p One of the fundamental principles of Marxist aesthetics is that art is the reproduction of reality through images. The definition of art as thinking through images, although it does not exhaust the characteristics of artistic creativity, nevertheless, touching as it does upon its very essence, serves to bring out its most important feature and points to its fundamental nature. Analysis of the nature of the artistic image and the definition of its most essential properties to a large extent paves the way to solution of the all-important question as to the place and role of art in the life of society.

p The philosophical foundation for the theory of artistic images is provided in the Marxist-Leninist theory of knowledge. In our efforts to pinpoint the essence of the artistic image we start out from the theory of reflection which approaches human consciousness as a whole as an image of the reality around us, as a subjective picture of the objective world. Lenin’s theory of reflection which reveals the laws underlying the sphere of human knowledge as a whole, also substantiates the specific laws inherent in the artistic reproduction of reality.

p However philosophical interpretation of image is not identical with its aesthetic interpretation.

p The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge uses the concept “image” in a broad epistemological sense. In the context of the theory of reflection image is tantamount to a replica, a mental and emotional photograph of reality, as it were. When the philosopher uses the 75 concept “image” he approaches it first and foremost as the psychological reflection of the external world in which we live. From the epistemological point of view, however, any manifestations of psychological activity—- sensation, perception, conception, etc.—constitute images. Insofar as artistic images are also a specific form of the reflection of reality, their definition as "subjective pictures of the objective world" is still perfectly acceptable when it comes to their philosophical description.

p Yet for the theory of imagery this answer only provides a starting point; the relationship between the aesthetic content of the concept “image” and the philosophical content, is like that between the particular and the general. The artistic image in a more precise sense is not an epistemological, but an aesthetic category. Here we are faced not only with the derivative quality of thinking through images but also with the need to show the specific nature of the artistic reflection of reality, the ways in which it differs from conceptual thought. Aesthetics, unlike philosophy, is concerned above all not with the definition of the properties common to the artistic image and other categories of consciousness—concepts, judgements, etc.—but, on the contrary, with the properties which set it apart from other forms of consciousness.

p The artistic image should neither be indemnified with the broader use of the word “image” in ordinary colloquial speech, nor with isolated facets or methods peculiar to the system of imagery in art, with its graphic and expressive means. For example, among the diverse artistic devices a quite special place must be accorded metaphors, often referred to as images. Nevertheless the terms “metaphor” and “image” are not synonymous. Metaphor is a poetic trope, a form of allegory or figure of speech in the widest sense, but not an image as such.

p Very often the term “image” is used in a narrow sense, as an expression with figurative meaning. Even in the most ordinary of word combinations or figurative expressions such as "the sun rises", "the star fell" an element of imagery is unquestionably present; or a single line of 76 poetry can present us with a complete image: "There is not one white hair within my soul...". Nevertheless these examples of figurative speech are more narrow than artistic images.

p From the terminological angle it is also important to distinguish between the concepts “image” and “ description”. An image is an ideal picture of the objective world, an artistic picture of reality living in the consciousness of the artist and perceived accordingly by the reader, beholder or listener. Meanwhile a description is an objectivisation of an artistic idea, its materialisation. A description represents the realisation of an image in the material of art and makes possible its perception through mans senses.

p Of course art cannot be separated from science and other forms of man’s cognition of life any more than any absolute contrast can be drawn between man’s figurative thought, or thought expressed in images and all other forms of human consciousness. The very possibility of the emergence of reflection through images is closely linked with the capacity, inherent in human consciousness, to judge the whole on the basis of the isolated detail, to grasp the general by way of the particular, and to discover general laws in concrete phenomena. This capacity for creative thought is based on the fact that in life itself all that is general can in one way or another be traced to the particular and all that is particular incorporates part of the general.

p Insofar as the artistic image represents a specific form of the reflection of reality, its evolution and essence are subject to the general laws pertaining to cognition. At the same time its evolution and essence remain highly specific. Here another look at the theory of reflection is appropriate.

p Lenin pointed out that man’s cognition of the objective world progresses from immediate contemplation to abstract thought, and from thence to practical activity. This principle is applicable both to scientific and the-r oretical cognition, and also to the artistic assimilation of 77 reality. Unlike scientific and theoretical cognition in the process of which attainment of truth takes place as it were independently, via various stages and generalisations are bereft of the "substance of sensuality", the artistic image presents us with an indivisible unity of features of cognition intrinsic both to immediate contemplation and abstract thought. At the same time the artistic image differs substantially from straightforward contemplation, just as it does from abstract thought.

p The artistic image is set apart from categories of scientific thought, such as concepts, judgements, deductions, by its vital spontaneity. At the same time the artistic image differs substantially from categories of immediate contemplation such as sensation, perception, conception in that it not only provides a direct reflection of facts drawn from everyday life, but also in that it incorporates a specific generalisation with regard to phenomena drawn from life, penetrates their essence and discloses their profound inner meaning. The image in art which combines features of empirical observation and abstraction, is not however merely a mechanical combination of the same. Precisely because analysis, synthesis and abstraction assume specific form in artistic thinking, the image acquires the significance of artistic generalisation.

p Thus the artistic image combines both features of immediate contemplation, and of abstract thought, but its essence does not coincide entirely with either of these two stages of cognition. The artistic image is an integrated characterisation of a phenomenon of life complete in itself, related to the artistic idea behind the work in which it appears and presented in concrete-sensual, aesthetically significant form  [77•*  Although the adjectives 78 “integrated" and “complete” are used in this definition, it is of course taken into account at the same time that in classical art (for example Michelangelo’s "Rebellious Slave") and still more so in modern art there are many works in which images in their immediate impact do not appear well-rounded or complete. In the works of certain aestheticians incompleteness (the non-finito) is sometimes even approached as an especial sign of contemporaneity in art. Indeed art often calls upon the reader or beholder to find a solution for himself, to summon forth independently in his own imagination a more complete picture. For this reason even when images in art are incomplete, even in works of the “non-finito” variety, in the aesthetic sense images still constitute integral pictures of life. The crux of the matter lies in the expressive means with which images are conveyed, in the extent to which the image in its capacity as a picture of life requires the collaboration of its audience.

p Yet is life only reflected in art in the form of artistic images? Surely art can operate not just through images but also through logical concepts, and to a certain extent even replace images with concepts. Three arguments are usually put forward in support of this viewpoint: (1) the present age is characterised by a synthesis of art and science: science employs images, and art concepts; (2) to object to the direct incorporation of concepts in art would be to deprive the artist of the opportunity to think; (3) finally a good number of works of art confront us directly with concepts, not only with images.

p However these arguments should not be regarded as watertight.

p Firstly, the synthesis of science and art does not detract from the individual essence of either science or art. The now closer relationship between science and art is to be traced to their cognitive content, and in no way implies that scientific thought has been absorbed by the artistic form of thought or vice versa. Admittedly the scholar or scientist frequently has recourse to images when illustrating his ideas, or in order to expound these in a more accessible or emotional light, yet this does not lead to any substitution of images for concepts. Such substitution would be a sign of a scientist’s insufficient capacity for abstract thought. On the other hand in certain forms of art, as for example in literature, images are distinguished by their conceptual precision, or they incorporate concepts as elements or details of their essential structure. Yet concepts do not enjoy an independent life of their own in art. They cannot replace images. If such a replacement occurs, it always testifies to a certain lack of talent in the artist or to a creative failure.

p Secondly, the specific essence of art cannot be defined as an absence of thought. The most interesting and significant aspect of art is the creative thought of the artist. He is always working with thoughts and ideas, but his thinking is of a special kind, it is rooted not in concepts but in images. Of course artists also turn to concepts, but the fruit of their creative process is always an image.

p Thirdly and lastly, works in which images have given way to conceptual means for reflecting life are mediocrities, they are artistically weak. The outstanding Soviet psychologist S. L. Rubinstein wrote: "If the artist were compelled to define the idea behind his work in abstract formulae, in such a way that the idea behind his work might emerge on a par with the images expressed in it, since it had failed to find adequate or sufficiently vivid expression within those images, then his work would lose its artistic quality.”  [79•*  Confusion of images and concepts 80 often reduces art to mere illustration or rhetoric, detracting from the ideological and emotional power of the work in question. Art always reproduces reality in images, and only in images.

Belinsky’s views on this subject are most relevant: "He who is not endowed with creative fantasy capable of transforming ideas into images, of thinking, deliberating and feeling in images, cannot rely on his mind, his feelings, the strength of his convictions and beliefs, nor a wealth of meaningful historical and topical material to make a poet of him.”  [80•*