This article explores the relationship between the independence of art and the mediation of truth, analyzing the influence of Hegel’s End of Art on system theory aesthetics. It also discusses the possibility of art gaining independence while maintaining its connection to truth.
Today, we often see all sorts of practices recognized as “art. Not only works exhibited in museums, but also street performances and even everyday activities are often included in the realm of art. This phenomenon shows how much the definition of art has expanded compared to the past. Art is no longer just an object that evokes aesthetic appreciation; its scope has become broader and more diverse. And in this case, it is common to exclude other values other than the pure artistic value of the object. In other words, the recognition of the unique and independent existence of art and the principle rejection of interference from other areas has become universal.
One of the representative artistic theories that represents this perception is the system theory aesthetic. Pioneered by Luhmann, system theory analyzes the process by which each area of society is separated into a “system” with its own independence, and those who apply this theory to aesthetics to describe art as a system of its own often use Hegel’s aesthetics as an important clue to justify their claims. According to their argument, art is no longer subordinated to external values or purposes, and is now independent as a realm of pure artistic expression.
Interestingly, Hegel’s theory of art, which they draw upon to draw a favorable conclusion about art, actually boils down to a negative conclusion about art: the “end of art” proposition. This comes from the traditional view of art as a means of expressing philosophical and religious truths, rather than merely providing an aesthetic experience. It is therefore worth asking how this proposition can be appropriated as a clue for art advocacy.
The core of Hegel’s aesthetics is twofold. First, he defines art as the “emotional manifestation of the Idea,” or the concrete embodiment of absolute truth. By identifying truth, the highest value, as the content of art, he places it in the highest realm of the human spirit, along with religion and philosophy. This may be a compelling argument to defend art against Plato’s judgment that it is vain fiction, the product of emotional excess or madness, and therefore incapable of mediating truth, the highest goal of the mind. It provides a rationale for art to be recognized as an expression of truth, rather than a mere sensory pleasure.
Second, Hegel’s final aesthetic conclusion nevertheless seems to contradict this. He states.
“For us, art is no longer the best way for truth to exist. We can, of course, hope that art will become more flourishing and complete. But the form of art is no longer the highest desire of the spirit.”
Importantly, these two assertions are in a strange causal relationship: together they become “art is doomed because its task is to mediate truth. The key to understanding this seemingly paradoxical view of art lies in Hegel’s relation between truth and sensibility, which he established as the content and form of art, respectively. As an objective conceptualist, he believes that truth is “pure and complete logic as the fundamental structure of the universe,” or “ideology,” and that the form of the mind that truly mediates it is “pure rational thought,” which corresponds to that pure logic. Therefore, the possibility that art, which by its very nature is a form of emotion, can mediate ideology is limited to the distant historical infancy of the human mind, when the mode of operation of the human mind was fundamentally emotional and the capacity for rational thought was not yet fully developed, and the task of art was transferred to philosophy in the modern era. Moreover, Hegel considers this direction of development to be forever irreversible. The end of art is not a mere decline, but a historical inevitability.
Systematic theorists take their cue for reversal from Hegel’s conclusion, “the possibility of art’s mediation of truth, which can no longer be expected”: at the very point where Hegel declares the end of art, they find the true ground of its existence, and Hegel’s strategy of “expelling” art from the realm of truth means, for them, the “liberation” of art from the weight that has long weighed it down. As a result, the art that survives in the post-modern period is, for Hegel, a “meaningless residue,” whereas for them it is “art that has only just become art. By being cut off from all external associations, that is, by being isolated as a self-sufficient system free from all external demands, the choice of what to express and how to express it is left entirely to art, and art is thus able to take on many previously unimaginable things in content and form. Art no longer needs to mediate truth; it is a complete world unto itself.
But there’s a catch to system theory’s liberating strategy for art. Because some artists and art lovers expect from aesthetics a discourse that recognizes the inherent independence of art, but still justifies its positive association with truth in an appealing way. This expectation stems from the desire for art to be more than mere self-expression, but to explore the deepest human and cosmic nature. For them, systemic theory aesthetics is only a “half success”. This is due to the fact that systemic theory aesthetics is based on Hegelian aesthetics and neglects its original central theme. In order to become a more meaningful theory of art that meets the critical needs of the art world, system theory aesthetics must mature into a theory that can answer affirmatively to the question of the value of art in relation to truth. If this is done, system theory aesthetics will be able to maintain the independence of art while opening up the possibility for art to fulfill an important function of the human spirit.
