Sculpture, Embodiment, and History: Reassessing Hegel and Winckelmann

One might get the impression from writing in contemporary aesthetics that sculpture and the distinctive philosophical questions it raises have received scant attention. This was not, however, always the case. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, sculpture was seen as key to a philosophical understanding of art. A point in case is Hegel’s position. As Hegel argues, sculpture is not simply one art form among many. It holds a privileged place in that it showcases the very essence of art. In developing this argument, Hegel is often seen to lean on Winckelmann and his cultivation of classical sculpture. However, Winckelmann’s influence on Hegel has often been misunderstood. Winckelmann does not support a naïve classicist view of ancient sculpture. Instead, he sees sculpture as the art of embodiment and views this embodiment in historical terms. Hegel, in turn, takes over and further develops each of these arguments. This aspect of Winckelmann’s philosophy of art—and, for that sake, of Hegel’s—is of fundamental importance for our understanding of nineteenth-century aesthetics, whether in respect to its development, systematic commitments, or its relevance today.