Understanding Kant and Hegel's Views on Nature

Nature has always existed alongside human kind. Because of this, a connection is always made between the two through many aspects of life, including art and aesthetic experiences. Questions do arise, however, when considering art as an aesthetic experience and when claiming nature as a medium for such an experience. Both philosophers Hegel and Kant, through their definition of art and beauty, have conflicting views on nature as an art form and it's capability to ignite an aesthetic experience.

To understand both Kant and Hegel's views on nature as art, one must first understand how each views art, as well as the aesthetic experience that comes with it. An aesthetic experience is generally considered the emotional experience brought forth by the search for the beautiful. While both philosophers have some similar ideas, each comes to a different conclusion. For Kant, analyzing art (meaning objects that are beautiful) comes in four moments. The first moment from the Judgment of Taste distinguishes if something is indeed beautiful to the human mind. Kant believes that this judgment is "not logical, but aesthetical," meaning that we search to find pleasure or displeasure in something and "when [we] question if a thing is beautiful, we do not want to know whether anything depends or can depend on the existence of the thing" (Kant 281). This is considered disinterest; the idea that the object serves no higher purpose other than to exist. Taste is when judgment is made with disinterest in mind, and "the object of such satisfaction is called beautiful" (Kant 286).

The second moment grows out of the idea that there is no logic when considering the beauty of an object or art form. If beauty comes from the mind, then the idea should be universally accepted because "if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost" (Kant 290). When someone judges something as beautiful, they technically should not follow any rules. They are void of all concepts, and because of this, they believe that no one can argue against this idea unless they've made an "erroneous judgment of taste" (Kant 290). According to Kant, "the beautiful is that which pleases universally without [requiring] a concept" (Kant 292).

The third moment is the realization that the beautiful object has purposiveness. The idea of purposiveness is that there seems to be this unrealized purpose of the object. It's unexplainable, but it feels as if the object actually has some sort of purpose. When an object has an end, or purpose, we do not receive pleasure from it because our mind is not in the state that Kant refers to as "free play". For comparison, as an example given in lecture, an object that has an end is a chair. It was made for someone to sit in; it has a purpose, and therefore, we cannot experience this free play. Free play is defined by Kant as something needing "imagination". The mind must wander and exhaust every possible concept of the end of the object, as we find pleasure in this free play that stops once an end is found. Beauty comes from this free play, and the "universal communicability [of this] free play of the imagination...is requisite for cognition in general" (Kant 292).

The fourth moment combines all of the previous moments to prove a further point; the idea that beauty should be universally accepted. If something has no end, but all minds search for this end through the free play of their own minds,it should be accepted by all, meaning that we "allow no one to be of other opinion, without, however, grounding our judgment on concepts, but only on our feeling," which is the base of pleasure (Kant 303). Because of this, we do not "say that everyone will agree with [our] judgment, but just that [they] ought to" (Kant 303).

Hegel disagrees however, carrying a completely different view of art than Kant. He starts by explaining that the word "Aesthetic" is not the correct term when discussing art. He believes this because it "denotes more accurately the science of the senses or emotion," and that it should instead be called "The Philosophy of Fine Art" (Hegel 382). When considering works of art, Hegel believes they "originate in the human spirit" (Hegel 398). This is important because art "is created essentially for man; and, what is more, it is to a greater or less degree delivered from a sensuous medium, and addressed to his senses," implying that art is created for man, by man, with no further purpose other than man (Hegel 395).

To Hegel, art is taking a concept and putting it into materialistic, concrete forms, as man needs a concrete form of himself to find his self-consciousness. This is to say that man, creating art, does so to "grasp...the profoundest and most embracing human interests in the wholly definite presentation of imagery borrowed from objective experience," using his experiences to duplicate his own experiences and life, through art (Hegel 411). This is essential for man because he "is a thinking consciousness, in other words the he renders explicit to himself, and from his own substance, what he is and all in fact that exists," and finds this through "duplicating himself" (Hegel 400). Man "exists for himself; he observes himself, makes himself present to his imagination and thought, and only in virtue of this active power of self-realization is he actually mind or spirit" (Hegel 400). For man to see himself and understand himself, he must create a visible, outward form as a forum to become aware of himself; his self consciousness. This self consciousness does connect with god, as "God is a spirit, and it is only in man that the medium, through which the divine passes, possesses the form of spirit fully conscious of the activity in which it manifests its ideal presence" (Hegel 399). In essence, art comes from the mind of man because he is in dire need to understand himself. God uses man as his medium to manifest his presence (meaning that man's mind is what makes's God's presence known, yet there is no connection between the finished art work and God), and this allowance of man's contemplation is what creates art.

Now where Kant and Hegel's views begin to separate even more comes when discussing each one's view on nature as an art form. For Kant, nature is not beautiful on its own, but is beautiful because "we can say generally; That is beautiful which pleases in the mere act of judging it" (Kant 314). We find beauty in the objects that we judge; beauty is given to objects by us, they do not posses beauty on their own. This may be confusing because "in a product of beautiful art, we must become conscious that it is art and not nature; but yet the purposiveness in its form must seem to be as free from all constraint of arbitrary rules as if it were a product of mere nature" (Kant 313). How, exactly, is nature only beautiful when given the title by the human mind if the beautiful is to resemble nature? To Kant, a "product of art appears like nature when, although its agreement with the rules, according to which alone the product can become what it ought to be, is punctiliously observed, yet this is not painfully apparent-it shows no trace of the rule having been before the eyes of the artist and having fettered his mental powers" (Kant 314). In essence, art is viewed as something natural, something that is flawlessly pleasurable in its own view, yet not simply because it is made by man. Nature looks beautiful as it is not man made, but is given purpose and the mark of beautiful by man. Kant describes the similarity of beauty in art and nature, mentioning that "nature is beautiful because it looks like art, and art can only be called beautiful if we are conscious of it as art while yet it looks like nature" (Kant 314). Nature and art are hand in hand, but both are given the title of beauty by man, meaning that man is what gives meaning to art and beauty, as he is what creates the mark of "beautiful". What rises nature above art, to Kant, is the idea that all man-made objects, while beautiful, can have an "end" that may end the free play for some. Nature, however, was not created by man, and therefore no end of natural objects is known to man. Because of this, viewing nature puts the mind in a constant state of free play, giving total pleasure, rendering the object beautiful. This is why, to Kant, man made art should resemble nature, as nature and how it affects the mind is the way to create the highest amount of pleasure.

Hegel's view on nature and art represents a completely different theory than that of Kant. To put it simply, Hegel does not believe that nature can be viewed as art in any way shape or form. When discussing beauty, Hegel notes that "...the beauty of nature comes generally into competition with that of art

To break down the difference of nature and human art work, Hegel says that "...nature and all that proceeds from her are a work of God, created by his goodness and wisdom. The work of art is on the contrary merely a human product fashioned by human hands according to human design" (Hegel 399). This becomes important because of his belief that "God is more honored by that which the mind makes and creates than by everything brought into being and fashioned in the natural process." He believes that God finds more pleasure in the work of what he has created, rather than just delighting in what he has created himself. Nature cannot be considered art, as it is not the result of some form of human expression, created by man to become beautiful. This thought process is reinforced through two of Hegel's "three determinations"; the idea that "a work of art is no product of nature

Both men view art as something that is born in the mind of man. Beauty is something that comes from man and man alone. Kant believes that nature can be beautiful in the eyes of man, whereas Hegel believes that because nature is not created from the mind of man, it is not a form of art, and therefore cannot be beautiful. Kant believes that man's mind is what gives objects the title of beautiful. Hegel follows a slightly more religious path as he connects the importance of man's creations to God, as man's mind is what makes things beautiful. It is important to note, however, that neither view art as an expression to or connection with "the one" or God. They both believe that art and beauty (and in Kant's view, aesthetic experiences) are for man alone.

Kant and Hegel both present ideas that stray from the usual descriptions of art and aesthetic experiences. Kant sees the beautiful as objects given the title of beautiful by man, whereas Hegel sees the beautiful as creations from the mind of man. While they having conflicting views on nature as an art form, each gives the finality and meaning of art to the mind of man, allowing him the final say in what is beautiful. While Kant focuses on free play and the ability of nature to be beautiful in the mind of man, and Hegel focuses on the inability of nature to be beautiful in the mind of man, they both focus on the human mind as an explanation of the beautiful. A higher purpose does not make something beautiful; the beauty of the human mind is what, in the end, renders objects beautiful.

Bibliography

Hegel. "The Philosophy of Fine Art". Ed.Hofstadter & Kuhns, A., R. (Ed.). (1964).

Philosophies of Art & Beauty. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kant. "Critique of Judgment". Ed.Hofstadter & Kuhns, A., R. (Ed.). (1964).

Philosophies of Art & Beauty. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.