30

p K. Dolgov

p The roots of the theory of reflection can be traced back to antiquity, to the times when the ancient Greek philosophers tried to solve the problems of cognition of the cosmos, of the world around them, striving also to understand themselves. But only with the advent of Marxist philosophy did the theory of reflection become a genuine science and the theoretical basis of all human cognition. It received a true scientific grounding and development in the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, and especially V. I. Lenin, and as a result became known as Lenin’s theory of reflection.

p V. I. Lenin wrote: “...the first stage, moment, beginning, approach of cognition is its finitude (Endlichkeit) and subjectivity, the negation of the world-in-itself—the end of cognition is at first subjective...."  [30•1  And indeed, human cognition, at least in its individual form, is always of a finite, subjective nature and pursues subjective ends; this can be explained, above all, by the fact that the cognition of reality is effected through the subject and by means of the subject.

p A great danger of exaggerating or absolutising the subjective factor in human reflection of the cognition of reality is concealed in the situation indicated. This leads to a divorcing of cognition from the object, in connection with which Lenin wrote: “Kant took the finite, transitory, relative, conditional character of human cognition (its categories, causality, etc., etc.) as subjectivism, and not as the dialectics of the idea (=of nature itself), divorcing cognition from the object."   [30•2 

31

p What is the significance and role of the categories of the subjective and objective in art?

p Art, being a form of consciousness, reflects the real world which exists independently of human consciousness. According to the principle of Marxist-Leninist gnosiology, the object of reflection and means of reflection are historically determined and conditioned by the level of production and culture attained. However art allows man to “overstep” the limits of his times. In reflecting actual reality, in reflecting a definite object or certain of its features, the artist goes further: during the process of his creativity he reproduces not simply the object, but also the prospects for its development. In this sense art is not ruled by time.

p In any case—whether the artist reproduces the past, present or future—he will proceed from the reflection of actual reality existing at the given moment. What is more, reproduction of the past and predictions of the future are entirely determined by the present: a concrete and historical object constitutes the initial moment of the process of reflection, though its role is not reduced only to this. Any work of art encompasses the past, present and future, irregardless of whether it is dedicated to the past, future or present. This “supra-historical character" of awork of art is conditioned by the specifics of art as an artistic and image reflection of reality, as a specific subjective and objective relationship. A concrete and historical object is such not by virtue of its own isolation from the past and future but on the contrary, only by virtue of its own intimate link with the past and the future.

p However a concrete and historical object existing in real time and space is one thing, but the reflection of the given object in art is another: irrespective of whether a work of art represents a real object (statue, architectural edifice) or whether it exists as something imagined (an architectural edifice in a painting), a work of art as such possesses its own imagined, “unreal” space and time, its own “unreal” existence which reflects an object actually existing. In addition to their usual existence in the form of an object, artistic creations have a “second life”, the life of a work of art, which constitutes their true existence. Let us recall Aristotle -’s example: when a sculptor begins working with a slab of marble that statue which he intends to create is already in his consciousness—it can be said that the statue’s ideal existence precedes its real existence. The subject not only reproduces the object but also creates it. This is expressed both in the fact that the artist also creates objects and phenomena not existing before in nature (architectural edifices, statues, symphonies, etc.), and in the fact that he transforms already existing objects according to the laws of beauty.

32

p Man humanises nature and objectivises himself while transforming nature. This is especially vividly revealed in art. No matter which work of truly realistic art we take, the humanistic aspect will be present. However a certain difference in manifestations of “the human element" in art does exist: it is evident in portrait painting or portrait sculpture, and as to any architectural edifice, paysage or decorative pattern, their “human element" is not expressed directly but exists as though relegated to second place. In the one case we see the manifestation of the human nature of art in the obvious fact that any work of art is created by a human being. In the other, the human-nature of art is manifested in the “human object" when a work portrays man directly. Finally, in the third case; its human nature is expressed indirectly rather than directly, by means of a more or less relative image, for example paintings of nature with the aid of colours, lines, etc. (paysages, decorative patterns, etc.). In all works of art social man, the subject, is the principal object of artistic creativity. Man humanises nature by means of society and thanks to society. Thus in his lyric poetry the poet expresses above all his own attitude towards reality, his own emotional experiences, himself, his own “subjectivity”, however he does this always through some object lying outside of this “subjectivity”.

p V. I. Lenin’s principle that follows is extremely important for an understanding of the essence of artistic creativity: “Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it."  [32•1  Indeed, the true meaning of artistic creativity lies precisely in not only and not simply reflecting the world, but also in creating, in the process of man’s practical and spiritual interaction with nature, with reality, and in the process of the subject’s interaction with the object, artistic values that did not exist before. As results of human labour and creativity works of art appear as a world “objectifying” human essence thus revealing the depth and the nature of man’s practical and spiritual attitude to reality and that of the subject’s to the object. “The notion (=man), as subjective, again presupposes an otherness which is in itself (= nature independent of man). This notion ( = man) is the impulse to realise itself, to give itself objectivity in the objective world through itself, and to realise (fulfil) itself.

p “In the theoretical idea (in the sphere of theory) the subjective notion (cognition?), as the universal and in and for itself indeterminate, stands opposed to the objective world, from which it obtains determinate content and fulfilment.”  [32•2 

33

p It stands to reason that nature and practice appear as the starting point and basis of man’s creative activities.

p “One cannot begin philosophy with the ‘Ego’. There is no ’objective movement’."  [33•1  Just as one cannot begin with the ‘Ego’ in art. The “beginning”, or the starting point in art always has to be objective. But one cannot conceive of art without the human ‘Ego’, without the subject, and without its creative activity, during the process of which and owing to which man changes himself and his surrounding reality according to the laws of beauty. The whole point is that man does not exist passively in the world but actively. He constantly “relates” to the world both theoretically and practically. During the course of this constant theoretical and practical relation to the world the subject develops a confidence in his actuality and in the “non-actuality” of the world, that is, as Lenin wrote, “...the world does not satisfy man and man decides to change it by his activity”.  [33•2 

p However the objective world develops according to its own laws. In order to change it, it is necessary not only to cognise these laws but also to transform the world during the course of revolutionary practice. “The ‘objective world’ ’pursues its own course’, and man’s practice, confronted by this objective world, encounters ’obstacles in the realisation’ of the End, even ’impossibility...’  [33•3 ". However the ends in man’s activity in transforming the world are not only and not simply subjective; they arise out of reality itself, or more accurately, are the “demand” of reality and man’s practice. Precisely this is why objective reality and practice are the starting point, the basis of human cognition and reflection of the world.

p By influencing man’s consciousness and forming his attitude to the world and, subsequently, world outlook, art is capable of giving human activity a definite direction, goal and meaning, namely by not simply changing the world but by changing it aesthetically, according to the laws of beauty. In the present case the question is of that same complicated dialectics of the ideal’s passing into the real about which V. I. Lenin wrote: “The thought of the ideal passing into the real is profound: very important for history. But also in the personal life of man it is clear that this contains much truth. Against vulgar materialism.... The difference of the ideal from the material is also not unconditional, not “überschwenglich."  [33•4  The reflection of objective reality in art—as, incidentally, in science as well—is of an ideal nature. In addition, it 34 would not be right to understand the process of reflection as something passive, dead; on the contrary, the reflecting of reality by the human creative consciousness is of an active, effective nature. The active nature of reflection manifests itself particularly vividly in art. Art engages man’s practical activity not only in the “photographed” form but also immediately—as activity in creating works of art. The unorthodoxy of man’s cognition of reality appears more distinctly in an artist’s work. The will of man also manifests itself more conspicuously in an artist’s work, facilitating and simultaneously impeding advancement towards attaining the set goal; in addition, the combining of cognition and practice appears more clearly and concentrated here. This explains both the extreme complexity and difficulty of artistic creativity in general and the essential manifestations of its features, specifically the personal, “subjective” nature of artistic creativity. If, perhaps, it is possible to explain to any person how one work or another is or was created, then to teach a person how to create a genuine work of art is impossible if he does not have the definite inclinations and talent to be an artist.

p Practice always appears as the “meeting place" of the subject with the object, the place of their interaction and mutual influence. In art, “technique”—artistic technique—is this “meeting place" of the artist and the actual world.

p It is only natural that practice bears a “subjective” nature, or more accurately, subjective-objective attitudes in art are of a personal, individual nature. The logic of art has common points of contact with the logic of science. This is determined above all by objective reality and by the fact that practical and theoretical as well as practical and spiritual relationships are always those which presuppose the presence of a subject and object. In the sphere of scientific cognition and scientific creativity these relationships acquire an “objective” appearance or form, and in the field of artistic creativity—a “subjective” or “subject” appearance or form.

p What constitutes the common character of the logic of science and the logic of art? V. I. Lenin spoke of three premises characterising scientific, logical cognition: “First premise: The good end (subjective end) versus actuality (’external actuality’). Second premise: The external means (instrument), (objective). Third premise or conclusion: The coincidence of subjective and objective, the test of subjective ideas, the criterion of objective truth.”  [34•1  Scientific, logical cognition begins with the presence of objective reality and the subject’s definite end in changing that reality. One 35 has to have necessary instruments in order to change reality. During the course of practical activity reality is changed in accordance with the subjective end. Besides, one must search for the criterion of achieved or unachieved conformity with reality and the planned end in practice itself.

p In art objective reality and the subjective end is also the initial premise. The final conclusion also consists in the coincidence of the subjective and objective. The difference apparently lies in the specifics of the means for achieving the planned end and also in the form of coincidence of the subjective and objective.

p Man, as a social and conscious being, sets himself definite ends which, as a rule, he conceives of as his personal subjective ends. This is precisely why Lenin said that man’s ends at first seem alien to nature. However these ends are actually an expression and reflection of objective demands and objective natural laws just as all the basic means of achieving the planned ends are determined by the laws of the objective world. Lenin said: “In actual fact, men’s ends are engendered by the objective world and presuppose it,—they find it as something given, present. But it seems to man as if his ends are taken from outside the world, and are independent of the world (‘freedom’)."  [35•1  The importance of these of Lenin’s theses for art, artistic creativity and creativity in general is obvious.

p How often a man, when stepping onto the difficult path of creativity, strives to set himself tasks which no one had ever set before. A period of agonising searchings and meditations begins. Ends are replaced by other ends. Each discovery, which at first seemed a lucky one, turns out to be something already long known and traversed. Sometimes a discovery leads to new disappointments. At long last the man finds some unique idea and sets himself the goal of realising it. And, suddenly, it turns out that either this idea is not so new and unique or that it has been “hanging in the air”, existing in the minds of many people for a long time already. In this case, the “creator” tries to attribute this idea and the end—its realisation—to himself, as his own great discovery; or the opposite, he immediately rejects it and its realisation on the grounds that it is the property of many (and he needs something super-original and unique). But the true artist takes this idea, sets himself its realisation as his end and goes towards this end in spite of everything, since he understands that the process of artistic creativity is not a manifestation of pure subjectivity but an expression and reflection of the profound processes of human life interpreted by the individual consciousness of the creator.

36

p It takes a colossal effort and great will, fortitude, patience and courage, let alone work, to achieve the planned end. In this sense the freedom of the artist appears as the fight against everything that interferes with his realising of the planned end and his following the demands of objective historical necessity. Real freedom of creativity is the artistic comprehending of historical necessity. In this sense the object determines the artist’s subjective activity beyond all doubt and is the basis of his creativity.

p In his practical activity man is confronted by the objective world and is dependent upon it for it determines his activity. Man’s ends and his means for attaining them are determined by the laws of the external objective world. These laws are the basis of man’s expedient activity, the basis of the cognition and reflection of the world by human consciousness.

Of course this cognition and reflection are never absolutely complete and perfect. Rather they form an endless process of man’s coming closer to comprehending the laws of nature. “Knowledge is the reflection of nature by man. But this is not a simple, not an immediate, not a complete reflection, but the process of a series of abstractions, the formation and development of concepts, laws, etc., and these concepts, laws, etc. (thought, science = ’the logical Idea’) embrace conditionally, approximately, the universal law-governed character of eternally moving and developing nature. Here there are actually, objectively three members: 1) nature; 2) human cognition = the human brain (as the highest product of this same nature), and 3) the form of reflection of nature in human cognition, and this form consists precisely of concepts, laws, categories, etc. Man cannot comprehend = reflect = mirror nature as a whole, in its completeness, its ’immediate totality’, he can only eternally come closer to this, creating abstractions, concepts, laws, a scientific picture of the world, etc., etc."  [36•1 

This is man’s external and endless “moving” to nature; and since, as Lenin noted, man’s brain is a product of this same nature, then it is also nature’s moving to man and itself. However this is not in the sense of man’s abstract and idealistic moving to nature in general, but in the sense that concrete and historical man, by using the instruments and means of the historical and concrete method of production, cognises the laws of nature more profoundly and completely. In this practical and theoretical process nature and man seem to be meeting each other half-way, coming closer to each other.

37

p It is precisely in this sense that art is the “meeting place" of nature and man and also one of the ways and means of cognition and self-consciousness. And if technique (mechanical, chemical, etc.), determined by the laws of nature, serves the practical ends of man, then the technique of art (the technique of painting, music, etc.) serves the artist both as the means to the cognition and reflection of nature and reality in general and as the means to selfexpression and self-knowledge. The affirmation according to which the artist who has not found his technique has not realised himself as an artist is undoubtedly true.

p Lenin substantiated a thesis of major significance for logic and the theory of cognition: “If one considers the relation of subject to object in logic, one must take into account also the general premises of Being of the concrete subject (= life of man) in the objective surroundings.”  [37•1  The given thesis concerns art to the same extent. If an artist wants to show the true place of the subject and his attitude towards the object, then he has to take into account a concrete man and his life and activity in concrete, objective circumstances. We speak here of a concrete man in concrete circumstances. Only a bad artist can proceed from some sort of general, abstract type-scheme and “fit” living people into it. The true artist always proceeds from life, from concrete, living people who, by virtue of definite, objective, concrete and historical circumstances, become typical of one society or another, of one era or another.

p In reference to the problems of artistic creativity one ought to remember that the essence of the latter consists, as has been mentioned more than once, not only in a reflection of the world, but also in the creation of new artistic values. The process of artistic creativity is exceptionally complicated and many-sided. It includes and combines theory and practice, history and project, the past, present and future, individual and social consciousness, logic and intuition, quest and results, a more or less adequate reflection of actuality and fantasy, reality and myth, etc. Artistic creativity is not only the object’s influence on the subject but also the subject’s influence on the object; as a result of artistic creativity both the object and the subject are transformed. Thus artistic creativity combines a number of functions: creative, aesthetic, ideological and educative and world outlook.

p The process of creating works of art is impossible without a certain quantity of information (the artist must possess certain theoretical knowledge and practical habits). At the same time the creating of works of art means the creating of new information and 38 the enriching and developing (qualitatively and quantitatively) of information already possessed (the infinite process of discovery in composition, colour, sound, etc., etc.).

p We must stress here the fundamental significance for understanding the law-governed character of artistic creativity of Lenin’s thesis on the role of signs and symbols in cognition. Lenin in his time sharply criticised the subjective idealistic theory of symbols which absolutised the important role signs and symbols play in human cognition. The theory of symbols, as Lenin noted, “...implies a certain distrust of perception, a distrust of the evidence of our sense-organs. It is beyond doubt that an image can never wholly compare with the model, but an image is one thing, a symbol, a conventional sign, another. The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it ‘images’. ’Conventional sign’, symbol, hieroglyph are concepts which introduce an entirely unnecessary element of agnosticism."  [38•1  On this basis some philosophers and aestheticians came to the mistaken conclusion that Lenin wy.s against any application of signs and symbols. In reality Lenin criticised the theory of symbolism and the “Theory of Hieroglyphs" for their subjective idealism and for their substitution of objective reality by symbols, signs and hieroglyphs, emphasising at the same time that “...there is nothing to be said against them in general. But ’against all Symbolism’ it must be said that it sometimes is ’a convenient means of escaping from comprehending, stating and justifying the conceptual determinations’ (Begriffsbestimmungen). But precisely this is the concern of philosophy."  [38•2  Lenin spoke out against the absolutisation and one-sided understanding and application of signs and symbols; he spoke out both against identification of the image and object and against the metaphysical alienation of one from the other, the contraposing of one to the other.

p Lenin always emphasised the profoundly dialectical nature of the process of reflection: “The coincidence of thought with the object is a process: thought (=man) must not imagine truth in the form of dead repose, in the form of a bare picture (image), pale (matt), without impulse, without motion, like a genius, like a number, like abstract thought."  [38•3  The process of reflection is realised continuously, in the eternal approximation to reality of the human consciousness. In this contradictory process there are relatively stable, “set” moments which can be fixed in the form of something constant, motionless, invariable. However these are precisely 39 separate moments of the internally profound, contradictory process of reflection: the constant in human thought lies in that firmness and conviction with which man overcomes the contradiction of thought and object. “Cognition,” emphasised Lenin, “is the eternal, endless approximation of thought to the object. The reflection of nature in man’s thought must be understood not ‘lifelessly’, not ‘abstractly’, not devoid of movement. not without contradictions, but in the eternal process of movement, the arising of contradictions and their solution."  [39•1  Consequently the comprehending of the very process of reflection, which implies a deeply contradictory and dialectical nature, is possible only on the basis ol the philosophical and methodological principles of materialist dialectics. However it would be erroneous and one-sided not to take into account the possibility of using more particular, concrete and scientific approaches for depicting and explaining both the process itself of the reflection of reality by human consciousness and the finished products of this process. In connection with this it is interesting to examine the relationship between Lenin’s theory of reflection and such methods used for depicting and interpreting the process of artistic creativity and art as semantics, semiotics, and structuralism, which accentuate the attention around the problems concerning the usage of signs, models, structures, symbols, etc., in the process of artistic reflection and creativity.

p It must be noted immediately that there are no grounds for contraposing structural methods to Lenin’s theory of reflection, for as has already been said, Lenin’s theory of reflection in all definiteness admits the heuristic value of using symbols and signs not only in science and technology but also in human cognition in general, and this means also in the artistic cognition of reality and in art. However by virtue of the specific nature of art as a form of social consciousness signs and symbols play a special role in it. It is known that semiotics sets the study of all systems of signs as its task. Language is the classic example of a system of signs. However the multiform, actually existing links of the designated and designating are by no means reduced to those forms which are found in language.

p Art as one of the forms of social consciousness cannot be reduced to language if only because any form of art is, in comparison with language, more closed (since works of art do not yield to an adequate “translation”) and more open (since the sphere of the manifestation of the relationships of the beautiful is boundless). Any work of art and any form of art can have a symbolic and sign 40 function, but not one form of art and not one work of art can be reduced to that function if only because art cannot appear in the role of metalanguage; it cannot be the “painting of painting”, or the “music of music”, etc., not to mention the fact that art is not a “phenomenon of language" in its own sense of the word since it does not possess the dual characteristics inherent in language:it has neither “phoneme” nor “morpheme”. Since this is so, then one ought rather to compare art with speech and not with language. However in this case also one must take into account the exceptional historical character of the code applied in art and its social conditionally and determinateness as well.

Lenin’s theory of reflection makes use of the achievements of modern science; in their turn, modern science and art, scientific and artistic creativity are guided by the theory of reflection. The application of cybernetics, semiotics, structural analysis, and the theory of information enrich aesthetic research. However one must not elevate any of these concrete methods to the absolute, and all the more so try to substitute the dialectical method and the theory of reflection by them.