Hegel's end of art and the artwork as an internally purposive whole
dc.contributor.author | Gentry, Gerad | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-03-04T09:25:20Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-03-04T09:25:20Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.description.abstract | Hegel's end-of-art thesis is arguably the most notorious assertion in aesthetics. I outline traditional interpretive strategies before offering an original alternative to these. I develop a conception of art that facilitates a reading of Hegel on which he is able to embrace three seemingly contradictory theses about art, namely, (i) the end-of-art thesis, (ii) the continued significance of art for its own sake (autonomy thesis), and (iii) the necessity of art for robust knowledge (epistemicnecessity thesis). I argue that Hegel is able to embrace all three theses at once through a conception of the work of art as an internally purposive whole (what I call the "IP View" of art). On the IP View, because of the kind of wholes that artworks are, they (i.a) are valuable for their own sake as ends-in-themselves, (i.b) yield valuable experiences because they are valuable for their own sake, and thereby (i.c) are necessary for robust knowledge. Finally, I suggest that not only does Hegel appear to hold the IP View of art, but also that on such a view, there is a very sensible reason for affirming (one reading of) Hegel's end-of-art thesis as an important means to establishing art's actual significance for robust knowledge against soaring, but unsubstantiable, claims about art's potency with respect to robust knowledge. | en |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-11595 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/11616 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.rights | InC-1.0 | |
dc.rights.uri | https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | |
dc.subject.ddc | 100 Philosophie | de |
dc.subject.ddc | 100 Philosophy | en |
dc.title | Hegel's end of art and the artwork as an internally purposive whole | en |
dc.type | Zeitschriftenaufsatz | |
elements.depositor.primary-group-descriptor | Fachbereich Philosophie und Philologie | |
elements.object.id | 181325 | |
elements.object.labels | 2202 History and Philosophy of Specific Fields | |
elements.object.labels | 2203 Philosophy | |
elements.object.labels | Philosophy | |
elements.object.labels | 5002 History and philosophy of specific fields | |
elements.object.labels | 5003 Philosophy | |
elements.object.type | journal-article | |
jgu.journal.issue | 3 | |
jgu.journal.title | Journal of the history of philosophy | |
jgu.journal.volume | 61 | |
jgu.organisation.department | FB 05 Philosophie und Philologie | |
jgu.organisation.name | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz | |
jgu.organisation.number | 7920 | |
jgu.organisation.place | Mainz | |
jgu.organisation.ror | https://ror.org/023b0x485 | |
jgu.pages.end | 498 | |
jgu.pages.start | 473 | |
jgu.publisher.doi | 10.1353/hph.2023.a902880 | |
jgu.publisher.eissn | 1538-4586 | |
jgu.publisher.name | The Johns Hopkins University Press | |
jgu.publisher.place | Baltimore, Md. | |
jgu.publisher.year | 2023 | |
jgu.rights.accessrights | openAccess | |
jgu.subject.ddccode | 100 | |
jgu.type.dinitype | Article | en_GB |
jgu.type.resource | Text | |
jgu.type.version | Published version |