Back to main page

Hegel's lectures on aesthetics

18 January 2020

I had to read Hegel's "Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts" for my architecture seminar, 'Style.' At first I thought it was absolutely terrible, but then I realized that it was just the introduction that was terrible and that the rest was actually pretty good. The purpose of the chapters that I read was to present a consistent formulation of why certain buildings belong to certain styles. Hegel didn't start by observing visual features or by classifying buildings according to chronology (as most authors do), but by defining three abstract types of architecture:
  1. Symbolic: structures created purely to express an idea. Example: monuments. Essential, because meaning is inherent in it. (Human instinct)
  2. Classical: structures that express ideas but also take into account constraints, such as the laws of physics and the laws of the culture. These structures find beauty specifically in that satisfaction of constraint. Existential, because meaning is ascribed to it by the user. (The mind, the intellect)
  3. Romantic: structures with a higher purpose that is fulfilled by both expressing an idea and catering to a very human need. (i.e. churches that esteem god by striving upwards, while simultaneously providing an enclosed space that mirrors its users' inward facing souls). Existential and essential. (The heart, the soul)
To put it in simpler terms: symbolic architecture is inferred, classical architecture is discerned, and romantic architecture is felt. Each of the types has a lot more to them than what I've said so far, but that's the gist. Hegel's writing is dense, complex, and quite often infuriating, but it's worth slogging through it to uncover the ideas he presents. As usual whenever I read any architectural theory of merit, I have a few thoughts about it:
  1. On first glance, it seems the Hegel has this grand theory for these different types of architectures and then, oh look, these different types of architectures exemplify points in his theory. But what's probably really true is that he saw these different styles and felt the need to explain why they were the way they were. This could be one reason why there isn't much motivation in his lectures. Of course, this doesn't take away from the validity of his ideas, but it's important to realize that these styles exist completely independently of his theories for them, and are thus free to be associated with any other theory of how they came about. Hegel doesn't acknowledge this. A lot of what he's saying I very much agree with, because I've noticed those same things myself. I don't know, however, if his theories would hold up or be relevant when we consider the later developments of modernism.
  2. According to Hegel, gothic buildings strive upwards (have strong vertical lines) because the buildings themselves aspire to a higher purpose, which is to praise god. They are, in this way, majestic and soaring. Gothic buildings give "the impression of tranquility of the heart which, released from the external world of nature and from the mundane in general, is shut upon itself." But also, they give "the impression of a majestic sublimity which aspires beyond and out-soars mathematical limitation" pg. 686. Hegel focuses on romantic (gothic) architecture having a complete separation from the outside world. This seems consistent with most of the truly gothic works I've seen: they are dim inside, promoting self reflection and tranquility. Franklin and Murray, on the other hand, are not about that at all. They are showy and flashy, and clearly the intention is not for inward soul searching. So by hegel's definition, they are not gothic even though they contain many gothic elements and are often said to emulate the gothic style.
  3. Example on pg. 689: eye tracing over vertical lines on gothic pillars because the pillars are too big for the eye to take in all at once. The experience of perceiving gothic architecture mirrors the themes of the forms of gothic architecture: verticality. Eye is forcibly drawn upwards just as the forms forces your soul to be drawn inwards, toward god.
  4. When postmodernists appropriated the column, they often included it in situations where it didn't actually support anything, and the top of the column was left empty. This is in direct contrast to "classical" architecture, where the only two purposes of a column are to bear weight and to indicate that it is bearing weight. Hegel says "walls rising at obtuse angles give the eye the impression of impending collapse" as if that is a bad thing, but this is one of the emotions that post-modernists sought.
  5. Is romantic architecture unique in that perception of it is necessarily dynamic? Symbolic and classical architecture can be perceived fully by standing still and looking at the forms, from which one can draw meaning ("Architecture as frozen music," pg. 662). But to feel the might and majesty of gothic architecture, one needs to move around and look at the forms, where the gaze is pushed and pulled in various directions by the strong and sweeping lines.
  6. Based on my interpretation that symbolic architecture is inferred, classical architecture is discerned, and romantic architecture is felt -----> the international style is classical, brutalism is romantic.