Marxism and Art

[Zingu]

Anyone who has read Marx, knows that human culture revolves around the means of production in relation to the social structure of the current society.
What Marx predicted was even art would change to different styles or forms when a proletarian revolution took hold of society.
My father said this was a "failure" of Marx, that art is not defined by the social construct of society, that "Socialist Realism" which was really Stalinist Totalitarian enforced art that was state approved. Which was true, but, have we really given a fair chance for such a idea to be proven correct or wrong? Maybe we should examine the styles of art of previous stages of social development and compare them to each other?

[ComradeRed]

I'm actually writing a paper on this! The changes in society according to historical materialism are not limited to merely political-economic changes...it's also intellectual changes!

In the beginning of capitalism, it was the renaissance-baroque era; a piece of art used depth, perspective, etc. In baroque, it detailed on part of the piece at a time(both music and art) and ussually was a religious subject(remember, the religious wars were occuring, the Thirty Years' War).

The classical style was a rebirth of the classical style, inspired by the enlightenment and revolutions/situations. Jacques-Louis David painted portraits on the subject of ancient events(e.g. the Death of Socrates) which also corresponded to the events of his day(e.g. the censorship of Voltaire and the philosophes). Mozart and Haydn's music were balanced and moderated, an allusion to the classical virtues.

As time goes on, the intellectual(artistically speaking) developments correspond to the material causes in the course of class society. I could go into further detail if you want, but it's late...

[Zingu]

I'll be sure to read that paper!
So, what is the actual argument of the people who claim that Marxism has fouled up and was mistaken about Art?

That the Soviet Union failed to develop this new style of art? Of course this argument can be unfounded simply by stateing that the Soviet Union was a "degenerated workers' state" and such actions were enforced by a Stalinist totalitarian government, there was no "authentic" actual revolutionary change within art. Same goes with China.
So does this theory still waiting to be proved true?

[ComradeRed]

No, it is a corollary to the Historical Materialism idea. The art represents that era's phase...in the case of the Soviet Union, their art was a reflection of that phase which they were in.

Give me a few days to write something out, I have to look at some scores of Soviet music, as well as some socialist realism...if you can link me with some, that'd be super!

[Faceless]

Taking art movements one at a time it becomes obvious that they have been very well correlated to the development of the means of production and the existant mode of production.

With the birth of capitalism we saw the rennaisance, directly correlating to the developments in mathematics and architecture; explaining the new found fascination with perspective.

Looking at modernist art, much of it developed with the inventions of film and photography. The speed and power of futurism is a most direct link to this, dada too developed technically with printed media. These two links could not be more overt.

Intellectually too, these movements show striking parallels to the development of capitalism at these stages;
>futurism was the most definitive and advanced expression of capitalist ideology and hegemony in the intellectual realm. It promoted the technocratic rationale regardless of human impact as well as a politically fascist, cauvinistic outlook; direct offspring of the capitalist system.
>expressionism was the artistic expression of existentialism. This philosophy too is a result of capitalism. Its fault is that it desribes correctly the feelings of isolation, of urban alienation, but in so doing expresses it as an absolute condition of human existence.
>dada was a direct reaction to capitalist imperialism

and, in my humble opinion, postmodernism is a result of the false aestheticisation of everyday life; quite unfortunate then that it has adherents on this board. :(

[redstar2000]

I don't see a Marxist "failure" with regard to art.

As a first approximation, all Marxism would say is "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Or he who has the material resources will commission the art, music, etc. that he likes...that expresses his "world-view", that makes him feel good about himself and his place in the world.

In other words, "art" does not exist "outside" of class realities, it reflects them.

It also often (always?) idealizes them...makes them look grander and more "inherently significant" than they really are. Social reality is "dirty"...but cleaned up properly, you can hang it in your living room.

And feel proud.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

Your dad is wrong -- socialist realism was not the most influential form of art to come out of the USSR. Russian Constructivism still influences design today. People are of course influenced by their economic and social conditions: peasant art is religious and simple, usually made of icons, modern art is more 'formless' and edgey; the bourgeoisie prefer art that is reassuring, 'classic'.

Here's a short piece about the history of art in Russia and Russian Constructivism.


El Lizzitsky was a Russian artist who helped push graphic design to new frontiers. Though he started out a Suprematist, he came to be associated with Constructivism par excellence. His work still stands as innovative and exciting to this day.

In the early 20th century, Russia’s folk art tradition gave way to more modern art forms, such as Avante-Garde and later, constructivism. The religious themes that had dominated Russian art – from small icons to architecture was replaced suddenly by modern influences.

Russia’s Avante-Garde sought a break with the past and to convey the restless, energetic pace of urban life. This work could still be described as Suprematist, the idea that feeling is the overriding truth or most important aspect of art.

Avante-Grade briefly flourished as it became associated with the growing power of the Bolshevik regime. The Bolsheviks promised the world a new start for humanity and most importantly for the modernists, a break with Russia’s bleak and fatalist past.

The Russian regime quickly evolved into Stalinism. It was clear that what Russia was experiencing was not a worker’s revolution (indeed the concept would be ludicrous in a society where peasants comprised 80% of the population!) but the type of industrial revolution that had already swept the United States and Western Europe.

The Stalinist state emphasized industrial power and rationality. Soviet Realism became the official art. Feeling was de-emphasized. The new art become strong, described in hard surfaces and sharp angles. Lezzitsky’s work, was simultaneously rational and full of chaotic quirk. The charm of his work is considerable when you see that he so often used sharp angles and rough textures.

His work (see below) for the book Dlia Golosa “reading out loud”, was made from rearranging type case in a strange way. The printing house in Berlin to which he was a client, thought he was insane! His mixture of colors and angles mingling with the pureness of the page scream out for attention and radiate a manic energy.

[PRC-UTE]

Here's examples

Dlia Golosa (http://www.schicklerart.com/db/content::image/13213052/200x200/image.jpg)

this is a common theme of Lezitsky's, the use of hands:
Na stroike MTS i sovkhozov (http://www.schicklerart.com/db/content::image/11851929/450x350/image.jpg)

Ptitsa Bezimyannaya (http://www.schicklerart.com/db/content::image/12026164/450x350/image.jpg)

[synthesis]

I don't think we can look at art through the lens of Marxism. Art is created by the individual and focuses on the individual. It can't reflect any greater fact about a class/classless society because it is a product of its most atomized component whose estrangement from the society and the manifestation of that alienation in art can only be measured individually, not collectively.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't think we can look at art through the lens of Marxism. Art is created by the individual and focuses on the individual. It can't reflect any greater fact about a class/classless society because it is a product of its most atomized component whose estrangement from the society and the manifestation of that alienation in art can only be measured individually, not collectively.

I agree, the factor that makes art so amazing is individuality, something we'll never understand or be able to reproduce.

What we're saying is, a the social context of a where an artist operates will influence their work -- in such way as determining what is possible. For example, a peasant would make folk crafts, a designer today would do something more sophisticated. What is amazing is how two people will take the same elements and create such different works.

[redstar2000]

But artists have to eat like all the rest of us. The idea of the "starving artist" true to his/her own artistic integrity is a late 19th-century romantic myth.

Not that such people did not exist, but they did starve or met their end in some other unpleasant way.

Put it this way: most art will be produced to flatter the ruling class of a given era...and this will be the art that is widely available and easily accessible.

Occasional exceptions will appear as a result of individual human creativity...but if the ruling class doesn't like it, it will, at best, eke out a miserable existence on the margins of the society's culture. And if the ruling class really doesn't like it, it will be suppressed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Zingu]

But artists have to eat like all the rest of us. The idea of the "starving artist" true to his/her own artistic integrity is a late 19th-century romantic myth.

Not that such people did not exist, but they did starve or met their end in some other unpleasant way.

Put it this way: most art will be produced to flatter the ruling class of a given era...and this will be the art that is widely available and easily accessible.

Occasional exceptions will appear as a result of individual human creativity...but if the ruling class doesn't like it, it will, at best, eke out a miserable existence on the margins of the society's culture. And if the ruling class really doesn't like it, it will be suppressed.





So, another point to Charlie Marx!

Well, also Art can be defined by political movements or cultural upheavals, take example pop art, right around the Vietnam War, when the younger generation "revolted" against American conformity. I don't think the ruling classes didn't like that much, but it caught on extremely fast.
Not saying Marx is wrong, just wondering how that would fit in.

[Faceless]

I don't think we can look at art through the lens of Marxism. Art is created by the individual and focuses on the individual. It can't reflect any greater fact about a class/classless society because it is a product of its most atomized component whose estrangement from the society and the manifestation of that alienation in art can only be measured individually, not collectively.

think about the concepts portrayed in an artistic composition. They are based upon entirely material ideas. Any attempt at abstraction moves into the idea of nonsense. Kandinsky shows this himself. And their is no such thing as an atomized individual. A person is a collection of experiences. Their character, psyche and personality. All are very much social creations. A person can not live in isolation and it follows that a persons expression is an expression of reaction toward their material realities. I can express my hatred or anger with material acts of violence on a canvas or sculpture, but they are acts comitted as a result of my social conditions.

I think you are on to one thread of truth as a dialetician though. There is an element of untruth in an art work as much as their is an element of truth as it is only partial. Whilst though it is the creation of the individual; to be measured by another individual in isolation is a flawed conclusion. Their material realities are different, albeit overlapping quite often. An eye has to be kept to the social totality and context of an artwork.

The conclusion:
an art work is partially true and also partially untrue by merit of its class position, be it middle or working. Therefore it has to be measured "collectively"

[ComradeRed]

Put it this way: most art will be produced to flatter the ruling class of a given era...and this will be the art that is widely available and easily accessible. Yes, most art is propaganda. Check out Jacques Louis David and Napoleon, or Baroque artists and the church, or...


Occasional exceptions will appear as a result of individual human creativity...but if the ruling class doesn't like it, it will, at best, eke out a miserable existence on the margins of the society's culture. And if the ruling class really doesn't like it, it will be suppressed. This is remarkably true, in the 1700s there was the patronage system which partially died with Mozart, and the Romantic movement killed it. It was resurrected, however, to become corporate patronage now.

But even in the Romantic movement, the wealthy ruling class hired the artists...just then no longer called "patrons".

What will be interesting is to see how the internet will affect this corporate patronage system...would it "kill" it again? And would it come back again? Would it make any difference either way? I doubt it, but it's interesting speculation at any rate...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zingu
Well, also Art can be defined by political movements or cultural upheavals, take [for] example pop art, right around the Vietnam War, when the younger generation "revolted" against American conformity. I don't think the ruling classes liked that much, but it caught on extremely fast.

I'm not sure what you mean by "caught on" -- Andy Warhol enjoyed a modest fame and perhaps he had a few imitators. His "style" was borrowed from corporate advertising itself...so perhaps that explains something about his appeal.

But perhaps you're referring to "post-rockabilly" rock and roll. Again it's true that a few artists used the rock genre to articulate sharp criticism of the existing system...but I think a closer look at the music of the 1960s would reveal that nearly all of it was harmless -- based on the same innocuous themes that characterized popular music of earlier eras.

The "protest rockers" never "made it big" in the corporate entertainment industry...though some enjoyed moderate success...especially after 1975 or so when they muted their protests.

There was a fine folk-singer of the early 60s by the name of Phil Ochs who never did give up on the protest focus of his music...and he committed suicide.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Zingu]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 15 2004, 03:03 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 15 2004, 03:03 AM)
Zingu
Well, also Art can be defined by political movements or cultural upheavals, take [for] example pop art, right around the Vietnam War, when the younger generation "revolted" against American conformity. I don't think the ruling classes liked that much, but it caught on extremely fast.

I'm not sure what you mean by "caught on" -- Andy Warhol enjoyed a modest fame and perhaps he had a few imitators. His "style" was borrowed from corporate advertising itself...so perhaps that explains something about his appeal.

But perhaps you're referring to "post-rockabilly" rock and roll. Again it's true that a few artists used the rock genre to articulate sharp criticism of the existing system...but I think a closer look at the music of the 1960s would reveal that nearly all of it was harmless -- based on the same innocuous themes that characterized popular music of earlier eras.

The "protest rockers" never "made it big" in the corporate entertainment industry...though some enjoyed moderate success...especially after 1975 or so when they muted their protests.

There was a fine folk-singer of the early 60s by the name of Phil Ochs who never did give up on the protest focus of his music...and he committed suicide.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Well....you lived through the period, so I guess I can't argue with that, oh well :lol:

[PRC-UTE]

This is remarkably true, in the 1700s there was the patronage system which partially died with Mozart, and the Romantic movement killed it. It was resurrected, however, to become corporate patronage now.

But even in the Romantic movement, the wealthy ruling class hired the artists...just then no longer called "patrons".


Some of the more interesting pieces of art were seditious pieces made right under the nose of the ruling class.

Goya was a great example of this, truly some amazing work. My favourite by Goya was a portrait of the ruling family of France, the emporer (think it was one of the Louis lineage). Goya rendered the emporer in such a way that he looked vacant and empty; his wife was in the pose that would be that of a whore, and so on. In the composition he had the family far apart rather than close and intimate.

It's very easy for artists to subltley editorialise. ;)

[ComradeRed]

Goya was a great example of this, truly some amazing work. My favourite by Goya was a portrait of the ruling family of France, the emporer (think it was one of the Louis lineage). Goya rendered the emporer in such a way that he looked vacant and empty; his wife was in the pose that would be that of a whore, and so on. In the composition he had the family far apart rather than close and intimate.

From an art history site (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/goya/hd_goya.htm):


The Bourbon monarchy was restored with Napoleon's fall in 1814. But the new king, Ferdinand VII, son of Charles IV, did not share the enlightened views of his predecessor. He revoked the Constitution, reinstated the Inquisition, and declared himself absolute monarch. Not long afterward, he launched a reign of terror. Questioned about his loyalty to the occupiers, Goya demonstrated his allegiance by commemorating Spain's uprising against the French regime in two paintings: The Second of May 1808 and The Third of May 1808 (both Museo del Prado).

Ever loyal to his ruling class, Goya was...

[PRC-UTE]

Ever loyal to his ruling class, Goya was...

His paintings often mocked the ruling class, that's what he's known for. His paintings also showed massacres against peasants. He was a Republican, not a monarchist.

[ComradeRed]

I didn't say he was obedient to the monarchy, I said he was obedient to the ruling class. In that "republic" it would be the bourgeois. Like most "revolutionary" artists(at the time it was the final transition from feudalism to capitalism in France effectively), he "ridicules" l'ancienne regime. My point: he is obedient to the ruling class and paints propaganda in favor of the new ruling class, and makes the old ruling class look bad!

[PRC-UTE]

I didn't say he was obedient to the monarchy, I said he was obedient to the ruling class. In that "republic" it would be the bourgeois. Like most "revolutionary" artists(at the time it was the final transition from feudalism to capitalism in France effectively), he "ridicules" l'ancienne regime. My point: he is obedient to the ruling class and paints propaganda in favor of the new ruling class, and makes the old ruling class look bad!

The Monarchy were still the ruling class. I understand what you are saying, but the bourgeois were the revolutionary class of that time. He didn't work for them either, so he wasn't 'obedient' to them.

My point to begin with was that he worked for the monarchy and at the same time mocked them; it's funny.

[ComradeRed]

It doesn't matter how revolutionary the new bosses may be, what matters is that he was with them! No matter what the bosses may call themselves, they would be the ruling class. And at that time, the bourgeois -who recently cast out the nobility- were the ruling class.

Goya didn't work for the French royal family, he did paint a picture of them...after they were dead!

[Faceless]

It doesn't matter how revolutionary the new bosses may be, what matters is that he was with them! No matter what the bosses may call themselves, they would be the ruling class. And at that time, the bourgeois -who recently cast out the nobility- were the ruling class.

Goya didn't work for the French royal family, he did paint a picture of them...after they were dead!
I think you underetimate the revolutionary role of the bourgeiosie. Like it or not, they have been progressive

[ComradeRed]

Red Herring, the bourgeoisie are still the ruling class. As "revolutionary" as they may have been, they are still the ruling class. They may have been "progressive" but does that make them any less of a ruling class? No.

As a communist, I feel obliged to point out all ruling classes are bad!

[synthesis]

But artists have to eat like all the rest of us. The idea of the "starving artist" true to his/her own artistic integrity is a late 19th-century romantic myth.

Not that such people did not exist, but they did starve or met their end in some other unpleasant way.

That may be true, but what happened to the people who produced the art is inconsequential to the discussion. Starving artists may indeed starve, but their art stays alive to influence and provoke thought far after their death.

My nephew's parents wouldn't have been around in the time of Phil Ochs; that never stopped him from turning Ochs into a personal fetish, absorbing his social and political critiques openly and defiantly.

When you talk about the theory of art, you have to look at all of it, not just that which was prominent in its own time.


A person is a collection of experiences. Their character, psyche and personality. All are very much social creations.

We are also a collection of chemical balances and imbalances. This makes us unique and gives us the template on which our experiences build. These combine to create the individual; some individuals create art, others don't, but it will always be a product of that individual person.

Also, our experiences can exist separately of the larger scheme of social reality. Your brother might have developed an extreme form of untreatable cancer when you were young; that would shape you as an individual just as much as being arrested for being of a certain race or being alienated from your labor.

So no, art doesn't necessarily have to be considered in the context it was made. It can exist independantly.

[Faceless]

Red Herring, the bourgeoisie are still the ruling class. As "revolutionary" as they may have been, they are still the ruling class. They may have been "progressive" but does that make them any less of a ruling class? No.

As a communist, I feel obliged to point out all ruling classes are bad!
I concede all those points, and I am a communist too. The bourgeoisie, whilst not a section of society that I partiularly admire or desire to emulate, they have played a historic role which whilst it is far from sanitary, has been NECESSARY. Today they have become restraints on society and as a matter of NECESSITY will bite the dust. I think you are being too simplistic then when you oppose every action of a class on the basis that they are the ruling one. You would surely by the same merit have opposed the emergence of class society at all from the roots of barbarism. Im sure though that this isnt the case. One thing is true and that is that the proletariat is distinguished by the fact that it is the first class which is revolutionary AND represents a majority. As such any spontaneous literary and artistic movements arising from them contain a particularly virtuous element.

The bourgeoisie though have once been revolutionary and have played a part in history which should be commended. The bourgeoisie of today, as you no doubt have experienced in your education, take much effort to sanitise or condemn their forefathers. The French Revolution is forgotten or condemned. The roundheads murdered King Charles. <_< The literary achievments of this late capitalist society are often more intellectually akin to those of the forces of reaction which first opposed their revolutionary representatives than the representatives themselves like goya. Take the crushing of Christianity for instance in the French Revolution. It proved to be a very progressive move which effectively removed the protective foil they would need once they became the ruling class (a position I would define by control of the state apparatus, which the bourgeoisie have not always had). It was a step too far which they had to scramble to undo. The bourgeoisie were never totally revolutionary but their literary achievements can not be dismissed piecmeal.

[Faceless]

Also, our experiences can exist separately of the larger scheme of social reality. Your brother might have developed an extreme form of untreatable cancer when you were young; that would shape you as an individual just as much as being arrested for being of a certain race or being alienated from your labor.
:lol:
Yes, you are right. My brother has cancer in fact and I also create art so I hope I am qualified to reply to this, at least in part. His condition and the mental influences that they have had on me have brought out a certain nihilistic form in my work. And they are relevant to my experiences and are unique. At their core though they are only a change in the form of the work. The content of the work remains largely of a communistic nature. You are right that works are always original because they are the responses of individuals but the passions of that individual will be in so many ways similar to those of other individuals. The hatred I have for bourgeois society is not unique to me and it was not of a social influence which solely influences me. Their are numerous works which are though in content about a persons individual circumstances. The worlds most noteworthy works though are in content often social coments. The "weeping woman" by picasso is a comment on guernica although the woman is undoubtedly his mistress. The reception of a work also depends on social forces. For instance; pop music, crap by any other name, is an industrial creation and not really one of an "artist" as such. Its content is more often egotistical and incapable of cutting social comment. And it is so widely recieved by a demographic group more than a random cross-section of society.

[RevolverNo9]

By strange coincidence, I just found a record of soviet realist music, presumably from the 70s. The jacket is covered in hammer and sickle flags and CCP hits after each title on the back. I do not think I have heard anything more painful. Honestly it had me pining for MTV. Endless, brash, big, booming brass; no memorable tune... uuuurgh, I am not exagerating, I just could NOT keep listening to it, I was too distracted and unconforatable.

As has been mentioned, at first revolutionary Russia produced exciting art. The occcupation of what was the imperial porcelain manufacturers comes to mind. There are some really fantastic cubist designs on the china and stark, brillaint, angular, abstract tea-sets. But soon the talented artists were thrown out and socialist-realism took hold - Lenin cups and besickled saucers.

Of coure art is the result of the individual expereince but it is also a result of the reigning economic, social and cultural orders. Dada, Raphael... their art was produced by the conditions and times that they lived in. The invention of the photograph in manyways killed realism and gave rise to the abstract movements in twentieth century art. This is one of the reasons why socialist-realism is all the more reactionary.

On pop-art this was largely absorbed by the establishment&#39;s &#39;recuperation&#39;, ie the neutering of a genuinely subversive undercurrent and its reinvention as a commodity. I feel a Situationist strand coming... can anyone speak in depth about their perception of the Dadaist dialectical destruction and progression of art? The SI saw art as having to be revolutionary.

[Zingu]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...ge/benjamin.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm)