The Philosophy of Architecture or Architecture as Philosophy in Hegel’s Lectures on Fine

Art.

There seems to be a discomfort every time the philosopher encounters the question of Commented [MA1]: ? Hegel? Or Philosophy as a discipline?

architecture. Architecture seems to move always in ambiguous zones, in in-between spaces,

difficult to define and classify. (If it is not a total disregard, then it is ambiguous. Examples: kant,
schopenhauer, heidegger). Should we understand the architectural object in its sheer functionality
or use? Should we understand it as a form of art within the tradition of aesthetics? And, assuming
the last one, doesn’t its own functionality blur the idea of a pure artistic form?. Commented [MA2]: Aquí podría traer la clasificación
clásica de Kant que divide por ejemplo lo útil de lo bello…
etc…
But tThen again, it also seems difficult to put architecture in connection and dialogue with other Commented [MA3]: Párrafo distinto, el otro lado del
asunto… explicar con más detalle tanto en el párrafo
forms of art. Architecture seems to be an uncomfortable place for the philosopher. anterior como en este los elementos que hacen a la
arquitectura inclasificable… etc…
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
In this research I will argue that architecture poses a paradoxical situation within Hegel’s system.
Commented [MA4]: Esto es chévere pero le toca hacer
i) By inhabiting an in-between position difficult to categorize, namely, ad. Architecture is not yet más trabajo aquī, dar más contexto, etc…
art but is not anymoreno longer sheer unconscious Nature. Commented [MA5]: Antes de este párrafo le toca escribir
uno en el que ubica las cosas dichas anteriormente pero
específicamente en el caso de Hegel… primero a grandes
rasgos… contando primero que es arte para Hegel y por que
ii) By inaugurating the movement of negativity within the system while being the most la arquitectura lo es… para luego sí entrar en los detalles
grounded/stable of all forms of art. As a threshold between nature and the spirit, architecture gives que expone usted a continuación. Comience primero
diciéndole a su lector que Hegel incluye a la arquitectura
birth to the movement that will remain present throughout every moment of the Spirit as a como un arte… pero solo como su comienzo… cuéntenos en
dónde aparece y qué dice Hegel al respecto… etc… y ahí sí
necessary condition for its development and its becoming self-explicit. Architecture, as the birth puede moverse a lo que sigue.
of the absolute spirit, that is to say, as the birth of Philosophy, will not only determine and dictate Commented [MA6]: Explicar… con. Muuuuuucho más
detalle, traer citas… etc.
its destiny, will constitute its own destiny.
Commented [MA7]: Necesito una explicación bien
detallada de a qué se refiere con esto.

For Hegel architecture is the beginning of art. Let us remember that Hegel’s analysis of art in the Commented [MA8]: Chevere.

Lectures on Fine Art is twofold: On the one hand, it examines the inner development of the Idea Commented [MA9]: Pilas… no es lo mismo… tiene que
tener cuidado y explicar…
of art––which is only an Idea by making itself explicit in its own activity––that gives place to “the Commented [MA10]: Todo esto super bonito e interesante
particular forms of art” or “the concrete determinations of the Idea of Art”: symbolic, classic, and pero le toca explicarlo.

romantic. On the other hand, however, Hegel is also concerned with the historical representation
of art. The particular forms of art coincide with a concrete historical materialization, a succession
of different forms: architecture, sculpture, painting, music and poetry. That is why we can find in
each particular form of art an exemplary materialization and, simultaneously, find these different
concrete materializations throughout the three moments of the particular forms of art. For
instance, what Hegel calls the “proper symbolic” form of art, coincides historically with the
Egyptian pyramids, that is to say, with architecture. But, at the same time, one can find examples Commented [MA11]: Tiene que ir mas lento con todo
esto… El arte simbolico encuentra su expresion mas
of architecture in both classic and romantic moments. acabada en la arquitectura… no es lo mismo que “coincidir”
The movement of the Idea of art, whose first materialized stage is architecture, is prompted con la arquitectura como arte. Vaya despacio, explique, cite.
Commented [MA12]: Claro, pore so hay que explicar mejor
by the search of adequacy between shape [Gestält] and meaning [Bedeutung]. In Hegel words: lo anterior.
“symbolic art seeks perfect unity of inner meaning and external shape which classical art finds in
the presentation of substantial individuality to sensuous contemplation, and which romantic art
transcends in its superior spirituality” (Lectures 302 my emphasis). This search of unity between
external shape and inner meaning staged by architecture is, however, not a harmonious
encounter. On the contrary, it is a battle: “it is in general a battle between the content which still
resists true art and the form which is not homogeneous with that content either” (Lectures 317).
And it is precisely the structure of the symbol itself what carries the antagonism of the battle
between shape and meaning. Commented [MA13]: Bien pero todo esto necesita mucho
mas contexto. Mas explicacion.

Architecture is thenceforth the first moment as it coincides with the birth of symbolic art. Commented [MA14]: Of what…

And yet Hegel seems to be always cautious about architecture as he refuses to call it true art (cf. Commented [MA15]: Y esta idea del beginning of birth
merece explicación tb… puede contarnos un poco más eso
Lectures 317). As the beginning of art, architecture seems to have some artistic features, but this que significa en las lecciones de estética?
is not yet enough to call it properly true art. In other words, a building is not yet the Spirit but is no
longer Nature; architecture, he says, is pre-art (Vorkunst)1. The symbolic form of art, and Commented [MA16]: El arte simbolico pasa por muchas
etapas incluyendo lo sublime, que es su mas clara expresión
accordingly architecture, “constitutes the beginning of art, alike in its essential nature [in its y Hegel asocia con la poesía… asi que todas estas
clasificaciones hay que hacerlas con mas cuidado…
Concept] and its historical appearance [dem Begriffe wie der historischen Erscheinung], and is
therefore to be considered only, as it were, as the threshold [Vorkunst] of art” (Lectures 303). It is
not yet art because art requires the adequacy of a shape or expression, with a meaning or Idea
(cf. Lectures 305) that only truly arrives in the classic form, but it is not anymoreno longer sheer
unconscious Nature. The importance of architecture lies in that it disrupts the initial non-
differentiated harmony of the subject and her exteriority, ie. Nature. As a symbol, architecture Commented [MA17]: Explicar con muuuucho mas detalle.

triggers the dialectical movement of art, it introduces the negativity that gives birth to art. In other Commented [MA18]: Explicar.

words, it is the negativity that takes place in the process of the idea determining itself; for, as is Commented [MA19]: Explicar.

well known, “every determining is inherent differentiation” and a process of negativity. Commented [MA20]: Really? No señora… esto no vale en
una tesis… nada is well known… usted lo explica TODO. Y
con detalle!
But even if architecture cannot be called yet the Spirit, it is, nonetheless, its birth. Let us remember
that fFor Hegel architecture is the first moment of art and art is, in turn, the first moment of the

1 The English translation uses the word threshold instead of pre-art. Even though this
translation seems to be more interesting for the purpose of project, it is not accurate 
Absolute Spirit, before religion and philosophy. Architecture is then the beginning of the beginning
of the Absolute Spirit, which final stage is philosophy2. What does it mean that architecture is Commented [MA21]: Aquí hay que decir mas acerca de
esta relación y como usted propone leerla.
then the first moment that leads towards philosophy? As we know, for Hegel the beginning already
Commented [MA22]: Y esta parece ser otra pregunta bien
contains all of its moments although still in pure abstraction. The beginning might lack distinta a las que viene exponiendo aqui… como otro nivel
distinto de la tesis. Separe y explique con calma
concreteness, but has already its destiny given. In this sense, it seems accurate to read Hegel’s
Commented [MA23]: No, we don’t know… and you need
philosophy in the light of the tragic form3: We, the readers, know the destiny of the Spirit, but the to explain us why and how… every time!
Spirit itself is not aware yet of what is to come even if everything that is itself is already contained Commented [MA24]: Why? What do you mean here by
destiny? Where are you taking this word from? Hegel?
in his present, and therefore also in its past. But let us go back to the initial question, what does Where?
it mean that architecture is the first moment or the birth of philosophy? What are the implications Commented [MA25]: All of it? His lectures on aesthetics?
“In this sense”… is not accurate, it does not follow from
of this anteriority in a system like Hegel’s (circular, not vicious but productive circle, Heidegger)? what you have been saying.
Should we say then that philosophy is the destiny of architecture, or can we say that architecture Commented [MA26]: You mean in the Phenomenology? Be
careful!
is, in fact, the destiny of philosophy?
Commented [MA27]: Is the spirit masculine? Will you let it
How can architecture be the destiny of philosophy while being its birth? be masculine in your dissertation?
Commented [MA28]: Re bonitas estas preguntas… pero le
falta toda la carne para darles sentido… y mucho trabajo
Tentative text structure. que no veo aquí reflejado MV.
1- Nature and architecture:
1.1. Nature, space. Hegel’s definition of space: the point, the line, the plane, the Commented [MA29]: You have not told us anything about
this so far… include it above…
geometrical body. how architecture appears in this?
How space is the first difference within nature? Commented [MA30]: Super Buena pregunta. !

1.2. Place. Space + Time. How architecture appears in place? Place is by virtude
of architecture. The first place. It takes place. It comes to be place for the first
time in its concreteness.
a. The step away from nature. How architecture interrupts the cyclical processes of
nature. With architecture, but more precisely funerary architecture ––the pyramids
is the example used by Hegel––, the spirit erects itself as freed from the cyclical
process of Nature. It stops that cycle by making present death, by
“commemorating’ death and taking it away from the undifferentiated cycle of
nature.
- Antigone in the Phenomenology. Commented [MA31]: Buenisimo…. Pero entonces mas info
arriba de esto como se va a ver en su Proyecto… al menos
2- Memory and architecture. en forma de preguntas.
2.1. the memory of the spirit is art. Angelica Nuzzo.

2 how to understand the system? An interpretation that does not imply a progression that
pursues a final closure. Circular reading of the system?
3 Speight reading of Hegel.
 2.2. How memory becomes spatial. The memory of the spirit is always spatial and it
moves from the abstraction into the concreteness of spatiality.
3- History, memory and philosophy.
3.1. The concreteness of the spirit in space. The possibility of philosophy thanks to
space.
3.2. A spatial understanding of history. Philosophy as always located historically.
History takes form in space.
4- I am challenging one the most common interpretations of Hegel’s philosophy that
understands philosophy as pure thought thinking itself. Philosophy is in fact thought
thinking itself but historically determined, that is to say in place rather than purely
temporarily determined. Commented [MA32]: El outline esta muy Bueno pero no se
de donde viene… nada de lo que usted dice antes me ubica
en estas clasificaciones de su tesis ni por que va a avanzar
en esta forma y no de otra manera.