English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Michelangelo Better Than God?
Once again, we read of another theoretician with ideas that ring similar to the earlier philosophers. Once again, the new philosopher deviates from the old, offering a new and improved philosophy of literature.
There is much of Hegel that is too lofty for me at this point, although I do hope to have some superficial grasp of some of his main ideas.G.W.F. Hegel believes, as does Plato, that art is mimetic of ideas. However, for Hegel art is held in much higher esteem. Especially clear are his ideas of the "superiority of human-made artistic objects to God-made natural ones" by virtue of art's spiritual purpose (Reitch 628). He argues that the external aspect of art isn't what makes it significant. But, because it is made from the spirit of the artist, it is worthy to be labeled as art. Now this concept interests me.
In literature, Hegel would say that because a work is created by a spiritual force (i.e., the human artist), then the work is of the spirit. Thus, its significance is not based on its existence as a work (extrinsic), but rather it is based on the fact that it is of the spirit (intrinsic value).
I appreciate his view here, but it opens the floodgate to potential questions regarding the implication that God's product of nature is inferior. Isn't God the ultimate Spirit and out of whom all other spirit is originated? Of course this is true. But how do we downplay the work of the creator?
Hegel argues that nature is "immediate and single, while man as spirit duplicates himself" (639). But what about God as spirit duplicating his nature by his creative hand? Does not the object of nature then have just as much "spirit" as Raphael's Maddalena? In fact, what does a painting consist of but oil, wood and cotton? Are not all of these materials made from the plants of God's creative hand? If anything, I would say that these materials lose some of their spirit as they are stripped for the purpose of commodity. Yes, Raphael has brought forth spirit (intrinsic within the painting) by his spirit (soul). But the truth remains that the unmoved mover brought forth by his hand not only mankind with spirit, but also nature. Both man and nature reflect the image and spirit of God.
On a slightly different note, I am coming to realize that not everyone that we read in here is going to be crystal clear as far as the delivery of their philosophy. There is ample room for interpretation based upon our own understanding, experience, and interests. It is almost as if we interpret as we wish to interpret, as if we read what we wish to read (if that makes any sense whatsoever). I hope that I am not going too far from what Hegel intended when I sum him up as I do. Equally, I hope that the ideas that he proposes can be reconciled with the idea that nature has a spirit of its own.