56

p The English critic Kenneth Tynan in his highly favourable review of Fischer’s The Necessity of Art pointed out that Marxism had long been in need of "its own Aristotle" and that none other than Fischer might fulfil this mission of “reforming” Marxist theory. Naturally the question then arises as to why Tynan should shower such praise on Fischer, or what “merits” of Fischer’s justify Tynan’s 57 attempt to confer on him suchhigh status? Fischer has enjoyed the respect of bourgeois theoreticians ever since he became one of the most active proponents of the deideologisation of various spheres of social consciousness and of art in particular. Back in 1964 in an article entitled "Marxism and Ideology", and later in his major book on aesthetics Art and Co-existence, Fischer put forward the thesis that such concepts as ideology and idea should be regarded as opposites: according to him, ideas express the real movement of life, while ideology represents petrified moulds or intellectual stereotypes serving to promote the interests of the ruling classes. Fischer maintained that in order to be a Marxist it was vital not to become bogged down in ideology; he saw it as quite impermissible for the Marxist to use such criteria as “revisionist”, “dogmatist”, “decadent” and “bourgeois” in relation to art. He held only one choice as permissible —that between the true and the false. Elaborating the implications of this approach Fischer contends that ideology always appears as false mystified consciousness, while Marxism is a science aimed at reaching the truth. Linking the concepts "Marxism and ideology" is tantamount, in Fischer’s eyes, to linking together "science and Utopia", and for this reason he considers it essential to free Marxism from Utopian connotations, that is from ideologies. Marxism, he stresses, is a science and not an ideology; hence the incompatibility of the two concepts in the title of the above-mentioned article.

p Fischer must doubtless know that Marx and Engels regarded the concept ideology as something quite specific; indeed he himself draws attention to this in his writings. In some of their works Marx and Engels do indeed approach ideology as false and vague consciousness, when they are considering speculative constructions. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with socialist ideology—the scientific expression of the fundamental interests of the working class. The incompatibility of bourgeois and socialist ideology, their diametric opposition, can in a specific sense be expressed as the 58 manifestation of the fundamental opposition between illusory and true consciousness. For this reason Fischer’s concept of the de-ideologisation of culture, which in practice is essentially an ideological capitulation, can only be explained as a deliberate rejection of the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of ideology and Fischer’s own revisionist stand.

p From his point of view art, like science and philosophy, is exposed to a certain extent to the influence of ideology, but such influence, as a rule Fischer sees as negative, detrimental and bound to destroy artistic and scientific values. Fischer sees the real significance of science and art to lie not in the fact that they represent ideological forms, but on the contrary, in the rebellion of reality against false consciousness. Every true artist is always committed, according to Fischer, always standing up against existing reality and adopting a critical stand in relation to that reality. These general and apparently abstract arguments of Fischer’s are found side by side with highly concrete judgements of an anti-socialist and antiSoviet character. In his book Art and Co-existence Fischer makes various highly enthusiastic references to the Land of the Soviets, to the October Revolution and to its impact on the whole course of world history. Yet at the same time he energetically defends the misleading view of the lack of historical inevitability in the Russian revolution, which took place, as he sees it, not as the result of historical objectivity, but as a result of subjective, haphazard causes. According to him this is why the socialist revolution in Russia did not resolve the essential tasks of socialist transformation, and above all the problem of Man. This accounts, as far as Fischer is concerned, for the fact that the aim of art is one and the same in capitalist and socialist countries: to show the pervading alienation, to come to grips with inhuman conditions of life, and to humanise social relations.

p In Fischer’s writings, just as in statements made by Garaudy, a prominent place is accorded to declarations about the role of art in the conflicts of ideas that beset 59 our age, however these didactic assertions are bereft of meaning, since art itself is “liberated” of ideological content by these writers. Unlike ideological factors which separate individuals and peoples, art like science, according to Fischer, promotes men’s closer understanding of each other. The aim of art and science, as he sees it, is not to contrast various social forces but to integrate them. When turning to concrete examples from the world of art, Fischer points out that Bertolt Brecht for example went down in history not as the bearer of a specific ideology but as an outstanding poet. Fischer sees art’s contribution to the resolution of the fundamental problems of our age in the expression of the communion that takes shape as the result of the interaction of all classes, peoples and social systems. It thus follows that the position adopted by Fischer the “Marxist” in no way differs from the methodological principles fundamental to bourgeois literary and art criticism.

p The idea that in class society art is a vehicle of ideology is the corner-stone of the Marxist-Leninist conception of art. This approach makes it possible to combine organically the epistemologlcal and sociological aspects of the analysis of social consciousness which is fundamental to Marxism.

p The definition of the social essence of art must not only ascertain the subject of reflection and its methods (the epistemological aspect), but also pinpoint the role and place of art in social life, and the content of the social needs and interests relating to art’s very existence and course of development, that is the social and class evaluation of art (the sociological aspect). Analysing the nature of art in its sociological aspect and approaching art as the vehicle of a specific ideology substantially complement the definition of the essence of art in its epistemological aspect as reflection of social being via substantiation of the active role of the agent of reflection in the process of artistic creativity. This combination is reflected in the axiological approach to the analysis of art.

p Lenin saw the strength of Marxism to lie in its 60 remarkable combination of sober objectivity and revolutionary passion, and this view of his is significant from the methodological point of view for the axiological conception of art as well, which can only be fruitful if it is not opposed to the epistemological view of art, but, on the contrary, starts out from a recognition of the organic unity of knowledge and evaluation.

p The founders of Marxism-Leninism always looked upon art as a cultural value, and in their analysis of works of art they drew attention to the ideological and aesthetic evaluation of the phenomena depicted in them. A famous article of Lenin’s entitled "Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution" can be seen to possess axiological significance in view of its very association of the ideas “mirror” and "Russian revolution". Through his assessment of the great writer’s work as a reflection of the most specific features of Russian life Lenin focusses attention on the value judgements inherent in Tolstoy’s work and makes clear his own appraisal of it.  [60•* 

p Spiritual values are mirrored in men’s goals and ideals. In class society art expresses spiritual and aesthetic values which enhance man’s awareness of a sense of oneness and common interests uniting certain classes. Art reflects reality through a prism of class interests, it expresses the interests of a class and therein lies its ideological function.

p In its definition of the ways in which historical and class factors shape art, Marxist-Leninist theory does not separate these aspects from the eternal and universal human values involved. The extent and nature of these universal human elements in various forms of consciousness—philosophy, morality, art—are not identical. In art they occupy a larger place than in other spheres of man’s cultural and intellectual activity, however the presence 61 in art of universal, human elements is a specific form of expression for a more general law. When for instance, the outstanding Russian philosopher and aesthetician Georgi Plekhanov wrote that the music of Scriabin was "his age expressed in sounds" he added at the same time that "when the temporal and transient finds its expression in the work of a great artist it acquires constant meaning of a lasting kind”.  [61•*  In these words he not only appraised the work of an outstanding artist but also gave voice to a more general idea most important to man’s understanding of art as a socio-historical phenomenon. Social consciousness is not merely ideas belonging to a specific time, or specific social formations; its development involves “eternal” principles, which shape the continuity in human culture.

p In this sense art accomplishes the same tasks as other forms of social consciousness. However, art is set aside from them by certain specific features. The cognitive, ideological and educative functions of art are realised hand in hand with its aesthetic function, via aesthetic impact. Art exerts a decisive influence on the formation of man’s aesthetic sense, teaches him to apprehend the beauty intrinsic to the phenomena of life, to take delight in that beauty, to make that beauty a part of his life and to create in keeping with the laws of the beauty. The aesthetic function of art lies in helping men to assimilate a specific socio-aesthetic ideal and develop their artistic potential. Lenin wrote that art must bring forth artists among the masses. Art engenders inspiration and emotional experience, similar to that felt by the artist who created the works of art in question. "I too am an artist!" exclaimed Corregio in ecstasy over the works of Raphael.

p Each individual, be it vaguely or clearly, experiences a similar sensation under the impact of art’s enchantment. The importance of art surpasses that of all other forms 62 of social consciousness when it comes to enhancing man’s creative attitude to life, stimulating imagination that can transform life, man’s ability to attain an integral and concrete awareness of the essence of phenomena from the real world, and his capacity for aesthetic judgement.

p When defining the specific functions of art it must be remembered that life in all its diversity and the main trends of historical development in each epoch are reflected only by all forms of social consciousness taken together. The forms of social consciousness enrich each other, developing not in isolation, separate one from the other, but interrelated in clearly definable ways. A significant relationship takes shape between art and other forms of ideology. Unlike idealist aesthetics which separates art from other forms of social consciousness ( particularly political ideology), Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, though it takes into careful account the specific features of art, brings together art and politics, art and philosophy, art and morality, etc. Art would not be able to fulfil its social vocation in isolation from other forms of ideology.

p The next part of this chapter will dwell in more detail on the more important links and correlations between art and other forms of ideology.

p Art and Politics. The correlation between art and politics is always treated in one and the same way in idealist aesthetics: art and politics are shown to be quite different in character and to be confronted with quite different tasks. At the same time it is maintained that the subject of politics is something transitory and short-lived while the subject of art is eternal and universal: on this basis art and politics are presented as incompatible and indeed opposed to each other. The well-known Italian aesthetician Benedetto Croce, when attempting to set art apart from all that is practical, as a completely autonomous, free activity, assesses all art linked with politics as quasi-art. This idea is later taken up by R. G. Collingwood who, although he does not object to art serving political ends, even communism, and inculcating " 63 communistic sentiments", nevertheless qualifies such art not as genuine art but as “magic”. Any attempt by the author of any work to summon forth in his public specific political emotions may, in Collingwood’s opinion, do politics a service but at the same time art a disservice.  [63•*  The contemporary Finnish writer, Pentti Holappa holds that an artist ceases to be an artist if he lets politics interfere in his creative work. As he sees it, a writer can only serve true art, when he stands above classes and sets himself apart from political struggle. There are two types of novella in his opinion—the psychological and the social. The psychological novella is true art, while the social novella can only be seen as successful or unsuccessful propaganda.

p Such arguments are typical of the stand adopted by idealist aestheticians. Yet in the present age hundreds of millions of people are involved in active political life. In such conditions the organic link between art and politics stands out particularly clearly, and negation of that link, propagation of art’s “independence” of politics represent no more than a particular facet of the propagation of reactionary political ideas.

p The French artist L. Mitelberg skilfully exposed the reactionary essence of such “preaching” in his outstanding drawing entitled Art for Art’s Sake: it shows a corpse hanging from a tree and an artist with his palette surveying the corpse yet only “seeing” and depicting a still life—a vase of flowers, apples. ...

p All the experience harvested throughout the history of world art has testified strikingly to the fact that no “ independent” art, but on the contrary, militant and committed art, inseparable from real life and reflecting the influence of progressive political ideas, has become part of mankind’s treasure-house of artistic culture. It is perfectly logical that even Western artists far removed from communist ideology are more and more frequently 64 giving thought to the fact that in the art of the present day no convincing psychological character can be created if its author does not take into account the social relations which mould each and every individual.

p The link between art and politics and the dependence of art on politics are an organic part of the consciousness of modern man and particularly of the consciousness of every artist of integrity. The Russian poet Alexander Blok in his day appealed to the Russian intelligentsia to "listen to the Revolution" and the Cuban writer Virgilio Pinera calls upon his fellow artists today to "set the hands of their watches by the clock of the Revolution”.

p Leon Schiller, a leading figure in the Polish theatre, defined his artistic and at the same time social credo in the following terms as far back as 1928:

p “Where are you heading?”

p “Forward and left.”

p “Destination?”

p “The life of today with its needs and aspirations. Helping to shape the moral and social climate of tomorrow.”

p He was obviously calling for artists to develop a sense of responsibility in relation to contemporary society which art is called upon to enhance.

p Earlier parts of this chapter took a critical look at the concept of the "de-ideologisation of art". Yet there is at present a second trend, side by side with the first, to be noted in the West, namely the politicisation of art and the establishment of specific connections between politics and art. A typical example of such attempts is provided by the lecture "Art and Politics" delivered by the French philosopher and aesthetician Mikel Dufrenne at the VII International Congress of Aesthetics; he pointed out that the problem of the relationship between art and politics was one of immediate concern, and that artists were often subjected to and indeed sometimes made appeals for the politicisation of art, especially at crucial moments of history. In what follows Dufrenne sets out to solve this 65 problem from not a revolutionary but rather a nihilist standpoint; yet what is significant here is not the answer provided to the problem, but rather the very fact of this call for a political as opposed to an apolitical approach. This is reflected in the growing role of political ideas in the life of modern man, and also in the much closer ties between art and politics. To a certain extent this can be put down to the fact that politics now occupies a different place in man’s life from that which it enjoyed in the past. Opportunities for separating man’s ordinary “private” life from the cardinal problems of politics are becoming more and more limited. Man himself is becoming an increasingly political creature, even when it comes to his private life. It is also important to remember that the political life of today is filled with drama, the political problems confronting us today are particularly tense ones, and therefore provide extremely rich material for the artist. Typical in this respect are such important aspects of the art_: world of today as the political cinema, the political theatre, political songs, etc. Here we are not simply concerned with art bound up with politics and evolving under its influence: in this sense all art, even that which seems very distant from the burning issues of the day, is always “political”. When applying the word “political” to the theatre, cinema or literature, direct and immediate concern with political issues is envisaged, an irruption of these issues into the artistic fabric of a work. Art, to use Gorky’s phrase, is always a battle “for” or “against”. From this it follows that the inseparability of art from politics stems from the nature of art itself.

p In modern socialist society the link between art and politics has been analysed and explained in great detail. The policy of the Communist Party in this respect presents a concentrated expression of the society’s interests. Politics enhances creative practice and channels it in the most important direction, helping it truthfully to reflect the life of the people and elucidating in artistic terms the main trends of society’s activity.

p While upholding the dependence of art on politics 66 Marxist-Leninist aesthetics at the same time comes out against any kind of oversimplification of this dependence. Oversimplification and vulgarisation when it comes to this question find expression in the approach to art as no more than a means of propagating political ideas and in the reduction of art to the proclamation of political slogans. Oversimplified views of this type were put forward in the Soviet Union at one time by the vulgar sociologists, the RAPP and Proletcult movements. Such views are still more common in ultra-left ideology and cultural policies.

p At the present time dogmatism in aesthetics manifests itself in the assertion that there exists a “straight-line” link between politics and art. The dogmatists suggest that the political and the artistic exist side by side in a work, like two independent principles and that the value of the latter is determined by the character of the former. Their approach can be summed up as "politics first and art second". Crude oversimplifications of this sort are alien to the nature of art. Art is not a political ideology in artistic packaging. The political message needs to be incorporated in the very fabric of a work of art, but not precede it or live a life of its own within a work. The prominent Soviet statesman, Anastas Mikoyan, pointed out in a conversation with Hemingway that "a writer’s talent, his honesty, his truthfulness and objectivity lend political importance to his best works”.

p Vulgarised dogmatic views on the character of the link between art and politics are profoundly alien to the Marxist-Leninist understanding of art. A truthful and diversified representation of reality cannot be replaced by any didactic illustration of political slogans. Such substitution cannot but lead to a belittling of artistic truthfulness and hence undermine art’s social impact. The socio-political significance of progressive art is determined by its truthfulness, its convincing reflection and profound revelation of the leading trends to be observed in the life of society.

p Art and Morals. The nature and objectives of both art 67 and morality make plain the necessity of their mutual influence. Art can be separated from morality no less than from politics.

p Of central importance to morality, as to art, are the questions that can be summed up under the heading—the individual and society. From there it follows that questions of morality always arise in art, that aesthetic problems always involve ethical ones. Ethics is not something that is "tacked on" to aesthetics, it is an intrinsic part of art itself stemming from art’s humanist essence.

p Closely linked as it is with morality, art, as aptly noted by Belinsky in his day, should not depict abstract vices and virtues. The aim of art is to depict social types, to shape living human characters, but depicting men as members of society, art thereby depicts society as a whole and consequently, through its presentation of human behaviour, promotes one set of moral principles and militates against others.

p Insofar as the main concern of art is always social man, through its very reflection of social relations and its particular media art is tackling moral problems even when these problems are not directly touched upon by the artist. The moral implications of art are not simply the result of the external impact of morals, as a factor supposedly outside aesthetics. On the contrary, aesthetics incorporates an ethical element, that is natural and inalienable.

p Art constitutes the affirmation of specific fundamental principles of life. The progressive or reactionary nature of the principles affirmed in art depends upon the nature of the aesthetic ideal and the truthfulness with which life is reflected. Departures from truth in art, and distortion of life’s truth are inevitably bound up with the propagation of amoral principles and strip art of all moral significance. The production of an enormous quantity of corrupting films, the direct encouragement of animal instincts by the majority of best-sellers, the glamorisation of the ugly and outrageous, and various other aspects 68 of so-called mass culture are not the result of artists’ whims but rather the logical expression of a rejection of life’s truth.

p Soviet art presents us with the artistic embodiment of high moral principles. The heroes of such famous works as Alexander Fadeyev’s The Rout, and The Young Guard, Sholokhov’s Virgin Soil Upturned. Nikolai Ostrovsky’s How the Steel Was Tempered, and of Grigori Chukhrai’s film Ballad of a Soldier are men who represent different generations, but share similar destinies. They live as real people in the minds of tens of millions of Soviet readers and cinema-goers. In the characters of these unique individuals their creators uphold fine traits of character, noble moral virtues and attitudes of the new man born of the socialist era. Socialist art is a mighty force for the moral education of the masses.

p Art and Philosophy. Direct expression of philosophical views can be found for example in Goethe’s Faust, Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Balzac’s Comedie Humaine. In these works philosophical questions concerning the nature of the world around us, the essence of being are woven into the fabric of the artistic narrative. However, the artist does not always discuss philosophical issues as such in his work. On stage and screen, in prose and poetry we can find a good many works which have no direct connection with philosophy. Yet art is always essentially bound up with philosophy, possesses philosophical significance and gives expression to a specific social ideal.

p In any true work of art there is always an underlying message—the artist strives to show us life not merely as it really is, but also provide us with food for thought and indications with regard to life as it should be. In this underlying message is focussed the social ideal, which, regardless of the subject depicted, always makes itself felt in a work of art. The philosophical aspect is not something external to art, that has to be “inserted” into a work. Art by its very nature is philosophical, since it always communicates with man about the meaning of life, 69 helps him to probe the inner essence of being and influences the formation of his world outlook.

p The philosophical depth of a work is to an important degree dependent upon the author’s world outlook. The more progressive an artist’s social, philosophical and aesthetic views, the more grounds there are for expecting to find in his work artistic generalisations that are genuinely philosophical both in character and content. Through its shaping of men’s ideals under the influence of a specific world outlook art provides, as it were, the philosophy of the age. This is particularly vital to bear in mind in view of the fact that it is often not directly, but indirectly, via art, that philosophical systems exert an influence on men. Ideas adopted from certain schools of philosophy sometimes prove more influential in art than in their abstract form. It is not so much a question of ideas and certain schools of philosophy being familiar to certain artists or writers, but the general philosophical climate in which the world outlook of the artist is taking shape.

p Politics, morals, philosophy and art—all forms of social consciousness—are closely related to each other. This is above all because in their diverse forms and relations they are all investigating one and the same real world, or various phenomena and facets of that reality, and striving to exercise an influence upon it. In the links between art and philosophy, and between art and science the cognitive function of art finds expression, and the relationship between art on the one hand and politics or morality on the other reflects art’s ideological and educational function. In its relationships with these forms of social consciousness art is revealed as artistic cognition and the embodiment of scientific, philosophical, moral and political principles and ideas. Insofar as these functions are inseparable art will always be closely bound; up with these other forms of consciousness.

p Art and Religion. Both these forms of social corisciousr ness Marx referred to as spiritual-cum-practical. In doing so he drew attention to a certain similarity 70 between them which relates for example to their intrinsic emotionality and the role of imagination which is characteristic of the develpoment of both. This fact is also cited by idealist aestheticians, who draw parallels between art and religion precisely by pointing out that in religion, as in art, imagination plays a major role. This parallel bears little weight insofar as the nature of emotionality and imagination differ fundamentally as found in art on the one hand, and religion on the other. Feuerbach wrote in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion that art, unlike religion, does not demand that its’ works be acknowledged as reality. Art brings us a creatively reproduced picture of the real world, while religious imagination, which brings us a distorted view of the world, would have man accept it as reality pure and simple. This means that religion and art are opposed to each other, the contrast between them to some extent being comparable with that between religion and science.

p The contention that art and religion move in opposite directions may at first glance seem to contradict the commonly accepted fact that, up until the seventeenth century, art throughout the world had evolved hand in hand, as it were, with various forms of religion and been subject to religious influence. All classical art had been centred round mythology, which in its turn was the basis of pagan religions; then almost the whole of medieval art with the exception of an extremely small amount of secular art had been subject to ecclesiastical influence. Even the outstanding works of the Renaissance period had been for the most part on religious themes. Indeed such themes were frequently turned to by artists of subsequent periods as well.

p All these facts in no way contradict the point that artistic and religious ideology are by nature antithetical. But they must be properly examined. Why did art evolve in close association with religion in the course of many centuries?

p First, pre-Christian religion assumed the form of mythology. This mythology was, however, not only an 71 expression of man’s helplessness in face of the natural elements, but at the same time it represented the first artistic formulation of life experience in man’s imagination. Mythology was not only a religion but also the expression of the ancient people’s artistic creativity at the early stages of their historical development. Marx referred to mythology as the seed and arsenal of classical art. Art took its themes from mythology not because myths were the foundation of the religion of that age, but because mythology embraced wider, non-religious implications side by side with religious concepts. Over a certain period Christian mythology was to play a similar role in the development of art.

p Second, the development of art within the framework of religion throughout a long historical period can be explained by the political domination of the Church. In the Middle Ages the Church shaped and controlled all social relations. It was the religious world outlook which then exerted the most powerful influence over the whole life of society. It was not only progressive scholars and thinkers who waged a struggle against the domination of the Church, religious scholasticism and dogmatism, but artists as well. However, art was fettered by the domination of the Church and there were few opportunities for its development beyond the religious framework, that is outside Church control and without commissions from the Church. This explains why, during the age of the Renaissance, when new ideas and views of the world made their way into art, there emerged a humanist, anticlerical, anti-religious approach.

p The power of that art which evolved first and foremost under the shadow of religion, and its enduring greatness and brilliance can be traced to an element far from characteristic of religion, namely the life-like quality to be found in it: the witty remark of Feuerbach’s to the effect that cathedrals were built not to honour God but to honour the art of architecture can with equal accuracy be applied to art as a whole. It is perfectly clear that many "Holy Families", "Last Suppers", “Pietas” and 72 other evangelical subjects provide no more than an external framework for the paintings of the Renaissance, merely a pretext for the artist to express joy and happiness, pain and suffering, the radiant and the sombre in men’s lives.

p The struggle waged by the young revolutionary bourgeoisie against religion and the Church was to exert a most positive influence on the development of art. By the seventeenth century art had liberated itself almost entirely from its religious and mythological integument and was starting to select subjects from the real contemporary world without resorting to mythological allegories. This meant an enormous broadening of art’s scope for embracing real life.

p Admittedly the link between art and religion was still to be observed in certain trends of artistic development and in the works of individual artists, yet this link had by then acquired a quite different significance. Unlike medieval art, which had in the initial period of its existence gleaned from religious consciousness only the artistic elements to be found within it, and unlike the art of the Renaissance, which had merely used themes from a religious context suitable for the expression of mundane ideas and emotions, preoccupation of latter-day art with religion always to a greater or lesser extent had a negative effect on artistic creativity.

p Even in the case of writers of genius such as Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky the aspects of their work bound up with religious searchings and their efforts to find a resolution of life’s conflicts and mankind’s suffering in the religious sphere are the weakest and those that testify to the artist’s failure to solve certain social or moral problems: more often than not it is these aspects of their writings that provide the key to these writers’ failures. Suffice it to compare Tolstoy’s great novels and stories with such writings as What Men Live By or How Much Earth a Man Needs in order to appreciate the tremendous gulf between the two categories and the extent to which the stories in the latter—that represent the fruit of the great 73 writer’s religious searchings—pale before the major works, even in the purely artistic sense. Tolstoy’s talent makes itself felt even in these less successful works, but his writing is less vivid, less powerful than in those works in which the artist, as opposed to the preacher, predominates.

p Realism, one of the greatest achievements of art, is incompatible with religion. The exposition and artistic embodiment of the essential aspects and trends in objective reality are fundamentally incompatible with any kind of religious faith.

p Some reservations, it is true, are called for. The divergent orientation of realist art and religious consciousness does not in certain cases rule out the use of myths or religious images and themes in order to reproduce in art the real world, even in the present day. For example, the great realist painter from Mexico, Jose Orozco, an artist of the same mould as Diego Rivera or Siqueiros, painted a work on a subject taken from the Gospels, which he entitled "Christ Destroys His Cross". Yet this work does not show any Christ or god: if we look closely at the way in which Christ holds his axe, how he wields it, we shall see before us no god, but a living man of a strong, powerful build, a symbol of man’s power on this earth.

This is by no means the only example of such work. The ancient classical myth of the Centaur not only did not detract from the power of American writer John Updike’s novel of the same name, but on the contrary, enriched that artist’s palette, enabling him to depict a convincing moral climate, way of life and tapestry of social relationships in modern bourgeois -society. Today church music is still a source of aesthetic pleasure to us, and not because of the religious and ecclesiastical motifs incorporated in it, which indeed mean little to many modern audiences, but because it sharpens our sense of the beautiful, essential to each man’s mind and heart. Great realist art serves not to fortify, but rather to eliminate religion.