Saturday, February 16, 2008

Marxism and Art

KOREA COLUMN 34

Marxism and Art

What Marxism has to say about art (by which I mean all the creative arts i.e. music, literature, painting, sculpture, photography, film, drama, dance and so on) is limited but important.

It is limited in that Marxism does not offer, and should not try to offer, any prescriptions or instructions as to how artists should make their art. There is no ‘Marxist’ way to write poetry, or paint, or play the trumpet or compose symphonies, any more than there is a Marxist method of mechanical engineering, playing chess or doing the high jump. (Marx himself wrote some poetry when he was young, but it wasn’t very good and he soon gave it up). Marxism does not require that artists tackle certain themes e.g. class, war or revolution, rather than others such as sex, dreams or religion, or even that art be overtly political or committed.

Nor does Marxism provide a set of ready made political or ideological criteria for the evaluation of art. Mao Ze Dong was a poet as well as leader of the Chinese Revolution , but his merits as a poet are not determined by his merits or lack of them as a revolutionary or ruler of China. A Marxist who argues that T.S. Eliot was a bad poet because he was a reactionary (he was very reactionary) or that Diego Rivera was a greater painter than Picasso because he was more left wing, is not being a Marxist in his or her approach to art. Marx (and Engels) preferred the reactionary pro-aristocratic novelist, Balzac, to the progressive Zola, because he thought Balzac was a better writer who provided a fuller and more insightful picture of French society. The standpoint of Marxism, as Trotsky insisted in his debates over literature and art with the Stalinists, requires that art be judged as art.

What Marxism does do, however, is provide: a) a unique appreciation and understanding of the overall importance of art in individual and collective human development; b) the best analytical method for grasping the course of art and cultural history as a whole; c) an extremely useful standpoint for the analysis of the meaning and significance of individual works of art.

None of the great Marxists ever suggested that either individual works of art or art in general played a key role in determining the outbreak or outcome of revolutions. Nonetheless, they all took a serious interest in art and clearly felt informed and sustained by it. In this respect art seems to operate in a manner closer to medicine or nutritious food than to political action. Also the fact that art has existed in every known society in the history of the world reinforces the case for its social necessity. Marxism enables us to understand this.

For Marxism, creative labour is the essence of becoming and being human. Human beings are animals who have made themselves into more than animals through labour, ‘by producing their means of subsistence’ as The German Ideology puts it (see also Engels, The Role of Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man). Through labour humans shape their environment, their history and themselves.

However, in class divided society, and especially in capitalist society, most people most of the time are deprived of the possibility of creative labour. Their labour is alienated: they do not control it , and are forced to perform it not for themselves but at the behest of others and it becomes something that damages and distorts their lives. Art is the name we give to one of the few forms of creative labour, i.e. labour controlled by the producer (revolutionary practice is another) that is possible in class society. This makes genuine truthful communication of ideas and emotions possible in art in a way that is not possible in completely mercenary entertainment, journalism and advertising. And this is why art is important to us as human beings and Marxists even when that art is ideologically conservative and even though the art world and the cultural industries are dominated by the ruling class.

Indeed it is a central proposition of Marxist art history that the class which controls the major means of material production will also fundamentally dominate artistic production. For Marxism approaches art history on the basis of historical materialism which sees art, along with religion, philosophy, politics and law, as part of the superstructure of society which rests on, and is conditioned by, the economic base constituted by the forces and relations of production.

Of course the relations between economic development, class and art are not to be understood mechanically – they are complex and highly mediated – but denying or disregarding them as in the numerous bourgeois schools of formalist art and literary criticism makes it impossible to grasp the overall movement of cultural history or major developments within it.

For example, why was the art of the European Middle Ages so (relatively) static, formalised and unchanging ? Because it reflected the (relatively) slow development of the forces of production under feudalism and their accompaniment by a rigid social hierarchy resting on frozen relations of production. What generated the spectacular artistic and cultural upsurge of the Renaissance that began in Florence at the end of the thirteenth century (with Dante and Giotto), culminated in Italy with Leonardo, Michelangelo and Titian and then spread north through Germany, the Netherlands and England, encompassing such giant figures as Durer, Breughal, Rembrandt and Shakespeare? The historical materialist will answer that it was a reflection of the rise, at first within the fetters of feudalism and then breaking through in its own right, of the dynamic but contradictory system of capitalism and of the class associated with it, namely the bourgeoisie.

How do we explain why the stately procession of artistic phases ( Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Neo-Classical, Romantic) measured in centuries and half centuries, suddenly gave way to the frenzy of modernism in which art movements ( impressionism, expressionism, fauvism cubism , futurism, suprematism, dadaism etc) came and went almost in the blink of an eye, except as a response to the ‘constant revolutionising of production’ and ‘uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions’ imposed by modern capitalism.

Can the succession of blues, jazz, rhythm and blues, soul, hip hop etc, and therefore the whole course of modern popular music from Elvis Presley to Amy Winehouse be understood apart from the freedom struggle of BlackAmerica?

Even where individual works and individual artists are concerned Marxism offers unique insights. In his great book Ways of Seeing John Berger used the Marxist critique of capitalist social relations to produce superb accounts of Holbein’s The Ambassadors and Dutch still-life paintings. Neither Charlie Chaplin’s film Modern Times nor Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot can be understood without a grasp of Marx’s theory of alienation. In Seoul eighteen months ago I saw the Korean artist, Nam June Paik’s great pagoda of TV monitors The More the Better. It cried out for analysis using the concepts of Trotsky’s theory of combined and uneven development.

No amount of Marxism can substitute for specific knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the art concerned. But art is part of society and evolves in constant interaction with society. The richest, most profound and most scientific analysis of society, which is Marxism, cannot fail to enrich our understanding of art.

John Molyneux

January 15, 2008

12 comments:

Snowball said...

Excellent article comrade...

D said...

John, quoting Trotsky says taht art must be judged on it's own merits. but what would we say aboutt he fourth plinth exhibition, showing the 6 shortlisted artists. Wouldn't we support Jeremy Deller's piece: ‘The presentation of the spoils of war to a curious public dates back at least to the Roman Empire. My idea for the fourth plinth performs a similar role’, says Jeremy Deller, ‘It is not an artwork, but the remains of a vehicle that has been destroyed in an attack on civilians in Iraq’.

That said, my personal favourite is anthony gormley. what do i do?!

Anonymous said...

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop writing such gormless rubbish read more and write less. Start off with Hegel, and, then, well, just admit you are defeated. The less you say the better, because you Trotskyite waffler's do nothing except put the clock back on the real project called 'freedom.'
Anything worthwhile to be salvaged out of the Trotsky carcrash of the 20th century has been said in the Redwords reprint of 'Art and Revolution.' Why can't you just let the best of your tribe be left in peace?

Snowball said...

John, I hope you don't mind but I have decided to add more wreckage to 'the Trotsky carcrash of the 20th century' by republishing your article on my blog here.
Yours for the Revolution etc...

Marat said...

"Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop"

A good sound and well articulated argument. However it lacks in certain areas: Firstly, you offer no constructive criticism of John's blog whatsoever. Simply damning it for no reason other than its confliction with your political affiliations is on no level a fair criticism.
Secondly your severe lack of understanding displayed by such a weak criticsim suggests that it is not John but perhaps you that should "read more and write less".

A brilliant article comrade.

Andy Wilson said...

"the fact that art has existed in every known society in the history of the world reinforces the case for its social necessity. Marxism enables us to understand this."

... which is a shame, because it isn't true. The notion of an autonomous realm of 'art' is not at all a feature of all societies. As a Marxist you might be better advised to look at the way class society has moulded and formed the notion of art generally as well as particular works of art, etc.

The notion of 'art' today is a substitute for religion, representing a world that is supposedly 'other' to the world of work. You reproduce this ideological division perfectly when you say "This makes genuine truthful communication of ideas and emotions possible in art in a way that is not possible in completely mercenary entertainment, journalism and advertising", imagining that art is magically divorced from capital and class. 'Truthful' communication is no more (or less) possible in art today than it is in journalism. Also, your distinction between 'art' and 'entertainment' also neatly echoes the class based hierarchy of pleasure that sees, eg. working class pleasures as a realm of bread and circuses and of no account.

I'm afraid I have to agree with a previous commentator: "Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Stop stop stop stop stop stop stop stop!" You really should take more seriously Picabia's idea that 'art is a pharmaceutical product for imbeciles' rather than continuing to peddle middlebrow platitudes as Marxism.

Read some Guy Debord, Adorno or Nietzsche instead of Trotsky's awful nonsense on the matter.

d: "That said, my personal favourite is Anthony Gormley. what do i do?!" Give up thinking about 'art' and go back to selling newspapers; it's really not your thing - Gormley's work is utterly trivial. Actually, better still, why not trying to make some art - write a poem, paint, make music. It will do you far more good than all this miserable pontification about 'what Marxists should say about art'.

Anonymous said...

A片,A片,成人網站,成人影片,色情,情色網,情色,AV,AV女優,成人影城,成人,色情A片,日本AV,免費成人影片,成人影片,SEX,免費A片,A片下載,免費A片下載,做愛,情色A片,色情影片,H漫,A漫,18成人

a片,色情影片,情色電影,a片,色情,情色網,情色,av,av女優,成人影城,成人,色情a片,日本av,免費成人影片,成人影片,情色a片,sex,免費a片,a片下載,免費a片下載,成人網站,做愛,自拍

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品

視訊聊天室

A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖

情色,AV女優,UT聊天室,聊天室,A片,視訊聊天室


UT聊天室,視訊聊天室,辣妹視訊,視訊辣妹,情色視訊,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊交友90739,美女視訊,視訊美女,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友網,視訊交友,情人視訊網,成人視訊,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,豆豆聊天室,
聊天室,聊天,色情聊天室,色情,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,柔情聊天網,小高聊天室,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,中部人聊天室,成人聊天室,成人

Eugene Hirschfeld said...

Andy Wilson,

Trotsky is one of the best Marxist writers on art there has been. Why you think Adorno was better I don't know. His theory of culture was full of errors of judgement, dismissing as pablum for the masses jazz and other popular forms that deserve more respect.

漢美女 said...

(法新社a倫敦二B十WE四日電) 「情色二零零七」情趣產品大產自二十三日起在倫敦的肯辛頓奧林匹亞展覽館舉行,倫敦人擺脫對性的保守態度踴躍參觀成人影片,許多穿皮衣與塑膠緊身衣的好色之徒擠進這項世界規模最大的成人生活展,估計三天展期可吸引八a片下載萬多好奇民眾參觀。

A片下載動計畫負責人情色米里根承諾:「要搞浪漫、誘惑人、情色電影玩虐待,你渴望的AV女優我們都有。」

a片說:成人電影「時髦的設計與華麗女裝,從吊飾到束腹到真人大小的色情雕塑,是我們由今年展出的數千件產品精選出的av女優一部分,參展產品還包括時尚服飾、貼身女用內在美、鞋子、珠寶、玩具、影片、藝術成人電影、圖書及遊戲,更不要說性愛輔具成人網站及馬術裝備。」

參觀民眾遊覽兩百五十多個攤位,有性感服裝、玩具及情色情色食品,色情影片迎合各種品味。

大舞台上表演的是美國野蠻搖av滾歌手瑪莉蓮曼森的前妻─全a片世界頭牌脫衣舞孃黛塔范提思,這是她今年在英國唯一一場表演。情色

以一九四零年代成人影片風格演出的黛塔范提思表演性感的天堂鳥、旋轉木馬及羽扇等舞AV蹈。

A片參展成人網站攤位有的推廣情趣用品,有情色電影的公開展示人體藝術和人體雕塑,也有情色藝術家工會成員提供建議。

Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang said...

Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang
Keyword Kenali Pandeglang
Mohon dukungannya yach....?!
Semangat..semangat..!!
Agar terjalin tali silaturrahmi di antara kita.
Pandeglang telah hilang Kenali Si Dunia Aneh
Mari bersama DesigN and TechnologY dalam kontes Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang

Ayo Sekolah said...

Kerja Keras adalah Energi kita
yach, kata tersebut adalah kalimat yang harus kita resapi bersama. Dengan slogan Kerja Keras adalah Energi kita semoga saja kita akan memperoleh semangat dan kehidupan yang lebih baik dari hari kehari. Yuk kita ramaikan Kerja Keras adalah Energi kita bersama zulfirman baik saya maupun anda. Kerja Keras Energi kita
Kontes Kerja Keras Energi Kita Keyword Energi kita

Andy Wilson said...

# Eugene Hirschfeld

I don't doubt that Adorno made his share of errors of judgement, but the picture you paint of him is caricatured. For example, everyone knows that he was critical Jazz music, but few people ask what exactly he meant by 'Jazz' - it certainly wasn't what you or I think of Jazz (and I speak as a major fan of Jazz). Also left out of account is the fact that Adorno very much defended Jazz against the real elitists when he was at Cambridge. In short, the story is complicated, but Adorno's position is far more nuanced than he is given credit for, and the general thrust of his work (critique of the commodification of culture) remains as powerful as ever.