Extract
[...] Furthermore, Hegel considers the Spirit as present in each element of creation. The Artist has been able to closely reconcile the foundation and the form. At least, he has made a first approach. Role of the Sublime in the emergence of the'isspirit The Art of the Sublime is somehow perceived as an art of negation since it lays the foundations of what must be abolished, rejected, which is why it can be said that it inscribes itself in a certain movement. [...]
[...] Both concepts claim universal validity while remaining subjective. The Beautiful and the Sublime also have a relation to imagination, the power of presentation, and rest on an a priori agreement between the faculties of the mind. While on the other hand,, Kant presents the sublime as an opposition to the beautiful. In fact, while the beautiful produces harmony and a positive vital sentiment, the sublime operates a failure between the imagination and the understanding, since it accords with reason. The sublime proceeds not by attraction as the beautiful does but by repulsion. [...]
[...] It is necessarily thought of as a moment that precedes the beautiful. In relation to artistic beauty, it offers nothing more than excess, nor anything less than an impossible representation of the Spirit. In other words, the Sublime opposes artistic beauty, which is a manifestation of the interiority of the Spirit, thus offering a meaning, a significance to the work, which the Sublime is not capable of doing since it must do violence to the symbol. In short, the Sublime is a specific moment of the negation of Artistic form, in view of the fact that it is an abstract content. [...]
[...] But for Kiefer, the Sublime is built on ruins. It then manifests a Historical conception of the Sublime, which may seem similar to Hegel's idea, offering it a memorial dimension. The Sublime is therefore not a moment to be overcome, but to confront. As a result, it is impossible for the Sublime to reconcile with the Spirit. On the contrary, even in Symbolic Art, Spirit and Sublime are in constant aggression, because the Spirit cannot be content with being a simple illusion. [...]
[...] It is here that Hegel meets Pseudo-Longinus on the idea that there would be a sublime violence. Pseudo-Longinus is a thinker of the first century of our era who applies the Sublime to rhetoric. According to him, the Sublime does not persuade the listener but strikes him head-on through the force of discourse. This conception is not negative in its conception, but necessary for the elevation of the soul. We can therefore make a parallel with Hegel, for whom the sublime is necessary for the elevation of the Spirit since the Sublime is held in the effort, in the search for a more adequate sensory experience to express the Spirit. [...]
