第14章 对现代生活的全面思考：自然、宗教、艺术和绝对(4)
Part of the problem was, of course, that the modern age was fragmented m a way that the ancient world was not. In his lectures, Hegel noted that in modern life the claims residing in the everyday, mundane activities of life and those arising out of the kinds of rational, principled, reflective assertions of modern life certainly seemed to be in conflict with each other, such that modern culture “produces this opposition in man which makes him into an amphibious animal, because he now has to live in two worlds which contradict one another . . . and driven from one side to the other, cannot find satisfaction for himself in either the one or the other.”“ The problem is that modern life seems to embody a sense of the “whole” that cannot be fully captured in a work of art, with the result that “form” and “content” seem to drift apart from each other within modern art; modern political life modeled on constitutional law and bureaucratic practice, the practices of modern science — all seemed to be structured within a “social space” that cannot be fully captured in a work of art. Modern art seemed, that is, to be incapable in principle of achieving the “Ideal” that is at the heart of aesthetic experience.
诚然，这个问题部分意味着，现代在某种程度上是碎片化的，而古代世界并非如此。在讲演中，黑格尔强调，在现代生活中，日常生活的需求、世俗行为以及源于现代生活中理性、原则性和反思性断言的事物，似乎都相互冲突，因此现代文化“造成了人类的这种对立，使人类成为具有双重特性的动物，因为人类如今不得不在相互矛盾的两个世界中生活……人类被从一个世界驱赶至另一个世界，在这两个世界中都无法感到满足”。问题在于，现代生活似乎体现出一种艺术作品无法完全把握的“整体”观念，这导致在现代艺术领域，“形式”与“内容”似乎逐渐相互疏离；现代政治生活效仿符合宪法的法律和官僚政治实践，模仿现代科学的做法——所有这些似乎都是在一个艺术作品无法完全把握的“社会空间”内构建的。也就是说，现代艺术原则上似乎无法达到审美体验核心的“理想”。
How then could a fully modern art fulfill the traditional vocation of art in such a ruptured, fragmented age? To answer that question, Hegel came to believe that he also needed a “phenomenology” of the history of art in order to see what was required of art as it related to the historical development of our conceptions of the normative whole in terms of which we comprehend ourselves. In doing this, Hegel presented the audiences at his lectures over the years with both a “phenomenological” history of art from the Egyptians to the present (much as he did in the lectures on the philosophy of religion) and detailed discussions of the nature of the various arts themselves. (Hegel’s very illuminating observations about the particular arts - in general, architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and literature - will unfortunately have to be left almost entirely undiscussed here.)^'^
随之而来的问题是，在这样一个断裂、碎片化的时代，一种完全现代的艺术如何才能彻底完成艺术的传统使命呢？为回答这个问题，黑格尔最终认为自己同样需要一部艺术史“现象学”，以明确依据我们对规范化整体的理解，艺术在历史性地阐发规范化整体这一概念时需要些什么。在此过程中，多年来黑格尔在讲演中向听众讲述了从古埃及人到现代人的艺术“现象学”历史（几乎与他在宗教哲学讲演中的做法相同），并详细探讨了各种艺术自身的本质。（黑格尔对某些具体艺术——大体包括建筑、雕塑、绘画、音乐、文学——做出了极具启发性的评论，遗憾的是，这些评论至今几乎未受重视，完全未被学界探讨。）
Hegel argued that understanding art in terms of its own inherent teleology meant that we had to see art as divided into symbolic, classical, and romantic periods. These in turn were divided according to how appropriately people in those historical periods grasped the true “Idea” of things - how well and articulately people had a sense of a rational normative order. Egyptians thus formulated “symbolic” art, Greeks formulated “classical” art, and the modern period was understood to be the completion of “romantic” art.
黑格尔认为，依据艺术自身内在的目的论来理解艺术，意味着我们必须将艺术划分为象征型时期、古典型时期和浪漫型时期。这些时期又可依据人们在各历史时期对事物真实“观念”的恰当把握程度——人们对合理规范化秩序的理解与系统化程度——进一步细分。因此，埃及人系统阐述了“象征型”艺术，希腊人系统阐述了“古典型”艺术，而现代则被视为“浪漫型”艺术的完成阶段。
Egyptian, Greek, and Romantic Art
Because Egyptian life was characterized by only an abstract understanding of the “Idea” that was itself not fully rational, its art, like its religion, was necessarily primarily “symbolic.” The form (the way in which Egyptian architecture and sculpture in particular were shaped) could not be adequate to the content, since the content itself was already so terribly abstract and so internally flawed. Since Egyptian art was therefore necessarily unclear about what it was trying to say, it could only present its truths in a “symbolic” fashion, in a “mere search for portrayal rather than a real capacity for true presentation.”'’^ As such, it was “sublime,” since the “Idea” expressed in it was both “measureless” and always appeared “transcendent” to the world of appearance.'’'’ Symbolic art thus always appears to have a deeper meaning within itself that cannot be finally fathomed, that seems to point to something beyond itself that cannot be adequately expressed.
埃及人的艺术，希腊人的艺术，和浪漫型的艺术
由于埃及人的生活特征只能被描述为对自身并不完全合理的“观念”的抽象理解，所以埃及人的艺术如同他们的宗教，必然主要是“象征型的”。这种形式（尤其体现在埃及人的建筑和雕塑方式上）与埃及人艺术的内容并不适配，因为内容本身就极为抽象且存在固有缺陷。鉴于埃及人的艺术必然无法清晰表达其试图传达的内容，它只能以“象征”方式展现真理，只能通过“对肖像的纯粹研究而非实际的真实描绘能力”来呈现真理。就此而言，埃及人的艺术是“崇高的”，因为它所表达的“观念”对于现象世界而言，既是“无法度量的”，也是始终“先验的”。因而象征型艺术总是蕴含着一种更深层次、最终难以被理解的意义，且似乎指向超越自身、无法被恰当表达的事物。
Greek art, on the other hand, is “classical” because it alone achieves the “Ideal” in art. The Greek conception of divinity as the religion of beauty was fully capable of expressing itself in works of art that were beautiful, since there were no (putative) truths in Greek religion that were over and above their presentation in works of beauty. The gods were idealizations of humanity: free, young, and immortal. As such, they could be adequately represented in human form, particularly in sculptural form. The greater gain in realism that marked off Greek sculpture from Egyptian sculpture was therefore not merely a matter of Greek technical skill, so Hegel thought; the perfection of the skills was motivated by the nature of Greek religion itself, by a conception of what it would mean to get it right when one cast sculptures of the gods. Greater realism of the Greek variety would not, for example, have made an Egyptian statue any more representative of Egyptian divinities, and thus Egyptian sculptors had no compelling motivation to perfect their skills in that direction.
另一方面，希腊人的艺术属于“古典型的”，因为唯有它达到了艺术的“理想”。希腊人将神性概念视为优美宗教，这一概念完全能够通过优美的艺术作品展现自身，因为在希腊宗教中，不存在（公认的）超越优美作品所呈现真理的内容。众神是理想化的人类，自由、年轻且不朽。同理，众神能够以人的形式，特别是以雕塑的形式得到恰当描绘。于是黑格尔认为，现实主义的重大成果在于将希腊雕塑与埃及雕塑区分开来，这不仅仅关乎希腊人的技艺；技艺完美的推动力源自希腊宗教自身的本质，源自人们在铸造众神雕像时对自身行为意义的正确理解。例如，希腊人丰富多彩的伟大现实主义或许并不能使一尊埃及雕像更能代表埃及人的神性，所以埃及雕塑家没有动力去提升这方面的技艺。
Form and content thus fused in Greek art, and the “Ideal” was achieved. In Greek art, the work of art (as a specific configuration of sensuous material) does not point to something beyond itself for its meaning; as Hegel puts it, “ in external existence, as its own, it expresses and means itself alone.Since the true content, that is, of the “Ideal,” the “focal point” of all truly beautiful art, is, as Hegel stressed, “humanity,” that implies that the particular configuration of material be such that its “meaning” be at one with that particular configuration itself.*** Only one such configuration actually does that: the human form, since only the human bodily form expresses “knowledge and will,” “the spiritual in a sensuous manner.”*** Since Greek divinity is conceived in terms of individual gods having human, bodily form, Greek divinity is ideally suited for portrayal in an “Ideal” manner; and thus Greek art successfully accomplished what is inherent in the very concept of art: As Hegel wistfully told his audiences, “Nothing can be or become more beautiful.”™ But likewise, Greek divinity is only itself ideally suited for Greek sculpture; each individual god can be represented in his or her fixed, beautiful individuality. However, the same plurality of gods in Greek religion introduces an element of contingency into the very conception of the gods, and literary and poetic representations thus inevitably bring out the more contradictory aspects of the Greek conception of the normative order and thereby undermine the “Ideal” at work in Greek art.
形式与内容在希腊艺术中融为一体，“理想”也得以达成。在希腊艺术里，艺术作品（作为感性材料的形态）并不指向自身之外的事物。正如黑格尔所说：“在外在存在方面，艺术作品独立地表露和意味着的只是它自身。”也就是说，黑格尔强调，由于“理想”的真实内容，一切真正优美艺术的“焦点”是“人类”，这就表明材料的特殊形态，其意义应与特殊形态自身一致。只有人类的形式才能真正做到这一点，因为只有人类的身体形式能够表达“知识和意愿”，能够“以感性形式表达精神” 。希腊人的神性是依据具有人的肉体形式的个别神而构想出来的，所以希腊人的神性完全适合以“理想的”方式进行描绘。因而，希腊艺术成功完成了艺术概念所固有的使命。黑格尔急切地想告诉听众：“无物能够是或者能够变得更加优美 。”不过，同样的道理，希腊人的神性仅自身完全适合希腊雕塑；每一个单独的神都能按照他或她固定的优美个性来描述。然而，希腊宗教中神的多元性，将偶然性元素引入众神的特有概念，因而文学描绘和诗歌描绘不可避免地导致希腊人关于规范化顺序概念产生更加自相矛盾的方面，从而逐渐损害了在希腊艺术中起作用的“理想”。
The romantic conception of art is necessitated by the way in which the normative order came to be conceived in terms of items that cannot be “ideally” given a specific configuration, in particular, in the ways in which Christian spirituality could not be adequately captured in sculp- ture or architecture. The specific configurations of such works could not fully express the “inwardness” that Christianity took as essential to human life; Christian sculpture thus tended to point beyond itself to another, “spiritual” meaning that could not be captured in a bust of, for example, a suffering Jesus or a confident apostle. In that way, Christian, “romantic” art was similar to symbolic art; but whereas in symbolic art, the meaning to which the work points is itself abstract and vague, in Christian art, the meanings can be more precisely pinned down to specific doctrines of faith and spirituality. The problem, for art, is that those meanings are not and cannot be fully specified by the art itself but by something else, theology, and, as this notion of subjectivity develops in modernity, ultimately only by philosophy itself.
艺术的浪漫型观点成为人们不可或缺的，是因为规范化秩序最终以一种无法“合乎理想地”赋予特殊形态的方式被构想，特别是基督教的精神性，无法被雕塑或建筑恰当展现。这种作品的独特形态，无法充分表达基督教所认为的对人类生活至关重要的“本质”。因此，基督教雕塑容易指向自身之外的其他“精神的”意义，例如受难的耶稣或自信的使徒的半身像，就无法涵盖这种意义。在这方面，基督教的“浪漫型”艺术与象征型艺术并无太大差异。然而，尽管在象征型艺术中，艺术作品所指向的意义自身是抽象和模糊的，但在基督教艺术中，这种意义能够更准确地受到信仰与精神性的特殊学说的约束。就艺术而言，问题在于这些意义无法通过艺术自身被完全阐明，而是能够通过其他方式，比如神学来完全阐明。随着人们用主体性概念对现代性的阐发，这些意义最终只有依靠哲学本身才能被完全阐明。
The dynamic underlying the development and execution of romantic art is thus that a way of life based on the notion of this kind of inwardness must necessarily draw the conclusion that “beauty” cannot exhaust “truth,” that understanding the “Idea,” the normative order in its full rationality yields things that are not necessarily captured in the ideal of beauty. The “higher” beauty can only be thought about as something inward, something that is not necessarily at one with sensuous embodiment; ultimately, for such a way of life, it can only be the “beauty of deep feeling.
构成浪漫型艺术发展和完成的动力基础意味着，基于这种本质概念的生活方式必然得出结论：“优美”无法穷尽“真理”；要理解“观念”这一自身充分合理性的规范化秩序，就会产生一些未必能被优美的理想所涵盖的东西。更高层次的优美，只能被视为内在的某种事物，它未必与可感的体现之物相一致；说到底，就这种生活方式而言，它也只能意味着“真挚感情的优美”。
The development of romantic art is thus the development of modernity itself out of the principle of Christian “inwardness.” The “true content of romantic art,” Hegel said, “is absolute inwardness,” and the content of art is thereby opened up to an infinite extension of subject matter, a “multiplicity without bounds.”’^ The whole range of human subjective life becomes the province of art, and, not accidentally, the primary arts of modern life become painting, music, and poetry (literature), for these are the sensuous configurations that are most capable of expressing the kind of subjectivity that comes to be the focal point and content of all modern art. It also followed, so Hegel further argued, that in modern art the whole function of the configured sensuous materiality is to point back to inwardness, to show “mind and feeling as the essential element.”’’ Thus, for modern art, “any and every material” (even, Hegel notes, “flowers, trees, and the commonest household gear”) can enter into the work of art; nothing in principle can be excluded, since just about anything can be employed to construct a work that reveals something about the truth of inwardness, of free, selfdetermining human subjective life.’"*
浪漫型艺术的发展，因此是现代性本身脱离基督教“本质”原则的发展。黑格尔说：“浪漫型艺术的真实内容是绝对本质”，艺术内容因此展示出主题的无限延伸和“无限的多样性”。“人类主观生活的全部范围变成了艺术的领域”。并非偶然地，现代生活的主要艺术形式变成了绘画、音乐和诗歌（文学），因为这些主要艺术代表的感性形态，最能表现一种主体性，而主体性开始成为一切现代艺术的焦点和内容。因此，黑格尔进一步论证道，根据以上论述也可得出：在现代艺术中，艺术家所塑造的感性材料的全部作用，应当重新指向本质，应当表明“作为基本元素的心灵与感觉”。因而，就现代艺术而言，“全部材料”（甚至黑格尔强调，就连诸如“花卉、树木和最普通的家用器具”这样的东西）都能构成艺术作品的一部分。原则上，任何东西都可算作艺术作品，因为几乎所有东西都能被艺术家用来构建一个揭示某种本质真理的艺术作品，用来构建一个展现自由自决的人类主体生活的艺术作品。
Romantic Art: From Religions Theme to Secular Concern
The romantic “Ideal” could not, however, begin its development at that point. Historically and conceptually, it at first had to specify itself in terms of a notion of the “reconciliation of the inner life with its reality,” and thus love - at first in the form of Christian, religious love - became one of the defining early romantic ideals.’^ As Christianity became institutionalized and the world was reworked in light of those Christian ideals, this form of inwardness, which is “at first exclusively religious loses its negative attitude to the human as such; the spirit is spread abroad, is on the lookout for itself in its present world, and widens its actual secular heart.
浪漫型艺术：从宗教主题到世俗关注
不过，浪漫型“理想”无法在这一点上立即展开发展。从历史和概念意义上说，它自身首先必须依据“精神生活和它的现实调和”的概念来具体阐明。因此，爱——首先是以基督徒形式的宗教的爱——成为早期被定义的浪漫型理想之一。随着基督教的制度化，世界按照某些基督徒的理想被重新塑造，这种本质形式作为“最初排斥宗教的形式，从而丧失了它对人类自身的消极态度；精神得到广泛传播，在现世中为自己守望，拓展了它实际的世俗心灵”。
Once this happens, though, the themes of romantic art tend to leave the purely religious field and move toward portrayals of subjective honor, love of a more profane sort, and arrangements of chivalric fidelity. But such a move intensified the dynamic already implicit in a form of art celebrating inwardness in the first place; at first exclusively Christian and concerned to illustrate and evoke the inward spirituality of the Christian religion, art inevitably turned to secular matters, to the purely human as such.
然而，一旦这种情况发生，浪漫型艺术的主题就会逐渐脱离纯宗教领域，转向对主观荣誉的描绘、对更为世俗之爱的描绘、对具有武士气概的忠诚的描绘。但这一步首先强化了早已暗含于颂扬本质的艺术形式中的动力。随着艺术最初排斥基督教，转而关注具体阐明和唤起基督教的内在精神性，艺术不可避免地转向了世俗问题，不可避免地转向了纯粹的人类自身。
In its initial phases, such early modern art turned at first to secular concerns with chivalry and what was involved with it, such as affronts to “honor” not in terms of any objective norm but purely in terms of whether the individual’s own personal self-conception was injured (which, of course, means that just about anything could count as such an affront to honor). The notion of romantic love, however, offered a richer subject matter for such romantic art, since, like the chivalric concept of honor, it has to do with the way in which a person is recognized by another in his or her full individuality. Love is more selfcontained (“infinite,” as Hegel calls it) in that the parties involved (in requited love) give themselves over to each other instead of being compelled to bestow an honor or redeem some offense to honor. However, like honor, love is contingent and personal; the person loves quite contingently just this or that other person, and art naturally tends to focus on the more dramatic circumstances that collide with such love or with the attempts by lovers to come together.
在最初阶段，这种早期现代艺术首先转向了世俗对骑士品质以及骑士品质内涵的关注。诸如对“荣誉”的轻视这类事情，并非依据客观规范，而是纯粹依据个体自身的个人概念是否受到损害（当然，这意味着几乎所有事情都可被视为对荣誉的轻视）。然而，浪漫型爱的概念为这种浪漫型艺术提供了更为丰富的主题，因为，如同骑士品质的荣誉概念一样，浪漫型爱的概念与一个人依据他人完整的个性来认识他人的方式相关。爱是更为含蓄的（“无限的”，黑格尔如此称呼），因为涉及（两情相悦的爱）的人们彼此相互依存，而非被迫利用荣誉或弥补对荣誉的轻视。但是，像荣誉一样，爱是偶然和个人的。某个人非常偶然地恰好爱上这个人或其他人，而艺术自然倾向于聚焦更具戏剧性的情境，这些情境与这样的爱相冲突，或与爱人相聚的尝试相冲突。
Themes of loyalty and fidelity (Treue) completed the circuit for early modern art, since they concerned themselves with the subject’s choosing for himself what obligations he would elect to impose on himself Works that celebrated chivalrous knights defending their lords out of their own free choice embodied the idea that it is “the vassal’s free choice both of the superior on whom he is to depend and also of persistence in that dependence . . . and is therefore not acknowledged as a duty as such, which would have to be performed even against the contingent will of the vassal.”’’ Like the themes of profane love, such themes brought to the fore not a religious inwardness but the emerging outlines of a fully modernist, secular inwardness.
有关忠诚和忠贞（Treue）的主题，完成了早期现代艺术的循环，因为这类主题关注国民自身选择将强迫自己承担何种义务。有些作品赞颂仗义行侠的武士，他们出于自由选择保护自己的领主。这样的作品体现了作者的观点：“是仆人对自己必须依赖的优越性和对这种依赖的执着的自由选择……所以不是被认可作为义务本身的东西，总是不得不被表现出甚至是违反仆人的偶然意愿的。”如同世俗之爱的主题一样，这类被置于首要地位的主题，并不象征宗教本质，而是象征充分现代主义的世俗本质的现存轮廓。
Modern Art and the “End” of Art’s Highest Vocation
The final stage of romantic art - modern art - makes explicit what is implicit in the transformation of the Christian art of inwardness into the secular art of inwardness. The object of portrayal in art comes to be more and more the portrayal of individual characters in all their subjectivity and contingency, possessed of the specific tastes, aspirations, and projects that make them the individuals that they are. Likewise, the world surrounding the individual person becomes in all its ordinariness and contingency the object of artistic treatment. Shakespeare becomes the paradigmatic modern dramatist because his characters are wholly absorbed in their own individual aims and thus sometimes, like MacBeth, devolve into evil, or, like Hamlet, they become wholes unto themselves, a character who “feels uncanny, [that] everything is not as it ought to be . . . [and who] persists in the inactivity of a beautiful, inward soul.”’** More and more, the overt theme of the artist comes to be the portrayal of the “subjective inwardness” of an individual person, since such romantic subjective inwardness can, as Hegel points out, “display itself in all circumstances.”’'* What is important is that subjectivity itself become displayed for reflection, and not any specific circumstances for it; art need not be religious, it need not have any particular thing at all for its content except that human, individual subjectivity itself be portrayed. The result is that “it is subjectivity that, with its feeling and insight, with the right and power of its wit, can rise to mastery of the whole of reality.”*”
现代艺术与艺术最高使命“终结”
浪漫型艺术——现代艺术——的最终阶段，使精神性的基督教艺术转变为精神性的世俗艺术过程中暗含的东西变得清晰。艺术描绘的对象，逐渐越来越多地成为对个别人物全部主体性和偶然性的描绘，这些个别人物拥有特殊的兴趣、渴望和计划，正是这些使他们成为独特的个体。同样地，个别人物周遭的世界，在其全部日常性和偶然性方面，也成为艺术家描绘的对象。莎士比亚成为典范式的现代剧作家，因为他笔下的人物沉醉于自己的目标，有时像麦克白一样陷入罪恶；或者像哈姆雷特一样，变得迷失自我，让人觉得“非同寻常，一切事物都不是它们应有的样子……[并且他们]坚称一个优美的内在灵魂是不活动的”。更有甚者，艺术家公开的主题逐渐变成对个别人的“主观精神性”的描述，因为这样的浪漫型主观精神性能够“在所有情况下展露自己”，正如黑格尔所指出的。十分重要的是，主体性自身为反思而显露，而非为自身展露特殊的环境。艺术未必是宗教式的，就内容而言，未必完全具有特殊的东西，这里不包括人类个体的主体性自身应该被描绘。结果导致“正是主体性，由于它的感觉和洞见，由于它的聪颖的权利和力量，能够实现对现实的整体的主宰”。
If, however, absolutely any worldly matter can be the subject of art, if what is important in making it a work of art is that it convey some sense of the fully formed individual subjectivity at work in it, then it might seem as if fully modern art can no longer even get close to the “Ideal.” To that skeptical worry, Hegel concluded that for modern art, “the artist’s subjective conception and execution of the work of art” becomes the main thrust of achieving the “Ideal” in the work.*' In focusing on his own skill and on what he sees at work, the artist portrays a conception of the normative order at work in modern life, namely, that we are all implicitly self-orienting, that we situate ourselves in terms no longer of a “substantially shared” social space, but of a social space that is inherently fragmented along the lines of modern individuality. And, so Hegel argued, there is no reason to deny that the results of such effort can be legitimately classified as works of art.
然而，如果凡是世俗问题都绝对能够成为艺术的主题，如果重要的是使艺术作品传达在自身中起作用的充分形成的个人主体性的某种观念，那么这可能意味着地道的现代艺术甚至不再能够接近“理想”。出于对这种怀疑论的担忧，黑格尔断定，就现代艺术而言，“艺术家关于艺术作品的主观概念和创作”成了达到艺术作品“理想”的主要推动力。在聚焦艺术家自己的技巧和聚焦艺术家在作品中所看到的东西的过程中，艺术家描绘了现代生活中起作用的规范化秩序这个概念，即我们全都含蓄的自我定向，即我们通常不再依据一种“本质上共享的”社会空间来定位自己，而是依据一种沿着现代个体性思路、本质上碎片化的社会空间来定位自己。因此，黑格尔还论证道，没有理由否认这种努力结果将被合理合法地归入艺术作品范畴。
Such a development of the importance of the subjectivity of the artist appears in its most highlighted form, Hegel thought, in modern painting and literature. As examples of this at its best, Hegel cited Dutch genre painting. In the Dutch masters, he told his audiences, “the art of painting and of the painter is what we should be delighted and carried away by.”*^ The subject matter of such paintings - still lifes, domestic scenes, outdoor scenes - is not itself of intrinsic interest; what is of interest is the very human, subjective viewpoint that is captured in them.
在黑格尔看来，艺术家主体性的重要性的这样一种发展，以其最为抢眼的形式出现在现代绘画和文学中。作为此说的最好例证，黑格尔援引了荷兰的风俗画。他告诉听众，在荷兰大师那里，“绘画艺术和画家艺术是应该使我们感到愉悦和着迷的”。这类绘画的主题——日常生活、家庭场景、户外景色——本身并非画家固有的兴趣；令画家感兴趣的，正是这种绘画所捕捉到的人类的主观视角。
In more recent modern art, however, this quickly dissipates into a display of whatever the artist (and by implication, his audience) finds revelatory; the work of art in our times becomes, as Hegel put it, “a production in which the subject doing the producing lets us see himself alone.”*^ Fully modern art thus finds that the “Idea” at work is that of modern, self-determining subjectivity. Fully modern art, in Hegel’s words, “makes Humanus its new holy of holies: i.e., the depths and heights of the human heart as such, the universally human in its joys and sorrows, its strivings, deeds, and fates. Herewith the artist acquires his subject-matter in himself and is the actual self-determining human spirit and considering, meditating, and expressing the infinity of its feelings and situations.”*'*
不过，在晚近现代艺术中，上述主题很快消失，变成展示艺术家（通过暗示或凭借听众）发现任何具有启示性的东西。正如黑格尔所说，艺术作品在我们这个时代变成了“一种产品，因此在从事生产的国民让我们看出自己是孤立无援的”。地地道道的现代艺术因此发现起作用的“观念”，即为现代的自我确定的主体性的“观念”。正宗的现代艺术，用黑格尔的话说，“使人类形成新的神物圣殿：也就是说，人类心灵自身的深度和高度，人类普遍具有欢乐与悲伤、努力、行为和命运。与此同时，艺术家通过自身努力获得了自己的主题，代表实际的有自决能力的人类精神，思考、企求和表达人类感情和处境的无限性”。
With that development, in principle romantic art reaches its full point of development as modern art and begins its own process of dissolution in terms of art’s ability to fulfill its highest vocation. The great modern rupture in self-understanding - that there are no normative “givens,” that there is no longer immediate, direct access to what tradition, nature, God, or sacred texts have to tell us - thus brings in its wake a different significance for art. In coming to understand the “Idea” as the normative order, as something that is produced by our “mindedness” and “like-mindedness” itself, humanity comes to an understanding of itself that outstrips the ability of art to fully express that modern selfunderstanding. Thus, by 1828, Hegel told his audience early in the series of lectures that “art, considered in its highest vocation, is and remains for us a thing of the past.”^^ Nowadays, he told them, we are more “reflective,” and we thus judge things in terms ultimately of principles, laws, and the like that cannot be given their clearest expression in works of art. What unity there is within the fragmentation of the modern normative order can only be grasped and understood by something fundamentally nonaesthetic, by a form of thought that Hegel identified as philosophy. The great issues of constitutional law or what unity there is within modern market society cannot be best captured in a poem or painting but in a series of complicated arguments; moreover, we explain nature in our “contemporary prosaic reflection ... in accordance with universal laws and forces,” and thus nature for us is also, to a certain extent, necessarily disenchanted.“ The “Ideal” for us is thus irretrievably lost.
由于这样的发展，原则上浪漫型艺术达到了它作为现代艺术发展的顶峰，并按照艺术能够完成自己最高使命而开始了艺术自身的消解过程。自我理解的巨大的现代断裂——这意味着不存在规范化的“给定的东西”，意味着不再存在直接的机会，让人得知传统、自然、上帝或神圣的文句要告诉我们的东西——因此使人们认识到艺术具有不同的重要意义。在逐渐把“观念”当作规范化的秩序理解的过程中，当作某种由我们“精神性”和“具有精神性特征”本身所生产出的东西的过程中，人类回归到把自身理解成超越了艺术能够充分表达现代人的自我理解。因而，到1828年，黑格尔早在一系列讲演中就告诉听众：“艺术，考虑到它的最高使命，对我们来说现在是且将来依然是过去的东西。”当今，他告诉听众，我们更加“善于反思”，因而我们根据不可能被赋予艺术作品最为清楚表达的原理、法则等东西来对事物作出最后判断。在现代规范化秩序的碎片化领域到底存在何种统一，这个问题只能凭借某种基本上非美学的东西，或凭借黑格尔所认为的哲学的思想形式来加以理解和把握。符合宪法精神的法律，或现代市场社会领域存在何种统一这两个大问题，不可能被诗歌或绘画完全捕捉，而可能被一系列复杂的争论完全涵盖。不仅如此，我们通常根据“当代平淡无奇的反思……常常按照普世法则和力量”来解释自然，因此在一定程度上，自然对我们来说同样必然不再被我们抱有幻想。我们的“理想”因此不可避免地丧失了。
Hegel’s pronouncement was quickly taken by many to be a claim about the “end of art,” that there was no longer a need for art or that no new art would be created. (Even his student Felix MendelssohnBartholdy misunderstood him on this point, grumbling to his sister in 1831 that “although Goethe and Thorwaldsen are still alive, and Beethoven only died a couple of years ago, Hegel asserts that German art is dead as a doornail. Qiiod non. So much the worse for him.”)*^’ But Hegel was not asserting any such thing; he was simply drawing the consequences from his conviction about the romantic type of art being the only suitably modern art. Art would still remain a basic human need, and only art could offer reflection on the “Idea” in sensuous form; however, art could no longer produce works whose meaning was fully contained in the work itself, and thus, although it could achieve dazzling and moving results, it could no longer achieve the “Ideal” inherent in the concept of art itself.
黑格尔的宣称，不久被许多人当作“艺术终结”的主张看待，这里的“艺术终结”，意味着人类不再需要艺术，或不会创造出新的艺术。（甚至黑格尔的门人费利克斯·门德尔松·巴托尔迪也在这一点上误解了老师黑格尔，并在1831年致黑格尔妹妹的信中抱怨说：“歌德和托尔瓦德森仍然健在，且贝多芬只是在两年前辞世，但是黑格尔却坚称德国艺术已经完全死了。因为德国艺术销声匿迹了。这事对他来说是非常糟糕的。”）不过，黑格尔并没有坚称任何类似的东西。他只是从他关于浪漫型艺术形式是唯一适合现代艺术这一信念中得出这个结论。艺术大概仍然构成人类的基本需要，只有艺术才有可能以感性的形式提供对“观念”的反思。然而，艺术不再可能产生这样的作品，即它们的意义完全包含在作品自身中。如此一来，尽管它可能产生令人眼花缭乱和感人肺腑的效果，但不再可能达到艺术概念本身固有的“理想”。
The superiority of classical art to romantic (modern) art is thus curiously the result of the deficiency of art itself as a mode of reflection on the “absolute.” Art in general is, as are the two other modes of reflection on the “absolute” (religion and philosophy), a practice involving reflection on the normative whole, the “Idea,” on the way in which our own mindedness and like-mindedness articulates its most basic normative commitments. Art does this, however, by shaping and forming sensuous elements and bringing our imagination to play in that reflection on our highest interests. No sensuous presentation, however, can comprehend the modern “Idea,” the modern sense of the normative whole within which we position ourselves in order to be the selfconscious beings we are. Classical art could achieve the “Ideal” because it alone was situated within a normative whole that made it intelligible that the meaning of that “whole” could be captured in sculptural and poetic renditions of the gods, but no such thing is possible for “we moderns.” The divinity that art reveals is indirect; modern art reveals humanity’s own struggles, which are given their full religious interpretation in religion, nonaesthetically conceived, which is in turn made intelligible to us in principled reflection, whose institutionalized form is academic philosophy in the modern, reformed university.
因此，古典型艺术胜过浪漫型（现代型）艺术，是因为艺术自身不足以作为关于“绝对”的反思方式，这一点非常令人感到奇怪。像关于“绝对”的其他两种反思方式（宗教和哲学）代表一种实践一样，艺术大体上同样也是一种涉及关于规范化整体或“观念”的反思，以这种方式，我们自己的精神性和精神性特征使它最基本的规范化承诺成为系统的整体。然而，艺术在做到这一点时，靠的是塑造和建构感性元素，靠的是使我们去想象对我们最高利益的反思。不过，任何感性表达都无法使人领会现代的“观念”，或我们定位自身以成为具有自我意识的存在者的现代规范化整体观念。古典型艺术能够达到“理想”，是因为唯独它处于规范化整体中，“整体”使以下内容变得可以理解：“整体”的意义可以被诸神雕塑般和诗歌般的传达所捕捉，而这样的事情对“我们现代人”来说是不可能做到的。艺术所显露的神性是间接的；现代艺术显露人类自己的奋斗，这类奋斗在宗教方面被赋予充分的宗教阐释，而不是非审美地构想出来的东西，这就转而使我们能够理解原则性的反思，这种反思的制度化形式就是现代的经过改革的大学里的学院派哲学。
Hegel’s lectures on art thus summed up part of his deep sense of the breach between the modern world and what preceded it. On the one hand, it could only be experienced as a loss, and it naturally enough led to attempts at retrieval (to recapture medieval art, to write or cast a new modern epic, to reinvigorate a sense of classical sculpture). But there was nothing “there” to be regained. Humanity, even in Hegel’s own lifetime, had moved on, and it could not retrieve what it now experienced as falsity, however shattering the loss was and however beautiful the results had been. Modern humanity’s task was to come to terms with that modernity; and it was impossible to put all the weight on the artists to accomplish that reconciliation. Ultimately, it could only be achieved through the three forms of such “absolute reflection,” and philosophy was the highest of these because only in reflective, conceptual thought was the normative whole, the “Idea,” of modernity to be fully understood.
黑格尔关于艺术的讲演，因此概括了他关于现代世界与前现代世界之间断裂的深层意蕴的部分内容。一方面，前现代世界只能被今人体验成一种被毁灭的东西，而现代世界自然地促使人们尝试挽救前现代世界（以便重新捕捉中世纪艺术，以便书写或创作一部新的现代史诗，以便复兴古典雕塑的观念）。但是，“那里”没有什么东西可以恢复。人类，甚至在黑格尔自己的一生中，早已在不断向前发展，而人类不可能重新找回眼下体验到的虚情假意的东西，不管被毁灭的东西多么破碎，不管这样做带来的结果多么美好。现代人类的任务在于与现代性达成和解；完全依靠艺术家去完成这样的和解，是不可能做到的。说到底，只有通过“绝对反思”的三种形式才能达成这种和解，而哲学是这三种形式中最高级的形式，因为人们只有用反思的概念式思想，才能充分理解现代性的规范化整体或“观念”。
That assertion - together with Hegel’s brilliant lectures on the history of philosophy, another of his best attended and most popular series of lectures - put Hegel’s own views on the role of philosophy (and himself) in the modern university in full view. It also let his opponents know where they stood in Hegel’s scheme of things. Art and religion remained both “absolute” and necessary; but the modern age was to be one of “thought,” of science and philosophy. The modern age belonged, Hegel seemed to be saying, to Hegel, not to Holderlin.
上述这个主张——连同黑格尔关于哲学史的卓越讲演，他的听众最多且最受欢迎的另一个系列讲演——全盘托出黑格尔自己关于哲学（和他本人）在现代大学所起的作用的看法。这同样让他的对手知晓这些看法在黑格尔思想体系中占据的地位。艺术与宗教依旧既是“绝对的”也是必要的；但是现时代必将成为“思想”的时代，科学与哲学的时代。现时代是，黑格尔似乎在说，属于黑格尔的而非属于荷尔德林的。
