>Art no longer affords the satisfaction of spiritual needs which earlier ages and nations sought in it, and found in it alone... Art, considered in its highest vocation is and remains for us a thing of the past .... [It] invites us to intellectual consideration, and that not for the purpose of creating art again, but for knowing philosophically what art is.
What did he mean by this?
>>9636724
Visit a contemporary art gallery and it might give you a hint.
he was logocentric, so in his model ambiguous poetic worldviews could only exist where reason hasnt made the world prosaic yet through discovery of logos.
he did predict an autonomous modernist play with material with bizzarre new shapes and antilogocentric textures, but he didnt count it among real art anymore because it wouldnt express logos through human intuition.
Hegel thought Art is just the first step of getting to the idea/absolute (Art - represantation of the idea)
after that comes religion where you already imagine the absolute but as something extern i.e. God (religion - imagination)
then comes philosophy where the absolute spirit is in conversation with itsel (philosophy - absolute spirit becomes self-conscious)
In Art itself Hegels makes also this kind of 3-step dialectic with symbolic - classic - romantic Art
Symbolic - Egyptians
Classic - Greeks
Romantic - German romanticism (I think there is a section in his aesthetics where talks extensivly about Goethe and Schiller)
to really get this concept you have to engage in/know Art/poetry of the german golden Age
but Hegel doesnt want to predict the future or something he knows himself that you can't step on your own shoulders so to say
but seeing how art developed after his lifetime I think he might have had a point with his statement
he doesn't say however that art just stops or dies but that it can't fullfill the ontological function it had before because spirit has already ascendet higher steps of self-consciousnes