II. Campana’s understanding of the ‘end of art’ thesis and his framework

In his recent book, The End of Literature, Hegel, and the Contemporary Novel, Francesco Campana gives an excellent analysis of the ‘end of art’ thesis generally, the ‘end of literature’ particularly, and the ‘end of the novel’ especially. His main idea is that literature (or Poesie) has an exceptional place among different kinds of arts (namely architecture, sculpture, painting, music, etc.). Therefore, the ‘end’ of literature is different from other ‘ends’ of arts. Literature resists its end by renewal, transformation and reconfiguration. When discussing the ‘end of the novel’, Campana believes that it is ‘a simulated end’ and that it is ‘an end that means a new beginning, a new way for the novel to face and survive its own end’ (Reference Campana2019: 113). The same also holds true for literature as a whole, which always seeks ‘to transform this end into a new beginning’, especially ‘to transform the end of modernity, which is also its own end, into a proper renewal’ (Reference Campana2019: 117). As we can see, Campana attaches great importance to the connection between literature (and especially the novel) and modernity.

In rereading the ‘end of art’ thesis, and based on Hegel’s aesthetics, Campana provides an interpretative framework for the end of literary artwork, namely the ‘end of art’ as ‘philosophization’ and the ‘end of art’ as ‘ordinariness’. When illustrating ‘the exceptional character of poetry and its peculiar role compared to the other arts’, and after quoting a paragraph from Hegel’s Aesthetics, Campana writes, ‘poetry, namely literature, seems therefore to be caught between two poles: on the one hand, the “prose of scientific thought”, that is a scientific discourse of a certain philosophical kind (through “religious representation as such”) and on the other hand, the “prose of finitude and commonplace thinking”, which describes the use of speech and words in everyday life’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 143). The ‘prose of scientific thought’ mainly concerns ‘reflection, reasoning and thinking’. ‘Literary language turns out to be more technical, scientific and cognitive’ (Reference Campana2019: 145). The ‘prose of finitude and commonplace thinking’ is the narration and description of the ‘prose of the world’ and is ‘the tendency of art to approach everyday life ever more closely’ (Reference Campana2019: 144).

Campana indicates that the pole of the ‘philosophization’ of art has much to do with ‘the systematic aspect of Hegelian philosophy’, while the other pole, the ‘ordinariness’ of art is chiefly from ‘a socio-historical point of view’ (Reference Campana2019: 149). As to those poles, their characteristics and their embodiment in modern and contemporary literature, Campana gives many detailed analyses and sufficient examples. Especially, Campana expounds how this interpretative framework works on one peculiar genre of literature, namely the novel. Moreover, for him, the two poles are tendencies that modern literature or the modern novel heads towards, without completely becoming either pole. There are multiple possibilities ‘in between’ (Reference Campana2019: 214–20).

In terms of modern, postmodern and contemporary novels, Campana gives a lot of examples to demonstrate how the novel resists its end. On the pole of ‘philosophization’, Campana discusses experimentalism, meta-fiction and maximalist novel. Novelists with an experimentalist tendency challenge traditional ideas about the novel, and the novel as a genre gains a status of self-reflexivity. Especially, novelists experiment themselves with new techniques. Representatives are the modernists, such as Joyce, Woolf or Musil. Meanwhile, their ‘philosophization’ tendency also lies in other aspects, including innovations in theme, style, language and structure (Campana Reference Campana2019: 188). Furthermore, not only does the novel itself become more conscious concerning its ontology, but authors or novelists also display a great interest in their authorship. Readers are invited into the process of reflection on the novel, too. Apart from self-reflexivity, another tendency of the ‘philosophization’ of novel ‘is about the ability, within the genre of the novel, to include topics and formal elements typical of nonfiction essayistic treatment’, thus making it an ‘encyclopedic mode’ or ‘writings of excess’ and novels becoming ‘Mega novel’ or ‘maximalist novel’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 196, 195, 200). As Campana analyses, this kind of novel is the ‘prose of thought’ from the perspectives of language, style, content, form and structure. It uses multiple ways, like footnotes, references, allusions, quotations, etc., to make it seem more scientific, and thus requires more cerebral activity (Reference Campana2019: 199–200).

On the pole of ‘ordinariness’, novelists tend to depict more and more about everyday life. It is the world that is brought into the novel (Campana Reference Campana2019: 206). One representative is the nonfiction novel, which according to Campana can date back to the New Journalism in America during the mid-1960s. It emphasizes ‘facts’, the ‘truth-novel’, and the ‘reportage novel’. It tends to be realistic by adhering to facts and truth, just like newspapers and news reports. Campana also gives several examples, such as investigative reports, feature stories and court reports (Reference Campana2019: 201–10). What is worth noticing is that at this pole, the subject, the writer or the author also plays an important role. This kind of novel means not to invent anything, but ‘everything that is told has really happened’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 205). However, ‘it is still through the very particular voice of the writer that these facts are reported’. ‘The subjectivity of the author has not disappeared behind the “facts”; on the contrary, it is more present than ever: it is the collector and the interpreter of the facts’ (Reference Campana2019: 209–10).Footnote ³

In his book, Campana presents the persuasive framework of ‘philosophization’-‘poetry’-‘ordinariness’.Footnote ⁴ For him, poetry moves between these two poles, without becoming either of them. ‘Literature tends in a direction that is not its own, but does not become completely different from itself’ (Reference Campana2019: 213). Afterall, literature cannot transform to something else completely. Within these two poles, multiple combinations of ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are possible. That is the main status quo of modern and contemporary literature for Campana.

In brief, Campana demonstrates how literature resists its end by continuous self-renewal and self-transformation. It is just the ‘fate’ of literature to have gone through such ‘ends’ and to survive.Footnote ⁵ Meanwhile, Campana provides a framework in understanding the ‘post-end’ situation of literature. By placing modern and contemporary novels between two poles, Campana classifies them based on their distinct features.

III. Different interpretation concerning Campana’s framework

This paper generally agrees with Campana’s position on the ‘end of art’ thesis, especially on the ‘end of literature’. That is, literature does not really end, but resists its end by renewing and changing itself. Also, this paper agrees that Campana’s framework in understanding the tendencies of modern and postmodern literature is quite powerful. However, when it comes to Hegel’s thesis of the ‘end of art’, there exists some basic understanding that this thesis has much to do with his overall philosophy, especially his thought about absolute spirit and the absolute Idea.Footnote ⁶ Therefore, from the perspective of Hegel’s thought about the absolute, I raise the following questions concerning Campana’s framework: if modern and contemporary literature tends towards the two poles—philosophization and ordinariness, as is explained by Campana—are they opposed? What is their relationship from the Hegelian perspective? What does ‘ordinariness’ mean in Hegel’s mind? Based on these questions, I intend to challenge Campana’s framework and provide a different interpretation, which I believe helps to clarify Hegel’s philosophy of literature.

To answer the above questions, the most important principle that this paper insists on is to take Hegel’s thought as a whole or in totality.Footnote ⁷ That means when we talk about his thesis of the ‘end of art’, we should contextualize it within his overall philosophical project, and take his philosophy of art as ‘a philosophy’ which has connections with his other ‘philosophies’. Of course, for Hegel, there is only one philosophy, although it may take different forms. But for us, we still can talk about ‘philosophies of___’ just as Lamarque has once indicated (Lamarque Reference Lamarque2009: 4; Campana Reference Campana2019: 183), as long as we keep in mind that those ‘philosophies’ should not be separated and isolated in Hegelian studies. Wholeness or totality is also characteristic of his Aesthetics, especially Hotho’s edition. From the very beginning, in the ‘Introduction’ part and also in ‘Part I. The Idea of Artistic Beauty, or The Ideal’, we can see that Hegel does not deal with issues concerning art separately, but he connects them with his philosophical system. When he talks about the object, the aim and the function of art or the role art plays, the overall philosophical problem of modernity is always in his mind. For example, in ‘Part I. The Idea of Artistic Beauty, or The Ideal’, there is a great amount of summarization about ‘The Idea’ which actually belongs to his logic (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 108–10). In other words, Hegel deduces the Ideal or the Idea of the beautiful from the general ‘Idea’.

Related with the wholeness and totality of Hegel’s philosophy, I also advocate that we combine the logical with the historical in elaborating Hegel’s philosophy of literature. In Hegelian studies, there are a lot of debates, which can be attributed to different attitudes towards the relationship between logic and history. For example, debates on the reliability of Hotho’s edition of Hegel’s Aesthetics and more and more discussions about students’ manuscripts have something to do with the relationship between logic and history. Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert (Hegel Reference Hegel, Gethmann-Siefert, Kwon and Berr2004b: 9–39) and David James (Reference James2009) bring many doubts about Hotho’s edition of Hegel’s Aesthetics. They choose the historical approach in their studies, taking art mainly as a historical-social phenomenon. They emphasize the role art plays in a nation’s ethical and political life. However, the logical approach also has its supporters, such as Stephen Bungay (Reference Bungay1984) and William Desmond (Reference Desmond1984). They try to relate art, beauty and other aesthetic issues with Hegel’s logic, metaphysics and other parts of his philosophical system.

Apart from these opposite positions, there are also researchers who combine the historical with the logical in Hegelian studies. Two representatives are Rüdiger Bubner and Lydia L. Moland. When talking about the ‘end of art’, Bubner holds that the ‘pastness’ of art is both the evolution of art history and the development of spirit (Bubner Reference Bubner and Walker2003: 253–54). Moland believes that for Hegel, the ‘end of art’ thesis is both conceptual and historical (Moland Reference Moland2019: 19). I also argue for the combination of the logical approach and the historical approach because it is characteristic of Hegel’s thought.Footnote ⁸ Unlike Croce’s distinguishing of ‘what is living’ and ‘what is dead’ in Hegel’s philosophy,Footnote ⁹ I believe that ‘the living’ and ‘the dead’ are related and are inseparable.Footnote ¹⁰

In his study, Campana treats the historical and the logical separately. For instance, in Chapter 2 of his book, he illustrates ‘Literature and the Other Arts’ from the ontological perspective first and then from the historical perspective. Meanwhile, he seems to favour the historical perspective. He holds that ‘The purely ontological and philosophical analysis […] is too general and abstract; it sometimes seems to bring up problems that are excessively technical or too far removed from our common perception of things’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 56–57). When we come to Campana’s framework, which is ‘philosophization’-‘poetry’-‘ordinariness’, it becomes more obvious that Campana takes the historical and the logical separately. For Campana, as I explained in section II, ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are two poles, between which poetry moves. Although they may not always be opposites, and Campana even deems those two poles to be dialectical and ‘interact with each other’ (Reference Campana2019: 217, 219), the two poles are analysed from the perspective of system and the perspective of history respectively.Footnote ¹¹ When summarizing the two broad categories (which refer to ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’), Campana distinguishes between ‘an epochal derivation, where the end is the tendency to ordinariness and the prose of life, and a systematic derivation, where the end is philosophization’ (Reference Campana2019: 83). Therefore, Campana understands ‘philosophization’ from the perspective of logic and system, while his understanding of ‘ordinariness’ is from the perspective of history and society. In a word, Campana treats the historical and the logical separately, which also results in a certain opposition between ‘ordinariness’ and ‘philosophization’.

So, what does it mean to combine the logical and the historical in understanding Hegel? To answer this question, we need to return to Hegel’s absolute spirit and absolute Idea. For Hegel, the absolute Idea is the last stage of logic. It is the totality of all the previous stages. It is a unity of subjectivity and objectivity, as well as a unity of life and knowing. Absolute spirit is also the totality of all the previous development. Moreover, absolute spirit is the actuality of absolute Idea. As totality, neither absolute Idea nor absolute spirit lacks existence/reality/actuality/objectivity. Hegel believes that concepts in his logic have their counterpart in history, especially in the history of philosophy. Philosophy is time in thought; concepts are real and actual.

It is important to clarify that Hegel’s absolute (absolute spirit and absolute Idea) is a whole or totality, but it is not fixed and closed. The absolute is a never-ending process or activity. It has completed and is still completing itself. When ‘completed’, it has finished its work on this stage or in this period of time. When still completing, it is renewing and transforming. This is the paradox or contradiction of the Idea and spirit—both completed and is completing.Footnote ¹² In a similar way, we can consider Hegel’s ‘end of art’ thesis to mean both having been completed and still being completing. Moreover, for Hegel, there is only one philosophy, and only one ‘Idea’.Footnote ¹³ Spirit is a constant development with no absolute fracture. Ancient time and modern time are two stages of spirit. But Hegel also recognizes that absolute Idea and absolute spirit complete themselves in modern time. It is in modern time that absolute spirit knows itself and realizes itself fully. It is also a time when art comes to an end. For Hegel, however, the totality or completion of spirit does not mean that the absolute is fixed and unchangeable. On the contrary, the absolute is always changing. As is said, it has completed and is always completing itself. The fixed point of view of abstract understanding is just what Hegel criticizes.Footnote ¹⁴ In short, Hegel’s absolute spirit and absolute Idea is a whole, a totality which is actual, and which is not fixed and closed.

The absolute (either absolute Idea or absolute spirit) is a totality, and it is comprised of different historical stages. Hegel, in his different ‘philosophies’ (such as philosophy of right, philosophy of history, philosophy of art, philosophy of religion and even philosophy of philosophy which is the logic) discusses them in different ways. In Aesthetics, Hegel divides the history of art into three stages—symbolic art, classical art and romantic art. Each represents one stage of the Idea together with its existence. In Hegel’s mind, it is the Idea that determines the expression. Whether the Idea can find its appropriate shape, and whether the expression corresponds to the Idea or not, depends on the Idea. According to Hegel’s analysis, when the Idea is insufficient, its realization in art is also insufficient, for example, symbolic art. We know that, for Hegel, it is in classical art that the Idea finds its appropriate expression. There, the Idea and its existence are in harmony. In romantic art, the Idea exceeds the artistic form and finds its proper realization first in religion and finally in philosophy. The above brief description about the three stages of art also demonstrates the close connection between history and logic in art’s development.

Therefore, in Hegelian studies, it is better that we combine the logical and the historical, instead of taking them separately. As mentioned, in Hegel’s philosophy, absolute spirit undergoes different stages, which means that it comes to perfection only at the last stage, historically and socially, in modern time. The same goes with the absolute Idea. But no matter what stage the Idea is in, it can always find its corresponding realization. That is, if the Idea is at a lower stage, it realizes itself in a lower form; if it is at a higher stage, it realizes itself in a higher form. Hegel divides his philosophical system into three parts: logic, philosophy of nature and philosophy of spirit. Although nature is low spiritually, it is one stage of the Idea’s realization.Footnote ¹⁵ From the perspective of history, Hegel considers that the Idea first finds its proper expression in the east, then in ancient Greece, and finally in modern Europe. Generally, Hegel holds a progressive attitude. As the Idea develops, its appropriate existence is found in a higher and more advanced form. For Hegel, modern spirit is best understood in philosophy. From the above analysis, we can see that the Idea, in different stages, can always find its corresponding existence and realization, which further proves the unity of logic and history in Hegel’s philosophy.

With Hegel’s absolute and the logic-history approach in mind, I now intend to give a different interpretation about Campana’s framework for understanding modern and postmodern literature, i.e. ‘philosophization’-‘poetry’-‘ordinariness’. Based on the above analysis, we notice that in Hegel’s philosophy, logic and history, concept and actuality are inseparable. Likely, I defend that ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ (although ‘ordinariness’ may not be a proper concept in Hegel’s philosophy) are also inseparable. Especially, I disagree with Campana by holding that ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are not two poles, between which modern and postmodern literature move.Footnote ¹⁶ I claim that both are forms (adequate or not) in which the modern and contemporary spirit or Idea finds its expression. They are related, connected and not separated or isolated from one another. ‘Philosophization’, from a Hegelian perspective, does not mean abstract or thought experiment, lacking any reality or concreteness. ‘Ordinariness’, if it means everyday life, may not be welcomed by Hegel.Footnote ¹⁷ For him, what is real or actual is not something sensible or perceptible only. Moreover, ‘reality’ does not necessarily refer to some given data or ‘facts’, which is also my disagreement with Campana’s understanding.

To repeat my interpretation about Campana’s framework, I hold that ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ should not be taken as two poles for they are the expression of the same spirit, namely, the modern spirit. ‘Philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are not separated and opposed because both are manifestations of modern spirit.Footnote ¹⁸ From the perspective of Hegel’s thought on the absolute, philosophizing and becoming ‘ordinary’ (or real, actual) are compatible with one another.Footnote ¹⁹

Despite taking ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ as two poles, Campana sometimes indicates their inseparability.Footnote ²⁰ For example, he notices the centrality of subjectivity in both trends (Campana Reference Campana2019: 187–92, 209–12). He takes the comic as characteristic of both ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 152). In his analysis of Don Quixote, ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are also combined (Campana Reference Campana2019: 170). This evidence further demonstrates that modern spirit is a totality, finding its expression in different but related forms. Therefore, taking them as two poles, to some extent, Campana also recognizes that ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ in modern and postmodern literature are not separated phenomena.

In order to defend the inseparability of ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ and to make what is implicit explicit, I want to analyse two examples given by Campana. The first example is from the ‘ordinariness’ group. One type of literature belonging to this group is the investigative report. Campana mentions Svetlana Alexievich and her novel Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster. She uses the methods of journalism, and ‘the premise is aimed at giving historical information and facts and is composed of a collage made of excerpts from articles, magazines and encyclopaedias’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 207–208). However, Alexievich also borrows techniques from journalism, displaying her experimental tendency. It is the way the novelist tries to be innovative and self-reflexive. In Campana’s analysis, experimentalism and self-reflection mainly deal with ‘the prose of thought’ or ‘philosophization’. But the example of Alexievich’s novel reveals that what appears as ‘ordinary’ turns out to be ‘philosophical’. The other example I want to mention is from the ‘philosophization’ group—Paul Auster’s City of Glass. It has a very complex plot and authorship, which indicate the reflection of literature on itself, ‘but in reality it reflects on real interpersonal relationships and practices of society in a figurative key’ (Campana Reference Campana2019: 190). Thus, novels belonging to the ‘philosophization’ group also seek to present reality, just like those belonging to the ‘ordinariness’ group. The two examples further demonstrate that ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are inseparable. From the Hegelian perspective, the correspondence between concept and reality is what constitutes the Idea or truth. If ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ are the ways in which modern spirit manifests itself, and as the reality of the modern Idea, they should be considered as closely related, not separated.

In short, this section emphasizes the importance of taking Hegel’s philosophy as a whole when dealing with his ‘end of art’ thesis. It is also important to combine the historical with the logical. This point is closely related to Hegel’s thought of the absolute, which indicates wholeness and totality. Based on these considerations, I provide a different interpretation about Campana’s framework concerning the relationship between ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’. I defend the view that ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ should not be opposites or two poles. From the perspective of Hegel’s absolute, they are inseparable and have correspondence with one another.

IV. Significance of the ‘end of art’ thesis and proposals for studying Hegel’s philosophy of literature

In section II, I mainly expounded Campana’s understanding of Hegel’s thesis of the ‘end of art’ and his framework for explaining contemporary literature. In section III, I provided a different interpretation concerning his framework, emphasizing the importance of taking Hegel’s philosophy as a totality. Based on the previous discussions, the purpose of this section is to further clarify the significance of Hegel’s ‘end of art’ thesis, especially its importance for addressing the problem of modern subjectivity, and then to make some proposals for the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature.Footnote ²¹

Hegel’s thesis of the ‘end of art’ is closely related to his ideas about modernity, especially the problem of modern subjectivity. With an ever-stronger sense of self-consciousness, modern people assert their subjectivity more and more, which leads to the opposition between the subjective and the objective, between the self and the world.Footnote ²² According to Hegel’s dialectic of the inner and the outer, when spirit retreats more and more to the inner, it is also more and more outside itself. That is to say, when the subject seeks its reconciliation and freedom more and more in the inner world, it is more and more bounded by the outer world. Inner certainty without confirmation from the outer world is illusory and lacks actuality. Hegel gives many examples of the types of modern subjects in Phenomenology of Spirit, in the Encyclopaedia and also in his Aesthetics.Footnote ²³ In a word, the problem of modern subjectivity mainly lies in the separation and opposition between the self and the world. When separated and opposed, both the subjective and the objective are not true.

The close relationship between Hegel’s thesis of the ‘end of art’ and modernity (together with the problem of modern subjectivity) has attracted much attention from later philosophers and contemporary scholars. They have drawn inspiration from Hegel and have expressed their thoughts about modernity and modern subjectivity. For example, Heidegger, in his effort to overcome metaphysics and to re-establish the role of art, values the significance of Hegel’s thesis, discusses it in his article ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ (Heidegger Reference Heidegger, Young and Haynes2002), and advances his criticism of modern subjectivity. In his mind, art ends in modern time because of the traditional metaphysics and its subjectivist tendency. Thus, in order to save art from its end, it is necessary for modern people to maintain an anti-subjectivist comportment.Footnote ²⁴ In recent studies, many scholars have also expressed their concern about modernity based on Hegel’s thesis of the ‘end of art’. For instance, Pippin disagrees with Hegel about art and modernity. He considers Hegel’s understanding of ‘romantic art as the beginning of the realization that Geist does not require a material embodiment to be fully realized Geist; it needs only to be reconciled “with itself”’ and ‘this conclusion is not motivated by anything essential in Hegel’s account and represents a misstep, not an inference consistent with Hegel’s overall project’ (Reference Pippin2014: 22–23). For Pippin, modernity is still underway and art can still play an important role in modern times. However, Pippin acknowledges the importance of Hegel’s Aesthetics for us to understand modern art.Footnote ²⁵

The significance of Hegel’s thesis of the ‘end of art’ to addressing the problem of modern subjectivity is closely related with romantic art. However, we need to clarify the goal of his overall philosophy first. One important concern of Hegel’s philosophy is about how people can acquire truth and achieve freedom in modern time. To realize such an aim, the subject needs to be self-conscious, free and rational so that it can build a critical reconciliation with the objective (Siani Reference Siani2020: 346). For Hegel, it is only through philosophy (in the form of concept and thought) that such an aim is realizable. Hegel deems that art as a form of absolute spirit is inadequate for such a task. In his analysis of romantic art, with the internalization of spirit, the subjective and the objective, the self and the world become more and more estranged from each other. Hegel declares, ‘In romantic art, on the contrary, where inwardness withdraws itself into itself, the entire material of the external world acquires freedom to go its own way and maintain itself according to its own special and particular character’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 594). The mutual independence of the inner and the outer is one important reason for the dissolution of romantic art.

However, when art ends or when romantic art dissolves, it maintains the function of revealing the problem of modern subjectivity. The separation of the spiritual inner and the external world is one manifestation of the problem, and this manifestation is helpful in solving the problem. As is mentioned, there are many studies devoted to expounding the importance of modern art or literature in addressing the problem, Campana’s work included.Footnote ²⁶ Here, based on the significance of Hegel’s ‘end of art’ thesis, and the importance of modern and contemporary literature in dealing with the problem of modern subjectivity, I want to make some proposals for the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature.

The basic principle, as illustrated in section III, is to take Hegel’s philosophy as a whole. The problems concerning art or literature, such as its nature, its object and its function, may not be separated from the other ideas in Hegel’s philosophy. Especially, Hegel’s thoughts on the concept, the absolute Idea and absolute spirit provide the general guideline. For example, the three elements of the concept—universality, particularity and individuality form a good paradigm for understanding not only art generally,Footnote ²⁷ but also particular arts, like literature, and individual literary works.Footnote ²⁸ Hegel has applied the ‘universality-particularity-individuality’ paradigm in his Aesthetics. The overall structure of Aesthetics, namely the three major parts—‘The Idea of Artistic Beauty, or the Ideal’; ‘Development of the Ideal into the Particular Forms of Art’; ‘The System of the Individual Arts’—follow the paradigm closely. Except for few occasions, the discussions of each part follow the paradigm, too. In fact, Hegel has applied this paradigm not only in Aesthetics, but also in many other ‘philosophies’, such as his philosophy of nature, philosophy of right, philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, etc.Footnote ²⁹

Furthermore, Hegel’s absolute provides a whole vision. By adopting the perspective of the absolute, we can avoid external studies on art or literature. Related with the previous point, although Hegel intends to apply his ‘concept’ to the understanding of art, he is against a certain kind of artistic theory or external reflection on art. He writes: ‘The right of genius, its works and their effects, have been made to prevail against the presumptions of those legalisms and the watery wastes of theories’, and ‘the mode of reflecting on art, the theorizing we have been considering, has become out of date’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 20–21). It is important for us to avoid external research on art or on literature. That means, we should not apply theories to artworks or literary works externally. But how can we achieve that? Hegel’s Aesthetics is a good demonstration. Based on the absolute and the concept, he clarifies the nature, the aim, and the role of art. Similarly, only from the perspective of the absolute, only by taking the varied phenomena as a whole, can we seek inner connections. Within the perspective of the absolute, nothing is outside, and all are related.

The reason why we should take Hegel’s philosophy as a whole in studying his philosophy of literature also lies in that for Hegel, different disciplines are closely related.Footnote ³⁰ For example, Hegel, in his Aesthetics, emphasizes the importance of imagination or poetic imagination (Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 101). However, relationships between word and intuition, between imagination, representation and thought are also important topics in his philosophy of subjective spirit.Footnote ³¹ Consider another example: appearance (Schein) is an important category in Hegel’s Aesthetics.Footnote ³² It is also an important concept in Hegel’s logic. Hegel holds that appearance is the manifestation of essence, and is inseparable from essence, just like the reality of Idea is inseparable from the concept. Both Hegel’s aesthetics and his logic attach great importance to the relationship between appearance and essence. ‘Appearance-essence’ can act as a paradigm in studying Hegel’s philosophy of literature. In short, the close relationship between different disciplines makes Hegel’s philosophy into a whole and totality, which allows us to find proper concepts and paradigms from his other ‘philosophies’ when we study his philosophy of literature.Footnote ³³

In studying Hegel’s philosophy of literature, not only can we build connections between his Aesthetics and his other philosophies, but we can also combine his thoughts on different artistic forms and individual types of art. For instance, in order to understand modern and contemporary art (romantic art generally), a deep understanding of symbolic art and classical art is important. Some scholars have suggested that the category of sublimity reasserts itself in romantic art although Hegel takes it mainly as one form of symbolic art.Footnote ³⁴ Likewise, taking Hegel’s philosophy of art as a whole, the features of other types of art are also helpful for us to understand literature.Footnote ³⁵ Hegel takes poetry (or literature) as the last type of art and also the highest art. It integrates the features of other types of art into itself. ‘Poetry, the art of speech, is the third term, the totality, which unites in itself, within the province of the spiritual inner life and on a higher level, the two extremes, i.e. the visual arts and music’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 960). One obvious demonstration is that lyric poetry shares many similarities with music in the characteristics of rhythm, rhyme, tone, meter, etc. Also, reading a depiction of beautiful sceneries in literary works is just like seeing pleasant pictures. Therefore, in the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature, we had better take all the artforms and art-types together, because other forms and types of art can contribute to the understanding of literature.

The study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature aims to understand the modern spirit, to address its problems, especially the problem of modern subjectivity, and to see the role literature plays in revealing and addressing this problem. In order to achieve these goals, we need to construct appropriate frameworks or paradigms, composed of key concepts. But how can we do this? Campana’s book is inspirational. His framework of ‘philosophization’-‘poetry’-‘ordinariness’ has its basis in Hegel’s Aesthetics, especially in Hegel’s illustration of romantic art, together with the ‘end of art’ thesis. However, Hegel’s philosophy as a whole is dealing with the modern spirit and its many problems. Other concepts in his logic and in his system of philosophy may also be useful. In the analysis above, I have explained the paradigm of ‘universality-particularity-individuality’ and the paradigm of ‘appearance-essence’. In the following, I want to point out briefly three more paradigms—the ‘inner-outer’, the ‘real-ideal’ and the ‘subjective-objective’ as further proposals for how to study Hegel’s philosophy of literature.

First, the ‘inner-outer’ paradigm can be applied in the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature. Hegel analyses the dialectical relationship between the inner and the outer in the Science of Logic. For him, the inner and the outer are only different in form, but they are identical in content. Moreover, the inner and the outer are united. ‘Thus something which is at first only an inner, is for just that reason only an outer. Or conversely something which is only an outer, is for that reason only an inner’, and ‘each term is immediately its opposite, and each is their common reference to a third or rather to their unity’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and di Giovanni2010b: 461). In Hegel’s Aesthetics, the ‘inner-outer’ paradigm is also applied. Hegel defines ‘artistic beauty as the presentation of the Absolute’ or as ‘the pure appearance of the Idea to sense’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 70, 111). From this definition, we can see the combination of the inner and the outer. In the explication of the development of the three artforms, there is certain indication that the Idea, the spiritual and the content are something inner, while the shape, the sensuous and the form are something outer. Of course, taking artworks as a whole, the distinction of the inner and the outer is sublated. With the above considerations, the ‘inner-outer’ forms a good paradigm, which can be applied to the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature.

Second, we can apply the ‘real-ideal’ paradigm to the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature. For Hegel, the ideal and the real (or idealism and realism) are closely related and cannot be treated separately. When analysing ‘being-for-itself’ (Fürsichsein), Hegel emphasizes the inseparability of the real and the ideal. ‘Reality and ideality are often regarded as a pair of determinations standing over and against one another, each with the same self-standing character, and it is accordingly said that apart from reality there is also an ideality. However, ideality is not something that there is apart from and alongside reality. Rather, the concept of ideality consists expressly in being the truth of reality; that is to say, reality posited as what it is in itself proves to be ideality’ (Hegel Reference Hegel, Brinkmann and Dahlstrom2010a: 153). Hegel believes that ideality and reality can transform from one to the other. He also believes in their identity and unity. In his Philosophy of Nature, Hegel elucidates the relationship between force and its expression, writing that ‘the effect of force is something real, appealing to sense, also that force and its expression have the same content and that the real expression of this force is achieved through the relation of its ideal moments, space and time’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Miller2004a: 42). In Aesthetics, beauty is considered to be ideal or the Ideal. But the Ideal also has its reality or realization, most manifestly in Greek sculpture. In the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature, it would be worthwhile if we adopt the ‘real-ideal’ paradigm to discuss and interpret literary works.

Third, the ‘subjective-objective’ paradigm can provide many insights for the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature as many parts of his philosophical system follow this paradigm. Hegel’s philosophy of spirit is divided into the subjective spirit, the objective spirit, and the absolute spirit (which is the unity of the subjective spirit and the objective spirit). Hegel’s logic is comprised of the objective logic (which includes the Doctrine of Being and the Doctrine of Essence) and the subjective logic (which is the Doctrine of the Concept). In his Aesthetics, especially in the discussion of poetry, comparatively speaking, the three genres—the epic, the lyrical and the dramatic—can be viewed as being objective, subjective and the unity of the subjective and the objective respectively. Moreover, Hegel distinguishes between the subjective humour and the objective humour. Thus, in the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature, the ‘subjective-objective’ paradigm is also conducive to the interpretation of literary works.Footnote ³⁶

After making the above proposals both on the perspective and approach that we need to adopt and on several paradigms that we can follow in the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature, in the rest of this part I want to give some extra comments on the significance of Hegel’s ‘end of art’ thesis and the study of his philosophy of literature.

The ‘end of art’ as a modern phenomenon is not singular. Nowadays, we also talk about the ‘end of religion’, the ‘end of philosophy’, the ‘end of history’, the ‘end of theory’ and many other ‘ends’. ‘End’ comprises the being of humans and modern people are more aware of the ‘end’. In Being and Time, Heidegger makes lots of analyses about ‘being towards death’. We may also refer to it as ‘being towards end’ although ‘end’ does not mean ‘death’. In Hegel’s mind, it is in modern time that spirit is completed and forms a unity and totality.Footnote ³⁷ Although for Hegel, this totality is not a fixed one as absolute spirit is always in activity (elucidated in section III), it shows why end becomes an important issue for modern people. ‘Being towards end’ becomes the way that modern people renew and transform many aspects of their lives. Or we may say that ‘being towards end’ is one important characteristic of modern spirit.Footnote ³⁸ ‘Being towards end’ is also characteristic of literature as it is one form of spirit’s manifestation. Literary phenomena, either ‘philosophical’ or ‘ordinary’, are ways in which the modern spirit reveals itself.

Faced with the ‘end of art’ and the problem of modern subjectivity, what can literature do? The characteristic of modern spirit is its innerness and subjectivity. However, it can lead to problems. As spirit goes towards the inner, it is more and more alienated from the outer. The relationship between the inner and the outer, between the self and the world becomes less certain. The highest aim of spirit is to be free or to be at home with itself. In order to realize this aim, Hegel argues that the subjective and the objective need to be reconciled. The insistence either on subjectivity or on objectivity is one-sided and problematic. Literature is an important way for modern people to recognize these problems and literary works can present us some solutions in dealing with these problems.Footnote ³⁹

It is also worth mentioning that with the ‘end of art’ thesis, Hegel deems that aesthetics or the philosophy of art surpasses art itself and becomes a better way to understand modern spirit and to address its problems. Hegel in his Aesthetics defends the legitimacy of this discipline. Especially, when spirit goes beyond the unity and harmony between the sensible and the spiritual, philosophy generally and philosophy of art particularly are the higher forms for spirit to recognize and know itself. Hegel declares in his Aesthetics, ‘it [art] has lost for us genuine truth and life, and has rather been transferred into our ideas instead of maintaining its earlier necessity in reality and occupying its higher place’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 11). However, philosophy of art is different from philosophy proper. Philosophy of art is also different from art. It is neither pure concepts, pure universals, nor pure experiences. Instead, philosophy of art combines concept with experience. Hegel indicates that the way to deal with philosophy of art is to combine pure theoretical reflection with empirical observation, and to unite ‘metaphysical universality with the precision of real particularity’ (Hegel Reference Hegel and Knox1975: 22). In Hegel’s mind, if art still reveals the modern spirit, as one form of its realization, it is no longer self-explanatory. It needs help from the philosophy of art so that it can be better understood. Similarly, the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature also aims to help people better understand modern spirit and address its problems.

Overall, in section IV, I defend the significance of Hegel’s ‘end of art’ thesis and make several proposals for how to study Hegel’s philosophy of literature. I claim that the significance of the ‘end of art’ thesis lies in its reflection of the problem of modern subjectivity. Literature, as a unique form of art, also reveals this problem and thus helps to solve it. When we study Hegel’s philosophy of art, I suggest that we take Hegel’s philosophy as a totality and adopt the perspective of Hegel’s absolute. Guided by this perspective, in studying Hegel’s philosophy of literature, we can find paradigms and concepts from other disciplines. Moreover, ideas concerning different artistic forms and individual types of art are also helpful. I further point out three paradigms, namely the ‘inner-outer’, the ‘real-ideal’, and the ‘subjective-objective’ as part of the proposals that I make about how to study Hegel’s philosophy of literature. Finally, I argue that ‘being towards end’ is characteristic of modern spirit and also of literature. Based on the above discussions, the study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature is to address the problem of modern subjectivity, with the possible result of reconciling the subjective with the objective, the self with the world.

V. Conclusion

In summary, Campana’s purpose is not to follow Hegel and his philosophy closely. He is trying to apply the Hegelian thought to the analysis of modern and contemporary literature. His work is quite innovative and inspiring. He has constructed a very persuasive framework in understanding the situation of the ‘after-end’ of literature and has also put it into practice. In contrast, the present paper analyses the ‘end of art’ thesis and its significance more from a Hegelian perspective, emphasizing the importance of taking Hegel’s philosophy as a whole and following Hegel’s thought on the absolute. Thus, different from Campana, who takes ‘philosophization’ and ‘ordinariness’ as two poles, I defend their inseparability. Also, taking Hegel’s absolute as the main perspective, I argue that Hegel’s ‘end of art’ thesis lies in its manifestation of the problem of modern subjectivity. Based on the thesis, I further make several proposals for how to study Hegel’s philosophy of literature. Hopefully, the approach and perspective I expound and the proposals I make in this paper can provide insights for the future study of Hegel’s philosophy of literature and for a continuing elucidation of his ‘end of art’ thesis.Footnote ⁴⁰