Baxendall Lee Plekhanov

7/29/2019 Baxendall Lee Plekhanov

1/14

Marxism and Aesthetics: A Critique of the Contribution of George Plekhanov

Author(s): Lee BaxandallSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Spring, 1967), pp. 267-279Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/429015

Accessed: 18/09/2010 19:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/429015?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/429015?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/14

LEE BAXANDALL

Marxi sm a n d Aesthetics:A Critique o f t h e Contribution o f

G e o r g e Plekhanov

WHETHER AND IN what way Marxiananalysis relates to aesthetic questions haslong been in dispute. While some have ar-gued for a Marxian solution to every prob-lem of art, others deny the possibility of anyMarxian contribution. Many find the wholequestion confusing and, presumably, notworth the trouble. This paper will evaluatethe Marxian approach to three central prob-lems of aesthetics, the questions of creativ-ity, public reception or taste, and theanalysis and judgment of aesthetic struc-ture, presenting the views of George Plek-hanov as the point of departure. WhileMarxism has had much to say about asociology of the arts, I will not deal withthis question here, except as a sociologicalapproach becomes relevant to aestheticsproper.George Plekhanov (1856-1918) is an obvi-ous choice for orienting our discussion.Among Marxists he was the first to discussart and literature systematically. He dealtwith entire periods of national cultures asoften as he wrote on single works, figures,and problems. His knowledge and sensibil-ity were capacious. His findings were arrivedLEEBAXANDALLs an editor of Studies on the Leftand teaches at the Free University of New York.He has written plays and articles on contemporaryarts. With Stefan Morawski he is editing Marxistson Art and Literature: Major Documents, 1842-

1944.

at in conscious reference to the Germanidealist and romantic aestheticians, amongthem Kant, Hegel, and Schiller-whom, asMarx said of his revisions of Hegel, Plek-hanov sought to "stand on their feet." Atthe same time Plekhanov was productive inphilosophy and political theory; he promul-gated and headed the Russian revolutionarymovement for many years, and was Lenin'svalued preceptor, although their views cameto differ in many respects. No pre-1917Marxist was so articulate as he on the ele-ments of aesthetic judgment. Marx andEngels to be sure provided the initial andessential impetus; but Marx never wrotethe book he planned on Balzac, nor did hecomplete his encyclopedia article on aes-thetics. He and Engels, in addition to aphilosophical context, left only opinionson questions of art in letters, in paragraphsin works on other topics, and in tangentialreferences.1aContemporaries of Plekhanov,such as Franz Mehring, Paul Lafargue,Clara Zetkin, Wilhelm Liebknecht, RosaLuxemburg, Leon Trotsky, and AnatoliLunacharsky, wrote also on problems of artbut without his amplitude and seldom withhis rigor. Following 1917, a CommunistParty (or anti-Party) outlook and politicalurgencies engaged most Marxians to the ex-tent that for the most part the questionsintegral to aesthetics have received lessthan their due. As George Lukacs lately re-


3/14

268marked, the development of Marxist theoryhas stagnated for fifty years. The earlyMarxian thinkers could achieve a Prometh-ean temper, an audacity, and a unifyingoutlook, rare since. One should not dis-count the numerous and in many casesimportant Marxian studies of the arts whichhave since been published,lb but the rea-sons for returning to the first outstandingtheorist are solid. We can learn from Plek-hanov, and check ourselves against him.His most important work in Englishtranslation is Art and Social Life, an analy-sis of conflict between art-for-art's-sakeandutilitarian attitudes toward literature inFrance during the nineteenth century.Plekhanov states that the critic is not tocondemn or praise either view but to under-stand both in their class-situated relation-ships, even when utilitarians prove to havesocialist views. Published in 1912, the es-say was translated several times during the1930's and perhaps was the single most in-fluential model for American Marxian crit-ics of that time.lc Less well known duringthe 1930's were the Letters Without Address(1900), and the French Dramatic Literatureand French Eighteenth Century Paintingfrom the Sociological Standpoint (1905).2Letters Without Address explores the rela-tionship of art and society among primitivetribes. Ibsen, Petty Bourgeois Revolutionist(1908)3 finds Ibsen's rebellion against allScandinavian society and politics (includingthe ineffectual Socialists) to have been hisartistic strength, but his limitation too, sinceit deprived the playwright of positive socialsymbols. The concrete analysis has aestheticas well as sociological value.Plekhanov gave increasing precedence tosociological over aesthetic inquiry, and attimes he let revolutionary preoccupationsconfuse his scientific detachment. We mustdistinguish the passages biased by politicalthought and hopes. This is not a procedurereserved only for analysis of Marxist theor-ists. Marxians are, like all men, enmeshedin historical process, making judgmentswhich later prove qualified by their role inhistory. The revolutionary theorist is notmore prone to error than is the politicallyuninvolved scholar, whose detachment from

LEE B A X A N D A Lsocial life carries a different limitation onconsciousness, surely no less damaging.With this in mind it is possible to recon-struct a Marxist aesthetic from the writingsof Plekhanov.INDIVIDUAL CREATIVE GENIUSThe arguments are well known against aMarxian contribution to understanding thecreative act, particularly as manifested inworks of genius such as Shakespeare'splays.The "social approach," this argument runs,may tell us much concerning second- andthird-rate works of an era. It can tell us whythe proliferation of sentimental bourgeoisnovels in early nineteenth century Ger-many, France, and England was a responseto the democratized education of theexpanding middle class. It can relate theformulas of these novels to the manners ofthe class for which they were written. But,continues the argument, does the "social ap-proach" tell how a writer like Goethe couldfind his way through this convention toachieve The Sorrows of Young Werther,which exploited the mediocre fashions ofthe time (as its popularity among youngwives testified), and transcended them? The"social approach," these arguments main-tain, can discuss aspects of the creative actwhich are repeated, expected, and common;which have become formulas of the hackwriters; which, in short, are no longer crea-tive but the reenactment of what exists. Thisview relegates the "social approach" to re-ports on subjects and moods demanded ofhack writers, and declares sacrosanct theoriginality of Goethe, Shakespeare, Homer,Dante, Balzac, and Faulkner. It deniesMarxians the right to use their technique forqualitative as well as quantitative analysis,and ignores the fact that Marxism may beused conjuncturally with other approachesto obtain results.The Marxian aesthetician is not muchinterested in the "average"artistic effort, asa rule. He studies rather the architecture ofthat high, complex, and lonely edifice wheregenius has its practice. He begins obliquely,asserting the edifice is built on foundationsof the concrete social relations within which


4/14

Marxism and Aestheticsthe genius functions and learned to func-tion. The Marxian emphasizes that human-ity historically set out with the wearisome,wholly economic activities of staying alive,as the most primitive tribes still practicethem. He demonstrates that on a subsistencelevel what we call artistic manifestations ofprimitives are indeed economic activities.Drawings are made in caves to charm beastsinto letting themselves be killed; dancesare performed to propitiate spirits who con-trol the harvest. Excellent Marxian discus-sions of primitive artistic-economic phe-nomena exist, Plekhanov's among theearliest. The Marxian notes that an emer-gence from purely economic activity is re-peated through history in each human life.The child lies in its natal crib preoccupiedwith the economy of its body's nourishmentand growth. As the child develops it takesup activity not strictly concerned with sur-vival: it smiles, plays, turns down its food,emulates grown-ups in their manifold ac-tivities. But this is only an apparent libera-tion from a primary determination by "eco-nomic necessities." The society, which forthe child is focused in parents, may have athousand concerns, and only a modicum ofthese, particularly in an era of automationand shortening work-weeks, may seem gov-erned by men's economic activity. The con-siderations which shape actions may bemultiple-but, the Marxian says, when weknow the architecture of cultural life wesee that the primary conditioners of ourchoice, however complex and seemingly dis-tant from economic rigors, may be tracedback ultimately to the economy and socialstructure. In America of the 1960's, thetelevision programs absorbed by children(and adults) for dozens of hours each week,in their irresponsible quest for more view-ers resulting in multiplied sex and sadismand the display of an adventurist code ofconduct, stem chiefly from fierce capitalistcompetition between television corpora-tions. What these children, some of themfuture artists, are told by their teachers,their parents, and mass media is in largedegree shaped by the capitalist economy'sstruggle for its own growth and againstsocialism.The Marxian does not find it difficult to

269demonstrate the ultimately determiningrole of the political economy, even incultural activity. It is in this respect thatartistic originality is a "superstructure," asMarx's phrase has it. Plekhanov offers asubtle discussion of the epiphenomenal,devious relation of culture to society andeconomy:

The adherents of dialectical materialism,which has replaced the dialectical Idealism ofHegel and his adherents, are customarily chargedwith the notion that the development of allsides of a people's consciousness occurs under theexclusive influence of the "economic factor." Onecould not present their views more falsely: theysay something entirely different. They say thatin literature, art, philosophy, etc., the spiritualessence of a society is expressed, and the characterof the spiritual essence of a society is determinedby the qualities of those interrelationships be-tween people which comprise the given society.These relationships depend in the final analysisupon the stage of development of the society'sproductive forces. Each important step in thedevelopment of these forces results in a changein the social relationships of people and thusalso in the spiritual essence of the society. Thechanges which have occurred in the social con-sciousness must also be reflected with more orless clarity in literature, in art, in philosophy,etc. But the changes in social relationships re-ceive their impetus from the greatest variety of"factors," and which factor works more stronglyat a given moment upon literature, art, etc., de-pends upon a number of second and third-rangecauses which relate to the general social economyin no direct relationship whatsoever. A direct ef-fect of economy upon art and other ideologiesis, generally, the rarest thing to observe. Mostlyit is other "factors" which are effective: politics,philosophy, etc.... And it is impossible toenumerate these manifold interlacings of differ-ent "factors" in the different countries and inthe different epochs of social development. Thedialectical materialists know this very well. Butthey do not remain on the surfaces of appearancesand they do not content themselves with point-ing out the interaction of the different "factors."'Thus in complex fashion, an artworkexpresses the "spiritual essence of a society."But what of the elements injected by theindividual who creates this "spiritual es-sence of a society"? Will Plekhanov notcredit the artist with originality, with imagi-nation? The answer must be obvious: onlyindividuals gifted with originality can

change the expression of "the spiritual es-sence of a society." The imitative and medi-ocre may popularize and debase the ex-


5/14

270pressed distinctiveness of a society, whilethe more original and unique an individualis, the more he can contribute to makingand reflecting an essence that is cominginto being.This has been groundwork, necessary inview of prevalent misunderstandings ofculture's architecture. The task of this sec-tion is to explore, as aestheticians ratherthan social theorists, from within the ar-tistic act, the relevance of Marxian perspec-tives to an understanding of artistic crea-tivity.In this area too, it is necessary to certifysome basic facts which Marxians are some-times presumed not to know. These includethe truism that the artist at work is gen-erally oblivious to his social function. AsPlekhanov rightly declares, "the work ofan artist... is for him an end in itself." 5The guides he will use are his experienceand imagination and these, in turn, areinstinctual at the moment of creation.Instinct, Plekhanov has it, "is the necessaryprecondition for the success of artistic crea-tion." 6 On the other hand, a creator is notan involuntary tool of social process-abeautiful artwork will express "the lyricalperceptions of a great soul." 7How is the creator's lyrical expressionenabled or hindered by his social situation?The originality of the artist and the linkageof his situation to his achievement aresummed up in this phrase of Plekhanov's:"A great poet is great because he representsa great step in social development." 8Talent and originality are not enough.The artist must exercise them to advantagewithin the opportunities of his social situa-tion. The artist will need to observe notonly the surface particularities of existence,and not only his own life; he will need toobserve the significant social processesaround him. It will (in part) be his abilityto express these which will make him agreat creator; hence he must exercise hisfreedom to make these events accessible tohis observation and intuition. Plekhanovwrites, "a man of genius who lives in publiclife foresees more exactly and better thanothers those changes which must occur insocial relationships."8 The artist's funda-

LEE BAXANDALLmental relationships-the family fromwhich he develops, whom he marries, hisclass and status associations, whether he isa worker or insurance executive, a farmeror city dweller, college-educated or self-educated, sedentary or well-traveled-theseand many more contribute to the psycho-logical probability of the artist's compre-hending with genius the significant socialprocesses of his time. In the analysis ofthese relations lies Marxism's relevance tothe study of creativity in theory and prac-tice.As an example, before Balzac launchedupon his Human Comedy he had a stormyand varied career. His life began in theprovinces and was pursued chiefly in theworld capital, Paris; he experienced separa-tion from parents, boarding school, lawstudies, hack writing, owning and bossinga print shop, bankruptcy. Now, only abrilliant talent could have written thesenovels; the experience alone was notenough, as we observe daily from the livesof many who suffer much while learningnothing. Yet could the brilliant Balzachave created these masterpieces, had he notbeen savagely introduced to the nature ofhis society? Or Arthur Miller? His outstand-ing drama at this writing is still Death of aSalesman. Miller never was a salesman, buthis father was a clothing manufacturer, andit is not difficult to see that his privilegedplace as his mind developed, close to hisfather, enabled Miller to perceive the sales-man's symbolic and central role in a societywhere, for the first time in history, thecritical economic problem became not theproduction of goods but getting rid of themby every means of persuasion and plannedobsolescence.No denial of individuality is involvedwhen we assert the creative act's relationto changing social relationships. As Plek-hanov wrote of the artist:

"When he represents this step he does not ceaseto be an individual. In his character and in hislife there are certainly very many traits andcircumstances, which have not the least con-nection to his historic activity and which exertnot the least influence upon it. But there arealso certainly such traits which impart an in-dividual stamp to this activity, without in theleast altering its general historical character.8


6/14

Marxism and AestheticsAs a practical matter, the artist's exercise offreedom to make the social meaning of histime accessible to his observation and intu-ition requires of him a continuing round ofdifficult decisions. He alone must choosewhere to live, whom to know, what to do,how to keep alive; this freedom is beyondthe insight and energy of most men, whichexplains the number of failed talents. Flau-bert did better than most. Born a bourgeois,he, by a combination of circumstances to-gether with his talent, was able to escapethe enervating traits of his class and epoch.As Plekhanov wrote, he gained a largerobjectivity because "he cared too little forthe interests of the bourgeoisie." 9

On the other hand, Plekhanov saw defi-nite limits to the possibilities of geniuswhich derive from the artist's situation. Theartist with the best will in the world cannottranscend objective limitations upon indi-vidual comprehension and creative expres-sion in a period. Conditions must exist in asociety that will permit society to produceindividuals who understand and express it.Nothing else will explain creative achieve-ment as in Periclean Athens, Medician Flor-ence, Elizabethan London, when even medi-ocre craftsmen surpassed in quality thework of leading artists of less fortunatetimes and situations. We may compare thedrama and painting in Italy and Englandduring the Renaissance. Italy's painting wasglorious; its drama was divided between am-bitious but sterile apings of the classicalstage and the unambitious but popularcommedia del'arte. England had almost nopainting but her dramatists continue to ex-cite world audiences. We cannot evasivelydeclare that no one talented in drama hap-pened to be born in Italy, while no innatelytalented painters were born in England.The explanation would be located in theconjunction of Renaissance release of ener-gies from hierarchic restraint, and the char-acter of life in the two countries. Italiansare dramatic in hanging a curtain or eatinga sausage; there can have been little in-centive to further dramatize their lives.The restrained English pour their sense ofdrama into formalized channels. The situa-tion limits even the most conscious artist.In his monograph on Ibsen, Plekhanov

271discussed the suprapersonal limitations ontalent in relation to nineteenth centurysymbolism:

It is an involuntary protest by the artist againstthe lack of ideas. But it is a protest which hasarisen on the soil of a lack of ideas, which has nodeterminate content, and hence loses itself infoggy abstraction.... For our era's protestagainst the lack of ideas in art, which has led toabstraction and chaos, to achieve a determinatecontent, the presence of such social conditions isnecessary as currently are totally absent andwhich cannot be summoned upon command.10

In discussing class, status, friends, city, etc.,as determinants of creative accomplishment,Plekhanov frequently displays acute in-sight.1lExcept for deviations which will be noted,Plekhanov did not believe that consciousdidacticism or propaganda improved anartwork. Indeed he thought they often ledto artistic failure. In a passage from a draftof Art and Social Life, which I assume hedeleted from the final version as an accom-modation to his friends' active propagandaactivity, he went so far as to state:

The historical epochs in which artists incline toart-for-art's-sake bring forth a much smaller num-ber of tendentious works, whereby the total oftruly artistic creations is undoubtedly increased.The artist who is not distracted from his objectby political passions is psychologically in a posi-tion to treat his object with the same concentratedattention as the scholar brings to the object ofhis scientific investigation. That is naturally avery great advantage for his work.2Like Marx, who studied while at Bonnwith the German romantic theorist, A. W.Schlegel, Plekhanov had great respect forimage and metaphor, the particular artistic

resources of the writer. His favorite amongGerman aestheticians was Kant, whose dis-tinction between image and metaphor, onthe one hand, and the propagandist's logicand persuasion, on the other, he freely bor-rowed and applied in an attack on the youngMaxim Gorky:Mr. Gorky believes himself already a Marxian; hehas indeed in his novel The Mother emerged as aproclaimer of Marx's views. But the same novelhas also shown that Mr. Gorky is absolutely un-suited for the role of proclaimer of these views,for he understands the views of Marx not at all.... If Mr. Gorky wants to preach Marxism thenhe might first take the trouble to understand


7/14

272Marxism.And Mr. Gorkywill then bring to hisunderstandingthe not-so-terrifyingadvantageofseeing clearly how little the role of proclaimer(one who prefers the languageof logic) is suitedto the artist (one who prefers the language ofimages).'3One suspects the lack of sympathy stemsmore from a falling-out among revolution-aries than from the inadequacies of Gorky'snovel, which is among the author's mostsuccessful works. Nevertheless the passage isimportant, for it explicitly identifies theKantian aesthetic distinction with Marxianaesthetics. The consistency with whichPlekhanov assimilates elements of Kantcontributes to the primary importance of

his views in any study of Marxian aes-thetics.l3aIn summary, the Marxian finds no diffi-culty in acknowledging the uniqueness andoriginality of the artistic process. His con-tribution is rather to insist on the objectivesocial conditions which feed the artist'simagination and ultimately (together withhis talent) limit his achievement.We view the Marxian contribution as butone of several perspectives on artistic crea-tion. Like the study of psychology, myth, ar-tistic traditions, or language structure,Marxism illuminates important areas of thecreative act. Critics and scholars may ignoreMarxism at the cost of impoverishing theirachievement.THE AESTHETIC RESPONSEWe now concern ourselves with the capacityand nature of response to an artwork's dis-tinctly aesthetic qualities.

It takes no Marxian to tell us that ap-preciators and audiences may fail to re-spond because they are unable to cope withnew or unfamiliar formal means employedby an artist. Much art now regarded asclassic-the symphonies of Brahms andBeethoven, the ballets of Stravinsky-wasrejected scornfully at first. The audiencehad to gain experience of the new idiom be-fore it was ready to accept innovations. Ina class society, there are also numerousfailed responses owing to disparate classeducations where time and even exposureto a work is of little relevance. This kind of

LEE BAXANDALLfailed response the Marxian will be par-ticularly acute in noting and analyzing.When he does so, his analysis will besociological but, for the most part, it willalso be aesthetic. The Marxian task is two-fold. It must describe barriers to familiarityfounded on disparate class educations. Itmust also locate the class barriers to re-sponse as posed in the aesthetic structure ofa particular work.To the degree an artwork derives itsaesthetic structure from the class-orientedconsciousness of human beings involved inhistorical process, in however oblique orlimited fashion, the responses to the art-work will be illuminated by Marxian aes-thetic analysis of the social content of thework.The Marxian knows the arts may not bedealt with as though the idiom of sculpturewere the same as that of music, poetry,dance, etc. Generalizations about style, pe-riod, genre within an art may as easily over-look the distinctiveness of each artisticcreation. The formulation of Marxism'srelevance to response or taste can only beapplied with great care in each specificcase. The sociological analysis of audiencefamiliarity will always be appropriate; aes-thetic analysis of class orientation in awork'scontent may not be appropriate. Theclass-oriented consciousness in the aestheticstructure of music, for instance, does exist13bbut is seldom worth investigation in eachparticular work. On the other hand, thetonal combinations of Pergolesi, Mozart,Berlioz, Schoenberg, Sessions, and CharlieParker, when compared and set in theirhistorical situations, are most revealing ofclass consciousness in transition. Thesetonal combinations can be related to themusic's reception among various audiences.In the most lyric and subjective poem thesame is true of the objective correlatives ofmood and atmosphere. Mood and atmos-phere also have their class determinations,and may pose a barrier to taste and recep-tivity. The Marxian's definition of class-oriented consciousness in aesthetic structureis not dependent on depiction in the art-work of man in history. The analysis isflexible and adjusted to the particularidiom of the work.


8/14

Marxism and AestheticsWhy does the class content of an aes-thetic structure sometimes become a bar-rier to an audience? The answer relatesto psychological empathy. The audiencemust be able to let its consciousness moveand assimilate and expand inside an aes-thetic structure. When empathy fails, tastecannot function; the response has beenblocked. Blockage may be caused by dis-taste for a presumed idea of the work; orthe audience may indeed try to extend itsempathy, only to find the artwork does notyield to the audience's historically formedideas, emotion, and imagination. Plekha-nov has remarked, echoing Taine: "In or-der to follow successfully in Michelangelo's

footsteps, one must be able to think andperceive as the great Florentine thoughtand perceived." 14Plekhanov offers the example of Push-kin's Eugene Onegin and its receptionamong the Russian working class. Onegin'sactions and consciousness reflect the ener-vated will and the ennui of the aristocracy.Proletarians in Czarist Russia, acquaintedfrom a distance with this demeanor, couldnot empathize with it even in a supremework of poetry. Their own condition wasmarked by exploitation and lack of leisurewhich gave their imagination no basis forempathy with lassitude, its tensions andvalue system. Not their ignorance but dif-ferences of class background excluded theworkers from this masterpiece.Said Plekhanov: "Poetic works which inone class or social level find great approval,for another class often lose almost all mean-ing." 15 The same analysis may be appliedto difficulties experienced by Marxist au-thors who, intending their writing toawaken a response among workers, chieflyfound their audience within the bourgeoisclass of their origin. The case of BertoltBrecht is pertinent. Brecht sought toachieve a clear plot line, and uncompli-cated and lively language, and to incorpo-rate proletarian characters and a working-class attitude. Yet middle-class radicals andliberals have afforded Brecht's most en-thusiastic audience. Workers do not nor-mally have leisure and encouragement todevelop appreciation of new and complexart, while their tastes are often sentimen-

273talized and debased by the conditions oftheir life and the art purveyed to them bythe class in power. Folk art often is lost tothem too, while the bitter irony and pessi-mism of a Brecht does not stylistically com-plement the worker's urgent hope of socialadvancement.The reaction of many Communist offi-cials to problems of worker response con-sists of furthering only art which most di-rectly and simply speaks for and channelsthe urgent hopes of social advancement.These officials show little understandingor respect for more difficult works likeBrecht's, which require some aesthetic edu-cation of the working class before they be-come accessible to the broadest spectrum ofworking-class empathy. On a level of scien-tific Marxism their attitude reflects a fail-ure to analyze the difficult works' aestheticstructures from the standpoint of response.On the practical Marxian plane, the capac-ity and need of the working class to matureits taste is slighted. Overlooked too is thediversity of present capacities within theworking class for an adequate response.A Marxian sociological analysis of theseofficials' backgrounds would find many ofthem limited, in their capacities to respond,by their deprived origins in the workingclass and their long association with politi-cal types too busy for art.When Plekhanov accepted Taine's his-toricized analysis of aesthetic response, hequalified it with a Marxian analysis oflapses in empathy due to class and othersocial factors. To explain the experience ofart when an empathy lapse has not oc-curred, he turned to Kant. Plekhanov toorejected apparent usefulness in an art-work as necessary to aesthetic pleasure."The beautiful appeals to people inde-pendently of any utilitarian considerationswhatsoever." 16 In some epochs considera-tions of utility might outweigh true aes-thetic pleasure, he added,l7 yet these usevalues were only a surrogate for aestheticattributes. A psychological aberrationmakes us think the pleasure we receivefrom such works is aesthetic, whereas itactually arises from thoughts provoked bythe images rather than from images. Thetrue artist employs aesthetic rather than


9/14

274logical ideas; "a work of art executed inimages or sounds acts upon our contem-plative faculty and not upon our logicalfaculty."If the beautiful arouses empathy apartfrom our conscious thought of personal orsocial good, he continued, this does notmean the artwork has no usefulness. "Theindividual can quite disinterestedly enjoysomething which is very useful to his kind(to society)." This qualification does notcontradict Kant. Utility has been postu-lated only as a possibility that in any casewould not be functional in one's conscious-ness.Plekhanov goes further. The possibilityof utility is transformed into necessity withthis formulation: "The enjoyment of awork of art is enjoyment of the depiction(of an object, phenomenon or state ofmind) advantageous to the kind, independ-ently of any conscious consideration what-soever of such advantage." 18 He added:"Naturally, not every useful object appearsbeautiful to social man. But undoubtedlyonly that which is useful-that is to say, ofimportance in his struggle for existence,with nature or with other social men-canseem beautiful to him." "In the vast ma-jority of cases," he explained, "this utilitycan only be discovered by scientific analy-sis." 19 Kant's theory of response as Plek-hanov adopted it to this point still doesnot go to pieces.loa Plekhanov offers anemendation rather than a contradiction.He also defined the basis for a sociallydirective art and criticism which wouldcomplement, rather than violate, the scien-tific spirit of his aesthetics of response aswell as his sociological principle that "eachone is right in his own way." If it was truethat art did communicate something ad-vantageous for the kind, the Marxian couldhelp propagate aesthetic communicationswhich would prove more advantageous thanthose from other viewpoints. He says,

It is our duty to declare the kind of criticismto which we rally, philosophical criticism or thecriticism of combat. But to our misfortune, we areunable to do so, for we think that the truly philo-sophical criticism is at the same time a truly mili-tant criticism.... Scientific criticism gives no pre-scriptions to art. It does not say: you must keep

LEE BAXANDALLto such and such rules and procedures which aredominant in different historical epochs... it doesnot take up a position in favor of such or suchschool of art; and if... it takes a position, it doesnot justify itself, or at least its position, by in-voking the eternal laws of art. In a word, it is asobjective as physics, and that precisely for the rea-son that it is a stranger to all metaphysics. Thisvery same objective criticism, as we have said, isa combative criticism in the precise measure towhich it is truly scientific.20

Plekhanov offers a sketch of the way litera-ture and criticism functioned combativelyfor all progressive historical classes on theirway to power. The combative role of litera-ture and criticism did not stand in the wayof but rather provided aesthetic and criticaladvances in these periods.Certain necessary prolegomanias of social sciencehave already been established. From the momenta scientific criticism is possible, a combative criti-cism that is a thing separate and independent be-comes a ridiculous archaism.... We have sup-posed that men occupied with scientific criticismshould and can remain cold as marble in theirwritings, impassible as the ancient monks in theirmonasteries, but in sum such a supposition issuperfluous. If scientific criticism considers thehistory of art as the result of social development,it is itself a product of this development. Ifhistory and the contemporary situation of agiven social class necessarily breed in it certainaesthetic tastes and certain artistic standpoints,and not others, then scientific criticisms can aswell have their determined tastes and theirstandpoints, for these criticisms do not fall fromheaven and they, too, are the spawn of history.

Since our present achievement in the scien-tific approach is the result of long struggle,which is not over, and our opinions, eventhe most scientific, must emerge in the de-veloping context of history, our context re-mains historical: we can only define ourmethods and tastes by adopting "comba-tive" standpoints, each right in its own way.We strive toward a scientific outlook butthis very striving makes science and artcombative. Objectivity does not precludecommitment; indeed it is enhanced by thechoice of a combativeness which will fur-ther science and human well-being.The judgments of Plekhanov suffered atsome points from a failure of empathy dueto political involvement. While correctlyarguing that a scientific aesthetics might becombative, he was not always rigorous in


10/14

Marxism and Aestheticsapplying to himself the response analysishe evolved, and his lapses into a failure ofempathy mark a damaging failure to ana-lyze "the origins of the different rules andprocedures which are dominant" in a cul-tural movement. His theory may be used todefine his mistakes, which have also beenerrors of some later Marxians.Plekhanov visited a sculptural expositionand noted how working men were depictedin gestures of dejection. Even artists whomhe considered socially aware made this mis-take:21 "In them there is no place for theworld-embracing, for the greatest-possible,for whatever inspires the social man toheroic deeds and causes him to sacrificehimself for the common good. For every-thing which suggests self-sacrifice seems, tothis declining class, to be artificial, 'theatri-cal'; this class requires 'simplicity.' But the'simple' in their current language signifies:alien to the Ideal element." 21a He mighthave thought this depiction, too, told a por-tion of truth about the working class, andthat it might have a polemic usefulness to-ward a liberal bourgeois public. Instead hefound an authority in John Ruskin. He ap-proved the English Romantic's avowal that"the value of a work of art is determined bythe loftiness of the mood it expresses."22Plekhanov similarly divided contemporarysubjects into the noble or false category. Afalse or barren subject would be a misersinging of his lost money, and most of thethemes employed by naturalist writers. Hecould not stand the theme of syphilis. Anoble subject would be a maiden singing ofher lost lover, or even a war song, which,although imbued with hatred for theenemy, would express "the selflessness ofthe warrior, ready to die for his country,his state, and so forth. Just in so far as itexpresses such readiness, it does bring mencloser together."22a Plekhanov was notwrong because he wanted an art promotiveof community and optimism. That was hiscombative prerogative. Much great art wascreated with the purpose in mind. Hisfailure was in despising without analysiscontemporary works which had other, butin their way, valid functions. Impression-ism in painting he thought a technical fad."The artist who limits himself to the

275sphere of sensations remains unmovedeither by feelings or thoughts. He maypaint a good landscape." 23 He did not per-mit himself to see that non-representationalart was developing on an aesthetic basisnot necessarily in conflict with humanism.Cubism he called "rubbish cubed." 24 Else-where he said social change necessitates achange in artistic resources. But here heforgot: "The search for novelty is often asource of progress. But not everyone wholooks for something new succeeds in findingit. We need to know where to look. He whois blind to the lessons of social life, whoknows no reality other than his own 'ego,'will not find anything new, search as hemay, except new rubbish. It is not good forman to be alone." 25 In discussing Symbol-ism, Plekhanov defined what is lost whenan art movement turns away from a de-tailed rendering of social reality: "Man'smind can transcend the boundaries of real-ity in two ways: by means of symbols-which lead into the realm of abstraction; orby way of the road which reality itselftravels, by which it transcends its limita-tions, develops meaning through its ownpower and strength, and creates the founda-tion for the reality of the future.... Theartist resorts to symbols when he cannotsolve difficult, sometimes insoluble prob-lems." 26 Plekhanov opposed naturalism formuch the same reasons, as he saw it falsify-ing reality through a failure to depict thetendencies of history. He wanted art workswith aesthetic structures which would em-body what Engels called a "bias," which"should flow by itself from the situation andaction, without particular indications." Onecan argue a case against the abstractionistart in this century; sick with intellectualism,it offers little emotional sustenance. ButPlekhanov does not do its accomplishmentsjustice. He failed also to see the symbolicnature of all communication, including therelatively abstract forms we label Realism.In an age when artists no longer approachdifficult, "sometimes insoluble problems"with the old aesthetic idioms, they employresources shaped by their society. "The be-ginning of all wisdom," Plekhanov onceallowed himself to write, "must be the dis-trust of modernism in art." 27 There would


11/14

276be no early relief from abstractionism. "Thenew art will take shape only after the so-cialist revolution... it will bring Greek artback to life in all its fullness." 28We may regret this lapse from a scientificapproach. But it is well to recall the pro-portion of lapses was small. We may recallthe absurd reviews of Pasternak's DoctorZhivago from nearly all philosophicalfronts; socialist critics generally attackedPasternak while Western critics praisedhim, "on artistic grounds," both sides said.Which reviewers sought to take their biasinto account? Few have yet understood thesocial determinants of their taste. We areliberated from a blind subservience tosocial conditioning to the degree that weare conscious of it.THE AESTHETIC JUDGMENTWith problems of an artist's creativity andour response now examined, we want stillto know how Marxism may analyze aes-thetic structures. This is the most problem-atic and necessary task of a Marxian aes-thetics. Plekhanov's writings provide theessential framework, without pursuing theproblem to a critically applicable conclu-sion. We shall attempt to do that.Plekhanov's central essay in this respectis The Literary Opinions of W. G. Belinsky(1897). The science of beauty may be statedin the following laws, as taken over andtransformed by Plekhanov from Belinsky:291. Art does not prove, but shows. A re-formulation of Kant's distinction betweenAesthetic Ideas and Logical Ideas. Plekha-nov accepted the view: "The poet has toshow and not prove.... Whenever this lawis not kept, we find no poetry, but only asymbolizing and allegory."2. The unity of thought must correspondto the unity of form. This law too was takenover from German Idealism. "The form ofan artwork corresponds to its idea and theidea to the form," Plekhanov wrote, andmeant a concrete phenomenal description:"The unity of thought must correspond tothe unity of form... all parts of the art-work must form an harmonic whole."About 1900 he said: "Full accordance ofform with content is the first and principal

LEE BAXANDALLsign of a genuine work of art." 30 In 1912he approvingly quoted Flaubert: "I believein form and content, two things which cannever exist the one without the other." 313. The highest beauty depends on truthand simplicity. Plekhanov recognized thatalthough Marxist analysis must employ theforegoing principles and integrate withthem, it added nothing substantive in thisrespect. Marxism had to explore anotherdimension of aesthetic judgment or remainirrelevant to the discussion of aestheticstructure. He located Marxism's relevancein a law stating: "Truth is the subject ofpoetry." He explained: "The highest beautyis to be found precisely in truth and sim-plicity; authenticity and naturalness com-prise the necessary condition for truly ar-tistic creation." 31aKant held that truth outside a man's sub-jectivity did not exist. The source of phe-nomena was declared forever unknowable,and Kant forcefully asserted the artist's "ar-bitrary freedom to create according to hisintentions," with the artwork a universeunto itself. This Plekhanov, like Belinsky,could not accept. Belinsky's truth lay inHegel's Absolute Idea. Belinsky's aesthetics,Plekhanov noted, "were constructed some-what a priori by him (and his teacher),without sufficient concern for the course ofhistorical development of art." 32 Plekhanovsubstituted a historically relative truth:32a"Everything in the world is relative."33Truth in art would be created and definedin the context of historical relationships.Plekhanov proceeded to defend historicaltruth as a criterion of beauty from thestandpoint of a psychology of creativeness,to which we made reference. "Authenticityand naturalness comprise the necessary con-dition for truly artistic creation," he stated;as a consequence, not every idea "can beexpressed in a work of art." 33a Pure con-cepts and mathematical ideas he thoughtobviously unsuitable. Other ideas might ap-pear appropriate, but when elaborated intoan artwork would fail, for "when a work ofart is founded upon a false idea, this pro-duces so many internal inconsistencies thatits aesthetic value inevitably suffers."34How did he define a false idea? Some-times, when his revolutionary career con-


12/14

Marxism and Aestheticsfused his scientific judgment, Plekhanovwould mean Ruskin's notion. He couldutter such silly pronouncements as "Nomodern artist can be inspired by true ideasif he is seeking to defend the bourgeoisie inits struggle against the proletariat" 35 and"Only those ideas which promote commu-nity among men can give true inspiration tothe artist." 36 Plekhanov attempted in Artand Social Life to document these claims.He demolished some inferior contemporaryworks, like Knut Hamsun's At the King'sGates, ignoring the author's more success-ful works fed on the same "false ideas." 37At other times, Plekhanov defined falseideas without partisan bias.

The psychologically false idea thus de-fined disrupted the specificity, proportion,and coherence of a work, because thesequalities would be flawed by the psychologyof the social relationships buried in theaesthetic structure. They would not be au-thentic and natural. Concreteness, propor-tion, and unity do not derive from someabstract ideal of concreteness, proportion,and unity but from the artist's observationof these traits in the life and consciousnessof men. The psychologically fruitful idea,founded on accurate awareness of social re-lationships and consciousness, Plekhanovcalled a determinate idea. Rooted in his-torical specificity, this "concrete idea"draws its measure and coherence from thedynamic proportions of reality so it "en-compasses the entire subject and not onlysome favored side." For the same reason,should the artist "proceed into other areas,even if he thinks them related, then theunity of the artwork will be disturbed."This because "concrete thought must dis-tinguish itself with its unity" for the artistto create unity in his work.38 For this"clear and coherent" 39 determinate idea toform in the artist's imagination, he mustinvolve himself in the history of his time.Determinate ideas "must be part of hisflesh and blood, they must not hinder andperplex him in his moments of creation; inshort, these ideas must not have a disruptiveinfluence on him." 40 In this way he willavoid the false idea which "brings a lie intothe psychology of the characters."41We still have no practical basis for ex-

277amining an aesthetic structure with theMarxian method. Plekhanov leaves a the-ory of the psychological needs of creativity,and his claim that aesthetic success dependson a determinate idea. If the criterion oftruth is to be admitted to aesthetic judg-ment, we must define a correlative for thedeterminate idea which may be analyticallylocated and verified in the aesthetic struc-ture.Let us describe the genesis of an artist'sinitial idea, usually called the subject andperhaps summarized in a sentence, as heproceeds to the completed artwork. If thisidea connects with the artist's experienceand imagination, it will be in addition adeterminate idea, capable of imaginativeexpansion and assimilation, and, shortly,the term subject matter will fail to encom-pass the concreteness and complexity ofthe articulated realization. What was sub-ject matter will have vanished, althoughcritics may try weakly to reduce the art-work to some phrase. Where has subjectmatter gone? The answer given by Schilleris correct: it was annihilated by the imagi-nation's work. Yet the determinate idea willhave turned up transformed,42concretized,and deepened in the artwork; its correlativewill be that "unity of thought" which cor-responds to the "unity of form."One's deductions from an artwork cannotprove an alleged idea was not determinateenough to produce a better artwork. Thequestion of the artist's individual talentgets in the way of an accurate result fromthis procedure. One often cannot knowwhat that initial idea was, as Plekhanov'sblunders with Hamsun suggest. But one canspeak theoretically of the role of deter-minate ideas43 while specifically analyzingthe thought unity of an aesthetic structurefor its failure or success to render the con-sciousness and behavior of man in hissocial relations coherently, clearly, and con-cretely.The Marxian will refuse to speak ex-clusively of form while analyzing aestheticstructure. How can one describe only form,while not describing what is formed? Anaesthetic structure is an indissoluble unityof form and content. However, the criticmay and must isolate the form and content,


13/14

278although artificially, in the analytic proce-dure. The artwork does not exist while formand content are isolated; yet, when they arenot isolated, the aesthetic structure defiesanalysis. Form is content and content formin a single structure. Yet we describe, onone hand, the action, meanings, and char-acter relationships and, on the other hand,the rhythms and proportions and balance.A mistake lies not in taking form and con-tent apart arbitrarily, but in forgetting onehas done so provisionally. Content is whatthe Marxian aesthetician approaches withhis special skills. Its functioning is what hejudges. To the degree content is informedby and expressive of social process, hisanalysis is relevant. The Marxian is trainedto comprehend social process. He will bethe most competent to analyze how socialprocess formed the content. If qualified inall aspects of aesthetics, he should also provean unusually capable judge of all elementsand the unity of aesthetic structure.Social process does not inform equally orin the same way every aesthetic structure.My remarks earlier about music and lyricpoetry apply here. A historical understand-ing has relatively less to do with the successor failure of lyric expression than it has todo with a novel or play.I am in a position to formulate myview on Marxism and aesthetic judgment:Plekhanov is correct in establishing truthas one of the laws of beauty, if we recognizethat this truth is relative, historical, and im-portant to the full, complex, clear, and co-herent depiction of men's social relationsand consciousness in art, and recognize toothat each artwork will be dependent ontruthfulness in a different way and degree.The Marxian contribution to aestheticjudgment, as to problems of creativity andresponse, is indispensable, used in con-junction with other valid aesthetic ap-proaches.

la For the best survey of these views in English,see Mikhail Lifshitz, The Philosophy of Art of KarlMarx (New York, 1938). See also Karl Marx andFriedrich Engels, Literature and Art (New York,1947), or the complete compilation, Ueber Kunst undLiteratur (Berlin, 1949).

LEE BAXANDALLlb See Lee Baxandall, comp., Marxism and Aes-thetics; A Selective Annotated Bibliography, Booksand Articles in the English Language. Forthcomingfrom The Humanities Press.1c G. V. Plekhanov, Art and Social Life (London,1953). Hereafter referred to as Art.aBoth in Art.8Angel Flores, ed., Ibsen (New York, 1937), pp.35-92.4Kunst und Literatur (Berlin, 1955), pp. 437-438.Hereafter referred to as Kunst.'Art, p. 109.'Kunst, p. 351.7 Kunst, p. 216. Actually the words of Victor Rous-seau, admiringly quoted by Plekhanov.8 Kunst, p. 441.9Kunst, p. 430.10 Kunst, p. 201. Italics mine.11Art, p. 223." Kunst, pp. 329-330.13Kunst, p. 229.lSaRecently some Russian aestheticians have ac-cepted the Kantian distinction between conceptualand artistic thought. See, for instance, VadimKozhinov, "Artistic Creation as 'Thinking inImages,'" Soviet Literature, ?3 (1960), pp. 145-160; and Pyotr Palievsky, "Word and Image," ibid,,t5 (1960), pp. 112-123.1b See, e.g., Norman Cazden, "Musical Conso-nance and Dissonance, a Cultural Criterion," JAAC(Sept. 1945), pp. 3-11; and "Towards a Theory ofRealism in Music," ibid, X (1951), 135-151. Seealso Max Weber, The Rational and Social Founda-tions of Music (Carbondale, Ill., 1958).14Kunst, p. 216.15 Kunst, p. 532.l"Art, p. 109. Plekhanov was again referring in1903 to Kant on the subjectivity, relativity, and dis-interestedness of taste; see Kunst, p. 357.17Kunst, p. 149."Art, p. 109.19Art, p. 164.1a The leading Soviet theorist Bukharin calledKant's view "utter nonsense," and offered an ampli-fied statement of the Plekhanov view just cited."The objective, and also active, significance of thesocial function of poetry... is to assimilate andtransmit experience and to educate character, toreproduce definite group psychologies...'contem-plation' of the astronomical map may, subjectively,be void of any element of self-interest or practical-ity. But objectively, in the total social relations, i.e.,when regarded as a social function, both science andart in general and poetry in particular play.. .atremendously vital and at the same time a practicalrole." Nikolai Bukharin, speech to 1934 SovietWriters Congress, in Eliseo Vivas and MurrayKrieger, eds., The Problems of Aesthetics (NewYork, 1953), p. 505.20Georges Plekhanov, L'Art et la vie sociale, ed.Jean Freville (Paris, 1949), pp. 217-222.Kunst, p. 216.2laArt, p. 225.22Art, p. 183.225Art, p. 183.


14/14

Marxism and Aesthetics23Art, p. 214.4Art, p. 225.26Art, p. 218.28Flores, pp. 39-40.2Kunst, p. 312.

28 Kunst, p. 351.29Kunst, pp. 415-416.0Art, p. 103.31 Kunst, p. 378.31a Kunst, pp. 415-416.32Kunst, pp. 445-446.32a The advocates of Leninist aesthetics did not tryto reconcile their guidance of Soviet literature(which they justified as an imperative of proletarianrevolution) with Plekhanov's relativism; they sim-ply downgraded Plekhanov as a critic. They mightinstead have drawn on his theory of scientific criti-cism which is combative; from its standpoint the

guidance of Soviet literature might be justified, butthe cultural establishment chose the expedient ofcalling Plekhanov's relativist theory deficient. Fordiscussion of the conflict of Leninist aesthetic viewswith Plekhanov's in the Soviet Union after 1930, seeHarold Swayze, Political Control of Literature in

279the USSR (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), chap. I, "TheTheoretical Foundations of Literary Controls."

33Art, p. 183.33a Art, p. 183.34Art, p. 196.35Art, p. 205.36Art, p. 195.'7Art, p. 198.38Kunst, pp. 415-416.39Kunst, p. 201.40Flores, p. 36.41Art, p. 204.42The author's idea of what he is doing may not

correspond to the objective signification of the unityof thought in the artwork. Balzac thought he waswriting criticism of the bourgeoisie to the advan-tage of the aristocracy; but as Marx pointed out, hedrew a damning portrait of the aristocracy. Not theabstract tendency of an author's ideas, but theirconcrete truthfulness, is what concerns the Marxiancritic.43Close psychological research to define theirfunctioning is needed.

Baxendall Lee Plekhanov

Documents

Transcript of Baxendall Lee Plekhanov