The book delineates two distinct thematic trajectories:
"Visual Art and Aesthetic Theory" in France and Germany during the
period 1830-1848, and "The Artist as Producer in Russia," which
explores the impact of Saint-Simonist ideologies leading up to the Revolution
of 1917. The first part delves into the parallels between Saint-Simon's
endeavor to emancipate production from feudal constraints and the
Saint-Simonist-inspired critiques of artistic politics within the Holy Alliance.
This critique targeted the patronage of medieval and Renaissance religious
painting, championed by the Nazarene School, which was seen as emblematic of
anti-modernism. In Germany, the Nazarenes, as part of the Romantic movement,
became the subject of Heinrich Heine's campaign against the alliance of throne
and altar, representing a reactionary "spiritualism" that sought to
suppress worldly sensualism. Heine's opposition between sensualism and
spiritualism, Hellenes and Nazarenes, later resonated in Nietzsche's dichotomy
of Dionysus and Christ. Against art aligned with the Holy Alliance, Saint-Simon
envisioned artists as integral members of the scientific and cultural elite,
paving the way for a future utopia. Artists were tasked with fostering the "poetic
aspects of the new system" and actively shaping social wealth, rather than
merely mirroring existing societal norms or eternal essences. Heine, bridging
Saint-Simonist doctrines in France and Hegelianism in Germany, played a pivotal
role in aesthetic debates of the era. In the aftermath of Hegel and Goethe's
deaths, Heine redefined the role of art and literature in the burgeoning
bourgeois society of post-revolutionary France. He challenged Hegel's assertion
of the end of art as a conduit for spiritual expression, advocating for a
revolutionary interpretation that accorded artists a central role as heralds of
societal change. Delacroix's iconic painting, "Liberty Guiding the
People," exhibited at the 1831 Salon, epitomized Heine's vision of a new
art grounded in sensualism, symbolizing the burgeoning revolutionary spirit of
the times.
In the intellectual milieu characterized by Heine's,
Feuerbach's, and Bauer's critiques of religion, alongside their juxtaposition
of Greek and Christian art, and amidst the Nazarenes' ascendancy in artistic
patronage, Margaret Rose endeavors to discern Marx's "lost
aesthetic." This elusive concept, potentially elucidated in Marx's
intended contribution to Bauer's "Hegel's Teachings on Religion and
Art" (1842), aimed to counter the feudal Romanticism entrenched in
Prussian politics. However, this discussion remains speculative, offering
limited insights into Marx's aesthetic theory compared to subsequent analyses
of his seminal works: the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, the German
Ideology, and the Introduction to the Grundrisse.
Transitioning from Feuerbach's exploration of religious
alienation to Marx's exploration of economic alienation, Rose contends that
Marx grappled with a tension between a Saint-Simonist productivist aesthetic,
inspired by Schiller's Kantian notion of a realm of freedom, and the
recognition that artistic production itself falls prey to alienation. This
tension underscores Marx's emphasis on the primacy of production in his theory
of alienation and the avant-garde, "productive" art. However, Marx's
articulation of how art could both reflect and challenge capitalist alienation
remains ambiguous. Rose critiques Marx's unresolved treatment of the
"Homer paradox" and his inability to reconcile art's role in
capitalist society with its potential for reformation.
While Rose's analysis of Marx's early synthesis of Hegelian
and Saint-Simonist ideas sheds light on his evolving aesthetic perspective, a
more promising resolution emerges from Marx's reflections in the German
Ideology. Here, Marx envisions a communist society where the artist transcends
the constraints of local and national narrowness imposed by the division of
labor. In this utopian vision, the artist's identity no longer hinges on a
singular art form, such as painting or sculpture, but encompasses a
multiplicity of creative pursuits. This radical reconfiguration of the artist's
role reflects Marx's broader project of overcoming alienation and dismantling
the existing aesthetic sphere rooted in labor division.
Marx's "lost aesthetic" thus finds its resonance
in the communist reorganization of society, where artistic expression
transcends the confines of professional specialization. In this liberated
context, individuals engage in artistic endeavors alongside other activities,
obliterating the hierarchical structures that underpin traditional artistic
practices. Marx's aesthetic vision, paradoxically lost within the confines of
capitalist alienation, finds its ultimate realization in a society liberated
from the shackles of labor division and narrow artistic specialization.
Just as Communism perceives itself as the Aufhebung, or
sublation, of philosophy, aiming to transcend and incorporate its insights, so
too does communist society aspire to achieve the Aufhebung of art as a product
of the division of labor. In this envisioned future, everyone will engage in
artistic expression, and the distinction between professional painters and
amateurs will vanish. Marx's "lost aesthetic" thus inherently signals
its own abolition, envisioning a society where artistic creation is
democratized and liberated from the constraints of labor specialization. While
Margaret Rose does not explicitly draw this connection, Marx's utopian
perspective resonates with the avant-garde movements emerging in the aftermath
of World War I, which sought to overcome the institutionalized alienation
between art and life.
Indeed, Marx's utopianism aligns with the aspirations of
Russian Constructivism and other avant-garde movements, which envisioned a new
society liberated from the shackles of capitalist alienation. However, Marx's
vision of a society where art merges seamlessly with everyday life stands in
stark contrast to the doctrine and practice of Socialist Realism, which emerged
as a form of state-sanctioned art in the 20th century, serving the interests of
an alienated industrial production. In this regard, Margaret Rose rightly
questions whether there exists a legitimate lineage from the debates of the
1830s to the avant-garde program of the Russian Constructivists. While this
lineage may not necessarily pass directly through Marx, it nevertheless finds
resonance in his utopian vision of overcoming the division of labor.
The trajectory from the debates of the 1830s to the avant-garde
movements of the 20th century is not straightforward, particularly within
Marxist aesthetics. While Walter Benjamin's exploration of the relationship
between high art and industrial production offers some insights, it remains a
relatively unexplored terrain within Marxist aesthetics. Despite György Lukács'
efforts to reconnect art with everyday life, the question of art's relation to
industrial production has often been overlooked. Yet, this question holds
potential for the development of a contemporary "lost aesthetics" of
the avant-garde, grounded in materialist principles.
Margaret Rose's scholarly study navigates both historical
and theoretical dimensions with commendable depth and breadth. By interrogating
the place of a productivist aesthetic in Marxist aesthetic theory, Rose opens
up new avenues for exploration. While her examination of Marx's aesthetic
contributions may be limited, her exploration of the prehistory of 20th-century
avant-garde movements enriches debates on the role and function of art in the
transition from Hegelian to Marxian paradigms. The avant-garde movements of the
Soviet Union, France, and Germany in the 1920s sought to occupy a productive
utopian space between the demise of traditional art forms and the emergence of
new artistic paradigms. In conclusion, Margaret Rose's work on the "lost
aesthetics" of the avant-garde sheds light on the transformative potential
of artistic expression in the quest for societal emancipation.
No comments:
Post a Comment