PROGRESS PUBLISHERS
MOSCOW
Translated from the Russian by Katharine Judelson
Designed by Yu. Trapakov
A. 3 H C b
OCHOBbI MapKCHCTCKOH 9CTCTHKH
Ha amAu&CKOM XSUKC
10507---622 ^^3^^ 014(01)---77~^^113^^~^^77^^
[2]CONTENTS
page
PREFACE .................. 5
INTRODUCTION. THE SUBJECT OF MARXISTLENINIST AESTHETICS............ 7
CHAPTER I. ART AS A FORM OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS................. 22
1. Concerning the Nature of Art.......... 22
2. Art and Reality.............. 32
3. Art and Cognition.............. 46
4. Art and Ideology............... 56
CHAPTER II. THE IMAGE IN ART........ 74
1. The Image: A Cardinal Category in Aesthetics .... 74
2. The Typical and the Individual......... 80
3. The Objective and the Subjective......... 94
4. The Emotional and the Rational......... 102
5. Artistic Truth................ 107
6. Image and Sign............... 116
CHAPTER III. CONTENT AND FORM IN ART ... 123
1. Content in Art............... 125
2. Form in Art................ 138
3. The Dialectics of Content and Form in Art..... 148
4. Artistic Culture---Sum Total of Art Forms..... 159
CHAPTER IV. AESTHETIC CATEGORIES AND MAN'S
ARTISTIC APPREHENSION OF THE WORLD ... 173
1. The Nature of Aesthetic Categories........ 173
2. The Beautiful................ 177
__PRINTERS_P_3_COMMENT__ 1* 3A. The Essence of the Beautiful......... 177
B. The Beautiful in Art............ 192
3. The Tragic and the Comic........... 198
A. The Tragic............... 202
B. The Comic................ 219
CHAPTER V. CREATIVE METHOD IN SOCIALIST ART 239
1. Creative Method. Realism............ 241
2. Socialist Realism............... 262
3. Commitment to the Party and the People in Art . . . 283
[4] __ALPHA_LVL1__ PREFACEThis book represents the fruit of many years' lecturing to various sectors of the art public and students at art schools. In its present form it is addressed to readers abroad: for this reason the author held it important not merely to consider the substance of aesthetics, but also, within certain limits, to demonstrate how it is treated in Soviet aesthetic writings. The readers' attention is drawn to the fact that while Soviet writers on aesthetics start out from basically similar premises, varying approaches to particular, as yet unresolved questions, are to be encountered.
This book is designed to cater for a wide range of readers interested in the principles of the philosophical, i.e. aesthetic, analysis of the essential aspects of art---of the process of artistic creativity and works of art as such. It is to be hoped that it will also prove of interest to the creative intelligentsia and art students. Art is discussed in such a way as to ensure that the central concern should always be the artist, his unique individuality and the special features of his work. At the same time the reader will find examples of artistic analysis of specific phenomena in the history of art. The theoretical assessment of concrete works of art is not, however, aimed at singling out specific features of specific areas of art, but on the contrary at substantiating general patterns and laws of art and the expression of these laws in the categories used in aesthetics. To this end this work starts out from a combination of theoretical generalisations relevant to all 5 spheres of aesthetics and more localised concrete analysis providing the basis for the said generalisations.
This work is designed to fulfil two parallel functions, those of research and instruction. For this reason it may also be of interest to the general reader as well as the specialist. It is hoped that it will not only promote an understanding of the basic principles of Marxist aesthetics, but to a certain extent also provide Marxist criteria for the analysis and evaluation of a wide variety of manifestations of aesthetic activity.
[6] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Introduction __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE SUBJECTThere still exist certain differences of opinion when it comes to defining the subject of aesthetics.^^*^^ 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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ The word aesthetics comes from the Greek word aisthetikos which .means sensibility, the ability to perceive through the senses. This word was first used to designate a specific science by Alexander Baumgarten, a German art theoretician and a pupil of the German philosopher, Friedrich Wojf. He wrote a book entitled Aesthetica, the first volume of which was published in 1750. Since then the term has been used to denote a specific field of scientific knowledge which, of course, in no way implies that aesthetics as a science only goes back as far as Baumgarten. Its origins take us right back to antiquity.---Author.
7 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.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.
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.
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 8 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.
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 9 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.
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 10 separately from the general theory of art, then what is left, what will its subject be?
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.
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 11 explanation.^^*^^ 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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ This tendency to broaden the subject of aesthetics is also to be observed in non-Marxist aesthetics. For example, Joseph Gantner, president of the International Committee for Aesthetic Studies, the well-known Swiss aesthetician and art historian, does not see aesthetics as a science of art, as did Etienne Souriau and Thomas Munro, but considers that in the twentieth century aesthetics evolved through four stages. The first at the turn of the century marked the end of classical aesthetics; the second embraces the first third of the twentieth century and can be defined as the aesthetics of styles; this was followed by a third stage linked with the emergence of various avant-garde trends, which Gantner refers to as the aesthetics of creative imagination. Then finally there is the fourth stage in the development of contemporary aesthetics, classified by Gantner as the aesthetics of the environment. What is interesting for our purposes here is not so much the relevance of this classification, as the reflection it provides of the present tendency to take aesthetics beyond the study of art alone, so as to incorporate a wider range of phenomena linked not only with man's artistic activity, but his material activity as well.---Author. .
12 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''.^^*^^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.''
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Morris Weitz in his elaboration of Wittgenstein's ideas maintains that aesthetics (here the theory of art) is basically impossible, for it has no subject and cannot constitute a system of necessary and adequate properties. (See: Morris Weitz, Philosophy of Arts, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950.)---Author.
13 between aesthetics and philosophy and the conception of aesthetics as an integral part of philosophy are not to be confused.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.
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.
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.
In its generalisations and conclusions aesthetics starts 14 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.
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.
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 15 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.
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.
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.
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.
The interrelation and mutual influence of aesthetics and criticism do not of course mean that aesthetics becomes merely an ingredient of criticism. Unfortunately, however, 16 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.
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''.^^*^^ 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.
Of course any abstract prescription of creative norms for the artist would be out of the question, indeed _-_-_
^^*^^ Max Wehrli, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft, Bern, 1951, S. 40.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---796 17 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.''^^*^^ 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.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.
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:
• . •
``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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Hans Koch, Marxismus und Aesthetlk, Berlin, 1961, S. 173.
18 in the modern world are entirely logical, determined as they are by objective causes and circumstances.``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.
``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.
``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.
``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.''
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-- __PRINTERS_P_19_COMMENT__ 2* 19 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.
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''.
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.
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 20 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.
[21] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter I __ALPHA_LVL1__ ART AS A FORMVarying interpretations of the essence of art have been provided at different stages of history. Art theoreticians and artists have not always adopted the same approach to this question. They have formulated their answers on the basis of their own view of the world, the character and stage of development of art itself, its place in society and its role and significance in the cultural life of the age. Yet throughout the whole evolution of aesthetic doctrines the materialist view of art as a specific form of the reproduction of reality has asserted itself, overcoming contradictions and errors in its path. Marxism-Leninism sets great store by the progressive aesthetic thought of past ages---the generalisations and conclusions put forward with regard to the nature of artistic creativity and the aesthetic relationship between art and reality. Yet these theories of the past were in many respects historically circumscribed: before the laws of history had been properly formulated it was impossible for aestheticians to explain the essence of art as a social phenomenon.
The crisis of contemporary idealist aesthetics and its inability to understand and express in scientific terms the underlying laws of art, and the trends discernible in modern developments came particularly clearly to the fore in the thesis of the fundamental impossibility of any theoretical exposition of the nature of art. According to the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, rational, theoretically substantiated interpretation of artistic creativity only testifies to the disintegration of creativity, for art, 22 he held, could not be the subject of study and analysis.; He regarded as an interesting phenomenon of history thfi fact that ages of great artistic achievement had not been those in which aesthetic conceptions had been created: on the contrary, these had emerged only at times marked by artistic decline.^^*^^ The French writer, Andre Malraux, suggests that the appearance and existence of aesthetic theories, like all synthesised attempts to define artistic practice,and relate it to the process,of man's perception and apprehension of the world, are the result of the artificial and, more often than not, harmful activity of reason. He sees in theory.some kind of would-ber organising "rational fantasies" incompatible with the truly human world of irrational artistic creativity. Heidegger's and Malraux' train of thought is utterly in keeping with their existentialist world view. However, similar or closely related views are common enough in the-conceptions of writers, whose work is not directly linked with the philosophy of irrationalism. Neo-positivist aesthetics, for instance, while excluding from its theory criteria drawii from socio-historical experience, and rendering absolute the semantic approach to the facts of art, seen as -a specific sign system, confines itself to a study of the Janguage of art and, basically, speaking, views art exclusively as language (a view to be treated'in more .detail later) without even raising the question as to the possibility of penetrating into the nature of art itself. From the standpoint of logical idealism adhered to by the'neo-positivists of today, and also that of the irrationalists, the essence of art is seen as something that cannot be expressed in theor retical terms. This peculiar brand of aesthetic agnosticism is the most salient feature of contemporary idealist aesthetics.
It was in Marxist-Leninist aesthetics that:this fundamental question----the essence of art---was scientifically substantiated in profound detail. With reference to the _-_-_
^^*^^ See: Martin Heidegger, Holzwege-, FranMurt am Main, 1957, S. 57.
23 Leninist theory of reflection and the materialist interpretation of history, Marxist-Leninist aesthetics sees art as a manifestation of social consciousness and man's practical-cum-cultural apprehension of the world. These important tenets of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics were formulated on the basis of dialectical-materialist analysis of art, and in particular its social essence. Today when aesthetics is the arena of a fierce battle of ideas, the significance of these tenets is particularly great. They provide a reliable orientation, arm us against idealist conceptions according to which art is a separate, selfcontained world of artistic reality, determined in no way by socio-historical circumstances. These tenets are being constantly elaborated and enriched as art and life itself move forward.The nature of art is complex and diverse. Art taken as a whole is not simply a reflection of reality, but also artistic creativity, active creation, a specific type of aesthetic practical-cum-cultural activity. In a paper entitled, "Art and Illusions", read at the VII International Congress of Aesthetics, the British aesthetician Michael Chanan stated that when he examined the essence of art he found himself confronted by the problem as to "whether art is creation or recreation. .., whether art expresses its creator's personality or whether the artist's personality is a social construction resulting from the roles he is given to play.. .''.^^*^^ The choice between art as a form of social consciousness or as creative activity, as a reflection of life or the creation of new reality, a form of cognition or of labour, appears to us artificial in the extreme. Distinctions of this sort expose a one-sided notion of art distorting its true essence.
The founders of Marxism-Leninism approached art as a form of man's aesthetic apprehension of reality, thus as a form of man's active, practical and energetic relationship to the world around him. At the same time their _-_-_
^^*^^ See: VII International Congress of Aesthetics (28.8-2.9.1972), Abstracts, Centre of Information and Documentation in Social and Political Sciences, Bucharest, pp. 188-89.
24 fundamental ideas presented art as a specific type of thinking, as artistic cognition of the world, as a complex and distinctive form of social consciousness, as ideology.These premises are today being creatively elaborated by many scholars, who approach art as an integrated phenomenon, whose various aspects exist in a complex dialectical relationship to one another. Yet side by side with this rewarding approach to the many-faceted nature of art, certain one-sided tendencies are to be found: one particular aspect of art is set apart from the rest, then rendered absolute and exaggerated at the cost of the latter. This results in a serious logical weakness; what is applicable to the particular is presented as relevant to the whole. Self-contained analysis of one aspect of art, while others are forgotten, leads either to a belittling of the latter or to a negation of other ways of looking at art. In such writing the central tenets of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, which constitute an integrated theory of artistic creation, are sometimes lost from sight.
Certain features inherent in the impact of the technological revolution upon all spheres of life have found expression in efforts to apply experience and methods borrowed from certain other sciences to the analysis of art by aestheticians and art critics. This tendency is without doubt in tune with the character of development to be observed in the scientific world of today. Useful results have been obtained by applying principles of semiotic analysis, structural linguistics, and certain psychological and physiological data (such as that drawn from observations of the psychophysical state of the artist during the creative process), and so on.
However although art can be the object of semiotic or psychological analysis, study of the language of art as a specific sign system does not justify any broad conclusions reducing the essence of art to a specific code of signs. Far be it from us to underestimate semiotic methods of artistic analysis, or the sign formation of the artistic text. Here we have in mind generalisations transcending purely semiotic methods, their application to aesthetics as such. 25 From the semiotic point of view art is: a language and should be analysed precisely in that capacity. Aesthetics makes use of semiotic methods to study the language of art, but the concepts "art is language" and "language of art" should be properly demarcated. The importance of semiotic methods of analysis for investigating the nature oF artistic means of communication is considerable, when these methods are being used in a particular domain, but they do not: and cannot answer the question: what is the nature of art?^^*^^
The complex nature of artistic creativity necessitates that we approach it from various angles, and aesthetics, one of whose main objectives is the study of the nature of art, has close links with many other sciences. At the point where various sciences meet, intensive and often fruitful investigation is carried out: one of the scientific fields which borders upon aesthetics is that of psychology. In the writings of D. Uznadze, L. Vygotsky, A. Leontyev, B. Ananyev and other Soviet psychologists art is examined as a psychological phenomenon, whose essence consists not in apprehension of the world of things, but first and foremost, in pinpointing the world of human relations and man's relation to the objective world. The Soviet school of psychology has introduced much that is new to the study of art. General hypothetical ideas have acquired a demonstrative character and have been lent a materialist interpretation.
However despite the significance of the psychological aspects of the study of art for resolving the question as _-_-_
^^*^^ It is interesting to note that among the foreign aestheticians, who still follow traditional methods in their study of art, there are those who come forward with a sober assessment of the significance of exact (semiotic) methods in the science of aesthetics. The American Thomas Munro, for instance, points to a twofold danger: that of oversimplifying the task of aesthetics, and that of overreliance on exact methods (logical and quantitative). See: Thomas Munro, "Recent Developments in Aesthetics in America", Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 1964, p. 255.--- Author. .'..'.:.-..'....
26 to its nature, they cannot have more than secondary importance and can in no way replace aesthetics as a separate, independent science. Yet such trends have been observed. The idea of regarding art as exclusively a matter of man's relationship to the world around him is not new. John Ruskin, in his time was to write that while science studied the interrelations of objects, art was concerned with their relation to man and asks first and foremost what any given object actually represents, refracted as it is through man's eyes and heart, and what can follow on from it. Ruskin's idea is cited in an article by D. Yeremic, "The Humanity of Art" published in the journal Sociologija (Belgrade, 1966) where it is presented as an attempt at an anthropological approach. For Yeremic art counterbalances science in so far as it introduces to the world of things a human element and significance, and its task is to represent that world as it appears to man. The final conclusion which Yeremic draws is that from the scientific point of view art does not in all cases contain objective truth and thus can degenerate into psychological subjectivism. The logical outcome of such a one-sided psychological approach is to be found in conceptions like this.The distinction drawn between science as the study of the world of phenomena, and art as no more than a matter of human relations is relative in the extreme. Research into the relations between man and the world outside the artistic understanding of the actual world would yield little in realist art. Science and art do differ one from the other, but at the same time there is considerable common ground which they share. Up until the moment when the psychological trend of research starts drawing rigid distinctions between science and art and opposing them to each other, it is a useful line to follow. After that, however, its application ceases to be rational. The same can be said for one-sided concentration on other analytical approaches in the study of art.
Semiotic, structural and psychological analysis of the nature of art has its limits. If it becomes an end in itself 27 and results in the social and ideological essence of a work of art being forgotten, it means a writer has become preoccupied with ways of materialising an artistic idea, as opposed to analysis or assessment of the idea itself.
The tendency to overestimate the role of structural and semiotic analysis in art criticism is quite obvious in certain cases. Some authors are inclined even to describe these methods as ``modern'' contrasting them with `` traditional'' methodology. Exaggeration of this type reduces useful analytical methods to mere mystification and an idealist approach to art. This approach finds its most complete expression in the semantic philosophy of art.
It is obvious that to contrast ``modern'' and `` traditional'' methods is not scientific. For Marxist aestheticians the methodology which certain theoreticians attempt to present as ``traditional'' or ``out-of-date'' is in every sense of the word contemporary. Marxist-Leninist aesthetic analysis draws upon the experience of certain other sciences, which however do not as a result in any way come to represent a new philosophical methodology for the investigation of that highly complex socio-aesthetlc phenomenon---art.
One-sided approaches to the interpretation of the nature of art may be traced more often than not to a shallow and, at the same time, erroneous understanding of the nature of social consciousness. Many bourgeois theoreticians maintain that Marxists see consciousness merely as the passive reflection of reality and supposedly deny it an active transforming role. Sometimes echoes of these ideas can even be found in Marxist writing. This finds expression in the tendency to ``amend'' and "improve on" the formula that "art is a form of social consciousness" under the pretext that it belittles and narrows the essence of art and inhibits the analysis of its other aspects.
In the works of several writers we encounter the idea that art is exclusively or predominantly a form of labour, or the creation of a second nature, artificially counterposed to the reflective activity of human consciousness. At the same time they would eliminate, or at least belittle, 28 art's ideological significance and disparage its role as a source of knowledge.
There is no doubt that art, as indeed all culture, emerged and evolved on the basis of labour. What is more, art not only emerged as a result of labour but in itself represents a specific form of labour. Present-day discussions on the nature of art can to a large extent be accounted for by the penetration of the artistic principle to the most diverse spheres of men's lives, the growing role of aesthetics in industry, the impact of design, which organically combines functional, constructive and artistic principles. Art and design exert a fruitful influence upon each other and this gives rise to the ``temptation'' to ascribe features of design to every art form and to find in design features essential to art as a whole. Yet although artistic creativity and artistic construction of industrial manufactures do have something in common, nevertheless there are qualitative differences between them which cannot be overlooked. This is why it would be more reasonable to regard art and design as two related, but by no means identical, spheres of man's aesthetic relation to the real world.
We are, therefore, as cogently summarised by Anatoli Yegorov, faced with two extremes: "On the one hand ideas are put forward to the effect that art has no ' functional role in society' and this is what sets painting, music and poetry apart from material culture, while on the other, the adherents of the so-called practical-production conception of art would reduce it to a 'making of things', ignoring its cognitive, ideological and aesthetic essence, and identify artistic activity with material production on the grounds that there are certain principles of 'harmony and beauty' to which in one way or another not only art but also material production is subject.''
__b_b_b__Art as it really exists is a unity of dialectical opposites. However this does not rule out the possibility and necessity of singling out from the overall number of art's many facets one that serves to determine its profound social 29 significance/And this facet can be defined as follows: art is first and foremost a form of social consciousness, a form of intellectual and emotional production, a specific aesthetically expressed mode of thinking. To answer the question as to what art represents as a historically crystallised and specific form of social consciousness means, for all intents and purposes, to bring out the social nature of art and reveal the place it occupies in .the life of society.
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, therefore, starts out from the materialist interpretation of history, and most important of all from those tenets of historical materialism which serve to elucidate the relationship between social being and social consciousness.
The sphere of social consciousness is exceptionally broad and diverse. It embraces widely various forms of society's intellectual and spiritual life----politics, or to be more precise, political ideas, concepts of justice, morals, science, art, philosophy and religion. However great the differences between these forms of social consciousness, there are certain features and aspects common to them all: the development of each is shaped not only by the laws intrinsic to it alone, but also by certain universal laws characteristic in equal degree of all manifestations of man's spiritual life. The all-important role of social being and the relative independence of social consciousness, its influence on social being---such are the most important tenets of historical materialism. They are equally relevant to all forms of social consciousness. Of course these general features to be found in all forms of social consciousness manifest themselves differently in each form. In art too they find a specific, distinctive expression. Here, as in any form of social consciousness (as aptly defined by Soviet writers, V. Kelle and M. Kovalzon in the book Forms of Social Consciousness), "it is essential to single out two interrelated tendencies: firstly the cognitive process shaped by the interests of real experience of life for man in society, the accumulation of objective knowledge concerning Nature and society, and secondly, the ideological process shaped within antagonistic social 30 formations by the interests of various- classes' active in the historical context---a process which involves the emergence, evolution and succession of ideologies of different "classes.''
In real life these two aspects of the prcicess are closely •interwoven, and we view them separately only for the purpose of theoretical analysis and abstraction. However, in the process of such analysis it is vital to bear in mind that social consciousness cannot be reduced to either one of these aspects.
The basic tenet of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics is that art, viewed as a form of social consciousness, provides a vivid example of the dialectical unity of the two trends outlined above. Art is both artistic cognition and ideology. The analysis of these two interrelated aspects of art is the allimportant condition for revealing its social essence.
The description of art as a form of social consciousness is a direct result of the application of dialectical and historical materialism in its capacity as the methodological foundation for the apprehension of art. However this generalisation stems not only from the materialist dialectical approach to the analysis of social life, the analysis of those ;of its aspects which shape the existence of art; it is also drawn from actual experience of the development of art. In art men comprehend their own life, their relation to the world around them, social conflicts, and this awareness helps them to wage a struggle in the name of victory for the ideas of humanism and social justice. It thus follows that this Marxist generalisation is utterly in accordance with the historical process of the development of art and the active role which art has always played in society.
Scientific solution of the question as to the nature of :art and interpretation of its complex and far from straightforward essence is not a source of purely theoretical in-terest. It is highly important for creative practice as well, -for it can provide theoretical elucidation of the main direction of the ideological struggle in the sphere of artistic culture: in other words, it can shed light on the question regarding the conflict between realism and 31 modernism in contemporary art. There is little doubt that modernism, eliminating as it does the creative nature of art, in practice arbitrarily singles out isolated aspects of artistic creativity to the exclusion of others, using this or that aesthetic theory to support such moves. The dialectical-materialist interpretation of the nature of art -- substantiates the viability of realism as a trend and method, thus extending the limits of artistic vision and rendering more profound the essence of our artistic understanding of the world and man within it.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Art and RealityEpistemological analysis of art as cognition makes it imperative to examine its links and relations with the object of reflection, with the real world itself.
Idealist aesthetics divorces art from reality. The idealists see artistic creativity, not as a reflection of life, but merely as a form of self-expression for the artist, as a means of penetrating the subconscious depths of man's mind, or as the embodiment of some ideal (divine) principle. It is revealing to note that even in idealist doctrines, whose adherents declare that there is a specific link between art and reality, this problem is treated in such a way that, when it comes to the point, a division is drawn between life and creativity. The neo-Kantian writer, Ernst Cassirer in his An Essay on Man proclaims that the main task of art.is profound penetration of the structure of reality. The true implications of this statement come to the fore when Cassirer elaborates his interpretation of reality. He sees art as a symbolic form of culture, but all symbolic forms, according to Cassirer, do not reproduce reality, but create it. From this it follows that reality is revealed to the great artist, not in the sense that he apprehends it, but on the contrary, it is created and fashioned by him.^^*^^ Reality is here interpreted in a subjective and idealist light.
_-_-_^^*^^ See: E. Cassirer, An Essay on Man, New Haven, 1945, p. 170. 32
32A follower and pupil of Cassirer's, Susanne K. Langer, who is a well-known American aesthetician in her own right, elaborates the above idea, writing that "everything in the arts is created, never imported from actuality''.^^*^^ Naturally;, she does not see the fundamental task of art as establishing how principles of life are reflected in artistic principles, but in defining the "essential difference" between the images of art and actualities.^^**^^ The images of art are of course qualitatively different from the facts of real life, yet Langer implies here through the phrase "essential difference" the fundamentally different nature of these two spheres.
The gulf between art and reality is pivotal to Freudian aesthetics. Freud wrote that "art is almost always harmless and beneficial, it does not aspire to be anything but illusion ... and does not venture to trespass into reality ''.^^***^^ This gulf between art and reality is expressed in different ways in the various conceptions found in idealist aesthetics. The neo-positivist credo for resolving the problem of "art and reality" finds expression in an address to the V International Congress of Aesthetics delivered by Kate Hamburger, who maintains that the ageold problem of the relationship between poetry and reality is in the final analysis not an epistemological problem, but a question of the theory of language.
Contemporary idealist aestheticians base their analysis and assessment of modernist art on an interpretation of the essence of art as a separate "aesthetic reality", which takes shape independently of the real world and its laws. One of their number, the American critic Edward G. Ballard supports the traditional tenet of idealist aesthetics--- that art does not reflect reality but merely provides a medium for the individual's self-expression---and goes on _-_-_
^^*^^ Susanne K. Langer, Problems of Art, New York, 1957, p. 84.
^^**^^ See: Susanne K. Langer, Feeling and Form, New York, 1953, p. 47.
^^***^^ Sigmund Freud, Neue Folge der Vorlesungen zur Einfuhrung in die Psychoanalyse, Gesammelte Werke, London, 1946, Bd. 15, S. 173.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3-796 33 to maintain that modernism corresponds most fully to the nature of artistic creation.^^*^^The question then arises: does not the ``creation'' of surrealists, abstractionists, tachists and other anti-realists demonstrate that art can exist which really is not a reflection of life?
The answer of course is ``No''. Any art, regardless of its context, always confronts us with a reflection of reality, however, the reflection can be either true or false: it can give rise to meaningful or artificial trends. The content and the manner of the reflection of life to be found in realist and anti-realist art are essentially different and fundamentally opposite to each other.^^**^^
The realist artist reproduces reality in a way that is true to life. He achieves this through a wide variety of forms: in open and objectivised forms as for example in Tolstoy's War and Peace, Balzac's Comedie Humaine, Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don, Fadeyev's The Young Guard, in the films of Eisenstein and Pudovkin, Chaplin and Kramer we can find direct and straightforward reflections of reality, can single out the main idea, and grasp the ``message'' or meaning of the work. At the same time, however, a profound grasp of reality also distinguishes those realist works of art, where ideas are presented in complex, ``closed'' forms, whose meaning needs to be apprehended via a metaphorical, sometimes grotesque language, such as that to be found in Goya's work. The ``closed'', complex form of Dostoyevsky's _-_-_
^^*^^ See: E. Ballard, Art and Analysis. An Essay toward a Theory in Aesthetics, The Hague, 1957, p. 116.
^^**^^ The above contrasting of methods for the reflection of reality in realist and anti-realist art, and in general the categorisation of infinitely diverse artistic trends as realist or anti-realist in a specific sense applies only to the modern period (for more detailed discussion .of this question see Chapter V, para. 1). It is also used in view of the fact that it is precisely the proponents of anti-realist art, who come out against progressive (in the main, realist) art, against its social implications, who contest the idea of the artist's duty to society under cover of slogans calling for art's independence of real life.---Author.
34 novels did not detract from the depth of his realistic picture of life, but on the contrary testified to the richness of the realist method. 'A very different situation obtains when it comes to anti-realist art. In formalist works it is difficult, more often than not impossible to find any trace of real life, The organisers of an exhibition of French painting in Moscow in 1961 provided the following commentary to an abstract work entitled Composition by Gerard Vulliamy: "Here all is fluid, denuded, obscured, and dispersed in fleeting visions." Indeed, this description might well be applied not only to the picture by the French artist, but to anti-realism in all types of art. This suggestion should not be taken to imply that art of this type has come out of the blue or does, not reflect life. We are not concerned here with the fact that in anti-realist works everything is "dispersed in fleeting visions", but with the fact that the reality reflected in them is distorted beyond recognition, rendered ugly and false through the prism of the artist's split consciousness. An example of such work is provided by .Genet's Journal du voleur, in which the writer of the Absurd school compares man's situation in the modern world to that of a visitor to a fun-fair, hope1-essly lost in the Hall of Mirrors. One of the characters in the Journal, the tramp Stilitano, rushes aimlessly about, panic-stricken by his own horribly distorted reflection in this world of mirrors, from which there is no way out; gripped by fear and despair and a sense of absolute and complete helplessness after giving up hope of finding a way out, Stilitano falls to the ground. This scene presents us with an allegory of the Absurd world outlook: the world is alien to man and man alienated within his world. This alienation is not seen as the inhumane reality of a society based on exploitation, but reality as such; then again our attention is focussed not on man living within an actual alienated world, but man as such. When approached thus, alienation is traced back not to the nature of societies based on exploitation, but it is seen to lie in eternal and unchanging aspects of human nature, and __PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 hence to be insuperable. Eugene lonesco states: 'It is not any particular society which appears ludicrous to me. It is man... .''^^*^^ Writers of this stamp would have their readers believe that man lives in a futile, absurd, inhumane world that is alien to him, that man is isolated and helpless. They leave their readers no room for hope. They do not rally men to any cause; their ideas and images merely serve to undermine and numb man's will, leaving him to face unaided a world which, supposedly, cannot but crush him. Yet in actual fact societies based on the oppression of one man by another do not only present us with a picture dominated by inhumane relations leaving room for no other; also at work within these societies is the real process of struggle by the progressive classes against such relations. lonesco presents an undeniably powerful picture of the dehumanisation of life under capitalism in his works, but he does not apprehend the forces capable of transforming the world in keeping with humanist principles. One-sided reproduction of reality inevitably means its distortion. In the works of modernists we find reflections of inhuman reality, but it is presented in distorted form as a result of their mistaken view of the world.
To a large extent this even applies to such considerable and talented writers as Kafka and Camus. Their vivid writings not only bear the mark of true talent but are also permeated by a sincere sense of pain and revulsion at the inhumanity of the bourgeois world. Yet for our purposes what is important is not their particular subjective intentions, but the way in which their false view of the world left its mark on their writing. In The Trial and The Penal Colony and some other works, Kafka succeeded in depicting in his imaginary world certain aspects of the terrible and forbidding reality, into whose abyss mankind was hurled by fascism. Yet he was no prophet: he had neither knowledge of, nor faith in, the possibility of overcoming those inhumane conditions. His artistic _-_-_
^^*^^ E. lonesco, Notes et centre-notes, Paris, 1962, p. 112. 36
36 imagination is anti-historical and, viewed objectively, his ideas play into the hands of reactionary forces, whose interests would stand to suffer if any radical changes in the world were brought about.Marxist aestheticians find it impossible to accept the point of view of those writers who do not see the artist as bound to disclose the sources of alienation and work out ways for overcoming it, but consider it sufficient that he should indicate its existence. The artist is a student of life, its main trends, its profound nature and he cannot confine himself merely to confirming that alienation exists. Marx held that "immediate task of philosophy, which is at the service of history, once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked, is to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms.''^^*^^ Yet does not this also constitute the task of art, not all art of course, but that art which "is at the service of history", in other words, realist art that is passionately concerned with the future of mankind? The artist's task is not merely to diagnose; he cannot stand outside good and evil.
The writer and philosopher Albert Camus whose work provides the most detailed elaboration of the existentialist viewpoint, drew the following conclusion in one of his major theoretical works, Le Mythe de Sisyphe, which depicts the futility of human existence: "There is only one philosophical problem that is a really serious one: and that is suicide. To judge whether life is worth living or not is to reply to the fundamental question of philosophy.''^^**^^ Camus substantiates the absurd nature of man's existence by pointing out the disharmony between the irrational world and human thought, once man has grasped the inevitability of death. The more man penetrates the essence of the world, the more meaningless, in Camus' eyes, his life becomes, and the only reality in this life of _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 176.
^^**^^ Albert Camus, Le Mythe de Sisyphe. Essai sur I'absurde, Paris, 1942, p. 15,
37 ours he sees in death.^^*^^ Reason---man's greatest treasure ---is thus seen as his ``curse'': man knows he is going to die and his life then becomes terrible and aimless, be4 cause it all consists in anticipation of death.The talent of certain avant-garde artists has meant that their works contain not only a negative reflection of modern bourgeois reality, but also in a number of cases humanist principles, anti-fascist motifs break through to the surface. Yet if we look at the work of modernist artists as a whole, the less content taken from real life, the more all truthful reflection of life gives way to subjective ist play of forms. Such art, through its deflection of our attention from the real issues of life, serves to stifle men's social conscience and energies, concentrating their thoughts on inessentials and concealing what is truly important. This applies still more to-openly decadent trends in bourgeois art, in which the flight from real life becomes a vehicle for the expression of reactionary ideas. .
Art of the blatant propaganda type occupies a relatively unimportant place in contemporary bourgeois society. There is reason to believe that nowadays another tendency dominates, a tendency towards a ``critical'', or, to be more precise, pseudo-critical stance, for it starts out from false premises and draws false conclusions. Art of this kind can and indeed does show certain negative aspects of bourgeois society through its depiction of man's life in an inhumane world, but it turns its back on social analysis and ignores history in its presentation of contemporary reality and hence does not go beyond negation of the existing order, so that in the end its criticism can be summed up in the formula "the world is terrible but cannot be otherwise". If we fail to appreciate this we have failed to grasp the true essence of this art behind its outward appearance, to understand its place in the life of contemporary society.
_-_-_^^*^^ This in no way means that we see the work of this talented anti-fascist, but at the same time complex and contradictory writer, as no more than this. Here we are merely discussing his philosophy and the aesthetics of the Absurd.---Author.
38A contrast to this type of "philosophy of life" is provided in realist art by the humanist conception of the individual and his relations with the world, a conception which affirms, the vital resilience, profound interest and significance of human existence. Let us take as an example of a work in the latter vein the German film Naked Among Wolves directed by Bruno Apitz and Frank Beyer, which depicts the terrible life facing prisoners in a nazi concentration camp. All the ideas and images in this film serve to refute the philosophy of hopelessness, life's lack of meaning and the idea of man's interminable isolation. The audience is shown the crematorium ovens and men and women behind barbed wire, SS-men bestial in their cruelty, and the terrible happenings at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Nevertheless, in this film which shows life in a form a thousand times more terrible than that which confronts us in Beckett's plays, for example, there is no spirit of despair. In the most terrible Conditions the heroes created by Apitz and Beyer uphold unscathed their faith in the inevitable triumph of humanity. Even when these, heroes perish, they leave life behind them undaunted and; morally speaking they triumph over their executioners.
So these fundamentally divergent approaches to the correlation between art and reality epitomise the contrast between the materialist and idealist interpretation of art. In passing it should also be pointed out that any vulgarmaterialist identification of art with reality is just as alien to Marxist-Leninist aesthetics as the idealist. approach.
Vulgar-materialist theories of art provide the theoretical foundation for naturalism. In such theories art is. regarded not as the creative reproduction of reality but as a mechanical repetition of real phenomena of life, a straightforward copying of these phenomena. This approach to art is essentially anti-aesthetic. When art is seen as a simple repetition of real phenomena, then the question as to its ideological, content becomes null and void, and hence art loses its social significance.
Art is the creative reproduction of reality: this 39 principle is central to the materialist interpretation of art, the basic premise of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. Yet we cannot stop there; it is not sufficient to acknowledge reality's priority in relation to art. Another question also has to be answered: why does the reflection of reality in man's consciousness presuppose the existence of such a form of social consciousness as art? To reply to that question we must analyse the specific qualities of various forms of social consciousness and establish not only those features common to all forms, but also the features which distinguish them from one another.
The most elementary difference between certain forms of social consciousness---and this can be established with no difficulty at all---lies in the fact that each of them reflects reality in its own particular way. Yet why do there exist different forms of the reflection of reality in men's consciousness, what lies behind them and what determines them? Does the content of the various forms differ?
Certain schools of idealist philosophy have explained the appearance and existence of various forms of spiritual life by the existence of various properties found in man's psyche. Philosophers of the Kantian school, when referring to such mental faculties as thought, imagination, will, etc., maintain that it is they which determine the existence of science, art, morality, etc.: thought determines science (concepts), imagination determines aft (images), will determines morality (moral principles), etc. Following in the footsteps of Kant and his disciple Coleridge, a similar line in explaining the mainsprings of art has been adopted by the new Hegelians---Croce and Collingwood. To their way of thinking the fundamental principle of art stems precisely from fantasy and imagination.^^*^^ To these writers the existence of various forms of consciousness is traced from the special features of man's mind, from man's own consciousness, and not from his being.
_-_-_^^*^^ See: Benedetto Croce, Estetica come scienza e come linguistica generate (Filosofia dello Spirito, T. 1) and R. G. Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of Artf Blpomington, 1964, p. XII,
40The materialists of the past who rejected these idealist concepts were, however, as a result of their limited historical perspective, unable to provide a materialist resolution of this all-important question. They were inclined to think that the specific nature of this or that form of social consciousness was simply a question as to various ways of reflecting reality. This viewpoint was progressive in its day; it was materialist in character, since it regarded the real world as the only source of all forms of social consciousness and opposed the idealist separation of various forms of consciousness. Yet this position is not something Marxists of today can accept automatically. Characteristic of Marxist writing in this field is the widespread acknowledgement of the idea that the differences between science, art, morality, etc., cannot be seen solely as differences in methods of reflecting reality.
Marxist writers consider that the diversity of forms of social consciousness is born first and foremost of the diverse and many-faceted nature of real life. To apprehend the features, relations, direct and indirect links in the real world we require a variety of methods and forms of reflection.
The subject of political ideology, for instance, embraces the class struggle, relations between classes, the motive forces behind social development, the essence of the state, the character and forms of the state structure. The subject of juridical ideology embraces property relations, which constitute first and foremost the legal expression of economic relations. The subject of morals covers relations between the individual and society expressed in standards of human behaviour and reinforced by public opinion and established traditions. The subject of science covers the objective laws pertaining to various fields of Nature and society, etc. It is therefore easy to deduce that the principle according to which any form of social consciousness and its particular method for the reflection of reality can be explained by the existence in the objective world of a special sphere of phenomena that constitute the core of its interests, is perfectly applicable to art as well.
41Naturally the question of the subject of art in the history of aesthetic theory has preoccupied above all those writers who have linked art with objective reality and sought in that reality for the phenomena that have become the object of its creative reproduction.
Idealist aestheticians who separate art from life often do not even raise the question of the subject of art. Aesthetic theories which present art as no more than the play of pure forms, a self-sufficient construction bereft of tangible content, cannot confront the question as to the subject of art. Nor can this question be answered in modern formalist theories that approach art as an abstract activity. Louis Afagon, the well-known French writer, wittily summed up the situation saying that formalist artists compete among themselves, as it were, to create art which has nothing to say. The subject of art and abstract (or ``subjectless'') art upheld by formalist aestheticians are incompatible concepts. To be sure, this calls for closer scrutiny---at least in two dimensions.
First, when pointing out that interest in the study of the subject of art was shown above all by materialist aestheticians, it was in no way intended to reject the obvious fact that certain theories in idealist aesthetics, as those to be discerned in Plato's philosophy in classical times and more recently in the philosophy of Hegel, have examined this question. Yet in idealist writings on aesthetics the subject of art has been taken not from the real wealth of the objective world, but from the life of the mind and emotions. This also applies to the trends in idealist aesthetics representing the subject of art as phenomena of the real world as perceived through the senses, since this latter reality was seen as the offspring and objectivisation of the ideal principle.
Second, when we say that subjectless art and the subject of art are incompatible concepts it is important to remember that a certain confusion of concepts has been allowed to come about. To be more precise, art of this type does not lack a subject in the philosophical or aesthetic sense, for, as is commonly accepted, subjectless, non-- 42 representational art is also a reflection of reality, although an ugly one, distorted beyond recognition. It is subjectless in the everyday sense, or at least from the point of view of art criticism: its lack of a subject finds expression in the fact that it categorically rejects graphic representation. Why do we consciously allow this confusion? It is because formalist aesthetics, when providing a ``theoretical'' basis for art of this variety, transforms this concept from the realm of art criticism into a general aesthetic category, which implies a refusal to accept the objective source and subject of artistic creativity.
Through its definition of the subject of art materialist aesthetics accomplishes two things: on the one hand, it provides a basis for opposition to formalist theories and the, dehumanised world of anti-realist art, on the other, it provides methodological direction for realist artists' creative practice. As noted earlier, in the rich diversity of the real world artists are showing more and more interest in men's characters, destinies and relationships. These are central to the subject-matter of art, although the subject of art is not confined to them alone. . In his depiction of reality the artist does not confine himself to any particular framework. Art depicts all that comes within our aesthetic perception: however, the environment in which man lives, the things which surround him, arid Nature are represented in art as connected with man and they facilitate our understanding of his essence, assuming as they do a humanised character.
Still-life paintings which depict "nature morte" (dead nature) arouse in the beholder thoughts and feelings that bear jjpon living man. He apprehends vivid representations of things, smooth surfaces of glass and the texture of a tablecloth as components of his own existence. The objects depicted in a still life are rendered human, as it were, and bear the imprint of human needs: they evoke human reactions, their representation serves to express man's relationship to external reality. In short, whether it be directly or indirectly, any picture taken from life and reproduced through art, regardless of form or genre, 43 always contains a definite human factor. If we accept George Sand's view that a book is man or nothing, then it would follow on logically from there to apply the same principle to art as a whole, not just literature.
Here it is appropriate to dwell on an elementary external fact. Man constitutes the central subject of art in the purely quantitative respect, quite apart from any other: the absolute majority of works of art are devoted to direct representation of human life. Yet this fact in itself is not our primary concern. Far more important is the fact that man constitutes the main and all-important subject of reflection in art, irrespective of what the work of art may depict.
It is important not to confuse direct representation and the actual essence of phenomena revealed in a work of art. In any fable, for instance, more often than not it, is animals' ways and habits that are depicted, but even children are capable of appreciating the allegories used by writers of fables to portray or expose human morals and characters.
Nature taken on its own is not what attracts the artist and beholder. When depicting scenes from Nature the artist always gives expression to certain human feelings and moods, which in their turn lead the beholder to muse on human existence. This thought was aptly expressed by the writer Mikhail Prishvin, who painted the Russian countryside in such inspired word-pictures: "I have found a task after my own heart---searching for and unfolding in nature the inspiring facets of the human soul." These words pinpoint the main task of the landscape and stilllife painter, as indeed of any artist concerned with depicting Nature.
Without setting itself special tasks in the analysis of the life of Nature, art at the same time can convey to the reader or beholder certain facts about it, and provide them with a true conception of Nature as it really is. In just the same way art can provide us with information as to the technology of production or even of machine parts. Yet all this is a passing element in art, It would be wrong 44 to adopt a narrowly pedantic approach and confine the subject of art within the framework: man and his inner world. The perfectly correct formula---man is the principal subject of art---should not hem in the artist. And yet there are cases when allusions to this formula are used to set the artist free, as it were, from concrete knowledge and representation of the environment in which man lives. Truthful depiction of the environment, milieu and conditions of life is here stygmatised as something little short of naturalism, which impedes the pursuit of the artist's most important goal---unfolding man's inner world. Certain theoreticians are even inclined to maintain that the environmental conditions in which man lives constitute something that the artist should not only not depict, but indeed cannot depict, for it is beyond him. That point of view is quite unacceptable. It would be out of place to draw the rigid distinction, that science probes reality and art investigates man. Science and art are equally concerned with reality and with man. The subject of art is not only man, but the whole of the real world approached in the light of the objectives implicit in the aesthetic apprehension of that world.
Yet then we come to the question: where is the difference between the subject of art and the subject of social science? After all the social nature of man in all its diverse manifestations provides not only the subject of art but also that of scientific cognition.
Social sciences are concerned with the laws of social life, and moreover each concrete social science is concerned with certain particular groups of laws or patterns at work in distinct spheres of the life of society. Social sciences study the life of society by concentrating on certain specific elements of that life. Art on the other hand is concerned with an integral reproduction of man's life, depicting men in the totality of their relations with each other and the world around them, depicting various aspects of their life and the ways in which the diverse spheres of men's activity interweave. The objection could be made here that not all social sciences adopt a 45 specialised approach to the study of society. Unlike certain specialised social sciences, historical materialism is concerned not with individual aspects of the life of society, but society as an integral whole. However, the subject of art and the subject of Marxist sociology---historical materialism---are different aspects, or, to be more precise, different levels of social reality.
The subject of historical materialism is constituted by the most general laws of history which reveal the essence of the. social process and which are fixed in the form of abstract definitions. Art, for its part, deals not only with the essence of social phenomena, but unfolds that essence in concrete pictures of life, and concrete characters typifying individuals as representatives.of the social milieu to which they belong. At the same time art reflects phenomena from the real world in their aesthetic particularity. This means that art reflects phenomena of life, evaluating them as beautiful or ugly, lofty or base, tragic or comic. In art phenomena taken from life are assessed from the ideological and aesthetic angle.^^*^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. Art and CognitionThe founders of Marxism-Leninism set great store,by the limitless cognitive potential peculiar to art, to which they referred on numerous occasions, by its role jn the enrichment of man's knowledge of life. In this connection _-_-_
^^*^^ The above viewpoint is shared by the majority of Marxist: aestheticians and art historians. However some "writers insist that the main difference between art and other forms of social consciousness, finds expression only in art's reflection of reality through images. This means that the very formulation of the question as to art's specific subject-matter is something they would reject. However, if art is not acknowledged as possessing a specific subject, it is impossible to understand wherein lies the historical explanation for the very .existence of art; it is then impossible to substantiate the necessity of art as a form of consciousness, as an. expression of the ideological'and aesthetic relationship between man and reality^ that cannot be replaced by any other forms of social consciousness.--- Author.
46 Marx made sympathetic note of Balzac's comment that he was a doctor in social sciences. Also of interest in this respect is Engels' reference to the informative content of La Comedie Humaine, which enabled him to reach a deeper understanding of contemporary society, even when it came to economic details, than any specialised works by economists or statisticians. Marx held an equally high opinion of works by English novelists of the nineteenth century such as Dickens, Thackeray and Charlotte Bronte. He maintained that their writings included far more socio-political truths than the works of contemporary politicians, historians, ethnographers, etc. The superiority of Balzac and these English novelists, as indeed that of all progressive art, over the historical writing of the past can to a certain extent be explained by the fact that, prior to the appearance of Marxism, socio-political thought was based on an idealist interpretation of history. As a result it could not probe to the essence of the historical process. Art, meanwhile, due to its all-embracing reproduction of reality, its truthful and realistic reflection of real phenomena, was able to penetrate accurately and profoundly to the nature of social relations.Of course not all forms of art provide the same picture of life. There are specific features peculiar to the cognition of life to be made through every form of art. There are some forms in which the cognitive element is more prominent, and others in which the primary principle of artistic creativity founded in labour, the creation of artistically executed utilitarian objects, is paramount. It is clear that literature for example belongs to the first group and that applied art or architecture belong to the second. These differences are most important. Disregard for the specific features peculiar to various art forms and the confusion, for instance, of the nature of painting with that of applied art lead to major distortions in aesthetic analysis of art. At the same time it is also ill-advised to lay too much stress on the above-mentioned differences, for all art forms are specific means of expressing artistic culture. Even those art forms which do not possess any 47 directly utilitarian function play a definite role in our understanding of reality. This applies to music, for instance, as opposed to literature. It goes without saying that music is not equipped to shed light on economic relations or living conditions. Yet despite this, a French philosopher is known to have said that if he had been Foreign Minister, Moussorgsky's music would have helped him understand the implications of the despatches sent him by the French ambassador in St. Petersburg. This is clearly due to the fact that music can give expression to the spirit and moeurs of a people, its hopes and fears engendered by a particular way of life.
Stefan Zweig once pointed out that if civilisation had .suddenly perished, and together with it all cultural monuments, books, photographs, documents, but the engravings and drawings of Frans Masereel had remained intact, it would have been possible to ascertain from his works how men lived in our age, and to sense the spirit of twentieth-century life.
It is no coincidence that references have been made to music and drawing. Obviously in such intellectual art forms as literature, drama or the cinema we are given a fuller and broader representation of the real world in the diversity of its direct and indirect connections than in certain other forms of artistic creativity. Yet this does not imply in the slightest that art as a whole does not possess ;any cognitive significance, and only isolated forms do.
All art forms have a cognitive function, yet the knowledge which we glean from each of them covers a distinct, concrete sphere of real phenomena and finds expression in a specific form. The knowledge of life which we can obtain from music, for instance, is first and foremost knowledge of an emotional kind, but it does not follow from this that music is not an intellectual art form or that it is in any way inferior to other forms of artistic creativity. On the contrary, his emotional response to : music is one of the loftiest spheres of man's intellectual ^activity.
The fact that art enhances our cognition of the world 48 means that it has something in common with science. Despite all the differences which exist between those two forms of social consciousness, art like science telescopes the experience of the precipitous flow of life and broadens man's horizons, giving him varied knowledge of men's lives at different periods and in different countries, shedding light on the essence of phenomena taken from real life and singling out in the latter such aspects which remain beyond man's grasp in the ordinary circumstances of his life experience. Art is always revelation: even when it comes to familiar aspects of our everyday lives it can spotlight facets of life which enable us to see the familiar in the unfamiliar and unfamiliar in the familiar.
The subject and form of the knowledge of life acquired from art differ from the subject and form of such knowledge to be gleaned from science; this does not, however, imply that scientific knowledge and knowledge attained through art are diametrically opposed to each other. It is difficult to accept the methodologically misleading premise of certain aestheticians to the effect that "scientific objectivity and artistic objectivity move in opposite directions"^^*^^ as the Swiss aesthetician Robert Hainard comments in his article, "Science and Art". By way of ``proof'' the author refers to Shakespeare, saying that when confronted with any of his works, the reader gleans less profound, less complete knowledge of the age in which the particular work is set than he would do from relevant scientific research. Naturally, Shakespeare's tragedies cannot and indeed do not provide the knowledge found in a history text-book. But, conversely the knowledge to be gleaned from Hamlet or King Lear could not be found in a history text-book.
Art, unlike historical science, does not present us with historical facts in chronological order and does not always keep strictly to documented evidence; it does not formulate the laws underlying the historical events it _-_-_
^^*^^ Robert Hainard, "Science et art" in Dialectica, 1960, Vol. 14, No. 2/3, p. 189, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4-796 49 treats. Yet historical science, in its turn, cannot shed light on the fate of a people through individual destinies in the way that art can, in the way that the fate of English society is brought home to us through the lives of Hamlet or Lear, or confront us with universal problems with the same impact as the plays of Shakespeare.In a review of a 1962 Moscow Art Theatre production of The Cherry Orchard in New York, Howard Taubman, the American drama critic, remarked that this play, transposed to the stage from the world in which Chekhov lived, explained better than any historical analysis why that world was soon to undergo radical change. To say that a play achieves such revelation better than any historical analysis reflects the other extreme view. It is important to remember not only that those phenomena of life which cannot be revealed through art are investigated by scientists; but also that artists often bring us to marvel at their profound analysis of such phenomena, which prove beyond the grasp of the scientist. In this respect Taubman's words are also relevant: Chekhov explained the world in a way that no scientist could have done. In the present age of world-wide homage to the power of science, it is particularly remarkable that leading scientists acknowledge the impossibility of reproducing a universal picture of the world through science alone, or indeed with the help of art alone. They supplement each other and are mutually indispensable. The well-known Soviet physicist E. Feinberg in his article in Novy Mir magazine (No. 8, 1965) wrote that "literature and art as a whole are an infinitely subtle and wise instrument of mankind, capable of observing what great philosophers lose sight of, an instrument which can understand and explain what cannot be understood and rationally explained by science''.
From the above it follows that art and science provide two different forms of cognitive activity. Equally important to bear in mind is the fact that the transmission of knowledge is a vital and objective function of art. Max Born, the celebrated German physicist, wrote that in 1921 he was convinced, as were the majority of 50 contemporary physicists, that the scientific method was to be preferred to all other, more subjective, means of constituting a picture of the world, such as philosophy or poetry; later, however, he had come to regard his former conviction that science was superior to other forms of human thought, as self-deception.
To overlook the cognitive significance of art cannot but lead to negation of its other function---the ideological and educative function.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Definition of the nature of artistic cognition demands at least two conditions: first, acceptance of certain common ground for artistic and scientific knowledge and rejection of any attempt to present the differences between them as insuperable. It is no coincidence that works of art frequently incorporate conjectures and ingenious finds which are very close to science. Second, it is important not to lose sight of the specific nature of artistic cognition and how it differs from scientific knowledge not on account of language or means of expression, or the depth of understanding involved, but in view of its subject and content. When this latter circumstance is ignored by opponents of the epistemological concept this is usually not a mere sin of omission, but a ploy used, in effect, as an argument against the cognitive content of art. It is extremely important, given the similarities between art and science, to start out precisely from the fact that art apprehends and discovers things other than those which science apprehends, that it has different aims and goals. This is by no means always remembered.
By way of an example we might do well here to look at G. Volkov's article "The Three Faces of Culture", published in Novy Mir magazine (1972). It is rich in vivid, concrete information and serious observations. The author regards art, philosophy and science as three steps in man's cognitive activity. Art is seen by Volkov as something in the way of cognitive reconnaissance which gives voice to insights and conjectures; philosophy lends these insights the form of hypotheses or theories, while finally science transforms them into fundamental knowledge. "It is common knowledge that the exact sciences provide the spring-board for the development of techniques and technology, opening up new paths and new possibilities for the practical transformation of the world. However theoretical discoveries in the sphere of natural science are often anticipated by philosophical or speculative hypotheses and schemes. Philosophy---when viewed from an historical angle---in its turn only follows after art in its mastery of new ways for comprehending the world, new facets, angles and aspects of its vision, of new thought patterns." The author raised the question of the possibilities inherent in __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 52. 51
When starting out from the fundamental tenet of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics (according to which acknowledgement of art's cognitive content and cognitive significance is the direct and logical consequence of applying the theory of reflection to analysis of the nature of art) it is essential to bear in mind that the epistemological problem has become one of the most important factors in the ideological struggle within the field of aesthetics.
Nowadays certain ``Marxists'' come out against the epistemological concept in aesthetics using by way of a pretext the idea that epistemological considerations are supposedly an alien addition to Marxism, out of keeping with its essential nature. In recent years, criticism of the epistemological conception of art has come to occupy a prominent place in revisionist literature, in particular in the numerous statements and writings of Roger Garaudy. It was he who maintained that in order to substantiate contemporary aesthetics it was essential above all to `` liberate'' Marxism from the epistemological interpretation of the essence of art. By presenting creativity and reflection as two quite separate things Garaudy would have us believe that art is a purely creative activity, and the artist is exclusively concerned with projection and design. Of course, artistic insight is a vital function of great realist art, and it has always been essential to the creative work of all major artists. Yet Marxism never presented artistic cognition and art's active involvement in life as opposites; on the contrary, the substantiation of their indivisible _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 51. art, but his answer to the question was in my opinion a one-sided one. Without dwelling on the conception behind the article as a whole, we would do well to ask what destiny is allotted to art, if, in comparison with philosophy and science, it represents merely an earlier and essentially less perfect stage of cognition. If this is so then why do works of art retain their relevance in their initial form after their cognitive content has been lent more correct and precise expression in science. Is not the point at issue here the fact that art differs from science not in the degree of cognition involved or simply its character but because it bears within itself some content not to be found in philosophy or science.---Author.
52 unity is one of the vital tenets of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics.Some Marxist writers acknowledge that art has some cognitive content although they do not regard this as art's distinctive feature. A stand of this Sort is to be found, as a rule, in any Marxist work whose author sees art first and foremost as an ideological phenomenon, as a specific form of the creative, active relation of the individual to the world. Of course, the epistemological interpretation alone is not enough to explain art. The cognitive content of art does not exist beyond its creative nature, but still less can the creative essence of art be revealed without reference to its cognitive potential. Art has many facets, but precisely its epistemological aspect can enable us to pinpoint all its other sides and principles. And, therefore, the fact that within the scope of any materialist conception we cannot avoid an interpretation of art as artistic cognition is extremely important. Rejection of such an interpretation of art can have serious consequences.
It was precisely in such a rejection that the profoundly mistaken and revisionist conceptions of Garaudy and Fischer originally manifested themselves. It is in Garaudy's works that we find the most blatant presentation of the above-mentioned artificial and concocted choice between art as a form of social consciousness or creative activity, as a reflection of life or a creation of new reality, as a form of knowledge or of labour. By ignoring the many-faceted nature of art and insisting that art be approached as creative activity and none other, Garaudy frees himself of the need to bring out the social essence and significance of artistic creation. As far back as 1964 he was to write that "art is a form of labour, and in no way a form of knowledge". For him art includes a certain cognitive element precisely as a form of labour, or, in other words, it possesses some cognitive content only in so far as the creative activity of the artist demands it. In Garaudy's conception one-sided preoccupation with the labour (or creative) essence of art is linked with a refusal to apply the principle inherent in Lenin's theory of reflection to 53 analysis of the nature of artistic creativity in all forms of art.
As for modern idealist aesthetics, its methodological weakness (when it comes to solving the epistemological problem) lies as a rule not merely in the rejection of art's cognitive significance. There are two trends to be observed. The first really does consist in a direct rejection of the epistemological aspect of art. The second, on the contrary, finds expression in view of art as almost the only form for the cognition of life. For all intents and purposes these two trends are versions of one and the same anti-scientific methodology. The French neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain, for instance, holds that the trend towards growing importance of the cognitive element in art is leading to its destruction. He maintains that if art were a means to knowledge then it would rank much lower than geometry. A similar stand is adopted by the German aesthetician Nicolai Hartmann, initiator of so-called "critical ontology", J. A. Richards, well-known English critic and author of the semantic conception of art, and the celebrated American aesthetician James K. Feibleman who interprets art from a behaviourist position, etc.
Side by side with this fundamentally anti-- epistemological approach, there exists a special, as it were, negative epistemology, which found expression in the philosophy and aesthetics of intuitivism, a rejection of the cognitive potential not of art, but, on the contrary, of science. The intuitivists declared rationalist thought to be inconsistent, reason bankrupt and science incapable of investigating the nature of the world around us and the essence of man; art they saw as almost the only true means to reaching an understanding of life, thanks to the uncommon, mystical inspiration with which the artist is endowed. Artistic intuition possesses enormous advantages over scientific abstraction in the eyes of the intuitivists. They see it as destined not to penetrate universal laws but to express all that is individual, which in fact represents the ultimate goal of cognition in the context of this theory.
Of course both these tendencies are metaphysical: both 54 science and art are regarded not as two qualitatively different forms of cognitive activity, but as two fundamentally incompatible phenomena. For this reason the correlation between them is expressed in the form of an alternative: only science or only art can possess cognitive significance.
In the light of the above it becomes quite clear that Garaudy's conception is an eclectic combination of the above tendencies. In his efforts to uphold his anti-- epistemological standpoint Garaudy, in the footsteps of many others, wrote that in order to understand this or that particular epoch, we turn not to works of art, but to historical investigation and he then adds that even the most brilliant work of art does not provide the knowledge which can be gleaned from a historical tract. By contrasting myth and knowledge and asserting that the artist-creator assumes the role of myth-creator and prophet, which in his opinion is the essence of great art, Garaudy turns back to his theory of self-expression in its lowest form. He maintains that the question as to what a picture depicts can only be answered in one way: "The artist who created it.''
This mythopoeic concept of art was not of course evolved by Garaudy, nor has it been elaborated in any original way in his writings. In his approach to all great works of art as myths and in his conviction that their meaning is to be sought in their capacity to provide symbolical insight into the future Garaudy is merely repeating the familiar arguments of E. Cassirer and S. Langer.
As was justly pointed out by the Bulgarian Marxist philosopher Todor Pavlov, myths played not merely a negative role in the history of knowledge, but also exerted some positive influence. However I would accept wholeheartedly this viewpoint to the effect that any substitution for the artistic idea, which is the subjective image of the objective world, by myth-creation leads to phenomenologism and other idealist tendencies, that reduce the process of cognition to the subject's self-contemplation, to an act of ``pure'' consciousness.
It was Ernst Fischer, none other, who, in 1958, when he was still a Marxist, in his article "Mystification of 55 Reality" dismissed attempts to designate as myth the singling out of features of the universal in the particular as "terminological slovenliness". If such a path be taken, Fischer pointed out, then Hamlet, King Lear, Faust, La Comedie Humaine, Tolstoy's Resurrection, Gorky's Mother can all be declared myths and all that will result is that the concept of the mythical will lose all definite meaning and be fused together with the idea of the essential.^^*^^ However, at the beginning of the sixties he began to view the making of myths as an essential function of artistic creation and in certain epochs even the decisive one. To summarise---the true significance and real content of Fischer's and Garaudy's efforts to propagate the conception of myth-creation lie in their rejection of the theory of reflection and consequently of realism in art. These conceptions also reflect fear in face of history, in face of historical progress and revolutionary cataclysms. They cutlivate mysticism and disregard controversial questions of social life in favour of a world of the fantastic and subconscious.
The anti-Marxist wave of de-epistemologisation of art is intrinsically bound up with efforts to separate art from ideology; both are aimed at refuting the fundamental tenet of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics according to which the social nature of art is inextricably bound up with its ideological functions.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. Art and IdeologyThe 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 _-_-_
^^*^^ See: Ernst Fischer, "Die Mystifikation der Wirklichkeit", in Sinn und Form, 1958, Erstes Heft, p. 84.
56 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.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 57 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.
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.
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 58 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.
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.
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.
Lenin saw the strength of Marxism to lie in its 59 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.
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.^^*^^
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ In Russian revolutionary-democratic aesthetics the axiological factor was regarded as a component part of the artist's picture of the world. N. Chernyshevsky, for example, considered that art is called upon not merely to reproduce and elucidate reality, but also to prOnounce its verdict on the various phenomena of life.---Author.
60 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''.^^*^^ 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.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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ G. V. Plekhanov, Aesthetics and Literature, Vol. 2, 1958, p. 495 (in Russian).
61 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.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.
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.
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 " 62 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.^^*^^ 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.
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.
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. ...
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ See: R. G. Collingwood, The Principles of Art, New York, 1958, pp. 278-80.
63 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.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''.
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:
``Where are you heading?''
``Forward and left.''
``Destination?''
``The life of today with its needs and aspirations. Helping to shape the moral and social climate of tomorrow.''
He was obviously calling for artists to develop a sense of responsibility in relation to contemporary society which art is called upon to enhance.
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 64 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.
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.
While upholding the dependence of art on politics __PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5-796 65 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.
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''.
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.
Art and Morals. The nature and objectives of both art 66 and morality make plain the necessity of their mutual influence. Art can be separated from morality no less than from politics.
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.
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.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 of so-called mass culture are not the result of artists' whims but rather the logical expression of a rejection of life's truth.
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.
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.
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, 68 helps him to probe the inner essence of being and influences the formation of his world outlook.
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.
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.
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 69 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.
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.
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?
First, pre-Christian religion assumed the form of mythology. This mythology was, however, not only an 70 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.
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.
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 71 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.
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.
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.
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 72 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.
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.
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.
[73] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter II __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE IMAGE IN ART __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. The Image: A Cardinal CategoryOne 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.
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.
However philosophical interpretation of image is not identical with its aesthetic interpretation.
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 74 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.
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.
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.
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 75 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 76 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.
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.
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^^*^^ Although the adjectives _-_-_
^^*^^ In the theory of art the term ``image'' implies not merely a specific form for the reflection of life, but also the concrete content of the reflection itself: the picture of life created by the artist, the character he has delineated or even the work as a whole. Thus in a work of literature a character can be regarded as an imag'e (for example Grigori Melekhov in Sholokhov's And Quiet Flaws the Don, __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 78. 77 ``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.
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.
However these arguments should not be regarded as watertight.
_-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 77. Robert Jordan in Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls) or likewise a role created by an actor on stage (such as the role of Othello created by the famous Italian actor Salvini). In this sense we can also talk of the image of feminity in Botticelli's Madonnas, or the image of destruction and fascist barbarity in Picasso's Guernica. It is not the task of the aesthetician to examine the concrete content of each image in the sense referred to here, but to disclose the essence of the image as a form of artistic generalisation drawn from life.---Author. 78Firstly, 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.
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.
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.''^^*^^ Confusion of images and concepts _-_-_
^^*^^ S. L. Rubinstein, Fundamentals of General Psychology, Moscow, 1945, p. 329 (in Russian).
79 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.''^^*^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. The Typical and the IndividualA vital characteristic of the artistic image is the individualised identity it provides. This thought also underlies Belinsky's famous statement to the effect that the artist, as opposed to the scholar does not speak in syllogisms, but portrays reality in living pictures. Art always confronts man with concrete facts taken from life, with events and experiences. Each artistic image is either a concrete depiction of certain phenomena from the real world, or an expression of specific events in man's emotional life; alternatively it can interweave and interrelate the two.
Yet it does not simply represent individual, specific features of this or that phenomenon of life or group of such phenomena, but unfolds general essential features and laws underlying them. These profound essential features of reality, its underlying laws are not unfolded in images in the same way as in logical concepts. Science reflects life in its ``pure'' form, it discovers and formulates laws. Art, on the other hand, reproduces not the laws of life taken in isolation, but the concrete law-bound processes and patterns at work within life.
So if the artist is anxious to unfold and express his _-_-_
^^*^^ V. G. Belinsky, Complete Works, in thirteen volumes, Moscow, Vol. 4, pp. 591-92 (in Russian).
80 interpretation of the essence of the heroic, he will not start by analysing the concept of ``heroism'' or by providing a logical substantiation of its nature. No, he will acquaint us with Achilles or Prometheus, who stole fire from the Gods to bring happiness to men on earth. He will fashion from stone a David, as did Michelangelo, expressing thereby the humanist artistic and social ideals of the Renaissance.Lenin reminded us that to a certain extent the phenomena of life are richer than laws. What does this imply? These phenomena are richer than laws in the sense that they possess concrete individuality, that they possess a multitude of specific features intrinsic to them alone, while laws reflect only universal and essential aspects intrinsic to the whole group of phenomena in question. The artistic image incorporates a concrete, sensual entirety, the individual wealth of each phenomenon depicted.
In the individualised fabric of the image we find a certain similarity with concrete phenomena of life. However, the individual in art and the singular in life are not identical concepts. A profound qualitative difference exists between the reality of art and that of life.
Any event or phenomenon drawn from life represents a mass of all possible elements interwoven the one with the other---the necessary and the coincidental, the inevitable and random, the universal and particular, the inner and outer etc. In any phenomenon these aspects are so firmly welded together that sometimes it is extremely difficult to separate them. The essence of a phenomenon is sometimes concealed under a mass of layers which impede man in his efforts to penetrate to the nature of the object of his study. Marx pointed out that the difficulties accompanying cognition consist precisely in the fact that the essence of a phenomenon is not to be found upon its surface.
This is the difficulty to be overcome not only for the scientific investigator but also on the path to artistic discovery, to the creation of an image. If an artist transposes aspects of reality to his canvas in the form in which they __PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6-796 81 exist in real life, merely making a mechanical copy, but without creatively reproducing a picture of life, he will not in any way enrich the experience of the reader, beholder or listener. Men will not turn to art which provides them with nothing but mechanical copies, but will prefer to preoccupy themselves with the facts of real life.
Balzac made a famous remark to the effect that the artist's chisel expresses the life of a hand, while a plaster cast transforms that hand into a corpse. In order to avoid lifeless reflection, an artist has recourse to the principles of selection. While in any real fact we find an interweaving of essential and less essential aspects when it comes to the facts of genuinely realist art there is nothing in them that could possibly be omitted. The artist as it were ``divests'' the phenomenon which interests him from random and particular features that might obscure the essence of what he is seeking to portray. He does not reproduce phenomena of life in their actual entirety, but only those most characteristic features which constitute their "living soul". The more talented the artist the more rigorous his selection of facts from his real-life material. Conversely, the less talented an artist the more superfluous, unnecessary detail will be found in his work.
In foreign writings on aesthetics in recent years widespread support has been afforded the device known as the "stream of life". The French film critic Marcel Martin maintains that in the cinema it is important to devote a definite place to random shots (for example showing passers-by who do not necessarily have any direct bearing on the action), to reject the idea of a carefully elaborated plot, of consistent and logically complete action, etc. In his opinion films in which plot gives way to a free stream of life, that is not subject to directorial `` censorship'', will prove more true to life and convincing.
Yet this "stream of life" in practice leads to eventual rejection of selection, to rejection of generalisations, which without selection are impossible, and this in its turn will mean a'rejection of ideological commitment and 82 realism in art. Replacement of artistic selection by a simple presentation of the "stream of life" will destroy the image-bearing fabric of a work.
A true artist always creates on the basis of selection and even in those cases where a "stream of life" appears appropriate, this actually constitutes a special variety of selection. A fine example of this is found in Eisenstein's Battleship "Potemkitt". In that film there is no story-line in the traditional sense, the action moves forward with its own momentum, as was the case in real life; the film really does present us with a "stream of life". However, it is not a mosaic. In fact, between the episodes in the actual structure of the film there exists a profound logical sequence: all the episodes are related one to the other in such a way that the audience is presented with a comprehensive picture of the life and characters that unfold before him. Here the "stream of life" is deliberate, as it were, and we are faced not with a mere accumulation of events, but rather a subtly devised selection. Indeed, it is selection that constitutes the starting point in the fashioning of an image or character in realist art.
However, selection not merely helps an artist but also confronts him with new problems. In real life each phenomenon is of an integral nature, while as a result of an artist's selection it becomes fragmented. All that is external, coincidental is dropped and as a result it ceases to be true to life. It ceases to be a real phenomenon, but is rather the lifeless skeleton of what it used to be. A skeleton or abstraction will not convince anyone. The artist is then faced with the task of lending the selected material artistic truth, making it convincing.
Material selected from life is then creatively reshaped by the artist, enriched by the power of his imagination and lent new associations and implications: when reproducing this comprehensive picture the artist interweaves once more certain elements of the original phenomenon. Images in art constitute not a copy of material taken from real life: rather new facts shaped by the artist's imagination.
__PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 6* 83Balzac's Comedie Humaine is a truthful chronicle of life of French society over a large period of the nineteenth century. The writer himself noted that his novels were written by "Madame French History", while he referred to himself jokingly as no more than her personal secretary. Thousands of men and women recognized themselves in the characters of Balzac's novels, although these were all the fruit of the writer's imagination. They bore resemblances to certain prototypes, but were not copies.
If we take Gogol's characters.. .? Belinsky wrote that Plyushkin and Khlestakov as presented by Gogol were not drawn from life, yet were based on actual individuals. This applies to all images and characters in realist art. Roberto Rosselini's films Paisd and Rome Open City, Gillo Pontecorvo's Queimada! and Gerasimov's The Young Guard are all based on real events, yet the images and characters created by these film-makers have a life and identity of their own.
An enormous role in art is that played by the artist's imagination, which transforms material drawn from real life and fashions artistic images from real facts and situations.^^*^^
Does not this idea contradict Chernyshevsky's famous principle to the effect that art reproduces life in forms taken from life itself? There is no contradiction here at all. Chernyshevsky's idea is merely establishing the truth that artistic images, just as phenomena from life vary in their sensual concreteness, their inimitable individual identity. Yet this in no way implies that the retention of outward truthfulness is essential for the realistic image (or character). In certain art forms, as for example some musical genres, external veracity is ruled out by the very _-_-_
^^*^^ When defining imagination S. L. Rubinstein wrote that " imagination is a reverberation of past experience, it is a transformation of existing material and an engendering on that basis of new images which are both the product of man's creative activity and prototypes for it".---Author.
84 nature of the art form concerned, so that Chernyshevsky's formula in the sense defined above remains relevant.Of course the heroes of folk tales, supernatural characters and many figures from romantic art cannot provide direct reflections of real life. Indeed artists often have recourse to deliberate, open deviations from outward verisimilitude. Let us take for example Goya's grotesque figures or the gargoyles of Notre Dame de Paris. An equally forceful example is Rabelais' deliberate abandonment of the real world in Gargantua and Pantagruel. These artists do not start out from the forms and situations found in the real world, but nevertheless Chernyshevsky's principle with regard to the reflection of life in real-life forms is not contradicted by these examples.
The artistic image can be realistic both when external resemblances are retained and when they are abandoned. Yet a reflection of life, however individualistic the form or genre in which it is embodied, always remains. As noted earlier, this principle should not be interpreted in a vulgarly simplistic way, but merely as recognition of the similarity between specific facets of the sensual-- concrete image and phenomena of the real world.
The vivid and unique individuality of an artistic image ---which serves to reflect the degree of talent enjoyed by its creator---determines to a large extent the power and degree of art's impact on us.
Conversely, no abstract scheme of things, no popular principle, or to use Marx's and Engels' phrase, no " mouthpiece of the spirit of the time" will move men's hearts or set their imagination alight. The Soviet literary critic, Academician Mikhail Khrapchenko pointed out that the individualised element in literature is not something supplementary, not some recherche sauce for something more substantial, not an appendage for objective material, but a method for the aesthetic understanding of life which makes it possible to reveal the world in its true wealth of colours, in its close relationship with man. Such an approach is relevant with respect to all branches of art. Individualisation is a powerful means for 85 overcoming schematism, rhetoric and merely illustrative techniques in art.
In their letters to Ferdinand Lassalle in connection with his tragedy Franz von Sickingen, Marx and Engels pointed out that the characters in a work of art should be clearly delineated, defined and contrasted one with the other, that the personality of a character should not dissolve in some abstract principle, but should be elaborated with vivid clarity. In their eyes Lassalle had seriously miscalculated insofar as he had written mainly a la Schiller transforming "individuals into mere mouthpieces of the spirit of the time''.^^*^^ One of the reasons Marx and Engels cited for Lassalle's creative failure was the character Ulrich von Hutten, who was "just a representative of `inspiration' ", no more no less. Marx held that he ought to have been portrayed as an "ingenious person of devilish wit", which he had been in real life. Then von Hutten would not have been merely a tedious vehicle of ideas, but a real person, complete with convincing, interesting traits of character.
In this respect Marx and Engels demanded of the artist not ``Schillerisation'' but ``Shakespearisation'', namely vivid portrayal, characters of distinct individuality, with a dynamism of their own. In a letter to Minna Kautsky Engels wrote with reference to "sharp individualisation" in a work of art: each character "is a type, but at the same time also a definite individual, a `Dieser', as old Hegel would say''.^^**^^ ``Dieser'' ("this one") is really a vital character, a person in his own right, who can easily be picked out from among the crowd by his distinctive characteristics, peculiar to him alone.
Hegel held Shakespeare and Goethe in high esteem on account of the fact that they created characters full of life, and he reproached contemporary and classical French dramatists for contenting themselves with mainly formal _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, On Literature and Art, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 100.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 87.
86 and abstract representations of generalised types and emotions, rather than creating really vital individuals.^^*^^Inadequate artistic talent inevitably leads to sketchiness in the delineation of characters, in slapdash inconsistency in their development. All characters in such works tend to resemble each other and with no real difficulty can conveniently be transposed to subsequent works.
``Look at Balzac," wrote Belinsky, "at how much he wrote, yet despite all that there is not a single character or individual in his stories who in any way resembles another. What amazing art he possesses for depicting characters with all the nuances of their individuality!"^^**^^ Mastery of this unbelievable degree was attained by Tolstoy as well. In his novel War and Peace we find a total of 550 characters and each of them is a unique human being. In a letter to Inessa Armand, Lenin wrote that in this novel (and this idea also applies to art as a whole), "the whole essence is in the individual circumstances, the analysis of the characters and psychology of particular types".^^***^^ In art one and the same type, or social truth can be expressed in a variety of ways.
In Virgin Soil Upturned Sholokhov created typical characters who were at the same time highly individual, namely Davydov and Nagulnov, to name but two. These men shared essential characteristic, a common goal and purpose in life. Yet the artist endowed each of them with specific individual qualities peculiar to him alone: each has a clearly delineated character, habits, mannerisms, inclination, build, height, eye-colour all of his own. Although Davydov and Nagulnov live one and the same life in this novel, each is a ``Dieser'', an individual in his own right, who cannot be confused with the other. Passing references to tiny details are enough for the reader _-_-_
^^*^^ See: Hegel, Asthetik, Bd. II, Berlin und Weimar, 1965, S. 532.
^^**^^ V. G. Belinsky, Complete Works, in thirteen volumes, Vol. 1, p. 84 (in Russian).
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 184.
87 to pick either of them out from the crowd. Thanks to the fact that the characters in this novel are not masks but real people, they make a powerful impact on the reader, are easily apprehended and remembered, and come to occupy a lasting place in the reader's mind. If characters are not well-defined individuals then there can be nothing full-blooded or realistic about them; however, as pointed out earlier, concrete realism in art should not be the be-all and end-all of creativity. The realistic character or image endowed with individual form embodies a generalisation drawn from phenomena of real life and unfolds their inner essence. It expresses traits that characterise whole social groups, classes, peoples. The artistic image not only serves to depict events but also unfolds the essential nature of phenomena. Each character or image is endowed with a life of its own, yet groups of characters have common roots with similar manifestations in other ways of life, expressed as they may well be in other individual forms. It is the task of the artist to show these roots.The means to achieve such generalisation in realist art is typification. Belinsky wrote that the essential feature of typification lay in its transformation of characters into representatives of a whole host of people all of a particular kind. He regarded the relationship between type characters and those taken from real life as parallel to that between the genus and the species: in each type are concentrated generic features, features common to many phenomena.
It has already been pointed out that the individual in art differs from real-life material in that it is reproduced from life but at the same time is enriched through the imagination of the artist. Yet there is more to it than that. Individuality in art is gleaned straight from life, yet at the same time it is, as it were, amended by the artist in such a way that superfluous details do not obscure our understanding of the fundamental and essential. The general is unfolded through what is individualised. In any artistic image we find a concentration of the 88 general and essential in the particular and the unique. It is this concentration which constitutes the type. The typical in art is a unity of generalisation and individualisation. The concrete individual form of material drawn from real life and reflected in art is transformed. Incorporating as it does an element of generalisation, it acquires inimitable individuality and expressive power:
To see a World in a Grain of Sands,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
And Eternity in a hour.^^*^^
Yet what are the possible paths for artistic typification?
The fact that life as a rule does not provide the artist with ready-made material that requires no processing before being incorporated into a work, does not mean that the direct transposition of "slices of life" into art is ruled out altogether. There are some art forms which by their very nature are documentary, and this makes it not only permissible in such cases, but even advisable to reproduce life in its immediate and actual manifestations. This applies to the documentary cinema, to art photography, literary sketches, memoirs---in other words to art forms based on direct reproduction of real facts from life. Meanwhile these art forms create through their own media serious, profound generalisations, expressing typical pictures from life, and making a powerful impact on their audiences. A good example is provided by Mikhail Romm's film Ordinary Fascism, which has won worldwide recognition as an artistic investigation of the psychology of fascism, its roots and consequences, an investigation which culminates in relentless condemnation. Another art form which comes into this category is photo-montage; the anti-fascist and anti-war photomontages created by Gartfild and Zhitomirsky are _-_-_
^^*^^ A Choice of Blake's Verse, London, 1970, p. 31.
89 universally recognised not as mere photojournalism, but as genuine works of art, which produce a strong artistic impact.The documentary approach in art is valid when the artist, thanks to his own heightened vision, is able to select the most illuminating facts and events and juxtapose these, bringing out distinct correlations and logical connections. It is often the case that people who are not endowed with sufficiently sharp eyes and ears simply walk past, as it were, much that is extremely interesting. The artist is set apart from the non-artist precisely by the fact that he is acutely responsive to what is interesting and significant in the life around us. If he singles out from this real world facts and phenomena which shed light on many or even certain essential aspects of life, then the documentary element in his work can acquire the properties of an image.
The documentary cinema and the art of photography have become an integral part of our culture. Furthermore the question as to the nature of the documentary reproduction of reality is of interest with regard to other art forms as well, since certain principles inherent in the chronicler's approach to character-moulding, and devices used in documentary art, can be and indeed are used in various other creative concepts, for example in the documentary theatre. This brings us to a most important and apposite question, namely: where do the limits of the documentary approach lie? In the second half of the sixties this approach spread to many art forms. Certain authors began to contrast documentary art with creativity based on invention often giving preference to the first category. Documentary art in such cases is seen as superior insofar as it is based on painstaking reproduction of real material and events, and because it supposedly is extraconvincing and evokes a more confident, trusting response from its audience than does fiction. The documentary approach itself is sometimes regarded as something quite new, an element that has appeared in art only in this day and age as a special expression of art's 90 contemporary essence. In this connection it is essential to draw attention to at least three points.
First, it should be remembered that the documentary approach is by no means new in artistic creativity. Russian nineteenth-century literature, for example, includes such masterpieces as Herzen's The Past and Thoughts, a work which, if classified in modern terms, would undoubtedly come under the heading of documentary prose. If we assume that the documentary approach finds expression in direct reproduction of real events, then the Iliad and Odyssey could be termed documentary, and likewise the historical novels of Walter Scott and Alexandre Dumas.
Second, it is important to stipulate that in literature, stagewriting and even in the cinema, documentary material acquires artistic significance, provided it does not contravene the laws of art. Documentary plays, for instance, and actual stage productions still more so, can hardly be called documentary in the strict sense of the word. The playwright can indeed depict real events and historical characters, use nothing but documented text, however the selection of concrete material, the composition of a work, the editing of the text, the peculiarity of dialogue, the unfolding of character, etc., can hardly fail to reflect the artist's imagination and inventive faculties, his creative interpretation of the material. It would perhaps be more fitting to talk not of the documentary drama or production, but rather of ordinary plays or productions which keep to the general laws of art while being composed of documentary material.
Third, it surely cannot escape our attention that an indispensable element of artistic creativity is always the artistic interpretation of reality which cannot but involve a rejection of any tedious, narrow preoccupation with facts, and incorporates inventive elements, including the boldest manifestations of the artistic imagination, provided, of course, the latter are justified.
In principle any hard and fast choice between the fictional and documentary approach is artificial, and 91 could indeed lead to a naturalistic approach. This in no way belittles the aesthetic significance of documentary art, whose underlying principle is the direct presentation of actual facts. However in all other art forms such representation occupies a modest and limited place. It is far more common for the artist imaginatively to recreate prototypes. A real phenomenon of life is transformed in his hands, features and properties are carefully selected which serve to bring out its essence, certain other necessary characteristics are added, as a result of which one or more prototypes are transformed into a type. This means that a type in art is not identical with its real-life prototype. A prototype is source material for a portrait, while a type is an image.
Even in portrait-painting the similarity between prototype and artistic image does not reach the point of identity. The portrait-painter's role is not simply to convey external appearance, but to delineate his subject from the psychological point of view as well. This explains why portraits can resemble their originals more than photographs. A talented portrait-painter, as Belinsky pointed out in his day, brings to the surface with deft strokes things which often constitute a secret even for the sitter himself. The intimate is made obvious in a portrait, outward signs serve to bring out emotional and spiritual qualities.
Indeed this explains the fundamental difference between the portrait and the ordinary photograph. An artist studies a face and depicts it as it really appears to him at those comparatively rare moments when it really does mirror the subject's inner life. He paints a man not as he usually is, but as he can be or should be in those moments when the essence of his character comes to the surface. Photographs capture the individual at chance moments, and this is why, as Dostoyevsky aptly remarked, they show him as he might sometimes chance to be and we must remember that Napoleon could have been caught in a moment of foolishness, or Bismarck in a moment of tenderness.
92Typification based on real prototypes demands that an artist attain a deep understanding of the life of his prototypes and not simply convey outer facets and characteristics that may often be no more than coincidental.
However typification is not only concerned with real prototypes. More often than not the artist selects essential characteristics and traits peculiar to similar phenomena or representatives of a specific social group, from which he then generalises so as to recreate them in a new integral picture of life, in an utterly new individualised human character. Gorky wrote that the artistic image or character is created according to the laws of abstraction and concretisation. Characteristic feats of many heroes are ``abstracted'' or singled out, then these are `` concretised'' or summarised in the form of a single hero, such as Hercules or Russian bogatyr Ilya Muromets. Characteristics and actions that come most naturally to individual merchants, nobles or peasants are singled out and then summarised or generalised in the person of a single merchant, noble or peasant, thus giving us the "literary type''.
Defining this aspect of the artistic image Belinsky wrote that the ``type'' is a "familiar stranger". ``Familiar'' because it reveals features and traits to be found in reallife phenomena; ``stranger'' because these traits and features are concentrated in a new individual character or in a new picture of life which are the fruits of creativity.
The artistic image is a resume of many lives all at once. In it is represented one situation, but an infinite multitude of similar situations is implied. An image in art is a portrayal of one concrete personality, which however embodies a whole host of characters encountered in everyday life.
Earlier it was pointed out. that individualisation insures the artist against schematism and blatant didacticism. And typification helps him avoid a naturalistic, photographic approach. In this connection Belinsky wrote that one of the most distinctive characteristics of creative 93 originality, or to be more precise, of creativity itself, consists in ``typism'' which is an author's ``hall-mark''. For the writer of true talent each character is a ``type''. The depth of the type-portrait is the best measure of an artist' maturity as a realist. The more typical his characters the more profound his realism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. The Objective and the SubjectiveThe artistic image embraces an organic unity of objective and subjective elements. The objective elements in an image are understood as everything which is transposed directly from the real world; subjective elements are understood as that which is added to the image by the artist's creative thought. The objective elements are those real phenomena which can be reproduced---pictures of life itself, characters, conflicts, circumstances, man's inner world, in a word everything which exists outside the artist's consciousness. Subjective elements are the experiences and reflections of the artist, his relationship to the phenomena described, his assessment and his own particular visiori of" them. Every artistic image represents not only a reflection of specific ``slices'' of life, but in a certain sense a kind of self-portrait of the artist. Behind the image there always stands its creator. The subjective factor is an indication of the originality and freshness of an artist.
Deviations from realism can find expression both in disregard for objective elements or in belittling what is subjective in the image. Distortion of objective elements, reluctance or inability to come to terms with the logic of material drawn from real life lead to various manifestations of formalism. Vagueness, or, still more so, lack of a subjective position leads the author to a naturalistic preoccupation with facts. In the first case, as in the second, the image disintegrates, and its ideological and aesthetic significance disappears or is weakened.
Formalist aestheticians counter the materialist theory of reflection with the view that art is not a reflection of 94 life, but self-expression for the artist. In its extreme form this position found expression in the aesthetics of decadence which proclaimed that art was utterly independent of life and that thought expressed in images was a completely independent entity.
Materialist aesthetics resolutely refutes this subjectiveidealist interpretation of art. The image is not simply ``self-expression'', not the artist's "stream of consciousness", which exists independently of the external world, but first and foremost an artistically reproduced picture of objective life. It is clear that an artist's self-- expression does constitute part of the content of a work; without it a work of art would be unthinkable. Furthermore a work frequently includes even autobiographical elements. This does not however imply that the social meaning and implications of a work can be reduced simply to such elements. This approach limits the essence of a work to a large extent, impoverishing it and in fact distorting that essence. The hero of Fellini's famous SVa (Otto e mezzo], is approached by certain critics as a self-portrait of the author. In the film there are of course a good number of details which do coincide with events in Fellini's own life, and there are grounds for regarding the film as something in the way of a confession made by its director. However, Fellini is quite right when he protests against identification of the hero with himself. This film is ideologically and aesthetically significant in view of the fact that it has more general implications than purely autobiographical ones, that it focusses attention on questions which torture and disturb the artist, hemmed in as he is by a contradictory world outlook. The film is a profound portrayal, of the spiritual crisis which sooner or later confronts every artist of integrity at work in the context of a contradiction-ridden and inhumane society. The valuable elements in this film are of course attributable precisely to the artist's capacity to make generalisations concerning important phenomena of life, to broaden his experience and to grapple with general issues. The critic who reduces the whole content of SVa to a 95 personal confession of Fellini's is doing not only the artist but also his audience a disservice.
The subjective factor in an artist's work, his ideological and aesthetic standpoint and his creative activity are shaped by his world outlook. In the final analysis the subjective factor in an artist's work represents a fruit of the age, the social structure of his immediate world and his particular psychological make-up and ideology. Ultimately, the artist's world outlook is aesthetically refracted in his subjective approach.
Talented artists always adopt an individual approach in their work. Pushkin, for instance, after turning to the subject of the famous Don Juan legend, which had already inspired a number of outstanding works of world literature, used only a selected number of elements from the story for his verse tragedy, The Stone Guest, creating as he did so an utterly new and original character. While Moliere, for instance, treated this subject in a satirical comedy, Pushkin wrote a tragedy whose hero is concerned above all with the everlasting quest for that unattainable ideal of the Beautiful. An example from quite a different domain would be the art of the two great Russian ballerinas, Anna Pavlova and Galina Ulanova. Both of them danced Saint-Saens' Cygne but surely we find a reflection of their attitude to life in the fact that Pavlova expressed a sense of doom and the inevitability of death, while Ulanova protested against death, struggled against it, asserting life forces as she did so.
The British theatre critic Harold Hobson in a review of the Moscow Art Theatre production of The Cherry Orchard performed in London in 1958 used a characteristic headline in The Sunday Times, namely The Orchard in Full Bloom. He went on to point out that British production bewailed the eclipse of the old world while Soviet ones looked forward to the advent of a new one. The optimistic mood of this particular theatre's Chekhov productions was a real eye-opener for British audiences, and moreover not for them alone. The difference between the Weltanschauung of the men and 96 women involved in these productions accounted for the different types of artistic thinking found in them.
The subjective factor in an artist's work finds its expression in his individual creative style. At a rehearsal in the Moscow Art Theatre the leading Soviet director M. Kedrov drew an interesting comparison between Shakespeare's and Chekhov's characters. He reminded those present that both dramatists shaped realistic characters and that one and the same logic of events was to be found in the works of both; the difference lay in the intensity of action, in the speed at which events unfolded. In Shakespeare's plays decisions were taken and acted upon at lightening speed: while Shakespeare's heroes required but a moment to take decisions, Chekhov's characters would need a whole act, when faced by the same issue. An amazing amount of action is concentrated in Shakespeare's characters, while in Chekhov's all is a question of implication and nuance.
``Style," wrote Stendhal, "is the particular manner adopted by each master peculiar to him alone, to say one and the same things. Each great artist has sought means for making a particular impression on men's minds, the impression that appeared to him as the main task of his painting.''^^*^^ Stendhal was right when he went on to say that to feel, for example Raphael's style meant to find in his light and shade effects, his drawing technique and use of colour the special chords of his soul.
These special chords of the soul are to be found in the creations of any artist: this is also true of artists who adhere to a single ideology, one set of political views and philosophical convictions, in other words artists whose world outlooks coincide in all fundamental' respects. Yet there are not and indeed cannot be artists, who apprehend the world in exactly the same way. This apprehension embraces the whole of an artist's experience of life and art, his moral attitudes, his aesthetic predilections, _-_-_
^^*^^ Stendhal, Oeuvres completes, II. Promenades dans Rome. I, Paris, 1883, p. 73.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7-796 97 his emotionality, his interests, tastes, ideals, in a word all that is realised in his creative work. It is precisely this which lends a work of art its unique originality.If we compare Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet with Hamlet by Sir Laurence Olivier, it is clear that the differences stem from the director's world outlooks. In the finale of Olivier's film, Hamlet is even seen for a brief moment on the throne of the Danish kingdom with the court paying homage to him, implying that the conflict between Hamlet and the real situation in which he finds himself has been resolved. The whole ideological timbre and image structure of the Soviet film make such a scene impossible. Smoktunovsky's Hamlet and the castle of Elsinore, representing humanism and an inhuman society respectively, are incompatible and mutually exclusive. In these films we are confronted not merely by two separate artistic treatments of the same subject, but by two philosophies of life, two ideologies.
Yet when we compare Tovstonogov's production of The Three .Sisters in Leningrad Drama Theatre and the celebrated Moscow Art Theatre production, the background to the two different approaches should not be sought in the world outlooks of Tovstonogov and Nemirovich-- Danchenko respectively, but in the talent and apprehension of the world of these two directors in the sense referred to earlier---in their varying experience of life and art, in their disparate psychological make-up and emotionality, etc. Indeed, without the experience accumulated in our country during the years of the struggle against nazism and our historic victory in that struggle, the conception behind Tovstonogov's production in which the themes of man's destiny in the world and of human dignity ring out with so much force, would have been for all intents and purposes unthinkable.
It is to Tovstonogov's credit that there are no echoes of the previous---albeit magnificent---treatment in his production in which he unfolds and upholds a new ideological and artistic conception.
This example illustrates how the subjective elements 98 in artists' work are determined above all by differences in their world outlook: when however we compare works by artists who share a common world outlook this serves to bring out the diversity and inexhaustible wealth inherent in artistic talent, to disclose the many facets and nuances implicit in an artist's attitude to the real world.
The subjective factor in an artist's work has nothing whatever to do with subjectivism. The Bulgarian art critic Khristyu Goranov pointed out that there are no grounds whatever for such a view, for identifying the subjective factor in art with subjectivism as an insurance against the subjective element run wild. To confuse these concepts is inadmissible, the subjective factor and subjectivism are mutually exclusive. Subjectivism is creative anarchy on the part of the artist, distortion of life's, truth perpetrated by him, his reluctance or inability to come to terms with the objective laws of the real world and with the inner logic of material drawn from life. Subjectivism leads to false generalisations, it attempts to constrict life within a preconceived scheme of things. Subjectivism has no time for the characters of the dramatis personae, or for the circumstances of any particular environment. Conflicts are not the fruit of the artist's study of life, but, on the contrary, life is artificially adapted to fit in with preconceived schemes. Subjectivism is the result of false ideas which annihilate art in their disregard for art's objective laws and the objective correlations within the real world.
Even an artist of profound and forceful talent, once he has become subject to the influence of subjectivism risks ruining altogether, or at least undermining his work, by disrupting the artistic wholeness of his image and finding himself at the mercy of insoluble contradictions. Not even the works of great writers and artists are exceptions to this rule, as can be seen, for example, in a work as significant as Dostoyevsky's novel The Possessed, which reflects the crisis tearing at Russian society in the late sixties and early seventies of the last century. It contains characters whose psychological delineation is most __PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1977/FMA297/20100309/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2010.03.10) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ interesting, yet there is a false note in this novel stemming from the representation of the revolutionary raznochintsy, drawn from the lower middle class, as devoid of principles or ideals, as vehicles of social evil. This novel rich in contradictions and abounding in false and one-sided generalisations, which the finest representatives of the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia regarded as a slander on its service to society, shows how when an artist substitutes false and subjective ideas for an objective picture of life, it is to the considerable detriment of his work.^^*^^
It is essential for an artist to free himself from false, subjectivist ideas. Art does not tolerate falsehood: art and subjectivism are incompatible. The power of artistic talent lies in the artist's ability to free himself from false subjectivist conceptions, to attain a heightened sense of truth, and ability to follow the logic of material drawn from real life, even if at times this means that the artist has, as Mayakovsky put it, to "tread on the throat of his own song''.
Useful lessons in this connection can be gleaned from the words of great artists, such as Pushkin's jest to the effect that he, Pushkin, had been taken completely by surprise when his heroine Tatyana married (Yevgeni Onegin---Chapter VIII, Verse 20). Tolstoy, when referring to these lines, added in his turn that his characters too were not always, or in all respects, obedient to his will. In particular Tolstoy commented that when Vronsky took a shot at himself after his conversation with Karenin this had been completely unexpected for him, the author. This thought led Tolstoy to conclude that the characters of his novels did with their lives what was logical, even when their creator had envisaged their course of action differently.
_-_-_^^*^^ The Possessed is not assessed today in quite the same way as it was by Dostoyevsky's contemporaries, but this does not mean that any changes in the actual implications of the novel have taken place. ---Author.
100The degree of an artist's talent is reflected in his capacity to heed the voice of truth, to avoid thrusting upon his images and characters development out of keeping with their essential nature or dealing in artificial structures, and finally to be a sensitive barometer in relation to the life of his character or image in the process. Asked whether the actions of his characters were the result of the manifestations of his subconscious feelings, William Faulkner said he would prefer to think that the characters he had created were sufficiently true to life to direct and predetermine their own deeds and actions. He admitted that their behaviour was of course a result of his experience of life, but he suggested that the characters of his novels shaped the plots and acted independently, and that in such cases all that was required in addition was someone to note down what was said by the characters.
Characters act independently, the artist merely notes down their words. What does this mean? This means that the logic of characters' lives cannot be subordinated to subjectivist whims.
Yet investigation of real life, the transformation of phenomena found in it into artistic characters and images demands a good deal of complex work on the part of the artist. It is in the subjective elements of his work that an artist's creative activity comes to the fore, his aesthetic individuality and his social attitudes. This means that the subjective factor is an intrinsic part of the objective content of the image or character.
Not only the artistic image but also its appreciation is shaped by the unity of the objective and subjective factors. This goes a long way towards explaining the fact that in artistic practice images and characters are not always delineated with complete clarity and precision. In a work of art there are often a good number of gaps, sometimes the picture of life provided is not sufficiently detailed; sometimes the artist poses questions rather than supplies answers to them. He hopes, however, that man's imagination, which the work of art has stimulated, will 101 enable him to become its co-creator. While an image created by the artist is being apprehended it is, as it were, being supplemented by the imagination of reader, beholder or listener. He introduces to it those aspects which are still absent, adding his vision and thereby extending the limits of the reflection of life and supplementing the subjective element contributed by the artist with his own. True apprehension and appreciation of art are always of an active, creative nature.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. The Emotional and the RationalEssential to the nature of the artistic image is a specific element of aesthetic emotionality. Emotional and rational elements, sensual and intellectual are inseparable and of necessity interwoven with each other: thought is expressed through emotions, feelings are vehicles for ideas.
The unmistakable evidence of the enormous role played by emotion in the artistic image is even mistakenly used as an argument to show that art is rooted in nothing but human feelings. Even as clear-sighted an artist as Lev Tolstoy, when describing art and language as means of communication in his study What is Art? remarked that men convey their thoughts to each other by means of language and their feelings by means of art. It is difficult to imagine that the great artist upheld this view in the literal sense. In practice he made wider demands on art and held with justification that images should express not only sincerity of feeling and beauty of form but also a correct attitude to the subject portrayed. The demand for truthfulness and realism introduced ideas into the image. The ineptness of Tolstoy's formula cited at the beginning of this paragraph was singled out long ago by Plekhanov. Reduction of the image to pure emotionality, and of art to a realm of pure feeling belittles the cognitive significance of thought expressed through images and links art with nothing more than immediate contemplation, stripping it of potential for profound penetration to the essence of life's phenomena.
102Of course no absolute contrast should be drawn between logical thought and artistic thought, and logical elements should not be excluded from the image. Penetration to the essential features of phenomena involves abstract thought. It is part of the artistic assimilation of reality. Yet, as was pointed out earlier, when reality is reflected in images, thought does not follow in the wake of contemplation, but finds outlets in organic unity with the latter.
Then comes the question as to whether we are justified in singling out the unity of feeling and thought in the image as its distinctive features. It should be borne in mind that emotional and rational factors go hand in hand not only in art, but also in other spheres of human activity.
However emotionality in art is distinguished from emotionality in other spheres. Emotions are also present in the work of the scholar, but are not impregnated in the nature of logical concepts or scientific truths. There was deep love for all working people, hatred for all social inequalities and compassion for the oppressed in the hearts of Marx and Engels. However, the theory of scientific communism is the result of rigorous analytical activity of the mind. Its strength lies precisely in the fact that it reflects not emotions or desires, but scientifically substantiated laws of social development: this is what determines its lasting scientific value. When Soviet scientists calculated the orbits for flights to be underta^ ken by spacecraft, they were no doubt inspired by the grandeur of their task, but the calculations were accomplished not thanks to powerful emotional stimulus, but to sober reason.
Lenin wrote that "there has never been, nor can there be, any human search for truth without 'human emotions' ''.^^*^^ Here search is the operative word. In science emotion may well provide a stimulus in the search for the truth, in the formulation of concepts, but it is not an _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 260.
103 ingredient of truths themselves. The main goal behind a scientific concept is to influence the mind, not the emotions of the reader; it is aimed at his logical, not his emotional faculties. It is not aimed at presenting the author's mood or inner ``make-up'', at expressing his attitude to his reader or his assessment of what he is expounding. The presence of value judgement characteristic of artistic language does not play a decisive role in scientific exposition. Meanwhile in art emotion is not a coincidental element in creation, not a factor accompanying the creation of a character, but an essential part of its content, an organic colouring of the ideas included and means of expression for the latter. The leading Soviet actor and director Samuil Mikhoels gave graphic expression to this idea when he said that an artist should possess the head of a man, heart of a woman and spirited energy of a child.Artistic images must of necessity contain an emotional ingredient and concentrate ideas through intense emotions: they make a direct appeal to man's feelings and for this reason always arouse an emotional response such as love or hate, sympathy or antipathy, joy or sadness, laughter or tears.
To use Plekhanov's phrase, art is always "saturated with lyricism". If robbed of that lyricism and passionate emotional tension, its impact will disappear and art thus be transformed into dry narrative. The reader senses strong patriotic fervour behind the comings and goings of Serpilin and Sintsov in Konstantin Simonov's novel, The Living and the Dead; the expression on the face of the woman meeting her invalided husband on his return from the war in the film Ballad of a Soldier expresses the pain of a tortured heart; the cry of the woman who has just buried her child, rends the terrible silence on the Naked Island in the Japanese film of the same name, echoing her despair; the silence of Dmitri Karamazov as he sinks to his knees marks the highpoint of the torment tearing his soul; the nonconformity of Emma Bovary reflects her confusion and acute suffering; Hamlet's "To 104 be or not to be" epitomises the infinite tension of men's emotional life. Without his emotionality no character can come into its own with all its wealth of colour, and any picture would be insipid and inexpressive.
In certain works on aesthetics and theatrical technique the idea is put forward that Brecht's theory of stage art rejects emotionality. In this connection attention is drawn to the fact that all Brecht's theoretical principles, and still more so his artistic writings are of an openly tendentious character, are socially and politically committed.
Of course, Brecht did not formulate these principles in order to strip art of emotionality. His struggle against exaggerated emotionality in the theatre was the result of specific historical circumstances effecting German society in the twenties and early thirties. For Brecht---the politician and artist---art was always first and foremost a weapon for political struggle. He demanded from art that it make men think. Brecht's work was in fact so intensely thought-provoking that it also generated a powerful emotional impact. For Brecht the all-important question was not: feelings or ideas? He was against both false feelings and false ideas. What he was after was sincere emotion side-by-side with sincere ideas. Brecht himself was to write that emotional experience was an essential part of art, but it should always be motivated emotion.
Brecht held that the contradiction between reason and emotion only existed in the heads of unreasonable people, stressing that our feelings demand sustained effort of reason, while at the same time reason ennobles our emotions. Brecht's radically new approach to the theatre and aesthetic theory present man not only as a product of his destiny, but also as the shaper of that destiny. He was to repeat on several occasions that man's destiny was man himself. He therefore placed on the characters in his plays a personal responsibility; he championed action and rallied men to the struggle. This is why Brecht was such an energetic opponent of the kind of theatre that gave a light jolt to flabby emotions and lightly agitated slackened nerves. He campaigned against this debilitating 105 emotionality that smothers audiences in "golden dreams", calling on the theatre to help bring experience of struggle within reach of all and make justice a passion.
In order to achieve a high degree of emotional expressiveness a writer, artist or actor assumes the identity of his characters, so to speak, starts to live through their ideas and feelings. In some degree a reader or beholder undergoes a -similar transformation. The well-known Soviet writer Konstantin Paustovsky who made a detailed study of the creative process, remarked that for him writing became not merely an occupation, but his life's work, his whole way of life. "I often caught myself living within the world of my current novel or story." Kuprin regretted that he could not become a horse, plant or fish for a few days. He was anxious to know what it felt like to be a woman, to experience giving birth. In The Green Hills of Africa Hemingway tells us how at night he once experienced all that a wounded elk must experience starting from the initial impact of the bullet right up until the end of his agony. Gorky wrote in his time: "The work of a writer is probably more difficult than the work of an academic, a zoologist, for instance. A scientist studying a sheep does not have to imagine himself as a sheep, while a writer of generous spirit has to imagine himself as a miser, an unselfish writer has to conjure up the emotions of a self-seeking go-getter, or a weak-willed writer needs to create a convincing picture of a man of strong will.''^^*^^
The life of a character and the life of its creator are inseparable. Any writer lives the life of his characters to a greater or lesser extent. The very nature of our artistic apprehension of life is such that a writer when fashioning characters needs to put to music not just words, but his very heart.
An image which is the vehicle of a lofty message is convincing when we sense behind it an artist for whom, _-_-_
^^*^^ M. Gorky, Collected Works, in thirty volumes, Vol. .26, p. 334 (in Russian).
106 to use Rodin's words, the most important thing in life is to be emotionally involved, to love, to hope, to know suspense and to live.While acknowledging the enormous role that emotionality plays in art it should not be accorded paramount importance. Some writers and critics would have us do this, but such an approach is false. Sincerity of feeling taken on its own is not the decisive criterion for realism, but rather truthfulness. Adherents of modernist aesthetics start out from the contention that truthfulness is no more than a "synonym for sincerity". This does not seem right. The creator of a character can be sincere even in his delusions. Making the expression of emotion the principal goal in art is to depart from the realist path, to abandon the most important realist criteria and succumb to the principles of modernist aesthetics. Aestheticians of this school regard art not as a reflection of life but merely as the artist's emotional relationship to life, regardless of whether or not this relationship leads to truth or a distortion of reality. Realist aesthetics on the other hand underlines that truthfulness and commitment are the essential components of a reflection of life through images, while at the same time acknowledging the tremendous importance of emotionality without giving it precedence over all else.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 5. Artistic TruthThe cognitive and aesthetic importance of the image as a vehicle for ideas depends on the degree and expressive power of the real truth incorporated in it. The truthfulness of works of art does not depend on the truth of specific facts and events portrayed. In art there is a particular pattern to be observed. It can happen that a painter depicts facts drawn from life in the very way they are present in reality, or an actor behaves on the stage exactly as he does in life, but an image or character created by these artists can appear unconvincing or ring false. On .the other, hand, an artist may write in, for 107 instance, fairy-tales of things which do not exist in Nature, yet at the same time create characters which appear profoundly realistic, artistically convincing, true to life.
This discrepancy between artistic truth and concrete facts in their material down-to-earth form has long been recognised both in materialist and idealist aesthetics. However, from this one sound premise materialists and idealists have drawn diametrically opposed conclusions.
Idealist aestheticians maintain that truth in art is fundamentally different from truth in real life and they put down their own aesthetic interpretation of the old maxim concerning two kinds of truth---one for life and one for art. They then go on to conclude that art does not follow life's truth, and that the artist is independent of reality.
Materialist aesthetics resolutely rejects any contrasting of life's truth to the art's truth. There are no two kinds of truth. Truth is always one. Artistic truth is truth drawn from life itself expressed through artistic means.
Stanislavsky wrote that truth on stage has to be genuine, not touched up but swept clean of any dispensable day-to-day details. It must be realistically convincing but rendered poetic by creative imagination.
``Dispensable day-to-day details" constitute the sphere of the particular and the coincidental, they tend to obscure the general and universal, to impede our apprehension of what is essential. In order to help man comprehend the profound truth of life, art reproduces reality--- as the founders of materialist aesthetics have emphasised on several occasions---by realising possibilities inherent in that reality.
Aristotle stressed: "The poet's function is to describe, not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible as being probable or necessary.''^^*^^ In other words artistic truth expresses not simply what exists, but what could exist as a manifestation _-_-_
^^*^^ Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry, Oxford, 1920, p. 43. 108
108 of life's immutable laws. Truth in the artistic image is the result of typification. Without generalisation art cannot be true to life. Naturalistic coincidence of an image with fact does away with the profound significance of truth; all that is left is imitation of truth while the real thing has gone.When work was in progress on a production of Nikolai Pogodin's play The Kremlin Chimes at the Moscow Art Theatre, Lenin's study was reconstructed so as to provide as faithful a copy as possible of the original in the Kremlin. Nemirovich-Danchenko gave instructions to have first one prop removed, then another, then another. .. . He countered the bewilderment of those present at rehearsal explaining that what he needed on stage was not Lenin's study, but Lenin. The naturalistic precision of the set hampered his scope for capturing the true essence of character. The faithful copy was a source of untruth.
In art characters are far more important than factual details. Lessing wrote that identical actions could emerge as logical for different characters. For this reason in any work of art he set store not by each individual action of a character or each individual fact, but only by those which served to express and pinpoint the essence of a character. If characters are well-delineated then the actions stemming naturally from their essence will be true to life. Artistic truth comes into its own when characters unfold in a work in the way in which they would have done in life in the particular circumstances concerned.
The lyrical digression in the last chapter of Mikhail Sholokhov's Virgin Soil Upturned has a powerful impact upon the reader. Together with the writer the reader takes his leave of the tragic heroes in the novel experiencing as he does so a sense of intolerable pain. Indeed, the writer cannot help but ask himself, whether it would have been so difficult after all for him to have let Nagulnov and Davydov live on and to find a different denouement for the plot that was less uncompromising, and less ``cruel''. Perhaps another writer might have done so, 109 but not Sholokhov, the forceful realist, who never deviates from life's truth.
Faithful adherence to life's truth is the very foundation of the realist image or character. Yet a character in art also possesses some, albeit relative, independence, follows his own logical patterns, something in the way of an "organic life of his own", to use the words of the distinguished Russian writer, Vladimir Korolenko. This organic life of the character in art finds expression in, among other things, the fact that revelation of life's inner truth, the pinpointing of the inner significance of a phenomenon depicted in art frequently demand disruption of the external similarity between them.
Schiller created a Don Carlos who was young and handsome, although the historical figure was a dwarf. However the poet did not violate essential truth: he disregarded coincidental features of the character in question and emphasised the most important aspect---Don Carlos' hatred of despotism.
Then again we might turn to Pushkin's description in Evgeni One gin: "the cavalry guards' jingling spurs". The poet himself noted that this description was inexact for cavalry officers did not wear spurs at balls. Yet he declined to adhere to factual truth, regarding the line as poetic and maintaining that where there was poetry, there was truth.
The famous scene headed: "A tarpaulin sets apart those condemned to the firing squad" in the film Battleship "Potemkin" possesses rare expressive power. Sergei Eisenstein saw this episode as an image of a giant bandage tied over the eyes of the condemned men, an image of a giant shroud thrown over a group of living men. Yet in actual fact tarpaulins were never used to cover those sentenced to execution; tarpaulins were used as protective covering to keep bloodstains off the deck. The military advisor begged the director not to expose himself and the other film-makers to ridicule with a display of such blatant ignorance, not to let slip such a glaring distortion of life on board ship. Eisenstein deliberately deviated from 110 fact here, yet without distorting real life in the process: this episode was to prove full of profound meaning, full of symbolism and tension.
Diderot when upholding truthfulness in art wrote: "All compositions worthy of praise correspond to Nature in all respects and everywhere; I need to be able to say---I have not seen this phenomenon but it exists.''^^*^^
Two hundred years later these words are just as relevant. The scene with the tarpaulin in Eisenstein's film did not lose Eisenstein his audience's confidence, all were gripped by the inner truth of the events enacted before them.^^**^^
The French writer Hippolyte Castille reproached Balzac with the fact that he was only a convincing writer when depicting settings, interiors, costumes, etc., but that he let truthfulness go to the wind when he started to delineate character. His characters Castille regarded as exceptional beings that would not be found in real life. If Balzac started describing a politician, he would dwarf Richelieu, while any artist from his pen would outshadow Michelangelo. Emile Zola, who subscribed to this criticism referred to the writer as Homer-Balzac, maintaining that everything in his work was on a Homeric, gigantic scale and that his heroes were larger than life. While paying .tribute to Balzac's genius and calling him the Shakespeare of French literature, Zola, true to his _-_-_
^^*^^ Denis Diderot, Oeuvres completes, tome quatrieme, I-re partie, Paris, 1818, p. 557.
^^**^^ In 1965 a monument was erected to the sailors of the Battleship Potemkin, in Odessa. The sculptor V. Bogdanov produced an unusually impressive work in collaboration with architects Yu. Lapin and M. Volkov: facing imminent death the sailors are throwing down the tarpaulin that was placed over them like a shroud, and are drawing^^7^^ themselves up to their full height, brave, resolute and undaunted. The artistic composition is clearly inspired by the image of the famous Soviet film. The really. surprising thing about it is that Eisenstein's image appears here as something drawn straight from life. Even the sailors who were actually involved sometimes feel that the tarpaulin image was not an invention of Eisenstein's, but fact, that it had been there "in real life".---Author.
111 naturalist theory of art, criticised the creative approach of the greatest of French realists, seeing in it an impediment on the path to any truthful portrayal of life.There is no need to point out that these reproaches are inconsistent and unmerited. Balzac indeed magnified the scale of the phenomena he depicted, but his work remained true to life nevertheless, for his sense of proportion never deserted him. The words Diderot used in connection with Homer---let his mortals throw rocks, for his gods stride over mountains---can be just as well applied to Balzac.
Nearly a century has passed since then, yet the same views of verity in life and art are still to be encountered today; poetic speech is sometimes identified with ordinary speech, the logic of art with the logic of ordinary speech. Adherents of these views often overlook the fact that ordinary speech is as a rule direct and immediate in its implications, whereas poetic speech figurative, rich in images, nuances of meaning and metaphor. In such cases the image-bearing language of art is reduced to the level of the straightforward language of ordinary human communication. In that case it would be impossible to explain, for instance, Faust's securing of youth in Goethe's tragedy, Hamlet's conversation with his father's ghost, or the visit to the realm of darkness by the heroes of Maeterlinck's Blue Bird. It should not be inferred from this that the artist should disregard historical facts, real situations and details of everyday life. Indeed the artist should pay the keenest attention to these, but art gives expression to life not only in accordance with the laws of life, but also in accordance with the laws of its own essential nature. When the well-known Russian patron of the arts, Savva Mamontov noticed that the jacket in his portrait by Anders Zorn had buttons missing he asked why, whereupon the artist exclaimed: "I am an artist not a tailor!" In ordinary, everyday speech details and words are simple designations, while in art they acquire a quite different significance and are open to a far wider interpretation.
112There are a myriad ways of attaining truth. Since art is not identical to real facts from life itself, it incorporates elements of conventionality. However, in the history of art misuse or abuse of conventions has given rise to anti-realist phenomena. This applies to the pre-- revolutionary decadent theatre in Russia and to many aspects of contemporary modernism in the West. The fact that realist aesthetics opposes formalistic tendencies does not mean that it rejects the use of conventions out of hand. Here it is important to arrive at a correct definition of the limits for conventionality.
Convention is a concept open to many interpretations. In the broad sense it is something essential to all forms of art. Art is not actual landscapes on the banks of the Volga or Oka rivers, but landscapes depicted by Levitan and Polenov; the London fogs do not constitute art, but rather Turner's pictures of them, which in fact made those fogs famous. Yet the brush of Levitan, Polenov or Turner produces such a convincing impact upon us that we, to use Pushkin's phrase, take it upon ourselves to accept images of reality as reality itself. We are prepared to accept the passing of ten years in the ten-minute interval between two acts of a play. We do not object to the condensing of a long period, several years in fact, into the ninety minutes it takes for Sergei Bondarchuk's film, The Fate of a Man to unfold before us. We cry or laugh, depending upon whose life in art we are contemplating: that of Carmen, Robinson Crusoe, or Mikhail Sholokhov's Davydov or Grandad Shchukar. It is difficult to hold back laughter or tears when confronted by Charlie Chaplin's "little feller", whose emotional hold over us is far more powerful than that of any real-life figure.
All these examples serve to illustrate the role of conventions in art. With the exception of architecture and applied art---varieties of creativity which combine the artistic principle with a utilitarian, practical one---every art form is a reflection of reality, but not reality itself. Rejection of this fact leads to vulgarised identification of art and reality, to an abandonment of ideological and __PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---796 113 aesthetic interpretation of material drawn from life, in a word to naturalism.
Yet it is important to distinguish between artistic convention in general and conventions in the more narrow sense of the word, a specific system of descriptive and expressive means.
Here the all-important word is means. Earlier it was pointed out that realist art reproduces reality not only in the "forms of life itself" but also with recourse to hyperbole, the grotesque, symbols, etc. Konstantin Simonov's play, The Fourth, employs various conventions. The character in the play is constantly looking back to the past and communicating with his dead friends. Yet while reading the play the reader is never disturbed by the fact that time cannot move backwards from present to past, or by his knowledge that those who have left this life can never return to it. In the play a realistic life-story is unfolded before us, a convincing individual puts himself on trial before the judge of his own conscience, conducting the investigation and pronouncing the verdict. The conventional form of Simonov's play is perfectly justified by the subject matter and his overall message; in fact, it is predicated by the idea of the play.
In the Japanese Kabuki theatre sets are changed during the course of a performance: one set will be carried off while another is brought on and put in position. This function is carried out by special characters known as the ``kurombo'', who are dressed completely in black and treated as if invisible. The audience does not even ``notice'' their appearance. Their work is ``hidden'', yet at the same time this particular convention is an organic ingredient of the production.
Degrees of convention vary from one art form to another. In opera and ballet for instance expressive means are always conventionalised: in ordinary life men and women do not convey their thoughts to each other by means of song and dance. The situation is quite different in straight drama. Images inherent in a play can be 114 transmitted to an audience both through traditional imitation of life and also through conventions.
The scope and relevance of conventions are not infinite. Unfortunately conventions are sometimes overused on the mistaken assumption that the more there are of them in a work of art, and the less the artist keeps to direct portrayals of life, the more innovation will result. This of course is not the case: conventions as such are not evidence of innovation, just as traditional routine techniques are not necessarily indications of conservatism.
Marxist-Leninist aestheticians regard conventions as an important expressive means widely applied in contemporary art. Moreover they start out from the fact that both the reflection of life in the "forms of life itself" and also its reproduction via conventionalised means and nothing else are rarely encountered. These different paths for the creation of artistic truth should not be presented as opposites, nor should either of them be singled out as the "only possible" one, or the modern of the two, etc.
While attributing tremendous importance to conventions as means of expression, it should not be overlooked that ``pure'' conventions are a form of anti-realist art. The wide penetration of art by conventionalised methods is to be welcomed, but not so far as to replace life's truth, to substitute vague allusions, symbols and abstract constructions for artistic images. In such cases convention assumes the character of a purely decorative element and is seen as a purely external device not connected with the nature of the image.
In realist art convention provides a means for the profound penetration of the life of a character. Conventionalised elements cease to be conventions. They begin to be seen as natural, inevitable, the only possible aspects of character, without which it would be impossible to believe in it.
Characters in realist art provide artistic pictures of the real lives of their prototypes regardless of whether the prototype is an individual or formed of a type of individuals. Characters born of real life are ``restored'' to life 115 when they become an example for the living, stimulating their thoughts and arousing their emotions, and they help men to an awareness of their goals and ideals, in a word in a variety of ways they exert a definite influence on people's lives. Great characters from realist art are not merely pictures drawn from life, they also have a creative potential. Exerting as they do a powerful influence on men's lives, they contribute to the transformation of that life and the creation of a new one.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 6. Image and SignA sign is any material formation serving to designate any other phenomenon or object. Yet a sign is not simply a designation. The phenomenon designated or denoted by the sign embodies a certain meaning which constitutes its significance. For this reason a sign should be viewed as an entity combining meaning and its substantial (material) designation.^^*^^
Ordinary, natural language is a language of signs. In addition to natural language artificial languages have developed and indeed are developing, languages which answer the specific demands of socio-historical experience. These include the language of scientific concepts, the language of mathematics, the language of machines, etc. Another of these specialised languages is the language of art.
The creation of any work of art is preceded by the emergence in the artist's mind of a special world, representing certain aspects of the real world and consisting of artistic images. Yet in order to bring that world within the reach of the reader, beholder or listener, it must be objectified in a definite material structure. The materialisation of the artists's thought acquires the nature of signs, just as other manifestations of man's intellectual activity when objectified. The sign character of imaginative _-_-_
^^*^^ The science of signs, sign systems and their meanings is known as semiotics.---Author.
116 thought is a significant element of the communicative function of art.^^*^^For this reason in its communicative aspect (but only in its communicative aspect) art can and should be regarded as a specific type of sign system. As pointed in the first chapter, art constitutes a definite pattern---Artist ---work of art---recipient---in which the middle element assumes the capacity of a sign, or to be more precise a collection of signs.^^**^^
A work of art thus assumes the character of a special type of signals system, or code, enabling the reader, beholder or listener to grasp and then bring to life in his mind the image that had first appeared and taken shape in the artist's mind. However, in order that the content ``coded'' in the signs of art be correctly deciphered, the audience requires the same key to the code that the artist possesses. An example will serve to illustrate this: Matisse's studio was once visited by a lady who _-_-_
^^*^^ One of the errors characteristic of positivist, semantic aesthetics is the approach to art as no more than a means of communication, as a specific sign system designed merely to convey definite meanings contained in signs, the presentation of the whole nature of artistic creativity as no more than a communicative function. This means that art is seen as a language, while its epistemological, social and other implication (See: Chapter I, Section I) are rejected outright.---Author.
^^**^^ The study of the language of art which starts out from sign systems is usually associated with the emergence and development of semiotics and this is quite justified. However, it does not mean that the language of art came to be interpreted as a specific type of sign system only in the twentieth century, when semiotics came into being. In the history of philosophy from classical times onwards thinkers have been turning their attention to varying degrees to the sign character of the language of art. In more recent times, particularly the nineteenth century, the view of a work of art as a specific sign of artistic thought has been quite unmistakable. Hegel, for example in his Philosophy of the Spirit, wrote that art has two subjects---he who produces the work of art and he who contemplates and admires it, and presented the work of art as "sign for ideas". (See: Hegel. Samtliche Werke, Bd. XI Enzyklopedia der Philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse Dritter Teil. "Philosophic des Geistes", Leipzig, 1923, S. MB.)---Author.
117 noticed that in one of the portraits the figure of a woman had one arm shorter than the other. However, when she drew the artist's attention to the fact, Matisse at once replied: "Madame, you are mistaken. That is not a woman, that is a picture." A similar incident would seem almost unthinkable in, for instance, Rembrandt's studio. It is difficult to imagine such anomalies in any of Rembrandt's portraits, but if something similar should have happened, and someone had called the artist's attention to it, he would probably have been lost for words in confusion. The language of his art did not admit of such distortion. This is not the place to consider which of those two artists was the greater. Indeed it would be wrong to even ask such questions. The point here is that the artistic codes of different schools of art vary. Clearly then it is not easy to decode a work or find the ``key'' to it with reference to the language of another image system. This applies in like measure to any other language. Thought expressed for example in French is incomprehensible to an Englishman, and a man who knows no physics would hardly be able to read a book on quantum mechanics. Meanwhile it is clear to anyone that apart from materialisation of thought (i.e. its exposition by means of a specific sign system) there is no way of transmitting it. In this respect art does not differ from other types of intellectual activity. The more precise the sign, the more effective the revelation of the essence of the phenomenon described; the more expressive the means of artistic symbolisation, the more powerful the impression made upon the art consumer. This is why the artist is always searching for those signs which correspond as adequately as possible to his thoughts. It is therefore quite logical to hold that the most remarkable feature of the creative quest in our time in all forms of art has been the formation of a contemporary artistic language. What is it that sets artistic signs apart from others, for example from the signs of every-day or scientific language? What is special about them?Scientific language sets in motion similar thought 118 processes and reactions in all those who canc respond to it. The universality of scientific language ensures that it is adequately grasped in the process of social communication. Precisely this feature of scientific language makes it possible to compile useful dictionaries of scientific terms and definitions based on their synonimity in different languages. The basic meaning of scientific signs is not encumbered with supplementary or alternative meanings and this is explained by the fact that science strives after generalised abstraction based on precise and unambivalent designation of subject through a sign. The more exactly this single meaning is expressed the better it is for the language of science. Yet such straightforward precision is counterindicated for the language of art. The Soviet aesthetician, Semyon Rapoport, points out with good reason that "what is desirable for the language of science is an unacceptable flaw for the language of art. An identity of usage would be disastrous for art: it would make impossible art's transforming impact on the personalities of its consumers.''^^*^^
The artistic sign, whose ideal meaning is the artistic image, is symbolic and representative; in other words, it serves to designate the end-product of man's rational and sensual activity directed towards a closer understanding of large areas of man's social and emotional experience. The artistic sign serves to symbolise reality itself, reality as reflected in consciousness which has not lost it's real, concrete-tangible aspect. The artistic sign also possesses universal meaning, otherwise it could not be incorporated into the process of social communication. - However the universal meaning of the artistic sign is not to be confused with that of the scientific one, which cannot be used for the objectivisation of image-bearing thought. The essential feature of the scientific sign is its independence, the independence of the designation, from the _-_-_
^^*^^ S. Rapoport. "Semiotics and the Language of Art" in the collection Musical Education and Science, issue 2, Moscow, 1973, p. 32 (in Russian).
119 meaning: for example, when words or word combinations are pronounced in a scientific address, it is not important what intonational colouring, rhythmic intervals or level of tone, etc., are used. In other words, it is not important by what sign the meaning is transmitted. What is important is whether or not the outward material `` casing'' of the sign performs its semasiological function," whether or not it directs our thought to what it is meant to designate, in other words to its meaning. The scientific sign is a special kind of instrument which of necessity triggers a generally accepted meaning in the mind of the listener or reader. For this very reason scientific texts can be easily translated from one language into another without anything essential being lost in the process. This however in no way applies to an artistic text.This prompts, for example, the question as to whether poetic speech can be translated into prose. Is not the special quality of the artistic (in this case, poetic) sign lost in the process? Does it not then cease to be able to transmit all the diversity and the many dimensions of the world as apprehended by the poet's sense? Disruption-of the organic unity of the artistic context disrupts the structure of the artistic sign. Even in cases when this structure consists of separate elements possessed of independent meanings, its overall meaning is not identical to the sum of the separate meanings of the individual elements. Artistic signs do not possess synonymous meanings that can be formulated in a dictionary together with the established rules for their combination. The laws of syntax manifest themselves in each separate sign in accordance with the features peculiar to various artistic forms and genres and to the personality of the artist-creator.
The integral structure of the artistic sign constitutes a unified whole, and disruption of the links intrinsic to this unity exerts a destructive influence on its very existence. The integrity of the artistic sign is not a passive construction but a system galvanised by the intensive interaction of all its parts. The material casing of the artistic sign is therefore incorporated into its organic life. In the 120 process of man's apprehension of the artistic sign its structure is not irrelevant to its essential nature; on the contrary, in many respects it shapes the overall meaning of the whole. This is why the component elements of the artistic sign cannot be correlated with their meanings until they have been placed in a specific context, or in other words, until they start to live an organic life as an integrated structure. For this reason artistic signs cannot be contained in a dictionary. What is particularly important in this connection is that unlike the purely instrumental function of the scientific sign, in accordance with which thought processes are stimulated in the mind of the reader or listener that adequately correspond to those incorporated in the sign by its creator, that of the artistic sign is the very opposite, for in the process of the audience's apprehension of the artistic sign, artistic meanings arise that do not correspond precisely to those expressed through the sign by the artist, and these meanings may vary from one audience to another. T.S. Eliot wrote, for instance, that... "it is not quite so commonplace to observe that the meaning of a poem may be something larger than its author's conscious purpose, and something remote from its origins.... A poem may appear to mean very different things to different readers, and all of these meanings may be different from what the author thought he meant... . The reader's interpretation may differ from the author's and be equally valid---it may even be better. There may be much more in a poem than the author was aware of. The different interpretations may all be partial formulations of one thing; the ambiguities may be due to the fact that the poems mean more, not less, than ordinary speech can communicate.''^^*^^
The possibility of various interpretations of a work of art can result from its being apprehended at different levels and on different planes. This point accounts in particular for variations in the interpretation of dramatic writing by stage directors and actors.
_-_-_^^*^^ T. S. Eliot, On the Poetry and Poets, London, 1957, pp. 30-31.
121The appreciation of an artistic sign with all its facets activises both the sensual and rational spheres of consciousness, setting in motion the whole range of individual psychological structures and it involves all an audience's emotional and associative experience during the progression from sign to meaning.
It is quite logical that such signs should have evolved in the course of social and historical experience, for they fully correspond to man's need to designate the diversity of layers, planes and levels essential to the nature of artistic creativity.
[122] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter III __ALPHA_LVL1__ CONTENT AND FORM IN ART __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]In Marxist-Leninist aesthetics central importance is accorded to the substantiation of the dialectical unity of form and content in realist art. The significance of this factor can be put down to a number of things, above all the fact that the nature of the aesthetic assimilation of reality is brought to light in the correlation of form to content. Further the unity of form and content serves to express the objective laws underlying the evolution of art. Finally it should be remembered that the solution for the question of the correlation of content and form in art is closely bound up with that for other important questions in aesthetics, for example the dialectic of the creative process, definition of the image in art, the essential nature of the artist's skill, etc. ;
The methodological basis for the solution of the question of the correlation between content and form in art is provided by categories of materialist dialectics, in which are reflected the foundation of the integral unity and development of real objects. Dialectics starts out from the fact that content and form are two inseparable aspects of one phenomenon, unthinkable in isolation, and which, in this sense, constitute an organic unity. Yet in this unity of content and form Marxists at the same time single out the more important element of the two, namely content, since it brings out the nature of the phenomenon represented and constitutes its essence. At the same time dialectical materialism substantiates the active role played 123 by form which should be regarded not as the outward shell of a phenomenon, but as the expression of content's inner structure. The active role of form finds expression in the fact that it promotes the development or unfolding of content when it corresponds to that content, and, on the contrary, impedes the development or unfolding of content when it ceases to correspond to the latter.
In view of this it is important to take note of the difference between the concepts "unity of content and form" and "correlation of form to content''.
The formula "unity of content and form" merely expresses the fact that content does not exist outside form, or form without content. However, unity of content and form does not in any way imply that form is always correlated to content. On the contrary not infrequently form ceases to correlate to content, this occurrence being a natural consequence of the dialectic of their development. In the unity of content and form content is the more mobile of the two; it evolves more rapidly than form, which explains why form often lags behind content. This gap between the two in its turn explains the possible emergence of conflict between form and content.
The search by new content for corresponding form equipped to express or, so to speak, ``present'' that new content represents a motive force in the process of evolution. Of course, this does not mean that each kind of content can only be expressed in one particular way. One and the same content can be presented in various forms, yet in each specific situation there is always a definite form in which given content finds most complete expression.
These important principles of dialectical materialism are of decisive methodological importance for our understanding of the correlation between content and form in art. They are applicable to art in the same degree to which they are applicable to any phenomenon of Nature and social activity.
Yet, as pointed out earlier, Marxist-Leninist aesthetics naturally does not lose sight behind philosophical 124 concepts of the specific features of content in art, or the nature of artistic form. It considers the unity of content and form and their evolution as manifested precisely in art. In other words, it examines the specifically aesthetic properties of the correlation between content and form in art.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Content in ArtThe question of content in art involves various aspects: firstly, content in art can be understood as the reality reflected in it, and, secondly, as content of the artistic reflection of reality in the work of art. Both these aspects are closely linked with each other, but they should on no account be confused. So as to keep these aspects of the content in art separate Marxist-Leninist aesthetics distinguishes between the following two concepts: the subject of art and its content.
When defining the subject of art reference is made to the materialist resolution of the fundamental question of the theory of art---the question of art's relationship to reality, the correlation between real life itself and its reflection in art. When viewed in this way content is tantamount to this or that phenomenon of life, and art to the specific form in which the phenomena are reflected. These specific forms for the reflection of life in art are artistic images.
Another aspect of this question is the fact that the work of art has its own content, and here we are dealing not with images as forms for the reflection of real life, but with the content of the artistic image as such.
In the first case the content of art is the life to be reflected so to speak, objective reality, which exists independently of art. In the second case the content of any work of art is not the life to be reflected, but reflected life, or in other words, not objective reality as such, but its reflection, that is reality intellectually and creatively interpreted and presented by the artist. It was remarked earlier that when depicting this or that phenomenon 125 drawn from life the artist always lets it pass through the prism of his own inner world, his emotions, ideas and musings as he evaluates them from an ideological and aesthetic point of view: thus his understanding of life, his attitude to it, in a word, his world outlook is an essential ingredient of the content of his work. This means that both the content of a work of art taken as a whole and the content of each individual artistic image embrace not only an objective element---life---but also a subjective element, the artist's world outlook: a work of art always provides us not just with certain slices of life, but also with an objectivisation of the artist's thoughts and emotions. The Soviet writer Olga Forsh wrote: "In our work of writing there are two focal points: one is the author, the other his subject. After assimilating his subject, the author is called upon to reproduce it enriched with new, and, most important of all, original aesthetic implications.''
Indeed only when these two focal points----subject and author---are welded together in an organic whole is artistic content possible.
The content of a work of art always incorporates, via the subject, depicted material drawn from life, and via the artist an ideological and emotional interpretation of reality. Thus the content of a work is the artistic reflection through images of specific phenomena from the real world, aesthetically interpreted and evaluated by the artist. This is what explains why different artists depicting one and the same phenomena create works of art varying widely in content. If artists' ideological standpoints vary, then one and the same subject, identical material, can provide the basis for works of art with contrasting content. Herein lies the all-important law with regard to artistic creativity.
This is why Shostakovich's opera Katerina hmailova is not merely a musical, dramatised version of Leskov's story, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. The plot of the opera is the same as that found in the story. However the central idea in the opera Katerina hmailova, its pathos 126 and the main conflict differ in essence from those found in the story. The nineteenth-century Russian writer saw his heroine as a self-willed merchant's wife, who in order to achieve her dastardly aims resorted to the most despicable methods, and would stop at nothing, not even death. The Soviet artist on the other hand saw her rather as a victim of the backward, barbaric world of old provincial Russia, and endowed his heroine with the traits of a truly tragic figure: her story in the opera presents us with a critical picture of the world in which such attitudes are possible. In the conflict between Katerina Izmailova and the real world surrounding her Shostakovich is on the side of his heroine: he does not condemn or justify her, but shows how the terrible world, up against which she finds herself, crushes a passionate, full-blooded individual, who in other conditions might have found an outlet for unusually rich spiritual resources. After reading Leskov's story with fresh, contemporary eyes, Shostakovich created a work with profound humanist significance, a work with new artistic content.
Now let us turn to an example of a reinterpretation of a literary work, a reinterpretation dictated by a different way of life and different ideological standpoints. The well-known German actor and director Gustaf Griindgens put on a new production of Faust at the Deutsches Schauspielhaus in Hamburg. The plot of the play is drawn from Goethe's great tragedy, no alterations or cuts being made in the text. However Griindgens lent that text a stage interpretation all of his own, so that his production differs radically from the content of the original pillar of German literature. In the stage production, as opposed to Goethe's original, it was always Mephistopheles who emerged as the winning party in the conflict between him and Faust. The hero in Goethe's tragedy never attains the beautiful moment that he might wish to make stand still, but in the end, thanks to the strength and magnanimity of his spirit, Faust does get the better of his cunning tempter after all. In Griindgens' production, on the other hand, Faust is at the mercy of Mephistopheles' 127 limitless power and even mockery. It is not the Faust created by Goethe that Griindgens brings us; however the convincing power of the Hamburg Faust lies in the fact that this production reflects in complex and indirect ways a world in which the Mephistopheleses feel more at home than the Fausts.
Thus phenomena drawn from real life expressed in the works of first Leskov and Shostakovich, and then Goethe and Griindgens are identical, while the content of works based on identical subjects varies.
When breaking up the content of a work of art into its component elements, it emerges that the content consists of the idea behind the work, its subject-matter and the implied emotional and aesthetic evaluation of the phenomena depicted. Yet all these elements can only be separated from each other in the process of analysis. In the work itself they always form an organic whole: subject-matter is always interpreted on the basis of the main idea, which, in its turn, provides the basis for the evaluation of the phenomena drawn from real life and depicted in the work; meanwhile the central idea is unfolded through the subject-matter and the latter's development. Central idea, subject-matter and evaluation are inseparable.
The most important aspect of content is the central idea. Yet this should not be understood as some abstract formula, when discussing the sphere of art. Art does not formulate ideas, it expresses them through images, by emotional means. Belinsky wrote that "a poetic idea is not a syllogism, a dogma or a rule but a living passion, pathos....''
It goes without saying that political, ethical, philosophical and other ideas can all be expressed in a work of art. However neither political nor moral nor philosophical ideas taken separately, or the sum of such ideas, can express the specific essence of the idea-content of a work of art. Ideas in art possess aesthetic implications.
Aesthetic ideas are not abstract thoughts, but a sum of impressions, feelings, emotions, moods, reflections 128 experienced by the individual apprehending a work of art--- the concrete artistic image, in and through which art expresses its relation to reality. An aesthetic idea represents conclusions stemming from a work, but conclusions that are not formulated in abstract terms by the artist; these conclusions stem naturally from the artistic fabric of the work and the reader, viewer or listener comes to understand, or rather apprehend it on his own.
When the play Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder by Bertolt Brecht, was staged in Berlin in 1948, appeals were to be seen in the press calling for Mother Courage to reach an understanding of the terrible cruel nature of war in the end. (The heroine of the play Anna Fier,- ling right up to the end of the play proves unable to find her bearings in all the horrors which war brings upon men, and this despite the fact that war robs her of all her children.) Yet Brecht, an artist of profound political insight, held that victims of catastrophe in life and in art do not always draw the necessary lessons.from their, experience. Moreover he was convinced that "for as long as the masses are manoeuvred by politicians, everything that happens to them they look upon not as .experience but fate; after experiencing some upheaval they learn no more of its nature than a laboratory guinea-pig learns of the laws of biology.''^^*^^ This explains why . Brecht, remaining true to the logic and implications of historical truth of events, saw the dramatist's task not to lie in compelling Mother Courage to see the light at last, but in making sure the audience should see it. This approach reflects the high principles intrinsic to Brecht's plays, which set out to give the spectator heightened awareness.
The central idea lives within a work as its message. Yet this message must not be blatant, crudely didactic or expressed in moralising exchanges between characters. It lives not an independent life of its own, not side by side with images or as a narrator's commentary but is _-_-_
^^*^^ Brecht, Bertolt. Anmerkungen zu "Muter Courage und ihre Kinder". In: Stiike, Bd. VII, Berlin, 1961, S. 207.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---796 129 incorporated in the image structure of the work and stems naturally from it. The central idea in a work of art, as Engels pointed out, must not be underlined artificially.The artist speaks to the reader, beholder and listener as it were: here is a slice of life, follow the logic of its development, and then make the relevant conclusions yourself. Lenin held that only a narrow-minded writer would presume that a reader does not think or is incapable of thinking. A true artist has confidence in his reader, relies upon his imagination and his capacity to reach independently the relevant generalisations and conclusions. However these conclusions, although they are not presented ready-made in the work, should be led up to by the whole course of the events which unfold within it.
Here it is in place to mention the famous article by the Russian nineteenth-century critic, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, entitled On Didacticism in Stories and Novels. While defending the principle that art is man's school for liv-r ing, Dobrolyubov at the same time was a resolute opponent of abstract didacticism. He turned to artists with the appeal that they should let their readers think, not assume the role of teacher and announce that they demand from the reader such-and-such a virtue and are prepared to punish such-and-such a vice. In fact, Dobrolyubov was not against art adopting a didactic role, but against art that moralised. If the artist reproduces life in faithful profound terms, if the pictures he creates pinpoint life's main lines of development, if images in a work serve to express the vital needs of the times and reflect noble sentiments and profound thoughts, art does acquire the significance of a social artistic message. The artist's passionate involvement in what is going on around him permeates the whole image structure of his work and in its supreme expression evolves as the principle of commitment in art.
Lenin emphasised that ideas not only reflect the real world but also man's active relationship with that real world. He wrote: "The Idea is Cognition and aspiration 130 (volition) /of man.. ./.''^^*^^ In respect of this tenet one facet of the idea singled out by Lenin is particularly important: this is thought, which incorporates both will and purpose. However, the idea in art, apart from this, is something that cannot be expressed outside the concrete reality of life which always possesses an emotional impact. For this reason, as mentioned earlier, the idea in art is always not merely thought expressed in rational terms, but also love or hate, sympathy or antipathy, enthusiasm or indignation, joy or grief.
The effectiveness of art finds expression in the emotions that it arouses in man and therefore it is particularly important firstly that a work of art should not leave man indifferent (otherwise no idea at all will be apprehended by him) and secondly that emotions aroused by the work should be in accordance with the central idea in it. In other words it is important that sympathy and antipathy, laughter and tears, joy and grief should be aroused by those images and situations in a work that are designed to arouse them. The appearance of the desired reaction on the part of the listener, beholder or reader is the best guarantee that the central idea has been adequately expressed.
Let us turn to an example of an idea expressed successfully as far as the emotional and image terms involved are concerned. The sculpture composition by F. Fiveisky, Stronger than Death shows three brave men. Inhuman tribulation fell to the lot of these men, each of whom met his end in his own particular way. One is completely drained of strength and seems hardly to hear what is going on around him, the second and youngest of the three is still protesting against his fate while the third, central figure, who provides the central focus of the composition, accepts death serenely and bravely. The sculptor brings out the varying degrees of suffering experienced by men subjected to torture, or rather the different ways in which they embody the human condition. At the same time he succeeds in expressing gradations of that _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 195.
__PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 9* 131 condition in such a way as to lend his work an inner emotional dynamic of which the beholder is acutely aware. This' group of three figures cannot but move the beholder, arousing his sympathy and admiration for the courage of Soviet man.The idea behind a work assumes emotional shape during the actual process of artistic creation. It is not as if a logically evolved idea were first expressed in a work and emotionality "stirred in" afterwards. In a work of art emotionality is not some kind of accessory to the logic of development, it is the expression of art's ideological orientation.
Essential to the nature of artistic creativity is the unfolding of the rational through the emotional, of thoughts through emotions, and the organic unity of the two; emotion does not follow on after the rational, feelings do not take second place after ideas. In this connection it is worth pointing to the popularity of the political cinema. It is natural that political films should correspond to the profound needs of our times, but their success to a large extent depends precisely on the blending together of emotional and rational elements. It might seem that political content would be lost on film-goers enthralled by the unfolding of a highly emotional subject. However the reception of such films as Damiano Damiani's Confessione di un commissario polizia al procurature della publica and L'istruttoria e chiusa, dimentici or Elio Petri's La classe operaia va in Paradiso demonstrates just the opposite.
Let us turn to the creative process in dramatic art. It often happens that an actor has a fine grasp of the significance of a character or certain details of it, while remaining unable to live the character's life on stage. This usually occurs when the actor divorces the intellectual from the emotional, using the latter merely to colour and illustrate his intellectually-formed idea of what the character ought to be.
On the other hand an idea that has been apprehended through the emotions enables the actor to penetrate the 132 thoughts and feelings of the character he is to play, which becomes something he believes in, a very part of himself.
The value and significance of a work of art is determined first and foremost by the truth, depth and social relevance of the idea underlying the particular work of art. It was pointed out earlier that in the history of art there have been a good number of cases when erroneous ideas have impoverished a work of art or even proved the undoing of artistic creativity. Even an artist of genius, when following up a false idea, cannot help but belittle the significance of his art. A false orientation can undermine even the most powerful of talents. Works based on false ideas are weak, even when viewed from a purely artistic angle.
This can be explained above all by the fact that artistic perfection can only be attained in those works, in which the heroes act in keeping with their characters; the logic of their behaviour depends upon the circumstances in which they are placed and is always shaped by the logic of life itself. If a false idea is propagated in a work and dramatis personae behave in a way that is not true to life, but in keeping with author's whims and out of character, then such arbitrariness contradicts the laws of art and inevitably destroys the artistic fabric of the work concerned.
Yet can a work be created that is based on a false idea? The history of art will show us a good number of such works. If an idea is false to the artist's emotional make-up, is a mistake caused by external influences, his inner sense of truth may prevail notwithstanding and enable him to create realistic pictures of life, conflicts and characters. Material drawn from life of itself resists false ideas and these remain foreign bodies, so to speak, that do not stem from the logic of the characters. A false idea obstructs the weaving together of phenomena from real life to form a united whole. Indeed, false ideas often invade art precisely when an artist, in the light of his limitations or the prejudices inherent in his world 133 outlook, is not in a position to interpret phenomena from real life in the necessary light or correctly to establish the place each occupies and the cause-and-effect relationships between them. Therefore works based on false ideas can only give men a narrow idea of life, and more often than not substitute a picture of real life with appearances, that only seem true to life.
To sum up: the artistic value and significance of a work are determined by the depth and social significance of the central idea in it. Yet given this, it is essential to distinguish between the author's subjective intention and the idea which is objectively expressed in his work. An artistic idea cannot be reduced to a creative project: they do not always coincide, nor does an artist always express in a work the idea which he was subjectively setting out to express.
In the experience of the creative artist the conflict between his subjective invention and the idea that is objectively expressed in a work can make itself felt in various forms.
Often an artist sets himself a relevant task: from the subjective point of view he is spurred on by the finest intentions, however, the idea expressed in his work emerges as false or artificial. It is very important to define the idea underlying the work to be embarked upon, but that is not enough: at times an incorrect treatment of a subject, superficial grasp of a problem or its concrete tangibility, with a wrong emphasis in the characters or even purely professional miscalculations can lead to results quite different from those the author was aspiring after. This means that while the artist's original intention may have been significant, the idea conveyed by the work he creates appears as false. The opposite is also true: an original intention may be false while the idea conveyed by the finished work emerges as correct and profound.
In the afterword to his Kreuzer Sonata Tolstoy wrote that when composing that work he had wished to say to the reader that neither marriage nor extra-marital love 134 can bring man happiness, since irreconcilable contradictions are inherent in relations between man and woman. Such, in rather crude terms, was Tolstoy's subjective design at a time when he had reached an impasse in his analysis of these relations in the society of his time. Yet the Kreuzer Sonata is a profoundly humanist work which brings to light the abomination of the inhuman conditions of life in tsarist Russia. Lenin's famous assessment of Tolstoy as an artist who tore off all and every mask, is perfectly applicable to him as the author of this work. The Kreuzer Sonata, through the logic of its realistic characters, leads the reader not to accept the principles of asceticism, but to ponder upon the real world and conclude how terrible a way of life is which destroys even the most natural manifestations of human emotion, and that no good can ever be said of a world in which even the right to love has to be paid for in human life.
Yet while taking into full account the possibility of a contradiction between the artist's subjective intention and the idea objectively expressed in his work, we must not regard that possibility as a rule applicable to all creativity. It can happen but it is not a rule. Rather it is an exception proving the rule. The rule itself on the contrary consists precisely in the fact that the clearer the artist envisages the intention behind his work, the more profoundly the central idea will be expressed in the final creation.
However even when the artist's subjective intention and the idea expressed in a work are in keeping the one with the other, they are not identical when it comes to content. The central idea is unfolded first and foremost through the image system of the work. Through his creation an artist comes into his own on a broader and more profound scale than in his initial vision. If we are confronted by a truly great artist who presents us with a truthful picture of life's conflicts, the work may be able to say far more than the author originally intended. When, for example, Louis Aragon states that he is unable to relate the contents of his works and that the essential 135 core of his work will be lost in any summary, in fact their very raison d'etre, he is giving voice to far more than his own subjective reactions. There are countless examples of works of art with far wider implications and significance than were ever included in the artist's original scheme of things. Two works by progressive German writers serve to illustrate this point.
The epigraph which Remarque used in his novel All Quiet on the Western Front read: "This book is not an accusation or a confession." Yet in actual fact it won such wide recognition, precisely because it was an angry accusation and passionate condemnation of those forces that had unleashed the First World War. This point was more than clear to the writer's enemies and it was no coincidence that when the nazis came to power, Remarque's novels were banned.
The novel of another German writer, Hans Fallada, Each Man Dies Alone was conceived as an attempt to portray the moral stature of a man who did not betray his humane convictions when confronted by death and who embarked upon a struggle against fascism when there were no like-minded comrades at his side. Yet the whole logic of the events convincingly reproduced by the writer lends the novel far wider implications: it illustrates how a man in isolation can meet death as a hero, but cannot hope for victory. In this case once more the subjective intentions of the author proved narrower than the eventual message of the book.
Ideas in art are always transmitted via concrete material drawn from life, which constitutes the theme of the work. The theme is the range of phenomena drawn from life which are depicted in a particular work. The theme is not simply material drawn from life, but consists of those aspects of such material which are examined in a work and presented to the reader, beholder or listener. "A theme,"- wrote Gorky, "is an idea that is taken from an author's experience, which life itself placed at his disposal; but it is something which is rough-hewn in the store-house of his impressions and which stirs him to 136 work at refashioning it.''^^*^^ A theme cannot be thought of in isolation from the central idea, and, conversely, the central idea is unthinkable without the theme. For example in the course of the action in Sydney Pollack's film They Shoot Horses, Don't They the audience is made to witness the desperate attempts of many men and women to wrest themselves free of the grip of poverty and interminable unemployment. The search for a way out brings them to the dance-floor to take part in a dance marathon, unlike any that have gone before. The conditions of the marathon demand that all taking part should dance for a month without a night's sleep, with nothing but occasional fifteen-minute breaks for ``food'' and a breather. Those who survive the torture were to win big prize money. However, as the enterprise itself shows, such conditions are beyond human endurance and the dancers soon reach a state of extreme exhaustion before our very eyes. Gradually the number of competitors shrinks: some lack the determination to go on, others the strength, some lose control of their senses, one even dies out front from heart-strain. And then the heroine of the film, when robbed of all hope asks her young partner to shoot her through the head. At such a moment death appears as salvation for these crushed men and women, for they are broken, at their wits' end and cannot go on, just like any over-ridden horse. The theme provides an exact and complete expression in the plot. This tragic and at first glance hopeless story does leave the audience with a little room for hope after all: the film is permeated with the author's deep sympathy for the men and women portrayed and his clearly aimed protest enables the audience to grasp the main idea behind the film. The conditions for man's existence in the society of "dance marathons" are inhuman and as long as there exist forces capable of compelling man to renounce life, tragedies like that which befalls the heroine of this film are inevitable.
_-_-_^^*^^ M. Gorky, Collected Works in thirty volumes, Vol. 27, p. 214 (in Russian).
137The resonance of an idea in a work of art often depends , upon the social relevance of the theme that stirs the artist. Yet it is not the theme as such which determines the ideological and aesthetic stature of a work. Significant ideas relevant to our times can be expressed even in works which do not embrace any large slice of life. It is not the theme which is all-important but its ideological and aesthetic interpretation and representation in a work of art. This does not mean, however, that the significance of a theme in art is of no particular importance. It is difficult to support the view that "any theme", even the socially irrelevant, can be turned into a major work thanks to the magic wand of talent.
Through his ideological and aesthetic interpretation of a theme an artist also lends a specific evaluation to the aspects of life depicted. This evaluation in art is of an aesthetic and emotional character. It is reflected in the artist's depiction of certain phenomena as aesthetically attractive and deserving of our sympathy and understanding and others as unattractive, as cause for indignation and repulsion.
Art always metes out its ``judgement'' of phenomena drawn from life albeit clothed in artistic form, and this ``judgement'' is an essential aspect of the content of a work of art.
An organic whole consisting of idea, theme and evaluation all interwoven with each other constitutes the content of a work of art.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Form in ArtLunacharsky warned young Soviet writers---and this applies in equal measure to creators in all spheres of art ---that no true master can dispense with significance of content and for this reason they should learn from life and reach a deeper understanding of it. Later he went on to say that the artist should "strive after pure, clear and rich form which will on no account fall into his lap as a result of his studying life''.
138This principle is most important. Even nowadays there are certain artists who entertain the superficial view that it is sufficient to have a clear answer to the first of the two questions that face the artist---what to say and how to say it---and that an answer to the second then follows of itself. It was stressed earlier that art's tremendous role in the life of society, its artistic value and the power of its aesthetic and emotional impact on men's minds and hearts are determined by the depth, nobility, significance and topical relevance of the ideas it incorporates. Yet the ideas of a work of art are not so important as to obliterate the role of skill and craftsmanship. Without these, without vivid, artistic form there can be no art.
Boileau's maxim to the effect that even lines rich in meaning and the noblest of thoughts cannot please the mind if they are wounding to the ear is not only relevant to classical art, but represents a universal law of art. The creation of perfect artistic form is a most difficult and often painful aspect of the creative process. Not for nothing did Goethe state that whereas any man can glimpse the material of life, its content is only visible to him, who has something in common with it, while form remains a secret for the majority.
There is no doubt that this is so. Anyone can learn how to mould clay and apply colour to canvas, but in order for the work conceived to acquire the necessary artistic incarnation it is essential not only to have intimate knowledge of the necessary craftsmanship but also to possess artistic talent. Goethe's remark cited above draws attention to the difficult path thai lies between the conception of a work and its realisation.
Any man can learn to fashion marble but only a Michelangelo or Rodin can say: "I shall take up this piece of marble and cut away all that is superfluous.''
Of course the phrase "only Michelangelo", or "only Rodin" should not be understood literally. To a greater or lesser degree such ability is to be found in all artists.
In order to single out the special features of artistic form, first of all the nature of art's descriptive and 139 expressive means must be considered. The artist always uses materials to create and for the realisation of his projects he uses certain material and technical means, which it is common to call descriptive and expressive means.
These constitute the specific language of art, which has been developed and perfected throughout the history of art. One and the same means of expression and representation can be used by artists of different eras to create works that differ widely, not only with regard to the ideas they express, but also to their artistic form. For example, reference by 'painters to the law of aerial and linear perspective, first discovered during the Renaissance, is still an important factor in the creations of fine arts even today.
Since the materials used in various art forms vary, each art form has its particular system of means of expression and representation. Yet despite all the differences existing between the representational means peculiar to various art forms, there are certain common features to be observed.
In the first place the representational means to be found in all art forms are subject to the operation of specific material and physical laws. The language of colour, for instance, is circumscribed by the laws of optics, that of sound by the laws of acoustics, etc. From this it follows that an artist anxious to master the skills of his art form has to study the material nature of the descriptive means peculiar to that form and take into account the physical laws by which those means are circumscribed. A painter cannot for instance afford to ignore the laws of perspective or a sculptor the laws of anatomy. A ballet dancer disregards at his peril the laws of physiology, which regulate the life of the human body. The artist does not of course study the material properties of the descriptive means of art in order to find an answer to the question: wherein lies the essence of art? Neither physics, nor anatomy, nor physiology can shed light on the nature of the creative process; as was pointed out as long ago as the end of the last century by the illustrious Russian 140 enlightener and scholar M. Philippov, even after describing the working of all the physiological changes within Othello's brain, it is still impossible to understand exactly why he strangled Desdemona. A work of art is not of course created in order to show that the laws of Nature obtain. On the contrary the very thought of these laws should not enter the head of beholder or reader; meanwhile knowledge of the physical properties of his descriptive means is of essential importance to the artist, so that he might realise his designs in material form.
Secondly, from among the mass of varied descriptive means at an artist's disposal he always selects those which are the most artistically expressive, emotionally powerful and which correspond most adequately to his initial intention. At the entrance to the All-Union Exhibition of Economic Achievements in Moscow there has been set up the well-known statue by Vera Mukhina entitled The Worker and the Peasant Woman---one of the finest examples of Soviet art. This work by Mukhina is presenting us with an image of the new world. The monumental quality of this generalised image magnificently blends with the unique precision of the group's silhouette. The plastic properties of the sheets of stainless steel fastened onto the framework enabled the author to overcome technical problems and realise her artistic, goal, namely the creation of a sculptural composition 75 feet high, that symbolised the mighty surge forward of the Soviet people to communism. In any other material the work would not possess the same artistic power or indeed have been technically workable.
It thus appears that every material possesses certain characteristic plastic properties, which the sculptor has to reckon with. One and the same figure hewn out of stone or moulded in bronze possesses varying degrees of artistic expressiveness. Marble, bronze and wood all possess unique descriptive potential peculiar to them alone. It is impossible to imagine Konenkov's sculptures illustrating peasant life and Slavonic mythology in any other material but wood. This does not mean that the subjects 141 the artist turned to could only be expressed in wood. Yet, if he had created works on this subject not in wood, but, for want of another example, stone, then the images would not have been the same. This can also be said of Mukhina's work. She might have used bronze but then the image would have been different. Choice of materials is determined not only by technical but above all by artistic considerations. Material should be selected in keeping with the artist's intent, which might require for its realisation at one time bronze, at another marble, and at a third wood, etc.
In the same way a writer always looks for the ``perfect'' word and an actor for the ``perfect'' gesture or intonation. Mayakovsky used a most vivid image to express this situation:
You dig,
~ ~ for the sake of a single word,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ through thousands of tons
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of verbal ore.
Descriptive means peculiar to particular art forms used by artists only become contributory factors in art if they acquire artistic expressiveness and create artistic images.
Thirdly, it should be pointed out that in all art forms the artist fashions and develops his own particular technique on the basis of his ability confidently to make use of descriptive and expressive means. Fine technique is an important aspect of artistic skill. Yet technique, even the most perfect, is not yet art, but merely a means, an instrument for creation. The more perfect an artist's technique, the ``easier'' the creative process will be, the more reason he will have to hope that, all else being equal, his work will be crowned with success.
However it would be wrong to confuse technique and mere craftsmanship: the artist's technique indicates the degree to which he has mastered the expressive means of his art, while mere craftsmanship, implying the demonstration of an artist's technical resources, is found where true art is lacking. It is possible to imagine a ballerina, 142 who from the purely technical angle might be on a par with Ulanova, yet we, her contemporaries would find it difficult to imagine anything more perfect than her dancing or any artist more inspired in the world of ballet. The secret of Ulanova's art lies not in her technique, although of course this is impeccable. In the words of an American critic, Ulanova presents us with an enchanting combination of ineffable qualities, among which her dancing skill should take second place.
The realist artist should make every attempt to avoid dealing in mere craftsmanship, the cold ``ability'' to do things. When Alexander Blok came to the conclusion that he was able to write poetry too well, he started wondering if he ought not to stop writing poetry altogether for a time. He was frightened that skilled craftsmanship might be the death of his poetry. Similar thoughts visited the outstanding Romanian artist Corneliu Baba: in his eyes one of the most terrible dangers for the artist are ``skill'' and ``knack'', the stage when hands outstrip brain. That is when technical skills should be held in check just like some restive horse.
While skill lends a work superficial character, true mastery is essential for it to achieve depth. Craftsmanship is by no means the same thing as true mastery, just as the means of expression and representation in art should not be identified with artistic form. The means of expression and representation used by the artist are only ingredients of form.
Artistic form is a means of bringing together and blending the external descriptive and expressive means of art. It expresses the inner structure of artistic content. Precisely because content always appears in some definite concrete-sensual form it is rendered emotionally comprehensible and aesthetically significant. Form is so closely bound up with content that it cannot be separated from content, just as the latter cannot be separated from form. Marx wrote that form is bereft of any kind of meaning, if it is not form for some specific content. When the content of a work can be separated from its form or 143 form from content, then as a rule this shows that a work lacks both artistic content and artistic form.
Insofar as the descriptive and expressive means relevant to various art forms differ, each art form is cpmposed of varying elements. Specific elements of form in painting, for instance, are colour and drawing, an essential element in dramatic form is gesture and in music melody. In addition to these properties peculiar to one particular art form there are certain common features of artistic form characteristic for all arts.
First among these elements common to all artistic form is composition. Composition is the structure of a work, the correlation and organisation of its parts, the subordination of the various elements to the whole. Composition in art has the force of an objective law. Alexei Tolstoy provided the following interesting definition of rdomposition, resorting to a vivid image. "What is composition? First and foremost it is the establishment of a centre of the artist's vision ... the establishment of a purpose, a central figure and then the establishment of all the other characters which will be positioned around the main figure on a staircase leading downwards. Composition in art is like the architecture of a building. Each building has its purpose, its facade, the highest point on its facade, a circumscribed scale and definite forms. A work of art also needs definite contours.''
Work on composition cannot be reduced to observation of this or that rule, the use of this or that technique for structuring a work. All formal technique of composition in all genuine works of art stem from the material drawn from life within the artist's reach and are inseparably bound up with his initial idea. Actual work on composition involves deliberate search for methods and means to serve a specific ideological and aesthetic goal. On the other hand the artistic content of a work is determined by the precision of the particular composition adopted. For example, a dramatic page of Russian history in V. Surikov's great work The Morning the Strelets Were Executed is conveyed to the beholder not only via the 144 subject but also through the sum total of the compositional devices. The careful positioning of the two opposed sides on the canvas is enhanced by the range of colours used, the sparkling light and the mist: all these details serve to bring out the central idea. As in all works distinguished by irreproachable composition, in Surikov's works too it would be impossible to change even a tiny detail without disrupting the whole. All details serve to pinpoint the central idea.
Conversely, the lack of a clearly defined composition leads to a situation in which the idea behind a work is expressed too vaguely and in essence is not developed. Changes in composition can alter the meaning of a work. Mayakovsky made the following correction in S. Tretyakov's Story of How Fadei Discovered the Law Protecting Working Men. In the original there was a line which read: "The new master in a worker's cloth cap": this Mayakovsky changed to "The new master---a worker in a cloth cap." Here, after an alteration had been made in the composition, the line acquired a new, more definite meaning, for the possible ambiguity contained in the first version had been eliminated.
Skilful composition results in a picture of life reproduced by the artist, in which we find only those elements that are essential for transmission of the artist's idea. Diderot in his day wrote: "If the distance between each figure and the main subject is measured according to meaning, then all the figures will be in their correct place... If light and shade are distributed according to meaning and if each figure is apportioned a share of the total light, relative to its importance, then the scene of action will be illuminated in a natural way.''^^*^^ Diderot here was writing of painting, but this idea is quite apt with regard to compositional structure in any art form. Precisely because the composition of a work must be "in accordance with its meaning", Lev Tolstoy held that the artist must think first and foremost not of what to add to _-_-_
^^*^^ Denis Diderot, Oeuvres completes, tome quatrieme, ler partie, Paris, 1818, p. 536.
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10-796 145 his work, but of discarding as much as possible without detracting from the message he is seeking to.convey.In the theatre compositional devices are not easily comparable with those for literature or painting, yet here too the same logic is to be observed. Indeed Chekhov's famous reference to the rifle, which if seen on stage in the first act, has to go off by the fourth, is none other than a figurative expression of the same idea, the idea that every scene, every episode and even separate detail must stem from the strict necessity of the action unfolding on stage.
Konstantin Fedin once remarked that a work of art, like a ship, need a stevedore to see that its cargo is properly distributed; a ship can be built impeccably, yet if its cargo is badly arranged then it will list. The stevedore of art must likewise always make sure that the composition of his works is as perfect as possible.
When analysing form it is common to mention plot in the same breath: however plot is not purely a matter of form. It is in the plot that we find the main conflict of the work, which shows that it is as much bound up with content as it is with form. Plot should be approached as one of the aspects of form, but with reservations, purely in the interest of analysis. Moreover in certain art forms there are no plots or topics in the ordinary sense and therefore plot unlike composition cannot be regarded as a universal element of all artistic forms. Architecture, certain musical genres and choreography have no topic or plot.
Only those art forms and genres have a topic or plot, which depict conflicts drawn from life, human characters and clashes between the latter. Gorky defined plot in the following words: "links, contradictions, likes and dislikes and human relationships in general---in a word the story of the growth and organisation of this or that character or type.''^^*^^
Skilful construction of a plot involves the ability to _-_-_
^^*^^ Maxim Gorky, Collected Works in thirty volumes, Vol. 27, p. 215 (in Russian).
146 unfold the events incorporated in a work in an interesting and dynamic development. This is particularly important with regard to dramatic art. In plays and dramatic productions the development of characters and events needs to be highly dynamic, logical and coherent. A plot must not be exhausted until the end of a production and the whole course of stage action must lead up gradually to the climax.A vital condition for the effective structuring of a plot is the artist's competent grasp of his material. In an address entitled Advice for the Novice Writer Drawn from My Literary Experience, Alexander Fadeyev pointed out that a plot starts to take shape in the artist's mind when he had an absolutely clear idea of his subject and even not until certain of the characters' behaviour patterns and courses of action have started to crystallise. "That is when it is time to start thinking about how to express and transmit the thoughts and ideas, which lie at the heart of the work, about the events to be used to this end and the sequence these events should follow.''
An interesting and dynamic plot grips the attention, and this interest factor is no small matter, it is not merely a question of entertainment. Meanwhile in some cases confusion of the concept of an interesting taut plot with empty diversion has led certain artists to reject plot altogether and substitute for it no more than a chronicle of events. An artist is of course quite justified both in theory and practice in basing the structure of a film or play on a chronicle of events, yet no chronicle as such can replace art founded on the complex and demanding skill of plot structuring.
In art it is vitally important that a subject should be relevant to the contemporary situation. Contemporary problems have, on many occasions, been examined in the context of old and familiar plots. Renaissance artists used religious themes to affirm humanist ideas. Artists at the time of the French Revolution made use of classical themes as exemplified by David's Oath of the Horatii which was seen as summons to revolution. Artists of today __PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 have also been known to make deliberate and wide use of plots taken from the past. Bertolt Brecht, for instance, applied bold new methods to classical themes which he presented in a new light, lending them new topical content. Brecht did so deliberately, in order to draw the audience's attention not to the denouement but to the course of events, and thus to heighten its powers of observation and stimulate its imagination. Brecht went out of his way actively to involve his audience, and td \ stimulate men's capacity for political and philosophical analysis of the burning issues of the day. This indeed is a most important function of art. The well-known Soviet artist V. Favorsky, when working on his illustrations for The Lay of Igor's Host lent considerable contemporary significance to the figure of Yaroslavna and her lament on the walls of Putivl: he has attempted to express in this figure the great spiritual beauty and moral stature of the Russian woman, thereby bridging the gap between past and present.
This does not mean however that modern presentations of old themes can replace contemporary ones; the use of familiar plots even when injected with new implications cannot satisfy contemporary audiences' need for works of art with plots drawn from the life of today.
To summarise---composition and plot constitute the most essential components of form. They cannot be separated one from the other in a work of art. A weak plot will always impair composition and ill-defined composition detracts from any plot. Only a well-ordered composition harmoniously blended with a carefully devised plot can ensure artistic form of high quality.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. The Dialectics of ContentEvery true work of art is characterised by organic unity of content and form, for neither content bereft of concrete artistic form, nor form that fails to express content are compatible with art.
148In a certain sense these words do not only apply to realist art. Even in the meaningless works of extreme formalism there is ``content'' of a sort to be found. Formalist art is bereft of content to the same degree as it lacks artistic form, and, conversely, it possesses "artistic form" insofar as it has any content. Content and form are interdependent here as elsewhere.
The principle concerning the unity of form and content in art means that neither of these two aspects is possible without the other. Yet, as pointed out earlier, these two concepts need to be kept separate: first there is the unity of content and form, and then the correlation of form to content. This distinction is a relative one, but there is definite foundation for it.
Unity of form and content in the sense referred to above (namely the impossibility of either one without the other) is always relevant, but this does not in any way imply that in any work form always expresses content well and effectively from an artistic point of view. Frequently important and considerable endeavours are not realised because an artist has not been able to find an adequate form through which to express them. Then, on the other hand, interesting experiments and innovations of a formal nature lose much of their impact if they are virtually bereft of content. Pushkin made the highly relevant observation to the effect that "there are two sorts of nonsense: one stems from a lack of feeling or ideas replaced by words, and the other from a profusion of feelings and ideas expressed through inadequate words''.^^*^^ This remark applies not merely to literature but to all art forms.
When considering the correlation between content and form in art it is misguiding to try and decide which is more important in art---content or form. Such a distinction or gradation is false because content and form are equally indispensable, and the one cannot compensate for the other. Trivial content cannot be filled out with _-_-_
^^*^^ A. Pushkin, Complete Works, Vol. 7, 1949, p. 56 (in Russian).
149 intricacies of form, and insipid, inexpressive form cannot be obscured by interesting ideas. Poor works of art will not be well received by beholder or reader, even when they treat topical and important issues. Indeed works of that kind arouse irritation, since an audience rightly expects that the more profound a work's content, the. more vivid and convincing the form of its expression needs to be, otherwise the result will be not art, but poor journalism.In the literary archives that Stanislavsky left the following interesting note was found:
"Form and Essence: Sometimes the first is given precedence over the second---in some cases essence is missingaltogether. .., if there is no essence then form is superfluous. Even if that form is beautiful, within five minutes it will prove tedious.
``In other cases form trivialises essence or lends it different meaning....
``The truth lies half way between the two: essence is necessary to a full, even profound extent and just as necessary is the particular form which gives beautiful expression to that essence in its entirety.''
Once again let it be made clear that content and form are in equal degree necessary aspects of a work. This however does not imply that content and form are of equal significance in art. In a work of art content plays the decisive role. This truth reflects an objective law of art and represents a fundamental tenet of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. The pre-eminent role of content is to be gleaned from, among other things, the fact that form is the means for expressing content and to this end is evolved.
Adherents of structural method suggest that the introduction to scientific literature of such a concept as structure does away with both the strictly form-orientated and the strictly content-orientated approaches to the analysis of works of art. The concept of structure is one whole and should be understood not merely as form, but precisely as structure content. As a result it does away with a two-line approach to works of art, and there is no need to divide the latter into content and form as two separate elements. 150 What is the difference between this approach and the dialectics of content and form? Does the dialectical principle of the unity of content and form admit of formless content or contentless form? The point to emphasise here is that the concept of structure, while important as an instrument of scientific analysis, can, and indeed should, be used in the framework of philosophical and aesthetic dialectical methodology, but should not be substituted for the dialectical logic of concepts. Structuralism is often regarded as a specific reaction to the decreasing importance attributed to form in art. However, its own conceptions lead to the other extreme, to the pre-eminence of form over content in aesthetic analysis. This is all the more understandable in view of the fact that the structural approach is used, as a rule, in analysis of the artistic text, which is by no means equivalent to analysis of the image system of art. The following observation made by Alexander Tvardovsky quickly became well-known---an artist's disregard for time spent on form results in a reader's or beholder's indifference to the content of his work: equally an artist's insufficient care with regard to content results in a reader's or beholder's indifference to the form of a work.
The one-time all-out drive against formalism in our country often led to the neglect of the question of form. These years are already well behind us and it is now no longer necessary to prove the obvious fact that an artist cannot disregard or neglect the form of his work. Yet this does not mean that formalist conceptions are not still open to criticism.
``Without form there is no art, but 'fashionable form' is a monster," wrote Soviet artist, D. Moor. Rodin compared painters, who put draughtsmanship before all else, and writers, who were preoccupied with outward show, to soldiers prancing around in uniforms festooned with gold braid yet reluctant to fight, or to peasants who would polish their ploughs to make them shine instead of going out to work in the fields. Repin considered that when his pictures were praised with the expression: "what wonderful 151 drawing", this meant that the pictures were a failure. If all the beholder can appreciate is the drawing, or in other words the form, instead of the picture as a whole, for which the original drawings were made, then the artist has indeed failed.
The same one-sidedness can be found in theatrical productions: if on leaving the theatre we can remember best of all certain of the stage devices used by the producer or even in the actual sets---a scene that takes place in the middle of the auditorium, a scene for which no curtains are used, actors' entrances onto the stage by way of the stalls, a voice coming through a loud-speaker instead of living speech from an actor on stage, actors attired in evening dress or throwing confetti to the audience, backcloths or passages of classical music used in the course of the production---this is when producers and others involved in a stage production should consider whether the audience is enjoying the whole ``picture'' or just the drawing. If this is so, then applause should put them on their guard against letting form drown content, or to use Stanislavsky's words, against letting the ``gravy'' push out the ``meat''.
Vivid form is not that which forces itself upon the audience's attention. On the contrary the more expressive form, the less it detracts the audience's attention from the portrayal of life unfolding upon the stage. The more form absorbs the audience's attention, the less it will be fulfilling its proper function, that of pinpointing content.
Certain artists entertain the idea that if an artist pays attention above all to form, this points to tremendous diligence on his part, and on the other hand, if form is not conspicuous then this means that little attention was paid to it. In practice however the opposite is the case. The more an artist works at expressing content, that is, works at form, the less obvious it will be to the beholder.
When Mayakovsky was told that there were some ``bad'' rhymes in Mikhail Svetlov's poem Grenada, the poet replied, that the poem was so magnificent that one did not even notice if there were any rhymes in it at all. 152 This answer is somewhat paradoxical, but the poet's main idea is perfectly clear: the reader takes little note of any rhymes, precisely because Svetlov hit upon an ideal form of expression for the content of his poem. On the contrary, if form attracts an inordinate amount of our attention, this means that the artist spent a great deal of mental effort looking out original expressive means, but did not take sufficient pains to ensure that even the interesting and impressive devices and means he singled out would be well-suited to expressing the idea behind his work. This state of affairs would mean that the artistic form of his work, in the true sense of the word, had failed.
The Soviet writer Vera Ketlinskaya wrote that if a reader can believe in and transpose himself into the world created by a writer, he will not notice the artist's sorcery that takes a grip on him, that is he will not notice either the language, the composition, the manoeuvrings of the plot, or the method employed to bring out the character. Yet we know that this ``sorcery'' is rooted in the artist's mastery, that embraces his mind, heart and zest for life, that this great sorcery of the artist involves untold work on language and composition, on the structure of the plot and analysis of the characters' emotions and responses, on the elaboration of a course of development for each main character and searches for accurate and vivid descriptions of minor ones. Indeed an artist working on form see his goal not as the demonstration of new expressive means he has evolved, but rather as the search for reaching his audience's emotions. Work on form lends form to content.
It does not, however, follow from these considerations that delight in the perfect form of a work contradicts the essence of aesthetic feeling. Man, by his very nature, is an artist and the mastery of a poet, actor or painter can bring him considerable aesthetic happiness. Stanislavsky's finest pupil, Evgeni Vakhtangov, attempted and successfully so, to create productions in the course of which audiences would take great artistic delight in talented 153 innovation, unexpected theatrical effects and producer's tireless imagination---in short in theatrical mastery.
In the theatre of today---and this is to a large extent thanks to Brecht's enormous influence on world theatre--- producer, designer and actors do not always conceal from the public devices employed in their art, but fill their productions with vivid theatricals and the spectacular, lay bare the form of stage action, and before the audience's very eyes reveal the ``secrets'' of their skills. Yet in productions staged by talented artists this not only fails to obfuscate content by form, but on the contrary proves an effective means of highlighting content. In realist art this approach too, recognises the determining role of content.
Different aspects of life and interpretations of life with different slants demand different forms of expression. This is borne out by all artistic experience. The form of Lev Tolstoy's novels is different from that of Balzac's, while Gorky the dramatist uses devices different from those of Shakespeare, and not only because these artists of genius were unique individuals. The tragedy of Anna Karenina has little in common with the drama of Eugenie Grandet, and the life led by the characters of Gorky's Lower Depths is set in quite different circumstances and involves quite different conflicts from those confronting Shakespeare's heroes. Belinsky was right when he maintained that each era gives birth not only to ideas of its own, but also to artistic forms of its ownArtists of today are quite naturally seeking for and establishing new artistic forms, striving to talk of contemporary life in a contemporary artistic language. Yet new means of artistic expression only prove fruitful, if they are adapted to suit the content of the material these same artists draw from life, if they serve to shed light upon that material.
Gustav Dore's illustrations to the Divina Comedia are famous throughout the world. The Soviet artist, M. Pikov gave new graphic expression to the characters and images of this immortal poem. For this task he evolved new 154 artistic forms. Dore's drawings were closely linked to the text and depict the same allegories that the reader finds in the work itself. In Pikov's illustrations Dante's images serve to bring out the philosophical meaning of the Divina Comedia. This is not the place to ask whose illustrations are more apt: the content and form of Dore's illustrations reflected his times and Pikov's work the spirit of our age. Pikov's artistic search leading him to adopt a graphic language reflecting philosophical generalisations, shows him to have reached an intimate appreciation of the images created by the great man of Florence, and at the same time vividly to have expressed the principles and ideas of his contemporaries.
The American artist, Robert Rauschenberg, a wellknown representative of the pop-art trend exhibited a set of illustrations to the Divina Comedia. In his work we find neither Dante's characters, nor the situations described in the original. The reinterpretation in Rauschenberg's work is on quite a different plane altogether. Dante peopled the Divina Comedia with real men and women of his times. Rauschenberg peoples his illustrations with real figures of our times. In his work the beholder will recognise Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Stevenson. The details and situations of the illustrations also have no bearing on Dante's poem, for they include rockets, modern weapons, racing cars. Even Dante in Rauschenberg's work is depicted as an American in an advertisement poster plugging golf clubs. Rauschenberg's illustrations were executed in his usual pop-art style, that is they consist of a mosaic of contemporary news photographs. These illustrations confront us with no more than a game with forms and bear no relations whatsoever to the content of Dante's poem.
Form does not live an entirely independent life of its own, but it is more than just a simple function of content. While affirming the decisive role of content, Marxist-Leninist aestheticians at the same time call attention to the active role of artistic form. Alexei Arbuzov's Irkutsk Story proved a landmark in the Soviet theatre of its day, not only because of its significant content but also 155 thanks to the merits of its form: these included a chorus actively involved in the lives of the main characters, reflections of the author incorporated into the text. Diderot held that art must combine ordinary circumstances with the miraculous, and miraculous circumstances with an ordinary plot. This Arbuzov succeeded in doing. The form of his Irkutsk Story is well adapted to new developments in Soviet life and reflects the/ enriched emotional life of an individual, for whom what at 'first seem strictly personal problems acquire social implications, and for whom social concerns assume personal significance.
The active role of form makes itself felt particularly clearly in the creative process. Form not only serves to express the ideas intrinsic to a work; at the same time work on form provides an important means through which the artist himself can provide a comprehensive explanation of his work. There is no one, straightforward path to be followed in creative work. At times the clarity of a central idea enables an artist to achieve expressive form. It can however happen that an artist only finally achieves a clear vision of the idea-content of his work while working at the form, whereas earlier he had only been able to envisage that content in the most general of contours. Sometimes work at form can even bring an artist to modify the idea-content of his original conception. Hegel defined the content of work as form transformed into content, and form as content evolving into form. This definition put forward by the great German philosopher is aimed at making clear that not only content gives rise to form, but that form also serves to mould content.
The active role of form manifests itself in various ways: certain things can best be represented in the framework of a specific genre, contemporary life is best depicted in a contemporary artistic language for archaic forms impede the presentation of contemporary content, etc. The mastery of an artist is bound up with the active role of form.
Mastery is the term generally used to designate perfect command of all elements of artistic form. However, in 156 the broad sense the artist's mastery finds expression first and foremost in his ability profoundly to penetrate the life around him and arrive at an ideological and aesthetic interpretation of that life. The artist's effort to perfect his mastery includes, of course, polishing of technique and of imaginative means, but mastery is not simply an accumulation of professional devices and knacks, but the complex art of creating an artistic picture of reality.
The concept of mastery has many facets, and it embraces closely linked yet different facets of the artist's creative activity. The latter include the ability to study and draw conclusions from phenomena encountered in the real world, the ability to interpret the observations collected from the aesthetic angle, the ability to express the meaning of phenomena drawn from life through artistic means and to lend that meaning material form. This last capacity is known as mastery in the narrow sense.
Preoccupation with mastery starts from the moment observations of life are first collected. It is very important for an artist to collect observations from life first-hand, and to have his own fresh observations. In order that generalisations, drawn from life should be artistically convincing, the artist should be able to approach life from unusual angles, through his own eyes, to be a discoverer and see the world as no-one before him. Tolstoy wrote that the most important thing in art is to say something new, all of one's own. This is what distinguished in his view all great artists. Mendelssohn's music he regarded as beautiful, but no more since he had nothing new and personal to say as Beethoven had had: you would never know what Beethoven would say next. He then went on to stress that this principle applied both to literature and all other fields of art.
For an artist to be able to achieve this he needs to have observed a great deal. These observations are crystallised in the process of the artist's constant perception of life, in the writer's note-book, in a painter's countless sketches and in the visual observations of the actor.
Konstantin Paustovsky relates how, in order to enable 157 himself to attain a better and more vivid impression of familiar objects, he trained himself to see them from various angles. To this end he used to make a point of writing something each day. Sometimes he would write about the same object several times: in this way he set himself small but well-defined and perfectly feasible tasks to perform each day.
The artist must have an eye for the particular, and appreciate the importance of concern with detail, learning to pick out things which ordinary men and women would usually fail to notice in the life that surrounds them. This enables him to find expressive details with the help of which he can make familiar phenomena acquire a new lustre in his work, assume a new life. For example the country around Moscow and still more so the Volga area was familiar to hundreds and thousands of people, while Levitan succeeded in capturing its distinctive, inimitable beauty, and as a result already familiar scenes from Nature came to represent an artistic discovery. In the same way it could be said that twentieth-century artists Georgi Nissky and Yuri Pimenov opened the eyes of the Soviet public to the beauty of modern landscapes, or, as they are sometimes referred to, "industrial landscapes''.
Artistic generalisations are impossible without the artist's own individual observations, observations that are vivid in their uniqueness. The artist enters into a kind of single combat, as it were, which the material life presents to him, and without destroying the complex picture of life before him, he attempts to transmit it in as condensed a form as possible.
Observations and generalisation do not follow one after the other. They are both part of a single process, in the course of which the actual selection of material presupposes the presence of generalisations which heighten the power of observation.
Mastery of generalisation is closely bound up with mastery of expression. The Soviet composer, Aram Khachaturian, points out that the composer does not compose when he sits down at his piano or takes up a pencil, 158 but far earlier, for music takes shape and grows within the composer's mind, like a fragile and delicate plant. When the time finally comes for it to bear fruit then nothing can hold it back. The stage producer Meyerhold is known to have said that before starting to rehearse a play, he formed a picture of it in his mind, or to be more precise, in his imagination.
Thus the artists themselves contend that generalisation and creative representation cannot be regarded as separate entities. When the artist formulates his overall idea first and then goes on to collect concrete facts to illustrate it this inevitably leads to sketchiness.
The ability to observe life, to generalise on the basis of observations and to express what has been observed through artistic means are elements of mastery for any artist, although the poet observes life in a different way from the artist, musician or architect, and so on. The essence of observation and generalisation with regard to the phenomena of real life is the same for all art forms. Each artist possesses a different mastery for the creative embodiment of his observations in art, and it is in this mastery that talent is reflected. When an artist is interested only in the form of artistic representation and does not channel his professional skills to the solution of largescale ideological and aesthetic issues, then he risks destroying his talent.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. Artistic Culture---Sum TotalThe division of art into various art forms is entirely natural. There are substantial grounds for it, examination of which constitutes a major task of the aesthetician.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ The objective significance of the division of art into different forms is rejected out of hand by certain schools of thought among idealist aestheticians. In particular in the writings of B. Croce and his followers (including J. E. Spingarn) the negation of such categories as type, form or genre is bound up with their rejection of the summarisation and classification of concrete phenomena of art, which __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 160. 159
Despite the wide range of answers provided to the question as to why art is divided into various forms of artistic creativity, they all, as a rule, can be reduced to one of the two categories: one group of aestheticians explains the existence of different art forms with reference to objective reasons, and the other with reference to subjective ones.
Adherents of the first approach hold that art is divided up into separate art forms because the subject of art itself has many facets which require different means of artistic expressiveness. Aestheticians who uphold the second viewpoint suggest that since one and the same phenomena are often reflected in poetry, music and painting, there is no reason to represent the existence of different art forms as dependent upon the object of reflection. From there they go on to conclude that the reasons for the existence of different art forms should be sought in the subjective features of human perception to be found in man's various sense organs. Thus they reason that man's possession of sight explains the emergence and development of painting, that music can be traced back to hearing, etc.
It would be wrong to hold that acknowledgement of objective or subjective factors as the basis for the existence of different art forms amounts to either a materialist or idealist solution of this problem. Suffice it to point out that each of the above named conceptions has been supported by a wide range of aestheticians---both materialists and idealists. The objective basis for the division of art into a number of art forms was acknowledged by Lessing who adopted a materialist approach to aesthetics and by the idealist Hegel; on the other hand the subjective basis for this division was upheld in the materialist aesthetics of Leonardo da Vinci and the subjective idealist aesthetics of Kant.
When comparing painting and poetry in his Laokoon (painting is taken here as standing for all the visual arts, _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 159. basically is tantamount to a proclamation of some kind of "aesthetic nominalism", criticised in the works of A. Gramsci, A. Banti and other Marxists.---Author.
160 and poetry for all other art forms "more effective in their imitation") Lessing started out from the fact that an indisputable distinction can be drawn between them in view of the different means employed for the portrayal of reality. Yet the actual imaginative means employed for each art form Lessing held to be directly dependent upon the aspects of life they were designed to reflect. Painting is conditioned by the fact that its purpose is the depiction of physical, spatial tangible phenomena, while poetry is concerned with the reproduction of actions. Yet Lessing did not present these distinctions between art forms as absolute. He took into account that painting, through its depiction of objects can portray actions, while poetry that reproduces action can to a large degree also shed light on the material objects of the world. Yet painting becomes dynamic, while poetry acquires the depictive quality indirectly by relying on the imagination of the beholder or reader. Lessing's approach is a materialist one, since by making the division of art dependent upon the subject of reflection he presents the different art forms as various aspects of objective reality.A diametrically opposed point of view and one that was fundamentally idealist was that adopted by Hegel, although he also deduced the specific nature of various art forms from features of their subject of reflection. Unlike Lessing, Hegel saw the explanation for various art forms to lie not in the rich diversity of the material world, but in the dynamics of development peculiar to the Absolute Idea straining to break free of its material shell. In Hegel's eyes architecture differed from sculpture and sculpture from poetry first of all because each of those art forms reflect a specific stage of development of the Absolute Idea, and its ever slighter (as the history of art advances) links with its object form. It is with reference to the links between the Idea and matter in art, to the degree of their interdependence, and the need for a differentiated approach to the investigation of these links what Hegel's aesthetics explain the existence of this or that particular art form.
As mentioned earlier, Leonardo da Vinci numbered __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11-796 161 among those who considered that the various art forms were determined by man's possession of various sense organs. His conception was materialist in character, since he saw art as an ``imitation'' of life. Kant, on the other hand, who also traced the various art forms back to the subjective factor, was an aesthetician of the idealist mould, since he regarded human feelings as primary principles ``superimposed'' by the artist on the subject depicted. Acknowledging man's possession of a priori mental capacities such as thought, contemplation and sensation, Kant held that it was precisely these which gave rise to the various art forms: thought to poetry, contemplation to the plastic arts and sensation to music. For Kant the various art forms were all outlets of one particular mental capacity enjoyed by man.
Marxist-Leninist aestheticians when examining the reasons for the existence of the various art forms do not separate the objective basis for dividing art and the subjective factor, that is the distinctive features of human perception, but rather view them as dialectically interconnected. While according the determining role to the objective factor, the importance of the subjective factor in relation to the division of art into a number of art forms should not be rejected either. The ``language'' of lines, colours and sounds, etc., employed by art did not simply come into being because colours, lines and sounds existed in the real world. That language could have and indeed did come into being because colours, sounds, forms, etc., acquired a specific significance in the life of men and hence expressive meaning. The human eye and the human ear respond to colours and sounds in a different way from those of animals. Marx referred to man's five senses as a product of the whole course of world history. This means that the character and distinctive features of human perception were shaped by socio-historical practice and answer to the needs of that practice. These features of human perception exert a tremendous influence upon the forms of the reflection of reality in man's mind, and therefore they also serve to a certain extent to mould the specific 162 nature of certain art forms. Art forms also differ one from the other in that they reflect different phenomena and employ different descriptive means in accordance with the nature of human perception. Yet the real foundation for the existence of different art forms is to be found without doubt in the subject of art itself, in the diversity of the objective world with its many facets that could not be fully revealed through any single art form.
This would be a suitable moment to return to one of the points made earlier: often one and the same phenomena drawn from life are reproduced in different art forms. Egmont is not merely a work of literature but also a musical composition. Faust, Carmen, And Quiet Flows the Don are works of literature but also inspired films, operas and plays by the same name. Demon is not only the title of one of Lermontov's poems but also that of a Rubinstein opera and a Vrubel canvas. Partisan Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya's great feat has been immortalised in poetry and drama, music and ^sculpture and on screen and stage. A host of other examples have appeared in the annals of art.
However these facts do not demonstrate that the subject for all art forms is one and the same. Different art forms can be used to depict one and the same phenomena drawn from life. Yet each will concern itself in particular with those aspects of the phenomena depicted which cannot be expressed sufficiently fully by other art forms. Of course, a link between all art forms can be established, but it is no less important to grasp the demarcation between them. The Russian composer Alexander Serov had good reason to assert that if everything in the world could be explained through words then there would be no need for music. Walter Felsenstein, the famous art director of Berlin's Komische Oper, expresses a similar idea when he says that a singer does not sing because he has a good voice and has learned to sing, but because in his dramatic context he has to sing, that is he has to convince men via his emotions that he has no other means of expressing himself at his disposal other than song.
__PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 163Jokubonis' statue Mother of Pirciupis, Marcinkevicius' poem Blood and Ashes and Morkunas' stain-glass Pirciupis are all concerned with one and the same real events: in June 1944 the Lithuanian.village of Pirciupis met the same fate that had already befallen the Czech village of Lidice and still lay in store for the French town of Oradoure---the nazis burnt down the village and wiped out all its inhabitants, the men and women and children, in the blaze. The ashes of Pirciupis, like those of Auschwitz and Buchenwald knock on men's hearts, indeed this is stated quite clearly in all three of the above-named works. Yet each focusses on different aspects of the tragedy of that Lithuanian village. In keeping with his task as a sculptor Jokubonis in this splendid work brings us a quintessential expression of tragedy and courage. He himself explains that this statue of a mother "symbolises our Homeland mourning for its fallen sons and daughters". Jokubonis has created a truly monumental work (not as far as its external attributes are concerned, nor by use of that particular genre, but simply on account of the depth of thought and feelings expressed), which conveys inconsolable pain, the nobility of the human spirit, hatred of cruelty and a warning to us never to let the tragedy of Pirciupis repeat itself.
The tragedy of this village is expressed particularly vividly in the stain-glass Pirciupis---the work of K. Morkunas. Here we are dealing with something very different from a sculpture, although both genres provide scope for symbolism, generalisation and laconic expression. The artist concentrates our attention on the ways in which men and women come into their own at tense or decisive moments in their lives, in the life of the people. Here the same idea is included, namely, the thought that mankind cannot reconcile itself to inhumanity and should not rest until all the spiritual heirs of the butchers of Pirciupis have been called to account.
In Marcinkevicius' epic poem we find the same pathos as in the works of Jokubonis and Morkunas. "Blood and ashes---this is the main problem of our century," wrote 164 the poet, "there is not and indeed should not be any man on this planet capable of plugging his ears and remaining deaf to the warning bell of Buchenwald.... This is not merely an analysis of all that is bygone and past, but also a current topic for the present day." Yet Blood and Ashes is not just a literary version of the conceptions of this subject embodied by other means in other art forms. Marcinkevic`ius' poem reflects certain aspects of life which are outside the sculptor's or glazier's scope: for example the presentation of a broad picture of the people's life, likewise the artistic investigation of the roots of that way of life, its course and effects in a dramatic period of history; the description of various aspects of human relations; the depiction of contrasting characters---men and women of boundless courage and staunchness in the struggle against the enemy, those bereft of that bold spirit who "decided to outwit time" and sought to avoid all the bloodshed, and those who simply betrayed their homeland, etc. All this was magnificently embodied in the literary work.
Thus it follows that each art form can and indeed does set itself the task of reflecting for the most part only a definite range of phenomena drawn from life or certain aspects of those phenomena. As a result each art form employs its own means of representation and expression and these provide the clue to the most important distinction between the different kinds of artistic creativity.
Yet however specific the representational and expressive means of this or that art form, there does exist a definite link between them. It can be seen not only from the fact that all representational and expressive means are subject to the operation of certain general laws, but also from the fact that certain art forms can in specific circumstances draw on the representational means of other forms of art. For the graphic artist the specific means is the line, yet on occasion he can make use of colour, a means which he borrows from the painter. This sometimes serves to enrich a drawing and broaden the scope of its descriptive potential. Choreography, the art of plastic 165 movement sometimes adopts the plastic means of the sculptor. It thus becomes clear why the artist shows close interest in the descriptive and expressive means not only of the art form in which he himself works, but others as well. Konenkov advised fellow sculptors not only to learn how the bones of the skeleton fit together but also to master the movements of the human heart to the same degree as the writer needs to master a plastic vision of the world.
The mutual enrichment of various art forms can and indeed often does prove fruitful, but there are limits to its scope. After pointing out that painting, plastic art and mime are close to each other, Goethe warned that an artist from any of these fields should be ever mindful of the fact that either of the other art forms might be a source of not merely useful, but also harmful inspiration. This was an extremely wise warning, and it is particularly relevant to artists working in the field of synthetic arts.
There is by no means always justification for adopting the language of other art forms. In recent years theatres have often incorporated elements of the cinema in their productions: captions have been flashed across the stage, "inner monologues" resounding from backstage have been used, abrupt changes of scene, cinematic rhythms, etc. Sometimes these devices have been successful, but mostly, they have not. What sounds effective in a film time and again has proved out of place in a stage production. It is by no means always expedient to intersperse the action of a play with flashed captions. They are perfectly acceptable in the cinema, but more often than not, they make it difficult for a theatre audience to concentrate and use its imagination and capacity for independent thought.
Ours is an age when the general trend is one towards synthesis. Successful combinations of different genres and art forms can frequently be found in a single work: there is little point in laying down rigid dividing lines to make the artist uphold the purity of any art form or genre. Yet the breadth implicit in the synthetic approach does not imply a blurring of the dividing lines between the 166 various art forms. With the passing of time these have shifted and fluctuated, yet the specific characteristics of the art forms have not disappeared. Just as the content so also the representational means peculiar to other art forms can and should be borrowed, provided that the specific characteristics peculiar to the art form in question are retained in sufficient degree to prevent any substitution of one art form by another.
To sum up, the existence of various art forms is necessary, since no single one can provide a sufficiently full artistic picture of the world relying on its own expressive means. Such a picture can only be provided by all art forms taken together, by art as a whole.
Each art form has certain advantages over the others in respect of the depiction of certain aspects of life from its own particular angle. No other art form can, for instance, convey the diverse beauty of Nature with such artistic impact as painting. Yet, painting, despite its emotional power, is less well equipped than music to express directly human emotions and feelings. Despite literature's wide potential it fails nevertheless to conjure up as effective a visual picture of the events it portrays, as do the graphic arts. The art of the spoken word is indeed powerful yet it lacks certain possibilities found in mime, and sometimes a human being on stage is unable to convey to an audience things which are within the grasp of puppets. If poetry had at its disposal the possibilities that music has, if choreorgaphy possessed the opportunities within the reach of a painter, or the fine arts those within the reach of the writer, then, as pointed out above, there would be no need for a range of separate, clearly distinct art forms.
Yet despite the advantages enjoyed by each particular art form, not one of them has any fundamental advantages inherent in its capacities for profound penetration of the phenomena, which, in keeping with its specific nature, it seeks to depict, and for revelation of their essence. This is why attempts to contrast one art form with another are fruitless and utterly misguided.
167In modern scientific literature such contrasts are often to be encountered. Perhaps, we are told, realist painting has outlived itself for the art of photography is developing. ..? Easel-painting may be on the way out, or perhaps will soon give way to monumental painting...? Perhaps the art of the stage is something that belongs to the past and will soon be replaced by the cinema, with which it is no longer in a position to compete? There is no end to such propositions. Such reasoning appears mistaken for many reasons. The cinema cannot replace the stage for instance, just as theatre cannot take the place of films. They are two different forms of spectacle despite a good number of characteristics which they have in common; they are art forms which can enrich each other but which have different artistic goals. Without drawing a direct analogy between the cinema and photography, it can also be said that just as the cinema cannot replace the theatre, so art photography cannot take the place of painting.
A fundamental tenet of Marxist aesthetics established that the development of art proceeds unevenly: this unevenness, Marx wrote, found expression in the fact that the development of art did not always directly correspond to the development of society, including developments in the sphere of economics. Unsurpassed art treasures created in classical times or during the age of the Renaissance are infinitely more precious than many works of modern art, although neither classical times nor the age of the Renaissance can stand any comparison with subsequent stages of social development, where the levels of economic and social relations are concerned.^^*^^ The uneven _-_-_
^^*^^ The disparity between levels of social and artistic progress is sometimes put forward as the basis for negating the very idea of artistic progress. More often than not in such cases it is argued that masterpieces retain their artistic value in its original and unique form, and that it is wrong to say that works created in later ages arp "more progressive" than those which went before; Dante's Divina Comedia, for example, is no less progressive than Balzac's Comedie Humaine. All this is true, yet if we take a wider view it emerges that
168 development of art also finds expression in the fact that at certain stages different art forms developed at different rates: in ancient Greece the most advanced art forms were architecture and sculpture, in the age of the Renaissance it was painting and in the nineteenth century, literature. This means that there is a pre-eminent art form in each historical period, which provides the most complete expression of the artistic needs of the time and exerts a decisive influence on other art forms. This is what led the outstanding Russian critic V. Stasov, when describing the painting of the Peredvizhniki school^^*^^ and the music of the Big Five^^**^^ to point out that the way ahead for musicians and painters had been paved by Russian realist literature. Lofty ideals of social commitment and service of the people and the principles of realism and portrayal of the people's way of life and aspirations championed by Russian 19th century literature made it a model for all other art forms of that period.The artistic culture of modern society embraces both traditional and relatively new art forms; with fine arts we have been familiar since primitive times, while the cinema is for all intents and purposes a product of the twentieth century. Then in the post-war period new art forms such as television and art photography have come into being. As society, culture and technology advance, so further new art forms may well appear.
the transition from one artistic trend to another---for example from romanticism to realism---led to an enormous broadening of the scope of artistic vision, opening up new strata of life in art, enriching art's representational and expressive potential, perfecting its language and, what is especially important, enhancing its social function, etc. Therefore, although artistic progress has by no means always directly corresponded to that of overall social development, in the final analysis it is shaped by the latter.---Author.
_-_-_^^*^^ Russian school of realist painting in the second half of the nineteenth century.---Ed,
^^**^^ Russian school of music in the latter half of the nineteenth century represented by Moussorgsky, Borodin, Balakirev, RimskyKorsakov, Cui.---Ed.
169Certain analogies can be drawn between various art forms. These provide the basis for classification of art. However, all classification is relative, since usually it is only certain relations and aspects characteristic of various art forms which are included, while others are lost sight of. For this reason there exists no one universally recognised classification of art.
Let us now turn our attention to certain principles for the classification of art forms, or to use another phrase, for the division of art forms into groups.
The most widespread classification of art forms is one embracing three groups: spatial or static arts, temporal or dynamic arts and spatial-temporal.
The first group covers all fine arts and architecture; the second literature and music and the third ballet, opera, cinema, circus and variety. The first group is apprehended visually, the second orally, and the third both visually and orally.
This division is based on a sound premise, namely, that art is appreciated through the eye and ear, which are aptly termed the ``intellectual'' senses. To a certain extent all man's senses are involved in his cognition of the real world, however his artistic apprehension of that world does not concern his senses of touch, smell or taste, which are of a straightforward, utilitarian character.
This division is based as well on the fact that for some of these art forms all events portrayed develop in time, while for others they are represented statically, as it were. This reservation, "as it were", is necessary here, since all art forms exist both in space and time. The crux of the matter is the symbolism (conventionality) and originality of artistic means, which are expressed in spatial or temporal forms.
This classification of art does not however include other significant aspects of art, such as the direct reproduction in art of the concrete appearance of those aspects of the real world which man perceives with his senses. There are art forms which by their very nature of necessity present us with immediate portrayal of things, as is the case with 170 painting and sculpture. There are however others, in which we find no direct reproduction of the material appearance of phenomena portrayed, as in music or sculpture. Starting out from this consideration art forms can be divided up into the representational and non-- representational or expressive arts.
The concepts representational and expressive are capacious. Strictly speaking representational art implies materialisation or objectivisation of the character of artistic thought. Naturally, in this respect, the division of art forms into representational and expressive is hardly consistent. However, when art forms are being classified in this way somewhat different meaning is lent to the concepts representational and expressive---whether the art in question portrays directly pictures of life or whether reality is reflected in it in a different, more generalised way, calling forth feelings, emotions, ideas, images of life itself, etc., by association. Of course, this classification too is only relative, for it is impossible to say of any art form that it is by nature totally representational or non-- representational: in all art forms these features of artistic reproduction are to be found interwoven, and there is not one which can be regarded as belonging without question to only one of the groups. Representational and expressive elements are as a rule to be found to some extent in all art forms. If we, nevertheless, divide art forms into representational and expressive this is because of the dominant, though not exclusive role of one of these elements in a particular sphere of artistic creativity.
Classifications of art forms can also be based on other factors: art forms can be divided into visual and nonvisual, simple and synthetic, into those that have or do not have a utilitarian function, etc. All such classifications have their limitations. They are limited not only in the sense that they only take into account certain, and not all aspects of art, but also in the sense that classification, while circumscribing the scope of art forms, fails to bring out those general laws which are inherent to an equal degree in the whole of artistic culture, in all its 171 manifestations. At the same time classification of art forms is useful and necessary, since it helps us to single out the specific features of each art form. Systems of classification also promote closer links between various different art forms, and shed light on possible methods of synthesis as art advances.
[172] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter IV __ALPHA_LVL1__ AESTHETIC CATEGORIESIt is in aesthetic categories that man's aesthetic attitudes to the real world are revealed and find their most universalised reflection. These attitudes are just as inexhaustible in their diversity as in socio-historical experience, in the course of which are shaped man's aesthetic sensitivity, aesthetic needs and faculties and aesthetic evaluation of phenomena in the objective world. Yet in this diversity of aesthetic attitudes, in the apparent tangle of coincidence, in the mass of uniquely individual manifestations of aesthetic activity, we do find certain patterns at work, which the human consciousness perceives as aesthetic categories. Lenin's well-known definition of the essence of scientific categories is vitally important in relation to the definition of aesthetic categories, as well as those from other fields: "Man is confronted with a web of natural phenomena. Instinctive man, the savage, does not distinguish himself from nature. Conscious man does distinguish, categories are stages of distinguishing, i.e., of cognising the world, focal points in the web, which assist in cognising and mastering it.''^^*^^
Focal points of man's aesthetic cognition and faculty for aesthetic evaluation are the beautiful and sublime, the tragic and comic. These of course do not represent the sum of aesthetic categories. In the past aesthetics employed, as it indeed still does, a wider range of concepts, _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 93.
173 which there is also reason to regard as categories. Yet it would seem well-advised to regard the above categories as those fundamental to aesthetics: both man's aesthetic attitudes to the world and the objects embraced by those attitudes are most fully appreciated in them, when it comes to both form and content. As for the other aesthetic categories, they can be divided into three types.The first consists of categories which, being relatively independent, should really be regarded as ramifications or specific particularised expressions of the fundamental categories. These include, for example, the heroic, the majestic, taste, humour, etc., since the heroic is a particular manifestation of the sublime and the tragic, and humour of the comic, etc.
The second consists of categories of structural character ---proportion, harmony, etc. We often use these categories as criteria for aesthetic assessment; for example we argue that certain phenomena are beautiful, because they stand out by virtue of their classical proportions. Yet it should be remembered that something deserving a negative aesthetic assessment might be extremely well-- proportioned. In concepts of proportion and harmony we are expressing important features of the aesthetic structure of phenomena, but this is still not enough to bring out their aesthetic nature, their aesthetic essence or to reach a complete aesthetic assessment of such phenomena.
The third consists of categories which enable us to determine the essence of the aesthetic in negative form. Here we are dealing with for instance the ugly and the base, which as mentioned earlier can also be distinguished by a certain expediency or proportion: for the aesthetician they are of interest and worthy of investigation as the antipodes of the beautiful and the sublime.
Systems of aesthetic categories are subject to historical modification. In the history of aesthetic theory categories have been classified in various ways. They are sometimes classified differently in one and the same age. The more widely the aesthetic principle penetrates socio-historical experience, the more scope is provided for definition of 174 man's aesthetic attitudes to reality in new categories, in different category classifications.
In the idealist aesthetics of today conceptions to the effect that there is supposedly little justification for singling out such key factors of aesthetic cognition as aesthetic categories have gained considerable ground. Even Croce in his day regarded aesthetic categories as pseudoconcepts bereft of content. Nowadays a similar stand is adopted by many prominent Western aestheticians, notably Thomas Munro. Yet rejection of aesthetic categories is tantamount to rejection of theoretical systematisation for aesthetic concepts, and for aesthetics, as indeed for any science, the systematisation of categories is an indispensable condition for fruitful development. In the process of man's artistic apprehension of reality such traditional categories as the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic and the comic remain fundamental and essential ``pillars'' of scientific aesthetic analysis. Quite a different consideration is the historical development of categories, the appearance of new categories resulting from the extension of the scope for man's aesthetic grasp of the world, or new approaches to the interpretation of traditional categories.
The theoretical elaboration of aesthetic categories has occupied its due place in Marxist literature since the middle of the fifties. This was a logical development insofar as by then socialist social relations had taken firmer root, and the need for the harmonious development of the personality had rendered the intellectual and cultural life of socialist society more profound, and enhanced the role of art in the life of the modern man. It had thus become clear that art could not be dealt with merely as another form of social consciousness; the need was felt by then for theoretical substantiation of the specific features of art, something that would have been impossible without elucidation of the nature of the aesthetic. This urgent need for theoretical elaboration of the essence of the aesthetic was dictated not only by the development of art itself, but also by the wide penetration by the artistic 175 principle of the most diverse spheres of life. Socialist reality has demonstrated particularly vividly that there are no socially significant phenomena that defy aesthetic evaluation.
Naturally the works of Marxist writers have been concerned above all with the elaboration of a materialist conception of the aesthetic. They have not been confined to mere criticism of idealist concepts or to theoretical substantiation of the objective nature of the beautiful, the sublime and other diverse manifestations of the aesthetic. The very understanding of the fact that the aesthetic is objective in Marxist literature has led to serious and fruitful discussion, impelled by the complexity of the subject under investigation, the various aspects of which are reflected and brought out in often divergent ideas. Yet despite the motley profusion of these ideas, in recent years two basic trends have emerged in efforts to explain the nature of the aesthetic. The question at issue here is whether the aesthetic amounts to the natural, physical properties peculiar to phenomena from the real world, or to the social significance of these phenomena, stemming from socio-historical experience and taking shape on the basis of that experience. The first of these viewpoints is referred to as the ``natural'' conception, and the second as the ``social'' or ``sociological'' conception.^^*^^
The rational content of the ``natural'' conception underlines and singles out the importance of natural properties that in the course of social experience acquire an aesthetic character. The scientific value of the ``sociological'' concept is that it substantiates the decisive role of sociohistorical experience with regard to man's aesthetic attitudes to the real world. Debates centred on the correlation between the natural and social factors within the aesthetic spotlight the most complex and thorny problems _-_-_
^^*^^ The author of this work numbers among the adherents of the ``social'' conception, but does not hold that the ``natural'' one is merely vulgar materialist in character, and is still less inclined to agree with those who see the second concept as an expression of subj ectivism.---Author.
176 of aesthetics. Yet it is impossible to agree with Max Dessoir who maintains that these problems constitute the aesthetician's cross.^^*^^ It is in controversies between the adherents of the various conceptions that the modern interpretation of the essence of the aesthetic and its diverse manifestations is crystallised. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. The Beautiful __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]Definition of the beautiful is one of the central problems of aesthetics. In the past aesthetics has often been called the science of the beautiful and is sometimes still referred to as such today. Yet, as already pointed out in Chapter I, aesthetics is not a theory of the beautiful, but a science concerned with man's aesthetic grasp of the real world, and above all with the laws of the development of art and a theory of artistic creativity. However, it is no coincidence that during the history of aesthetic theory the idea did take root that aesthetics was not concerned with anything other than the beautiful. The beautiful is an aesthetic category of fundamental importance and no aesthetic phenomenon can be explained if this category is ignored. If the essence of the beautiful is not singled out and defined, neither the universal laws of art nor the nature of artistic creativity can be fully understood.
__NOTE__ 123123123 begin _-_-_^^*^^ See: Max Dessoir, Asthetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft in den Grundziigeri Dargestellt, Stuttgart, 1956, S. 108.
__PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12-796 177 __NOTE__ 123123123 end __ALPHA_LVL3__ A. The Essence of the BeautifulTo define the essence of the beautiful is a complex task. In life and art we are confronted with a wide diversity of manifestations of the beautiful bearing no resemblance to each other at all. It is difficult, for instance, to establish the similarities between man's spiritual beauty and the beauty of a pose that gladdens the eye, between beautiful shapes of a crystal or the leaf of a tree and an artistic masterpiece. These phenomena are drawn from quite different spheres of reality and it is actually most difficult, indeed impossible to pick out any formal characteristics __NOTE__ Stuff moved FROM HERE to above to avoid footnote problem (3 sections on one page): 123123123 123123123 begin 123123123 end which are common to them all and which would provide criteria for defining them as beautiful.
It is relatively simple to pick out manifestations of beauty in the real world around us, to name examples and events which are a source of aesthetic delight to us. Yet how difficult it is to answer the question why they are beautiful, what precisely makes them beautiful and what the nature of that beauty is. For this reason Plato, who formulated the first philosophical doctrine of the beautiful in the history of aesthetic thought, was quite correct in insisting that a distinction be drawn between two questions: that we ask first what is beautiful, and then ask wherein lies the beautiful, what is its essence?
Materialist and idealist aesthetics adopt diametrically opposite stands with regard to the definition of the essence of beauty. In idealist aesthetics the beautiful is something that pertains only to man's spiritual life, that is rooted in the depths of man's consciousness and lacks any objective foundation. Materialist aesthetics on the other hand attributes tremendous importance to the subjective element in evaluation of the beautiful; it takes into account and examines fluctuating views of the beautiful, demonstrates their historical origin, yet starts out from the principle that the beautiful is something objective, i.e., accepts that the beautiful is independent of the human consciousness. Despite the great variety of interpretations for the beautiful put forward at different stages in the history of aesthetic thought, in the final analysis these can be divided up into two basic groups---one materialist, the other idealist.
One of the most important of the ancient teachings concerned with the beautiful was that formulated by the great thinker of classical times Aristotle. It was to be widely accepted and subsequently elaborated upon in the history of aesthetic theories, both those with a materialist foundatipn and also those with an idealist one. Nor has it lost its relevance in the present day. The strong attraction of Aristotle's conception lies first and foremost in its endeavour to determine the objective features of the beautiful.
178Aristotle examined the essence of the beautiful in the specific, concretely sensual properties of a phenomenon, of life itself. According to Aristotle and his followers, harmony, proportion, and adherence to certain laws were fundamental to the beautiful.
``.. .Beauty is a matter of size and order, and therefore impossible either (1) in a very minute creature, since our perception becomes indistinct as it approaches instantaneity; or (2) in a creature of vast size---one, say, 1,000 miles long---as in that case, instead of the object being seen all at once, the unity and wholeness of it is lost to the beholder.''^^*^^
Aristotle's conception places particular importance on the concept of proportion as a criterion of the aesthetic quality of a phenomenon. It should not be too great or too small, which after all is what is meant by proportion. This led Aristotle to write that the principal manifestations of the beautiful are to be found in order, proportionality and precision.
Yet it would be wrong to see in this analysis a definition of the essence of beauty from a purely structural angle and reproach its author with confining himself to formal criteria. These reproaches could indeed be directed at certain of Aristotle's followers, but not at the philosopher himself.
The crux of the matter is that in Aristotle's eyes man is the criterion, the measure of the beautiful---man, his measure of things, his possibilities and the nature of his perception of the real world. Here there emerges an organic link between Aristotle's aesthetics and the development of art in classical society. It was quite natural that the great democratic and essentially human art of ancient Greece, the volume and proportions of which were scaled to man should engender the idea of man as the measure of the beautiful.
The theory of the beautiful, according to which beauty consists in the nature of the material world and is _-_-_
^^*^^ Aristotle, On. the Art of Poetry, Oxford, 1920, p. 40. 12* 179
179 expressed in objective properties peculiar to concrete objects such as proportion, harmony, symmetry, etc., was essentially a materialist one.This concept proved attractive not only for aestheticians but also for artists. It seemed to them that it made possible the establishment of objective criteria for the beautiful, and the formulation of laws and set rules for beauty, the knowledge of which might provide a guideline in artistic creativity.
It is thus no coincidence that the conceptions of the beautiful which evolved from Aristotle's aesthetics gained wide recognition in the age of the Renaissance, in the aesthetic notions of the classicists and even those of the eighteenth-century Enlighteners. These conceptions which presented harmony and proportion as the essence of beauty differ, for their authors were attempting to establish the exact proportions and exact measure in which the beautiful might come into its own. The well-known English artist and aesthetician of the eighteenth century William Hogarth in his treatise The Analysis of Beauty even lighted upon a special "line of beauty" which according to him served to express the essence of the beautiful. It was a flowing sinusoidal line, the curves of which were elegant and whose overall contour was pleasing to the eye; such a line, he maintained, characterises the human body, the leaf of a tree and the form of objects fashioned by man, etc.
In the numerous aesthetic theories formulated in the age of the Renaissance and the modern age the laws of rhythm and symmetry, a harmonious relationship between parts and the whole, unity in diversity have been regarded as laws of the beautiful ordained by Nature herself. Artistic canons and rules for artistic creativity were deduced and elaborated from these theories.
Theories regarding the beautiful as harmony, measure and proportion took into account the objective properties and phenomena of the real world. This indeed was the secret of their strength and it was precisely this that explains their influence on men's practical activity, in 180 particular, artistic creativity. On the other hand, their weakness lay in the fact that they regarded properties of external form as constituting the essence of the beautiful.
Idealist aestheticians rejected the contention that beauty could be reduced to mathematical proportions, or expressed in terms of a corresponding formula. They, in their turn, started out from the principle that beauty cannot be measured or expressed in terms of reason, since its essence lies in its expressiveness: they insisted that however much Renaissance sculptors might have measured classical statues in efforts to formulate a canon for the beautiful human face, this was never achieved for the beauty of the human face lies not in any particular proportions or purely external features of its structure but in its expressiveness, exaltation, the reflection of man's inner world in the external form.
This principle concerning the link between beauty and spiritual essence provides the basis for all idealist aesthetic writing concerning the essence of the beautiful. The idealists insist that it is not only in man that exaltation is found, but any phenomenon is only beautiful if it expresses and bears within itself a spiritual element, if manifestations of emotions and feeling, thoughts and ideas are to be found in their outer material form, in their appearance, as directly perceived by man. Further, if the form or whole appearance of an object fail to express any spiritual content, if it does not embody any idea, then there can be no question of beauty. This principle also lies at the basis of recent axiological and semantic conceptions in modern idealist aesthetics. The axiological conception of beauty presents it as a ``value'' and art as the expression of that ``value''. The very idea of ``value'' here is deduced from man's spiritual experience and is not correlated with the nature of socio-historical experience and the needs inherent in the latter. The semantic conception of beauty presents it as a property, function or impact of the work of art interpreted as a sign or symbol. The sign or symbol itself is presented as something which, in the final analysis, is derived from man's spiritual life.
181The various aesthetic systems do not provide identical answers to the following questions: wherein lies the spiritual essence constituting the beautiful, and how does it manifest itself in outward material forms, in the tangible shell. The objective and subjective aestheticians of the idealist school provide different answers to this question although these differences are not ones of principle.
The objective idealists (Plato, Schelling and Hegel) based their aesthetic theories as a whole and their view of the beautiful in particular on the philosophical view of the world as the material hypostasis of the spiritual essence objectively existing outside mankind in the form of an Absolute Idea, Vernunft (reason), or God. The beautiful they regarded as something ideal, embodied in external material forms and they only regarded as beautiful those objects in which the genetic significance, essence and features were most fully manifested, in other words those objects, in which the underlying concept or ``idea'' found the fullest expression.
Aesthetics of the objective idealist variety puts forward the doctrine of the beautiful as perfection in each genus. A beautiful rose would be a rose unsurpassed of its kind, that which embodied most fully the characteristics and essential features of the Rose as such. A human being would be beautiful provided he adequately embodied the qualities of human kind, Man's characteristic features and properties.
These principles of objective idealist aesthetics do incorporate a definite positive element; the objective idealists' view of perfection as an essential feature of the beautiful lent their conception a rational core. Yet since they regarded perfection itself as no more than an ideal manifestation of the generic essence of phenomena, as merely derived from spiritual principles underlying the universe, this view of perfection had mystical implications far removed from the real essence of the beautiful.
Subjective idealists also start out from an acknowledgement of the spiritual nature of the beautiful. Yet, unlike 182 the objective idealists, they hold that the spiritual principle is introduced to phenomena of the real world not by the Welt Geist or God, but by man's own consciousness.
Quite in keeping with the philosophy of subjective idealism this school of aesthetics asserts that a phenomenon is rendered beautiful by virtue of the fact that man in his mind transfers to real phenomena feelings, emotions and properties from his own inner world. By means of imagination he animates the phenomena of Nature and the real world around him. This projection of human consciousness onto the external world is reflected, according to these aestheticians, in language, and in those analogies drawn between phenomena of Nature and human characteristics which are embodied in man's language. We refer to the sun as "coming up" and "going down", to the weather as ``gloomy'', to streams as ``chattering'', etc., attributing, as we do so, human characteristics to phenomena of Nature. From the standpoint of aestheticians of the subjective-idealist school this is the universal pattern or law that underlies and gives rise to beauty. When we transpose joyful, serene emotions to phenomena of the real world, that world is rendered beautiful. As a result subjective idealists regard the beautiful as a strictly subjective category; beauty, in their view, is merely a particular condition of the human mind. The most forthright expression of these views is to be found in Theodor Lipps' aesthetic theory, according to which the beautiful is the result of the artist's impregnating the phenomena of the external world with his own feelings.
While pointing out the fundamental unacceptability of those conceptions of the beautiful advocated by idealist aesthetics, at the same time it is well to bear in mind that despite the misguided general methodological basis of those conceptions, the objective content of the works of art studied by it led to a correct solution for certain problems, in particular enabled it to formulate a number of positive propositions regarding the nature of the beautiful.
183Among these pride of place should be accorded to the recognition by proponents of objective-idealist aesthetics that the beautiful possesses meaning and content. These aestheticians see beauty to lie not in the form of a phenomenon, but above all in the meaning or inner essence of a phenomenon; beauty is seen not as a strictly formal category, but one vested with content as well. Also worthy of note is the attempt made by this school of aestheticians to link the beauty found in life around us with man's attitude to the phenomena of that life. Yet these rational elements found in idealist conceptions of the beautiful are rendered unnecessarily mystical and elaborated on a false philosophical foundation.
The subjectivism of idealist aesthetics is completely alien to the materialist conception of the beautiful. Among the theories of the beautiful which have taken shape since the very dawn of aesthetics, that which comes nearest to our interpretation of the beautiful is the conception elaborated by the Russian revolutionary-democrats, in particular Chernyshevsky. Almost half his famous treatise The Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality is devoted to the theory of the beautiful and his critique of idealist theories of the beautiful. He proffered a definition of the beautiful which basically retains its relevance for the present age.
Chernyshevsky taught that the beautiful is life as it ought to be according to our understanding of it. " Beautiful is that being in which we see life as it should be according to our conceptions; beautiful is the object which expresses life, or reminds us of life.''^^*^^ This proposition points first and foremost to the objective existence of the beautiful. Beauty exists in life itself. The beautiful is life, those phenomena in which we see manifestations of life in all its fullness, in which life has developed naturally, normally, in those perfect forms that are intrinsic to life.
``The beautiful is life"---this definition is an expression _-_-_
^^*^^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Selected Philosophical Essays, Moscow, 1953, p. 287 (in Russian).
184 of the core of materialist aesthetics, yet it does not reveal in full measure the essence of beauty. After underlining in his famous definition of beauty the materialist idea of the objective nature of the beautiful, Chernyshevsky goes on to supplement this definition with a no less important subjective consideration. According to his theory not all life is beautiful or life as such, but life as it ought to be according to our understanding of it. Chernyshevsky upheld the understanding of the beautiful as life which corresponds to the human ideal. After overcoming elements of anthropologism, he arrived at the apt conclusion that the aesthetic ideal is shaped by historical and class factors. He rightly started out from the point that the aesthetic ideal is always of a socio-historical character, is always a class ideal, in which are reflected the real needs of social development.In Chernyshevsky's theory of the beautiful objective and subjective factors are blended together as one. This unity shows the objective existence of the beautiful and the socio-historical factors determining man's perception of that beauty. The beautiful is a category implying evaluation.
In Nature all that is unhealthy, dead or which contradicts man's understanding of life destroys beauty and is regarded as ugly. Conversely, everything which corresponds to our conception of life is beautiful.
In the social sphere we regard as beautiful those phenomena in which we see reflections of our ideas and concepts. In the life of Soviet society the beautiful is always thought of as the real embodiment of the most advanced ideas of the age, of mankind's age-old dream of a harmonious and perfect ordering of the life of society.
In art the beauty of a work, to use Chernyshevsky's words, is determined not always by an artist's formal craft, but first of all by the veracity with which the real world is reproduced, interpreted and assessed. Life as it ought to be according to our conception of it, is here once again a key consideration when we evaluate the beauty and artistic perfection of a work.
185The sphere of the beautiful embraces the most diverse aspects of the objective world and men's activity. Man by his very nature is an artist who aspires to bring beauty into the whole of his life. Man's endeavour to attain beauty is inherent and lasting, and while not everything created by man is beautiful and certain of his creations constitute ugliness, these serve negatively to express life's imperfection and arouse a longing for beauty.
Marx, when expounding this phenomenon drew attention to the fact that man in his labour is fundamentally different from animals engaged in their various tasks reminiscent of work. The animal always creates only to meet the needs of his own species, in accordance with its demands. Indeed a loon would go on sitting on its egg even if that was replaced with a stone. Regardless of the futility of this activity the loon will carry it out, for its activity is geared not so much to the object of the action, as to providing a fulfilment of instinct, to carrying out a ``programme'' with which it has been equipped by Nature itself and by the experience of past generations. Man, unlike animals always adapts his activity not only to correspond to his own needs but also in accordance with the nature of the object he is working on. He is able to approach any object with an inborn as it were scale of values, to come to terms with its objective potential and properties. This is why, to use Marx's expression, man creates in accordance with the laws of beauty. On this subject he wrote that the animal shapes matter only in accordance with the measure and need of the species to which it belongs, whereas man is able to produce according to the measures of any species and is everywhere able to apply to an object the appropriate measure; by virtue of this man forms matter by the laws of beauty as well.
The more complex and significant a phenomenon of life the more deeply it is penetrated by beauty. The higher man raises himself up in his inspired creative efforts, the greater the role played in his activity by the laws of 186 beauty. The more perfect the result of his work, the more beautiful it will be.
Men's ideas of the beautiful are shaped by the whole course of social life, by the nature of their way of life, historical conditions, the class structure of society, national traditions, etc.
The historical nature of the category of the beautiful makes itself felt most clearly of all perhaps in art. Experts in the arts of primitive people have established a clear similarity between the cave drawings of various primitive people and have reached the well-founded conclusion that similar principles of beauty grew up among peoples separated by time and distance but sharing similar conditions of life. The Soviet scientist D. Olderogge in his preface to Victor Ellenberger's The Tragic End of the Bushmen writes: "The bushmen's drawings often and with good reason call to mind the cave drawings of Eastern Spain in view of their overall character, style and manner of execution and their content. These drawings date from the mesolithic period and therefore are separated in time from the bushmen's drawings by thousands of years. The resemblance between these two groups of cave drawings is striking and can only be accounted for by the fact they were executed by peoples living in identical, or at least similar conditions, who had reached more or less the same cultural level.''
For the ancient Greeks the world was one of harmony and therefore was beautiful. Harmony and beauty for the Greek aestheticians were inseparable. Yet even in the art of the ancient Greeks new principles of beauty can be seen to emerge: their architecture comes to incorporate elements of disharmony into the overall harmony, and the rhythm reveals certain arhythmic touches.
In the Middle Ages the category of the sublime assumed prime importance, while the beautiful was only of secondary importance and was stripped of all concrete sensual content. The mediaeval interpretation of the essence of the beautiful is reflected, for example, in attire of monks that concealed the contours of the human body. 187 This rejection of the beauty of the human body, of delight in the flowering of life and acknowledgement of only the divine and the celestial, outside human existence, as beautiful typify the prevailing view of the beautiful and are reflected in the ascetic trend of the art of the period.
The great humanists of the age of the Renaissance rebelled against the theological understanding of beauty, against this debasement of man. "I am a man and count nothing human indifferent to me," these fine words so beloved of Marx serve to express the aesthetic ideal of the age of the Renaissance. Affirmation of real earthly beauty is typical of Renaissance aesthetics, and in the art of that age it is man with all the wealth of his spiritual qualities and physical perfection who emerges as the supreme ideal criterion of the beautiful.
Aesthetics in the age of Classicism was distinguished by a rational, normative idea of the beautiful. Only that which corresponded to the rationally established norm was regarded as beautiful. Life in its natural form in particular was regarded as the sphere of the ugly; only an artificially created Nature, "clipped and pruned", typical of the gardens of stately homes could rank as beautiful.
The Romantics' idea of beauty also differed from that held in the age of the Renaissance, but in a different way: for them what was above all important was the spiritual, ideal aspect of beauty. For the revolutionary romantics however the essence of the beautiful was not divine, but human, of this world.
In realist art the sphere of the beautiful was expanded considerably. It ceased being confined to any rigid framework or to involve any contrasting of the sublime and the base. This led to a far wider understanding of the world's aesthetic riches, and realist art rejected once and for all the aristocratic fads and squeamishness in selection of subject matter that had been the hallmark of the past. It examined all the diverse relationships and associations of life. Deliberately focussing attention on the real world, realist artists upheld an ideal of the beautiful which was 188 a full-blooded expression of life captured in its constant movement and fluctuation.
Socialist realism introduces to artistic creativity noble principles for the furtherance of social progress, the principles of communist commitment. The scientifically substantiated ideas of communism enrich our ideas of the beautiful making the future the criterion of beauty in the present.
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics provides a scientific analysis of beauty as an aesthetic value. In contrast to subjective idealist aesthetics, which rejects the objective character of aesthetic values, and to objective idealist theories, in which the objective character of aesthetic values is confined to spiritual reality, Marxist-Leninist aesthetics substantiates the objective character of beauty as a value, starting out from the fact that it is determined by sociohistorical experience. The conditions of man's natural, geographical environment also exert a certain influence on his conception of beauty; for example on architectural styles which have to be adapted to natural conditions and the properties of the terrain and on metaphors which often compare man's thought to natural phenomena, thus aestheticising them.
In order that men might recognise beauty, take delight in it and create it, their aesthetic sense and potential need to be fostered. Marx wrote that it was only thanks to socio-historical experience that there emerged the musical ear, the eye perceiving the beauty of form or, in short, such senses as are capable of human enjoyment. As a result man's eye is capable of apprehending not only the colour or shape of an object but also the beauty of geometrical forms, proportion, symmetry, colour combinations and gradations, the texture and plastic properties of materials, and the human ear of apprehending the harmony and rhythm of sound.
Selfishness is alien to the aesthetic sense, just as calculating, mercantile considerations. This, however, does not mean that aesthetic delight and admiration of the beautiful constitute some kind of detached contemplation, that 189 has no practical implications or offshoots. In this respect the Marxist-Leninist approach to aesthetics differs fundamentally from the idealist one, particularly as represented in the writings of Kant. In his Critique of Judgement Kant maintained that aesthetic judgement is disinterested and that man's aesthetic sense is incompatible with any practical useful ends. Kant saw man's aesthetic sense as "disinterested expediency" and held that as soon as any idea of usefulness is attributed to the aesthetic sense then it starts to disintegrate.^^*^^
Man's aesthetic sense is not of course aimed directly at the attainment of certain crudely utilitarian ends, and when Hegel in his criticism of materialists for pointing out connections between the beautiful and the useful wrote, among other things, that when contemplating a still-life it is not possible to use the fruits depicted or eat them---which of course cannot be denied---his attitude on this subject was a mistaken one, since the connection between the beautiful and the useful is not to be found at such a mundane level.
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics starts out from the fact that the beautiful and the useful are not incompatible, the beauty of a phenomenon often merges and develops on the basis of its practical significance. From Vitruvius onwards the theory and practice of architecture have started out from the principle that beauty, usefulness and the construction of a building are inseparable. Yet even when no such direct link can be established between the _-_-_
^^*^^ The content of Kant's aesthetic theory is of far broader scope and far richer than the single principle of the disinterested nature of aesthetic judgement cited here. The German philosopher's undoubted achievement lies in the fact that he endeavoured to define the specific sphere of the beautiful and art, and to draw a dividing line between art and other related spheres. In his theory of art Kant did not reject the link between the aesthetic and the moral and attempted to a certain extent to go beyond the confipes of formalist conceptions. However, none of this alters the idealist and formalist character of Kant's conception of aesthetic judgement, or the well-known fact that precisely this conception was later to provide the theoretical basis of formalism.----Author;.
190 beautiful and the useful, as is the case with architecture, in applied art, design, in men's work activity, beauty still of necessity retains its practical significance in men's lives. This finds expression above all in the fact that by uniting the feelings, will and thoughts of people the beautiful exerts a uniquely powerful influence on the formation of social emotions and encourages men to aspire to a social ideal. It stimulates man's vital strength, enhances his will to live, his physical and mental energy, his urge to play an active part in life around him and enriches his emotions. Marxist aesthetics resolutely rejects the idea of so-called "pure beauty" and an aesthetic sense that is supposedly free of any link with political goals and moral principles. Aesthetics cannot be separated from political issues any more than the aesthetic feeling can be from political, philosophical and ethical ideas. The beautiful cannot be separated from the ethical, nor beauty from goodness. Of course, the sphere of the beautiful is wider than that of goodness, since the category of the beautiful is relevant in connection with all phenomena of the natural world, to which moral criteria are of course not applicable. Yet in social life and in art, aesthetic and ethical considerations are inextricably interwoven.Aesthetics of the modernist variety contrasts aesthetic and ethical considerations as opposites. From that point of view immoral phenomena, both people and actions, can be beautiful and constitute aesthetic value. By putting forward the idea that the task of art is to sow seeds of beauty, not goodness, modernist aesthetics in practice proves to be little more than an apologia for immorality in art. In its turn the rejection of the ethical renders the aesthetic-null and void, as is convincingly borne out by decadent art leading to a destruction of the artistic fabric of works of art. Art of that kind produces an anti-- aesthetic impression.
The socialist revolution was to play a great historical role in the aesthetic advancement of mankind. After freeing the popular masses from the grip of purely utilitarian needs, it exerted a decisive influence on the 191 awakening and all-round development of the aesthetic sensitivity inherent in man, on the development of his potential and need for delight in beauty. The people's aspiration towards freedom and beauty is crucial to the proletarian revolution, as Gorky so rightly emphasised. Under socialism the beautiful permeates all spheres of social life and the people's day-to-day activity. Under socialisni the scope for the operation of the laws of beauty becomes truly limitless.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ B. The Beautiful in ArtArt is a particular and specific sphere of the beautiful. In life we find beautiful phenomena and ugly ones. In art everything is beautiful. Art and the ugly are incompatible. This of course does not mean that art only reproduces beautiful phenomena of the real world. In art we find reflected beautiful and ugly phenomena, tragic and comic, sublime and base---the whole infinite diversity of life. Images in art are always beautiful, while prototypes on the other hand may give rise to repulsion.
The beautiful characters, that people Shakespeare's plays include not only Juliet and Ophelia, but also Shylock and Lady Macbeth. Not only Raphael's Sistine Madonna is a beautiful work of art, but also Rembrandt's portraits of old men and women disfigured by life and sometimes hideous. Beauty created through art is represented not only by Venus of Milo but also by the gargoyles of Notre Dame, Hugo's lyrical and tender Esmeralda and Quasimodo; the "little Feller" who moves us and touches our hearts in Chaplin's films and then again his inhumane and infinitely loathsome dictator, Kramskoi's Portrait of an Unknown Girl and his portrait of the Russian reactionary journalist and publisher Suvorin, which the distinguished art critic Stasov regarded as a masterpiece adding that the work was beautiful precisely because it enabled men to see as if on the palm of their hand all Suvorin's vileness and base cunning.
The beautiful in art manifests itself in two different ways. Obviously the beautiful in art is found in the 192 reproduction in art of what is beautiful in life. In this sense the source of the beautiful in art lies in the beauty of the real world. Yet beauty in art is not a pale copy of beauty in life. Art is conception of the beauty in the real world, it singles out and underlines features of the beautiful in the phenomena depicted, intensifying their impact on man, and moulding in him the capacity to recognise and reach a deeper understanding of the beauty of life itself, and the need to take delight in beauty. In his Asthetik Hegel emphasised that insofar as the spirit and its works stand higher than Nature and its phenomena, so the beautiful in art stands higher than natural beauty.^^*^^ This of course is not an acceptable point of view. Equally mistaken is the conclusion, that the beauty of reality itself stands higher than that created by art. It would be wrong to even ask the question whether or not the beauty of Raphael's Madonna is inferior to that of a real woman, and whether the aesthetic pleasure afforded us by seascapes is inferior to that we derive from actually watching the play of the sea. The beauty of the real world and beauty in art are quite separate and specific. The beauty of the real world does not make up for the beauty of art, just as beauty in art cannot substitute for the beautiful in real life. Yet through the beautiful in art we affirm beauty in real life, and the reflection of the beautiful in life through art is remarkable in that it lends that beauty idea-bearing and aesthetic significance.
In his Revolt of the Angels Anatole France tells how in the sombre depths of the Middle Ages, when it seemed that joy and beauty would never be seen on earth under the walls of Rome workers came across a marble sarcophagus, on the sides of which were carved the delights of Cupid and the triumph of Bacchus. When the sarcophagus was opened a beautiful, dazzlingly fresh-looking young girl was beheld who seemed almost to be smiling in her sleep. The people gazed dumbfounded upon her and waited impatiently to see whether a divine soul might _-_-_
^^*^^ See: Hegel, Asthetik, Bd. I, 1965, S. 13.
__PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---796 193 not awaken within the beautiful body. After many years of barbarity, that beauty from bygone times was beheld but for a moment, yet that proved enough to leave a lasting impression in the hearts of all those who beheld it filling them with a passionate desire for love and knowledge. Marx referred ecstatically to Lucretius as a fresh, bold, poetic ruler of the world. Surely, beautiful works of art are also poetic rulers of the world as well?Up till now we have discussed the beautiful in art mainly as the artistic reflection of what is beautiful in life. Yet the beautiful in art manifests itself in another way as well---through beauty inherent in art itself. In art man's aesthetic grasp of reality is found in its most perfect forms. Art always affords aesthetic pleasure and arouses within man a sense of the beautiful thanks to the high degree of artistic skill which freely shows the life within the phenomena depicted, and comes to terms with the given material according to the laws of harmony between content and form.
Ideological and aesthetic interpretation, artistic perfection, harmony, a free flow of life in art produce an impact, move, excite similar emotions towards those alive within the work of art. It is through all this that art gives man the awareness of his own artistic potential and in this lies its great strength.
Art is beautiful; it brings out what is beautiful in life; furthermore it gives beautiful expression to any phenomena of the real world including those that are far from beautiful, expressing them artistically. Art not only reflects, but also creates beauty.
However in the history of aesthetic thought, ideas have held sway whose adherents have considered that the beauty of art depends upon its depicting nothing but beautiful phenomena of the real world, ideas which are blatantly contradicted by actual works of art themselves. As it depicts what is beautiful in life art, they would have us believe, itself becomes beautiful.
These ideas came into their own in particular in the norm-ridden aesthetics of Classicism. It is revealing to 194 note that the aesthetic theory of the Classical school--- based on the so-called theory of imitation---introduced a substantial modification to that theory. The old formula ---art is imitation of Nature---was altered to become an immutable norm: art is the imitation of beautiful Nature.
This principle, elevated to the status of a law, led artists of the Classical school to confine their interests to the life of the court and aristocracy and to rule out such subjects as the common people and everyday aspects of life, etc.
According to the aesthetic norms of Classicism art ceases to be art as soon as it stops depicting only beauty. Beauty of life in art and the beauty of art itself thus became one and the same thing.
This limited understanding of the dependence of beauty in art on the beauty of life itself was subjected to criticism as early as the age of the Enlightenment by Lessing, and in Russia, in particular detail, by the critics, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. They demonstrated that the beauty of art is not directly bound up with the actual subject being depicted in a work. Depicting something beautiful and depicting something beautifully are by no means synonymous. Plekhanov pointed out that to paint an old man with a beard beautifully does not mean painting a beautiful old man with a beard. Painting a beautiful face involves reproducing a beautiful phenomenon of the real world, while painting a face beautifully means creating a beautiful work of art.
Any subject be it ugly or beautiful can be depicted beautifully. The opposite is also true: any subject can be distorted, or disfigured in a work, as is borne out most eloquently by the monstrosities of decadent art. In such cases depiction of the beautiful is rendered non-artistic, it turns its back on art.
Yet this is when the question arises: if art can depict beautifully not just beautiful phenomena from the real world but ugly ones as well, and, on the other hand, there can exist such things as anti-artistic works of art which depict in an ugly light even the most beautiful __PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 phenomena of life---then how can we define the beauty of art itself and what does that beauty depend on?
A work of art is beautiful on the strength of aptly selected combination of many factors, yet the one which plays the decisive role among them is the artist's aesthetic ideal expressed in his work. While art does not by any means have to depict nothing but what is beautiful it must however without fail be the expression of the artist's ideas and concepts of the beautiful, the embodiment and realisation of his aesthetic ideal.
Aesthetic ideals are asserted in art in various forms. They can be expressed in the figures of positive heroes and thus reveal and point out beauty in its immediate manifestations, bringing out the beauty to be found in real life itself.
The artists of the socialist countries uphold their artistic ideal above all in the figures of positive heroes; they create art which infects their contemporaries with delight in the beauty of the life around them. However their aesthetic ideal is expressed not only in direct form, not only in immediate portrayal of such phenomena as are in keeping with that ideal. Even when negative aspects of the real world and the lives of ugly characters are expressed in artistic images, an artist's aesthetic ideal still makes itself felt in his assessment of these phenomena.
Certain works of literature and art created by artists in socialist countries meet with a negative reception on the part of the public. In such cases bourgeois critics start ``explaining'' this phenomenon with reference to the intolerant attitude, supposedly ubiquitous in the socialist society, towards the portrayal of life in its more sordid aspects. But this, of course, is not the point. As a rule, the finest examples of socialist art treat problem situations. In fact what is badly received by the public is the incorrect interpretation of shortcomings, the false assessment of the role they play, deviations from the truth of life, and false generalisations. At the same time, as was pointed out in a different connection earlier, the objects portrayed in works of art is a factor not without 196 importance in aesthetic assessment. An artist's attitude to life is reflected in his very choice of subject, and frequently his aesthetic ideal is expressed more fully and more freely through portrayal of the beautiful in the life of socialist society. Yet, of course, the main aim of the artist is not simply to portray a beautiful or ugly phenomenon, but to assess any phenomenon from the point of view of the aesthetic ideal, in order to affirm that ideal. Then of course this assessment depends upon the artist's ideological and aesthetic standpoint.
When art rejects progressive ideals, it loses its most important quality---beauty. At the same time it is also distorting the truth of life. More often than not precisely this rejection of life's truth eliminates beauty. However another path is also open: the elimination of beauty leads to a retreat from truth, which is borne out, among other thinsrs, by the work of today's modernists.
When comparing socialist art to the formalists' distortion of truth and elimination of beauty the German sculptor Fritz Cremer remarked with good reason: "Beauty in art, in socialist art at least, is something that cannot be separated from truth. So-called fine art is not alwavs truthful, but truthful art is always beautiful.''
Shakespeare's immortal words on this subject are also profoundly significant:
O! how much more doth beauty beauteous seem
By that sweet ornament which truth doth give!^^*^^
As noted earlier the presence in a work of art of the artist's aesthetic ideal is the most important, but not the only factor, determining the beauty of that work. The beauty of a work of art, as indeed of any phenomenon in the real world created by man is born of perfection and the virtuosity of the true master. This virtuosity of the true master, which is an expression of talent and a vivid manifestation of man's creative powers, is reflected in _-_-_
^^*^^ The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, London, 1881, p. 139 (Sonnet 65).
197 art above all by the unity of content and form, in the artist's ability to create forms and find expressive means which appear to him as the only possible ones for particular subjects and which produce a strong and vivid impact upon his audience.In aesthetic writings the beauty of art is sometimes defined as the unity of idea and image, the unity of content and form. This definition is not a false one, however it is not precise or complete. Correspondence between form and content is not sufficient to ensure that a work be without fail beautiful. Unity of form and content can be found in a work with poor content that gives rise to poor form. Thus it appears the beauty of art lies not in the unity of content and form as such, but in the content of art which from the standpoint of a beautiful idea provides a truthful and profound reflection of reality and embodies it in perfect artistic form that corresponds to the content.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. The Tragic and the Comic __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The place and importance of the tragic and the comic in aesthetics is determined by the fact that these categories serve to express aesthetic evaluation of essential phenomena of the real world, and also by the fact that these two categories together with the beautiful number among the fundamental concerns of art.
The sphere of the tragic and the comic in the objective world is narrower than that of the beautiful. The tragic and the comic only exist in the life of society, they are not to be found in Nature. Just as the concepts of good and evil are not applicable to Nature, neither does it know tragic tears or the laughter of comedy. Phenomena of life are coloured in tragic or comic hues depending upon the social content implicit within them.
This most important feature of the tragic and the comic leads certain writers to conclude that the tragic and the comic are not aesthetic but ethical categories. There is no doubt about the fact that inherent within the tragic and 198 the comic is such content as demands moral assessment. In tragic and comic artistic phenomena the unity of aesthetic and ethical factors comes into the open particularly forcefully. Yet tragic and comic events, characters and conflicts can be elucidated and embodied most fully and vividly of all in art: not in moral concepts, but in works of art, in the direct, concrete presentation of the life of individual characters and events will the essence of the tragic and comic be brought out with particular clarity.
The tragic and the comic should not be equated with the genres of tragedy and comedy, which initially took shape above all in the field of drama and the theatre, although it is there that they best come into their own. The meaning of the tragic and the comic is broader than that: as pointed out earlier they constitute categories relevant to the aesthetic evaluation of tragic and comic phenomena of life, criteria and principles for the artistic embodiment of those phenomena. Tragic conflicts and comedy situation, tragic and comic characters are to be found in almost all art forms and genres.
The novel as a genre differs essentially from the tragedy, yet in Hugo's Quatre-vingt-treize and in Sholokhov's And Quiet Flows the Don tragic conflicts, clashes and characters moulded by the great age of revolutionary change possess tremendous force. On the other hand Tvardovsky's great creation Vassili Tyorkin sparkles with rich comedy although according to its genre it is a long poem, not a comedy. The most diverse genres in literature, the cinema, music and fine arts depict tragic and comic phenomena of life, using a broad range of tragic and comic artistic means.
The tragic and the comic are at first glance sharply contrasted mutually exclusive categories. Any one, whether or not he has soecial knowledge of aesthetics, connects grief and suffering with the idea of the tragic, and merriment and laughter with the idea of the comic. In art the tragic is linked with man's most noble sentiments and imbued with philosophical ideas, while the comic on 199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1977/FMA297/20100309/297.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2010.03.10) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ the other hand is concerned with the ``everyday'', ordinary-life situations, with the ``lighter'' genres. Thus it might well seem that the tragic and the comic are out-- andout opposites, completely incompatible the one with the other. Yet in life the tragic and the comic, grief and joy, laughter and suffering, the ``noble'' and the ``base'' are often found side by side, interwoven with each other. The tragic and the comic sometimes overlap so closely---both in life and art---that it can be difficult to say whether a tragic or comic note predominates in a particular situation or work. Thus, however sharply the tragic and the comic may seem to be contrasted, as aesthetic phenomena they are interconnected since both can convey universally significant social content.
Life is a complex phenomenon, and the tragic in certain circumstances can turn out comic and vice versa. In real life the tragic and the comic rarely exist in pure form. More often than not they complement each other as it were and are represented as interconnected; a deeply tragic phenomenon includes a comic facet, and often a trace of the tragic is to be observed in the comic. The contrast between the two found in such cases sometimes intensifies and brings out still more clearly the various aspects of both tragedy and comedy. This interweaving of the tragic and the comic is to be found both in highly dramatic situations and in portrayals of ordinary everyday life. Pushkin wrote that high comedy is not only founded in laughter, but in the development of characters and it frequently comes close to tragedy. Laughter through tears is a phenomenon typical of many art forms and genres, but one that is particularly prominent in drama and the theatre, in epic literature and in certain cinematic genres.
Shakespeare more often than not introduces jesters into his tragedies and incorporates artistic means peculiar to the comic in his very fashioning of the fabric of tragedy; Charlie Chaplin's films are comedies, yet in his works the tragedy of the ``little'' man in capitalist society is conveyed with rare artistic conviction. Chaplin, the greatest 200 comedian in the modern cinema, regards laughter and tears as equally powerful forces in art.
As the great Russian critic, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, wrote, the close relationship between the tragic and the comic in art results from the fact that they both serve to express, albeit each in its own way, different aspects of one and the same life process, and from the fact that despite their contrasting natures they do have common roots. " Tragedy and comedy have this much in common that the content of both is drawn from an abnormal state of affairs and that their aim is to point to a solution for that abnormal position. Tragedy is distinguished by the fact that it depicts situations shaped by outside circumstances, or what the writers of old would have called Fate, that which does not depend on man's will. Comedy on the other hand invites us to laugh at man's efforts to avoid difficulties, created and maintained by his own stupidity.''^^*^^ This means that the tragic and the comic in Dobrolyubov's view---a view to which we may subscribe in principle---come into being because of the contradiction between the limitless range of man's endeavours and the historical limitations of man's opportunities. In the final analysis it is from this contradiction that tragic conflicts and comic situations are drawn.
It can be seen that tragic and comic phenomena in unadulterated form are rarely encountered in real life. The situation is quite different when it comes to art. There is for instance no element of comedy in Euripides' tragedies, Rembrandt's canvas The Return of the Prodigal or Beethoven's Heroic Symphony. Yet the more diverse reality, and social relations, the more active classes and social groups in the struggle for social progress, the more difficult it is to reflect reality in the pure, clearly defined genres of tragedy and comedy. This explains the tendency in modern art for more and more overlapping of the tragic and the comic. In portrayals of profoundly traeric phenomena artists are making ever wider use of _-_-_
^^*^^ N. A. Dobrolyubov, Complete Works, in 9 volumes, Vol. 3, p. 173 (in Russian).
201 the expressive means and palette peculiar to comedy, while representations of the comic often reveal the mark of profound drama. The celebrated film, Ship of Fools, by Stanley Kramer reproduces events permeated with a deep sense of the dramatic. The film contains both tragic and comic elements and facets: in it we find laughter and tears.As with all aesthetic categories, it is important to distinguish between the objective and subjective facets of the tragic and the comic. In tlie real world both the tragic and the comic undeniably exist. The specific character of social conflicts underlies these phenomena. Yet one and the same phenomenon can be perceived by some as tragedy and others as comic. This is because phenomena of the life around us are perceived by men and women in accordance with definite ideals moulded by their social position, their world outlook and their psychological make-up, all of which are taking shape within a concrete historical context.
Man's aesthetic grasp of the world around him involves among other things the revelation through art of the nature of the tragic and the comic, of the essence of tragic conflicts and comic situations, tragic and comic characters.
Thus the common ground shared by the tragic and comic finds expression in the fact that each of these categories reveals certain common features and in the existence of possibilities for them to penetrate each other. Yet if we probe the matter more deeply then essential differences come to light. Categories of the tragic and the comic serve to bring out the nature of various phenomena both in life and in art, and they reflect dissimilar facets of the world's aesthetic wealth. The tragic and the comic are distinct aesthetic categories and each of them should be approached independently of the other.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ A. The TragicUsually the concept of the tragic is linked with human misfortunes, profound suffering, sombre cruel events or 202 death. Yet if that and nothing else besides constituted the essence of the tragic, then it would be unwarranted frivolity merely to add to the number of human sorrows by representing them on the stage. This was precisely the argument put forward in ancient Greece by the philosopher Plato as an objection to the art of tragedy. However mankind was not to heed Plato either in the tragedies of the ancient world or in those of Shakespeare, Corneille, Racine, Byron, Pushkin and other great artists, and it has resolutely continued to direct its close attention to the most acute and tragic conflicts besetting the Earth.
It would seem that the nature of the tragic cannot be reduced to its simple identification with suffering in men's lives. Through the tragic artists shed light upon essential clashes of interests and conflicts in the life of society. It is no coincidence that the art of tragedy is most fully developed during periods of social cataclysms and revolutionary upheavals, when fundamental social contradictions break through to the surface.
Aristotle's words "... a tragedy is the imitation not of men, but of action, life, happiness and misfortune" are worth remembering, since the object of tragedy is not to depict the private lives of particular individuals divorced from the fundamental problems of the age in question, but in the reproduction of real tragic collisions, conflicts on a broad social scale, clashes between ``happiness'' and ``misfortune'' in their broad, generalised sense.
Stories of ill-starred love have often been used as the plot for literary works of a wide range of genres, but only a few of these have attained the level of true tragedy. To understand better the reason for this, it is sufficient to compare the story of Tristan and Isolde with that of Romeo and Juliet. The story of Tristan and Isolde was told by a medieval poet in a straightforward lyric poem, that does not incorporate the social currents of the age. Shakespeare, the great playwright of the Renaissance, unfolds the story of Romeo and Juliet against a background of medieval feudal strife between the Montague and 203 Capulet families. The irreconcilable contradiction between the ardent love of the two young people and the engrained medieval prejudices makes for a tragic confrontation which leads the lovers to their doom. The death of Romeo and Juliet is explained not by chance factors, it stems naturally from the anti-humanist essence of the age depicted by Shakespeare.
In the art of tragedy we are presented with essential features of a whole era, laws that shaped the life of large social groups and whole societies, in a generalised, highly concentrated and taut form. Pushkin's well-known definition of the aim of tragedy as the portrayal of men's destinies, the destiny of the people, implies that although in tragedy it is through the lives of individuals that conflict drawn from life unfolds before us, it is the fate of the people that is expressed in tragedy through the fate of the individual. For this very reason tragedy, which has undergone major transformation in the process of its historic development both with regard to content and form, in its finest manifestations always was rooted in ideas of universal significance and scope capable of outliving their time, retaining their enduring value for posterity. Just as a people is immortal, so is art which records its destiny.
Tragedy is a truly philosophical art of profound scope, in which are concentrated reflections as to the nature of existence, the meaning of life and man's high calling.
A profound analysis of the nature of the tragic is to be found in Marx and Engels' letters to Lassalle on the subject of his tragedy Franz von Sickingen. Marx and Engels start out from the fact that at the root of all tragic phenomena are to be found socio-historical conflicts that emerge and develop according to logical patterns and which express the clashes between irreconcilable, opposed forces. Engels' definition of tragedy as a clash "between the historically necessary postulate and the practical impossibility of putting it into effect'',^^*^^ while not universal in character and applicable to historical dramas of a specific type, provides a key to the understanding of tragedy as _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1975, p. 112.
204 such. It was precisely as a result of such clashes that the leaders of Russian peasants' revolts Razin and Pugachov met their tragic death in real life, while Prince of Denmark met his in Shakespeare's tragic drama; another clash of this type leading to the defeat of the real-life participants of the legendary uprising by the Russian sailors of the Black Sea fleet in 1905, provided the compositional core of the film Battleship "Potemkin". The same can also be said of the heroes of the Warsaw uprising in relation to Andrzeij Wajda's film Kanal. Tragic clashes in works of art reflect the character of tragic conflicts in real life.The nature of tragic conflict is, of course, an historical category. The objective foundation of a tragedy, its specific content, the methods employed to embody it in artistic form, the nature of its resolution, and men's interpretation of the essence of tragedy all bear the imprint of the particular age in which it was written. Not only do the tragedies of ancient Greece differ fundamentally from those of Shakespeare, or the tragedies of Corneille and Racine from those of today, but even within the confines of a relatively short period, or even at one and the same time different types of tragedy can emerge and function that require different artistic methods and devices. Yet there are specific universal laws peculiar to the tragic, that operate at all times, although they may be expressed in particularised ways.
The great tragic works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and in particular Euripides, considered by Aristotle as the tragedian par excellence, still retain their remarkable artistic power in our day, and not merely as a source of historical information. In recent years stage productions of the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides in the Soviet Union and other countries have again made the heroes of these immortal plays accessible and interesting to modern audiences, and not, of course, because Fate triumphs, but because they are confronted not merely with Sophocles' Oedipus, but with an Oedipus created by Sophocles together with the modern artists bringing the play to life in the modern theatre. Yet there is no doubt that modern 205 reinterpretations of classical tragedies could not have come into being, if the actual problems that inspired the great tragedians to write these plays did not provide scope for them. A good example is provided by Aeschylus' tragedy Prometheus Bound, which reverberates with defiance of the gods: it extols the power and unforgettable courage of the hero who, in defiance of those who rule the world, fearlessly confronts physical destruction in the name of mankind's happiness. Marx maintained that in this tragedy the gods of ancient Greece were dealt a tragic and fatal blow.
Greek tragedy was, of course, rooted in the life of ancient Greece, a society separated from our own by thousands of years. It reflected the tragic conflict of that distant age in forms which were typical of that society and through ideas rooted in its own particular traditions. Engels considered that the tragic destinies of the characters in Oresteia, and the conflict between Orestes, who kills his mother to avenge his father's death, and the Furies who pursue him in order to punish him for that deed reflected a profound change taking place in the life of society, the replacement of the matriarchate by the patriarchate. He saw the resolution of the tragic conflict, i.e., the defeat of the Furies and Orestes' acquittal, as a reflection in art of the triumph of the patriarchal principle «ver the maternal one, a development characteristic of that age. These conclusions Engels drew from a profound analysis of Greek tragedy, from comparisons of their subject matter with the life of the times, and from careful definition of the conflict situations in the society of the age which inspired Greek tragedy. The ideas bear directly upon the Oresteia but possess at the same time broader, more fundamental implications. They are methodologically significant and provide a model for analysis of the conflict situations in real life, which underlie the conflicts to be found in tragic art.
However, these real-life conflicts, these actual contradictions which are apprehended by us today, were beyond the grasp of the men of the ancient society. Marx wrote: "Ignorance is a demon, we fear that it will yet be the 206 cause of many a tragedy; the greatest Greek poets rightly depicted it as tragic fate in the soul-shattering dramas of the royal houses of Mycenae and Thebes.''^^*^^
Indeed for the men of that ancient world tragedy stemmed from the clash of the individual with the irreversible ordinances of an all-powerful Fate. Man was seen as the tool of Fate. In his Oedipus Rex Sophocles portrays the life of a man destined to perpetrate the most heinous of crimes, namely to kill his father and become the husband of his mother. Even before Oedipus' birth it had been ordained by the gods that he should commit this crime in response to his father's injustice. There was no avoiding this fate, it was the will of the gods.
So far we have been dealing with classical tragedy. The crux of the matter here is not Fate, from whose grip even Euripides' characters were beginning to set themselves free, but the fact that the immutable laws of life, independent of man's will, operate, which is revealed in classical tragedy of different ages in quite different forms and lent different artistic interpretations.
Sophocles wrote Oedipus 2,500 years ago. Anouilh's Antigone, on the other hand, is a contemporary work, which has been preceded by a long history of the genre's evolution, in the course of which its features and properties have changed, and men's conceptions of the character of the tragic hero and of the methods for the resolution of tragic conflict have been transformed. Nevertheless Anouilh does not depart from the clearly defined framework: his play contains nothing coincidental, the course of the action is irreversible, the denouement involves bloodshed and follows on from a grave tragic error or the tragic ``guilt'' of a man not guilty of anything. Certain essential features of tragedy hold good for any age.
Almost all aesthetic theories reveal in the tragic the profound laws underlying men's lives. Yet in each such theory the definition of the nature of the tragic naturally _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Moscow, 1975, Vol. 1, p. 202.
207 possesses a flavour of its own. This stems both from the nature of the tragic clashes peculiar to the age and also from the particular state of tragic art. Thus Hegel's aesthetics which provided a summary of tragic art in the modern age from Shakespeare to the Romantics, presented the meaning of tragedy as lying in the irreconcilable conflict between the objective circumstances of life and the individual; to Hegel a tragic situation was impossible if the conflicting sides were capable of reaching reconciliation. He wrote: "If the interests in themselves are for this reason such that it is not really worth it to sacrifice individuals for them, insofar as without giving up themselves undividuals can renounce their objectives or come to some mutually satisfactory agreement in that respect, then the outcome does not have to be tragic.''^^*^^Tragic conflict cannot be resolved through man's reconciling himself to hostile circumstances, if he does not betray himself at the same time. Yet precisely because man, while remaining true to himself cannot overcome the circumstances in his path, and is unable to refrain from fighting against them, suffering and inescapable doom become unavoidable for the tragic hero. These considerations are essential to the concept of "tragic guilt". It is rooted not in man's subjective qualities, but in the objective nature of tragic conflict, in the very nature of the tragic hero. This guilt or rather disaster can be traced back to the "state of the world", in which the hero lives and which he is unable to accept without a fight. The sufferings, sacrifices and final downfall of the tragic hero are an expression of historical necessity. While guiltless he is stained with guilt.
In Hegel's interesting and profound propositions on the nature of the tragic there are still to be found traces of the idealist interpretation of tragedy and the social and class limitations of his philosophical ideas. An important idea with relation to the inevitability of tragic conflict leads to support for a fatalistic attitude to the _-_-_
^^*^^ Hegel, Asthetik, Berlin & Weimar, 1965, Bd. I, S. 582. 208
208 circumstances of life. In view of the fact that the immutable laws and the circumstances of life born of those laws are part of the nature of the absolute idea, and serve to express its development, any attempt by man to change those circumstances is doomed and can lead to nothing but tragedy. The class limitations of Hegel's theory of the tragic made themselves felt in his negation of the aesthetic significance of tragic elements to be found in the life of the people, of the representatives of the ``lower'' classes. Hegel had denied the right to qualify as a tragic character to Miller in Schiller's tragedy Kabale und Liebe^ and also Karl Moor, hero of another of Schiller's tragedies, Die Raiiber, who, although himself not a representative of the common people, had broken with his social milieu. Hegel could find no tragic guilt in the actions of men like Miller and Moor, but merely a tragic mistake that could be traced back to their subjective intentions. Hegel believed that the place for men of the people was not in high tragedy but rather in comedy.... Thus the greatest proponent of idealist aesthetics in his substantiation of the laws governing the tragic, excluded from that sphere its central concern---the people.This idealist theory of the tragic was critically reviewed in the aesthetic writings of the Russian revolutionary democrats, in particular those of Chernyshevsky. Unlike Hegel, he considered that the main subject for tragedy was provided by the life of ordinary men and women, the sufferings of the ``humble'', the profound drama inherent in the life of the people. Chernyshevsky held that the source of tragic clashes lay in the defective structuring of the life of society, in the ``incorrect'', ``unnatural'' ordering of that life. The tragedy to be found in the Russian way of life he linked with the ``artificial'' pattern of life, with the domination of the aristocracy and merchant class, with the existence of a "kingdom of darkness''.
Despite certain elements of anthropologism, Chernyshevsky's theory of the tragic presented the sources of tragedy as rooted in- social conditions. He -rejected once and for all the idea of man's ``guilt'', holding that the idea of __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---796 209 the tragic hero's guilt was a ``cruel'' one: "Before accusing the character, first pay heed to whether it is he that is guilty of that of which you accuse him, or whether it is circumstances and social usage that are guilty; study the question carefully for it may well be that we are confronted not by his guilt, but merely his misfortune.''^^*^^ Tragic guilt Hegel too, more likely than not, regarded as misfortune, but, unlike the German philosopher, Chernyshevsky saw the source of that misfortune to lie in the nature of the life of society and, what is particularly important, he did not regard the existence of social conditions giving rise to life's tragedies as something pre-ordained and unavoidable. "What is required here is not punishment of the individual, but change in the conditions of life for a whole social estate.''^^**^^ Chernyshevsky's theory of the tragic provided a resume of the critical realists' artistic experience that gave rise to an impassioned struggle to improve the lot of the poor and underprivileged. This passionate involvement constituted the force behind Chernyshevsky's view of the tragic, and in this respect he reached higher than Hegel. Yet while outstripping Hegel in this way, his theory was inferior to Hegel's in another: he approached tragic conflicts and situations as the expression of all that is coincidental in this life, as the result of deviation from the natural course of events.
It is here that we encounter elements of anthropologism: starting out from views of man and human nature "in general", Chernyshevsky goes on to reject the idea that the tragic in art is a manifestation of a logical pattern. "There is a doubt as to the extent to which art is right in presenting the horrible as being nearly always inevitable when, in the majority of cases, it is actually by no means inevitable, but purely accidental.. .''^^***^^
Comparing the views of Hegel and Chernyshevsky _-_-_
^^*^^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Complete Works in 15 volumes, Vol. V, p. 165 fin Russian).
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Selected Philosophical Essays, Moscow, 1953, p. 311.
210 reveals that neither idealist aesthetics, nor traditional materialist aesthetics of the pre-Marxian variety is equipped to provide a truly scientific picture of the nature of the tragic, in view of their historical and class limitations. Many aestheticians writing before Marx made important observations, inspired deductions and shed light on vital facets of the tragic, yet only Marxist-Leninist aesthetics brought us a comprehensive explanation of the nature of the tragic and definition of the factors fundamental to tragic conflict.Aestheticians writing before Marx established the fundamental truth to the effect that tragic characters, conflicts and situations are rooted in the circumstances of life, but they were not in a position to interpret correctly the nature of the social circumstances and conditions giving rise to life's tragedies. This task was undertaken in the works of the founders of Marxism, who demonstrated convincingly that from the time when society was divided into classes antagonistic class contradictions were the main source of tragic conflicts.
Analysis based on class factors, that is, definition of the nature of tragic phenomena with due consideration shown for their class essence and their place and role in class struggle was the crucial feature of the Marxist interpretation of tragedy. It is common knowledge that by no means all that is horrible and by no means all disasters are tragic in character. Tragedy is linked with the progressive development of society, with the pain and suffering from which the new society is born, with the destruction of people and initiatives affirming the triumph of those principles which are a source of hope and happiness to men. This led Marx and Engels to conclude that the highest expression of the tragic was revolutionary heroic tragedy.
However tragic features might also be found in the sufferings peculiar to those forces whom time has overtaken, if their positive traits have not yet been exhausted. In his ``Introduction'' to The Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law Marx wrote: "Tragic indeed __PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 was the history of the ancien regime so long as it was the pre-existing power of the world, and freedom, on the other hand, was a personal notion, i.e., as long as this regime believed and had to believe in its own justification. As long as the ancien regime, as an existing world order, struggled against a world that was only coming into being, there was on its side a historical error, not a personal one. That is why its downfall was tragic.''^^*^^
Historical error, "not a personal one", but universal, or in other words such error as is inevitably shaped by objective historical circumstances and in which is reflected a historically necessary degree of development of social consciousness, is tragic. This proposition of Marx's is a pointer to effective historical method, for it shows how a phenomenon should be assessed with reference to the concrete historical conditions of its existence and development. The nature of tragedy is preconditioned from both a class and a historical angle.
This is borne out by Engels' assessment of the German knights of the sixteenth century. It was that class which was the vehicle for the idea of Germany's national unification at a time when the German bourgeoisie, albeit progressive for that period, opposed it in every way. Engels saw the disappearance of that class as a tragic phenomenon, in view of the fact that while in its decline this class was objectively endeavouring to carry out a historically progressive task, that of national unification. The knights, though representatives of a reactionary class, were at the same time the bearers of a specific progressive principle. It was precisely this that gave historical significance to Lassalle's attempt (though unsuccessful) to make the knight Franz von Sickingen the hero of a tragedy.
The historical approach to assessment of real tragedies drawn from life is the key to an understanding of a wide range of tragic characters in art. Without the historical _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Moscow, 1975, Vol. 3, p. 178.
212 approach it would be difficult to understand for example why the lives of characters as widely different as Hamlet and King Lear are in fact tragic. Yet in such cases sociohistorical analysis sheds light on the different types of tragic clashes. In the first work the clash serves to express the conflict "between a historically necessary demand and the impossibility of its satisfaction", while the clash in the second work stems from the "historical error" peculiar to the lives of the characters. Yet this type of tragic clash is tragic too, because it bears within itself the serious intense philosophical contemplation of life and its fundamental ``eternal'' problems. In Lear's spiritual regeneration, it is possible to read tragedies of the present day in which man's insight, when he is engaged in irreconcilable conflict with inhuman and cruel world, is gained at the cost of sacrifice, suffering and the blood of millions.An essential feature of any true tragedy is the presence within it of a positive principle affirming that life has so much to offer. The commonly held belief that the classical tragedies of old were basically pessimistic and presented man with no way out of his dilemmas is hardly correct.
It is very important to take into account the specific way in which the life-affirming principle in tragedy manifests itself at different stages of artistic development. The tragedies of the ancient world differed from the tragic art of the Renaissance, while the concept of tragedy in the age of Neoclassicism did not coincide with that propagated by the Romantics. Fate was the all-important factor in the ancient tragedies; the central issue in the Neoclassical tragedies was the conflict between love and duty, between man's personal and social involvement; Romantic tragedies were permeated with Weltschmerz and moral anguish stemming from the gulf between noble ideals and base reality, and were characterised by the pursuit of unattainable ideals. At the same time it can be said that all high tragedy reverberates not merely with strong protest against a world hostile to man, but also extols courage, lauding man's moral strength as it confronts him with the 213 major issues of the time calling upon him to prove worthy of their grand scale.
Even if we turn to the models of Greek tragedy, which, it is justly said, depicts the power of Fate over man, we see that it is not man's inevitable doom, his powerlessness before the blind force of Fate, but man himself that is immortalised, the infinite richness of his inner world, the heights to which man's spirit can soar and his gigantic potential. While tragedies may depict inhumane conditions of life, they always extol and affirm the force of life, not death. The tragic hero is always active, his element is struggle, and the famous ``wisdom'' uttered by Faust: "Only he is worthy of life and freedom, who each day is willing to take up arms for them.. ." sums up most aptly the mood that is intrinsic to tragedy.
In the modernist art of today an important place is accorded to portrayal of the horrors of life---murder, rape, plunder, all manner of psychopathological behaviour, etc. The Grand Guignol theatre in Paris which has now closed down and the horror films that flood the American screen are the most familiar but by no means the only examples of such art. Such art portrays atrocity but has nothing to do with tragedy.
The piling-up of horrors is as far removed from tragedy as is a miscarriage from a confinement. It is no coincidence that this particular genre has disintegrated in bourgeois art; this development serves to reflect the crisis effecting that very way of life as such, its lack of noble ideals. This does not of course by any means imply that the tragic principle has disappeared from contemporary art altogether. There are numerous works of art which in recent years have depicted real tragedies facing modern man. Suffice it to recall artistic representations of the fate of the "lost generation", broken and shattered by life, disillusioned and bereft of ideals, aimlessly squandering its energies. This generation took shape between the wars, yet its tragedy, immortalised for example in the pages of Hemingway's works, continues to move us even today: such works represent true art and often attain tragic heights.
214When we are confronted by the complicated lives of the characters of many works written nowadays---for example the sufferings and hardships that befall the nameless unemployed women in Guiseppe de Sands' Rome at Eleven O'Clock who become the victims of pure hopes and terrible catastrophe; when our hearts go out to the heroine of Fellini's Nights of Cabiria after her hopes are shattered, when we are moved by the spectacle of human dignity being trampled upon---we cannot but sense the pulse-beat of true tragedy. There is profound meaning to be gleaned from Chekhov's comment: "In real life people do not shoot themselves every minute, or hang or make declarations of love.... They have their dinners, merely have their dinners and as they do so, their happiness is realised or their lives torn apart." The tragedy to be found in men's ordinary everyday lives that needs no explosions, no climaxes, tragedy that permeates man's whole existence this is what we find in the finest works of art created in the capitalist countries.
Yet tragic pathos is sometimes lacking in such works of art. In Remarque's novel Arc de Triomphe, Doctor Ravic knows torment and suffering because he is the only one among the characters of the novel who is well aware of the danger of war creeping up on them all. The circumstances of his life are tragic, yet he is no tragic hero, for he lacks an important feature of the tragic hero---action, energy. He is absolutely helpless, he cannot even transmit his alarm and anxiety to others. Arc de Triomphe is a humanist work, yet it does not evoke that radiant pure feeling designated as catharsis in Aristotle's Poetics.
``A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.''^^*^^ Yet the implications of this principle are _-_-_
^^*^^ Aristotle, On the Art of Poetry, Oxford, 1920, p. 35.
215 not elaborated in the Poetics with sufficient clarity and this has given rise to a variety of interpretations in aesthetic writings, particularly in the theory of the tragic.The most apposite of these interpretations would appear to be that provided in Lessing's Hamburgische Dramaturgic. Lessing holds that the phrase "its catharsis of such emotions" should be approached from the moral angle: by means of compassion tragedy sets the beholder free from vices, cleanses his soul from base passions, and helps him attain noble sentiments. Tragedy perfects the human soul through "such emotions", that is through passions similar to those which might live in the soul of the spectator. Tragedy is art's most powerful instrument, capable of forcing its way into man's emotions so forcefully that, after banishing from his inner world all that is trivial, it can be a source of emotional and moral strength. As he shares the tragic hero's experience and feels compassion for him, the spectator is cleansed through his own suffering, and his life is lifted on to a higher plane.
The "catharsis of such emotions" implies the healing of man's soul through the mighty power of art. As aptly noted in Andre Bonnard's Greek Civilisation, to weep tragic tears is to think. In the concept of catharsis the active, socially significant role of tragedy is disclosed, tragedy which calls upon us to feel compassion for the tragic hero in his suffering, in his predicament, and which transforms the state of the spectator himself.
Tragic clashes in the real world cannot but give rise to human suffering, bloodshed and disaster, misfortune and death. Yet in the world of art it is not the role of tragedy to aestheticise human suffering but to sing of the inevitable triumph of positive principles, of the progressive forces in society.
As pointed out earlier the tragic always presupposes if not the actual death of the hero at least his deep suffering, although this does not mean that every suffering man or man who dies is a tragic hero.
In art we encounter repulsive characters whose death should merely be regarded as just vengeance, and has 216 nothing to do with tragedy. At the end of Shakespeare's tragedies Othello and lago, Hamlet and Claudius all die. However only Othello and Hamlet are tragic heroes: the deaths of lago and Claudius do not smack of tragedy at all.
This is because the tragic hero bears within himself content that is of social value, his nature corresponds in significant respects to the human ideal. For this reason to a greater or lesser degree he is always a noble and splendid hero, even if in certain conditions and situations he Is forbidding or contradictory.
Not every hero who perishes is tragic, not even every death of a splendid and lofty hero is tragic. An accidental death which expresses nothing and has no lasting meaning, which has no relevance to the essential content of life and the development of those conflicts, in which the hero is involved, cannot be regarded as tragic. In the tragic we always find a dialectic of the accidental and the necessary. The accidental becomes party to the tragic when it leads to necessity and reveals the same. Tragic suffering and death follow certain logical patterns. They are born of necessary circumstances in life itself. Yet this necessity and this logic on the surface of things is manifested in a chain of accidental coincidences. The essence and meaning of life are always revealed through tragic coincidences. Coincidences such as these have a part to play in tragic conflicts.
Artistic experience accumulated by socialist realists includes rich traditions when it comes to the genre of tragedy. These traditions are a real innovation. The innovatory character of Soviet tragic art is expressed above all in the fact that it reflects tragic conflicts born of the revolution. Marx held that the highest form of tragedy was the revolutionary heroic tragedy.
Precisely this theme is central and all-important in Soviet tragic art. This is not only because it is concerned with new tragic conflicts, but also because of the way in which these conflicts are resolved. Soviet tragedy upholds the tragic as something heroic and humanistic. The 217 innovation inherent in Soviet tragic art comes to light in a new optimism. Unlike classical tragedy, Soviet tragedy spotlights the clear pattern and inevitability of the triumph of all that is positive and good not in some distant future and not only as the result of a change of system, but also within the confines of the current socialist era. Soviet tragedy upholds as the ideal life's progress, life's advance.
In the film Nine Days of a Year, directed by Mikhail Romm and Dmitri Khrabrovitsky, the hero Gusev, a talented physicist, dies without even knowing whether his labours have been crowned with success, whether his sacrifice has been vindicated by a new discovery. Yet the film is optimistic in the best sense of that word, although the audience is confronted with a fatally ill hero at the end, who has no hope of recovery, nevertheless it leaves us with the feeling eloquently summed up by Pushkin in the phrase: "radiant grief". The film is optimistic not because the main characters achieve a tangible victory, but because it confronts the audience with humane individuals of real integrity, men of infinitely rich emotions and ideas. The heroic yet tragic nine days of the film possess a rare philosophical depth and radiant humanism that set the film completely apart from sentimental `` tearjerkers'' with a traditionally happy end.
Of course all the tragic conflicts that in the past were born of the social antagonisms found in the erstwhile society are disappearing in socialist society. It provides no scope for tragedies resulting from the struggle of the exploited against the exploiters.
Yet in the real world of today there is still a good number of possible sources of tragedy. It is to be found not only in the acute conflicts of the modern world beyond the confines of socialism. In the new society as well life spurs on the artist to interpret through tragedy certain aspects of the real world. Alexei Tolstoy held that only a young world brimming over with vitality could appreciate the "full-blooded intensity of tragedy". The old subjects expressed in tragedy disappear, yet tragedy 218 as a genre and the tragic as an aesthetic category do not disappear in their wake. In the new society the tragic can be bound up not only with the way in which men apprehend and artistically assimilate such profound processes and phenomena as the sublime and the heroic; it can also be born of man's struggle with Nature and the dramas of his personal life, which art is able to lend content of universal relevance.
Despite the wide range of subjects treated in tragedy, their artistic interpretation always incorporates a common principle, a consolidation of man's faith in the triumph of positive forces and his optimistic response to the world around him. This factor is essential to all tragic art, in which immortality is asserted through death, the meaning of life is revealed through the downfall of heroes, and the social ideal is held aloft despite the defeat of those fighting for it.
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics substantiates the place of tragedy in the art of socialist realism. It sets store by tragedy as a manifestation of art's mature achievement. However, tragedy, while highly important, is by no means the only artistic genre, and it would be quite wrong for all art to be in a tragic key. Tragedy itself is destined not to undermine man's energies through portrayal of all manner of disaster and suffering, but to foster his courage and heroic spirit, strength of character and spiritual fortitude.
In socialist art tragedy provides artistic expression of the fundamental contradictions found in the historical development of the modern world and upholds the communist ideal as an inspiration to action and an embodiment of the purpose of life.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ B. The ComicAs regards its idea-content and aesthetic significance the category of the comic is no less considerable than that of the tragic; indeed comedy occupies no less prominent a place in art than tragedy. Comedy can serve to depict equally fundamental social problems, 219 turning-points in history and profound contradictions drawn from life, as are to be found in tragedy. Although it may sound paradoxical the now proverbial expression---"laughter is a serious matter"---contains profound truth. As the saying went in ancient Rome, he who laughs at what is funny approaches laughter seriously.
More often than not idealist aesthetics presented comedy as an art form of only secondary importance. Numerous idealist writings treating the artificially contrived ``hierarchy'' of artistic genres and forms of creative expression, list comedy among the ``lower'' genres and regard as its province man's base and more primitive emotions and aspirations.
Contrasting one artistic genre with another and viewing them as opposites is something alien to Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, which recognises that, while they are not interchangeable, all artistic genres must develop and grow, in order for a full reflection of life in art to be achieved.
Laughter is a formidable weapon. Even those who see themselves as all-powerful are afraid of laughter, for they know it to be deadly. Positive uncorrupt forces in society have always taken into account the power of laughter. Engels regarded it as very important not only to single out the enemy's inhumane and cruel traits but also his ridiculous ones, all the better to laugh at him. When exposing, for example, Bismarck's Junker ideology, Engels advised his readers to write of their opponent not only in terms of contempt, but also in a mocking vein, to refer to Bismarck and Co. as donkeys, rogues, a pitiable band helpless before the tide of historical progress. Engels saw as the communists' advantage the fact that their enemy was unable to rob them of their humour. While setting out the objectives of Soviet art, in a conversation with Lunacharsky, Lenin emphasised that the artistic propaganda of the socialist ideology should concentrate the people's attention not only on those phenomena of life which reflect the encouraging development of all that is good and new, but also brand through laughter 220 everything which is a mockery both in Soviet society and elsewhere.
Yet laughter is not merely a weapon for exposure. It is at the same time an inexhaustible source of joy and encouragement that upholds man's faith in life and its purpose. It is a sign of strength born not of defeat, but of victory in the struggle. It expresses a radiant, buoyant sense of joy and well-being.
The category of the comic (and humour) caused a great deal of trouble to those aestheticians who sought to "pin it down" within a rigid framework and define its formal properties. Even Cicero and Quintilian referred to the comic as a "formless and elusive Proteus". The Russian aesthetician L. A. Sakketti wrote in his Popular Aesthetics (1917) that the comic is mercury which cannot be confined even for an instant to any fixed limits because it will find the tiniest crack and slip out of the grasp of him who seeks to capture it.^^*^^ When Max Eastman told G. B, Shaw he intended to write a book about humour, the playwright warned: "There's no more dangerous literary symptom, than a temptation to write about wit and humour. It indicates the total loss of both.''^^**^^
These statements uttered half in earnest, half in jest, reflect one and the same idea, namely that theoretical interpretation of the comic is impossible and that its essence defies definition.
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, drawing on a rich tradition of analysis of the comic, studies first and foremost the objective properties of those of life's truths which are reflected in the concept of the comic.
One of the principal subjects for comedy is provided by those phenomena of life which have already or will soon have outlived their usefulness. Phenomena, whose positive content has been exhausted, which have lost their right to existence and attempt in vain to disguise their _-_-_
^^*^^ See: L. A. Sakketti, Popular Aesthetics, Petersburg, 1917, Vol. 2, p. 304 (in Russian).
^^**^^ Max Eastman, The Sense of Humor, New York, 1921, p. VIII.
221 true nature, are branded through laughter. By bringing out these contradictions laughter can help to eliminate the obsolete. Herzen wrote in his day that laughter is one of the most powerful weapons against everything that has been overtaken by time but which God alone knows how, still keeps going, like some arrogant ruin obstructing the growth of fresh life and intimidating the weak.Fundamental to the comic is always the contradiction between pretentious, pompous, would-be important form and the empty, trivial, irrelevant content of this or that phenomenon portrayed. The core of the comic is provided not by mediocrity as such but by mediocrity with claims to elevated importance; not by age as such, but by age masquerading as youth; not by the obsolete as such, but by the obsolete parading as the up-to-date; not by nonentity as such, but by nonentity which swaggers and attempts to pull the wool over our eyes. Gogol called upon us to laugh not at crooked noses, but at crooked souls. Physical imperfections or ugliness are something which no morally sound individual can make fun of. Yet, if the owner of a "crooked nose" sees himself as an Adonis, then we cease to be mere observers of physical qualities, moral and aesthetic factors come into play and laughter can come into its own. We have all encountered at some time or another people with an inflated sense of their own importance, who bear themselves through life like some stately vase full to the brim with infinitely costly ointment, which however on closer inspection is quite empty. No doubt such figures as these inspired La Rochefoucauld's subtle observation to the effect that "gravity is a mystery of the body invented so as to conceal the defects of the spirit.''^^*^^
Writings on questions of aesthetics and the theory of art start out as a rule from the fact that the comic serves to express certain contradictions: their differences begin once they confront the question as to precisely which _-_-_
^^*^^ Comte de la Rochefoucauld, Maxims et Reflexions Morales, Paris, 1976, p. 66.
222 contradictions provide the core of the comic. According to Aristotle the comic is the result of a discord or contrast between the ugly and the beautiful. He sees comedy as the reproduction of the most despicable of men, not in all their depravity but from a comic angle. Ugliness that does not cause man suffering or harm is what he sees as comic. This approach of the Greek thinker or, as Marx called him, the Hegel of the ancient world, differed essentially from that of the real Hegel, who saw the comic as the contradiction between an actual phenomenon and the aesthetic ideal. However he was concerned first and foremost not with the comic in real life, but in art. This explains why, when analysing comedy situations, he focussed attention on the contradiction between idea and image. His forerunner Kant saw the essence of the comic in the contradiction between the base and the elevated. Jean Paul and Schopenhauer regarded the contradiction between the ridiculous and the reasonable as the essence of the comic, Schiitze on the other hand that between what is free and what is restricted (not free), Bergson singled out the contradiction between what is automatic and what is alive, Sully that between the familiar and normal on the one hand and the unaccustomed on the other, Volkelts in his turn opted for the contradiction between what is precious and that which would appear precious and so on and so forth. Although important observations are intrinsic to these conceptions and they do possess a degree of positive content, nevertheless in view of their metaphysical and idealist limitations they are of no methodological significance.In pre-Marxian aesthetics the most profound analysis of the nature of the comic was that provided by the Russian aestheticians of revolutionary-democratic leanings. For them the comic was not an abstract aesthetic category. They concerned themselves with a theoretical elaboration of the category mainly because comedy, satire and laughter were most important weapons in the social struggle. The problem of the comic had never been presented so organically and directly linked with social 223 contradictions and the goals of the movement for social emancipation in pre-Marxian aesthetics, as it was in the writings of the Russian revolutionary democrats of the nineteenth century. Herzen was to write: "There is no doubt that laughter is one of the most powerful weapons for destruction: Voltaire's laughter struck and burned like lightning. Laughter brings down idols and laurels, and miracle-working icons and their silver casings are reduced by it to third-rate paintings in tarnished frames." Saltykov-Shchedrin in his turn remarked with every justification that comedy's high calling was to "usher "all that has outlived its day into the realm of shadows.''
Starting out from the materialist interpretation of the life of society Marx defined the inner essence of comic phenomena that occur in the course of historical development with reference to the old German feudal order as a comic, ridiculous phenomenon instead of a tragic one. This presentation of German feudal society was apposite, until its historical limitations degenerated into class self-interest. While that particular society was fighting against the new order that was only just taking shape, the inescapable nature of its downfall contained, according to Marx, the seeds of tragedy. Yet when the inevitability of the new order's triumph became self-- evident and the old order had clearly outlived its day, Marx then classified its resistance to the new forces at work in society as a manifestation of the comic in history. He wrote in this connection: "...the present German regime, an anachronism, a flagrant contradiction of generally recognised axioms, the nothingness of the ancien regime exhibited to the world, only imagines that it believes in itself and demands that the world should imagine the same thing. If it believed in its own essence, would it try to hide that essence under the semblance of an alien essence and seek refuge in hypocrisy and sophism? The modern ancien regime is only the comedian of a world order whose.true heroes are dead.''^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1975, pp. 178-79,
224Not only his examination of the development of German society, but also his understanding of the patterns at work in world history led Marx to a highly important theoretical conclusion shedding light upon the logic of the possible transformation of the tragic into the comic in the actual life of society. This conclusion provides us with the key to an understanding of the comic in artistic creativity. Marx wrote: "History is thorough and goes through many phases when carrying an old form to the grave. The last phase of a world-historical form is its comedy. The gods of Greece, already tragically wounded to death in Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, had to re-die a comic death in Lucian's Dialogues. Why this course of history? So that humanity should part with its past cheerfully.''^^*^^
So the social essence of comedy is to be found in the pretentiousness of obsolescent social forces and forms of the social order. Exposure through art of this pretentiousness helps mankind to set itself free from restrictive survival of the past, to destroy traditions of ``dead'' generations and deal them such a decisive blow that they cease to weigh on the minds of the living. Mark Twain once wrote that nothing can stand firm in the face of comedy's onslaught, thus underlining the enormous power of comic art, this highly individual form of inexorably effective social criticism and self-criticism lent emotional depth through vivid artistic images. Comic art is active, always on the march, ready to engage in combat.
In this work the concepts ``comedy'' and ``satire'' are not used to denote a genre that manifests itself in a variety of ways, in comedy of character, situation comedy, vaudeville, farce, etc. The comic is an evaluative category, a specific principle for the artistic generalised representation of phenomena drawn from life. This explains why comic characters and comic situations are to be encountered in works belonging to different genres.
The comic evokes laughter, the subjective reaction that _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 179.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---796 225 corresponds closest of all to the nature of the category. However the concepts comic and funny are not identical. Laughter when stimulated physiologically or when the result of nervous tension has nothing to do with the comic. Laughter of that type is not an aesthetic phenomenon. Laughter only acquires the features of an aesthetic phenomenon when it has social implications.The comic is always funny, while what is funny is only comic when through it, as indeed through any aesthetic phenomenon, through outward form there is expressed the meaning and inner essence of this or that phenomenon, meaning which is evaluated from the standpoint of a specific aesthetic ideal.
Hegel established a substantial difference between the comic and the funny, saying that laughter evokes no more than a pleasant sense of amusement, while through the comic is manifested the aesthetic evaluation of a phenomenon, which serves to express the disparity between a phenomenon and the ideal.
Belinsky too considered it imperative to draw a distinction between the funny and the comic when defining comedy. "There is empty, trivial, worthless wit.. ." admitted the critic but he held that this only proved detrimental to art. He viewed as something quite different the wit which is characteristic of true art, wit which "stems from the ability to see things as they truly are, to capture their distinctive traits and give expression to their humorous aspects"^^*^^
When there is no clear distinction in a work of art between what is comic and what is funny, it acquires anti-artistic traits. There exist, regrettably, works of comedy whose authors seem to believe that the more gags can be crammed in, regardless of whether or not they have any bearing on the main plot, the more entertaining it will be and the more pleasure it will bring the audience. Comedy must of course be funny, for laughter is comedy's power, _-_-_
^^*^^ V. G. Belinsky, Complete Works in thirteen volumes, Vol. 2, p. 136 (in Russian).
226 comedy's weapon. Yet if laughter, instead of shedding light on the main idea behind a work or enriching its thought-content, merely serves to detract the audience's attention from the comedy's main goal, the superficial entertainment which results, represents, when all is said and done, no more than a substitution of trivial fun for the comic.In the comic, just as in any aesthetic category, there is not only an objective but also a subjective factor to be observed. Any individual bereft of a sense of humour must be limited and lacking rich inner resources. Harmonious development of the human personality presupposes a specific degree of emotional responsiveness including a sense of humour which can grow and mature. However the basis for the comic is rooted in the objective nature of things. Laughter serves to reveal not only the nature of the object ridiculed, but also that of the individual doing the laughing. Goethe remarked long ago that nothing sheds as much light on man's character as the things he finds funny. Perception, revelation and reflection of the comic always make manifest the aesthetic ideal, which possesses a social character bound up with man's world outlook.
Lenin remarked once to Gorky that humour is a magnificent, sound quality. This sound quality is to be found in all truly comic art and the laughter evoked by this art. Yet the source of the comic in true art does not lie in the aestheticisation of life's ugliness, but rather in combating that ugliness. Laughter can be both gentle and cruel, it can knock down and build up, but even the most harsh and damning laughter, given comedy in the necessary ``proportion'', can serve not only to condemn what time has overtaken, but also to uphold what is positive.
Proportion in comedy is captured with remarkable precision in Charlie Chaplin's outstanding film The Great Dictator. Chaplin himself regarded as intrinsically important to that work the fact that dictators are terrible but funny at the same time, and indeed he sets out to make us laugh at them.
__PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227There is no denying that the comic situation built round the external similarity between dictator Hynkel of Tomania, in whom the whole world had no difficulty in recognising Hitler, and a Jewish barber, had infinite comic potential. The audience cannot help laughing the whole way through the film. Chaplin revels in all-out comedy and there are no holds barred in his ridicule of the "great dictator", his Italian rival and their ministers. Yet not for a minute does Chaplin dispel the tragic sense of terrible danger hanging over the world. His genius lay in, among other things, his mixture of the comic and the tragic: on the screen before us a comedy unfolds, yet the audience is never allowed to forget the tragic developments in the real world of that time.
The finale of the film is far from orthodox. Leaving aside as it were the character of both barber and dictator, both of which he played himself, Chaplin, no longer playing a part, but in his role as artist and citizen, addressed the following impassioned appeal to humanity: "To those who can hear me, I say: 'Do not despair. ... Fight for liberty! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful---to make this life a wonderful adventure.... Let us fight for a new world---a decent world that will give man a chance to work---that will give youth a future and old age a security....'~"^^*^^ Not the maniac of a dictator with his mumbojumbo, or the little feller helpless in a cruel world that we know from Chaplin's earlier films, but Chaplin himself, summons men to the struggle against fascism, war and inhumanity.
The requirements of the comic genre were violated perhaps in this film, but those of life proved more powerful and determined the artistic shape of this film. Chaplin himself commented that he was unable to do otherwise: the film had given everyone plenty to laugh about but at the end jokes had to be put aside and the vital message proclaimed aloud to all mankind.
_-_-_^^*^^ Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography, New York, 1964, pp. 399, 400.
228The progression of Chaplin's artistic ideas in this film coincides with Gorky's understanding of the goals of comic art. Gorky recommended to fellow artists that they single out their enemy's comic aspects and brand them by means of laughter. He considered that art underlines the inescapable verdict history has in store for the enemy, precisely by singling out the comic side of his nature and subjecting him to ridicule.
High comedy with serious implications is indeed set apart from comedy of the purely entertaining variety by the fact that it is not based on outward connection between various phenomena or unexpected turns of events. External comic devices and situations are used in serious comedy to bring out the inner meaning of the ridicule which penetrates the essence of the phenomena depicted. Comedy of this type embraces a wide range of human passions, virtues and vices, merits and shortcomings; it reflects a variety of relationships and aspects of life. Although the main objective of comedy is to expose, this is by no means its only calling.
Saltykov-Shchedrin held that satire, and indeed this applies in essence to all aspects of comic art, is distinguished not only by its critical character but also by the positive element inherent in it, the positive ideal in the name of which criticism is undertaken. This means that ridicule of what is outlived and support for what is new in comedy represent two sides of a single indivisible entity.
To a certain extent this applies to all comedy. All good comedy is a vehicle for some positive principle, regardless of whether or not it contains positive characters. Positive images and positive characters are not identical. The positive image of a work need not necessarily be a concrete character, positive inspiration may be unfolded through the whole fabric of a work's ideas and even be implicit in the spectator's negative reaction.
Comedy is set apart from other genres by the fact that more often than not it upholds the aesthetic ideal not through direct demonstration of new phenomena of life 229 and through straightforward exposition of their positive content, but rather through indirect means, by making fun of all that contradicts the ideal, that stands in the way of its achievement. This is indeed one of the all-important features of the comic in general.
An important feature of man's perception of art---its active quality---makes itself felt with particular force in comic art.
In his Philosophical Notebooks Lenin quotes Feuerbach with marked sympathy: "The clever manner of writing consists, among other things, in assuming that the reader also has a mind, in not expressing everything explicitly, in allowing the reader to formulate the relations, conditions and restrictions under which alone a proposition is valid and can be conceived.''^^*^^ These words give expression to one of the most important aspects of artistic creativity. Their overall methodological significance comes to the fore particularly clearly, when we analyse the nature of comic means for artistic expression. These are rooted in trust of the audience and they presuppose in that audience active thinking, acute powers of perception, a sense of humour and the ability to fill out the pictures provided by works of art with the help of their own imagination. According to Lenin, only the most unintelligent writer could conceive of a reader who was incapable of independent thought. When a comedy writer comes to resemble such writers, then he ceases to be a creator of true comedy.
Belinsky held that the art of making men laugh was far more elusive than the art of moving them. At first glance this might appear a paradox. Yet this idea contains the seeds of a profound truth. It is relatively easy to produce the physiological reaction of laughter, while to bring out the funny aspects of the object of ridicule is difficult. The art of making men laugh has laws of its own. One of these is that the more an artist goes deliberately out of his way to make his creation funny, the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 82. 230
230 less comic it will appear to the audience. The leading Soviet actor and producer V. Toporkov recalls how during rehearsals of Tartuffe he achieved a meaningful interpretation of the part of Orgon, only after he stopped going out of his way to be funny. At once the role achieved a comic impact, when Orgon started to take seriously all the events taking place in his house. This actor with a splendidly subtle sense of humour, drawing on many years of theatrical experience, came to the conclusion that it is wrong ever to overplay comic parts, for it only serves to ``flatten'' them. Funny moments appear all the funnier when presented in a serious key.This isolated example reflects yet another law of the art of comedy: what is important is not actually making people laugh, but spotlighting funny aspects of the subjects portrayed. The more seriously an actor in a comic role behaves, the more comic that role becomes. In connection with his comedy The Wedding Gogol wrote: "Funny content comes into its own precisely thanks to the seriousness with which each of the characters in the comedy approaches his role.''
If we recall the inimitable comic situations in which Charlie Chaplin finds himself in the films Modern Times and The Gold Rush and ask how these comic effects are achieved, the answer would be first and foremost through the actor's faith in the convincing realistic nature of the character he was playing. Of course, the great artist has an infinitely wide range of comic techniques at his disposal, there is no end to the nuances of the comic artist's palette. Yet both when his characters are extraordinarily moving and when they are brave or comic, Chaplin does not deliberately play for comic effects, his inexhaustible humour, his limitless reserves of irony and his remarkable sarcasm always stem quite naturally from the logic intrinsic to the character in question. This explains why Chaplin's humour can be dramatic, tragic and uplifting or simply joyful: it would be difficult to imagine any facet of humour that did not come within Chaplin's range.
First-rate comic actors who lend the characters they 231 create comic implications compel their audience to laugh and cry, enjoy themselves and ponder, not only thanks to their profound understanding of their characters' lives but also through their faithfulness to the nature and the laws of the comic element in which they themselves are completely at home.
An important creative task is to define the parameters of the comic in every phenomenon and to decide accordingly the comic techniques and methods to be employed. Bitter ridicule demands exaggeration, branding and the blow-up of specific features. This is why we often encounter in comedy and particularly in satire the grotesque---blatant emphasis and exaggeration^ The grotesque is not an end in itself, but it provides an important means for the unfolding of a satirical character.
Comic techniques cover a wide range and there is no end to the manifestations of the comic in art. Yet among the artistic means used for comedy and the genres of comic art a special place must be attributed to humour and satire.
Humour is the most universal manifestation of the comic. Neither satire, nor parody, nor irony, nor farce, nor caricature, nor cartoons, nor comedy are possible without humour. Yet at the same time humour can be found in both life and art independent of any other specific manifestation of the comic. Humour is not only a universal category in comic art. A sense of humour is an essential quality for any artist: just as it is impossible to create without talent or artistic taste, so to be an artist of any kind is impossible without recourse to humour.
The term ``humour'' first appeared in aesthetic writings of the eighteenth century. For two hundred years after that attempts have been made over and over again to define its place among the rest of aesthetic categories and define its relationship not only to the comic, but also to the tragic, the sentimental, etc.
In the opinion of a number of writers the common feature uniting humorous works of art is the combination of the comic (the funny, amusing, light-hearted, ridiculous, 232 senseless, irrational, trivial, etc.) with the serious ( Schopenhauer), the sublime (Louis Latzarus, Lipps), the tragic (Karl Solger, Jean Paul), the sentimental (Stern), the great, significant, rational, etc. Accordingly our perception of humorous works leads to a whole complex of contradictory emotions: disdain and sympathy, mirth and grief, optimism and pessimism. Schiller described this mixture of feelings as a particular emotion all of its own which embraces irony, respect and grief.
Heinrich Laube used an image to describe this emotion as "grief and joy meeting in a kiss"; he also likened it to Andromache smiling with tears in her eyes, or to Shakespeare's "smiling in grief". Latzarus wrote that humour laughs with one eye and weeps with the other. This idea was also expressed by Gogol in his famous phrase: " visible laughter through tears invisible to the world outside''.
Despite the contradictory combination of positive and negative emotions engendered by humour, the overall ``balance'' resulting from man's contemplation and perception of humour is a sense of pleasure. This applies to humour in both life and art, but in art this pleasure always possesses an aesthetic aspect.
The above-mentioned facets of humorous works which provide the objective foundation for the stimulation of emotions described presuppose that the humorist possesses certain subjective qualities, certain "spiritual riches" to use Hegel's expression. The humorist has to be eager for knowledge of life: this quality consists mainly in an ability to appreciate the complex dialectics of those characteristics and aspects of reality, the contradictory combination of which is what characterises a humorous work.
This ability is distinguished by the fact that it presupposes without fail a certain moral stand and qualities both on the part of the author, and on the part of the reader or beholder. Ghernyshevsky wrote: "Men who are responsive to humour are those who understand all the grandeur and worth of all that is lofty, noble, moral and 233 who are filled with a passionate love for it... .''^^*^^ A man without a sense of humour is, to use Nikolai Hartmann's pithy phrase, a man "with an ethical defect" .^^**^^
Some aestheticians, while recognising the social nature of humour, nevertheless underestimate its social functions. The Soviet scholar N. Sretensky who correctly points out the difference between humour and satire, is mistaken when he categorically declares that humour "in all its shades---from gentle banter to sombre, melancholy musing---is depressed stifled laughter, reflecting social contradictions, which the individual is powerless to eradicate''.^^***^^ Many types of humour have absolutely nothing to do with despair and hopelessness, but on the contrary are tinged with optimism which as a rule has social roots. Humour of this sort, as aptly noted by Chaplin, "heightens our sense of survival and preserves our sanity. Because of humour we are less overwhelmed by the viciousness of life. It activates our sense of proportion. . .''.^^****^^
Humour plays an enormous part in our lives. As pointed out earlier, it is often possible to form an opinion of someone on the basis of the things that make him laugh, and how he laughs. In this sense humour can be likened to X-rays showing up man's inner qualities. The illustrious Russian historian Klyuchevsky regarded a gay, fun-loving, kind mind to be the most precious gift of Nature. Laughter subtly moulds man's emotional sensibility. A lack of a sense of humour is a sign of emotional and intellectual limitations. A sense of humour not only helps us to analyse the fact that our shortcomings are but an extension of our merits, but also enables _-_-_
^^*^^ N. G. Chernyshevsky, Selected Articles, Moscow, 1951, p. 104 (in Russian).
^^**^^ Nicolai Hartmann, Asthetik, Berlin, 1953, S. 431,
^^***^^ N. Sretensky, Humour, Large Soviet Encyclopaedia, First Edition, Vol. 65, 1931, p. 188 (in Russian).
^^****^^ Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography, pp. 211-12.
234 us to rejoice in the fact that nothing human is alien to us.In conjunction with humour another important form of the comic is irony. While humour, as noted by Schopenhauer, is characterised by the serious implications behind jest, irony on the other hand is permeated with mockery concealed behind a mask of seriousness. When mockery is of a light, merely sly or sad character and is directed not only at someone else but also at its author then irony borders on humour. When ironic mockery acquires a venomous, bitter touch then it becomes sarcasm, a medium for annihilating criticism couched in exaggerated praise. Like humour, irony is an aspect of the comic and one of the stylistic means of expression employed for the comic.
The comic facets of life are extremely varied. In order to criticise men's weaknesses we do not only turn to humour and irony. When the comic is made a weapon in the struggle against what time has overtaken, a weapon in the struggle against the enemy, then it takes the form of satire.
Here the term satire will be used in its general aesthetic sense, as a specific artistic method for the depiction of the real world that is widely used in a variety of forms and genres. Satire is threatening laughter, laughter that is cruel and merciless, that can turn into wrathful exposure. It is precisely satire, when used in this sense, that can be regarded as the highest, most effective form of criticism. The larger-than-life approach, exaggeration, hyperbole and grotesque are associated precisely with satire, more than with other types of comic art. Caustic, damning accuracy of critical assessment is found precisely in writing that employs such tools. Satire rejects out of hand everything that is not compatible with progressive social, moral and aesthetic ideals. Satirical methods leave their mark not merely on delineation of characters but also on the tone of conflicts arid the individualisation of the language used for the various parts. However, here as in all other art forms, particularly in comedy of character and situation, these methods are important not in 235 themselves but in so far as they bring out essential features of the character.
A distinctive feature of satire is that it is always directed against phenomena found in the author's contemporary world. If a satirist starts attacking things that either do not exist in the life of his time or which are not of essential importance to it, he risks producing something that other satirists will deride. So even when a satirist turns to phenomena which would seem to have outlived their day long since, having been depicted for example in the classical satirical comedies, he lends them a contemporary significance and compels his audience to think about features of life today.
The diversity found in manifestations of the comic is a direct result of the diversity characteristic of life itself, but it is also shaped by the artist's social and aesthetic ideas and the nature of his talent. Swift's works for instance are characterised by the sarcasm and venom of ruthless satire, Rabelais' by full-blooded, healthy, although on occasions coarse, jollity; Beaumarchais' by sparkling, incredibly witty humour, Voltaire's by wise, biting irony and Chekhov's by a subtle smile tinged with sadness and wistful regret, etc. The reflection of the comic aspects of life in the work of every artist acquires its own particular nuances.
The social essence of comedy can perhaps be most easily analysed when we examine the work of artists who lived and created at the same time and who brought us comic portrayals of similar subjects. Contemporaries who represent just such a case in point are the artists Gavarni and Daumier, known for their social caricature, who lived and worked in Paris during the first half of the nineteenth century. In Gavarni's work we find him making good-- natured, occasionally ironic fun of society's shortcomings, while Daumier castigates, taunts, and passes sentence on the petty-minded philistine shivering in his shoes, who not only refuses to become involved with the formidable tide of revolution, but who even fears any allusion to it.
Belinsky wrote that laughter often proves a vital 236 stepping-stone in our efforts to distinguish between truth and falsehood.^^*^^ What is more---not only for drawing this distinction, but also for rejecting and casting out falsehood and asserting what is true and good. Laughter with meaning behind it has never been something detached and impartial. It is not merely a witness, but an active fighter.
The need for satire stems not only from the existence of the object of satirical ridicule in life itself, but also from the nature of the social forces opposing evil. Satire is brought forth by both objective and subjective factors; its pointedness is not merely a result of the inner rot of the things it castigates, but also reflects the moral fibre of the people anxious to wipe out everything which holds back progress. The fuller the realisation of our ideals in socialist society, the more intolerant man becomes of any manifestations of evil in life whatsoever. Satire is important not only at this point in time, but will remain so in the future as well. Socialist society is a young, healthy society: not only is it not afraid of criticism of its weaknesses through comedy, but on the contrary is anxious that there should be such criticism, for it knows the future belongs to it.
Satire has many attendant problems. The prototypes who recognise themselves in satirical characters take offence, and more often than not resent the satire and protest. After his comedy Tartuffe had been banned Moliere said to the French king: "The tartuffes were able through cunning to find grace in your Majesty's eyes; the originals have in the end succeeded in having the copy suppressed. . .." Hundreds of years have passed since Moliere's play was written, yet the tartuffes of this world still behave in the same way.
It must be remembered that satire is after all a twoedged weapon.
The famous physician of the Middle Ages Paracelsus _-_-_
^^*^^ See: V. G. Belinsky, Complete Works, in thirteen volumes, Vol. 10, p. 232 (in Russian).
237 wrote: all is poison, all is physic. A mere single dose makes of a substance poison or physic. Satire too is always both poison and cure. This is why the weapon of satire demands great caution, that is, it needs to be wielded deftly and with craftsmanship. Only if properly directed does satire reach its true goal, convey the ideas intended. Satirical comedy is an active attacking genre, for which it is always vital that the author should adopt a clearly defined, unequivocal stand. Clarity of purpose and wellaimed attack are indispensable.The art of the comedy-writer, satirist and caricaturist is a powerful art form worthy of the deepest respect. Its advance ensures the purity and strength of socialist society, its confident march forward and rejection of all that stands between it and its lofty goals. The art of comedy helps to affirm the progressive social and aesthetic ideal.
[238] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter V __ALPHA_LVL1__ CREATIVE METHODSocialist realism is the fullest and most complete aesthetic expression of the life in modern society. Socialist realism constitutes not merely a new, higher stage in the history of world art, but a new type of artistic thought. Of course socialist realism cannot be separated from the realist art of the past, the art from which it stems. The finest traditions which took shape in realist art throughout the world are continued and elaborated in socialist realism. Yet, while remaining true to those traditions, socialist realism represents real innovation, art born of the struggle by the masses to achieve the socialist transformation of the world. This art corresponds to the aesthetic needs of the people, it expresses and provides artistic affirmation for universal historic mission of the working class. Socialist realism is a tremendous step forward in mankind's artistic development, precisely because it reproduces the life and preoccupations of the people engaged in the revolutionary restructuring of life, because it extols the grandeur, beauty and nobility of the people's acts, reflects the moulding of the new man's character, his attitudes and moral principles.
Socialist realism took root first of all in Soviet art, but now it has established itself in the art of other socialist countries. In capitalist countries as well, progressive artists who link their creative work with the destiny of the revolutionary masses, are moving in a socialistrealist direction, taking up this new stand. Suffice it to 239 mention the work of such great masters of the written word as Remain Holland, Henri Barbusse, Martin Andersen Nexo, G. B. Shaw, Heinrich and Thomas Mann, Theodore Dreiser. Each of these men by his own path arrived at the portrayal of events of our turbulent century from a progressive, truly revolutionary standpoint. It must be remembered that in capitalist society socialist realism cannot prevail in the world of art, but its emergence and development there is a profoundly logical development as well. Socialist realist art is now a truly international phenomenon.
In modern capitalist society humanist art is represented not only by socialist realism. Various manifestations of critical realism are phenomena by no means confined to the nineteenth century. Today critical realism in nonsocialist countries is a natural and progressive phenomenon that plays a positive role in the exposure of those features of social life that time has overtaken, in the disclosure of their spiritual and moral emptiness.
Critical realism does not attain the level of socialist realism, yet in the ideological struggle of the present they are not opponents or antipodes. At a symposium of the European Community of Writers held in Leningrad in 1963 it was aptly pointed out that humanist writers need not be communists, but cannot be anti-communists. To elaborate on this idea, it would be as well to add that they could not be anti-communists for the reason that consistently practised humanism today cannot lead elsewhere but to communism. Likewise we can say that the critical realism of the twentieth century does not intrinsically coincide with socialist realism, but it cannot be opposed to the latter; consistent realism, that does not deviate from the path of truthful portrayal of life, and the logic of its development cannot fail to lead art along a path that brings it gradually nearer socialist ideology as applied to art.
The art of socialist realism emerged as a profoundly logical stage in the development of art itself on the foundation of the movement for the emancipation of the proletariat, but at the same time it meets the essential 240 interests of the broad masses and is truly humane and universal in character, the art of the future.
Socialist realism has two sides---subjective and objective. It is not merely the creative method of socialist art, but the artistic culture itself of socialist society. Socialist realism is a concept possessed of many facets, which embraces the essence and central creative concerns of artists in socialist countries.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Creative Method. RealismCreative method is a specific artistic category. Art is set apart from other phenomena not only because it has its own particular subject of reflection, but also by the character of its reproduction of phenomena from the real world. However, the artist's creative, or artistic method does not only find expression in the fact that, unlike the method of scientific cognition, it leads the artist to reflect the real world in its aesthetic particularity by means of artistic images.
Imagery is not a method of artistic creativity, but a specific form for the reflection of reality in art. It is a form which is universal, typical of the art of all ages and all people, and of various trends in art. With reference to literature Jan Parandowski, the Polish scholar, noted with good reason that everything in the literary arts can change except expression of thoughts through images. The image, according to him, is the essential element of poetry, perhaps the only one which nothing can threaten, neither time, nor poetic fashions. Trends and currents change, subjects and plots, motifs and moods, conventions that determine choices of words and versification patterns, yet the image remains permanent whether in its direct form, in metaphor or simile. Images are the lifeblood of poetry.^^*^^ Moreover this applies to all art forms.
Artistic method is a concrete historical category. At various periods in the development of art, or even during _-_-_
^^*^^ See: J. Parandowski, Alchemia slowa, Warszawa, 1969. 16---796 241
241 one and the same era, various trends with regard to creative method have proceeded in different directions. Any creative method of course will reflect the general laws of artistic development, but each one is remarkable in that it sheds its own particular light on the central issues of creativity, different from that stemming from other methods. Each creative method offers its own solution for the question as to which are the most important concerns of art, which phenomena of real life should be reproduced in art, for the question as to the nature of artistic generalisations, the means of expression, the aims of art, the purpose of artistic creation, which Stanislavsky termed the ``super-super-objective''. Artistic method is the sum of creative principles, from which an artist starts out in the process of selection, generalisation and portrayal of phenomena and facts drawn from life in the images of art. However, it is not merely a "sum of principles" in the form of abstract logical definitions, or strictly conceptual descriptions. Artistic method which possesses methodological significance for any type of creative activity is also a tangible aesthetic entity, which in relation to the material incorporated in art provides a normative criterion and is also a means of concrete universalisation. Yet it goes without saying that general theoretical and conceptual definition is essential: this type of definition has enabled us to establish analytically the dividing lines between various artistic trends and lines of artistic thought and the method intrinsic to each throughout the history of art, as for example between the methods of Classicism, Romanticism and Realism. Artistic method---and this particular definition enables us to draw a clear distinction between artistic method and artistic style---constitutes a specific type of approach to the subject of art, to the reflected reality, for which it provides the artistic analogy; style on the other hand constitutes a system or principle for the organisation of meaningful form, the organisation of artistic expression. Method divorced from style or an individual manner of creation does not exist, yet manner or style outside method do not exist either. It is clear 242 that method is to style, and style to manner what the general is to the particular and the particular to the unique. Method is a wider concept than style, and an artist's individual manner of creation, his particular creative hand is a concept narrower still.Elaboration of the category of artistic method is a task of prime importance for Marxist aestheticians and art historians. Indicative of this importance is the constant stream of new works in this field, and the search for new approaches to the investigation of this or that aspect of the question. In this connection it is useful to analyse the position adopted by Soviet aesthetician Boris Reizov in his article in Voprosy Literatury (No. 1, 1957). The author came out against classification of individual works of art as representing specific trends or creative methods, since the actual concepts of method and trend are, in his eyes, no more than an empty abstraction bereft of real concrete and historical content. From his point of view only one thing really exists and that is the work of art. He writes: "Balzac is a realist when he depicts Gobseek, a revolutionary romantic when he depicts a Republican revolutionary, and a reactionary romantic when he extols for example the 'country doctor' or the 'village priest' (in the novels of the same name) or the legitimiste Daniel d'Artez, for such characters are after all obsolescent!
``It would therefore appear to follow that in one and the same man's work, and even within a single novel, the methods of realism, reactionary romanticism and revolutionary romanticism can be found. What does this imply? It implies that typological definitions of actual historical literary trends naturally and inevitably lead to absurdities, since each in itself cannot measure up to reality." Naturally method and trend do not exist in a vacuum outside works of art just as, for example, a fruit cannot exist which is not an apple or a pear, etc. Yet the science concerned with living Nature does not begin when the existence of an apple is established, but only when the concept of a biological species takes shape. The science __PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 243 of art, in its turn, also requires typological investigation of the phenomena intrinsic to the artistic process, a truly scientific approach to art. Of course there are major differences between individual artists, who represent one and the same trend, and even in the work of one and the same artist, as is justly pointed out by Reizov: often preoccupation with various creative principles is to be observed in different works by the same artist and this fact always demands due consideration. Yet this is no reason why we should adopt an anti-typological approach to the study of art. On the contrary, general features should always be singled out in the particular. When study of a work of art goes no further than acknowledgement of its existence and investigation of its individualised features, while no typological aspects are singled out and it is not ascribed to any particular school or method, this leads to a rejection of the dialectic of the general and the particular, to aesthetic nominalism. Wide though the differences may be between such artists as Stendhal and Balzac, Tolstoy and Gogol, Repin and Kramskoi, Tchaikovsky and Moussorgsky, all these artists used as their creative basis one and the same realist method.
In the wide epistemological sense the demand for truthful depiction of reality, a correspondence between art and life lies at the basis of realist method. However, this definition of it is too general, and for a more concrete description of the essence of the realist method further precision is required. The demand for truth has after all been put forward not only by adherents of the realist method, but also by followers of other creative methods and trends, such as Classicism and Romanticism, and more recently Naturalism. Yet the concept "artistic truth" has not only been interpreted by artists of various trends in many different ways, but has sometimes been lent contrasting, if not opposed, meanings.
Realistic presentation of the truth is poles apart not only from abstract theories, subjectivism and various manifestations of formalism, but also from any naturalist inventory of facts. This is understandable, for naturalism 244 is after all not an inferior variety of realism, but merely the reverse side of formalism.
Truth and truthfulness in realist art demand not precision in external description, but that the image correspond to the inner essence of what is being depicted. Neither stark externals nor subjectivity run wild is needed, but reality itself, in its essential manifestations lent idea-content and aesthetic significance by the artist, whose world outlook is shaped by the concrete historical conditions of the life of the people. These are the basic principles of a realistic interpretation of truth.^^*^^ The role of truth in realist art was elucidated in Engels' well-known definition: "Realism .. . implies, besides truth of detail, the truth in reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances.''^^**^^ Realist method is characterised by the ability to penetrate profoundly the significant aspects of the real world; it presupposes a wide grasp of life, a truthful representation of "typical characters under typical circumstances" and concrete expression. Realist art is an artistic analogy for life itself. This is why the realist method demands of the artist that he focus his attention on reality, this is why it helps him to depict life truthfully, sometimes even flying in the face of his subjective likes and dislikes. The impact of the realist method in the history of art has often made itself felt in that it has helped artists to a large extent to overcome class limitations and despite their class prejudices to create profound, accurate and truthful pictures of life. It was in this very connection that Engels spoke of realism's great victory in the work of Balzac, who found himself compelled, despite his political prejudices if not only to appreciate the inevitability of the fall of his beloved aristocrats, but also to depict them as people unworthy of a better fate.
It is important to distinguish between realism as a _-_-_
^^*^^ See: The section of this book entitled Artistic Truth in Chapter II.
^^**^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1975, p. 379.
245 creative method, typical of a specific historical trend in art, and realism as a feature of truthful reflection of life to be found in all true art. In this last respect realism is part of the very nature of artistic creation.The question of realism represents one of the most important questions in aesthetics and the theory of art. At present it is the subject of fierce ideological controversy. The question of realism is now a regular battlefield. In reactionary aesthetic writings realism has been subjected to bitter attack. All manner of reactionaries in this field have rejected realism in art, and call for art's independence of reality, proclaiming the "boundless freedom" of artistic creativity, which to them, for all intents and purposes, means the artist's right to reject truthful portrayal of life, and extol fierce anti-realism. Propagation of antirealism goes hand in hand with the deliberate neglect of the people's life and the issues central to it in reactionary currents of bourgeois art, with the departure into the realm of psychopathology, a belittling of humanist ideas and man himself and a rejection of the artist's high calling. The French film-critic, Henri Agel, for instance, maintains that man is an imperfect being grovelling around on all fours in an unstable world: he would also have us believe that man should depict himself not at the moment of his greatness but at the moment of depression and despair, at times when doubts call in question the very worth of his soul. The anti-realism inherent in bourgeois art can often appear in ``milder'' forms as well: an artist may present us with pictures drawn from life, but see his task to lie not in a truthful reproduction of a phenomenon, but merely in the assertion of his own subjective view of what he is depicting. This approach demands that art should not "analyse and explain", but rather depict the world as the artist sees it, regardless of whether his vision corresponds to life's objective truth. If such prescriptions are followed, then art may look even realistic, but it would in fact be no more than an imitation of realism, for such art is essentially anti-realist, being bereft of principles.
246In the well-known Knaurs Lexicon of Modern Art put out in West Germany the concept of realism is analysed at two levels: firstly as the depiction of the external world, and secondly as a specific conception of man's spiritual life. The former interpretation of realism is typical of impressionism, and the second of cubism. This same dictionary goes on to explain that there exist two types of realism---direct representation of reality and reproduction of the world based mainly on metaphorical and abstract means of expression. That most commonly encountered in modern art is the second type, and the compilers of the lexicon express bewilderment at the fact that it is sometimes referred to as unrealistic. This only goes to show that in this work realism is approached not as a creative method, but merely as a specific system of descriptive means.
Realism naturally does not shackle itself with any restrictions as regards artistic language: metaphor was used by realist artists on a fairly wide scale in the past, and is indeed used at the present time as well. Yet it is quite clear that to encourage an indiscriminate attitude to means of expression or, on the contrary, a reduction of the essence of modern realism to no more than a specific system of descriptive and expressive means, will lead either to a substitution of realism by an empty shadow of the same, or to an evaporation of realism in artistic endeavours that are not in keeping with its essential nature.
Vital tasks before Marxist-Leninist aestheticians is a substantiation of the nature of realism, an uncompromising fight against anti-realist phenomena in art and against an attempt to theoretically substantiate anti-realism.
Meanwhile the struggle against modern anti-realism in certain writings by aestheticians and art historians is sometimes incorrectly viewed as the expression of a more general pattern of development---the struggle between realism and anti-realism that runs, they claim, as a constant thread throughout the history of art. This view is inacceptable in that it contradicts the true significance of 247 the historical process as it affects art. The conception according to which the whole of the history of art is seen as the history of a struggle between two trends or two methods---realism and anti-realism---does not facilitate in any way correct definition of the laws underlying the development of art. It is wrong to attribute features peculiar to one period in the history of art---to be precise modern art---to art as a whole, to the whole history of art.
Mistaken concepts such as these took shape as a result of a wrong interpretation of the implications of the struggle between materialism and idealism in the history of philosophy. Then comes the question as to whether it is permissible to compare the history of art to the history of philosophy, to draw an analogy between the concepts ``idealism'' and ``materialism'' as found in philosophy and art. To do so would in fact be incompatible with the specific nature of art.
To summarise: realism in its broad sense is the term used to denote a truthful reflection of life. To some extent, embracing a wider or narrower range of life's phenomena and with varying degrees of penetration all art brings us a truthful reproduction of reality. Viewed in this way realism is something intrinsic to all art.
Anti-realist elements in art are sometimes found interwoven with important aspects of creativity. The answer to the question as to whether anti-realist trends belong to the sphere of art is a negative one. Yet here a distinction needs to be drawn between anti-realist trends and the concrete practice of creative artists who might adhere to such trends. The creative nature of the artist at times instinctively rebels against anti-realist currents, and in the work of many modernists we do in fact encounter an unusually complex and contradictory process.
Here three explanations are possible: either anti-- realism has a disastrous influence on the artist's work---his talent deserts him and he ceases to create art; or by virtue of his talent the artist eliminates anti-realist concepts and sets foot on a realist path; or finally---as is most frequently the case---the work of an artist is 248 contradictory and has various sides to it, in other words, the outcome will be an unusual combination of true art and anti-artistic elements.
The fate of realism in the twentieth century has been and is still being shaped in the struggle against antirealist trends in art (usually bracketed together by the overall term modernism). Despite its relative vagueness, the term is properly suited to designate those phenomena of art in capitalist society which reflect the crisis of bourgeois consciousness and the anti-humanism inherent in that consciousness.
Marxist analysis of modernist art and criticism of the aesthetic theories that go with it are highly relevant. Every effort to play down the contradictions between realism and modernism, to ``enrich'' realism with modernism's artistic revelations and thus bring the two closer together is aimed at forming an aesthetic variety of the "convergence theory", a theory which is no less reactionary and dangerous in the sphere of aesthetics than in any other sphere of ideology.
The phenomenon of modernism is closely bound up with the disintegration of art in the conditions of capitalist society. Modernism today is of course very different from what it was at the beginning of the century, in the twenties or even somewhat later. These differences are part and parcel of the continuous replacement of one artistic system by another. As mentioned earlier in another connection, abstract or non-representational art was the predominant trend in modernism not so very long ago, yet after only a relatively short time it had run its course, as the expression goes, and was pushed to one side. In the sixties ``objects'' were again reinstated through socalled Pop-art and Op-art, which were dismissed as "triumph of the hacks" even by Salvador Dali, the leading light of that other modernist trend, surrealism. Yet in practice the difference between the earlier non-- representational art of the abstract artists and the reinstated objects of the practitioners of Pop-art and the kineticists was not one of principle. In a certain sense Pop-art, 249 Opart and kineticism are merely abstract art turned inside out. The essense of modernist art lies not simply in the techniques that are intrinsic to it, nor in the expressive means it employs that differ from the language of realist art, but in its specific social and aesthetic implications and its ideology.
Modernism always meant individualist, anti-popular art; this found expression in, among other things, its allout refusal to concern itself with a broad public, its deliberate orientation towards an ``elite'', a "chosen few". Today the anti-popular aspects have been taken to extremes, and even more blatantly than before modernism now stands out as a vehicle of irrationalism, dehumanisation, the Absurd and the rejection of progressive ideas. The ideology of modernism has a disastrous influence on the artist, for it convinces him, to use the words of the British art critic John Berger, that "Culture, Science, Reason---all the values that begin with old capital letters--- are assassinated ... in their place are put the superstitions and idols of the commercial Dream Factory''.^^*^^ To inundate the public with these dreams, to kill man's faith and his reason---such is the social or rather anti-social function of modernism.
However, the work of several major artists associated with various modernist trends by no means always kept within the scope of these trends and often had far wider implications. The evolution of style and ideas in the work of Paul Eluard, Bertolt Brecht, Johannes Becher, Ferdinand Leger and Pablo Picasso and the course of their careers in art is most revealing and instructive, as indeed is the case with many other artists who were also at one time connected with modernist trends, and then took up a progressive approach.
Telling criticism of modernist art requires elucidation of the nature and social significance of realism. True art is always realistic but the concept ``realism'' is a very broad one. As already pointed out, realism is not merely _-_-_
^^*^^ New Statesman, Vol. IV, No. 1401, January 18, 1958, p. 70. 250
250 the truthful reproduction of reality which is essential to all true art without exception. The term realism is used to denote a specific historical trend and its creative method. In this sense realism has not of course always existed, but rather it emerged at a certain stage in the development of art. It is possible, indeed necessary, to use the concept realism in its epistemological sense (realism is life's truth in art). Yet if we go no further, then the aesthetic individuality of concrete historical phenomena in art is lost.It would be wrong to place all artistic phenomena under the heading of realism, the specific trend in art which emerged at a given stage in history. In the history of art there have been magnificent works, which were neither anti-realist, nor could be associated with any realist trend. This is why the history of art is not a history of realism, and it also explains why the development of art should not be regarded as nothing more than the history of the various stages of realism. If Classicism and Romanticism be declared stages in the development of realism, this will obscure the essence of these trends and the special qualities that set them apart from other trends in art.
There are ample grounds for agreeing with those writers who hold that realist traits have always been essential to art. Yet it should be remembered that Realism as a creative method, which has broadened man's artistic vision of the world to such an extraordinary extent, differs significantly from the artistic trends that went before it. Realism is characterised among other things by art's liberation from mythological modes of thought, an extraordinary broadening of the sphere of phenomena from real life that come within art's scope, by social analysis of reality and a special system of artistic techniques and uses of imagery, etc.
The creative principles intrinsic to realism cannot be reduced to a specific style; equally it would be quite wrong to contrast realist method with an artist's style or manner of expression. When realism is seen as no more than a specific style characterised simply by a faithfulness to detail, when realism is used to imply merely the 251 reproduction of reality in "forms drawn from life itself", the result is that the concept of realism is impoverished and opportunities for its use of a variety of expressive means narrowed down. Realism is characterised not only by truthful portrayal, but also by a rejection of faithfulness to outward forms of reality, and a variety of stylised means of expression. The essence of realism is brought out not in artistic means, for its goal is the attainment of life's profound truths. A work of art can appear largely true to life, while its inner essence remains false and distorts reality. On the other hand, objectively faithful reflections of reality can often appear to disregard external resemblances and reject realistic depiction of detail. Yet forms of an artist's creative work are important in the context of the realist method, and likewise the way in which he employs his images. Realism uses such artistic means and images as correspond most fully to the nature of this trend in art, to the demands of its creative method.
The fundamental difference between realism and all other creative methods is borne out not only by the choice of phenomena deemed worthy to be the object of portrayal, but also by the character of their artistic expression, the logic of the artistic image's growth and development, the pattern of action in a work, and by the way in which conflict is resolved. Realism's profound penetration of life and the variety of phenomena it presents, given consistency, can enable an artist, better than any other creative method, to be objective, to set himself free from illusions, delusions and prejudice. Dostoyevsky's career as a writer is most revealing in this connection. It was precisely his uncompromising realism, profound understanding of human psychology and faithful adherence to realist method which emerged victorious in the work of this great artist, who succeeded finally in his most outstanding works in tearing himself free from the grip of those reactionary ideas central to his philosophy of life. Yet even a great realist artist, once in the grip of a false world outlook, may often find himself incapable of 252 going beyond the limitations of a false set of ideas when engaged in creative work. Realist method comes up against a false philosophy of life and is not always able to prevail in the clash.
Soon after the October Revolution John Reed and H.G. Wells visited the Soviet Union. These two major writers were given the opportunity to see revolutionary Russia at her supreme moment of greatness. Reed saw ten days that shook the world, the beginning of a new historical era, the dawn of a magnificent future. Wells, though a writer who excelled in the fantastic and thought up a war of the worlds, a time-machine, voyages to other planets, proved unable to envisage the grandeur of the revolutionary changes to come and only saw Russia in the shadows. Reed's emotional involvement was out of Well's reach. The latter's false world outlook presented in this particular case an insurmountable obstacle to the realistic reflection of reality.
Socialist realism is organically linked with the Marxist-Leninist world outlook. . The socialist world outlook equips the artist with an understanding of the inner meaning of historical events, knowledge of prospects for future development. This world outlook lends clear precision to his ideological stand. Alexei Tolstoy wrote: "I cannot open my eyes to the world before my whole consciousness has been filled with the idea of that world: then the world appears before me as meaningful and possessed of a sense of purpose. I, a Soviet writer, am gripped by the idea of the formation and building of a new world. This is what opens my eyes. I behold images of the world, understand their significance, what links them together, their relationship to me and mine to them.''^^*^^
Fundamental to the method of socialist realism is the principle of consistent pursuit of life's truth, the concrete depiction of reality with its historical implications. The artist who uses the socialist-realist method cannot _-_-_
^^*^^ A. N. Tolstoy, Collected Works, in 9 volumes, Vol. 3, p. 173 (in Russian).
253 confine himself to passive reflection of life, he has to involve himself actively in life, help his people through his art to build the new society. Socialist art is called upon to raise the curtain upon the world of tomorrow, and to this end it must depict life in its revolutionary development. Gorky maintained that the artist should embrace three realities---past, present and future---and that he has to be able to view the present from the standpoint of the future. This need for the artist to perceive and depict life in its revolutionary development Gorky appreciated and defined as the revolutionary principle of the age. In order to keep abreast of these objectives the socialistrealist method demands of the artist profound knowledge of the life of his contemporaries, and a clear understanding of the historical creativity of the masses.Truthful reflection of life, active involvement in it and portrayal of life in its revolutionary development are all features we encounter in realist art of the past. Moussorgsky was right when he stated that an artist cannot help but sing of the future for that future lives within him. The socialist-realist method is rooted in the traditions of that realism, and at the same time it enriches and develops those traditions to meet the needs of present-day socialist reality. Yet the art of socialist realism embraces not merely the experience of the realist art of the past, but also the progressive traditions inherent in other artistic trends. Another of the features essential to the socialist-realist method is revolutionary romanticism, understood as a specific artistic principle; this is a feature drawn in large measure from the art of revolutionary romanticism. However, socialist realism is fundamentally different from the realism of the past. It incorporates new features and traits stemming from art's new approach to the real world. There are no grounds for accepting the viewpoint that the socialist-realist method can be divided into two parts as it were, although this approach has gained a good number of followers. They divide the socialist-realist method into .a realist aspect taken from the past and the traditions of the art that has gone before, 254 and a socialist aspect drawn from the innovating spirit of socialist society. The crux of the matter here is that the realist understanding of the real world in socialist art is of quite a different quality from that peculiar to the realism of the past. The concepts ``socialist'' and `` realism'' cannot be regarded as no more than a parallel pair of terms interchangeable with ``innovation'' and `` tradition'', although their significance does embrace this aspect as well. The main point here is that realism in socialist art represents an entirely new phenomenon, an innovation precisely because it is now socialist.
These new features of socialist method have been singled out not only by Soviet aestheticians but by admirers of Soviet art abroad as well. Romain Rolland for instance held that the continuation of the realist tradition of Russian nineteenth-century literature in the finest works of Soviet writers was reflected first and foremost in the breadth of vision and objective approach of the new writers, who were reflecting life without distortion and tended to "conceal the artist and reveal the subject of his art'',^^*^^ and in the range of their canvases that depict whole strata of human life. Rolland went on to say that "young Soviet literature gives new life to these fundamental _-_-_
^^*^^ At the present time even in certain Marxist writings it is suggested that the artist himself constitutes far more of the content of a work of art than the subject he depicts. As far as the theoretical interpretation of art is concerned there is little point in asking which is more interesting and more important in art---the world depicted by the artist, or the artist depicting that world---indeed the very choice itself is misplaced. To belittle the importance of either is to turn one's back on realism. One thing is certain: the spiritual potential of the artist is aesthetically significant in realist art as long as it enables him to express the essence of the world in which we live. Discussion as to the correlation between the ``open'' and ``closed'' elements in contemporary art reveals an essential fact: the artist often involves himself directly in the course of events unfolded in a work and does not always ``conceal'' himself. This is not in any way incompatible with the traditions of realist art, for the richer an artist's creative talents the more he will endeavour to offer us an objective picture of the world even if he sees this picture somewhat subjectively.---Author.
255 characteristics of great Russian literature of all ages, not merely because it is studying a new subject---the new world born amidst struggle---but also because it throbs with a new spirit---a collective spirit, the tempestuous aspirations that are carrying forward millions of men to the great goals of socialist construction.''Creative method in socialist art requires of the artist active commitment, optimism, passionate concern with the building of the new life, while art of the critical-- realist school is above all art of protest, opposed to contemporary society and directed not against individual or specific weaknesses of that society, but its very foundations, its essential nature. The emotional power of the art of socialist realism lies in its optimistic, positive approach to life, which shapes the artist's approach to his portrayal of the new reality and determines his aesthetic and philosophical evaluation of phenomena drawn from life around him. The emotional power of the art of critical realism lies in its negation of the contemporary world, and above all in its condemnation of social injustice. Under capitalism social reality is not only hostile to art, but the artist cannot reconcile himself to bourgeois reality.
In the art of socialist realism there disappears that gulf between the ideal and the real which characterised the art of the past. Truthfulness in their creative work often led artists of the past to depict various phenomena as outright contradictions of the ideal. Attempts to present the existing way of life as something which corresponded to the ideal led to deviations from the truth, distortion and artistic insincerity. This predicament was the source of tragedy for many artists of the past. A striking example of this is presented by Gogol's work: the first part of his Dead Souls presents a striking contrast, from both the philosophical and artistic point of view, with the second. In the first the writer paints a profoundly true picture of the contemporary world of landowners and civil servants, and it does not contain one positive character. In the second, where Gogol set himself the task of depicting landowners as positive figures, we find a 256 departure from social and historical truth and the overall tone is false.
The socialist revolution put an end to the tragic dilemma facing the artists of the past, for it did away with the antagonistic contradiction between the ideal and real life. The socialist-realist artist is inspired by ideals which are, in principle, within man's grasp in the world in which he finds himself, and which the actual development of socialist society makes possible. This explains why the artist in this context depicts life's beauty, as he depicts its truth. Or to put it another way, through his affirmation of the ideal the artist naturally and freely expresses life's truth. In socialist society the attitude of art to life changes: socialist reality in its revolutionary development is upheld as the fullest expression of the beautiful.
A pivotal creative principle in the art of socialist realism is the focus on the working people carrying out revolution :and fighting to build a new social order as the pre-eminent subject. This of course does not mean that every work of art must depict revolutionary change in its immediate manifestations. The range of subjects and ideas to be represented in art is boundless, just as life itself. Socialist art has its large epic canvases and short lyric verses, its tragedy and comedy, its inspired symphonies and light-hearted songs. To use a variation on Voltaire's maxim---All styles are good save the tiresome kind---it might be said that all subjects are worthwhile and the portrayal of any phenomenon is justified, if the characteristics of the new man are faithfully expressed in the manner of their presentation, and the life of the people thoroughly reflected. The art of socialist realism is first and foremost the artistic chronicle of intense historical development, life and endeavour and the struggle of the revolutionary masses, indeed it is the artistic biography of the people. Socialist-realist method made it possible for the first time in the history of art for the people to emerge as a force that is not only destructive but which can also be creative, the main lever of social progress.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---796 257In the light of all this the socialist-realist method makes possible a satisfactory solution to the question as to how best to present the subject of work. In the art of critical realism work emerges as a force hostile to man, to his interests and goals, to his quest for the beautiful. Soviet art presents work as the basic sphere of man's activity, as a force which brings out man's creative potential, as a factor which exerts a decisive influence on the formation of his character. Soviet art extols the role of work as creative and ennobling. It upholds it as the perfect expression of the beautiful in life. It was precisely this idea that Gorky had in mind when he said that the essence of the socialist-realist method can be deduced from Engels' words that being is action.
The revisionists among aestheticians ignore the qualitative difference between critical and socialist realism, and suggest that the main task of the realist in any conditions is to expose and criticise the existing way of life. In this idea is expressed one of the most widespread and popular of misleading interpretations of the tasks facing the artist: literature has always been and will continue to be critical by its very nature; the artist is called upon to expose the ``stains'' which sully the new society; in art pessimism is always more important than optimism which is of course always ``official'' ... and so on and so forth. Such ideas are anti-historical in the extreme. Authors of this stamp are reluctant to accept that pure realism, realism as such, does not exist, and they automatically transfer features of the art of the past to the art of socialist society. Socialist art never turned its back on criticism of shortcomings, but its emotional force has always been and will be directed at upholding and extolling the new life, socialist ideals and communist morality. The socialist-realist method demands portrayal of the whole range of man's emotions---both joyful and sad---but socialist art always has been and always will be optimistic and full of a zest for life, because socialist society itself is permeated with an inexhaustible faith in life, and in its future.
258When explaining the leading role of this positive ideal in the art of socialist realism, Marxist aestheticians refer not only to the correctness but also the indispensability of the critical principle. However, in socialist art it is of a fundamentally different quality, a factor of only secondary importance, which serves to foster man's positive values in life.
The new type of relationship between art and reality in the socialist era gives rise to qualitatively new features in realist method. It would be wrong, however, to make of these features a dogma, an unshakeable aesthetic canon. The art of socialist realism cannot be made to order. Socialist realism involves first and foremost rich creative activity, and a correct understanding of it can be gleaned from all the finest works by artists using the wide range of art forms and genres found in socialist art. Socialist realism encompasses the books, plays, films, pictures, sculptures, operas, symphonies that immortalise the men and the mood of great revolutionary events, which made such a tremendous contribution to world art and culture.
The opponents of socialist realism see its weak point in its supposed tendency to unify artistic creation, suppress artistic individuality and engender monotony. The best refutation of this charge is to be found in concrete works of art. Suffice it to compare for example the work of such outstanding representatives of socialist realism in Soviet literature as Alexei Tolstoy and Fadeyev, Sholokhov and Fedin, Ehrenburg and Gladkov, Tvardovsky, Simonov, Martynov and many many others, for us to appreciate how different these artists are from each other when it comes to their unique individuality, their own particular creative style.
What do the style, genre, or at times even subjects of Ordeal (Alexei Tolstoy), The Rout (A. Fadeyev), Virgin Soil Upturned (M. Sholokhov), The Storm (I. Ehrenburg) and Cement (F. Gladkov) have in common? A similar situation obtains in other spheres of Soviet art. We find the great Stanislavsky and at his side __PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 259 Nemirovich-Danchenko, Meyerhold and Tairov, Kachalov and Ostuzhev, in the theatre; Gerasimov and lohanson, Saryan and Korin, Yuon and Plastov, Konenkov and Mukhina in the world of fine arts; Prokofiev, Asafiev, Shostakovich, Kabalevsky, Khrennikov and Khachaturyan in music: these figures make up a rich galaxy of artists all possessed of brilliant talent and yet each so different from the other.
This diversity has also made itself felt in the work of the younger generation of Soviet artists. A unique wealth of creative individuality is represented for example by such names as Aitmatov, Bykov, Zalygin in prose-- writing; Narovchatov, Lukonin, Voznesensky and Yevtushenko in poetry, Yefremov, Efros, Lyubimov in the theatre and Chukhrai, Khutsiev and Kulidzhanov in the cinema. Each of these artists has his own vision of the world, his own artistic interests, his own language and style, his own manner of expression: yet they share common principles, a common artistic method. While retaining their individuality in the practice of their art, they are like-minded when it comes to their view of its purpose. The recognition enjoyed by all these widely differing artists shows that the art of socialist realism brings men great artistic joy, not only through its truthful and profoundly artistic reflection of life, but also through its diversity. Socialist realism is a creative method and not a uniform artistic style, in which is found a fixed set of descriptive and expressive means, binding for every artist, as it were.
Socialist realism is not a dead dogma, but a living growing method for artistic creation. Its advance towards perfection is organically linked with the development of society itself, with those grandiose changes which, the people is now implementing in society. At the same time socialist-realist method not only inspires artistic creation, but is itself enriched by the experience of art itself.
For all this, theoretical discussion aimed at defining and specifying various aspects of the creative method in 260 socialist art can be most instructive. In recent years literary articles have appeared calling for more precise definition of the concepts: "Soviet art", "socialist art", and "the art of socialist realism". In this context socialist art is a wider concept than socialist realism, since it embraces certain artistic phenomena, which, while possessed of socialist implications, are rooted not in a realist understanding of reality, but a romantic one, by way of an example. This means that socialist art can embrace trends which while they share philosophical roots involve different methods, such as socialist realism and socialist romanticism. There are grounds for saying that not all the diverse ideas and artistic techniques in the literature and art of the first years after the revolution could be included in the concept of socialist realism. In the Soviet Republic of the twenties there were several artists who embraced the socialist cause wholeheartedly, but whose support for the revolution was emotional rather than rational. Their works were permeated with democratic ideas and humanist searchings, and they signified an advance in the direction of socialist realism. Yet it is impossible to accept the view that in advanced socialist society there can exist art, which, while socialist in its content and ideas, is not realist when it comes to method. An artist who consistently starts out from a socialist world outlook, gleans his aesthetic ideals from the world around him and correlates these with reality, which means that his creative method will of necessity be realist. The variety of styles and genres found in Soviet art testifies not to diversity of creative method, but on the contrary to rich aesthetic principles rooted in the nature of socialist realism. Indeed in the last decade socialist art has been enriched by a number of remarkable works of art in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, and also by certain works of progressive artists in the capitalist countries. Suffice it to name for example such works by Soviet writers as Simonov's trilogy about the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) and Aitmatov's stories Farewell, Gyulsary! and The White Steamer, to make it quite clear that 261 contemporary artistic endeavour is lending new concrete, and historically significant content to the creative principlea of socialist realism, both with regard to style and genre, and that---still more significantly---with reference to these principles Soviet artists have reached a more profound understanding of the historical developments of the present age. The fact that Aitmatov in his story The White Steamer follows principles of artistic composition different from those to be found in Simonov's trilogy, gives us no ground for associating these writers with different artistic trends and methods. The work of various artists betrays a predilection for various means of expression, it is characterised by a predominance of poetic or prosaic elements (or for that matter romantic ones--- to name but another possibility) in the artist's perception and representation of life, by preoccupation with particular range of phenomena drawn from life: yet none of this reflects socialist realism's ``limitations'', rather it points to the extraordinary breadth of the social and aesthetic opportunities opened up to the artist by the socialist-realist method.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Socialist RealismThe art of socialist realism began to take shape at a turning point in history, at the moment of collapse for the old capitalist order, in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Socialist realism was provided with ample scope to grow and develop only in the conditions of the Soviet social order, thus to become the artistic embodiment of socialist culture.
Lunacharsky wrote that in the figure of Gorky, who laid the foundations for socialist realism, the working class had found its artistic identity, just as in the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin it had found its political and philosophical identity. In this assessment of Gorky's work Lunacharsky is really pinpointing the social nature of socialist realism, which he saw as the expression of the 262 artistic self-awareness of the working class and that of the working people that rallied to its banner.
The historic conditions necessary for the emergence of socialist realism were to be found in far-reaching processes typical of the socio-political life of the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. The emergence of socialist realism occurred when social contradictions were becoming more acute, when a profound crisis of capitalist society and its culture was already sensed as imminent. The emergence of socialist realism coincided with a new wave of the class struggle of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the colonial countries for liberation from economic and social oppression and for national independence, and an advance in the socialist awareness of the working people. The advent of this new creative method was the logical outcome of the development of art itself, which in that historical situation was sorely in need of adequate principles for the artistic reproduction of new reality and new people.
The origins of proletarian art can be traced further back, to the nineteenth century: the poetry of the Chartists, verses by Herwegh and Weerth, the poetic works of Eugene Pottier, author of the Internationale, Russian revolutionary songs, etc. Motifs drawn from the revolutionary struggle of the working class were echoed in English, French, German and Russian literature of the nineteenth century. Yet however closely such works were bound up with the proletarian movement they did not yet represent a new artistic trend. They only provided a foretaste of what was to come.
Socialist realism as a new stage in the development of realist art took shape in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. This can be accounted for above all by the fact that at that time the centre of the world revolutionary movement had shifted to Russia, and the working class of that country, by then in the forefront of the struggle of the international proletariat, created the most favourable social and ideological conditions for the development of socialist art.
263The rich revolutionary experience gained by the Russian proletariat, the existence of a progressive MarxistLeninist Party, the political isolation of the Russian bourgeoisie, that was relying on the autocracy and seeking the latter's protection, all served to give rise to a new artistic ideology, to the formation of a new art, the art of socialist realism.
An important role in the birth of this new art in Russia was played by the progressive traditions of Russian culture, the revolutionary and democratic ideas inherent in Russian, and indeed world art. All the basic features of nineteenth-century realism---its social impact, humanism, democratic message, unsparing exposure of the social relations pertaining to society based on exploitation ---also facilitated the emergence of socialist realism.
The artistic method of socialist realism began to crystallise in Russian literature in the years immediately leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1905. Gorky's Sorag of the Falcon and Song of the Stormy Petrel, his play The Petty Bourgeois with the worker Nil, a train-driver with a nascent revolutionary consciousness, his novel Mother, accorded such high praise by Lenin, were the first works of socialist realist art. Not only in the writings of Gorky, the father of socialist realism, but also in those of Mayakovsky, Demyan Bedny, Serafimovich and certain other proletarian writers did the new artistic method start to emerge. In other art forms it only took root after the October Revolution. However the necessary conditions for its subsequent emergence had taken shape before the revolution. Artistic precursors of socialist realism were provided, for example in music by revolutionary songs, in painting by the work of Kasatkin, Arkhipov and A. Ivanov, artists who adhered to the principles of the Peredvizhniky and who had charted new paths which led to socialist realism.
In the early years after the October Revolution socialist realism developed rapidly and took firm root in Soviet fine arts and literature. In the controversy which raged among representatives of the numerous artistic 264 schools and trends the call for continuing the traditions of realist art made itself ever more clearly heard. New Soviet realism drew inspiration from commitment to the Party and to the people.
At January 1965 plenary meeting of the Board of the Union of Writers of the USSR Nikolai Tikhonov declared: "Socialist realism was not thought up or prescribed by anyone, it was evolved by all Soviet writers together, and by each one of us individually; it is the living flesh of our philosophical and artistic searchings and achievements over more than half a century.''
The term "socialist realism" first appeared in the literature of the early thirties. In the creative experience of Soviet art socialist realism took shape long before the theoretical concept "socialist realism" became widespread in art criticism. The outstanding works of Gorky, the father of socialist realism, had been written before 1932, Mayakovsky's mighty poetic voice had rung out, a new Soviet literature grown up and socialist realism taken root in the fine arts. Before that date the Moscow Art Theatre had staged Armoured Train 14-69 by Vsevolod Ivanov, the Maly Theatre Lyubov Yarovaya by Konstantin Trenyov, the Vakhtangov Theatre The Rupture by Boris Lavrenyov; by 1932 the MGSPS (now Mossovet) Theatre had put on The Storm by Bill-Byelotserkovsky, the Meyerhold theatre had staged Vishnevsky's Last Decisive Battle: all these plays marked a vivid and memorable turning point on the path towards the creation of socialist-realist theatre. Eisenstein's and Pudovkin's screen masterpieces had also been made before 1932.
Here it is relevant to remind readers that in the twenties Soviet art critics and historians had been searching for a term that would serve to define the characteristic features of the new socialist art. This was a most serious undertaking; for young Soviet art, which was just taking shape at the time, had not yet been classified as belonging to any of the previously existing trends. Not only art critics were preoccupied with this question, but leading 265 artists as well. Alexei Tolstoy suggested the term " monumental realism" to designate the new art. However, the formula "monumental realism" or "heroic realism" won little support and was rejected because it implied restrictions with regard to genre and would have led to art's impoverishment. Some art critics recommended that Soviet art should be defined as "proletarian realism", a term which had emerged by analogy with the terms widely used in the twenties, "proletarian culture", " proletarian art", etc. Yet by the beginning of the thirties terms such as "proletarian culture", or "proletarian ideology" were gradually giving way in Soviet social thought to the terms "socialist culture", or "socialist ideology", terms which reflected the nature of those changes taking place in the intellectual life of Soviet society after the victory of revolutionary social relations. Logically enough in Soviet aesthetics it was not the term "proletarian realism" that had been used in critical writings of the twenties, but the broader and more comprehensive term "socialist realism"---a theoretical generalisation providing scientific expression of the essential features of Soviet art. This was the solution which Soviet aestheticians arrived at after long observation of the course of the artistic process and the development of aesthetic theory as such.
The development of the concept "socialist realism" cannot be analysed without investigating the whole range of theoretical questions that faced Soviet aestheticians and art historians in the twenties and thirties. Study of the main stages in the formation of Soviet aesthetics makes plain the utter inconsistency of bourgeois Sovietologists and revisionists who attempt to draw artificial contrasts between various of these stages.
In the twenties Soviet aesthetics was taking shape in the context of a campaign against the anti-historicism of bourgeois cultural conceptions, formalism and the vulgar sociologists theory of automatic determinism in the world of art. Very soon after the Revolution the vulgarsociological trend with its schematic and narrow approach met with active resistance both in the cultural policy of 266 the Soviet state and from theoreticians. At the end of the twenties ``academic'' sociology of art was in the doldrums. The conceptions it had put forward were by then clearly at odds with the objective processes of ideological and creative consolidation that were at work in Soviet art.
However in the twenties the philosophical and methodological roots of vulgar-sociological conceptions in art were not examined in sufficient detail. This gap was only filled in the thirties, when Soviet aesthetics became more firmly based on the principles of Lenin's theory of reflection and provided a more detailed explanation of the essence and significance of the Leninist stage in the development of Marxist aesthetics. This was made possible not only by more detailed and well-reasoned criticism of vulgar sociologism in the thirties but also by the sound elucidation of major problems of aesthetics and the theory of art.
In the thirties large-scale work was undertaken to collect together and systematise passages devoted to aesthetic questions in the Marxist classics: the judgements and statements concerning art were thus assembled to constitute a well-ordered and integrated system of aesthetic principles. This work aimed at mastering the aesthetic legacy of the founders of Marxism-Leninism proceeded in conjunction with formulation of socio-aesthetic criteria for such important questions as the significance of the Russian culture of the past for socialist culture, the essence of realism, folk traditions in art, etc. The aesthetic ideas in the works of the founders of Marxism played a vital role in the formation of the artistic processes in those days and their theoretical study.
Naturally, at that time as well theoretical conclusions were drawn which enriched men's understanding of the innovations inherent in the creative method of Soviet art. The very problem in Soviet aesthetics was a new departure, resulting from a new awareness of the issue "world outlook and creativity" with regard to the interpretation of the essence and social role of art. It was at 267 that particular stage that attention was focussed on questions which had been misunderstood by the aestheticians of the twenties such as objective criteria for the artistic, the reasons behind the unfading greatness of classical art, the universal significance of the classics, etc. New aspects of theory stemmed from the new interpretation of creativity as an integrated whole, as knowledge achieved through images.
In the thirties particular importance was attached to the coincidence of aesthetic and historical criteria in the evaluation and analysis of works of art. With reference to the principle of Marxist historicism, Soviet aesthetics rejected positivist empiricism and substantiated the compatibility of truthfulness and commitment in artistic creativity. This promoted a dialectical interpretation of the interaction of social circumstances and the active role of the individual, an awareness of historical specificity as one of the most important requirements of socialist-realist aesthetics. Closely bound up with the consolidation of the historical approach was the solution of the problem with regard to the dialectic of the relative and the absolute in art. Soviet aestheticians of the thirties not only came out with detailed criticism of vulgar sociologists' relativism but also revealed the historical contradictions to be found in cultural progress, and for the first time elaborated such highly topical issues as the question of mass and elitist culture.
An important achievement of the aestheticians of the thirties was their substantiation of the vital unity between the principles of the historicism, commitment to the people and realism. This provided a basis for their approach to the question of the aesthetic ideal.
In the thirties the Marxist historical method provided the basis for investigation of the questions of revolutionary humanism and of the essence and significance of progressive humanist traditions in the modern world. This led on to analysis of such questions as the place of the individual in our artistic understanding of the universe, the relationship between the individual and the masses, 268 between the fate of the individual and that of his peopie.
It is thus quite clear that long and detailed research by Soviet aestheticians, literary and art critics, paved the way for the theoretical substantiation of the essence of socialist realism.
The artistic innovation of socialist realism extended the scope of artistic creativity. It started for the first time to treat subjects born of the new socialist era. It created a new type of hero in art with features of a new hero drawn from real life---the builder of socialism. It brought forward new philosophical and creative issues.
Yet innovation cannot be divorced from tradition. To use the phrase of the well-known Soviet poet, Samuil Marshak, innovation without tradition is like the minute hand without the little one. In the art of socialist realism the inseparability of tradition and innovation is reflected in its very name: realism, still a vital tradition, links the method of socialist art with the most precious achievements made possible through mankind's artistic experience, while the adjective socialist implies enrichment of realist method through socialist ideology and new features born of the life of the new society.
Traditions are not dead dogmas. Leonardo da Vinci wrote that when a painter has no other inspiration than paintings already created art will go into decline. This is a profound idea, for in true art faithfulness to tradition always goes hand in hand with innovation. If there emerges a gulf between traditions and innovation art gives way to imitation, plagiarism, mere hack-work. It is then that we encounter works in which there are few echoes of the mood of contemporary life, although the methods and techniques of classical art are carefully and painstakingly followed. Lenin wrote that man's attitude to his cultural heritage must not resemble that of an archivist to old documents. This applies in all respects to art as well. Tradition should not be canonised, it should be developed and enriched by new artistic experience. Yet if it is inadmissible to divorce traditions from 269 innovation, then neither innovation, should be held up as something quite separate from tradition, its very opposite.
Rejection of realist traditions reduces innovation to no more than formal experimentation. Pseudo-innovation is no less alien to artistic advancement than is dead adherence to tradition.
It was precisely a misunderstanding of innovation and the latter's separation from tradition that accounted for the short-lived popularity of the so-called theory of a common contemporary style. According to that theory all art of the twentieth century was characterised by one and the same stylistic features regardless of the philosophical implications of that art, its social objectives, regardless of the world outlook and nature of the creative method used by the artist. Most commonly listed among the features of this contemporary style were expression, brevity and the use of artistic conventions. There is of course nothing reprehensible about these stylistic features as such; however, the advocates of the theory of contemporary style regard these expressive means as the most contemporary and universal features of any art, regardless of its content. This approach transforms style into a purely formal category, whereas in reality it is closely bound up with content: it represents not just a collection of steady and unchanging descriptive means, but is born of the requirements of the content it expresses. The stylistic features named above and regarded as the most typical for contemporary style usually stem not from new social tasks facing the artist, nor from the content of a work of art born of real social conditions peculiar to various countries or social orders, but rather from a false premise to the effect that conquest of space, cybernetics, atomic energy---in short technological progress exerts a decisive influence on artistic thought. Theories such as this rob art of its social essence, its political and ideological content. Technological progress does of course exert a tremendous influence on modern man's whole way of life: yet at the same time we should not lose sight of the fact 270 that technology when viewed from the ideological angle is something essentially neutral. True artistic innovation is not rooted in technological progress but in the social character of an age, in social ideology. The theory of a common contemporary style would necessitate a sharp dividing line being drawn between the art of the twentieth century and critical realism of the nineteenth, to a virtual rejection of realist traditions in art.
The art of socialist realism is an art now practised and developed by a large number of peoples in socialist countries. It succeeds in combining the ideological unity of all culture in socialist society and the specific individuality intrinsic to the art of each individual people. The well-known definition of Soviet culture as socialist in content and national in form brings out the essential features of Soviet art. The socialist content of Soviet culture is determined by the fact that all peoples in the USSR enjoy the same economic, political and ideological conditions of life. The principles of socialist realism reflect the ideological and creative aspects characteristic of all Soviet culture and art. Yet Soviet art, just as Soviet culture as a whole, while constant in its ideological implications nevertheless assumes concrete national forms that correspond to the language, way of life, temperament and artistic traditions of each socialist people. These facts which reflect the character of the new culture apply with equal force to all socialist countries.
The artistic and cultural achievements of the various peoples together constitute the common international art of socialist society. The internationalist character of socialist art is directed not only against cosmopolitan disregard of national traditions, but also against nationalist idealisation of obsolete traditions and anachronisms. The art of a specific people acquires universal significance when it extends beyond the confines of a narrowly local relevance and has something to say to the world.
The question of national culture is among the focal issues of the present-day ideological struggle. Reactionary conceptions of national art are closely bound up with the 271 nationalistic ideology of imperialist circles of the modern bourgeoisie, with its conception of culture as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that modern conceptions are qualitatively different from bourgeois conceptions of earlier periods that were an integral part of the assertion of national identity. These conceptions at the present time manage to combine an extreme version of nationalism with cosmopolitan disregard for the individual essence of each people's art.
Two tendencies are to be found in anti-Marxist conceptions of art. The first of these finds expression in the assertion of the unique nature of the artistic culture peculiar to each of the advanced peoples in the capitalist countries, in the idealisation of various national principles, which sometimes even borders on chauvinism, and in the racialist approach to analysis of certain other national cultures, which goes hand in hand with a belittling of the traditions found in unfamiliar national cultures. The second tendency finds expression in propagation of artistic culture that turns its back on the national aspect of art or is ``above'' it, in a rejection of an artist's own national tradition, and the unlikely theory of the ``erosion'' of the national roots of artistic development. This second tendency is to a certain extent linked with a false view of social development in the age of the technological revolution, which will, we are assured, do away with national barriers. There is a certain contradiction between these tendencies but it is not absolute. In the final analysis one and the same nationalist ideology underlies them both.
A characteristic feature of the conceptions of art widely accepted in the West is their preoccupation with Europe and America. This is not only because these conceptions do not embrace the artistic experience of other countries and continents. The new interest shown in Asian, African and Latin-American art proved an important factor shaping the development of art criticism today. Yet the viewpoint paramount in bourgeois criticism today stresses that the artistic experience of the 272 peopies inhabiting those continents, with rare exceptions (Japan, India and China), is not national in character, since these peoples have supposedly not yet acquired a sense of national identity, but rather it is experience rooted in a tribal way of life. While on the one hand making use of the artistic traditions of these peoples, bourgeois art historians and aestheticians also maintain that the art of the developing countries has yet to raise itself up to the level of contemporary Western art in the course of its subsequent development.
The links are very close between the nihilistic attitude to national traditions in the sphere of art and the practice of artists adhering to the various trends in modernist art. After setting art free from any national roots, the theoreticians of modernist art put forward the idea of a new artistic civilisation that constitutes yet another version of their rejection of popular roots. National features they interpret as traditionalist while all that is nonnational is extolled as contemporary; in this respect modernist art in the eyes of its adherents counters realism and all that is traditional with something truly modern. Here we come to a most important aspect of the battle between realism and modernism---their diametrically opposed views of traditional-versus-contemporary, and national-versus-international.
The fundamental methodological flaw of these conceptions lies in their lack of a historical approach to the question of national culture. As a result national elements in art are regarded as self-sufficient, outside any link between art and the class structure of society and historically reliable elucidation of the nature of modern liberation movements. On the other hand the fundamental rejection of historical method is seen in conceptions that smack of crude propaganda and thrust upon us their authors' class allegiance in blatant, undisguised form.
__*_*_*__ __FIX__ How to show this break in Table of Contents?The triumph of Leninism in the ideological life of the socialist countries provides wide scope for artistic __PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18-796 273 creation, paving the way to ever higher achievements in socialist art, an essential ingredient of the evolving culture of advanced socialist and communistsociety.
While surmounting and eradicating weaknesses that appeared in socialist art in the past, and rejecting an irresponsible approach and dogmatism in the theory of art, at the same time it is essential for us to wage a determined struggle against revisionist criticism of socialist realism. Revisionists try to make capital out of certain negative features that were formerly to be found in socialist art, yet they criticise dogmatism not so as to affirm positive developments in art, but so as to undermine the fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and to discredit socialist realism.
Revisionism in aesthetics today constitutes a wellestablished set of anti-Marxist views with regard to art and literature, the nature of artistic creativity and the place of art in the life of society. The analysis and criticism of aesthetic conceptions which the revisionists use presuppose constant fulfilment of at least two conditions. In the first place it is important to bear in mind that revisionism in aesthetics cannot be separated from revisionism in philosophy and politics, and moreover it is a direct offshoot of revisionist philosophy and politics: yet at the same time it should be regarded as an indispensable component of social apostasy as a whole. Secondly, it is no less important to bear in mind, that just like the emperor in Hans Christian Andersen's story the revisionists of today, despite all their pretentious phrase-mongering, "have no clothes", when it comes down to it, and their conceptions mean nothing other than capitulation in face of bourgeois ideology and bourgeois aesthetics, which in actual fact they really emulate. The correlation between revisionist conceptions in aesthetics and revisionism of the philosophical and political variety is complex and far from straightforward: in some cases these conceptions appear to be the result of political and philosophical apostasy, in others they lead to that. However, as a rule 274 they follow on from each other: philosophical and political deviation from Marxism colours revisionism in the sphere of aesthetics, just as the latter becomes an essential ingredient of philosophical and political revisionism in the broad sense.
The emergence of such a specific phenomenon as revisionism in aesthetics can be explained by exacerbation of the ideological struggle, that now permeates all spheres of the intellectual and cultural life of society without exception, and also by the growing role of literature and art in this process. More so than various other forms of social consciousness, literature and art are directly bound up with the question of the individual which is a central issue in the philosophical controversies of our age. For this reason aesthetics has indeed come to represent a kind of plumb-line for not only the artistic but also the philosophical and political principles adopted by individual writers and artists, or by whole artistic trends. Revisionism in aesthetics takes the form of a rejection of the fundamental ideas on art found in Marxist-Leninist theory, of the aesthetic principles of socialist realism. Present-day revisionism renounces realism for all intents and purposes, extolling anti-realism and decadent art, and supporting the fabrications of the Sovietologists directed against Marxist-Leninist aesthetics and the art of socialist realism.
Revisionism in aesthetics is an international phenomenon. Of course, it is important to bear in mind that in some socialist countries where revisionism was a fairly widespread phenomenon in the late fifties and early sixties, the situation has changed in recent years. The creative intelligentsia now exhibits more ideological and political maturity and many people, who earlier fell prey to revisionist influence, have now shaken themselves free from those delusions. The ideological work of the Communist and Workers' parties has yielded results. Yet in capitalist society revisionism in aesthetics has still not been eradicated. It has been dealt powerful blows and its anti-Marxist essence has been exposed for what it is __PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 Worth, but revisionism is still very much alive and presents a serious danger.
During the last decade revisionist conceptions of art have found their most detailed and subtle expression in the works of Ernst Fischer and Roger Garaudy, former Marxists and Communists, who later were to emerge as the leaders of anti-Marxist and anti-Soviet trends in aesthetics. Admittedly both of these writers continue to call themselves Marxists, and what is more, still claim that it is.precisely in their work that Marxism is creatively developed. In actual fact however they are playing, the tune called by bourgeois aestheticians.
Revisionist ``criticism'' of the philosophical foundations and creative method of socialist art is characterised by deep-rooted scholasticism and incredible dogmatism. These turncoats wallow in rhetorical .questions, like true demagogues: where and in which works did Marx, Engels and Lenin write that the creative method for socialist literature should be socialist realism? They profess to search for the words "socialist .realism" in the writings of our great teachers, but overlook, or choose not to notice, the fact that from the theoretical point of view socialistrealist method is vindicated by the whole philosophical structure of Marxist-Leninist theory. They choose to ignore the universally accepted fact that the most important principles of socialist realism---artistic thought based en: historical method, socialist humanismv commitment to the:Party and the people, the combination of high philo;- sophical principles and artistic mastery, truthful portrayal : of life in its revolutionary development, etc.---are all substantiated most fully in the works of the founders of Marxism.
Revisionists and dogmatists insist that the principles of socialist realism have held back the development of" art. None of them seems to be taken aback by the fact tbiat .Gorky and Mayakovsky, Sholokhov: and Fadeyev, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Dovzhenko, Becher and Brecht used the socialist-realist method as a basis for their creative art, a 276 fact which did not prevent their work from adding to the richness of world culture.
It would be as well to stress once again that the eartipaign against socialist realism had led to a rejection of realism'in the widest sense. Realism has come to be regarded as a stage in art that belongs to the past, and it is contrasted with anti-realist trends which are extolled in all possible ways. Realism is declared out of date and irrelevant to the needs of the present day. At best it is regarded as something which now gives way to a new, special "integral realism", "unlimited realism", that signifies a weird, unthinkable combination of realism and anti-realist art and which in practice is mere capitula^ tion to modernism.
Garaudy and Fischer support the conception of " limitless realism" maintaining that changing reality demands changing art. It goes without saying that the radical transformations implemented in society give rise to new a"r* tistic traditions, to the emergence of new artistic" issues and new expressive means in art. Realism is an extraordinarily wide concept, but it is not ``limitless'' and its scope is not determined by the characteristics of artistic language, but by the character and content of man's philosophical and aesthetic interpretation of reality. .. _
It is most revealing to note that the standard-bearers of "limitless realism", who do not acknowledge any restrictions when it comes to the modernist art of the present day, at the same time refuse to acknowledge socialist society's right to create art that corresponds to its nature, namely the art of socialist realism. The activities of Garaudy and Fischer in the sphere of aesthetics consist mainly in rejecting out of hand socialist realism, deriding the art and literature created in socialist society and foisting the creative principles of modernism upon the artists of the socialist countries and progressive artists in capitalist society.
Gramsci wrote in his day that truth is always revolutionary. Realism does not necessarily lead the artist to socialism, but opposition to socialism and its ideology of 277 necessity does lead the artist to reject realism. This is indeed what has been the upshot of revisionist criticism of socialist realism.
The anti-popular essence of revisionism comes to the fore most strikingly of all in the campaign against the principle of commitment in art. In socialist society commitment is regarded as life's supreme truth, as service to the people. At the present time profound investigation of life and man's grasp of its very essence cannot but lead logically to communist commitment. Louis Aragon, the well-known French writer and Communist, put this idea most effectively into words: "To those who ask---'When all is said and done what comes first---the Communist or the writer?'---I always reply: 'First of all I am a writer, and that is why I am a Communist.' For me that is the logical sequence of things.''
Such is the reasoning of the artist with a social conscience. The artist and citizen in his work are merged the one with the other and cannot be separated. Meanwhile the revisionists never tire of declaring that a clearly defined world outlook and ideological unity are in no way indispensable for the artists of socialist society, when the whole history of socialist art has made it quite clear that deliberate allegiance to communist ideals and social progress is an essential condition for the fruitful development of art in socialist society.
Are these assertions of the revisionists original at least? Of course not. All their arguments are taken from the arsenal of reactionary trends in contemporary aesthetics. The West German Sovietologist Jurgen Ruble for instance describes Lenin's work "Party Organisation and Party Literature" as a manifesto for the enslavement of literature through politics, and goes on to describe commitment in art as shackles forcibly thrust upon artists. Fabrications in connection with the so-called "Party dictate" in socialist art pepper the pages of the books and articles that pour forth from the pens of the reactionary `` Marxologists'', who attempt to distort the true meaning of that idea and the fruitful role of party guidance in matters 278 of literature and art in the socialist countries. The complete coincidence of the stand adopted by the `` Marxologists'' and that of revisionism in the campaign against socialist art is clear for all to see.
Not long ago Fischer and Garaudy were constructing and elaborating their aesthetic edifices with reference to the classic texts of Marxism-Leninism, the principles of which they would have us believe are distorted in the practice of cultural construction in the socialist countries. Now Garaudy himself and Fischer's followers come out not only against the cultural policies of the Communist parties but also subject all the basic tenets formulated in the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin to reappraisal, no less. What is more they go out of their way to belittle the significance of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to distort their role. In their book What Lenin Really Said Fischer and Marek reject the philosophical legacy of Leninism, contrast Lenin and Marx, and bring up once again the old fiction to the effect that Marx was first and foremost a theoretician and Lenin the man of action. Fischer detracts from Lenin's significance as a philosopher; Garaudy criticises Lenin for failing to capture the true meaning of the artistic searchings of the twentieth century, etc. By now they had come full circle: they started out with ``defence'' of Marxism-Leninism against dogmatic distortions, and finish up with shameful attacks against Marxism, against Marx's theory and practical activities, against his aesthetics and political action.
As far back as 1967 the German Marxist philosopher, Robert Steigerwald, in a parody of Garaudy's wellknown book summed up the underlying idea of Fischer's book Art and Coexistence as an attempt at a limitless extension of the scope of Marxism. He gave the title Limitless Marxism (Marxismus ohne Ufer) to his review of Fischer's book. He had every ground for so doing, after all. Just as Garaudy had ``extended'' the scope of realism to such an extent that it could be replaced by modernism, Fischer gave such a free interpretation to Marxism that the latter assumed the form of bourgeois ideology in his 279 works. The gradual deviation from the fundamental tenets of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics on the part of Fischer and Garaudy, and then their complete break with Marxism-Leninism are highly instructive. These former members of the communist movement did not begin their ideological apostasy with a direct rejection of the political line adhered to by their parties. On the contrary, in the sixties both writers started out by criticising so-called dogmatic aberrations in the policy of their parties, particularly with reference to literature and art, contrasting their own stand to the Communist Party line, for the most part in the sphere of cultural policy. However the logic of the present-day ideological struggle led them step by step to political betrayal.^^*^^
While waging a constant and tireless struggle against revisionism, it is also important not to lose sight of another danger, namely dogmatism. At the present time the struggle against dogmatism, that finds its most complete expression in the conceptions of the ultra-left, is no less important for the world communist movement than the struggle against revisionism. This applies just as much to aesthetics and the theory of art, as it does to other aspects of ideological life. The dogmatists even use the struggle against revisionism to foist their own false and outdated concepts on others. The dogmatists deal a particularly serious blow to aesthetics and creativity through their misinterpretation of Lenin's principle of commitment in art. Without penetrating to the heart of the aesthetic essence of artistic creativity, they artificially divide a work of art into the ideological and political content on the one hand, and artistic form on the other. They regard the artistic quality of a work not as the life of the idea itself in art, but reduce it to a merely illustrative factor. They thus split the common philosophical and aesthetic criterion for evaluating works of art: for them _-_-_
^^*^^ For criticism of certain aspects of the revisionist conception of art see the sections Art and Cognition, and Art and Ideology in Ch. I of this work.---Author.
280 political evaluation comes first, and then, as a derivative dependent on the former, comes aesthetic, artistic evaluation. Art as a specific and complex sphere of man's spiritual world becomes, in the eyes of the dogmatists, just another facet of political ideology, which in practice swallows it up.In documents drawn up by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and other Communist parties on questions of art commitment is presented in the light of the communist principle in art; however, at the same time due attention is given to the organic unity of idea-content and artistic mastery, art's aesthetic individuality, special paths for the expression through art of progressive ideas and the affirmation of the ideal. The dogmatists ignore the essential nature of art, they belittle the importance of art in the ideological struggle through their primitive understanding of art's political orientation, and impede the working people's aesthetic advance, thereby playing into the hands of the opponents of Marxist-Leninist aes-* thetics.
Dogmatism, just as revisionism, criticises the socialistrealist method, and also its basic requirement, namely, faithful adherence to life's truth. Dogmatists pronounce the concept socialist realism ``inconsistent'', precisely because this creative method demands artistic investigation of reality as such. In their opinion the task of the artist is to speak, not of what he finds in real life, but of what there will be to find in it, and this, they would have us believe, frees him from the obligation to portray existing reality in its true colours. Realism, we are told, belongs 'to the past, while contemporary art must be lent, instead, more of a ``romantic'' character, for its main task is to give expression to men's dreams of life in the future. This is why they propose that a new concept should be introduced in the place of socialist realism, namely "a combination of revolutionary realism and revolutionary romanticism", in other words that art should be restricted to a single activity, that of glorifying dogmatic ideas.
281In connection with this contrived conception it is as well to underline three points. First: the socialist-realist method demands faithful reproduction of life in its revolutionary development, which means that it leads the artist not merely to depict the real world as it actually is, but also that it helps him to see reality in its historical perspective. Faithful adherence to real life and expression of the ideal in the art of socialist realism cannot be separated from each other. Second: the appeal of the dogmatists to "combine realism and romanticism" may at first glance appear to resemble the idea put forward by Gorky when he advocated the incorporation of the romantic in realism. Yet, when Gorky spoke of the romantic he had in mind its ability to incorporate dreams of the future into artistic portrayal of reality. He always made a point of the fact that the artist's main task was to be truthful. Truthfulness and vision each call naturally for the complement of the other in Gorky's work, while, as presented by the dogmatists, they directly contradict each other. It is also worth pointing out that in his last years Gorky refrained from using the formula " combination of realism and romanticism" for by then he had come to the conclusion that the concept "socialist realism" was comprehensive in that it incorporated an element of revolutionary romanticism and did not require further amplification. The dogmatists do not only match up their ideas with those of Gorky, but go a step further back and then break with his principles altogether. Finally the dogmatic interpretation of the ideal signifies a break with materialism. Marxist aesthetics, in full conformity with the materialist interpretation of history, regards the social and aesthetic ideal as the expression of unity of the ideal and the real. An ideal divorced from revolutionary reality makes it particularly obvious that dogmatism in aesthetics, as in politics, in practice proves to be none other than revisionism in reverse.
282 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. Commitment to the Party and the People in ArtA fundamental principle of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics is the demand that the class nature of art be elucidated and analysed. Art's dependence on social relations had been established by pre-Marxian materialist aestheticians, but it was only Marxist aesthetics which demonstrated that the nature of the reflection of life in art is determined by the interests of specific classes, the state and level of the class struggle and the ideology predominant in the society in question.
In his famous article "French Dramatic Literature and French Painting of the Eighteenth Century Viewed from the Sociological Angle" Plekhanov demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt in his analysis of the history of French art over a turbulent century in the life of French society, that the development of art is determined by changes in the class structure of society and the course of the class struggle. In the era of absolutism it was the court classicism which held sway, art which upheld the monarchy and extolled the virtues of the aristocracy. When the aristocracy ceased to be the class that dominated society and its place was taken by the bourgeoisie, classical tragedy was ousted by plays which no longer glorified, but, on the contrary, derided the aristocracy, underlining its vices, while bestowing its praises upon the virtues of the bourgeoisie.
A parallel process was clearly at work in the sphere of painting at that time. Plekhanov points out that "at the time of Louis XIV, i.e., at a time when the limited monarchy had reached its high point, French painting had much in common with classical tragedy----Indeed, just like classical tragedy, it selected its subjects from among the rich and powerful. Charles Lebrun who at that time decreed standards of taste in painting, acknowledged, practically speaking, only one hero, Louis XIV, whom he dressed, however, in a costume drawn from antiquity." Such was the situation in the reign of Louis XIV, but when he was succeeded by Louis XV, painting was also 283 to enter a new era. After studying the changes which had taken place in the development of fine arts, and comparing these with the changes that had taken place in. the sphere of dramatic writing, Plekhanov pointed out that Diderot's comedie larmoyante was nothing other than genre-- painting transposed to the stage. The factor behind these parallel processes was the change at work in the class struc-^ ture of French society. The evolution of the French aris? tocracy and the struggle of the Third Estate against absolutism are reflected, according to Plekhanov, in the nature of the development of French art: Classicism, Ro^ coco, Sentimentalism, Neo-classicism are artistic phenomena that correspond to those social processes, that are all rooted in the struggle of the classes.
Art is always committed to the one particular class, but its class character is particularly in evidence, at times when social contradictions are exacerbated. It is therefore natural that in the present age, which is characterised by the transition from capitalism to socialism, the class nature of art emerges even more clearly, if not blatantly; for the ideological struggle in the sphere of art is becoming more and more acute.
All narrow simplification is alien to the Marxist-- Leninist understanding of the class nature of art. Marxism comes out against bourgeois aesthetics, which pays little heed to the class essence of art, and also against the vulgar sociologists, who draw crude parallels between art and the state of productive forces, making direct use of ideological categories even with regard to the language of art and its techniques. The vulgar sociologists hold that it is not life which is reflected in art, but only the artist's class-orientated view of life. This over-- simplification, which in practice signifies a break with realism, opens wide the door to subjectivism and anarchy in art. Yet rejection of the vulgar sociological approach does not in any way involve rejection of the class approach to art.
Lenin enhanced the original Marxist tenet with regard to the class essence .of art through his elaboration of the 284 principle of commitment. The Leninist principle of commitment in art and the principle of art's class essence are of equal importance, but by no means synonymous. In class society art naturally is always class-orientated, and its commitment stems precisely from this fact. Yet Lenin clarified the concept of commitment not as an ordinary but as the fullest expression of highly advanced class struggle in art. Commitment presupposes that art possess a high degree of social relevance, and be actively and deliberately geared to the service of the people. At the present time implicit in the commitment of Soviet art is the -fact that its advance and consolidation are moving in a direction aimed against alien ideologies, against decadence, abstract art and all other manifestations of antirealist art.
The principle of commitment was elaborated for the first time in Lenin's well-known work "Party Organisation and Party Literature" (1905). By now that principle: has come to provide the basis for the policies with regard to questions of literature and art by the communist parties of the socialist countries. It has been amplified in the resolutions drawn up at Party congresses and plenary meetings, and in statements made by Party leaders on matters pertaining to art. In contemporary Party documents and theoretical writings the Leninist principle of commitment has since been further enriched through the experience accumulated by the art of socialist realism; indeed, it is still being carried further with regard to present-day.objectives in creative art.
In Lenin's work "Party Organisation and Party Literature" the principle of Party commitment is elaborated first and foremost as a proclamation of the open link between the artist and the proletariat, together with its Party. Lenin pointed out that literature should be a part of the proletarian cause in general. He started out from the fact that socialist art cannot be separated from the working class, and held that Party guidance in relation to the development of literature and art constitutes an essential part of Party work.
285It goes without saying that in socialist society, which is distinguished by moral and political unity, commitment in art has acquired a new feature, for art has become part of the whole people's cause. For this very reason the most important trend of development for socialist art is that it should be rooted in the life of the people, and this objective sheds light on the concrete purpose of the social role of art in the context of socialist society. Artists in the socialist countries are called upon to play an active part in the communist education of the working people and through art to assert the noble principles of communist morality, thus promoting the advance of multinational socialist culture and improving the aesthetic tastes of the masses.
Commitment of socialist art does not mean that artists are encouraged to take out party membership. Membership as such does not guarantee that an artist's creative work will automatically be committed. At the same time an artist may not actually be enrolled in the Party, yet in his art be deeply committed to the Party's cause. It is common knowledge that Gorky was not a Party member. Nor was Mayakovsky, yet he never thought of his creative work as anything but dedicated to the service of the revolution, the people and the Party. An uncompromising enemy of all that smacked of art-for-art's sake or snobbery, Mayakovsky sought to make his poetry the artistic embodiment of Party work: "People say that Mayakovsky, he's a poet, so let him keep to his poet's trade----I
don't give a damn for the fact that I am a poet. I am not a poet, but first and foremost a man who has placed his pen at the service, please note, at the service of the present moment, our real world of today and the nerve-- centre of that world---the Soviet government and the Party." An artist's commitment finds expression in the fact that all his talent, all his mastery and his art he dedicates to the great cause of the fight for communism, the practical implementation of the policy of the Communist Party, to the interests of the whole people. Konstantin Fedin wrote: "For me the art of literature has a single 286 purpose: it is an activity which serves society, serves the peopie.''
Bourgeois art often sets itself up as uncommitted and free of any links with political interests, or class objectives, or the activity of any particular party. However in practice it is no less committed than socialist art. It constitutes the ideological superstructure and---whether it be directly or indirectly, openly or covertly---it serves the interests of bourgeois society, and the ruling classes in that society. When reference is made to commitment of this type, this applies of course to the numerous and diverse trends in reactionary bourgeois art, not to the art of critical realism, not to progressive phenomena in the work of artists living in bourgeois society. Art of this type is also committed, but its social implications are of course quite different.
The tremendous superiority of communist commitment lies in the fact that by linking the artist'and the people together it extends his creative scope. Socialist art has shown beyond doubt that only those artists created works of genuine aesthetic value whose work was marked by high communist principles.
The artist's commitment is not simply a general political expression for ideological focus in art. Commitment in art---and this is precisely the point the dogmatists fail to appreciate---is, apart from other things, an aesthetic principle, which embraces both the specific nature of artistic creation as a whole and the individual features peculiar to the work of each artist.
Lenin underlined the fact that literary activities, while constituting a part of the proletarian cause, also represented a manifestation of Party ideology in a specific form. "There is no question that literature is least of all subject to mechanical adjustment or levelling, to the rule of the majority over the minority. There is no question, either, that in this field greater scope must undoubtedly be allowed for personal initiative, individual inclination, thought and fantasy, form and content. All this is undeniable; but all this simply shows that the literary side of 287 the proletarian Party cause cannot be mechanically identified with its other sides.''^^*^^
From this there follows on not merely the conclusion to the effect that narrow-minded stereotyped supervision of art is inadmissible, but also a second, no less important, conclusion, namely that commitment in art manifests itself in the artistic fabric of a work. Genuine commitment is only found in those works, in which the essence of the artistic images serves to advance the cause of communist education of the people, thus helping the people and the Party to build a new life. Art, which only professes universal truths, ceases :to be convincing and therefore is not able to play an active, purposeful role in the life of society. In such cases its commitment ceases to be real commitment, even when the artist sets himself subjectively lofty social goals. Without artistic talent he does not achieve his goals. For this reason the Party does not regard artistic mastery as something separate from high moral, social and political problems. The mastery of the artist is not merely a question of professional technique. Without it no ideas or principles can be expressed.
The Marxist-Leninist interpretation of commitment in art incorporates freedom of artistic creativity. Commitment and creative freedom in the art of socialist realism penetrate each other and their unity is indivisible. Opponents of Marxism have often maintained that commitment is irreconcilable with creative freedom, since Party guidance in the arts supposedly restricts and inhibits the artists, foisting upon him alien ideas, attitudes and aspirations, and thereby stifling his artistic individuality. Let us recall the sequence of Lenin's thought on this subject: we support freedom of the press; we need literature that is free not only from police harrassment, tut also from the power of capital, from careerism, and also from bourgeois or anarchic individualism. Absolute freedom of the press, artistic creativity, and aesthetic judgements does not exist. It is impossible to live in society and to be free _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 46. 288-
288 of that society. Bourgeois or anarchic concepts of the freedom of the artist from conditions of life, or of his absolute creative freedom are nothing but hypocrisy. There is no real freedom under capitalism. Society based on the power of money enslaves the artist, prostituting his art.``The freedom of the bourgeois writer, artist or actress is simply masked (or hypocritically masked) dependence on the money-bag, on corruption, on prostitution.''^^*^^
True freedom can exist only in a new society rebuilt according to socialist principles. With truly prophetic foresight Lenin wrote:
``It will be a free literature,, because the idea of socialism and, sympathy with the working people, and not greed or careerism, will bring ever new forces to its ranks. It will be a free literature, because it will serve, not some satiated heroine, not the bored 'upper ten thousand' suffering from fatty degeneration, but the millions and tens of millions of working people---the flower of the country, its strength and its future. It will be a free literature, enriching the last word in the revolutionary thought of mankind with the experience and living work of the socialist proletariat, bringing about permanent interaction between the experience of the .past (scientific socialism, the completion of the development of socialism from its primitive, utopian forms.) and the experience of the present (the present struggle of the worker comrades).''^^**^^
Lenin expressed those ideas at the beginning of this century. Now, sixty years later, they are still just as relevant as they were then.
The bourgeois democracy of the mid-twentieth century, that boasts so loudly of its freedom, was capable of destroying frescoes by Siqueiros and robbing that outstanding artist of our age of his freedom---not creative freedom, but freedom, in the literal sense, for the artist was made to languish in prison for many a long year. The artist in bourgeois society is faced with the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. L. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 48.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 48-49.
__PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---796 289 following alternative: either he can comply with the tastes and ideals of the bourgeois, enjoying a mere semblance of freedom and let his talent disintegrate, or he can remain the creator of works of true artistic beauty and place his talent at the service of his people, but at the same time has to be prepared to face untold hardship. It is difficult for the artist to maintain his independence, and difficult for him to remain true to his social conscience, comments Siqueiros' daughter. She adds that society goes out of its way to break the artist's will and remould him to fit its own particular patterns, or otherwise throws him behind bars. An example of the first type of artist is provided by the evolution of the work and convictions of one of Diego Rivera's finest pupils, Rufino Tamayo, who has since become a figurehead for abstract painters. Siqueiros, on the other hand, provides a classical example of the second type.The famous French producer Jean Vilard was obliged to leave the National Theatre of France, and his compatriot Louis Daquin maintains that in France today the actor has been reduced to the status of a commodity juggled to and fro in the celluloid market like shares at the stock-exchange. British producer Peter Brook laments the fact that interesting theatres with serious repertoires are hardly able to make ends meet, while companies can flourish if they cater to vulgar popular tastes. The English dramatist John Osborne had every justification for blaming the British theatre's dependence on social groups, that have turned art into a subject of commerce, for the serious plight in which it now finds itself, and he refers angrily to the grip of the managers as the "General Motors" of the theatre in Britain, the monopoly that controls the stage. The artist depicts not what life confronts him with, but what assures him of his daily bread and has a good market-rating, as we are told by one of the drama critics writing for the American newspaper Nation. He goes on to observe that honest artists prefer to turn their back on society, for its aesthetic principles are becoming more and more anti-art. France, Britain and the United States 290 have long been regarded as sanctuaries of bourgeois freedoms and yet in each of these countries creative freedom is for the most part no more than an illusion.
As Lenin predicted, it was precisely socialism which provided broad scope for free artistic creation. This does not, of course, imply the artist's freedom from socialist society, from the norms and laws obtaining in that society, or from the needs of the people, from the major issues involved in its way of life and from the people's fight to build communism. Absolute freedom for the individual cannot be, and indeed it will not be even under communism. In socialist society, Party guidance in matters of art means that the Party will encourage artists to create works that further the people's interests.
From the Marxist point of view freedom is attained through awareness of necessity. Marxists reject the blind acceptance of fatal necessity. Yet libertarian anarchy is equally alien to them. When ridiculing this latter alternative, the French communist writer Henri Barbusse made an ironic observation to the effect that if freedom meant the right to do anything whatsoever, then the .concept ``freedom'' would convey exactly the same meaning as the word ``insanity''. Freedom, he maintained, should serve first and foremost to bind us with profound and noble laws of morality, as soon as we prove capable and worthy of comprehending that morality. Artistic freedom means the ability to understand the world, grasp the meaning of its life, open wide heart and mind in order to appreciate the world and portray it in its irresistible advance towards the ideal.
Creative freedom under socialism is not illusory independence for the artist from the laws of ordinary life, but a natural and voluntary fusion of his innermost aspirations and philosophical and creative goals with the life of the people. It is in the principle of commitment that the ideological essence of socialist art, the artist's loyalty to his people and the Communist Party find their fullest expression. That is how commitment, the supreme expression of freedom, is understood by those who practise __PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 19* 291 socialist art. This was the sense used, for example, by Mayakovsky, when he referred to his works as "Party brochures", by the film-director Pudovkin who described art committed to the Party as something which "stirs man's heart and makes the blood throb in his veins", or again by the painter Pavel Korin who referred to his work as "inspired by the spirit of revolution''.
Without ideas there can be no art, and no artist without convictions can produce great art, Pudovkin used to say, and he was absolutely right. The artist's ideas, regardless of whether he would wish it or not or is even aware of it, are linked to specific social goals, and therefore with the interests of concrete social forces. This is why the question of commitment in art is closely connected with the question of the artist's world outlook. The world outlook of the socialist-realist artist is conscious and deliberate commitment to socialism.
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, as mentioned earlier, starts out from acceptance of the all-important role of the artist's world outlook in the creative process. Of course, a world outlook on its own cannot make an artist of anyone, for it cannot compensate for a lack of artistic talent. Yet, given the presence of talent, the character and orientation of an artist's work are determined by his world outlook. In a discussion with Henri Barbusse, Maurice Thorez made an apt and well-founded comment to the effect that while a world outlook without talent is infertile, talent on the other hand without a world outlook to go with it leads nowhere. This does not of course in any way imply an identification of the artist's world outlook with his creative method.
It is vital to bear in mind the possibility, pointed out by Lenin, of a contradiction between certain aspects of an artist's world outlook and the character of his work, as was to be found for example in the writings of Balzac and Tolstoy. Yet at the same time we should remember that the world outlook of these great artists was extremely contradictory. Balzac's world outlook can by no means be summarised as legitimisme pure and simple, just as 292 Tolstoy's world outlook involved a lot more than Tolstoyism. There were progressive aspects to be found in the world outlook of both men; the world outlook of the artist incorporates the totality of his attitudes and convictions, his emotions and his store of observations drawn from life, etc. Obviously Balzac and Tolstoy did not write their realist novels and stories in conflict with their world outlook as a whole; their works were realist despite the reactionary aspects of their world outlook.
In socialist art the artist's world outlook plays a qualitatively different role from the one it played in art of the old mould. The great good fortune of the artist in socialist society consists in the fact that unlike the artists of the past, in whose work the realist method was often in conflict with false ideas, he starts out from a Marxist-Leninist base, from a world outlook which provides him with an objectively faithful picture of the world, the character of which is bound to lead him along the path of truthful, profoundly realistic portrayal of life.
While shunning any variety of subjectivism, socialist ideology does not exert any influence on artistic creativity that is based on coersion. On the contrary, the Marxist-Leninist world outlook provides scientific substantiation for both the problem of the ideal and for the importance in art of the reflection of prospects for historical development; it resolves the contradictions weighing upon the artist's consciousness and helps him clarify and coordinate his philosophical, social and political principles.
The views of different artists take shape in different ways. Some---this applies in particular to those whose principles crystallised in the society of the old order and also to certain progressive artists in the capitalist countries---embraced socialist ideology at the end of a difficult and tortuous path as a result of their efforts to reflect truthfully what they saw of the life around them. Alternatively artists sometimes attain a profound understanding of life after having adopted a socialist world outlook. Paths followed by different artists in this respect are 293 likely to vary. However this does not affect the crucial point, namely that artistic creativity and the artist's world outlook are inseparable: the artist's selection of subjects from the world around him, the character of the generalisations he makes on the basis of those phenomena and his evaluation of the same always reflect not only the artist's creative method but his world outlook as well.
The artist's world outlook makes itself felt with particular impact when he treats subjects central to the life of society. One of these subjects is heroism. It is a very rich subject with many different facets. It is easy to extol an exploit crowned with success, but more difficult to capture an heroic event which ended in defeat or was paid for with untold sacrifice. An event of the latter type formed the plot of the Czechoslovak film Alental directed by Jifi Sequens. The film is based on something that actually happened---the killing of Heydrich, the Nazi chief of occupied Czechoslovakia by Czech parachutists flown out at the behest of the Benes emigre government in Britain. The terrible price that was paid for that act was the burning of the village of Lidice, the cruel massacre of thousands of people and the tragic death of the paratroopers themselves. The tragedy of the situation is made all the more poignant by the fact that the main actors . i in the drama were not informed as to certain of the reasons behind their mission, namely the speculative policy of the Benes government and the personal reasons why Canaris, the head of Nazi intelligence, was anxious to have his rival removed from the scene. In short it would have been easy to construct a film in a fashionable anti-hero key to show that the sacrifices were too great, that history moves in an irrational way and that men are blind instruments of the will of others, the pawns of chance. Yet the director was for ever mindful that the facts of history viewed in isolation do not convey the idea of history, the essence of its development.
The Czech director approached this tragic event in the life of his people from the standpoint of the MarxistLeninist interpretation of history and made a vivid film 294 of this heroic page in the fight for the liberation of his homeland. The film demonstrates that exploits in the name of one's homeland, even if they result in terrible consequences, still deserve real admiration and should not give rise to any musing on the subject of `` unnecessary'', or still worse ``disastrous'' heroism. After all, even the heroism of the Paris communards cost France many sacrifices, yet Marx could not find praise enough for the heroes of the Commune, who in his words "stormed the heavens''.
Sergei Eisenstein maintained with profound conviction that "historical truth" is something other than "historical naturalism". In his Battleship "Potemkin" this idea finds immortal expression. If we consider the climax of the film, the battleship in revolt passes through the admiral's squadron. This did not happen in real life, and the heroic struggle of the revolutionary sailors was not crowned with success. However, the great Soviet director was not going to leave room for even the shadow of moralising sentiments such as "they should not have resorted to arms". Eisenstein was lauding the heroism of the Polemkin's men and he knew full well that this decision was "not just an artist's whim, but a legitimate demonstration of the fact that an event like that revolt, even if put down for the time being by the tsar's satraps, nevertheless, when viewed historically, was a landmark of the revolution, an enormous historic victory''.
All realist art is closely connected with the people. Yet popular roots are not always the foundation of realist art. The realist artists of the nineteenth century did not progress from folk traditions to realism, but on the contrary, their work acquired popular roots as a result of the faithful portrayal of life which they achieved. This is precisely why Engels regarded as a great victory of realism the fact that Balzac, despite his political sympathies, succeeded in drawing his positive heroes in his works from the people. The same fact led Lenin to refer to Tolstoy as a mirror of the Russian revolution. Through truthful reflection of reality many critical realists of the present 295 day have come to embrace ideas and beliefs rooted in the philosophy and experience of the people.
In socialist art commitment to the Party and the people are not a simple upshot of realism: on the contrary, adherence to these principles has enabled artists to achieve a profound understanding of life and attain humanist convictions. Social and human or universal factors in art are not opposites, but rather one and the same thing. It would be wrong to accept the view that the universal human element in art is something opposed to its class content. When approached in this way the universal human element appears as a manifestation of man's intrinsic ability to love and hate, to rejoice and to suffer, to experience ecstasy and despair. But then there follows the question: in the name of"-what? Nothing human is alien to socialist realism. Yet the ;purpose of mankind's existence must be something more than what it has always been taken for in the past, namely, the fact that we appear on this earth, to suffer hardship and sickness, raise children, discover joy, disillusionment and death, as Anatole France once wrote in his magnificent story of the Eastern potentate who sought to learn the meaning of life.
This does not in the least imply that art which aims to edify should not show deep interest in all manner of aspects of life, including- the most ordinary and even `` trivial'' among them. The artist has a right to do so, yet at the same time he must do so from a sound vantage point, that of his commitment.
From .the Marxist point of View, that which has universal human relevance is committed. The humanist and communist elements come together. Communist commitment is the main sphere where humanism comes to the fore. It is not,-as it might appear to some of our ideological opponents, a departure from communism, but rather a step nearer that goal and the completion of various tasks connected with the practical building of communist society that explain the analysis by our Party programme of the humanist nature of communist society.
296In the society of the old order a gulf formed between the high point of cultural achievement and the level of artistic development attained by the masses. Russian realist art of the nineteenth century was filled with compassion for the people and expressed the people's interests and championed its freedom, yet this art remained beyond the people's reach, since the masses remained illiterate and cut off from the world of art. The socialist revolution made cultural treasures accessible to the masses: revolutionary change in the young Soviet Republic ensured the artists of the socialist-realist school a mass audience of many millions and this aspect of the popular roots of Soviet art should always be borne in mind.
Socialist art is democratic not only in spirit and orientation, but also in view of the fact that it is addressed not to a narrow elite but to the masses of the people. This does not mean that the new accessibility of art removes the need for aesthetic education, for fostering aesthetic sensitivity, taste and the ability to appreciate the aesthetic fabric of works of art, for developing the artistic potential that lies within each individual. Accessibility of art does not mean that no background or preparation is necessary for its understanding. It goes without saying that the profound significance of ideas and emotions contained in a work of art is appreciated more fully by those possessing an artistic education, whose aesthetic sense and faculty have been well developed.
Popular roots and the accessibility of art are by no means the same thing. The concept of involvement with the people's interests and aspirations is wider. On the other hand, by no means everything that is easily accessible is rooted in the people: works directed against the people may still be easily accessible. Vulgarity pandering to superficial shallow tastes is often accessible in the highest degree.
Yet while accessibility may by no means always be indicative of involvement with the people, true involvement of this kind in art is always distinguished by clear content, unmistakable precision of form and accessibility. 297 The famous quotation from the Roman writer Terence: "Books have a fate of their own" is usually left at that, yet the idea is qualified in the original by the words, "according to how they are received by the reader". This is a jnost important consideration. In our age when art is playing an increasingly significant role in men's lives, this ancient maxim might well be paraphrased as follows: "the fate of a reader is shaped according to the kind of books he reads''.
__*_*_*__This study has treated the basic principles of MarxistLeninist aesthetics. They are not only of theoretical value, but also possess indubitable practical significance. At the present time it is impossible to find any sphere of human activity which is not pertinent---to some extent or other ---to the question of man's aesthetic apprehension of the real world. Marxist-Leninist analysis of topical problems of contemporary aesthetics raised by the events around us, and theoretical substantiation of diverse manifestations of man's aesthetic activity exert a profound influence on the shaping of the aesthetic consciousness which plays an active part in the transformation of the world, and in the social and political conflicts of the twentieth century.
[298] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]Request to Readers
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send all your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[299]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL SOON PUBLISH
BAR ABASH Y. Aesthetics and Poetics
The well-known Soviet critic Yuri Barabash assumes a sharp polemical stance as he traces various aspects of the ideological struggle which Marxist-Leninist aesthetics has waged to establish the basic principles of Soviet art against the opposition of reformist views (E. Bernstein, J. Destree. K. Kautsky), contemporary revisionist theories (E. Fischer, R. Garaudy, V. Strada) and various ``leftist'' conceptions of the Maoist and neo-Trotskyist sort.
Reviewing problems of poetics, the author examines structuralist conceptions which have gained currency in the past few years.
Y. Barabash incorporates a broad range of material from numerous sources in the Soviet Union and abroad, some of them virtually unknown. He gives a clear analysis of social problems directly related to the development of art in various types of contemporary society.
[300]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL SOON PUBLISH
DAVIDOW M. Peoples Theatre from the Box Office to the Stage
The author, an American journalist and theatre critic, describes the leading theatrical troupes in the Soviet Union and shares his impressions about theatrical productions, rehearsals, conversations with directors, actors and other leading figures. In the social achievements of the Soviet people Davidow sees a token of the lofty ideological and artistic accomplishments of theatre in the USSR. His book gives an accurate picture of theatrical life in the Soviet Union.
[301]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL SOON PUBLISH
REFREGIER A. Sketch of the Soviet Union
This book by the well-known American Communist artist Anton Refregier is interesting and unusual in form. A true friend of the Soviet Union, Refregier has travelled a good deal about the country. This book of impressions is the creative result of his travels. It consists of fifty original drawings and travel sketches thematically related to the drawings.
Moscow and Leningrad, the Caucasus and Central Asia---these and other places provided the artist with the richest possible material. His book reflects both the distant past and the living pulse of modern life.
[302]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS IS PREPARING FOR PRINT
VOLYNSKY L. Seven Days
This is a book in an unusual genre. Its author, Leonid Volynsky (1913-1969), was an artist, writer and art critic. Recent events and observations are bound up in one narrative with images of bygone days, reflection on the paths and crossroads of man's artistic genius, the art of great masters and the fate of their famous works. Volynsky describes the rescue of the treasures of the Dresden Picture Gallery by Soviet troops. He was a member of the group of Soviet officers and men who found and returned to mankind the priceless paintings of old masters immurred by the nazis in an abandoned quarry.
The book is lavishly illustrated with colour and black-and-white reproductions of the works of Raphael, Rembrandt, Titian, Velazquez, and other great artists.
AVNER ZIS FOUNDATIONS OF MARXIST AESTHETICS
\TIONS
LXIST
TICS
Th
tio:
fes
opl
aes
of
pal
of
ere
vie
lik«
hoc
Lei
An
nui
anc
app
coll
e author of this book, Foundans of Marxist Aesthetics, is Prosor Avner Zis, D. Sc. ( Philos17), a well-known Soviet ithetician and Merited Scientist the RSFSR. His princi[ field of research is the theory art and the categories of artistic ativity. Readers in both the Sot Union and abroad will most sly be familiar with his other )ks such as Lectures in Marxistlinist Aesthetics (2 volumes) or t and Aesthetics, not to mention nerous writings on aesthetics 1 the theory of art that have >eared in scientific journals and lections of articles.
[303]