Поняття "символу" та "символічної форми буття мистецтва" в концепції Г.-В.-Ф. Гегеля
The concept of "symbol" and "symbolic form of art being" in the concept of G.-W.-F. Hegel

Summary/Abstract: The author explores the concept of symbol and symbolism in the context of fine art through the concept of G.-W.-F. Hegel, who identified three historical forms of life art: the symbolic, classical and romantic. Attempting to critically rethink the existing scheme and offer their vision of the phenomenon of symbolism in the bosom of European fine art. The timeliness of the investigation is a clarification of key peculiarities of historical forms of art’s existence, which were proposed by Hegel, in the context of widening them and by rethinking from the modern studies perspective that are focused on the interpretation of symbolism and symbol. The scientific development level of the problem: S. S. Аverintsev, V. V. Bychkov, М. А. Lifshitz, А. F. Losev, and others developed and analyzed the historical forms of art’s existence, including the symbolic one, in the context of the Hegel’s concept. The object of the article is to study the essential Hegel’s ideas concerning the interpretation of symbol and symbolism that were set out in his work "Lectures on Esthetics" in the light of critical analysis. In his grading of the main stages of the self-opening of absolute spirit G. W. F. Hegel determines the art as the first and the most imperfect form hierarchically followed by religion and philosophy. The philosopher’s work "Esthetics" proposes to consider the art development in the light of three main forms – symbolic, classical and romantic ones. Hegel considers the change of the historical forms of art’s existence in the light of historical dynamics because the movement from one art form to another is determined by the change of cultural priorities, or in general by the alterity of West and East forms. As Hegel notes, at the first symbolic stage the content cannot find the appropriate form of expression and that is why the discrepancy appears between them. "The idea is still searching its real art expression" [3, 9], but, as the philosopher notes, the search is not finishing in an appropriate way, leading to the fact that "it distorts and deforms the discovered images" [3, 9]. In the context of our investigation the analysis of the Hegel’s interpretation of symbol that he applies either in the consideration of the symbolic form of art or out of its bounds, describing the difference of these meanings, is an important thing. According to Hegel the East symbolism is not the art for a real understanding of it (as in classical form). East symbolism acts only as preparatory phase in the further development and improvement of art form. It is difficult to admit because of impossible absolutization of the West-European criteria for the assessment of the art in relation to other cultures with their originality and in imitable artistic expression. In addition, Hegel justly remarks that the decoding of symbol can be possible only when the person, who perceives it, is there in an appropriate coordinate system, including the cultural ones, allowing for adequately understanding the inner component of symbol, which is concealed from the representatives of other cultural spaces, or those, who have no relevance to the contents represented by this symbol. Such kind of understanding the symbolic according to Hegel does not fully provide the involvement of so-called "free individuality" [3, 23], if it is there in the content and form, on the philosopher’s opinion, the symbolic immediately stops existing. In other words, any art freedom makes the Hegel’s symbolic form of art impossible for existence, because according to his opinion, in the individualistic piece of art the symbolic components can be used only as secondary details and come down to the level of simple signs, for example, in distinction from Egyptian images, referring to which Egyptians "believed that they could see the God in Apis" [3, 24]. In addition, Hegel underlines several development stages of the symbolic: from the unconscious symbolics to the sublime symbolics and conscious symbolics of relative form of art. However, in the Hegel’s interpretation the description of the symbolic form of art concerning the pictorial art does not go outside the bounds of the unconscious symbolics because the following stages directly concern literary activity. Finishing the analysis of symbolic form of art the philosopher comes to the dialectical necessity of the replacement of one form of art by another one. It is explained by the exhaustion of previous one. Therefore, the disappearance of symbolic form of art and the creation of classical one become the next necessary stage. Overcoming the discrepancy and achieving the relevant ratio between the form and content are maximum achievable in the classical form of art, which according to the opinion of Hegel is the top of human art achievements, and the destruction of which happens in the next romantic form.

• Details
• Contents