The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays [Paperback]

Hans-Georg Gadamer (Author), Robert Bernasconi (Editor), Nicholas Walker (Translator)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0521339537 | ISBN-13: 978-0521339537 | Publication Date: February 27, 1987

This volume explores some of the more important of Hans-Georg Gadamer's extensive writings on art and literature. The principal text included is 'The Relevance of the Beautiful', Gadamer's most sustained treatment of philosophical aesthetics. The eleven other essays focus particularly on the challenge issued by modern painting and literature to our customary ideas of art, and in turn revitalize our understanding of it. Gadamer demonstrates the continuing importance of such concepts as imitation, truth, symbol, and play for our appreciation of contemporary art, and thereby establishes its continuity with the Western tradition. The essays here are not technical and are readily accessible to the beginning student and the general reader. The collection as a whole serves to illustrate the practice of hermeneutics and to introduce Gadamer's thought. Robert Bernasconi provides an introduction clarifying the central aims of the essays and their relations to Gadamer's major work, Truth and Method, and to the philosophy of art since Kant. A bibliography of Gadamer's writings available in English is also included.

Editorial Reviews

Language Notes

Text: English, German (translation) --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Book Description

Presents for the first time in English the most important of Gadamer's extensive writings on art and literature.

Product Details

• Paperback: 220 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (February 27, 1987)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521339537
• ISBN-13: 978-0521339537
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 6 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #815,077 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Ars Critica, June 30, 2004

By 

M. Willett "Mischa" (Seattle, WA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays (Paperback)

In The Relevance of the Beautiful, Gadamer hopes to justify the ways of art to modern man. He's answering Plato's banishment of the poets in The Republic, and every other such banishment, including Hegel's, who claimed that "art is a thing of the past" on the grounds that art re-establishes our sense of transcendence and order, that it "bridges the chasm between the ideal and the real," establishes our sense of "play," and otherwise enlarges our experience of life, communally, spiritually, culturally, and individually. It teaches us to go beyond ourselves. German philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, famed student of Heidegger and author of the seminal Truth and Method, offers this phenomenological defense. As translated by Robert Bernasconi, Gadamer writes such a poetic and aphoristic prose that anyone with a moderate background in the arts can read it, as well as philosophers, artists, and critics. This essay is useful for a number of reasons: it gives articulate defenses-or condemnations-of translation, modern music (both pop and experimental), kitch, religious art, and historical painting. It is further particularly useful to me in that the grounds on which he makes many of his defenses mirror those of P.B. Shelley in "A Defense of Poetry."

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The hermeneutic circle explains how art can be `world disclosive', December 21, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays (Paperback)

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. The relationship that people have with language is an idea that philosophers who study "hermeneutical aesthetics" such as Hans-Georg Gadamer, have been exploring for decades. Gadamer, who was a student of Martin Heidegger, defines Hermeneutical aesthetics as not a theory of art per se, but more a set of practical guideposts for enhancing one's encounter with art. The goal of hermeneutical aesthetics is not to arrive at a concept of art but to deepen our experience of art. In hermeneutical aesthetics, theory is deployed to deepen contemplation of artworks by the audience rather than to categorize their nature. Thus, in the artform of literature, Gadamer's commitment to the linguistic nature of understanding also commits him to the view of understanding as essentially a matter of conceptual articulation between the author and the reader. This does not rule out the possibility of other modes of understanding, but it does give primacy to language and conceptuality in hermeneutic experience.

Thus, Gadamer in his essay "On the Contribution of Poetry to the Search for Truth" in his book "The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays," agrees with Wimsatt and Beardsley who created the "Intentional Fallacy" notion that the "success" of a literary text is not to be found in the author's intent or motivations, but what has been communicated in the text itself. For Gadamer, a successful text has to answer the same question as any other form of communication. Is it successful in conveying "...the universal nature of all speech--namely, the fact that what the word evokes is there." For example, Gadamer in his essay "Composition and Interpretation" makes a hermeneutic distinction between the linguistic characteristic traits of people speaking to one another and what he calls "the experience of poetry," which he believes has its own "language." In regards to poetic language, Gadamer argues that when young lovers write poems we all understand that there are powerful emotional forces behind the intent of the poem and we do not have to ask about the author's intentions and motivations behind her verse. However, in regards to serious poetry, Gadamer argues that the reader does not question to whom or why the author is communicating. "The poem does not stand before us as a thing that someone employs to tell us something. It stands there equally independent of both the reader and poet. Detached from all intending, the word is complete in itself." Furthermore, Gadamer uses a unique argument for the importance of interpretation over authorial intent by hypothesizing that literary composition has a closer relationship with the practice of interpretation than any other artistic medium. "As far as poetry and poetic composition are concerned, it is not uncommon to find the practice of interpretation and artistic creation united in one and the same individual." One prominent poet that fits Gadamer's observation is the post-modernist poet T. S. Eliot, who wrote on literary interpretation and is mentioned by Wimsatt, Beardsley, and E. D. Hirsch in their writings. I find that Gadamer's reason for this argument makes perfect sense. He observes that both literary composition and interpretation are closely linked because the medium they both use is language. However, in my opinion, the important point that brings him, closer to Hirsch's notion of the relationship of meaning and significance to the reader is how Gadamer acknowledges that there is a forceful difference in the everyday language of interpretation, and the rarified language many author's use in poetic compositions which serve more as "signs" to understanding. However, when it comes to examining the more ordinary form of language used by authors in novels, Gadamer notes that an author must acknowledge that a "common link" exists between composition and interpretation.

Using language that sounds similar to Hirsch's distinction between meaning and significance, Gadamer recognizes there are two different paths interpretation can lead readers on. First is the path of pointing to something, and second is the path of pointing towards the meaning of something. "`Pointing to something' is a kind of `indicating' that functions as a sign. `Pointing out what something means,' on the other hand, always relates back to the kind of sign that interprets itself. Thus when we interpret the meaning of something, we actually interpret an interpretation." For example, when a text, especially a poem, uses such metaphoric "imagery" as dreams, waterfalls, premonitions, etc., an interpreter can only use interpretation as a tool to "pointing to something." These images are too ambiguous for an interpreter to interpret definitively what the images actually mean.

However, it is important to note that Gadamer, Wimsatt, Beardsley, and Hirsch, all correctly find that interpretation in Gadamer's sense is really only necessary when the text does not clearly communicate its meaning. Gadamer's argument for the rightful place of interpretation, especially when dealing with a text full of ambiguous language and "imagery," essentially agrees with Wimsatt and Beardsley's notion that it does not matter what an author means, only what a text says. Thus, Gadamer concludes, "All interpretation of poetic language only interprets what the poetry has already interpreted. What poetry interprets for us and points to is not of course the same as what the poet intends. What the poet intends is in no way superior to what anyone else intends." I find Gadamer's conclusion a bit dismissive in its assertion that the poet's intentions are not superior to anyone else's. The vast majority of the public that reads poetry and literature does so in order to be entertained and or to try to understand and deduce the author's meaning and emotions, and not to just see what emotion the work invokes in them.

However, I must say that Gadamer's hermeneutical circle methodology is pure genius, to learn more about it you must read his book "Truth and Method." The hermeneutic circle methodology of taking into account the artist, artwork, audience, artworld institution, history, and what he calls the "cultural horizon" interacting in a circular tension is the closest anyone has truly come to defining the age old question of what is art. As Heidegger would say, the hermeneutic circle explains how art can be "world disclosive."

I recommend this work for anyone interested in philosophy, philosophy of art, hermeneutics, and textual criticism.

5.0 out of 5 stars The hermeneutic circle explains how art can be `world disclosive', December 21, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: THE RELEVANCE OF THE BEAUTIFUL and Other Essays (Paperback)

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. The relationship that people have with language is an idea that philosophers who study "hermeneutical aesthetics" such as Hans-Georg Gadamer, have been exploring for decades. Gadamer, who was a student of Martin Heidegger, defines Hermeneutical aesthetics as not a theory of art per se, but more a set of practical guideposts for enhancing one's encounter with art. The goal of hermeneutical aesthetics is not to arrive at a concept of art but to deepen our experience of art. In hermeneutical aesthetics, theory is deployed to deepen contemplation of artworks by the audience rather than to categorize their nature. Thus, in the artform of literature, Gadamer's commitment to the linguistic nature of understanding also commits him to the view of understanding as essentially a matter of conceptual articulation between the author and the reader. This does not rule out the possibility of other modes of understanding, but it does give primacy to language and conceptuality in hermeneutic experience.

Thus, Gadamer in his essay "On the Contribution of Poetry to the Search for Truth" in his book "The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays," agrees with Wimsatt and Beardsley who created the "Intentional Fallacy" notion that the "success" of a literary text is not to be found in the author's intent or motivations, but what has been communicated in the text itself. For Gadamer, a successful text has to answer the same question as any other form of communication. Is it successful in conveying "...the universal nature of all speech--namely, the fact that what the word evokes is there." For example, Gadamer in his essay "Composition and Interpretation" makes a hermeneutic distinction between the linguistic characteristic traits of people speaking to one another and what he calls "the experience of poetry," which he believes has its own "language." In regards to poetic language, Gadamer argues that when young lovers write poems we all understand that there are powerful emotional forces behind the intent of the poem and we do not have to ask about the author's intentions and motivations behind her verse. However, in regards to serious poetry, Gadamer argues that the reader does not question to whom or why the author is communicating. "The poem does not stand before us as a thing that someone employs to tell us something. It stands there equally independent of both the reader and poet. Detached from all intending, the word is complete in itself." Furthermore, Gadamer uses a unique argument for the importance of interpretation over authorial intent by hypothesizing that literary composition has a closer relationship with the practice of interpretation than any other artistic medium. "As far as poetry and poetic composition are concerned, it is not uncommon to find the practice of interpretation and artistic creation united in one and the same individual." One prominent poet that fits Gadamer's observation is the post-modernist poet T. S. Eliot, who wrote on literary interpretation and is mentioned by Wimsatt, Beardsley, and E. D. Hirsch in their writings. I find that Gadamer's reason for this argument makes perfect sense. He observes that both literary composition and interpretation are closely linked because the medium they both use is language. However, in my opinion, the important point that brings him, closer to Hirsch's notion of the relationship of meaning and significance to the reader is how Gadamer acknowledges that there is a forceful difference in the everyday language of interpretation, and the rarified language many author's use in poetic compositions which serve more as "signs" to understanding. However, when it comes to examining the more ordinary form of language used by authors in novels, Gadamer notes that an author must acknowledge that a "common link" exists between composition and interpretation.

Using language that sounds similar to Hirsch's distinction between meaning and significance, Gadamer recognizes there are two different paths interpretation can lead readers on. First is the path of pointing to something, and second is the path of pointing towards the meaning of something. "`Pointing to something' is a kind of `indicating' that functions as a sign. `Pointing out what something means,' on the other hand, always relates back to the kind of sign that interprets itself. Thus when we interpret the meaning of something, we actually interpret an interpretation." For example, when a text, especially a poem, uses such metaphoric "imagery" as dreams, waterfalls, premonitions, etc., an interpreter can only use interpretation as a tool to "pointing to something." These images are too ambiguous for an interpreter to interpret definitively what the images actually mean.

However, it is important to note that Gadamer, Wimsatt, Beardsley, and Hirsch, all correctly find that interpretation in Gadamer's sense is really only necessary when the text does not clearly communicate its meaning. Gadamer's argument for the rightful place of interpretation, especially when dealing with a text full of ambiguous language and "imagery," essentially agrees with Wimsatt and Beardsley's notion that it does not matter what an author means, only what a text says. Thus, Gadamer concludes, "All interpretation of poetic language only interprets what the poetry has already interpreted. What poetry interprets for us and points to is not of course the same as what the poet intends. What the poet intends is in no way superior to what anyone else intends." I find Gadamer's conclusion a bit dismissive in its assertion that the poet's intentions are not superior to anyone else's. The vast majority of the public that reads poetry and literature does so in order to be entertained and or to try to understand and deduce the author's meaning and emotions, and not to just see what emotion the work invokes in them.

However, I must say that Gadamer's hermeneutical circle methodology is pure genius, to learn more about it you must read his book "Truth and Method." The hermeneutic circle methodology of taking into account the artist, artwork, audience, artworld institution, history, and what he calls the "cultural horizon" interacting in a circular tension is the closest anyone has truly come to defining the age old question of what is art. As Heidegger would say, the hermeneutic circle explains how art can be "world disclosive."

I recommend this work for anyone interested in philosophy, philosophy of art, hermeneutics, and textual criticism.