p There still exist certain differences of opinion when it comes to defining the subject of aesthetics.  [7•*  During the last two decades scientific debates have been held on this point, but controversy still continues. The growing importance of literature and art in the life of society, the broad penetration by artistic principles of various spheres of our day-to-day life, and the enormous increase in the degree to which aesthetics invades our immediate environment (especially through industrial designing), the need for aesthetic education and the relevant theoretical elaboration of aesthetic questions all call for a clear definition of the subject of aesthetics and its links with other related spheres of scientific knowledge.

p The differences of opinion mentioned above are reflected first and foremost in, two diametrically opposed points of departure. According .to the one, aesthetics constitutes a science concerned solely with the laws of artistic development _;and the nature of artistic creativity. Viewed from that angle, aesthetics is no more than the general 8 theory of art. Those who approach it from the other angle, proffer the view that aesthetics and the general theory of art are two separate sciences. It is precisely the theory of art which is concerned with the laws of artistic development and the nature of artistic creativity, while aesthetics, they assure us, is just a science of the beautiful, both in the real world and in art.

p Clearly neither of these approaches is acceptable, since they are both one-sided. Aesthetics is concerned both with the study of the beautiful in all its manifold forms and also with the elucidation of the nature of art and the laws of its development.

p Marxist-Leninist aesthetics serves to summarise the laws governing man’s aesthetic perception of the world. Howeverj given that these laws find their fullest, most comprehensive and direct expression in art, so aesthetics constitutes first and foremost a science of the essence and fundamental laws of art, of the nature of artistic creativity. Thus the significance of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, which scientifically substantiates the experience involved in the most diverse manifestations of aesthetic perception, is determined first and foremost by the role which it plays in the development of art.

p It is this principle of Marxist aesthetics which has gained particularly wide recognition. Its adherents, logically enough, start out from the fact that man’s aesthetic perception of the real world is a broader sphere of activity than art itself. It involves not only artistic creativity but also other manifestations of man’s aesthetic relationship with reality. Yet at the same time it presupposes a farreaching and active influence exerted by art on various spheres of material and cultural life, the participation of art in the process of transforming the real world. This is why literature and art have always been the main subjects of aesthetic study throughout its history, and it is no coincidence that the fundamental and most important premises of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics have taken shape above all on the basis of generalisations drawn from artistic experience. Theoretical interpretation of creative 9 work in the field of modern art and deliberate influence upon its development is the most important task of Marxist aesthetics now, as before. The Soviet aesthetician V. Sokolov noted with good reaso^n that art as part of the subject of aesthetics occupies pride of place and not only on the strength of its sheer volume. To a large extent art determines the very character of aesthetic research as a whole. This explains why the majority of aesthetic theories to date have resembled art criticism. The theory of art has thus provided (and, we can add, provides) the most satisfactory and comprehensive model on which to base parameters for other phenomena coming under the heading of aesthetics. The subject of aesthetics now covers wider ground, but "parameters for other phenomena" that come within its range are, at the present time, still determined by art as such.

p Adherents of the opposite view, who hold that there is a sharply defined boundary between the general theory of art and aesthetics, the study of the beautiful, suggest that their standpoint is based on Chernyshevsky’s point of view and is diametrically opposed to the basic tenets of Hegelian aesthetics. At the same time they stress that Hegel in his Asthetik started out from the view that the said science is a theory of art, and, to be more precise, a theory of fine art, while Chernyshevsky used two separate concepts: “aesthetics” and the "theory of art". However, it would seem that Chernyshevsky did not in any way consider these concepts to represent two separate sciences. He asked: "What is to be understood by aesthetics if not a system of general principles for art as such, and poetry in particular." It is clear that Chernyshevsky, like Hegel before him, as he worked towards a definition of the subject of aesthetics, maintained that it should be defined first and foremost as a general theory of art. The fact that Chernyshevsky appeared to distinguish between aesthetics and art criticism did not constitute any fundamental difference between the conceptions of the two writers; what set Chernyshevsky’s ideas apart from those of Hegel was the former’s materialist interpretation of 10 the nature of aesthetics and artistic creativity and the social role of art. It thus follows that Chernyshevsky cannot be ranked among those writers who regard aesthetics and the theory of art as separate entities.

p Precise definition and enrichment of our concepts of the subject of aesthetics are essential for its continued development. Debates in recent years has centred round the concluding stage of work aimed to single out aesthetics as a separate branch of scientific knowledge. Controversy has centred, in particular, around such problems as the relationship between aesthetics and the history of art, and between aesthetics and philosophy, in the bosom of which it has traditionally developed. However, this broadening of modern concepts of aesthetics does not in the least imply that all phenomena of the real world should be brought within its scope or that its range should be extended to the utmost in view of the aestheticians’ capacity to provide an aesthetic evaluation of any phenomenon. Yet at the same time its range should not be excessively narrowed down by the omission from aesthetic studies of art in the broad sense of the word. An example of this narrowing, and hence impoverishment, of the subject of aesthetics can be found in Gennadi Pospelov’s book The Aesthetic and the Artistic (1965), where categorical distinctions are "drawn between the aesthetic and the artistic, thus excluding the general theory of art from the field of aesthetics. The author holds that research into specific features of art and study of the nature of creativity (as opposed to particular, theories of art) should be the province of a separate science, ai’^general theory of art". This assumption need-not be called in question. However Pospelov goe’s on to suggest that the theoretical study of the history of- art, that has-constituted a separate science since -the time of Hegel, is, wrongly termed aesthetics: "During the last one hundred-apd fifty years, indeed right up to the:present time, the general theoretical study of the history :of .art has:: often been- labelled ‘aesthetics’, which gives rise to?impermissible confusion of quite distinct branches of knowledge." Yet if aesthetics is taken 11 separately from the general theory of art, then what is left, what will its subject be?

p In answer to this question Pospelov suggests that the definition of the subject of aesthetics provided by Baumgarten be used: in the latter’s view aesthetics was the study of "knowledge through sensation" that helps man to understand the beauty of the world around him. Aesthetics, as defined by Pospelov, is the science of the objective properties of the “beautiful”, of the correlation between the beautiful and other analogous properties of phenomena in the real world, and of man’s apprehension of these properties. However, the weakness of this view comes clearly to the fore in the final conclusion drawn by the author: although aesthetics has its own specific subject-matter, this subject-matter does not possess any inner laws of its own. Yet, without the latter, can aesthetics possess specific subject-matter, and can its essence be singled out and defined? For indeed, the right to an independent existence of any science rests first and foremost on whether or not there are specific inner laws peculiar to the subject under study.

p In conceptions like that of Pospelov considered above there is however a certain degree of rational content to be discerned: they reflect the tremendous significance of the aesthetic principle in various forms of the practical grasp of the real world in modern advanced society, particularly in socialist, and still more so in communist society. In a society of men free from poverty and concern for the future, the aesthetic principle acquires incomparably greater significance than it ever had in the past. At the present time central topics of Marxist aesthetics have come to include forms of aesthetic activity that have recently undergone intensive development, topics which extend beyond the confines of artistic creativity. These include technical design, aesthetic education, the aesthetic quality of man’s environment, and certain other manifestations of the aesthetic principle, such as sport for example. These forms of aesthetic activity cannot be contained within art categories and require a different 12 explanation.  [12•*  Undeniably all these types of activity constitute, together with art, a single aesthetic culture and should not be viewed as something divorced from art. They are qualitatively different from each other, yet at the same time have much in common: there is no doubt that art can be regarded as a school for all forms of aesthetic activity.

p The historical mobility and flexibility of subjects of scientific study characterise the evolution of scientific knowledge and philosophy. This applies not only to the structure but to the very substance of subjects under study. Changes in the structure of the science of aesthetics are shaped by the objective historical development of the phenomena studied by aestheticians, in particular the features and trends peculiar to the development of contemporary art. Changes in the substance of the subjectmatter of aesthetics are determined both by the objective process of the emergence of new types of aesthetic activity (such as design), new art forms (photography, cinema and television), and by changes in the objectives and problems facing the aestheticians. It is therefore meaningless to seek for hard and fast or conclusive definitions of the 13 subject of aesthetics: they should be to a certain extent approximate and open to amendments and modifications. On the other hand, the fact that the subject-matter of aesthetics evolves, as indeed do definitions of aesthetics, does not justify any attempt to conclude that relevant definitions of aesthetics are altogether impossible, as is the practice for example among adherents of "analytical aesthetics”.  [13•* 

p Earlier paragraphs were devoted to Pospelov’s book first and foremost because it was a good example of how reduction of aesthetics to a science of sensual delight achieved through an understanding of beauty and exclusion of the theory of artistic creativity from the field of aesthetics can lead to a belittling of aesthetics as a science. The work also provides a useful warning in that it shows how the author’s approach inevitably leads to a negation of aesthetics as an independent science, reducing it to no more than an offshoot of philosophy. Pospelov concludes: "Aesthetics is not and cannot be a separate and independent science, because it has no special field of its own and embraces no specific laws of the real world.. .. Aesthetics is one of the general, philosophical disciplines.”

p Yet philosophy has long since ceased to be the universal science of sciences embracing all spheres of knowledge— including aesthetics. The radical change effected by Marxism in philosophy led to the confining of that science to the theory of knowledge, dialectics, logic and the methodology of scientific knowledge. Aesthetics, like other sciences which were formerly part of the overall system of philosophical knowledge, has set itself apart, branched off, so to speak, from philosophy and ceased to be a general philosophical discipline. Of course, aesthetics as a science, bordering as it does upon a number of other social sciences, is closely bound up with philosophy. Yet the link 14 between aesthetics and philosophy and the conception of aesthetics as an integral part of philosophy are not to be confused.

p Marxist-Leninist aesthetics is rooted in dialectical and historical materialism, which constitute its theoretical foundation. Closely affiliated to the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism, Marxist aesthetics gleans from that philosophy its basic methodological premises, but retains its separate identity.

p One of the vital questions of Marxist aesthetics is the correlation between content and form in art. Naturally when approaching this question Marxist aestheticiains start out from the general philosophical tenets of dialectical materialism on the unity of content and form, the pre-eminent role of content, the active role of form, etc. Yet, when analysing this problem in art, it is not sufficient to refer to the philosophical tenets mentioned above merely by alluding to the fact that form and content in works of art constitute an indivisible whole, while content plays the pre-eminent role in this entity. These tenets apply to any phenomenon, there is nothing in them that has to do with aesthetics as such. It is clear that when studying the question of content and form in art it is essential from the methodological angle to start out from these tenets. However, what is required is to single out specific features of content and form in the way in which they manifest themselves precisely in art, as opposed to their manifestations in other spheres of life.

p Viewed from a certain angle, Marxist aesthetics can be said to relate to dialectical and historical materialism as does the particular to the general. Aesthetics as a science undoubtedly possesses a philosophical character, but it is not identical with philosophy; it is not a part of philosophy, as for example is the theory of knowledge. Aesthetics possesses its own specific characteristics and objectives, its own subject-matter inherent in which are specific laws, namely the laws of aesthetic, and above all artistic, apprehension of reality.

p In its generalisations and conclusions aesthetics starts 15 out from particular theories of art, literary or dramatic analysis, musicology, the theory of fine arts, etc. Each of these theories of art concentrates-upon study of the specific features of individual art forms. Yet these features are not universal in character, and thus conclusions drawn in literary criticism cannot be applied to music, and those of the musicologists to the theatre, and so on. More often than not premises relevant with regard to theatrical art have no bearing on painting, and the factors which constitute the underlying patterns of development in painting only have a peripheral or indirect bearing on the evolution of choreography, and so on. Furthermore, not only does each art form display specific features of its own, but this is also true of various genres within one and the same art form. This explains why for example a fine landscape painter may prove helpless when it comes to portrait painting. It also explains why many actors, who have created magnificent screen characters, prove insufficiently versed in the creative skills required for work on the stage. Then again outstanding stage actors often have little impact on the screen. These examples are not meant to imply in any way that one and the same actor is incapable of performing on both stage and screen. Yet at the same time it should be remembered that different demands are made upon him by stage and screen acting, demands that stem from the essential nature of each of these art forms.

p Yet as well as these specific features peculiar to individual art forms and genres, there are also features and laws common to all art forms and genres. These features and laws are equally applicable to literature, the theatre, painting, music, in a word, to art as a whole. It is precisely these general laws with which aesthetics as a general theory of art is concerned.

p As pointed out earlier, aesthetics elaborates - general ideas based on theories of art relating to individual art forms, for universal laws and patterns of art can only be deduced after analysis of the nature of particular art forms. These universal laws do not exist in any "pure 16 state", but manifest themselves in the specific features of each art form. Aesthetics elaborates the problems of creativity in general, drawing on the material of critics treating specific arts, and thus cannot develop without constant reference to them. Yet on the other hand, precisely because aesthetics is concerned with the study of the general laws of artistic development, it provides methodological principles for specific fields of artistic creativity. Literary, art and drama theorists and musicologists lean on Marxist aesthetics as the theoretical source of reference.

p A distinctive feature of the development of modern science is the elaboration of “metatheories” designed to provide the general foundations for particularised conceptions and trends. It is easy to accept that aesthetics provides a “metatheory” for theories relating to specific art forms (literary or dramatic analysis, musicology, etc.), just as it does for industrial design, the theory of aesthetic education etc. In its capacity as a metatheory it examines the links and relations between individual disciplines, analyses research methods and the limits of their application, studies ways of introducing new concepts, and so on.

p The active role of aesthetics in the development of art and its invasion of creative practice are to a large extent bound up with its impact on art criticism.

p The great Russian critic, Vissarion Belinsky, referred in his day to criticism as "aesthetics in action". This premise of his is most relevant to Marxist art criticism: in its evaluation and analysis of concrete works of art it does not start out from personal taste or preference, subjective inclination or desire, but from well-founded, scientifically substantiated objective principles of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. Criticism which turns its back on aesthetics degenerates into unprincipled subjectivism, for aesthetics elaborates and concretises its premises in criticism of modern art in its direct contact with art in action. Divorcing aesthetics from art criticism can lead to scholastic abstraction.

p The interrelation and mutual influence of aesthetics and criticism do not of course mean that aesthetics becomes merely an ingredient of criticism. Unfortunately, however, 17 tendencies of this kind are sometimes to be observed: certain writers hold that aesthetics as a science should evolve as a form of criticism presenting general ideas on art. Yet if such a trend were to gain the upper hand, aesthetics would cease to exist as an independent systematic science of philosophical character; philosophical thought would become atrophied and criticism robbed of its very flesh and blood. Since it incorporates a world outlook and methodological principles, aesthetics is equipped to determine the direction and principles of critical analysis. The all- important feature of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics lies in the fact that it has absolutely no truck with speculative prescriptive-cum-dogmatic edifices, or with the passive contemplative approach to artistic practice.

p In aesthetic literature there have been and still are conceptions in which the methodologically unacceptable contrasting of the prescriptive and scientific approaches play a dominant part. Some of these imply that aesthetics should not concern itself with the study and elucidation of artistic phenomena, but rather precede them, providing a system of standards. Others would totally rule out norms or standards in aesthetics, confining the latter to no more than an explanation of artistic facts. An example of the latter approach is to be found in the work General Literary Analysis by Max Wehrli, a professor from Zurich University, who maintains that the theory of art "has long since broken free from the normative character of the so-called ’poetics of rules’ and been transformed into a descriptive science”.  [17•*  Wehrli himself also regards aesthetics as a purely descriptive science. The formalist theoreticians also look upon aesthetics as a science bereft of any active significance. To them acknowledgement of any objective laws in art means laying down norms and principles that are incompatible with the nature of creativity.

p Of course any abstract prescription of creative norms for the artist would be out of the question, indeed 18 impossible. Hans Koch, a contemporary aesthetician from the ^:GDR writes: "Aesthetic theory on its own is as incapable of producing ... ’poetic revelations’ as for example economic theory of producing machines or furniture.”  [18•*  Or to express the same’thought in the words of the Soviet writer Kqnstantin Fedin: criticism (and indeed this also applies to the science of art.—A.Z.) can tell us how Don Quixote was created but it cannot tell us how to create a Don Quixote.

p Marxist-Leninist aesthetics does hot prescribe abstract laws:-and norms bearing no relation to artistic practice, but deduces them from artistic practice. The principles of -aesthetics present generalisations based on the achievements of world art and-a theoretical elucidation of its main ’trends; they reflect objective laws, infringement of which ’leads the artist to retreat from the nature and vital tasks of art. It follows that Marxist aesthetics not only clarifies the subject-matter which comes within its scope, but actively and purposefully influences that subject. It provides artistic practice with ideological and aesthetic criteria.

p The emergence of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics brought about a revolutionary change in the history of aesthetics and art criticism. Today not only has aesthetic activity come to play a larger part in men’s lives, but at the same time Marxist-Leninist aesthetics has come to be an important and essential factor in the resolution of ideological conflicts in our times, in the elucidation of the direction of artistic development and in channelling that development. Aesthetics is now an important arena of the struggle for Leninism. A leading Soviet aesthetician ^:Anatoli Yegorov in his book The Problems of Aesthetics (1974), summarised the importance of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics in the campaign for- progressive art in the following words:

p • . •

p “The attraction of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and the power of its tremendous impact on the development of progressive art, its influence oh men’s hearts and minds 19 in the modern world are entirely logical, determined as they are by objective causes and circumstances.

p “Firstly, it is only after the emergence of Marxism that aesthetics is really in a position to constitute an integrated system of scientific ideas free from any mystical or idealist features whatever.

p “Secondly, it is precisely Marxism-Leninism, through its application of materialist dialectics to the cogniton of aesthetic phenomena, which reveals the enormous influence of art on men’s minds and emotions, approaching it as a form of man’s mighty, irresistible attainment of knowledge and revolutionary activity.

p “Thirdly, it is only Marxist-Leninist aesthetics which provides a consistent and scientific explanation of the laws of artistic creativity, the specific characteristics of that creativity and its relation to other social phenomena, particularly in the present age so rich in acute contradictions and revolutionary upheavals.

p “Fourthly, through its active involvement in all spheres of social life Marxist-Leninist aesthetics not only enables us to pinpoint the specific features of artistic creativity, the aesthetic needs, artistic tastes and attitudes peculiar to each historical epoch, to understand the dialectic of the transition from the artistic culture of one socio-economic formation to that of another, but also to look into the world of tomorrow, understand and depict in all its grandeur and beauty the socio-aesthetic ideal of communism.”

p Marxist-Leninist aesthetics has received the same treatment at the hands of anti-Marxist writers as all Marxist theory. At the present time it is difficult to find even in the anti-Marxist camp an aesthetician or literary critic, who has not for one reason or another turned to the writings of Marx, Engels or Lenin, to their interpretation of art and the nature of artistic creativity. Yet, for all that, there is no dearth of maxims denying the fundamental significance of Marxist-Leninist aesthetic ideas for the modern science treating art and the artistic perception of the real world in a wider sense. Numerous attempts are ’also being made to ignore the place which Marxist- 20 Leninist aesthetics occupies in artistic and literary studies today. Indeed, the very existence of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics is called in question by these writers, or even rejected outright.

p An example of such writing is to be found in the book The Existential Dialectics of the Divine and Human by the Russian emigre writer, Nikolai Berdyaev, where Marxism is referred to as "spiritual Utopia". Admittedly, Berdyaev wrote that Marxism revealed its viability in the resolution of social questions and he also acknowledged the self-evident truth that the greatest political and economic changes of the twentieth century have been those effected under the all-important impact of MarxismLeninism. This is why, he wrote, we cannot say " Marxism is a social Utopia”.

p However, in Berdyaev’s opinion Marxism-Leninism is not equipped to resolve purely human problems. Hence, he claims, it showed itself incapable of treating aspects of man’s emotional and intellectual life, including the development of artistic culture. This inner antinomy, which in his view is intrinsic to Marxism-Leninism, Berdyaev explains by the fact that, according to that theory, the essence of man is to be found in the totality of social relations, and his life, therefore, is socially conditioned, while happiness and human suffering, all the diverse facets of the individual’s inner life are not born of the social order, but stem from the tragic nature of human life as such. These hopelessly outmoded, anti-historical concepts led this old and inveterate “critic” of Marxism to the following conclusion: Marxism is a spiritual Utopia based on a failure to understand the spiritual conditions of human existence. All the widespread arguments aimed at “destroying” Marxist-Leninist aesthetics are more or less similar in tone to these, despite the great variety of forms in which they are presented.

p Such interpretation not merely of certain individual aspects, but even of the very essence and character of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, can be found in works stemming from the pen of a number of writers who refer to 21 themselves as Marxists. Some of them admittedly write that it is precisely Marxism which can provide answers to questions raised by the course of artistic development in the modern world, but nevertheless they keep turning back to old, long since refuted notions to the effect that there does not yet exist a clearly defined aesthetic theory in Marxist-Leninist writings. They hold that the founders of Marxism-Leninism gave voice to important ideas, which, however, only have bearing on the evaluation of isolated works of art or concrete artistic phenomena, while they did not create or elaborate an aesthetic theory. Such a theory, they maintain, has yet to be evolved by the Marxists of today. However, their own attempts to create a "new aesthetic theory" prove in practice to be little more than simple imitation, and a theoretical apologia for modernism.

In the writings of the founders of Marxism-Leninism aesthetic theory is less systematised than philosophical or economic theory. Yet it does not at all follow from this that there is no fundamental or well-defined aesthetic teaching in classical Marxist writings. Most apt in relation to theoretical aberrations such as those referred to above is Lenin’s remark to N. K. Mikhailovsky, Russian sociologist and literary critic, to the effect that while searching in Marx’s works for logic with a capital L, he had failed to appreciate the logic of Capital. Are not these newly-fledged opponents of dogmatism looking for aesthetics with a capital A in the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin? Yet in actual fact it is precisely in their works that we find not only profound substantiation for the theory of reflection and the materialist interpretation of history, the significance of which for the formation of a truly scientific aesthetic theory is universally acknowledged, but also theoretical elaborations of the problems central to aesthetic science. Marxist-Leninist aesthetics represents the achievement in the history of aesthetic thought and provides a genuinely scientific theory of artistic creativity and practical methods for man’s aesthetic perception of the real world in all its manifestations.