Marx on Ideology and Art

Author(s): O. K. Werckmeister
Source: New Literary History, Vol. 4, No. 3, Ideology and Literature (Spring, 1973), pp. 501-
519
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/468532 .
Accessed: 26/06/2014 04:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
New Literary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Marx on Ideologyand Art

O. K. Werckmeister

I
MARX concernedhimself and theoryof art
withthe history
only at the beginningof his career. In 184I and 1842
he wrote shortpolemical treatiseson art directedagainst
Hegel, which are now lost.' He never wrote a theoreticalor histori-
cal textthat dealt with art as an issue afterthat. Neitherdid Engels.
Both repeatedlycommented on questions of literature,but not on
the visual arts and architecture,or on art as a generalized concept
of philosophicalaesthetics. Hence the place of art in later Marxist
theoryof historyand societyremainsuncertain. OfficialSovietscholar-
ship has tried to fill the gap by abstractingany one of Marx's and
Engels' scatteredand casual remarkson art and literaturefrom the
contextof theirnumerouswritings,and systematically compilingthem
into two huge volumesentitledOn Art and Literature.2It claims that
thesetextscontainboth the elementsand the methodicalguidelinesfor
an aesthetictheory.3 Large, more or less systematichandbooks on
"Marxist aesthetics"have been writtenon this assumption,4and such
an aestheticsis being taughtin communistacademic institutions.On
theotherhand, scholarsin capitaliststateshave concludedthatif Marx,
in his sustainedeffortto substantiatehis theoryof historyand society
throughdecades of methodical research,never returnedto his early
interestin aesthetics,he must have consideredthat art did not form
any part of the primarymaterialin which the historicalprogressto-

I M. Lifshitz,The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx (New York, 1938), p. 24.

2 K. Marx and F. Engels, Ober Kunst und Literatur, I-II (Berlin, 1968). This
is the most recentand most comprehensiveedition of the collection: cf. the preface,
I, 8 f.
3 E.g., G. Lukics, Probleme der Asthetik(Werke, X [Neuwied and Berlin, 1969]),
I32 f.; H. Koch, Marxismus und Asthetik,3rd ed. (Berlin, 1962), p. 12.
4 Akademia Nauk SSR, Grundlagen der marxistisch-leninistischenAsthetik
(Berlin, 1962 [tr. from the Russian]); Koch, Marxismus und Asthetik; E. John,
Probleme der marxistisch-leninistischen Asthetik (Halle, 1967).

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
502 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

wards a socialist futurecould be traced.5 By contrast,officialcom-

munistaestheticsconceivesof art as a culturalinstitution with a rele-
vance forthe continuingprocessof bringingthe classlesssocietyabout.
The protractedeffortto back up thisconceptionwithstatementsfrom
the "classic" authorshas led to exasperatedacademic and politicaldis-
cussions which so far have remained all the more inconclusivesince
theywere oftendoctrinallypreempted.6Yet it can be shown that the
scarcityof statementsabout art in Marx's writingsis a matterof neces-
sity,derivingfromtheverynotionsof art whichtheycontain.
The discussionis inevitablythrownback at the few shorttext pas-
sages, quoted and interpretedtime and again, where Marx directly
commentsabout art, referring to historicalexamples. Two apparently
contradictory notions of art, one the otherhistorical-
idealistic-utopian,
deterministic, seem to emerge from them. Are theyjust aspects of a
dialectically ambivalent conception which is consistentin the final
analysis,as officialcommunistaestheticsmaintains,7or are theyin fact
so irreconcilableas to defythe formationof a coherentaesthetictheory?
The idealisticnotionof art in Marx's thoughtmay be deduced from
the famouspassage on the art of the Greeks,containedin the draftfor
the CritiqueofPoliticalEconomics (1857-58).

It is knownthatcertainheydaysof art are notat all relatedto thegeneral

developmentof society,and neither,therefore, to theskeleton,as it were,
of its organization.For examplethe Greeks,comparedto the moderns,
or also Shakespeare.Of certainart forms,the epics for example,it has
even been recognizedthat theycan neverbe producedin theirepochal,
classicalshape whenart productionas suchoccurs;and thatconsequently
withinthe realmof art itselfcertainimportant creationsare onlypossible
on thebasisof an undevelopedstagein the developmentof art. If thisis
the case withregardto the relationship of the variousart genreswithin
the realmof art itself,it is alreadyless strikingthatit shouldbe the case
with regardto the relationshipof the realm of art as a whole to the
generaldevelopmentof society.The difficulty consistsonly in the gen-
eralizationof thesecontradictions. As soon as theyare specified,theyare
alreadyexplained.
Marx thenposes thenotoriousproblemthatpast worksof art like those
of the Greekscontinueto be appreciatedwith immediacyunder social

5 W. Oelmiiller, "Neue Tendenzen und Diskussionen der marxistischenAsthetik,"

Philosophische Rundschau, 9 (1961), 181-203, cf. 183 f.; H. Lehmann-Haupt, Art
under a Dictatorship (New York, 1954), PP. 5 f.
6 Socialism and American Life, ed. D. D. Egbert and S. Persons, II (Princeton,
1952), 422.
7 Lifshitz,Philosophy,pp. 67 f.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 503

conditionsthatare advanced beyondthoseunderwhichtheythemselves

weremade:

... thedifficultyis not to understandthatGreekart and epicsare tiedto

certainstagesin the developmentof society.The difficulty is that they
stillyieldartisticpleasureto us, and in a certainway countfora norm
and forunattainablemodels.

Marx proposes to solve the difficulty with an analogy between the

organicdevelopment of the human individual and the historyof man-
kind as a whole, which he similarlyconceivesof as a straightforward
"evolution." In this scheme,the historicalepoch of the Greekstakes
the place of infancy,and theirworksof art expressthisstage.

Whyshouldthe historicalinfancyof mankindwhereit is unfoldedmost

beautifully,not exertan eternalfascination,as a stage that will never
return?There are rude childrenand precociouschildren. Many of the
ancientpeoplesbelongin thiscategory.The Greekswerenormalchildren.
The fascination of theirartforus does notstandin contradiction
withthe
undevelopedstageofsocietyfromwhichit grew. On thecontrary, it is the
resultof thisstageand is inseparablylinkedto thefactthattheimmature
social conditionsunderwhichit came about,and onlycould come about,
can neverreturn.8

8 K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie (Berlin, 1953), PP.
30 f.; also in K. Marx and F. Engels, Werke, XIII (Berlin, 1964), 640 f.: "Bei
der Kunst bekannt, dass bestimmteBliitezeiten derselben keineswegs im Verhdiltnis
zur allgemeinen Entwicklungder Gesellschaft,also auch der materiellenGrundlage,
gleichsam des Knochenbaus ihrer Organisation, stehn. Z. B. die Griechen
verglichen mit den modernen oder auch Shakespeare. Von gewissen Formen der
Kunst, z. B. dem Epos, sogar anerkannt,dass sie, in ihrer Weltepoche machenden,
klassischen Gestalt nie produziert werden k6nnen, sobald die Kunstproduktion als
solche eintritt;also dass innerhalb des Berings der Kunst selbst gewisse bedeutende
Gestaltungen derselben nur auf einer unentwickeltenStufe der Kunstentwicklung
mbglich sind. Wenn dies im Verhliltnis der verschiednen Kunstarten innerhalb
des Bereichs der Kunst selbst der Fall ist, ist es schon weniger auffallend, dass es
im Verhiiltnis des ganzen Bereichs der Kunst zur allgemeinen Entwicklung der
Gesellschaftder Fall ist. Die Schwierigkeitbesteht nur in der allgemeinen Fassung
dieser Widerspriiche. Sobald sie spezifiziertwerden, sind sie schon erklirt.
die Schwierigkeitliegt nicht darin, zu verstehn,dass griechische Kunst und Epos
an gewisse gesellschaftlicheEntwicklungsformengekniipftsind. Die Schwierigkeit
ist, dass sie fiir uns noch Kunstgenuss gewithrenund in gewisser Beziehung als
Norm und unerreichbare Muster gelten. ... Warum sollte die geschichtliche
Kindheit der Menschheit, wo sie am schSnstenentfaltet,als eine nie wiederkehrende
Stufe nicht ewigen Reiz ausiiben? Es gibt ungezogene Kinder und altkluge Kinder.
Viele der alten V61ker geh6ren in diese Kategorie. Normale Kinder waren die
Griechen. Der Reiz ihrer Kunst fiir uns steht nicht im Widerspruch zu der
unentwickeltenGesellschaftsstufe, worauf sie wuchs. Ist vielmehr ihr Resultat und
hingt vielmehrunzertrennlichdamit zusammen, dass die unreifengesellschaftlichen
Bedingungen, unter denen sie entstand und allein entstehen konnte, nie wieder-
kehrenk6nnen."

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
504 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

It is well knownthatMarx derivedthisnotionofGreekartas "epochal"

and "classical" from German idealist philosophy,especially from
Hegel.9 The idea of classicalart,whichimpliesthat the ideal of artistic
perfectionhas once been realized at a historicalmomentof the past,
comes into conflictwith Marx's emphaticallyevolutionaryview of
history.Man's productionof his life,his dominionovernaturethrough
the social organizationof his work,inexorablyprogressestowardshigh-
er stages,but in art the higheststage was reached early,and has never
been attainedagain. On the contrary,in the more developedstagesof
societyit can no longer be made to perfection.Then, there is only
"art production,"that is, art produced in accordance with organized,
feudallyrepressedor capitalisticallyalienatedconditionsof life. "Art,"
which is opposed to "art production,"is relatedto that notionof hu-
manitywhich, far frombeing perfectedin the progressingsocial or-
ganizationof production,is on the contrarydebased by it. Thus, "art
production"is no longer true to human nature. Yet the art of the
Greeksis perfect,althoughtheirsocietywas far frombeing so. Com-
munist commentatorsrecognize that this thesis would contradict
Marx's and Engels' general assumption that the cultural "super-
structure"is determinedby the economic "base." 10 They tryto rec-
oncile the contradictionby upgrading the Greek city of antiquity
with its plebiscitarydemocracyas an analogous political ideal which
could not be maintained in later stages of history.11But for Marx
the material basis resides in economic production,not in political
organization. He never declares the "slaveholder"societyof ancient
Greece as anythingof an ideal for human society in general, the
way he heredeclaresGreekart as an ideal forartin general. The point
of his textis to state that such a correlationdoes not appear to exist,
eitherin thehistoricalsituationof Greekart,or in thetheoreticalnotion
of a perfectartthatcan be derivedfromit.
Alreadyin the notesand excerptswhich Marx preparedforhis arti-
cle "On Religious Art" (1842), now lost, he implicitlydefinesthe
realismof Greekart as a trueexpressionof human nature. He opposes
it to religion,therebyradicalizingHegel's distinctionof both as parallel
if subsequentformsof human consciousness.Those excerptsfromthe
writingsof idealistart historianselaborateon the theorythat art in the
serviceof religionis alienated fromits ideal quality,which is human

9 Lifshitz, Philosophy, p. 71; Lukacs, Probleme, p. 136; Oelmilller, "Neue

Tendenzen," p. 182.
Io Lifshitz, Philosophy, pp. 67 f.; Grundlagen, pp. 168 f.; John, Probleme, p.
401; H. Lefebvre, Beitrige zur Asthetik (n.p., n.d. [Berlin, 1956]), pp. 41 f. Cf.
Oelmilller,"Neue Tendenzen," p. 182.
I E. g., Lukacs, Probleme,pp. 136 f., 290 f.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 505

realism; religiousart of ancient and medieval civilizations,they say,

distortshuman imagesintothoseof fictitious gods,deformingtheirnat-
ural featuresinto the terrorizingexpressionof idols by which sub-
missionofbelieversis enforced.12The essentialqualityof art appears to
be sacrificedto its religiousfunction,which in turn is nothingbut a
means forkingsand prieststo maintainauthorityovertheirpeople. The
insincererelationshipof religiousart to its manifestcontentsin these
early excerptsis the same as that of ideologyto its contentsin Marx's
laterwritings.On the basis of his readings,the youngMarx musthave
thoughtthat such a relationshipcontradictsthe basic definitionof art,
which forhim meant the undistortedrevelationof truehuman nature.
This contradictionis carried over into the oppositionbetween "art"
and "art production"in thelatertextof 1858.
Marx's early confrontation between art and religionhinges on the
term"fetishism."It denotesthe use of human images contraryto their
truemeaning,as fictitious deities,toolsfordominatingmen. In Marx's
latereconomictheory,the same termdenotesthe transformation of the
products of human labor intocommodityform,contrary to theirgenuine
purposeof servingthe needs of men's lives.13Art,accordingto Marx's
original conception,is by implicationfree of any social purpose, an
object of contemplationor enjoyment,perhaps in line with Kant's
definitionof disinterestedaestheticexperience. On this assumption,
any art which becomes part of cultureand is therebyultimatelypro-
duced by and forsociety,runs the danger of being estrangedfromits
essence. Marx sustainedthisconceptionin his later philosophicalwrit-
ings, where he set out to demonstratethat any and all products of
culture are dependent on the socially organized "base" of material
production. Now he subsumed art, togetherwith "morals, religion,
metaphysics,"underthe term"ideology,"as one of the "fog formations
in thebrainsof men."14All of themare made to appear autonomousin
relationto the primary,materialproductionof life,while in fact serv-
ing its social organization. Marx's still later text on the art of the
Greeks is consistentwith this view, yet sets art apart fromthe other
productsof ideology. Whereas religion,law, and philosophyin its tra-
ditional understanding,are exclusivelyand adequately definedby the

12 Lifshitz,Philosophy,p. 27.
13 Ibid., pp. 28 f.
14 Die deutsche Ideologie, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Werke, III (Berlin, 1962),
26. Without any doubt the conception of the "geistigen Produktion,wie sie in der
Sprache der Politik, der Gesetze, der Moral, der Religion, Metaphysik usw. eines
Volkes sich darstellt," includes art among "usw." In Kritik der politischen Oko-
nomie (Werke, XIII, 9), Marx explicitly speaks of the "juristischen, politischen,
religi6sen, kiinstlerischenoder philosophischen, kurz, ideologischen Formen," and
there is no reason to believe that the list has by then changed in scope.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
506 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

socially conditioneddependence of ideology on its material base, art

maintains an essence of its own, from which it appears perennially
estrangedby its recurrent ideologicalfunctionsthroughouthistory.The
artof the Greeksis the one historicalexamplewherethisessencecan be
contemplatedin its purity,since it appears exempt fromthe normal
ideologicalrelationship to itseconomicbase. It thusprovidesan Archi-
medean point fromwhich to judge mostlater art as untrueto its own
essence. The most extremejudgmentis to denounce capitalistsociety
as a whole as detrimentalto art.15 If man's estrangedrelationshipto
natureundercapitalismis givenas a reasonforthisverdict,6" it becomes
clear how much it depends on the idealist conceptionof an art that
capturestheessenceofnature.
The text presentsobvious difficulties for purposesof formulatinga
"Marxist" theoryof art. It projectsthe essenceof art back into a past
historicalideal which cannot be recaptured,and thus keeps it apart
fromthe ideal of human emancipationas a task of conscioushistorical
progresstowards the future. The ideal of art also cannot easily be
projectedinto an emancipatedsocietyof the futureif its definitionim-
plies that it should not be affectedby social organizationand function.
As forthe "art production"of the past, it completelyescapes the cor-
relationof art and truth,the ultimateaim of any philosophicalaesthet-
ics. It can onlybe subjectedto a historicalcritique.
A textfromThe German Ideology (1845) shows that Marx could
projecttheArchimedeanpoint,fromwhichto criticize"art production"
with its ideological dependenceon organizedsociety,into the utopian
futureas well as intotheclassicalpast.

Raphael, as well as any otherartist,was conditionedby the technicalad-

vances of art which had been made beforehim,by the organizationof
societyand thedivisionof laborin his locality,and finally,
by thedivision
of laborin all thecountrieswithwhichhis localitywas in communication.
Whetheran individuallike Raphael developshis talentdependsentirely
upon demand,whichin turndependsupon the divisionof labor and the
educational conditions of men which result from it. . . . The exclusive
concentration of artistictalentin singleindividualsand itssuppressionin
thebroadmassof peoplewhichthisentailsis a consequenceof thedivision
of labor.... Witha communistorganizationof society,thereceases,in
any event,the subsumption of the artistunderlocal and nationallimita-
tions,which ensues solelyfromthe divisionof labor, and thereceases
the subsumption of the individualunderone determinedart,wherebyhe
is exclusivelya painter,a sculptor,etc., and already his designation

15 Lifshitz,Philosophy,pp. 77 f.; Lukics, Probleme,pp. 212 f.

I6 Lifshitz,Philosophy,p. 74.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 507

expressesthe limitationof his commercialcareer and his de-

sufficiently
pendenceon the divisionof labor. In a communistsociety,thereare no
painters,but at mostmenwho,amongotherthings,also paint.17

The close relationshipof thistextto the much later one on the art of
the Greeksis an indicationof how consistentMarx's conceptionof art
remained. Alreadyhere,professional"art production"is denouncedas
a deviationfromthe human potentialof art itself,because it is adapted
to the needs and conditionsof a workingsocietywhose organizationis
detrimentalto the natureof man. It is opposed to "talent" as a natural
human capacity,which has to be emancipatedfromprofessionalization
in orderto be practicedaccordingto its essence. This amountsto an
emancipationfromsocial organizationas such.
In the later text, Marx acclaims Greek art as a classical ideal for
similarreasons: because it is not limitedby its social base, and because
it directlyexpresseshuman nature. Both thesetexts,spanningthirteen
yearsof Marx's writing,are the idealisticand the utopian versionsof
thesame sweepingjudgmenton art as sociallymotivatedand organized
work. By implicationtheydeclare the entirepast historyof European
art an alienated activity.This is in line with other,even more sweep-
ing statementsabout art as just anotherbrand of ideology. With regard
to thesocialistsocietyofthe future,thetextfromThe GermanIdeology
virtuallycalls forthe cancellationof "art production,"along withalien-
ated work in general. Art as a basic human activity,free from any
socially determinedfunction,and according to the freelydeveloped
potentialof human nature,will continueto be practiced. But its con-
tent,its purpose,and the conditionsof its existenceare difficult to en-
visage in termsof any art we know,withits inevitableintegrationinto
society. Conditionsunder which virtuallyeveryonecan become active

17 Die deutsche Ideologie, pp. 378 f.: "Raffael, so gut wie jeder andre Kiinstler,
war bedingt durch die technischen Fortschritteder Kunst, die vor ihm gemacht
waren, durch die Organisation der Gesellschaftund die Teilung der Arbeit in seiner
Lokalitditund endlich durch die Teilung der Arbeit in allen Liindern, mit denen
seine Lokalitditim Verkehr stand. Ob ein Individuum wie Raffael sein Talent
entwickelt,hiingt ganz von der Nachfrage ab, die wieder von der Teilung der
Arbeit und den daraus hervorgegangenen Bildungsverhkiltnissen der Menschen
abhiingt. .... Die exklusive Konzentration des kiinstlerischenTalents in Einzelnen
und seine damit zusammenhiingendeUnterdriickungin der grossenMasse ist Folge
der Teilung der Arbeit. ... Bei einer kommunistischenOrganisation der Gesell-
schaft ftilltjedenfalls fort die Subsumtion des Kiinstlers unter die lokale und
nationale Borniertheit,die rein aus der Teilung der Arbeit hervorgeht,und die
Subsumtion des Individuums unter diese bestimmteKunst, so dass es ausschliesslich
Maler, Bildhauer usw. ist und schon der Name die Borniertheitseiner geschSiftlichen
Entwicklung und seine Abhiingigkeit von der Teilung der Arbeit hinliinglich
ausdriickt. In einer kommunistischenGesellschaft gibt es keine Maler, sondern
h6chstensMenschen, die unterAnderm auch malen."

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
508 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

as an artist,yet no one will be limitedto artisticactivityalone, are

reminiscent of thatgeneralizedaestheticstateof beingwhich according
to Kant and Schilleris to characterizethebehaviorof emancipatedman
whosenatureand freedomcoincide. Marx convertsthisanthropological
construction ofidealistaestheticsintoa materialistifutopianperspective
forthe historicalfuture. It is so radical that it cannot but invokethe
idea of the end of art accordingto its past definition,withitsinevitable
of
aspect socially useful work. That idea had alreadybeen formulated
by Hegel when he conceived of a stage of human intellectualemancipa-
tionforwhichartis no longeran adequate meansofobjectivecommuni-
cation. It is an idea incessantlypondered and finallyrejectedby con-
temporaryGerman dialectical philosopherswho follow Hegel and
Marx.'8
Looking back on the art that did and does exist,the philosopher's
task,accordingto Marx, will be to point out its constantestrangement
from its ideal or utopian perfection. He will demonstratethat the
"semblance of autonomy" projected into ideological products19is by
definitiona fictitiousone. As an exception,the notionof an autonomy
of art is not fictitious;on the contrary,it is fundamentalforboth the
art of the Greeksand the artspontaneouslycreatedby the emancipated
individualsof the future. But historyshows art tangled in ideological
concerns. Time and again, it can be shown how the semblanceof its
autonomyunder these conditionswas in fact contrivedto serve par-
ticularinterestsof sociallyorganizedmaterialproduction. This is the
historian'stask."We know onlya singlescience,thescienceof history,"
wrote Marx and Engels in The German Ideology.20It is an all-com-
prehensivesciencewhich will endeavor to relate everyhuman activity
or productto the sociallyorganizedmaterialconditionsof men's lives.
The historicalinvestigation of art,likethatof any otherhuman product,
is bound to go beyondits confinesand to reach the basis of thesecon-
ditions. Taken by itself,art has not even a historyof its own.21 Marx
and Engels insistthat the onlyviable methodof demonstrating the all-
embracing historicalcontext is "empirical observation."22They oppose
it to philosophy,which "throughthe historicalrepresentation of reality
losesitsmediumof existence"as an autonomousdiscipline.23Theoryis

I8 0. K. Werckmeister,Ende der Asthetik (Frankfurt, I97I), pp. 29 f. (on

Theodor W. Adorno), p. 54 (on Ernst Bloch); forMarcuse, see below.
I9 Die deutsche Ideologie, p. 27.
20 Ibid., p. 18: "Wir kennen nur eine einzige Wissenschaft,die Wissenschaftder
Geschichte."
2 Ibid., p. 27.
22 Ibid., p. 25.
23 Ibid., p. 27.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 509

thus reducedto "a synthesisof the mostgeneralresults... which may

be abstractedfromthe observationof man's historicaldevelopment."24
However justifiedsuch a radical confidencein empiricalknowledgeof
realitymay be, taken on its own termsit leads onlyto one conclusion:
therecan be no science which explains human productsin any other
than a historicalway,much less an autonomousphilosophicaldiscipline
about such products. As far as art is concerned,there can be no
aesthetics. Abstractionis Marx's and Engels' negative antithesisto
empiricalknowledge. They admitit onlyas a way of devisingauxiliary
constructionsfor the incomplete progress of historical experience.
Abstracttermsand conceptsare merelyfunctional,subordinateto the
actual resultswhich theyrecapitulateor generalize,but theyhave "no
value at all iftakenby themselves,
severedfromreal history."25To con-
structfromthem schemes and systemswith a claim to independent
meaningis the fallacyof philosophy. Since such constructionsobscure
the historicalbasis of human conditions,theytend to become them-
selvesideological,26forthe semblanceof intellectualautonomyis tanta-
mount to ideology. As a result,consistenthistoricalresearch,as it is
bound to destroyany such semblance,convergeswith the critique of
ideology.

II

Marx's quest fora radical historicalcritiqueof cultureas a condition

for emancipationfromideologyis correlatedwith his conceptionof a
revolutionarychange in the economic base. By contrast,Marxistsin
the twentiethcenturystrivefor a revalidationof culture,because they
have been forcedto abandon the goal of revolutionary change, and in-
stead accept a politicallystabilized,static socioeconomicorder-with
ostensibleenthusiasmin the Soviet Union and othercommuniststates,
with unaverredresignationin the capitaliststatesof WesternEurope
and in theU.S.A. It is in thislaterstagethatfull-fledged theoriesof art,
or even "aesthetics,"were developed out of Marx's writings. Their
authorshad to go beyondwhat Marx himselfhad written,not onlybe-
cause therewas so littleof it,but also because it had to be broughtinto
line withthe changed historicalsituation. In the communiststates,it is
supplementedwith the writingof Lenin and Stalin,with the resultsof
officialpartyscholarship,and with the policiesof culturaladministra-

24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., p. x8.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
510 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

tion. In the capitaliststates,it is adapted to the stage of economicde-

velopmentunforeseenby Marx, wheretheself-destruction of capitalism
and the ensuingexpropriationof the means of productionby the work-
ing class has not taken place.27 Nevertheless,thesetheoriesof art are
meant to tallywithMarx's own writings, particularlyon the communist
side, where the compilation On Art and Literature is used as a canoni-
cal manual. How do theytake into accountthe textson Greekart and
on Raphael, in which Marx's thoughton art can be pinpointedmore
clearlythanin anyother?
Marx's notion that art depends on material productionis always
accepted withoutquestion,but his conclusionthat it thereforeforms
part of ideologyhas met withsurprisingly unanimousresistanceon the
part of Marxistwritersin bothEast and West. Plekhanovadopted that
conclusionat the beginningof the century,but his positionwas later
attackedin the SovietUnion as a "vulgar sociological"pointof view.28
At issue was the meaningwhich the art of the past mighthave for a
socialistcultureof the present. Is that art totallydeterminedby the
"feudal" and "bourgeois"societiesunder whose conditionsit has been
produced,and therefore to be criticized,ultimatelyeven to be rejected,
like otherformsof ideologywhich thesesocietieshave put forth? Or
does it on the contrarycontain a nucleus of truthunaffectedby ideo-
logical concernswhich can be reconciledto Marxist theory? Com-
munistauthorswanted to prove the latterproposition,and therefore
tendedto seekout textsby Marx and Engelsin which an independence
of artfromeconomicconditionsseemsto be in somemeasurereaffirmed.
The great art of the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturieswhich still
formspartof twentieth-century cultureposed the mostimmediateprob-
lem. In orderto deal withit,Marx's dictumthatcapitalistsocietyis per
se inimicalto artwas dialecticallybalanced intoan inherentantagonism
betweenthem. True art was declared necessarilycriticalof capitalism,
since,by definition,it containsthatbasic humanitywhichcapitalismop-
presses.29It cannot be denied thatgreatart was being produced under
capitalism, but no importantartist acclaimed capitalism in its true
character."3 From here it was but a stepto ascribeto art a revolutionary
potential.31 This was done most emphaticallyby Marxist authorsin

27 E.g., R. Garaudy, Marxisme du oe sidcle (Paris and Geneva, 1966), p. 190.

28 Cf. Lifshitz' long preface to the German translation of his book, Karl Marx
und die Asthetik, 2nd ed. (Dresden, 1967), pp. 27 f.; G. Just, Karl Marx zu
Fragen der Kunst und Literatur (Berlin, 1953), P. 37.
29 Luk~ics,Probleme,pp. 212 f.
30 John, Probleme, p. 395; P. H. Feist, Prinzipien und Methoden marxistischer
Kunstwissenschaft(Leipzig, 1966), p. 23.
31 Cf. Lifshitz,Philosophy,p. 68.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 511

capitaliststates where no real revolutionhad happened or could be

expected. For the sake of their argument,Marx's equation between
ideologyand art had to be explained away or even expresslydenied.32
They affirmed that trueart is essentiallynot ideology,even if intended
to be so under the social circumstancesof its production;33 that it will
state the truthabout capitalism,that is, its critique,regardlessof the
convictionsof its patrons,its makers,or its public;"34and that therefore
it can become as radical as revolutionitself.35This positionis directly
comparable to that of officialcommunistaestheticsregardingthe pur-
pose of art in thehands of the revolutionary class. Both positionsinvest
artwitha historicforceneverenvisagedby Marx himself.
No textby Marx has servedthisclaim to an activatedindependence
of artmorethanthepassage on theart ofthe Greekswithitsgeneralized
referenceto heydaysof "art not at all related to the general develop-
mentof society." That two or threeparagraphsin a preliminarydraft
of over a thousand pages, which Marx eventuallystruckout of his
published text,should have been over and over again quoted out of
contextand commentedupon, already indicates the discrepancybe-
tween his all but completeneglectof art and the disproportionate in-
terestin art on the part of his latercommentators, who foundit both so
puzzlingand so usefulforthe elaborationof an aesthetics.Marx, who
ascribedthe continuingfascinationof Greek art beyond the period of
its originto its intrinsicsignificance,does not seem to have reflectedon
the possibilitythat it mightbe this later fascinationalone which ac-
counts for the exceptional appearance of an art that transcendsits
historicalconditionsfromthe verybeginning."6Neither do his com-
munistcommentators.As a result,theytake his text as a valid state-
ment about reality,subject to no more than dialectical exegesis. In
thisstaticconceptualization,thetextpresentsorthodoxMarxistaestheti-
cians withthe fundamentalcontradictionof a perfectart in an imper-
fectsociety,as well as with the conclusionthat perfectart is an ideal
of the past, to which all later art produced withinsocial organization,

32 H. Marcuse, Counterrevolutionand Revolt (Boston, 1972), p. 82.

33 F. Klingender,Marxism and Modern Art (London, I943), pp. 35 f.; Lefebvre,
Beitrlige, p. 77; E. Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz: Beitrag zu einer modernen
marxistischenAsthetik(Hamburg, 1966), pp. 58 f.
34 The key example for this assumption is Marx's and Engels' assessment of
Balzac: cf. Ober Kunst und Literatur, I, 158 f., 589 f.
35 Marcuse, Counterrevolution,pp. 105, Io7, 116.
36 Only A. Hauser, Philosophy of Art History (New York, 1959), PP. 34 f., 176,
accepts the contradiction as a limitation of Marx's consistency. See also M.
Harrington, "A Marxist Approach to Art," The New International, 22 (1956),
40-49, cf. 41.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
512 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

includingthe classlessone, will be inferior.In a crude attemptto avoid

thatconclusion,Lifshitzspeculatesthatthe textfragmentoughtto have
been followedwhereit now breaksoffby "the demonstration of a possi-
ble new efflorescence of art.""37The contradictionis handled by the
academic Marxist tenet that contradictionis the dialectical form of
historicaltruth and can thereforebe accepted without any further
attemptto solve it. Thus the passage could be generalizedto mean a
necessarilycontradictory relationshipbetweensocietyand art,38despite
Marx's own statement,in the verysame text,that the contradiction
will only remain as long as it is generalized,but will be explained if
specified.For him the individualexplanationcould onlybe a historical
one. But communistaesthetics,no lessthanaestheticsin capitaliststates,
tendsto shyaway fromhistoricalresearchin orderto preservethe claim
of itsconceptualvalidity.By a purelyacademic procedure,Marx's text
was in fact generalizedto constitutea universal"principle" or even
"law" of "nonsimultaneityof developmentof material and artistic
production.""39No doubt the inconsistencystems from Marx's own
beliefthatthe art of the Greekscould serveas an "example" for a re-
currentsituation. But his argumentis so specificallytailored to the
conceptionsof classicismthat it is difficultto see how that situation
could be demonstratedto repeatitselfhistorically, and orthodoxMarx-
ist aestheticiansnevergive such a demonstration.Instead, the "princi-
ple of nonsimultaneity" enablesthemto project,in a purelyspeculative
manner, notions of historicalprogressand social critique into great
works of past art. The significanceof art is thus conceived as inde-
pendentof the historicallyrecordedconsciousnessof thosewho lived at
the time when it was made. Aestheticsservesits characteristicsocial
functionto appropriatethe art of the past as a vehicleforan accepted
truthof the present. It is part of the officialpolicy of "inheritance,"
wherebyart is exemptedfromthe break withthe past which had to be
made at the materialbase, that is, the organizationof productionand
society. For thispurpose,the art of the past had to be severedfromits
own materialbase.
Perhaps the most daring conclusionfromthe notion of "nonsimul-
taneity" of art with society,and from the concurrentdenial of its
ideologicalcharacter,has been drawnby a Marxistin theUnited States.
HerbertMarcuse uses the pertinentquote fromMarx's texton Greek
art as the motto for the chapter "Art and Revolution" in his book

37 Lifshitz,Philosophy,p. 89.
38 Ibid., pp. 67 f.; Lefkbvre,Beitriige,p. 45.
39 Grundlagen, p. 379; cf. Lukics, Probleme, p. 211; Garaudy, Marxisme, pp.
208 f.; Just,Karl Marx, pp. 38 f.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 513

Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972) .4 In linewiththemain tradition

of orthodoxMarxistaesthetics, he ascribesto art a fundamentalhumane
significanceby which it transcends the ideological limitationsof the
classes by and for which it was produced. But as in the aestheticsof
Kant and Schiller,this significanceconsistsin an emphatic vision of
man in freedom. Insofaras it is proclaimedunder social conditionsin
which freedomis repressed,art acquires a subversive,and ultimately
revolutionary, potential. In the bourgeoissocietyof the nineteenthand
earlytwentiethcenturies,artiststime and again worked against estab-
lishedsocial normsand therebyreaffirmed the notionof freedom.Mar-
cuse thereforerefusesto identifythe great art of that period with any
ideology that bourgeois societyotherwiseformulated. Its continued
appreciationin the presentsustains its subversiveforce even under
the changed conditionsof advanced industrialsocietywhere, accord-
ing to Marcuse, political and social emancipation has been made
even more impossiblethan before. Since that societyconcedes free-
dom to culture alone, art becomes the sole carrier of revolutionary
tendencies,at a time when the working class, which should carry
them, according to Marx's theory,has been integratedinto the eco-
nomic system. According to Marcuse, the "superstructure"emanci-
pates itselffromthe base in a mannerunheard of in orthodoxMarxist
theory. It generatesa consciousnessof change long beforeany change
can happen in material reality. But the proof for such a sequence
can only come in the future. One might suspect that a perennial
consciousnessof imminentor necessarychange is part of the un-
changed realityitself. The ideological character of this conception
is already apparent in Marcuse's grammar, where "art" becomes
an active noun, endowed with dynamic verbs. This is the language
of abstraction. Marx himselfcould not have set up art as an active
entity,since he stuck to the conceptionthat it is a product of men.
Moreover, the term "cultural revolution,"by which Marcuse desig-
nates his conception of an emancipated art in an unemancipated
reality,does not mean, in its orthodox Marxist understanding,an
initiativeof change confinedto culture,but one that operates in the
"superstructure" synchronically withprogressivechangesat the "base."
Much less does it implythat change in the formercan by itselfbring
about changein the latter. In fact,Marcuse expresslyrelateshis theory
of art to the acknowledgementthat at the base of advanced capitalist
society,and consequentlyin its politics,the potentialforrevolutionary
change has been effectively checked. He proclaims "cultural revolu-

40 Counterrevolution,p. 79.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
514 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

tion" as an alternativeto, but thereforealso as a consequenceof, resig-

nation in politics.41That has been the traditionalMarxist reproach
againstGermanidealistphilosophyaround 1800, includingitsaesthetics.
Marcuse, who explicitlyrelieson Kant's and Schiller'stheoriesof art,42
reenactstheirpoliticalsituation.
Did Marx refrainfromany theoreticaldefinition of thefunctionthat
art could have in thehistoricalprogresstowardssocialistsocietybecause
he subscribedto Hegel's view that art as a formof objective human
consciousnesshas become inadequate to presentand futuresocial con-
ditions?43The dialectical specterof an "end of art" keeps haunting
most of the aestheticswhich derive from Hegel, including that of
Marxism itself. Obviously,Hegel nevermeant to say that art will, or
should, no longerbe practiced,but only that it will cease to have the
philosophicaland social relevancewith which it had been creditedin
aestheticsbeforehim. Marx's and Engels' text on Raphael radically
releasesart fromthe gripsof any social function,and at the same time
fromits traditionaldefinitionas socially organized work. It thereby
separatesart completelyfromthe materialorganizationof society,the
realmwhere,accordingto Marxism,any positivephilosophicalcontent
would have to be verified.If art becomes the exclusiveexpressionof
subjectivefreedom,it mightno longerremaina viable mediumto con-
veyobjectivetruth.Apparentlyin orderto avoid just such a conclusion,
the texthas been passed over in silence in recentvolumeson Marxist
aestheticsfromEast Germany44 and treatedwith disproportionate lack
of attentionby other communistauthors. It is contended that the
emancipationof art which the text evokesis only fromcapitalistsoci-
ety,45whereasit is meantto be fromthe divisionof labor as such,which
of coursepersistsin a socialistsocietyas well. As a result,theseauthors
naivelyassumethatit will onlytake the revolutionary upsetof capitalist
societyto inauguratea new perfectionof art.46The notionof freedom
which the text entailsis neverseen as a problem,since it is taken for
grantedthat men and theirart will existin spontaneousharmonywith
communistsociety. Such views are hardlymore than abstractprojec-
tions into the future.47But in making them, communistwriterson
aestheticsoftenstartfroma defensiveposture,always on the alert to
fendoffthe suspicionthat Marx's and Engels' textactuallydoes imply

41 Ibid., pp. 133 f.

42 Werckmeister,Ende der Asthetik,pp. 107 f.
43 That is the opinion of Oelmiiller, "Neue Tendenzen," pp. 183 f.
44 Koch, Marxismus und A'sthetik;John,Probleme.
45 Lifshitz,Philosophy,pp. 93 f.; Grundlagen,p. 365.
46 Ibid.; cf. Lukacs, Probleme, p. 137, although not referringto this text.
47 Lifshitz,Philosophy,pp. 81 f.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 515

the notionof an end of art. In a decisivepassage of his SovietMarxism

(1958), Marcuse once maintained that this indeed ought to be the
conclusionof a Marxist theoryof art true to its premises. Hegel, he
writes,"attributedthis obsolescenceof art to the new scientific-philo-
sophic spirit,which demanded a stricterformulationof the truththan
that accessibleto art. Marxian theoryretainedthe historicallink be-
tweensocial progressand the obsolescenceof art: the developmentof
the productiveforcesrenderspossible the material fulfillment of the
de in
promesse bonheurexpressed art; political action-the revolution
-is to translatethis possibilityinto reality."'48Early Soviet artists
enthusiastically proclaimed the expansion of art into life itself. "...
Where all work for all [others],work becomes free, and everything
produced is art."49 If "the gravitationpoint of art . . will lie in life
itself-in thelinesand formsof itsobjects,in the language dailyspoken,
in the sounds of the factories,productionunits,ports,streets,tractors,
and workers'assemblies,"50then there is no point in transfiguring it
into a realm of aestheticcontemplation.This versionof the idea that
art comes true squares with the utopian sense of Marx's and Engels'
text. It is significantthat in that same early period Soviet theoristsof
art did not hesitateto view the meaning of past art as limitedby the
social conditionsof itstime. Both thesepositionsin theirdifferent ways
confidentlyacknowledged the radical distinctionbetween past and
presentrequiredby the revolution.They were not concernedwith the
conservationof culture. And it is again significantthat both abstract
art and "vulgar sociology"were later repudiatedby officialSoviet art
administrationand aesthetics. Marcuse recognizedthe self-contradic-
tion of these policies in termsof Marx's theory. This theorywas un-
equivocallyaimed at individual human freedom. Art as a projection
of freedomcould become superfluouswhen freedomcame about in
politicalreality,5'but it could continueas its expression.This was the
ecstatic convictionof early Soviet artistswho believed that the new
societywas bound to do away withthebourgeoisoppositionto advanced
modem art and the concept of uninhibitedself-expression which it
entailed. In turn,theywere confidentlyofferingan art conceived in
such a way for use by the new society. But Soviet art administration

48 H. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism (New York, 1961), p. 115.

49 El Lissitzky, in El Lissitzky, ed. S. Lissitzky-Kiippers (Dresden, 1967), p.
331. The translationin the English edition of this book [(London, 1968), p. 331,
"... work is given free scope . . ."] misses the point entirely.
50 S. Tretiakov, quoted after F. Schonauer, "Tretjakow und die Neue Linke,"
Neue Rundschau, 83 (1972), 585-89, cf. 588.
51 Cf. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, p. I I6.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
516 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

firstforcedthemto depictpoliticalthemesrealistically,on the dogmatic

assumption that in the communist state freedom was no longer an
issue; then, going further,it assigned them closely definedduties in
the continuingprocessof bringingthe communistsocietyabout. This
social refunctioningof art is the opposite of what Marx and Engels
had said in theirtext about the emancipationof art fromthe division
of labor and fromideological concerns. It coincideswiththe notorious
switch towards a positive understandingof the term "ideology" in
Soviet Marxism, as an acceptable means of communistpolitics,in
contradictionto the exclusivelynegative,criticaldefinitionof the term
in theworkof Marx.52

III

There is a tellingemphasison achievementand qualitywhen ortho-

dox Marxist aestheticianscome to assess the problematicalcorrelation
between the "development"of societyand that of art in comparative
terms. Whatever judgment results-sweeping putdowns of art pro-
duced in capitalistsociety,equally sweepingpraise of "social realism"
in the Soviet Union, or more cautious,balanced evaluationsof both-
art is definedin quantifiableterms,on a unifiedscale, as it were, of
superioror inferiorproductvalue. The main artisticcriterion,realism,
is preemptedby the implied correspondenceof its contentto official
doctrine. Other criteria of quality, which would derive from the
various techniquesof making art and theirspecificeffectson viewers,
are not elaborated. To overemphasizethemwould mean fallingunder
the spell of "formalism,"of l'art pour l'art, anathema to Marxist
aesthetics. It tends to defineart as a product,the use of which by
societyis of more concern than the workingprocess by which it is
made. The preoccupationwith objective truth contained and "re-
flected"in worksof art and the resultingconceptionof its "cognitive"
character similarlyrefersto consumptionof the product. Although
orthodoxMarxistaestheticiansaffirm timeand again that art has to be
consideredprimarilyas work,one would look in vain forany detailed
considerationon theirpart of the specific,concreteworkingconditions
under which art of the past was produced. For these reasonsthe text
on Raphael in The German Ideology was bound to be neglected. It
deals with art in the making,not withits reception,truthcontent,and
usefulnessforsociety. It deals with artists,not with worksof art, and

52 Ibid., pp. 75, Io9 ff.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 517

not withanything thatshouldbe decipheredfromart about social

progress. On the contrary, it impliesthatsocialprogress has to have
happened so thatart can be made according to itsessence.The central
issueofthetextis man'ssubjectivity as an essentialcategory ofhuman
freedom whichan emancipated society is called upon to release to its
truedestiny.But theidea of freedomhas been schematically, not to
saycynically, takenforgrantedin official communist aesthetics,which
was benton forcingit together withLenin'spostulatethatart pro-
ductionhad to be controlled by the Communist party.53In factit
neglected that idea, along with a historicalexplanationof art as the
workofmen.
The basic understanding of art as a humanactivityas Marx and
Engelsenvisagedit, rather than as a productforconsumption, calls
into questionnot just Marxistaesthetics, whichhad to be devised
withso much divergencefromtheiroriginalthought,but, beyond
that,aesthetics itself.For thecentralidea of aesthetics, theidea of art
overand abovethearts,transcends theconcrete notionsofarchitecture,
literature,music,visualrepresentation, and so on, in such a way that
one mustabstractpreciselyfromtheirworkingprocesses,and the
specificperceptions at whichtheseare aimed,in orderto makethem
philosophically compatible.'M OrthodoxMarxistaesthetics is no excep-
tionto thisrule. It lumpsthevariousartstogether withdisregard for
theirspecific differences,becausemostofMarx'sand Engels'textsthat
it can use are aboutliterature and thushaveto be generalized in order
to be applicable.Buthere,theensuingneglectoftheconcrete material
workingprocesscontradicts the fundamentalpostulateof Marxist
theorythatany consideration of humanproductivity muststartfrom
theworking process. This is not an in
just inconsistencyMarxistterms.
It is theinevitable of
quandary anyattempt to conceiveofan aesthetics
undermaterialist conditions.
Since Kant and Hegel,the term"art" whichaesthetics elucidates
has meanta particular to
approach truth, parallel withor even antago-
nisticto thatof reason,ratherthan a comprehensive conceptabout
man'sperennial makingofbuildings and images,textsand sequencesof
sound. As we becomemoreand moreskepticaltowardsworksof art
ofanytimeas vehiclesofa truthcompatible withtheeconomic, politi-
cal, and technological conditions under which we live,we take the
traditional correlation betweenartand truth,on whichaesthetics as a
sciencedepends,less and less seriously, and lose interestin such a

53 Koch, Marxismus und A'sthetik,pp. 354 ff.

54 Cf. Hauser, Philosophy,p. 151, with regard to the correspondingphilosophical
idea "work of art."

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
518 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

science even beforewe come to questionits viability. This skepticism

convergeswith a growingperceptionof the thoroughlyhistoricalcon-
ditioningof art. The resultsof art history,whichhas ignoredaesthetics
withoutperil,usuallyinvalidatethe currentideals whichwere projected
into worksof art of remotetimes and places beforetheywere really
known. Even contemporaryart is being perceived from an instant
historicaldistance. The more historicalresearchrelatesthe messages
of artworksfrompast and presentto the sociallyconditionedfunctions
for which they were originallyintended, the more the concept of
ideology,by whichtheirseemingtruthsand values are reconvertedinto
the subjectivebeliefsand purposesof thosewho lived with it, imposes
itselfas the fundamentalcategoryof a historyof art true to its name.
This developmentaway fromaestheticstowardscritiqueof ideology55
squares with Marx's view of "art production"as ideology,which needs
to be reassertedagainstthe oblivionintowhichit is thrownin orthodox
Marxistaesthetics.
Marx's texton Greekart,whichhas so oftenbeen cited as an excep-
tionto thatview,may now be reinterpreted in a way whichactuallycon-
firmsit. It mustbe takenforwhat it is: a problemposed,a perspective
to be clarifiedby furtherthoughtand work,not a dictumthat would
attach a final definitionto its subject. If it is indeed a contradiction
that thereshould be perfectworksof art which are out of tune with
the imperfectsocietyin which theywere produced,and if such a con-
tradictionought to disappear if specifiedhistorically, then it mightbe
just as well to how
explain historically the art of the Greeksacquired
the statusof an ideal in WesternEuropean culture,and thusto reduce
that ideal to the historicalnotionthatit actuallywas. Marx may have
accepted it as an ideal at the momentwhen he sketchedout his pre-
liminarytext. But since then it has long become doubtfulwhether
ancient Greek art embodiesthe brand of human perfectionthat was
projected into it by idealist philosophy,with its far-reachingmoral,
social, and anthropologicalimplications. It has become even more
doubtfulwhetherin turn this particularideal of humanityreallyex-
presses the social and political emancipation at which Marx's own
politicaltheorywas aimed. And almostcertainlyno one can see it as a
meaningfulideal by which contemporarymen can live, eitherunder
presentconditionsor under thoseof any anticipatedsocial change. If
Marx's contradictionsare "specified"in such a way, the explanation
is that the retrospectiveideal of perfectart cannot be maintained.

55 Werckmeister,Ende der Asthetik,pp. 57 ff. ("Von der Asthetik zur Ideo-

logiekritik"); K. W. Forster, "Critical History of Art, or Transfiguration of
Values," NLH, 3 (1972), 459-70.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MARX ON IDEOLOGY AND ART 519

Hence it no longer provides an argumentagainst the all-embracing

of art which Marx envisagedwhen he countedit among the
historicity
of
products ideology.
Finally,it seems possibleto come to termswith the uncannynotion
of the "end of art," which seems to follow from the postulate that
emancipatedsocietyis bound to shed all ideology. Surelyarchitecture,
painting,sculpture,and decorativecraftscannot conceivablycease to
be practicedby men. What may be headed foran end is the abstract
idea of art as a vesselof the truthabove ideologies,the centralissue of
aestheticsas a philosophical discipline. And with this idea gone,
aesthetics,Marxistor of any otherkind,losesitspurpose.The notionof
the "end of art" backfireson the science which conceived it: if it
has any meaning,it meansthe end ofaesthetics.Marx may have antici-
pated thiswhen he refrainedfromwritingon aesthetictheory.56
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
Los ANGELES

56 Thanks to Ted Hajjar and Carrol Wells for their close critical reading and
correctionof thisarticle.

This content downloaded from 128.143.23.241 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:16:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions