Materialist View of Art

[Apoi_Viitor]

What is it? Is it similar to Plato's conception of art?

[Thirsty Crow]

What is it? Is it similar to Plato's conception of art?
Similar to Plato's? Hell no.
As far as I can recall, Plato's theory of mimesis is entirely guided by his theory of Ideas. In other words: metaphysical bullshit.

A materialist approach to art would, IMO, take into account the following:

1) historical conditions of the social production of art (the first assumption being that a work of art is indeed a social fact and a social "product"

For example, one Peter Buerger proposed the following schematics: function - social base of production - social base of consumption

Here for example, we may situate art in the Medieval historical period: ritual function (part of the religious ritual) - collective production (i.e. oral narratives or epics) - collecive consumption.
With the shift in political structure and mode of surplus appropriation also come changes in the field of art. With the advent of the discovery of Americas, the rise of science and the changes of the relstionship between religious and secular authorities, we have the following change:

Function: ritual (but here it is secular ritual within the absolutist courts; the general function of the work of art is to represent the life of the court); social base of production: individual (here we have individual authors such as Corneille or Racine, the court "tragedists"); social base of consumption: collective.

This is only a historical schematics and shouldn't be taken as the prime explanatory framework for all works of art.

The second phenomena which then should be taken into account is this:

2) the historical development of the relative autonomy of the field of art

This is a tricky notion since it involves the task of demarcating different "spheres" of life (such as politics, culture -i.e. art etc.- economy etc.).
The point is that a study of a work of art should take both things into account: the relative autonomy of artistic production (that is, to study a given historical period or a given genre in the terms of its own making; or, to study it according to its own developmental tendencies) and the social character of art production (the interrelations between various "spheres").

For example, if we were to study Ibsenist drama, we could investigate the formal and substantive changes which took place after the dominance of the French classical tragedy and the Romantic theater (meaning: what kind of artistic devices have been brought up to the fore, what is the change in the situations which are represented etc.). But in my opinion, this would amount to a one-sided formalism (which was and still is very fashionable), and we would also need a proper historical account of the social character of art production, meaning: we would also have to investigate the broader social changes which lead to those changes we examined in the previous step.

This is a very complicated issue and it deserves more input than I'm able to afford it right now.
Just one suggestion: check out the British cultural materialists and new historicists. You could also check out Walter Benjamin.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Okay, jotting down the main themes covered so far in this thread I've gotten this list:


- art as non-definable (possibly encompassing the a-humanity functioning of the universe and all organic, natural-life processes)

- art as life

- art as individuality / subjectivity

- art as personal expression / fulfillment

- art as pretense / pretentiousness / less-than-genuine / narcissism

- art as social self-identity

- art as defined by a larger consensus

- art as a defining social event

- art as determined by an in-crowd, or "playground politics"

- art as cultural byproduct

- art as non-definable (possibly encompassing the entirety of human intentionality and/or activity)

- art as access to material resources

- art as making a living / vocation

- art as commodity / brand / media distribution outlets (commercial / industrial)

- art as judgable on its own merits

- art as beauty / aesthetics


I've ordered the list in the format of an expanding circle, from the pin-point center representing a non-humanity non-definability, to the smallest circular area representing the individual person in a generic physiological-organism way, all the way out to the broadest area of time-tested artistic norms.

For the purposes of a materialist Marxist critique I think we can address art in its broader social forms, from about the 'material resources' point outward. It's a good place to start because many artists seeking genuine self-expression may validly raise the objection that they do not have adequate access to the means and materials by which to *make* their creations in the first place (myself not included, btw).

Moreover, as Jimmie Higgins pointed out, even if they *could* do *some* artwork many would not be able to *sustain* their efforts for very long, for the same basic reason -- they could not materially support themselves from the commodification of their most heartfelt creations.

Beyond this point would be matters of bourgeois control of the means of publicity, as through branding and notices for the same, over corporate-controlled mainstream media outlets (TV, print ads, etc.). Without sufficient exposure no artist would have a broad-enough audience from which to derive broader-based discussions and critiques, much less anything approaching a general societal consensus on their artwork's merits and/or aesthetic value.

Since cultural commodities -- and even scientific discoveries and technologies -- are subordinate to the machinations of the profit-based economic system, our entire societal reality has been, and is being, defined by the prevailing uses of materials (and human efforts) according to bourgeois-economic motivations. Many genuinely heartfelt *individual* intentions and motivations must give way to the *prevailing* currents of bourgeois culture, thus forfeiting any access to necessary resources, including the artist's *own* life-time.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Given the relatively brief existence of new historicism, what were the materialist theories of art before then? Also, I know many Marxists disdain post-structuralism, so what is their alternative theory to art criticism?

Also, while this part of new historicism I understand: "...the materialist aspects of Foucault’s thought important, especially against such interpretation that misleadingly exaggerates the discursive construction of things at the cost of neglecting the way how, for instance, power relations operate in a very material way and are irreducible to language."... There are also many elements of his theory that I don't understand...

And from what I garnered, Barthes has a completely different conception of art criticism, which seems to be different from the new historicism trend...

[Kotze]

Thorstein Veblen.

[Thirsty Crow]

Given the relatively brief existence of new historicism, what were the materialist theories of art before then? Also, I know many Marxists disdain post-structuralism, so what is their alternative theory to art criticism?The activity of cultural materialists (clustered around the cultural studies department in Birmingham) predates new historicists' work.
You should most definitely check out Raymond Williams, especially his book Problems in Materialism and Culture and Marxism and Literature.
In my view, new historicism is less a coherent materialist theory of art (it may be argued that they do not even present a theory of art), and more a set of common premises for specific studies in the history of literature. If you wish a "coherent theory", you may start with Williams.
As far as pre-WW II period is concerened, check out Lukacs and Benjamin


Also, while this part of new historicism I understand: "...the materialist aspects of Foucault’s thought important, especially against such interpretation that misleadingly exaggerates the discursive construction of things at the cost of neglecting the way how, for instance, power relations operate in a very material way and are irreducible to language."... There are also many elements of his theory that I don't understand...
New historicism is hardly a theory, and it is not surprising that you do not understand some of new historicists' points since they can vary to great extent. For example, Foucault is a major source of influence, but there are new historicists who are primarily influenced by Marx.

Feel free to post some of hese elements, and we can discuss them



[QUOTE=Apoi_Viitor;1940591And from what I garnered, Barthes has a completely different conception of art criticism, which seems to be different from the new historicism trend...[/QUOTE]Roland Barthes is different, in that he more or less subscribes to the structuralist school of theory.
But you can also check out his Mythologies(nothing to do with ancient myths) which I find immensly useful, as analysis of ideological operations in post-WW II bourgeois society.

[ckaihatsu]

"...the materialist aspects of Foucault’s thought important, especially against such interpretation that misleadingly exaggerates the discursive construction of things at the cost of neglecting the way how, for instance, power relations operate in a very material way and are irreducible to language."


Addressing this portion itself, I'd like to put forward an alternative, roughly equivalent, phrasing of it:

- Narratives cannot sufficiently describe the situation of social dynamics within their environment of overarching power relations because narratives, by the nature of their subjectivity, are subsumed by power relations and may not even be aware of such, much less able to describe or address them. Even more material (generalized) approaches to power relations are also subsumed by them and thus unable to grasp their workings using the tool of language.


Unfortunately this is a *non-materialist* / idealist / dualist stance on the topic of power since it is saying that the workings of power relations will always be beyond generalization and thus un-describable.

[Thirsty Crow]

Addressing this portion itself, I'd like to put forward an alternative, roughly equivalent, phrasing of it:

- Narratives cannot sufficiently describe the situation of social dynamics within their environment of overarching power relations because narratives, by the nature of their subjectivity, are subsumed by power relations and may not even be aware of such, much less able to describe or address them. Even more material (generalized) approaches to power relations are also subsumed by them and thus unable to grasp their workings using the tool of language.


Unfortunately this is a *non-materialist* / idealist / dualist stance on the topic of power since it is saying that the workings of power relations will always be beyond generalization and thus un-describable.

You managed to miss the entire point of the quote, in fact.
When the author states that "power relations operate in a very material way and are irreducible to language", that does not mean that we cannot grasp these using language. This statement goes against the grain of post-structuralist interpretation of Foucault which, more often than not, works with the paradigm of discursive construction (thus basically reducing them to lingustic or semiotic phenomena).
In no way can this quote be validly intpreted as saying that the workings of power relations cannot be grasped.

[ckaihatsu]

You managed to miss the entire point of the quote, in fact.
When the author states that "power relations operate in a very material way and are irreducible to language", that does not mean that we cannot grasp these using language. This statement goes against the grain of post-structuralist interpretation of Foucault which, more often than not, works with the paradigm of discursive construction (thus basically reducing them to lingustic or semiotic phenomena).
In no way can this quote be validly intpreted as saying that the workings of power relations cannot be grasped.


Okay, thanks for the clarification -- I was, admittedly, only taking it at face value and it's obvious I misinterpreted it.

Yeah, I can't stand post-structuralist / postmodernist bullshit...!

[Apoi_Viitor]

Feel free to post some of hese elements, and we can discuss them

What are the similarities and differences between Foucault's work in The Archeology of Knowledge, and the French Structuralist movements?

Why would Roland Barthes, while subscribing to a structuralist view of history, give precedence to such a hermeneutic analysis of text? Wouldn't that seem to run contrary to the whole purpose of structuralism?