Marxist aesthetics (both the art and the criticism) dominated 20th century culture albeit in a variety of ways. Brecht is a far cry from Althusser’s Marxist structuralism. I was reading an essay today in preparation for an essay I’ve got to write on the use/value/meaning of art that contained the following:
Expressed simply one notion that all Marxist aesthetics share is the notion that the conditions and means that produced the art define its value, as such it is paradoxical that we should still appreciate (and canonise) Greek art (and literature) when our conditions, means of production, political structures and so forth are so different.
The answer that was staring at me as I read this was that all art is inevitably produced in the conditions in which it is produced and that this affects it in some way(s) or other. Nonetheless the very nature of art as language means that it is also distanced from the context in which it is produced, it is a supplement to its context rather than merely a perpetuation of it, it is always already a form of resistance to its context, inescapably entropic. For art to mean anything it must be able to be meaningful outside of the moment of its production, all language, all communication and intimation is predicated on this aspect of deferral. Otherwise all we’d ever see art (or any form of intimation) do is reflect the circumstances that brought it about and we’d still be living exactly like the Greeks. I’m not saying that we’ve progressed, necessarily, but we aren’t wearing togas and my name isn’t Alcibiades.
Good topic SIATD. I was reminded of a conversation in The Fountainhead where the protagonist, Howard Roark, is asking the dean of the architectural school he’s just been expelled from why so much value is placed on ancient definitions of art.
“That is our sacred tradition.”
“Why?”
“For heaven’s sake, can’t you stop being so naive about it?”
“But I don’t understand. Why do you want me to think that this is great architecture?” He pointed to the picture of the Parthenon.
“That,” said the Dean, “is the Parthenon.”
“So it is.”
“I haven’t the time to waste on silly questions.”
“All right, then.” Roark got up, he took a long ruler from the desk, he walked to the picture. “Shall I tell you what’s rotten about it?”
“It’s the Parthenon!” said the Dean.
“Yes, God damn it, the Parthenon!”
The ruler struck the glass over the picture.
Roark goes on in some detail to explain what’s “rotten” about the Parthenon. And yet, over time, over centuries, it is naturally assumed to be great architecture. Maybe it is, I don’t know. Roark didn’t especially think so. But our interest in appreciating Greek art (and architecture), for example, seems to continue regardless of the differences in conditions, means of production, etc. Why? I would have to say tradition. An attempt, perhaps (rightly or wrongly), to want to connect with our past.
Maybe it’s a subconscious hope we have that someday, centuries from now, people will want to connect with us, that our art will mean something. And so we respect and appreciate what has come before. Yes, it can be meaningful outside of the moment of its production, but the moment of its production is significant as well. It gives it a context, an attachment to something maybe larger than itself. The Parthenon isn’t an architectural wonder. It is ancient Greece come alive.
If I remember correctly, Marx never talked all that much about art. His brief point on the Greeks were to ask, given that art is the product of the conditions of its production (common sense), then why does Greek art still attract us?
Should we define art as that which ‘transcends’ its own conditions? Makes sense to me. And so the Parthenon can be legitimately called art precisely because it still attracts us.
And yet, the question still remains, why do some things transcend and some don’t?
This is a very interesting discussion, it’s easy to see that Marxist thought and art inspired by it has and is having a huge influence on culture. Every film director who uses a montage is tapping into a technique designed to convey dialectics. Not to mention Bernardo Bertolucci or Jean-luc Godard….who produced explicitly Marxist works of art and the list goes on.
The base/superstructure model is a given for one must produce before they can consume…that includes culture too although early orthodox Marxism at a much narrower conception of the economic or productive aspects of society. So art is definitely formed within the wider context of the society and draws meaning from context. Intertextuality with other text of the same period helps us understand the authors intent because it helps us understand how terms and metaphors where used to convey meaning. But beyond that Intertextuality as put forward by Roland Barthes i.e. that there is a closed meaning for the author and what he intended but also an open meaning for whoever views the pierce bring their own conception of the symbols used and therefore a completely different meaning is derived from the same text.
The reason why I think some art survives is by reputation of being the best of it’s time and therefore a connection with that time. When I was younger I used to read a lot of Hellenic history and mythology, because I found my own time boring and banal, that everything was happened in the past and everything was going to happen in the future. So reading that stuff gave me a link to a more adventurous time, of now I can see that there is a lot going on around the world that matters and is cutting edge.
Something to ponder, Euripides and Sophocles are too of the main Athenian tragedy playwrights but the question of who is greater has changed over time. Euripides wasn’t as popular during his life time but in roman times he wasn’t considered the greatest of Hellenic tragedy playwrights out doing the other two notable ones.