The range of Marxist theoreticians who have tackled the subject of art runs from William Morris's 19th century perspectives on the idea of beautiful, public art, accessible to all, to the sterile conformist hard line introduced by A.A. Zhdanov in Stalinist Russia, and, at the most extreme end of things, Jiang Qing's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China. With such differences of extremity, it is challenging to find an attractively moderate socialist stance on art that can fit into today's modern world. Still, I invite everyone to give their opinions and reasons for them.
My personal favourite is Ernst Fischer. I like always to link Marxism and Humanism, and I see no contradiction in Art keeping company with the two. From Fischer:
"Art is necessary in order that man
should be able to recognize
and change the world.
But art is also necessary
by virtue of the magic inherent in it."
-from "The Necessity Of Art"
Your thoughts, please?
2007-06-26 13:38:12 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
Please don't everyone be disappointed that this isn't my usual air-headed question. I'm truly not as shallow as I appear!
2007-06-26 13:39:21 · update #1
To Ognyen:
The question was not to discuss validity of art theory, but to give input about which of the Marxist theoreticians best presented their case.
To be dismissive about a question is not only not answering it, but is indicative that you cannot answer it.
2007-06-26 14:05:04 · update #2
I don't think you can get much better than Fischer's remarks; it includes purpose, intention and ineffability. But, I don't particularly like the word "should" in so far as changing the world. Maybe have the 'potential,' but I don't see how anyone could prevision its ability to change the 'entire world.' Maybe the world of an audience member. I know Trotsky wrote a book "On Art" which presumes that art should help in evolving a more perfect society, which again, is asking a bit much of art. I like the inherent magic reference of Fischer's because i find it to be the case that art critics and historians never seem to have a grasp of why people make art in the first place.
2007-06-26 14:28:13 · answer #1 · answered by holacarinados 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Art really ceases to be art when we have to do other than appreciate it. Sure, it often inspires emotion, but why get into philosophical discussion over it? Let each individual draw his or her conclusions. Accurate association, Marxism and Humanism: They exclude God.
With a smile, I was going to answer this by saying I can't answer on Biblical grounds (2 Timothy 2:16). Some translations use the word, "philosophy".
2007-06-26 13:57:04 · answer #2 · answered by Ognyen 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ernst Fischer.
2007-06-26 20:16:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This one got 5 responses. The one about bran muffins got 14. Scary, innit?
I don't know much about art theory, but I know what I like! And I wish I could beat Thomas Kincaid to death, for whatever that's worth.
2007-06-26 20:06:29 · answer #4 · answered by Laptop Jesus 3.9 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
glad to see youre keeping busy
2007-06-26 18:51:49 · answer #5 · answered by Kerroline W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thanks for making me feel like an idiot, Jack.
:P
It's Tuesday! I don't have to think on Tuesdays! Knock it off!
2007-06-26 15:25:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
OK who are you and what have you done to poor Jack?????
2007-06-26 13:46:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋