Has the relation between philosophy and the arts (especially poetry) changed at all since the romantic era?


Of course it has, but not in some clear, fundamental shift. Aesthetics first became a central topic for philosophy with Kant, and shortly thereafter Hegel correctly diagnosed its "death."

By this Hegel did not mean that art would cease to be made and enjoyed. But it could no longer serve as the basis of human development in the Greek or Christian manner, a centrality henceforth to reside in the modern constitutional state, civil society, and the philosophies that rationalize them.

And whither art? While "art" appears more visible than ever, it requires ever more mediation through "theory" or the market to retain a social vitality. It dissolves on the one side into high "concept" and on the other into low, mass "commodity," where it is subjected to critical and sociological theories of commodification, etc.

In general, art became subsumed under "language" in philosophical practices. On the analytical side, art per se no longer held much philosophical interest, with exceptions like Nelson Goodman or Arthur Danto. On the Continental side in the wake of phenomenology, Heidegger essentially dissolved philosophy itself into poetic description. After all, if there is no "real substance" beyond the subject-centered phenomena for philosophy to explicate, then what is philosophy except "redescription"?

There is a great deal of very interesting philosophical work on art, high and low. It continues to be a "topic" for philosophy and critical theory. But the higher hopes for a redeeming aesthetic expressed by Schelling or even the young Hegel in "The Oldest System Programme" appear today the both quaint and tragic.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    i voted down because while the answer showed enough research to answer the question, you excused yourself from speaking clearly about anything. i'm not asking for a definitive answer, but this wasn't a reference request and anyway you provide no references. edit and answer as you see fit. at least cut out the cute shakespeare puns – user6917 Sep 14 '15 at 17:38
  • 1
    Don't grasp the objection, but I am new to the format. I consider a mini-history of art-philosophy relations since German Idealism to be a rather direct answer, though off the top of my head. I answered "yes," then gave a trajectory, with brief specifics. The question is historical, after all, not to mention extremely broad. I cannot quite picture a "technical" answer. Since everyone I cite is well known, including the "System Programme" general references are easily googled. I will delete "cute" pun, though I prefer them to emoticons. And I will refer back to the guidelines. – Nelson Alexander Sep 14 '15 at 18:18
  • 2
    Revised answer as footnote: During the Romantic Era it was widely hoped, at least among German Idealists (Schelling, Holderlin, early Hegel) that a universal aesthetics might provide a replacement for the moral values subverted by science, agnosticism, and skepticism. The centrality of art for philosophy has generally declined since that time, especially in the Anglo-American lineage, where art and "value" issues are considered a more suitable topic for psychology. – Nelson Alexander Sep 14 '15 at 18:33
  • hi thanks for the comment, sorry if over-reacted to the puns hah. i would revise the question to be more specifically about modernism, and poetry (which seems less concerned with conceptual art) but that probably wouldn't be well received. thanks – user6917 Sep 15 '15 at 19:10
  • @mathematician: it's actually a very good answer. – Mozibur Ullah Sep 16 '15 at 12:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy