INTRODUCTORY LECTURES ON AESTHETICS

This book presents the text with a great introduction and a superb appendix, thus making the book half text and half commentary ... perfect for the student. this text might be a nice way to slide into Hegel. Plus, Penguin Books smell so nice. Hegel's Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics is a treasure. My only reservation is the double set of Commentaries and especially the complex way the are numbered and organized which make their use cumbersome. If you add the price and the very challenging cover illustration (it alone requires a special commentary) this book is a genuine gem.

Not much to say hence it is just a handbook with limited content

Book is good but the print quality is not what you would expect from Penguin....It might be some duplicate copy of that book....

This is a great book for those who wants sail the boat of aesthetics...In introduction there are different essays which makes you prepare for lectures and after that commentary section is as good as former...

Good

I find Bosanquet's trans. generally fluid yet clear (caveat: I have no direct comparison with other trans.). Inwood's commentary is very helpful; so is, generally, his introduction, though the beginning is a little off-putting. "Hegel was born in... the duchy of Wuerttemberg, one of the many small states into which Germany was then divided. Germany was not divided; it did not exist as a political entity. The political entity Inwood is referring to is called the Holy Roman Empire (abbreviated as HRR in German), the most important political structure in Europe for 800 years, for those who have not noticed, and if one wants to gain an understanding of Hegel's context, it does pay to spell it out (I once saw an English history book that mentioned the HRR once (!), and that was in the context of Charlemagne's empire, which actually preceded the HRR; the fog over the English Channel is often extremely dense indeed). Now, that entity did not only include "small states," but also sizeable ones, including the Habsburg Lands and Prussia, whose populations (counting only the population within the boundaries of the HRR) equalled or exceeded Britain's. "Until fairly late in the eighteenth century," continues Inwood, "Germany had no literature comparable to those of France, England and Italy." It is true that, since there was no German nation state, there was also no "national" language, for while the protestant states had largely adopted Luther's German as standard, the catholic ones, i.e., about half of the HRR, had not, and to this day Austria, Bavaria, Swabia have to a degree kept distinct dialects alive), and some writers may have written in Latin (the language of the university) or French (the language of the courts). But in fact the HRR at that time had a very rich literature, and increasingly one produced in an increasingly standardised "high" German--and it pays to understand that during or just before Hegel's childhood in the 1770s the likes of Winckelmann, Hamann, Lichtenberg, Lessing, Wieland, Sophie de la Roche, Herder, Klopstock, Lavater, Lenz, Jung-Stilling, and yes, Goethe and the Sturm und Drang, were all flourishing, producing what may well have been the most diverse, novel and exciting literature on this planet at that time. By 1800, about fifty-five, which is roughly one in four of all of Europe's universities, where located in the HRR (Britain, by comparison, had about seven). Does anyone think that these fifty-five universities did not produce literature (in the broader sense)? Sure, they didn't produce novels or poems, but they produced a spectacular amount of academic literature across disciplines, and towards the end of the 18th century, they did so increasingly in the German language. Why am I saying all this? Because Inwood gives one the impression that before Goethe came along there was "no literature comparable to those of France, England and Italy"--whereas, all considered, the statement probably deserves to be turned on its head: "no other country at that time had a literature comparable with that produced in the HRR." Goethe, thus, did not come out of nowhere: he stood on the shoulders of giants; he also had ample competition (and while it is conventional nowadays in Germany to refer to this period as the "Age of Goethe," is is worthwhile keeping in mind that it is also the "Age of Lessing, Kant, Wieland, Herder, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schiller, Kleist," not to mention the Romantics and tons of lesser figures; in the 19th century, for example, Schiller was generally held in higher regard than Goethe, although Nietzsche thought otherwise). All of this should put into perspective Inwood's next statement: "By the time of Hegel's death [1831] it [Germany] had a great national literature." Inwood appears to be astounded by this, because he looks at literature through the lens of the nation state. This may work for Britain and France, but not for Italy or Germany, not even by 1831. It is true that the French Revolution and especially the Napoleonic Wars forged, for the first time, something like a German national consciousness, and with it something like a national(istic) literature, and that the major philosophical and literary currents of the late 18th/early 19th century, including Idealism and Romanticism, were in part propagated by the political context, but a German nation state in the modern sense did not arise till 1871, and perhaps not even then (because Austria and Tyrol, as well as the Deutschschweiz, did not join). At any rate, Hegel's philosophy did not depend on a German nation state or a national German literature, though it was certainly caught up in the political movements of its, day, but it was grounded in the extremely rich literary context of the late-18th and early 19th century HRR (till 1806; from 1815 the German Confederation). Next, Inwood claims that "the greatest artistic achievements of the period were in music." That may be his personal opinion; but in the early 19th century the expression "Land of the poets and thinkers" was coined and Germans today still occasionally (if not entirely seriously) refer to it--not "Land of composers." Inwood is entitled to his opinion (he does acknowledge that Hegel, like the Romantics, regarded literature or poetry as the supreme art, but of course that is also only an opinion), but it is useful to understand that probably scarcely anybody in Germany in Hegel's day would have agreed with him--and to this day, in Germany, the period is known that "the Age of Goethe," and not as the "Age of Mozart" or the "Age of Beethoven." Inwood's view may be conventional in Britain, but that may have more to do with language than anything else: music needs no translation. The English are not fond of studying foreign languages (and if they do, they study French), so they missing out on what may well be the richest literature in any language; and they do not practice philosophy much (outside the narrow confines of logic, and may not appreciate what it meant to have had Kleist, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel in quick succession (soon to be followed by Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche). It is like having had Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and Schroedinger in quick succession, if that rings a bell.

I am not an academic, but the title intrigued me, not difficult to read and I certainly learned a great deal.

El libro es lo que solicité, llegó antes de lo acordado, el servicio al cliente es de excelente calidad.

Sanat tarihi ile ilgileniyorsanız ve sanatın imgelerden ibaret olmadığını insanoğlunun inanç ile beraber hayatın anlamını aradığı temel olgulardan biri olduğunu düşünüyorsanız bu kitabı okumanız gerekir.Hegel her ne kadar türkçede okunması zor bir felsefeci olsada ingilizcede bu durumun geçerli olmadığı düşüncesindeyim.Kitap Sanatın insan ruhunun ve evrenin ve her şeyin kaynağı olarak tanımlanan mutlak tinin (Geist) bir ifadesi olduğunu anlatıyor. Mutlak Tin, soyut bir kavramdan öte, kendi kendini açığa çıkaran ve evrimleşen dinamik bir varlık ve estetik, sanatın güzellik kavramıyla olan ilişkisini ve sanat eserlerinin nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini bu bağlamda izah ediyor..Dahası Hegel'e göre, Mutlak Tin'i anlamak için sanat, felsefe ve din gibi tinsel alanları incelemek gerektiğini, Bu alanlar, tinin özünü ve evrendeki yerini kavramamıza yardımcı olduğunun altını çiziyor..Hegel'in estetiği her ne kadar karmaşık ve zorlayıcı bir konu gibi görünsede ,sanatın felsefi boyutuna önemli bir temel oluşturuyor ve sanatın insan yaşamındaki rolünü anlamamıza yardımcı oluyor.

Hegel believes that Fine Art reveals and reflects the Absolute Truth i.e. God. Art is the highest mind made manifest and instructs and raises other minds to greater consciousness of itself. Art is essential for life, since life's goal is the realization of maximum consciousness of oneself (One's mind) and God. Art is therefore a spiritual endeavor, since mind is spiritual. Art reveals the same thing that religion and philosophy reveal yet in a different and sensual way. Art is an end in itself, and IS what it REVEALS, and cannot be substituted by other means even though religion and philosophy reveal the same thing the method of its manifestation being different creates a different effect on the receiver/viewer. History of art studies and art historians know nothing of this true significance of Art. This edition comes with very copious notes and commentaries equal in length to the text by Hegel himself (ca. 95 pages of notes). They are in a very clear style similar in style to the test, written by Trinity College Fellow (Oxford) and Hegel scholar Michael Inwood. This work is ESSENTIAL for any understanding of what Art is. The full lectures are available from Oxford University Press in the translation by Knox at quite a high price.