreview
ofKunstxuissenschaftlicheForschungen, a journaleditedby
SedlmayrandPachtas a vehiclefordisseminatingtheirideas, Meyer
Schapiro hadobserved:Theauthorstendto isolateformsfromthe
historicalconditions of their development, to propel them by
myth-ical,racial-psychologicalconstants,or to givethem
anindependent, self-evolving career. Entities like race,
spirit,will, and idea are substituted in an animistic manner for
areal analysis of historicalfactors.*^Theconceptof aVolksgeist
hadbeenintroducedby JohannGottfriedHerderin theeighteenthcentury as
a means ofcombatingthecomplacentassumptionsof
classicistaesthet-ics. His emphasis onthe distinctive character of
a people, asmanifestedin its artandsocialstructures,wasintended
togive due weight to cultural diversity by showing that there
isnosinglenormativestandardthatcan be used to
evaluateothercultures,whichare guidedby theirownidealsandvalues.'*"
Subsequent history has shown, however, that roman-tic notions of
"organic community," includingtheconstrualof a
specificnationalcharacter,readilylendthemselves
toideologicalexploitation.Detachedfromtheiroriginalcon-text and
combined with ideas of historical progress, conceptssuchasVolk
andGeistwereusedto endorseaggressivelyexpansionist enterprises and
to give pseudoscientificsupportto the belief in cultural
superiority that Herder had sought toundermine. In the writings of
Sedlmayr andothermembersofthesecondViennaschool of arthistory, the
project ofGeistesgeschichte(culturalhistory)was allied to
stronglyreac-tionary tendencies that were explicitly anti-Semitic
and racist.It wouldthus appearthat Gombrich's view of thedangersof
appealing to "unitary principles" was borne out by
events.Nonetheless, we needto be wary of
retrospectivegeneraliza-tionsandof placingtoomuchweight on
theproblematic2 8 2 A R T B U L L E T I N J U N E 2 0 1 1 V O L U M
E X C I I I N U M B E
R2conceptof"infltience."Itisnoteworthy,forexample,thatPachtcontinuedtodefendastructuralinterpretationofRiegl'sideaslongafterhisexiletoE
nglandasaJ ewishrefugeein1937, andthatRieglhimselftinlikehis
contem-poraryStrzygowskishowedlittlesusceptibilityto nodons
ofracialpurity or pan-Germannationalism.**^ I n an article
pub-lishedintheBurlington Magazinein1 963,
PachtchallengedGombrich'sstippositionthatarthistorycoulddispensewiththeconsiderationof
broaderhistoricalstructures while at
thesametimepresentingamorenuancedrenditionofRiegl'sapproachthat
emphasizedthe empiricalbasis of hiswork
andtheextenttowhichhisideasarosefromtheclosestudyofobjectsinhis
capacityas
amuseumcurator.^"PachtacceptsthattheconceptofKunstiuollenhasextrapersonalconnota-tions,
but he contendsthat it provides an answer to a
genuineprobleminsofarasitallowstheanalysisof"deeper-lyingchanges"
thatcannotbe explainedonthe
levelofindividualvolition.Gombrich'sfamousobservation,"Therereallyis
nosuchthingas Art. Thereareonlyartists," has its correlateinC
roce'scontentionthat"thereis, stricdy speaking,no
historyofart,onlyindividualardsts."For
Pacht,theupshotofsuchradicalindi'vidualismis
thateverythingbecomesamatterofsubjectivedecision,an"arcanumofptireart,"
inwhich"theartisticgeniusintervenesas adeusexmachina."^^^M
orerecentstudies, suchas thoseby J asE isnerand C
hris-topherS.Wood,havestressedthetensionbetweenRiegl'sdetailedvisualexaminationofindividualobjectsandhis
at-tempttosolve"muchlargerproblemsabouttheculturalmeaningof art
itself."''^Therehabilitationof Riegl'sreputa-tionintheE
nglish-speakingworldhasmtichtodowithrecognitionthatthequestionofhowwemovefromthescrutinyofindividualartworkstobroaderargumentsandgeneralizadons,orwhatE
isnerterms"the big picture,"
can-notbecircumvented.*'Pcht'sassessmentofRiegl'ssignifi-cance,andhisdefen.seofwhathetermsa"hybridtypeofenquiry,"isthusclosertocontemporaryapproachesthanGombrich'shighlypartisancritique.^*Ratherthanidentify-ingasinglelineagethatleadsfromHegeltoSedlmayr,arthistorianshavebeguntoproduceamoredifferentiatedac-countthatis
attentiveto
internalcontroversiesanddisputes.Atthesametime,however,thereturntoRieglhasrevealedthattherearesubstantialmethodologicalproblemsthatstillremainunresolved.E
isner'sobservationthat "our
generaliza-tionsine'vitablyleapbeyondwhatisstrictlyprovableby
thepreciseanalysis of somethingso particular as a
specificobjectorsetofobjects"raises,onceagain,theproblemofinduc-tion,whichso
troubledPopper.''"''Drawing onthe insights
ofDavidHumeandotherempiricistphilosophers.Popperar-guedthatuniversalaffirmativepropositionscannotbein-ferredfromanaccumulationof
facts,nomatterhow
consis-tenttheevidencemayappear,forwecannotruleoutthepossibilitythatacounterinstancemightarise.''*'
Popper's
so-lutiontotheproblemrestsontheprincipleoffalsification,accordingtowhichonlyhypothesesthatarefalsifiablebyexperiencecountasscientific.Sinceknowledgearisesnotfromtheconfirmationofahypothesisbutfromthecorrec-tionoferror,theprincipleof
falsificationaffordsavianega-tivathatcanbeusedtoassessthestatusofanyclaimtoknowledgeordulyscientificmethodology.Thelimitsofthisprincipleatleastinitsapplicationoutsidethedomainof
thenaturalsciencescanbe
seenbyconsideringPopper'sstricturesonwhatcotmtsaslegitimatesocialandpoliticaltheory.Herejectsas
nonscientificeffortsto understandsocialchangethroughthe beha'vior
and
actionofcollectives,onthebasisthatsocialphenomenamustbegraspedintermsofindi'vidualchoicesanddecisions,sincethesealone
are susceptibleto
causalexplanation,prediction,andtestingand,hence,to"falsification."N
ot onlydoesherule out holistic formsof
"understanding"(Verstehen),he alsodiscountsthe existence of
meaningftilmethodologicaldiffer-encesbetweenthesocialandnaturalsciences.Despitehiscriticismsofthespecificdoctrinesoflogicalpositivismandhisresistancetotheuseoftheterm.Poppercanstillbecharacterizedas
a "positivist" insofaras he remainedcommit-tedto
thethreebasictenetsidentifiedby G. H.
vonWright:thefundamentalunityofscience,theestablishmentoftheexactsciencesas
a modelforthe others, and adherenceto
arestrictivelynomological,orlaw-based,theoryofexplana-tion.*^E
quallycontentiously.Popperholdsthatanypresen-tationoftheconditionsforgoodgovernmentispotentiallyopentocorruptionandmisuse,andthatphilosopherssuchas
Plato andHegeldirectlycontributedto theemergenceoftotalitarianismby
attemptingtoprovideapositivetheoryofwhatconstitutesa
justsociety.Here,too.Popperproposestheadoptionofavia
negativa:theonlylegitimatecriterionfordemocracyistheabilitytoremoveanunwantedgovern-ment.Whileit
is now widely acceptedthatthisis
anecessaryconditionforagenuinelydemocraticsociety,fewwouldagreethat
it is a stifficientconditionor that we
shotildforsakeanyendeavortoarticulateasubstantiveformulationof
con-stituentelements suchas justice, representativepower, or
theruleof
law.SincemanyofthecontemporarymisconceptionsaboutHegel'sphilosophyderivefromPopper,itisimportanttorecognizethetendentiousanddeeplymisleadingcharacterofhisapproach.I
nadevastatinganalysisofthechapterdevotedto Hegel inT heOpen Society
and Its Enemies, Walter A.Kaufmannhas shownthe extentto
whichPopperallowed
hispoliticalconvictionstooverridehismethodologicalscru-ples.^*
Heputsforwardthreeprincipalcharges.First,ratherthanreadingtheoriginaltexts.PopperreliedonthebookHegel
Selections editedby J acobL oewenbergand published byScribner's
in1929; besides seeming to be unaware of
passagesand,indeed,entireworks,thatare notincludedby L oewen-berg,
he pays no attentionto the
originalcontextfromwhichtheisolatedsectionsaretaken,evenwherethisdecisivelychangestheirmeaning.Second,hedeploysthemethodofcompositequotation,stringingtogethersentencesandphrasesfromdifferentcontextsandevendifferentworks,
toattributeviews toHegelthatarequiteat
variancewiththoseheactuallyheldorthatmisleadinsofarasPopperomitsHegel'sown
caveatsandqualifications.''''Third,herelies
onaconceptof"influence"thatderivesfromthelogicallyfalla-ciousprinciplepost
hoc ergopropterhoc(A occurred,thenBoccurred,therefore,AcausedB ).I
nclaimingthatHegelrepresents"themissinglink"betweenPlatoandfascism,henotonlyignoresHegel'sdefenseofthemodernconstitu-tionalstateinhis
Philosophyof
Right,healsofailstoexaminewhetherofficialNaziideologyactuallymadeuseofHegel'scomplexanddemandingphilosophicalwritings.KatifmannHEGEL'
SCONTESTEDLEGACY183pointsoutthat"HegelisrarelycitedinNaziliterature,and,whenheis
referredto, it is usually by way of
disapproval.TheNazi'sofficial'philosopher,'[Alfred]Rosenberg,inDer
My-thos des Zwanzigsten
Jahrhunderts,mentions,anddenounces,Hegeltwice."''"
Kaufmann'sargumentsaresupportedby
de-tailedhistoricalstudiesbyShlomoAvineri,FranzGrgoire,HenningOttmann,andothers
who have soughtto
exposeasa"myth"thenotionthatHegelwasanapologistofthePrtissianstate
and a totalitariantheorist.^'This is not to deny,of course,
thatHegel'sideas, likethoseof
othermajorthink-ers,havebeensubjectedtoideologicaldistortion.Manyofthekeyelementsofhisphilosophyincludinghisconcep-tionof
historicalprogress, the role of the nation-state, andhisemphasis
onthe unity of ethicallife(Sittlichkeit)are
opentobothinterpretationandmisinterpretation,andtheyhavebeentakenupbyprotagonistsfrombothwingsofthepolit-icalspectrum,sometimesindisastrousways.TheproblemwithPopper'saccountisnotthatitisunremittinglycriticalbutthatitsharesthesameflatteningoutandreductiveisolationofcertainaspectsattheexpenseofothersthatcharacterizetheworstaspectsofthisreception.Gombrich'sdeclarationinArtandIllusion
thathewould"beproudifProfessorPopper'sinfluenceweretobefelteverywherein
this book" now represents a
majorimpedimenttotheacceptanceofhisideas.''^Hiscommitmenttoaprop-erly"scientific"modelofarthistoryundoubtedlyhadbene-ficial
effects,allowinghimtobreakwiththeearly-twentieth-centurypreoccupationwithquestionsofstyleandtobuildcloselinksv^ithcurrentresearchinthenaturalsciences,including,aboveall,thepsychologyofperception.Hisdem-onstrationofthecomplexinterrelationofconceptualandperceptualelementsinthemakingandappreciationofartstillformsanindispensablestartingpointforcurrentre-searchinthephilosophyofdepiction.'^'''Moreover,asI
havealready observed, his actualpractice as an art historian was
farmoresophisticatedthanhisofficialpronouncementswouldseemtoindicate.
JamesElkins'scontentionthatGombrich'sworkis
notconnectedtocontemporaryarthistoryputfor-wardinanessaypublishedin2002,ayearafterGombrich'sdeathalreadyseemsdatedinlightoftherenewedinterestin"visuality"andtheoriesoftheimage,orwhatinGermanyistermedBildwissenschaft.^'^Gombrich'sinsistencethatarthistorymustbeanswerabletoPopper'sanalysisofthe"logicof
scientificenquiry" was intendedto
securethemethodolog-icalrigorthathebelievedwaslackinginthe"mythmaking"and"simulacrumof
explanation"providedby
HegelandtheViennaschool.However,theresultingtraductionofarichandvariedtraditionofthoughtcreatedahighlydistortedpictureofarthistory'shistory,leavingatheoreticalvacuumthathadtobefilledbyothermeans,anditalsoreliedonaconceptionofarthistoricalresearchthatwasinadequatelyresponsivetothedistinctiveformsofinquiryappropriatetothehumanandsocialsciences.ThedeleteriousconsequencesforGombrich'sowntheoryofartcanbebroughtoutby
consideringhis
responsetotheworkofMichaelBaxandall,whosebookPainting and
Experi-ence
inFifteenth-CenturyItalybeginswiththestatement,"Afifteenth-centurypaintingisthedepositofasocialrelation-ship."'''^Inanarticleonthecriticalreceptionoftheconceptofthe"periodeye,"
AllenLangdaleobservesthatBaxandall'sundertakingto developa
moresociallyresponsivearthistory"worriedGombrichandotherscholarsforwhomthePeriodEyeinvokedtheZeitgeistandallitsominousassociations."''''AccordingtoLangdale,thereasonsforthiscanbetracedbacktoafundamentaldifferenceinapproachthatis
allthemoremarkedbecauseoftheapparentcontinuitywithGom-brich'sinterpretationofthe"beholder'sshare."WhereasGombrichtreats"artisticprodtictionasapracticesealedofffromothersocialactivities,"
isolatingthestudy ofpsycholog-ical processes
fromotherfactors,Baxandall"integratespaint-ingbyembeddingitinamuchgreaternumberofandbroaderrangeof
socialpractices, activities
removedfromtheworldofvisualart,thoughnotremovedfromtheworldofvisuality."Asaresult,Baxandall"hadtoconfrontthelaby-rinthof
problemshis projectgenerated;theindividual
versusthecollective,theinnateversustheconditioned,andsoon."''*^Langdaleoverstatesthecontrast,buthisdiscussionusefullyrevealsthedifficultiesattendantonGombrich'sat-temptsimplytoexcisefromarthistorythehistorical"collec-tivism"and"determinism"thatheidentifiedwithHegel'sphilosophy.Unlessthe
field of inquiry is
artificiallynarrowedtoexcludearicher,moresocialaccountofartisticactivity,theseHegelianthemesarelikelytoreemerge,notas"meta-physicalerrors"butasgenuineproblemsthatasociallyem-beddedhistoryofartneedstoaddress.SimilarissuesareatstakeinthehostilereceptionaccordedtoSvetlanaAlpers'sThe
Art of Describing,whichwas portrayedby theadherentsofa morenarrowly
"iconological" interpretationof
seventeenth-centuryDutchpaintingasaregressionintoHegelianism,characterizedby"holism"and"thehabitofthinkingincol-lectiveterms."''**Inhislecture"HegelandArtHistory,"deliveredin1977,Gombrichoffersamoresympatheticversionofthedisci-pline'sdebttoHegel,evenportrayinghimselfas
a"run-awayHegelian"inanoteaddedtotheEnglishtranslation.''^Al-thoughhe
refersto Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics d& the"found-ing
documentofthemodernstudy of art,"
hemaintainsthatifarthistoryisto"freeitselfofHegel'sauthority,"itisnecessarytoworkoffthisinheritancebysubjectingittocriticalexamination.TheinfluenceofPopperis
nothardtodiscerninhiscontentionthat"[t]hegenuinescientistdoesnotseektoconfirmhishypothesishelooksprimarilyforcounter-examples.Atheorythatdoesnotencounteranyresistance,doesnothaveanyscientificcontent.ThedangerofHegel'sinheritanceliespreciselyintheseductiveeaseofitsapplication."Gombrich'sreminderthatweshouldbewaryofthetin-questioning
deploymentof any thinker'sideas
contributesanimportantcorrectivetotherelianceonHegelianformsof"explanation"by
somemembersof the Viennaschool.It
canbeargued,however,thatGombrich'sowntreatmentofHe-gel,likethatofPopper,substitutesonehighlysimplifiedreadingforanotherandthathisreadydismissalofanentiretraditionofthinkingpossessesthesame"seductiveease"astheviewsherejects.Thefatallack
oftractioninGombrich'sanalysis
ofHegel'slegacycanbebrotightintoreliefbycomparinghisconcep-tionwiththemorecomplexviewofHegeldevelopedinGontinentalEuropeintheperiodbeforeandafterWorldWarII.AlthoughmydiscussionfocusesonGermany,itis184B
U L L E T I NJ U N E2 0 1 1V O L U M EX C I I IN U M B E
R2importanttorealizethattherewasanequallystrongcriticalengagementinFrance.Thepublicationin1929ofJeanWahl'
sLemalheurdelaconscience danslaphilosophiede
Hegelmarksthebeginningofadistinctiveinterpretativetraditioninwhichthefigureofthe"unhappyconsciousness"was
ac-cordeda key
roleinunderstandingHegel'stheoryofmoder-nityafigurethathasrecentlyre,surfacedinT.J.Clark'sFarewellto
an
Idea.^^AlexandreKojve'scelebratedseminarsonHegel'sPhenomenologyof
Spirit,heldinParisinthe1930s,wereattendedbymanyoftheleadingfiguresinFrenchthought,includingRaymondAron,GeorgesBataille,AndrBreton,
JacquesLacan,
andMauriceMerleau-Ponty.Forcon-temporaryarthistorians,thecentralpointofreferenceisundoubtedlytheworkof
JudithButler,whoseresearchintothecontroversiessurroundingtheHegelian"subjectofde-sire"
in twentieth-centuryFrenchthoughtlaid
thefoundationforherinvestigationof
"performativity"andtheconstructionofsocialidentity.'^Atthesametime,manyofHegel'sideasalsomadetheirwayintoarttheorythroughmoresubterra-neanroutes,
suchas theclose
engagementwiththephenom-enologicaltraditionbyartistsandcriticsinthe1960swhoexploredtherelevanceoftheconceptof"embodiment"andthedialecticsof"subject-objectrelations"torecentdevelop-mentsinpaintingandsculpture.InGermany
calls fora "return"toHegel were
moreexplic-itlypoliticalinorientation.Motivatedby
theneedtoofferaviable alternativeto the cnidereflectionistaccountof
artthatwaspromotedbyorthodoxMarxism,oratleasttheversionthatwasdominantinEastern-bloccountries,proponentsofWesternMarxism,incltiding
TheodorAdorno,
WalterBenja-min,MaxHorkheimer,andHerbertMarcuse,soughttore-coverthecriticalimpetusofdialecticalthinking.Thisrecog-nizablyleft-HegelianapproachplacedgreatemphasisonkeyHegelianconceptssuchas
"mediation,""contradiction,"and"determinatenegation"while,atthesametime,rejectingHegel'sefforttoreconcileconflictingtendencieswithintherealmofthought.Adorno,forexample,explicitlycontraststhe"unreflectedcopytheory"tipheldbythosewho"admin-isterthedialecticinitsmaterialistversion"withthe"criticalferment"containedinHegel's
philosophy.'^Definingdialec-ticsas"theunswervingefforttoconjoinreason'scriticalconsciousnessof
itselfandthecriticalexperienceof
objects,"hecontendsthatthesuperiorityofHegel'sdialecticalmethodlies
inits abilityto
preserve"thedistinctmomentsofthesubjectiveandtheobjectivewhilegraspingthemasme-diatedtogether."'*
Adorno'stargethereis
notmerelyortho-doxMarxism,withitsrigidlydeterministicframingoftherelationbetweenmindand
world, butalso
Popper'spositivist"logicofscience,"forwhich"objectivetruthiswhatisleftoverwhentheso-calledsubjectivefactorshavebeenre-moved."'''Hegel'scoreinsightadumbratedinGombrich'sacknowledgmentofthecrucialroleofcognitioninvisual(andother)experienceisthatwehavenoaccesstotheworldundescribedexceptthroughspecificframesofrefer-ence,andthatwethereforeneedtoreflectcriticallyonthesubjectivedimensionof
evenpurportedlyneutralknowledgeclaims.Thereceptionof criticaltheory
withinthedisciplineofarthistorycreatedamomentinwhichitwaspossibletounder-take
a revisedassessmentof Hegel'slegacy. Therecuperationof spectilative
anddialecticalthinking by a later
generationofarthistorianswhohadreadandbeendeeplyinfluencedbythe
workof thinkerssuchas
BenjaminandAdornoprovidedampleresourcestochallengethetheistic,quietist,andpan-logicistinterpretationofHegel'sphilosophythatGombrichhaddoneso
muchtoestablish. Justsix years
afterGombrichgavehislecture"InSearchofCulturalHistory,"Clarkob-servedinImage
ofthe
Peoplethatworksofartneversimply"reflect"ideologiesorsocialstructuresandissueda
call
fora"historyofmediations"thattakesintoaccounttheintricateprocessesofconversionandrelationthatlinkspecificformsofrepresentationtoconcretesocialcircumstances."*Clark'sinsistencethat"[i]narthistory.
. .it is precisely theHegelianlegacy that we needto appropriate:to
use, criticize,reformu-late" openedtheway fora
renewedengagementwithdialec-ticalthinking."However,despitetheinstitutionalconsolida-tionofthesocialhistoryofartandtheestablishmentoftheso-callednew
art history, Clark's attemptto "disinter"Hegel'sphilosophywas,
forthemostpart,unsuccessful.Carefulhis-toricalstudies,suchasthosebyMargaretIversen,HubertLocher,andMichaelPodro,havegreatlyenrichedourun-derstandingofthenineteenth-centuryoriginsofthedisci-plinebuttheydonotseemtohavedisplacedtheorthodoxpictureofHegel,whichisstilldisseminatedinarthistorytextbooksandisregularlysetupasaneasytargetforcriti-cism.Podro'swork,inparticular,showedthatitwaspossibletocombinea
critical andintellectuallyprobing
approachtothephilosophicalunderpinningsofarthistorywithsensitivitytothedistinctiveinterestsandconcernsofanearliertraditionofthought.It
is
allthemorestriking,then,thattheoreticallysophisticatedarthistorianssuchasMichaelAnnHollyandKeithMoxey,
whohaveinitiatedanimportantsetofdebatesontheappropriatemethodsandconceptualframeworksforthestudyofvisualculture,continuetodescribeHegelintermsvirtuallyindistinguishablefromthoseemployedbyGombrichover
forty years ago.'^ InherbookPanofsky and theFoundationsof Art
History,HollycontendsthatHegel"postu-latedan'InfiniteSpirit'or'Idea'behindhistorythatworksitselfoutdialecticallythroughtimebymanipulatinghumanactors
caught in its path."**" Iversen rightly observes
thatHolly"seemstohavereadHegelthroughthelensofhostilecriticswhotendtocaricaturehisphilosophy"withoutstoppingtoask"why
anyoneshouldholdsucha bizarreview"
orwhetherwemightstillhavesomethingtolearnfromHegel's"mind-formulated"accountofthesocialworld.*"Inhis1998essay"ArtHistory'sHegelianUnconscious,"MoxeyalsorehearsesthestandardcriticismsofHegel,reproducingmanyofGom-brich'sargumentsverbatim,butheembedstheminapost-structuralistperceptionoftruthassomething"constructed"ratherthan"found."Despitehisassertionthatthehistoriog-raphyofartremainsessentiallyHegelianandthatarthisto-riansneedtosustaintheirresistancetotheworkingofthedi,scipline's"Hegelianunconscious,"MoxeyrefersdirectlynottoanyofHegel'sownwritingsbutonlytotextsbyGombrichandotherarthistorians.**^BeforedelvingfurtherintothequestionofwhyGom-brich'simageofHegelstillretainsitshold,I
wanttoinvesti-gatewhetherthisaccountcorrespondstotheviewsthatHe-gelactuallyputforwardinhislecturesonaesthetics.HEGEL'
SCONTESTEDLEGACY1851FranzTheodorKugler,Hegelwhrendeiner
Vorlesung,1828,lithographonpaper,7y8 X 9% in.(19.5X24.7
cm).Kupferstich-kabinett,Staatliche-museenzuBerlin,462-103(artworkinthepublicdomain;photographprovidedby
BPK, Berlin)Examinationof the original sources will enable me
toidentifysomeofthecoreinterpretativeissuesatstakeincurrentreassessmentsofHegel'sphilosophyandtoshowthatthesebearonproblemsthatareof
directconcernto
arthistoriansworkingtoday.NormatvityandtheExchangeofReasonsAnyreconsiderationofHegel'sviews
onartmustbeginwiththediscoveryandongoingpublicationoftheoriginalaudi-tors'transcriptsofhislecturesonaesthetics.AsAnnemarieGethmann-Siefert,HelmutSchneider,andothershaveshown,closeinvestigationofthesetextscastsdoubtonthereliabilityoftheposthumouseditiononwhichmostoftheextantliteratureis
basedand,further,itdecisivelymodifiesourunderstandingofkey
elementsofHegel'sphilosophy.**''HegelfirstlecturedonaestheticsinHeidelbergin1818,thoughatthis
stagehestilltreatedartandreligiontogether.AfterhismovetoBerlinhededicatedfourseparatelecturecoursestoaesthetics,in1820-21,1823,1826,and1828-29.Auditors'notebooksortranscripts(Nachschriften)surviveforallofthese,insomecasesinmtiltipleversions,andpublica-tionhas
proceededapacesince1995.*'*Notetakingseemstohave
beenahighlydevelopedskillthatwas prizedby
univer-sitystudents;notonlyweretranscriptscirculatedamongthosewhocouldnotbepresent,butalsoinsomecasestheywerepreservedinexpensivebindingsandplacedforsafe-keepinginprivatelibraries.
Thesurvivaloftranscriptsofthesamelectureseriesbydifferenthands,andoftranscriptsoflecturesonothertopicsforwhichHegel'sownnotebooksremain,allowsacheckontheiraccuracy.Thepublishededitionsofthetranscriptsclearlymarkthepresenceoflacu-naeanddeployasystemofbracketstoshow
whereinterpo-lationshavebeenmade.Althoughthetranscriptsvaryinquality,theygivearemarkablyvividpictureofHegel'sprac-ticeas
alecturer,whichcanbeplacedalongsidethefamouslithographby
FranzKugler,basedonhis owndrawing"fromlife[nach der Natur]" of1828
andreproducedin his Handbuchder Geschichteder Malerei
of1837(Fig.1).**"Hegel did not publishany of his lectures in his
lifetime;theversionsthatappearedintheWerkeedition,or"completeworks,"
organizedby "anassociationof friendsof
theimmor-talized[philosopher]"between1832and1845,
wererecon-structedfromhisnotesandfromthoseofhisstudentsandwere
stibjectto varying degreesof editorialintervention.Theworkthatmost
ofus know as theLectures on Aesthetics
wasputtogetherbyhisstudentHeinrichGustavHotho,whohadknownHegelsince1822andattendedmanyofhislecturecourses.^^AfterHegel'sdeathhetookoverhislecturesonaestheticsatBerlinUniversity,andin1832hewasofferedapostinthepaintingsectionof
thenewly built AltesMuseum.AninsightintoHotho'sviews,
oratleasttheviews by
whichhewishedtobeidentified,isfurnishedbyhisapplicationletterforthisposition,addressedtotheministerofculture,Karl
von Altenstein;"as thehighestgoalof scienceI
havesetmyselfthetaskoftreatingaestheticsonlyintheclosestcon-nectionwitharthistorysothata
justificationandguaranteeof universalaestheticprinciplescanbe
providedthroughthehistoricaldevelopmentofthearts."*^Thetensionbetweenhistoricalandsystematicapproachesto
art was farfromresolvedatthistime. As James
J.Sheehanhasshown,itplayedanimportantroleinthedesign,build-ing,andorganizationoftheAltesMuseumandledtoanacrimonioussplit
betweenAlois Hirt, who had first
calledfortheestablishmentofapublicartmuseuminBerlin,andothersonthecommittee,includingWilhelmvonHtimboldt,Carl-FriedrichRumohr,KarlFriedrichSchinkel,andGustavWaagen,whoarguedthattheselectionanddisplayofworksshouldbebasedonaestheticratherthanhistoricalconsider-185BULLETI
NJ UNE2011VOLUMEXCIIINUMBER2ations.Intheenda compromisewas
reached:thecollectionofantiquitieswas
arrangedthematicallyonthefirstfloor,inaccordancewith
Schinkel'sinsistencethat thepurposeofthemuseumwas
toteachpeopleaboutbeauty,notthehistoryofart,whilethepaintingsonthesecondfloorwereplacedinbroadlychronologicalorder.^*Itis
inthecontextofthe.sedebatesthatHothobeganthetaskofeditingHegel'slecturesforpublication.Ittookhimnearly
fouryears to preparethe first volumeof theLectures
onAesthetics,whichfinallyappearedin1835,followedbytwofurthervolumesin1837
and1838. Theresultof
hiseditoriallaborsrunstonearlysixteenhundredpagesinthemodernGermaneditionandis
incomparablylargerinscalethananyofthesurvivingtranscriptsandlecturenotes.A
measureofcomparisonis
givenbytheprintedversionofHotho'stran-scriptofthe1823lectureseries,whichis
justoverthreehundredpageslongandis
freeofthenumerousrepetitionsandtheforcedtransitionsbetweenthevariouspartsthatmakethepublishededitionsounwieldy.HothowasabletoconsultHegel'snotebooks,whicharenowlost,aswellasseveralotherstudenttranscriptsalongsidehisown.*^^
None-theless,questionsabouttheauthenticityofhiseditionwereraisedasearlyas1931byGeorgLasson,whopointedtodiscrepanciesbetweenthepublishedtextandtheavailablesources,noting,forexample,thattheclaimthatartis"thesensibleappearanceoftheidea[dassinnliche
ScheinenderIdee]," onwhichso muchweight has beenplaced,is notto
befoundin any of the extanttranscripts.'"' These questions
havebeengivenrenewedprominencebytheresearchofGeth-mann-Siefert,theleadingfigurebehindthepublicationofthetranscriptsandthefiercestcriticofHotho'seditorialpractice,whichshe
judges"unreliabletoahighdegree."''*Gethmann-Siefertmaintainsthat"Hegel'soriginalconcep-tionisonlytobefoundinthelecturetranscripts"andthat"thebasisforcontemporarydiscussionofHegel'saestheticsshouldnolongerbethetextpublishedby
Hotho, butratherthesources fortheBerlinlectures."''^
Herassertionshavenotgone unchallenged,andHothocontinues to have
hisdefend-ersonbothstylisticandsubstantialgrounds.* However,it
isnow generallyacceptedthat
whiltHotho'seditionremainsavaluablehistoricaldocument,notleastbecauseitwasthroughthistextthatHegel'sideasweremadeavailabletolaterreaders,thepublishedtranscriptsmustbeconsultedasanindispensable.supplementandcorrective.Farfrombeinganobscureproblem,ofinterestonlytocommittedHegelscholars,thestatusofthetextualsourcesforthelectures
is a matterof centralimportance, formany oftheargumentsputforwardby
bothsupportersandcriticsofhis work arebasedontheheavily
editedreconstructionsthatwerepublishedby his followersafterhis
deathinanattempttosecurethedominanceoftheHegelianschool.Thenewcriticaleditionsofhislecturesontopicssuchasnaturalphilosophy,religion,andworldhistory,whichmakethein-dividuallecturecoursesavailableforthefirsttime,differmarkedlyfromtheWerke
edition,inwhichthelectureswerepresentedas a definitiveexpositionof
Hegel's views. Peter
C.Hodgson'sobservationsconcerningthelecturesonthephi-losophyofreligionbearclosecomparisonwithGethmann-Siefert'sanalysisofthelecturesonaesthetics:TheWerkeeditionpresentedhislecturesonthevarioustopicsofphilosophyaspartofacompleted,consistent,unitarysystem,but
we now
knowthatHegellecturedwithaninnovativespirit,unwillingeversimplytorepeatwhathesaidbefore..
. . Far fromimposinganabstract,apriorischemaonthehistory
ofreligions,Hegelapproachesthistopicasanexperimentalfieldinwhichavarietyofinter-pretativestrategiesmustbetriedout.'''*Gethmann-SiefertcontendsthatwhenHothobeganeditingHegel'slecturesonaestheticshesoughttocounterthechal-lengeposedbytherivalsystemsof"speculativeaesthetics"thathadbeendevelopedby
KarlSolgerandFriedrichSchel-ling,andthathewasthereforeinducedtoreconstructwhathedescribedasmere"sketchesandobservations"intoatightlyorganizedandstructuredwhole.Insodoing,heturnedthelecturesintoa"closedpartofaself-containedconceptualsystem"andobscuredthetentativeandexplor-atorymannerinwhichHegelpresentedhisideas.^*Geth-mann-SiefertalsoattributestoHothothenormativeassess-mentsofindividualartworksfromthestandpointofthesystem,whichseemsoatvariancewithHegel'srecognitionthattheappropriatetermsofevaluationareinternal
totheaims
ofdifferentculturalpractices.Herprincipalcriticismisthatthroughhis
editorialreworkingsHothotransformedtheopen-endedanddiscursivecharacterofHegel'saestheticsintoarigidandunyieldingexpositionoftheplaceofart,whosevery"completion"runscontrarytothespiritofthelectures.Theposthumouspublicationofanywriter'sworkislikelytoprovecontroversial,andHothowasclearlyawarethathiseditionoftheLectureson
Aesthetics
wasexposedtopotentialobjections.Intheprefacetothefirstvolumeheeloquentlyarticulatesthedifficultieshehadtoovercomeandthefrag-mentarystateofthematerialshehadbeforehim.Heob-servesthathistaskwasnottoeditafinishedmanuscriptforpublicationbutrather"tofusethemostdiverseandfre-quentlycontradictorymaterials,wherepossible,intoaroundedwhole,
whilst
exercisingthegreatestcircumspectionandwarinessatmakingimprovements."^Helikenshimselfto"a
faithfulrestorerofoldpaintings. . .
whoallowshimselftomakeonlythoseadditionsthatarenecessarytopreservewhat
remains of theoriginal."^' By combining what hesaw
asthebestelementsofeachofthevariouslecturecoursesandaddingtheinterconnectionsneededto
bringtheminto"har-mony[Einklang]"
withoneanother,hesoughttopresentHegel's workinthebestpossiblelight.
Yet justas practicesofrestorationhave changedoverthelast
onehundredand
fiftyyears,sohavemodemconceptionsofscholarship.Wenowprefertohaveaccesstotheoriginalsources,nomatterhowincompleteorcontradictorytheymaybe.WhileHothoun-derstandsthatHegelsoughtto
extendhis accountof artandto improveits expositionineachnew
lectureseries, heneverentertainsthepossibilitythathemighthave
alteredhis
views.ItisnowverydifficulttopriseapartwhatbelongstoHegelandwhattoHotho,andwithoutaccesstoHegel'spapers
wecannotreachadefinitiveconclusionconcerningtheextentofHotho'sinterventions.UnlikeHotho'sedition,whichgivestheappearanceofafinishedtextthathadbeenmadereadyfortheprinter,theHEGEL'
SCONTESTEDLEGACY187transcriptsreturnthereadertothelecttirehall.'WhereasHothofusedHegel'sargumentsandideasintoasinglesys-tematicwork,thetranscriptsenableus
to
examinethediffer-encesbetweenthevariouslecturecourses,eachofwhichisseparatedby
sometwo orthreeyears. Therewefindsubstan-tial
structuralchangessuchas themovefroma
bipartitetoatripartitedivisioninthefinalseries(achangeadoptedbyHothoforhis
posthumousedition)aswell as markedshiftsinemphasis,
particularlyconcerningtherelationbetweenartandreligion.Gethmann-SieferthasurgedthatweviewHe-gel'saestheticsasa"workinprogress,"subjecttocontinualexaminationandreassessmentoverthedifferentlecturese-ries,forfarfromconstructingarigidsystem,Hegeltreatedaestheticsasa"fieldofphilosophicalexperimentation"inwhichtheheuristicpotentialofhistheorycouldbetestedagainstspecificexamples.''*Thisclaimisparticularlysignifi-cantinlightofGombrich'sinsistencethatHegel'stheoriesareimmuneto
correctionby
empiricalevidenceandthatheshapedtheavailablehistoricalmaterialtofitthe"logicalnecessity"ofanaprioriconceptualstructure.IfGethmann-Siefertisright,Hegelwas
justasinterestedinthewayinwhichtheclosestudyoftheartofdifferentperiodsandplacescouldconfoundorproblematizehis
assumptionsas intheway itcouldbeusedtoconfirmthem.A
closereadingofthetranscriptsalsopermitsustochal-lengeasecond,pervasivemisunderstandingthathasservedas
an obstacleto grasping Hegel's views: the belief that he
wascommittedto anaestheticallyconservativeformof
classicism.Onthisinterpretation,althoughHegelpurportedtoinvesti-gateartfroma
"higher"philosophicalstandpoint,hesharedmany of theprejudicesof
Johann JoachimWinckelmannandothereighteenth-century"Hellenophiles."
Inparticular,he
isaccusedofidentifyingtheartofancientGreeceasanidealagainstwhichtomeasuretheartisticachievementsofallothercultures:notonly
whatheterms"symbolicart,"thatisto say, theartof early
Easterncivilizations andancientEgypt,butalso
whatheterms"modern"or"romanticart,"thatis tosay, allzrtafterthe
highpoint of "classical art" infifth-centuryAthens, is regardedas
in some
sensedefectiveorinadequate.Hegel'sfamousobservationthattheconceptofartreaches"perfection[
Vollendung] " in ancient Greek sculpture
andthat"[n]othingcanbeorbecomemorebeautiful"isalsotobefotindin the
lecture transcripts. However, he
qualifiestheseremarksbycharacterizingtheclassicalidealas"cold,foritself,
andself-contained"in contrastto romanticart, which isaddressednotto
the"ideal" butto theneedsof
otherhumanbeings.Hethengoesontoproposethattheunityofformandcontentachievedinthegreatestexamplesofclassicalsculpturewaspossibleonlyinthecontextofalimited,andessentially
premodern,understandingof
subjectivityandthatwhatenablesthisbriefrealizationof"adequacy"is
theunde-velopedcharacterofthecontentthatis
represented.'"^TheGreekidealofbeautycannotsurvivethetransition,ontheonehand,tothegreater"inwardness"
and"self-reflection"ofChristianity,and,ontheother,tothemerelyformaloruniversalconceptoftheselfthatis
operativeintheabstractsystemofrightsandtheinstitutionof
privatepropertythat
isinstantiatedinmodernlegalcodes.ProperlylocatedwithinHegel'smoreinvolvedaccountoftherelationbetweenchangingconceptionsofsubjectivityandtheir"realization"or"expression"inoutwardform,the"perfection"ofclassicalartturnsouttobetransientandunsustainableratherthanyielding
a timeless norm.His anal-ysis
ofthe"dissolution[AuflsungY'or"destruction [Zertrm-merung]"
oftheclassicalidealpreparesthegroundforapluralistoutlookin
whicharthas nogivennatureoressencebutis
simplythesumtotalofwhathasbeentreated asart.""Martin Donougho, who
has providedthebest
examinationofHegel'saestheticsinthese"presuppositionless"terms,con-cedesthat"justhowfarwecantakethisradical,non-e.ssen-tialisthistoricisingismoot,"butheinsiststhat"theclassical'norm,'inbothformandcontent,isnottobetakenasnormativeforHegel:
the'Ideal'is nothis ideal."'"^
Hegelhascomparativelylitdetosayaboutclassicalartinthelectures;heis
primarily interestedin what is not classical, thatis to
say,thebreakdownanddiscontintiitiesofformandcontentthatcharacterizebothsymbolicandromanticart.AsPippinhaspointedout,Hegel'shistoricaltreatmentofartleadshimto"amostparadoxicalconclusion":muchofwhatweconsiderpost-classicalart(whatHegelterms"romantic"art)istreatedasartintheprocessof"transcendingitselfas
art, somehow"againstitselfas
art,asmuchamanifestationofthe"limitations"andincreas-inglydissatisfied"life"ofthepracticeoftheprodtictionandappreciationofartasitis
partofacontinuoustradi-tion.(Theevendeeperparadoxis
thatromanticartis
allofthis"asart").^'^Hegel'sclaimsthatthetransitiontoromanticartisbroughtaboutbythe"progressionofartbeyonditselfandthatthecontentthatistobeexpressed"demandsmorethantherepresentationalformoftheartworkcanachieve"introduceatensionorconflictwithintheveryconceptofart,forheinsiststhatwhatis
lackinginclassicalartis
somethingthatislackinginartitself.'"'*Thislineofinterpretation,inwhichHegel's
judgmentof the"inadequacy"
and"incompletion"ofromanticarttellsussomethingabouttheproblematicchar-acterofartinmoderncivilsocietyandthespecificchal-lenges
anddifficultiesto whichit is exposedallowshis ideasto be
relateddirectiy to pressing contemporary concerns.
Notjustthepracticeofartbutalsoitsrelationtootherformsofhumanagencyturnouttoberadicallyunstable.Moreneedstobesaid,ofcourse,aboutHegel'saccountoftherelationbetweenartandphilosophy,andhismuchmisunderstoodthesisofthe"endofart."Nonetheless,itshouldalreadybeclearthatthelecturesonaestheticsdonotpresentatrium-phant,Whiggishformulationoftheinevitable"progress"ofart,guidedfromonhighby
thecategoriesofHegel'sScienceof
Logic,asGombrichandotherswouldhaveusbelieve.What,then,is
thecorrectwaytocharacterizetherelationbetweenartandphilosophyas
itis
presentedinthelecturesonaesthetics?AndhowdoesthisinformHegel'sdistinctiveperceptionofmodernity?Thecoreofhispositionresidesinthepropositionthatartoccupiesauniquepositionbetweenabstractconceptualthoughtandsensuousimtnediacy,
partic-ipatinginbothbutfunctioningasa"middleterm[Mittel-glied] "
thatbringscognitionandsensibilitytogetherwithoutgiving priorityto
either.'"''His contentionthatart
containsa"truthcontent[Wahrheitsgehalt]"affordsa meansofacknowl-A R
TB U L L E T I NJ U N E2 0 1 1V O L U M EX C I I IN U M B E
R2edgingthatartworkspossessbothcognitiveandexpressivevalue.However,thisformulationispotentiallymisleadinginsofarasitsuggestsamerelyexternalconnectionbetweenartistic"form"andconceptual"content."Alreadyinthe1820-21lectureseries,hestatedthat"itisnecessarytoridourselvesoftheideathattheconcept,thecontentofanartworkis
somethingalreadythought,as ifit alreadyexistedinaprosaicform.. .
.Arthasthepurposeofbringinganot-yet-consciousconcepttoconsciousne.ss.""^*'Hegelper-ceivesthatboththemakingandappreciationofartareirreducibletoother'
formsof experienceandthatit is
there-forewrongtoconceiveanartworksimplyasa"vehicle"fortransmittingthotightsandideasforwhichitsuppliestheappropriateexternalshapeorcladding.AsPippinobserves,artforHegelis
"anachievedformofself-knowledge;knowl-edgewewouldnot,couldnothave,exceptforthisrealiza-tion.-107But
how is this
sophisticatedandnondeterministicconcep-tionoftherelationbetweencognitionandsensibilitytobereconciledwithHegel'sassertionthatart,religion,andphi-losophy
sharethe same "content" eventhoughtheyarticulateit in
differentways? This idea, whichHegel first elaboratedint
heEncyclopediaofthePhilosophicalSciences
in1817,survivesthroughoutthevariouslectureseriesonaesthetics.'"^Hispractical
philosophy, or "philosophy of spirit," is based
onthenotionthatart,religion,andphilosophyintheir"highestvocation"areallconcernedwithbringingtoreflectivecon-sciousnesstheconditionsfortheexerciseoffreedomthatunderpinrationalagency.Althoughhemaintainsthattheformsof"absolutespirit"differonlyinthe"mode"inwhichthis
deepertruthis revealed,thecontentthateachis
capableofexpressingturnsouttobeprogressivelymoresubstantialandarticulate.Therecognitionthatwe
areself-determiningbeingswhoseethicalexistenceisconstitutedthroughstruc-turesofself-relationthataresustainedintheconcreteprac-ticesandinstitutionsthatmakeupthesocialworldisonlyfullyrealizedinthemodemage.ThereisthusaprofoundambivalenceunderlyingHegel'scharacterizationoftherela-tionbetweenartandphilosophy.Ontheonehand,heidentifiesartasauniqueandirreplaceablehumanactivitythatcannotbereducedtootherformsofknowledgeandexperience.Ontheotherhand,hetreatsthesphereof
art asa
priorandsubordinatestageinthedevelopmentofhuman-ity's"being-for-selfwhoseirremediable"defect"or"limita-tion"lies
inits
inseparabilityfromsensuousintuition.Philos-ophyhasthetaskofunifyingandrenderingfullyintelligibletomodemreflectivethoughtinsightsthatareexpressedinchoatelyintheformofsensuousimageryandsymbolism.Theclaimthatartandreligionhavebeen"superseded[aufgehoben]"byphilosophy,inthedouble.senseof"pre-served"and"overcome,"representsoneofthemostprob-lematicaspects
ofHegel'saestheticsandleadsdirectlytohisnotoriouspronouncementsconcerningtheendofart.AsGethmann-Siefertreadilyacknowledges,thelecturetran-scriptsrevealthatthisargumentoriginateswithHegel,notHotho,as
somereadershadhoped,andthatheheldfasttohis positionthroughall
fourseries, includingthe final
onein1828-29.'"''Ratherthanbacktracking,heseemstohaverel-ishedtheprovocationofhisremarks,whichleftthecom-poser
Felix Mendelssohnwondering how^with
JohannWolf-gangvonGoetheandBertelThorvaldsenstillaliveandLudwig
vanBeethovenonlyrecentlydeceasedHegelcoulddeclarethatGermanartwas"deadasadoornail[mause-lot]."''"MostscholarsnowagreethatHegel'sthesisconcernsnotthe
"death" of art but only its "end" or "pastness," andthat
hisanalysisoftheprofotmdhistoricalandculturaltransforma-tionsthataccompanythetransitiontomodernityisfvillycompatiblewithawarenessofart'scontinuingprodtictionandvitality."'Whathadchanged,accordingtoHegel,is
themeaningthatindividtialworksofartcanhave forus.
Hereishispresentationofthethesisinthe1820-21lectureseries;Ourrelationtoartnolongerhasthehighsolemnityandsignificancethatitpossessedinearlierperiods..
. .Asaresultofoureducationandculture[Bildung],
weinhabitanintellectualworldratherthanaworldofsensuousapprehension.Therepresentationof
ideasthrotighformsismoreessential,morenecessary,forthosepeoplesforwhomtheuniversalhasnotyetdisintegratedintopartic-ulars,
forwhomthelifeof themindhas not yetdevelopedto this point, whereas
forus thespiritof
theuniversal,thegenus,canonlybeidentifiedthroughparticulars."^Indrawingadistinctionbetweenpremodemandmodernformsof
consciousness,Hegelexposedhimselftothechargeofculturalgeneralizationandessentialism,as
well as
ofmak-inganimplicitappealtoanarrativeofhistoricalprogress.However,thedeclarationthatartis
tinableto fulfillthesamesymbolicandunifyingrolethatit
didinthepastis
primarilyintendedasacritiqueoftheRomanticbeliefthatitwaspossibletorestorethesenseof
unity andwholenessthathadbeendestroyedby
the"ageofreason."HistargethereistheworkofNovalisandotherleadingfiguresofearlyGermanRomanticism,
as well as artistic groups suchas
theNazarenes,whoofferedanidealizedevocationofmedievalChristianity.Hegel'srejectionofthisattitudefollowsdirectlyfromhisidentificationofa
closeinternalrelationbetweenmodernityandtheself-groundingcharacteroftheoreticalandpracticalreason;criticalreflectiononnormativeprinciplesandtheexchangeof
reasonstakeprecedenceover
sensuousimmedi-acy,whichcannotstirvivethedisintegrationoftraditionalworldviews.Toputitcrudely,if
we
wanttoresolvecomplexsocialproblemssuchasthefairdistributionofgoods,therelationbetweenrightsandresponsibilities,ortheimposi-tion
of legitimate constraints onhumanfreedom,we now
relyonthedeliberativemodelofreasonenshrinedinmodernjudicialandparliamentarysystems.AlthoughtheRomanticsheldontothedreamthatartcouldsatisfytheunifyingfunc-tiononceaccomplishedbyreligion,Hegeloffersahard-headedviewofitslimitedroleinmodernnation-states.Hisobservationsarenotuncoloredbyasenseofloss,butheinsiststhatotirstancetowardartischaracterizedby"reflec-tion"
ratherthanveneration; we "value art andrespect it,"
butwe"nolongerseeitas
somethingfinal.""'ItisaremarkablefeatureofHegel'saestheticsthathisdeclarationof
the "end" of art took place at the very
historicalmomentwhenthemodemconceptofartwasgainingwide-spreadrecognitionthroughthedevelopmentofpublicinsti-tutionssuchas
artmuseums,lendinglibraries,andsubscrip-HEGELSCONTESTED
LEGACY189tionconcerts."*We havealreadyseenthattheconflictbetween
"aesthetic" and "historical" standpoints played a rolein the design
and organization of the Altes Museum in Berlinand that these
tensions informednot only Hegel's lectures onaestheticsbut
alsoHotho'sapproachto editingthem forpublication. Althoughthe Altes
Mtiseum didnot openuntil1830, a year afterHegel's final lecture
courseonaesthetics,the fact that Hegel delivered his lectures at
Berlin University,just a short walk fromthe site wherethemuseum was
beingbuilt, has led some critics to identify the two projects with
oneanother and to charge that Hegel should be
heldresponsibleforthe"museumification"of art. Sheehanobserves
thattheideathatmuseumsshouldfeature"visiblehistories of art"drew
sustenancefromHegel'sphilosophy while at
thesametimecreating"newpossibilities of
artisticidentityandnewcriteria for aesthetic judgment," insofaras
artworks began tobe created with the museum in mindas their
ultimate desti-nation.""'Oneway of addressingthisissue, adoptedin
dif-ferentpermutationsby Hans Belting, StephenMelville,andBeat
Wyss, is to contendthatHegel"constitutes"artas his-torical by
considering it fromthe standpoint of thepresent.Melville,
forexample, holdsthat:what wenow callthehistory of a r t . . .inits
specificvisi-bilitybecomespossibleonly at a certainmomentwithinthe
Westerntradition, andthis momentis firmly mooredto the name of
Hegel, whose claim that art has come to anendhasbecome,thatis,
merelyhistoricalengendersbothan objectand a questionabout our
access to it."Melville'ssophisticatedpresentationof
theproblemallowshim to showthatthevery identificationof artas a
discretesphere of htiman activity "is thus bound up with the notion
ofits end; its achievementis inseparablefromits pastnessartcomes to
presenceand explicitness precisely as historical,
asalreadyovercome."' "ToreadHegeltoday,therefore, is
toconfrontthequestion of art'shistoricalnessandtheway inwhichthis
is implicated in the writing of arthistory.InhisbookTheEndof
theHistoryof Art'?
Beltingacknowl-edgesthatHegel'sideasconcerningthe "pastness" of
artcannot be ftillyunderstoodotiLside of his"system,"but hegoes
onto suggestthathis views are"symptomaticof a newunderstanding of
artitselfcharacteristic of hisepoch";fur-ther,"Onthe basis of
thisunderstandingrests the entireprojectof the historicalstudyof
art as a scholarlydisci-pline.""Hegel'sconceptionof
the"emancipation" of artfromits earlierreligiousand
historicalfunctionsenabledcritical reflectionon art to gain "a new
dimension." However,Belting contendsthat by "offeringarthistory as
contempla-tion of pastmodes of humanexpression,modeswhich nolonger
, , . suggest a model forthe futureof art itself," Hegelinitiated a
"fatefuldivision" between the historical study of artand the
concerns of contemporary artists and critics, therebyopeningup a
rupturethatwe are stillstrugglingto over-come."" Rather than
accepting the de facto split between artcriticism and empirical art
scholarship, we need to recognizethat"[t]hequestionof what art
hasbeenin history,andwhether it at allresemblesthishistoricalentity
in ourowntime, hinges on our tmderstanding of modern art."'^"
Beltinginsists that he is seeking not to restore a "lost notion of
unity"but to displace a false unity that obscures "the genuine
diver-sity of artas manifestedin its ever changingroles
anddefi-nitionsin history,"'^'AlthoughBeltingpresentshis
argu-mentas a straightforwardcritiqueof Hegel, the terms inwhich he
couches his analysis suggest that he is more plausi-blyunderstoodas
usingHegelto thinkagainstHegel, astrategy that has frequently been
adopted by left-Hegelians asameans of recoveringthe
"criticalimpulse" of dialecticalthinking. Hegel's reflectionsonthe
diversity of artistic prac-tice, andthe difficultyof subsuming this
diversity underanysingle definitionor description, provide a means
of elucidat-ing the insufficientlyhistorical character of the
concepts andcategoriesthatareavailable to us. On theinterpretation
Ihave defendedhere^which is closer to Arthur Danto's con-trasting
assessment of therelevance of Hegel'saesthetics
torecentandcontemporaryartpracticeHegel'sclaimscon-cerning the "end
of art" do not mark an absolute break withthe past; rather, they
are intended to broaden the question ofwhat art means for us today
and its constitutionas anauton-omous field of humanactivity, making
it more forceful,chal-lenging, anddifficultto answer.'^^A
greatlysimplifiedandmuchcruderunderstanding ofHegel'spositionis to
be foundin Wyss's
widelyreadbookHegel'sArtHistoryandtheGritiqueofModernity.
^'^^Wyss'spre-sentation is organized around the conceit that the
lectures onaesthetics canbereconstructedas a vast imaginarymuseumof
art in which Hegel guides us throughthe variotis stages
ofart'shistoricaldevelopment.Weare askedto picture thephilosopher
as he walks through the rooms of a building thathousesthe
entirehistoryof ctilture: wefollowhimashepasses in succession
through the differentstages of the worldspiritmorning,noon, and
eveningthat correspondto histreatment of symbolic, classical,
andromantic art. As the daydraws to a
close,Hegelleaveshismuseum,contentin theawarenessthathe
"hadcondensedthe entirepathof theworld spirit frommorning to
evening in one overview." Wysscontendsthat:[Hegel's] art history is
museum-like,sincethepresent iscutoff fromthe past.Onlywhathas the
auraof thehistoricaland what has beenpassedby the socialconsen-sus
is admitted. . . . Thereis no roomfortheunexpectedorthe yet
imagined in this conceptof art.'^*Wyss's adoption of themuseum as a
guidingmetaphor forunderstanding Hegel's aesthetics creates the
very rigidity andossificationthat it is designed to criticize. Far
fromconfiningart within the walls of the museum, the lectures
onaestheticsrequire that art be understood as a social practicea
practicethat stands in an inherently dynamic and unstable relation
tootherpracticesand institutions.WhatSheehanterms the"museumage"
postdates Hegel's philosophy, but the role ofthemuseumin shapingthe
modernunderstandingof artmustbe takenintoaccountby any
theorythatseeks tovouchsafe a genuinely historicalnarrative of
art's relation tothewidersocialworld,'^^Thedevelopment of
themodernart museum is a consequence rather than a presupposition
ofthe profoundhistoricalshiftthatHegelis trying to
explain.Therealissue at stake in thesedebates, or so I wish
toargue, is not the relationbetween art history andcontempo-190B U
L L E T I NJ U N E2 0 1 1V O L U M EX C I I IN U M B E
R2raryartpractice,whichis,inanycase,moreopenanddy-namicthaneitherBelting
or Wyss seems willing to
admit,buttherelationbetweenarthistoryandphilosophy.WhatMel-villeterms"thenameofHegel"hascometostandforaspecificimageofphilosophyinwhichthepursuitofabstractgeneralizationsis
allowedtorideroughshodovertheempir-icalevidence.ItisnotnecessarytoattributeastrongcausalroletoGombrich'sparticularconstrualoftherelationbe-tweenarthistoryandphilosophytorecognizethathischar-acterizationofHegel'saestheticsastheproductofatotaliz-ing
metaphysicsthat is no longeranswerableto the world
wasinfluentialataformativestageinthediscipline'sdevelof)-ment.Gombrich'santimetaphysicalrhetoric,hisappealtocommonsense,hisdistrustofabstractuniversals,andhisinsistencethat
we have to choosebetweenthe methods ofthenaturalsciences
andrelianceonphilosophy all signal a
breakwiththeGermanidealistheritageofarthistory.FewwouldnowalignthemselveswithGombrich'schosenalternatives,buthisreductiveexplanationofHegel'slegacycontinuestoserve
as a barrierto theintensivereengagementwithhis
workthathasbeensuchamarkedfeatureofcontemporaryde-bates
inepistemology, politicaltheory, ethics,
andphilosoph-icalaesthetics.OneofthethingsIhavesoughttoshowhereisthatarthistoryisillservedbythetendencytotreatphilosophicalargtimentsasinertmaterialthatcanbeusedforitsownpurposesratherthanas
anoccasiontothinkphilosophicallyabouttheunderlyingproblemsandissuesatstake.Unlessconceptsandideasthatarederivedfromphilosophyaresubjecttocriticalexaminationtheyarelikelytohardenintoimmutablegivens.Theresultinglossof"resistance,"whichGombrichrightlyidentifiedas
essentialtogenuineresearch,leads to the establishmentof fixed
ratherthanrelative values,whichcanthenbecissimilatedordismissedas
needdictates.Fromthisperspective,thedifferencebetweenGombrich'scondemnationof
Hegelandtheuncriticaladoptionof
Hege-lianmotifswithintheViennaschoolstartstonarrow,insofaras
bothprovideamerely externaltreatmentofphilosophicalpositions
andideas. I have defendedthe view that
arthistory'sconcoursewithphilosophymustitselfbephilosophical,pro-ceedingthroughtheaskingofquestionsratherthantheuncriticaldeploymentofresourcesthatareserviceableforthetaskathand.'^^Iwouldlike,therefore,toconcludebyaskingwhetherthenonmetaphysicalreadingofHegelpre-sentedhereoffersalegitimateinterpretativeframeworkforunderstandinghis
ideas or whether, as Beiser andothers haveproposed,it is actually a
projectionontohis workof
ourowninterestsandvalues.EventhosewhoaresympathetictowhatBeisertermsthe"puzzlingHegelrenaissance"concedethattherevivalofinterestinGermanidealismis
closelytiedtothedominanceofnaturalismandthatitis
driven,atleastinpart,by
adesiretomakegoodnaturalism'sperceivedlimitations.Inparticu-lar,philosopherssuchasBrandomandPippinhavebeendrawntoHegel'sworkbytheinsightthatnattiralismisun-abletoaccountforthedistinctivelyhumanactivitiesofexer-cising
judgmentandemployingnormativeconcepts.Hegel'saccountofreason,agency,andmutualrecognition,whichonceseemedhopelesslyoutmoded,hasbeenshowntocon-tainarichsetofconceptualresourcesthatcanbeusedtoelucidatetheproceduresthroughwhichnormsareacknowl-edgedaspossessingauthorityoverusandthereforeastheoutcomeofrationalreflectionandchoice.AsBeiserpointsout,thispointofviewinvolvesdownplayingthereligiousdimensionof
Hegel'sthoughtas well as the overtly
metaphys-icalambitionsofhisphilosophyofnature.Hedescribesthenonmetaphysicalreadings
as "acts of
enormousinterpretativecharity"andclaimsthattheycanonlybesustainedbyignor-ing"themostdiffictiltandtroublingaspectofhisphiloso-phy."
AccordingtoBeiser,Hegelscholarshipis
facedwithanunavoidabledilemma;Ifourscholarshipishistoricallyaccurate,weconfrontaHegelwithprofotindmetaphysicalconcernsalientothespiritofcontemporaryphilosophicalculture,whichmis-trusts
metaphysics. But if we continueto interpretHegel
inanonmetaphysicalmanner,wehavetoacceptthatourinterpretationis more
a constructionof
ourcontemporaryintereststhantherealhistoricalschool.'^^Thetwohornsofthedilemmaare"anachronism"(interpre-tationintermsofourcontemporaryinterestsandconcerns)and"antiquarianism"(amerelyhistoricalinterestthatctitsoffthepast
fromthepresent). To acceptthat we mustdecidebetweenthesetwo
alternativesas
astricteither/ormeanstoperpettiatetheinvidiotisdistinctionbetweendoingphiloso-phyandstudyingthehistoryofphilosophy.Theadoptionofastrictlyantiquarianstandpointisolatesphilosophicaltextsfromcontemporarydebates,
therebybarringaccess
topoten-tiallyvaluableresourcesthatmightshedlightonissuesthatmatterdirectlytous.
Similarly,aconcernwiththehistoricalcorrectnessofourinterpretationsofpastphilosophers,in-formedby
a close analysis of theprimary sources, provides
animportantcorrectivetoanachronismandthedangersofmisinterpretationthatthisentails.Itisonlybysustainingbothapproachesthatwecanensurethattheuseofphilo-sophicalargumentsencountersadequateresistance.ThequestionwhetherthenonmetaphysicalinterpretationofHe-gel'sphilosophyislegitimatecanthusbeansweredintheaffirmative,foritplaceshisideaswithintherealmofargu-mentandcontestation,wheretheycanbehandledcriticallyratherthantreatedas"inertmaterial."RecentworkinphilosophyhassucceededinbringingHe-gel's
ideas into conversationwith the secular
anddeflationarypositionsthatcharacterizeourown,postmetaphysicalage.However,
it is importantto recognizethat
Hegel'sphilosophycannotbemadesimplytosheditstranscendentalandmeta-physical
dimensions. Those aspects that have
beenbroughttotheforebyphilosopherssuchasBrandomandPippin,whooffera
stricdy"horizontal"interpretationofhiscontributiontodebatesonnormativeauthorityandself-legislationorwhatPinkardtermsthe"infiniteactivityofgivingandaskingforreasons"areclosely
entwined with
deepercommitmentsconcerningthehistoricaltruthofChristianityandthe"im-manentlogic"
thatHegelbelievedhecoulddiscoverinboththenaturalandthesocialworld.'^Moreover,itwasthemetaphysicaldimensionofHegel'sphilosophythatarguablyhadthegreatestimpactonlaterthinkers.Nonetheless,IhopethatI
have shownthat his work is susceptibleto a
varietyofinterpretationsandthat we
needtoresisttheredticdonofHEGEL'SCONTESTED LEGACY191his philosophy
to a fixed set of receivedideas. Hegel'sclaimthatthe study of art
shouldconcernitself with all aspects ofa cultureratherthantreating
artworks in isolationretains itsrelevance and requires that we
engage constructively with thedistinctivelysocialformof
mindednessthat he termedGeist.Thenonmetaphysicalinterpretationof
Hegel'saesthetics isopentochallenge,buttherecognitionthatmanyof
hisproblems are also our problems should allow us to address
hiswork in a spirit of openintellectualinquiry.JasonGaiger is
universitylecturer incontemporary art history andtheoryand a
fellowof St.EdmundHallat theuniversityof
Oxford.HisbooksincludeAestheticsandPainting(Gontinuum,2008)and,as
co-editor.Art inTheory:1648-1815(Blackwell,2000)andArt
inTheory:1815-1900(Blackwell,1998) [TheRuskinSchoolof
DrawingandFineArt,UniversityofOxford,74HighStreet, Oxford,
0X14BG,U.K.,[email protected]].NotesI
wouldliketothankLisaFlornianandCordulaGrewe,
whosein'vitationtocontribtite to the panelthey chaired, "Art and
Art History afterHegel," at
theAnnualGonferenceoftheGollegeArtAssociationinLosAngelesin2008providedtheinitialimpetus
forwritingthis paper.It has
beenmuchrevisedinresponsetoinvaluablecommentsandsuggestionsfromthose
whoheardlaterversions,I wouldlike torecordpartictilarthanksto
WolfgangBruckle,KaterinaDeligiorgi, ,\ndyHamilton,StephenMelville,
andPatil Smith, I amalso indebtedto the comments of two anonymotis
referees forThe Art Bulletinand to the exchange of ideas with its
editor-in-chief,Karen Lang, Work on thispaper was enabledby the
award of a Leverhulme TrustResearchFellowship,Unless
otherwiseindicated,translationsaremine,1.See Benedetto Croce,Cid
che vivo e cid che mortonetla filosofa di He-gel:
Studiocritico(Bari: Laterza,1907), Thedistinctionbetweenwhat
is"living" andwhatis "dead"ina systemofthoughtis
Hegel'sownandgoesbacktohis
earliestreflectionsonChristianityandGreekethicallife.See,
inpartictilar,Georg
WilhelmFriedrichHegel,"ThePositivityoftheGhristianReligion"(1795-96),inEarlyTheologicalWritings,trans,
T,M, Knox(Philadelphia:Universityof Penn,sylvaniaPress,1971),
67-179,2.HegeldescribedhisScienceof Logic,whichwas publishedintwo
vol-umes in1812 and1816, as "the systemof purereason, , ,
therealmof purethotjght,"addingthatits contentcotildbeconceivedas
"theexpositionof Godas heis inhis eternalessencebeforethecreationof
nature,"Hegel,Scienceof Logic,trans. A, V,
Miller(AtlanticHigh-lands, N,J,: HumanitiesPress,1989), 50,
FortheGermantext, see He-gel,Winenschaftder Logik, vol,1
(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1986), 44,3.Theidentificationof Hegelas
the"fatherof art history" was made
byFrnstGombrichin"HegelunddieKtinstgeschichte,"Neue
Rundschau,88(1977): 202-19, at202, Thistext, whichwas
originallydeliveredasalecturein1977 whenGombrichwas
awardedtheHegelPrizeoftheGity of Stuttgart,is translated(by
Gombrich)ina revised versionas" 'TheFatherof ArtHistory': A
ReadingoftheIj^ctureson Aesthetics ofG, W, F, Hegel(1770-1831),"
inTributes:Interpretersof Our CulturalTradition (Oxford:
Phaidon,1984), 51-69,4.Hans Belting,The End of the Historyof Art?
trans, Christopher S, Wood(Chicago:University of Chicago Press,
1987), 9-10, originally pub-lishedasDas Ende der Kunstgeschichte?
(Mtmich: Deutscher Kunstver-lag,1983),5.See
JrgenHabermas,ThePhilosophical Discourseof
Modernity,trans,FrederickLawrence(Cambridge,Mass,: MIT Press,1995),
43, origi-nally published as Der Philosophische Diskursder Moderne
(Frankfurt:Snhrkamp,1985), Habermascontendsthat"Hegelwas the first
phi-losophertodevelop a clearconceptofmodernity.We
havetogobacktohimif we
wanttounderstandtheinternalrelationshipbe-tweenmodernityandlationality,,
, ,"(4), "Modernitycanandwillnolongerborrowthecriteriaby
whichittakes its orientationfromthemodels suppliedby
anotherepoch;it hasto createits normativityoutof itseir(7),6.Fora
disctissionof theKantianorigins ofthis problem,see
TerryPinkard,GermanPhilosophy,1760-1860:The legacy of
CermanIdealism(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002), 67,
InPinkard's for-mtilation,the central question is: "How can we
bebound by laws wemake?" See, too, StephenHotilgate's account
ofHegel's commitmentto"prestippositionless thinking"
inAnIntroductionto Hegel:Freedom,Truth and
Historf,2nded,(Cambridge, Mass,: Blackwell, 2005),
26-47,7.Representative texts include MartinDonougho, "Art
andHistory: He-gelontheEnd, theBeginning andthe Ftiture of
Art,"inHegelandthe Arts, ed, StephenHoulgate(Fvanston, 111,:
Northwestern LIniversityPress,2007), 179-215;Dieter
Henrich,Fixpunkte:Abhandlungen undEssays zurTheorieder Kunst
(Frankfurt: Stihrkamp, 2003); StephenHoulgate,"Hegel andthe Art of
Painting,"inHegeland Aesthetics,ed,WilliamMaker(Albany, N,Y,: SUNY
Press, 2000), 61-82;and TerryPinkard,"Symbolical, Classical,
andRomantic Art," inHotilgate,Hegelandthe Arts,
,3-28,8.RobertPippin, "What Was Abstract Art?(FromthePoint of View
ofHegel),"Critual Inquiry 1(2002): 1-24,at1, See, too,
idem.Idealismas Modernism:Hegelian Variations(Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress,1989); andModernismas a Philosophical
Problem,2nded,(Cam-bridge, Mass,: Blackwell,1999), Fora
criticaldisctissionofHoulgate'sandPippin'scontrastingviews
onHegelandabstractart,see JasonGaiger,"Catchingtip withHistory:
HegelandAbstractPainting," inHegel:Netv
Directions,ed,KaterinaDeligiorgi(Chesham,U,K,:
Acti-men,2006),1,59-76,9.Gombrichreadilyacknowledgedhis
indebtednesstoKarlPopper, es-peciallyhisLogik der
Eorschung,whichwas publishedin
Viennain1935andtranslatedintoEnglishasThe Logicof Scientific
Discovery in1959,Fora criticalaccountof
Gombrich'srelianceonPopper,see AndrewHemmingway,"E, H,
Gombrichin1968: MethodologicalIndividual-ism andtheContradictionsof
Consei-vatism,"Human Affairs 19(2009):297-303, Thisspecialissue
onGombrichcontainsantimberof valuablepapers,10.Ernst Gombrich, Art
and Illusion: AStudy in the Psychologyof
PictorialRefiresentation,5thed,(London:Phaidon,1977),16-17,11.Karl
Popper,The OpenSocietyand Its Enemies,2
vols,(London:Rout-ledge,1945),12.ErnstGombrich'sreview of
ErnstGarger's"Wertproblemetmdmittel-alterlicherKunst" is
reprintedinatranslationby
MichaelPodroun-derthetitle"AchievementinMediaeval Art," inGombrich,
Medita-tions on a HobbyHorse (London:Phaidon,1963), 70-77, at75,
For adiscussion,see JanBakos,
"Gombrich'sStrtiggleagainstMetaphysics,"HumanAffairs 19 (2009):
239-50, at 239,13.See Robert Brandom, Making It
Explicit:Reasoning,Representing,andDiscursiveCommitment(Cambridge,
Mass,: Harvard University Press,1994); idem.Talesof the
MightyDead:Historical Essayson the Metaphysicsof Intentionality
(Cambridge, Mass,: Harvard University Press, 2000);andJohnMcDowell,
Mind andWorld(Cambridge, Mass,: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1994),
which heprovocatively describes as "a prolegome-nonto a reading
of[Hegel's]Phenomenology,"xi,14.An excellent ovei"view ofthe
reception history ofHegel's philosophyis provided by Robert
SternandNicholas Walker, "Hegelianism," inRoutkdge Encyclopaediaof
Philosophy(London: Rotuledge, 2000); themost detailedstudyremains
JohnEdwardToews,Hegelianism:The Pathtoward Dialectical
Humanism,1805-1841(Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versity
Press,1980),15.For Feuerbach'sresponsetoHegel, see
Toews,Hegelianism,327-55,Marx'sremarkaboutdialecticsis
containedintheaftei-wordtothesecondeditionoDasKapital:Kritik der
politischenkonomie (Hamburg,1873), trans, Samtiel Moore andEdward
Aveling inCapital:ACriticalAnalysis of CapitalistProduction(Moscow:
Foreign Langtiages Publish-ingHouse, 1961),16.Katerina Deligiorgi,
"OnReading Hegel Today," inHegel:New Direc-tions, 2.17.Michael
Podro,The CriticalHistoriansof Art(New Haven: Yale Univer-sity
Press, 1982),18.Ernst Gombrich, "InSearch of Cultural History"
(1967), reprinted inIdeas and Idols:EssaysonValuesin Historyand in
Art (Oxford: Phaidon,1979), 24-59,19.Ibid,,
28.20.GombrichreferstoPopper'sworkinboth"InSearchof Ctilttiral
His-tory," 54, and"HegelunddieKunstgeschichte,"211, His
mostexplicitattemptto applyPopper's"logic of sittiations" is
tobefoundin 'TheSense of Order: A.Study inthe Psychologyof
Decorative Art(Oxford:Phai-don,1979),21.Gombrich,"InSearchof
CulttiralHistory," 46,22.Ibid,,46-47,23.Ernst Gombrich, "Style,"
inInternational Encyclopediaof the SocialSci-ences,vol,15 (New
York: Macmillan Free Press, 1968), 352-61,at 357,24.Ibid,, 358,
InArt and Illtision, 17, Gombrich cites thefollowing pas-sage
fromPopper'sThe Povertyof Historicism(London:
Routledge,192BULLETINJUNE2011VOLUMEXCIIINUMBER21957)andnotesthathe"cannotimprove"his
words:"Ihavenottheslightestsympathywiththese'spirits';neitherwiththeiridealisticpro-totypenorwiththeirdialecticalormaterialistincarnations,andI
aminfullsympathywiththosewhotreatthemwithcontempt."25.Gombrich,"HegelunddieKunstgeschichte,"203ff,,trans,idem,"'TheFatherof
ArtHistory,'" 52-55.26.Hegel,quotedinHoulgate,AnIntroduction to
Hegel,21. IhaveusedHoulgate'stranslationinpreferencetoG. W.
F.Hegel,Lectures onthePhilosophyof World
History:Introduction;Reasonin History,trans.H,
B.Nisbet(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975), 58.
FortheGermantext,seeHegel,Werke,ed,EvaMoldenhauerandKarlMarkusMichel,20
vols.(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1969-71),vol.12,
99.27.Houlgate,AnIntroductionto Hegel,24.28.Ibid,,
25,29.RobertPippin,Hegel's PracticalPhilosophy: RationalAgencyas
EthicalLife(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008),10.30.See,forexample,FrederickBeiser,"DarkDays:
AnglophoneScholar-shipsincethe1960s,"70-90,andSebastianGardner,"TheLimitsofNaturalismandtheMetaphysicsofGermanIdealism,"14-49,bothinGerman
Idealism:Contemporary
Perspectives,ed.EspenHammer(Lon-don:Routledge,2007);andRolf-PeterHorstmann,"Subject,Sub-stanceandInfinity:A
CaseSttidyoftheRoleofLogicinHegel's Sys-tem,"inDeligiorgi,
Hegel:New
Directions,69-84.31.Beiser,"DarkDays,"70-71.SeeGardner'scontentionin"TheLimitsofNaturalism"(44)that"theconsiderationswhichcanbeargtiedtogiveidealismdefinitephilosophicaladvantagesovernaturalismareatthesametimeconsiderationswhichsupportitsmetaphysicalratherthandeflationaryinterpretation."32.DavidSummersobservesthat"
'Hegelwithoutmetaphysics'turnedouttobeHegelwithsomekindofpsychologyorWeltanschauungormentalitiesorculturaldevelopmentsof'vision,'"
Headds,"ForGom-brichthisimprovementuponHegelis
adistinctionwithotUadiffer-ence,"Summers,"E.
H,GombrichandtheTraditionofHegel,"inACompanionto Art
Themy,ed.PaulSmithandCarolynWilde(Cam-bridge,Mass.:
Blackwell,2002),139-49,at144.33.SeveralyearsearlierMeyerSchapirohadpresentedapowerfulcri-tiqueofholistic("organic")conceptsofstyleinwhichhedecisivelyunderminedtheclaimthat"eachstyleis
peculiartoa periodofa
cul-ttireandthat,inagivencultureorepochofctilture,thereisonlyonestyleoralimitedrangeofstyles."
Schapirodrewattentiontotheconcurrenceofdifferentstylesduringthesamehistoricalperiodandthedifficultyofidentifyingstylisticaffinitiesbetweenworksproducedindifferentmedia.Schapiro,"Style"(1953),reprintedinTheoryandPhilosophy
of Art: Style,Artist and Society(New
York:GeorgeBraziller,1994),51-102,at53.
Foranilluminatingstudyofstylisticpluralism,seeWolfgangBrckte,"Postmoderneum1600:HaarlemerStilzitateunddieStandortbestimmungderKunstnachVasari,"in.Stil
als Bedeu-tunginder
nordalpinenRenaissance:WiederentdeckungeinermethodischenNachbarschafl,ed.StephanHoppe,MatthiasMller,andNorbertNuss-baum(Regensburg:SchnellundSteiner,2008),212-37.34.Gombrich,"InSearchofCulturalHistory,"41-42.35.ReservationsconcerningGombrich'sreadingofHegelarealsotobefoundin
JamesElkins,"ArtHistorywithoutTheory,"Critical
Inquiry14,no.2(Winter1988):354-78.However,whereasElkins(359)con-tendsthatGombrichseekstoreplaceHegelianismwithanuntheo-rized,andnntheorizable,empiricism,andthat"anempiricalcritiqueof'Hegelianism'resultsinnothingotherthanits
continuedaccep-tanceandtise,"I
arguethatGombrichismoreindebtedtoHegel'sideasthanherealizes.Elkins'scritiqueis
exposedtoGombrich'sun-doubtedlycorrectriposte:"Idonotadvocate'ArtHistorywithoutTheory,'butthesearchforbettertheories."Gombrich,"ResponsetoJamesElkins,"Critical
Inquiry 14, no.4(Summer1988):
892.36.Foradetaileddiscussionoftheseissues,see
JasonGaiger,Aestheticsand Painting
(London:Continuum,2008),38-62,37.SeeG. W,F.Hegel, Phenomenology of
Spirit (1807),trans.A,
V,Miller(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1977),58-66;fortheGermantext,seeHegel,Phanomenologiedes
Geistes(Hamburg:FelixMeiner,1988),69-78,Hegelmaintainsthattheideaofpureapprehensionwithoutcomprehensioncannotwithstandcriticalscrutinysinceeventhemostminimalidentificationofqtialitativedifferencesinvolvesamediatingcapacityfordiscriminationandunification.Foranilltmiinatinganaly-sis
ofHegel'sviews, seeRobertPippin,Hegel's Idealism:The
Satisfactionsof
Self-Consciousness(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989),116-25.38.Gombrich,"InSearchofCulturalHistory,"29,
33,39.Ibid.,28-29,40.Ibid.,33.41.Gombrich,"HegelunddieKunstgeschichte,"209.
Gombrich'sobser-vationthat"it
wotildbeworthcollectingthesepassagesin