Marxist Theory of Recording Art History - Coursework Example

Methodologies: Marxist Theory of Recording Art History Marxism is widely viewed as a political and economic theory. This is mainly based on the fact that Marxism focused on social classes in society especially the difference between the property owners/bourgeois and the labourers. The Marxist proponents opposed capitalism in favour of socialism, where such social classification was non-existent. Apparently the Marxists felt that the bourgeois class was oppressing the labourers economically and politically because they controlled the factors of production. Therefore, the association of Marxist theory with politics and economic theory is justified. However, taking this narrow perspective limits a broader understanding of the implications of the Marxism theory. With the end of communism in Soviet Union and the prevalence of capitalism especially in America and Europe, this political perspective of Marxism has continued to grow weak. In fact, some scholars have argued that the political ideology of Marxism is become obsolete in the modern world. From these arguments, one may be persuaded to think that Marxism is no longer relevant in the modern society. However, Marxist theories still permeate discourses especially on history (Hemingway 20). One Marxist ideology that permeates historical discourses is the Marxist art history theory. Marxist art history has received significant attention from neo-Marxists and critics of the Marxist ideology. The debate and discourses that have come up based on the ideology of Marxist art history are rooted in the void left by Marx in articulating this theory. Apparently, Marx died before writing on aesthetics, which would have formed the basis of his ideology of art history. Therefore, those who followed him together with his critics were left to fill the void in their own ways depending on their understanding of what ideologies Marx was trying to articulate. Therefore, Marxism should not be perceived as a single articulate theory but rather a compilation of theories. This essay will adopt this perspective as the framework of the discussion that follows. The basis of Marxist art history is the placement of art in the social context (Werckmeister 85). Marxist art history considered art as an important tool in inspiring and creating social change. The link between art and human life is based on the belief that human life if influenced by materialism. This is evident in the economic theories of communism and capitalism that juxtaposed against each other especially in the 18th century. On one hand, communism advocated for a society where all resources were shared by the society but where no one owned the factors of production. On the other hand, capitalism favoured a free market system where individuals could own factors of production based on their efforts. In both ideologies, materialism was the main factor of contention. Capitalists led by the American capitalists wanted individuals to own property and resources while communists opposed this. Based on these controversies based on materialism, Marxist socialism emerged as an alternative. Marxist socialism opposed capitalism and embraced a lesser level of communism where economic out-put was shared on the basis of one’s contribution to the production. Based on this background of the three different economic ideologies, it is clear that materialism, or the sharing of resources, influences human life. The Marxist art history theory also considered art as a strong form of expression (Werckmeister 86). Through different forms of art such as painting, drawing, and literature, this ideology held the view that people were actually expressing some ideologies. Through creating art, the Marxist ideology saw an effective channel through which the lower classes or the oppressed could express their desires and imaginations. Although the bourgeois class commoditized art works in terms of their economic value such as prices, the Marxist thought looked beyond and saw an opportunity in art for expressing historical aspects and deriving ideas from them. Therefore, the Marxist art history theory found its essence in the use of art as important records of history for social change rather than just for economic domination and maintenance of status quo. From the inspiration of art recording, Marxist art history held the view that individuals who had hitherto been subjected to false consciousness by the capitalist class could find inspiration and enlightenment. The relationship between the privileged and underprivileged members of the society is well articulated by Hobsbawn in his article “Socialism and the avant-garde in the period of second international”. According to Hobsbawn (189), the inequalities and problems of the underprivileged orchestrated by the bourgeois class combined with artistic works crated a class of revolutionaries, avant-gardes, who started social revolutions to challenges the status quo. The false consciousness would be transformed into conscious-altering ideas from the art works. For example, through historical paintings, we are able to learn about the predicaments and experiences of past generations. The lower class would often use paintings and drawings to express what they were going through. Unfortunately, these people did not live to tell their stories to future generations. However, their stories were preserved in their paintings and art works. Even in modern times, the culture of collecting pieces of art is still prevalent. Some of these historical pieces of art are protected in museums for the very reason that Marxist art history propagated, recording history through art. Hobsbawn also notes the relationship between Marxist ideologies with the artistic avant-garde especially in the 19th century. Apparently, Marxist socialism and avant-garde originated at the same time and influenced each other. This link between socialism as expounded by the Marxists and the artistic avant-garde is important in understanding how Marxist theory is applied in recording art history and or denoting artworks. By now, it should be emerging that Marxist art history is not an isolated theory. It is intricately linked to human life in terms of culture, economic perspectives, and social revolutions. The implication of this intricate relationship is that Marxist theory sees art as a great tool for recording and categorising art, especially historical artworks. In understanding Marxist’s art history, we ought to make a distinction between the existence of art as a form of social reality and art as a revolutionary agent (Bindman 71). The Marxist theory adopted the two perspectives. With regard to the perspective of art as a form of social reality, the theory viewed art as a historical account or record of social reality. Art represented the social realities of a community to which the artist belonged. This social reality was specific to a particular community or society. Therefore, literature and paintings from the 18th century, according to this perspective, represent the social reality of the 18th community to which the artist belonged. On the other hand, the second perspective, which regards art as a revolutionary agent, emphasizes the role of art in inspiring social changes. Therefore, while the former perspective is passive, the latter is active. In Marxist theory, the active and passive perspectives cannot and ought not to be separated for doing so will negate the entire idea of art history and hence the need for history recording. Based on the passive and active perspectives of Marxist theory of art history, one school of thought that emerges is that art can be used for recording purposes only. This stems from the passive perspective where art is viewed as a form of social reality. In this regard, museums and art galleries are helping in recreating social realities that precede the current generation by preserving pieces of art from past generations. Still borrowing from Marxist theory, modern museums and art galleries or libraries have adopted systems of denoting or identifying specific art works based on the specific societies or artists that they represent. Therefore, it is easy to find pieces of art that represent specific societies in the 18th century, the 19th century, the 20th century and so forth. Moreover, it is possible to get pieces of art that are attributed to specific artists because such art works bear some aspects of the artist particularly their thoughts, values, and imaginations. From the active perspective, art is applied as a revolutionary agent. Therefore, Marxist theory holds the view that recording art history is important for future changes. Art works are not passive objects provides a lens through which we view the past but are active agents that trigger new imaginations and thoughts, which drive social change. Just like it applied to the avant-gardes in breaking out from the yoke of the bourgeois, recording art can also be used to bring changes in current and future generations. Although the Marxist theory held a narrow view with regard to this active form of art history with its focus on challenging capitalism, it still has some bearing in the pre-modern society. Now that capitalism prevails in most parts of the world, the original ideology of the Marxists to use art history to challenge capitalism is misplaced. However, art history is still relevant in the sense that it can inspire other types of social changes. Based on the active form of art history in terms of being a revolutionary agent, the artist is a social servant for the society whose moral responsibility is to bring out progressive ideologies by depicted the wrongs and falsehoods in society. In other words, the Marxist theory considered art history as the mirror of society through which individuals view themselves and get inspired by what they see. In the post-modern time, the concept of Marxist theory is still applied in recording history and denoting art. The practice and culture of collecting artworks is still prevalent and considered as important in various societies. Some of the classical drawings and paintings are still preserved and protected in various galleries across the world. To some extent, this culture of preserving such classical pieces of art reflects Marxist’s theory of art history. One of the underlying reasons for preservation of art works in museums and art galleries is to protect the history that they bear. Just like the Marxist theory of art history argued, a piece of art has an important historical value that goes beyond the mere appearance of it. Even in this post-modern age, the practice of organizing art shows still prevails in countries such as France, where the ideologies of Marxism had major influences. People visit art galleries and museums to learn about certain historical factors that they can relate with. Despite the resonance of Marxist theory in contemporary art, we must not ignore the implications of new developments and changes that have taken place since the 19th century when the theory emerged. One of the obvious changes has been the emergence of new technologies that have affected almost every aspect of human life and the society including art and its historical aspect. Another major change has been the growing dominance of capitalism, the primary target for Marxist theories. These and other changes have had an impact on the original ideologies of the Marxist art history. In the introductory part of this essay, it was noted that the Marxist theory has been weakened with the dominance of capitalism. In the process of weakening, the underlying principles of the Marxist theory in relation to art and history must have been affected too. We now have a capitalist economy where everything is commoditized including art. The artist is no longer the same as the he was envisioned in the 19th century Marxist theory as a servant of the society to bring out the truth through his ideologies expressed through art. Instead, the artist has become part of the capitalist society that propagates the ideologies of the bourgeois as real. The motivation of the artist is materialism in the amount of money his piece of art will go for in an auction. As Willette (para 4) notes, modern art has no symbolic value. Such perspective of Marxist art history in the contemporary society shows a growing trend towards a completely different perspective with regard to the place of art in society. In conclusion, it is undeniable that Marxist theories have become weaker and less relevant in the post-modern society as indicated by various critics. The proliferation of capitalist ideology in the post-modern world means that the Marxist theories, which were based on the socialism ideology, have little if any relevance. However, some specific ideologies from Marxism still permeate the post-modern society. One such ideology is the Marxist art history. Although socialism in politics and government structures seems to have weakened to a great extent, it is undeniable that art still holds an important place in society. We still have art galleries and museums across the world that preserves classic pieces of art for the same reasons that Marxist art history had. However, the emergence of new technologies and changes that swept across the world has undermined this. The presence of Marxist ideologies in the post-modern society art may be overshadowed by the dominance of opposing ideologies. Under the Marxist art theory, art as a tool for social change thrived because capitalism had not taken root as is the case in the post-modern society. In the 19th century, capitalism had not permeated every society, which left room for socialism and its ideologies to thrive. In the post-modern era, socialism is completely overtaken by capitalism. Therefore, art is more of a commodity than a too for social change. Art has become a tool for the ruling class to impose their ideologies on the larger society, which is the complete opposite of what Marxist art history was. Works Cited Bindman, David. “Art as Social Consciousness: Francis Klinger and British Art.” In A. Hemingway (Ed). Marxism and the History of Art: From William Morris to the New Left. London: Pluto Press, 2006. Hemingway, Andrew. “Marxism and Art History.” Art Journal 55.2 (1996): 20-27. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. Hobsbawn, Eric J. “Socialism and the Avantgarde in the Period of the Second International.” Le Mouvement Social 111 (1980): 189-199. Werckmeister, O. K. “A Working Perspective for Marxist Art History Today.” Oxford Art Journal 14.2 (1991): 83-87. Willette, Jeanne. “Marxism, Art and the Artist.” 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. Read More