Reference:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1950/ten-theses.htm
With thanks to R. D. Sherman for timely and helpful criticism.
For Ludwig
(1) Art is always and in all circumstances enmeshed in the fabric of ideas around it. Therefore, all contemporary art- it can be assumed, be it pro or contra, knowingly or not- is a reaction to Marxist theory. Without Adorno, there would be no contemporary music. Without Lukas no contemporary prose. Without Greenburg no contemporary painting.
(2) That the fundamental thesis of Marx is a challenge to all art hitherto in existence. Art was taken as a description of a description. 'The point however is to change it [the world]' The question 'what is art?' is a question of the function of art and it becomes fully articulated at this point in history
(3) That for Hegel and Marx a clear articulation of the necessary structure of the world, its logik, is possible independently of the conditions of the world such as practices, contingencies, etc.. And that this means that freedom is either (a) an act that seeks to negate this logik- though this negation is itself a futile gesture against the totalizing effect of the system (b) an act that accept one's place within the logik of the system. Either world-negation or self-negation.
(4) That negation is either of human agency completely; Cage's 4'33. Silence becomes 'the voice' of music. All human tampering with the now-ness of now is to be deliberately, systematically and completely removed from art. Art is what the world is without the demonic intrusion of supposed human free agency:: or the art is merely a product of the creator's will to create; Nietzsche, of course, falls into this. But the person who best represents it is Andy Warhol. Art is art because I (and this I is the only meaningful element in the equation) have elevated this- Brillo Boxes- to art.
(5) That the truth of art is a direct product of human will- be it the will-to-refrain or the will-to-assert
(6) That a truly creative act- from the point of view of the artist- must be measured by the amount of arbitrariness within the act. For Warhol, to create an artwork means to arbitrarily take an object- the more absurd the better- and raise it to 'artistic status' and that for Cage to create artwork is to arbitrarily define some random process or thing as art. Creation is ONLY and SOLELY understood in terms of the arbitrariness. Thus the true 'radicalness' of modern art. It challenges nothing by challenging everything
(7) That these theses, applied rigorously, systematically remove art from anything but a strange pattern of social and economic criteria. 4'33 is music because it is 'played' in a context, Brillo Boxes are sculpture because they are in a museum. This renders art as mere epiphenomena, completely vacuous of any claims on truth or meaning and forces art to be mere self-indulgence.
(8) That the fundamental idea behind these theses is that a logik of creation is articulable prior to the act of creation. We can know what art is and is not before we have encountered it. That the theses are seeking a Socratic definition of art and that when this definition is over-turned, the negation of the definition becomes the fundamental truth- everything is art or nothing is art because we are unable to define the logik of art.
(9) That the truth of art cannot be articulated independent of the process of engaging with the art. That the true insight of Marx is that art is NOT a description of the world. Nor is it an engagement with the logik of the world- be this logik economic or spirit. True art shows a profound understanding- indeed I'd argue the only truly adiquit one of faith- 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.' In art we see the Kingdom of G-d. Creative ex nihlo, not mere potential into actual. And this ex nihlo must be experienced to be understood: I and thou.. 'For behold, I am making the World anew.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1950/ten-theses.htm
With thanks to R. D. Sherman for timely and helpful criticism.
For Ludwig
(1) Art is always and in all circumstances enmeshed in the fabric of ideas around it. Therefore, all contemporary art- it can be assumed, be it pro or contra, knowingly or not- is a reaction to Marxist theory. Without Adorno, there would be no contemporary music. Without Lukas no contemporary prose. Without Greenburg no contemporary painting.
(2) That the fundamental thesis of Marx is a challenge to all art hitherto in existence. Art was taken as a description of a description. 'The point however is to change it [the world]' The question 'what is art?' is a question of the function of art and it becomes fully articulated at this point in history
(3) That for Hegel and Marx a clear articulation of the necessary structure of the world, its logik, is possible independently of the conditions of the world such as practices, contingencies, etc.. And that this means that freedom is either (a) an act that seeks to negate this logik- though this negation is itself a futile gesture against the totalizing effect of the system (b) an act that accept one's place within the logik of the system. Either world-negation or self-negation.
(4) That negation is either of human agency completely; Cage's 4'33. Silence becomes 'the voice' of music. All human tampering with the now-ness of now is to be deliberately, systematically and completely removed from art. Art is what the world is without the demonic intrusion of supposed human free agency:: or the art is merely a product of the creator's will to create; Nietzsche, of course, falls into this. But the person who best represents it is Andy Warhol. Art is art because I (and this I is the only meaningful element in the equation) have elevated this- Brillo Boxes- to art.
(5) That the truth of art is a direct product of human will- be it the will-to-refrain or the will-to-assert
(6) That a truly creative act- from the point of view of the artist- must be measured by the amount of arbitrariness within the act. For Warhol, to create an artwork means to arbitrarily take an object- the more absurd the better- and raise it to 'artistic status' and that for Cage to create artwork is to arbitrarily define some random process or thing as art. Creation is ONLY and SOLELY understood in terms of the arbitrariness. Thus the true 'radicalness' of modern art. It challenges nothing by challenging everything
(7) That these theses, applied rigorously, systematically remove art from anything but a strange pattern of social and economic criteria. 4'33 is music because it is 'played' in a context, Brillo Boxes are sculpture because they are in a museum. This renders art as mere epiphenomena, completely vacuous of any claims on truth or meaning and forces art to be mere self-indulgence.
(8) That the fundamental idea behind these theses is that a logik of creation is articulable prior to the act of creation. We can know what art is and is not before we have encountered it. That the theses are seeking a Socratic definition of art and that when this definition is over-turned, the negation of the definition becomes the fundamental truth- everything is art or nothing is art because we are unable to define the logik of art.
(9) That the truth of art cannot be articulated independent of the process of engaging with the art. That the true insight of Marx is that art is NOT a description of the world. Nor is it an engagement with the logik of the world- be this logik economic or spirit. True art shows a profound understanding- indeed I'd argue the only truly adiquit one of faith- 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.' In art we see the Kingdom of G-d. Creative ex nihlo, not mere potential into actual. And this ex nihlo must be experienced to be understood: I and thou.. 'For behold, I am making the World anew.'
6 comments:
Chaz- really interesting. I like the idea (not mine) of morality as art. If morality is art, it is both subjective and objective; that is, it requires both experience and theory- it both creates and is defined by truth- a connection between the inner and the outer that seem so distinct in philosophical discourse. So when I act, it is contingent on the conditions of a moment, but simultaneously draws on tradition, principle, etc- it is a work made manifest- a truth made perminent through effect.
Hi Chaz, thanks for the post. I wanted to give you a really thorough reply, but I didn't understand the last "thesis". It sounded to me like you ended up sanctifying contemporary art as an exploration of "things unseen", but I can't be sure... could you clarify?
Point 1: "Therefore, all contemporary art - it can be assumed, be it pro or contra, knowingly or not - is a reaction to Marxist theory." Yes, as long as one could add with equal breath "Therefore all contemporary art is a reaction to Arm & Hammer baking soda," as well as "Therefore all contemporary art is a reaction to this blog post comment."
Point 2: How is the question "What is art?" articulated anymore in this point in history than ever before, ala Marx's fundamental thesis. What is Marx's fundamental thesis?
Point 3: I cannot follow.
Point 4: No, Warhol is not art. Nor need he be, since that seemed to his exhausting point: "I have elevated nothing."
Point 5: No argument there.
Point 6: Yes but you not stated nor proven, still, why "Creation is ONLY and SOLELY understood in terms of arbitrariness." Arbitration is an unavoidable tension, as well as for some artists a conscious exploit. More pressing: What of necessity? What of INEVITABILITY?
Point 7: Yes, but the frame is more restrictive. There are blank panel walls in museums, and cleaning fluids in dungy closets. Likewise, there is Shakespeare quoted in dog commercials, and American Presidents quoting Jesus. Does this make Shakespeare an animal snack or Bush a Christian? Context does not (inherently) denude difference, or discrimination. Rather: context, and the necessity of a frame, through the artist and viewer demand DISCRIMINATION. Contextuality conspicuously frames "the text."
Point 8: Care of Emily Dickinson:
The Definition of Beauty is
That Definition is none --
Of Heaven, easing Analysis,
Since Heaven and He are one.
Point 9: God can make ex-nihilo. The artist can't. God's materials are God. Man's materials are the materials that are not God though made by Him. The artist: between the given, and the chosen. Between the inherited, and what remains.
Hey all,
More on 9 later. This is a quick response to the post of ajf. You fail to note two things. (1) That thesis 8 and 9 are an attempt to operate outside of the framework of 1-7. This may be ambiguous given my style (2) that the fundamental critique that Marx issues is the key to understanding the power of thesis one and the rest of what follows. In The Critique of Judgement of Taste by Kant, Kant takes beauty as a given. The question is now what beauty is, but how beauty is. This view must be contrasted with a view I find beautifully summed up in Demons (the novel by F.D. and his main critique of Marxism). The view is simply that beauty is itself dead. Contemporary art is reaction to this thesis- that art is dead. Let us recall that Hegel declared art to be exhausted in his Lectures on Aesthetics. Marx rebells and gives the artist a social-critical role but in so doing he looses beauty- art goes from expressing beauty to critiquing society.... And it is this loss of traditional beauty that defines the question 'what is art?'.... This is how all art is a reaction to Marx; all contemporary art strives to answer Hegel's charge that art is dead....
Hey,
More as promised, I am now showing my illiteracy in technology... First couple corrections: (1) the now in line seven should be not. (2) F.D. = Dostoevsky. (3) Hegel's lectures are called fine arts, not aesthetics.
On to nine: Quick again (must sleep soon...). On the idea that ex nihlo is only god. I agree with you ajf, but I go further then you. I am a thomist in that I beleive that all predicates applied to G-d can only be done so through an analogy. Sure, we cannot create like G-d but neither can we be Good like G-d ('Why do you call me good? It is only the Father in heaven that is good). This means two things (a) being is not univocal- in other words, there is no single thing that all existence can reduce to. G-d, the fountain of creation, is always beyond names (Thomas takes this notion- giving credit where it is due- from Dionysius the Areopagite who wrote the Divine names that argues for a radical brand of negative theology. Thomas thinks he goes a bit too far and I tend to agree, but the basic idea is that the G-dhead cannot be understood in any meaningful sense). The best we can do is track the pure play of uniqueness and see the beautiful variation of G-d (b) that any predicate we can understand and attach to G-d we understand through human agency. We move with it. We know kinda of what G-d's love is cause we love each other. To have any real knowledge of ex nihlo creation, we'd have to experience it (otherwise we are discussing mysticism and I have no interest in it). And to affirm this is to affirm that we can make use of the category in life. Remember, we manifest G-d to one another- one of my favorite hymns goes 'we are Christ to one another.' We are building the Kingdom ex nihlo and this is what art shows the best... We can and do create. As for your critique of thesis 3, to steal from McDowell, is Being a railroad or a car. If it is a railroad, I can discuss the track independent of the train. I KNOW which course the train will take by viewing the track, I know the way Being will unfold by viewing its telos. Hegel can give an account of the track before the train gets there and so can Marx. I view Being as a car- no way to tell what road you are on until you turn onto it. No account is independent of movement- there is no pure description.... so yeah, hope that clears things up... Forgive my tone if it is harsh, I loose track of myself sometimes...
Pax,
Chaz
Very happy to see that this conversation is continuing. I'm enjoying the banter... heavy, difficult, jargony, plodding banter... but none-the-less, banter.
I'm working on a post that traces the current dilemma - the unruly and wholly unreasonable rise of determination and arbitrariness as the ruling paradigms in philosophical anthropology - back to exactly the univocalist turn you mentioned in your comment Chaz.
But that leads me to ask: Consider why you connect arbitrariness, art, ex nihilo creation and the act? Thomas and Dionysus would not have found it obvious that man's lack of autonomy amounts to a lack of agency, or that true agency entails arbitrariness. These are connections that burgeon out of the univocalism of William of Ockham and the aptly named Duns Scotus (dumb Scot), which flowered in the Enlightenment, found their home in Scientific practice, and since then have not ceased from visiting veryveryvery bad philosophy upon mankind.
For the univocalist being is being is being, but in his wisdom Aquinas points out the obvious - each thing exists in its own manner (i.e. god, man, nature...etc. all exist in unique ways.) Taking this back to what you (and AJF) were talking about: identifying the artistic act as arbitrary because it rises above context (i.e. is not fully determined by context) appears to me to be falling into the univocalist dilemma wherein everything is either fully determined (paradigm:nature) or not determined at all (paradigm:arbitrariness/paradox). But this opposition is unfitting for us - people in general that is - who are agents, but not autonomous; free, but in context; always creating, but from somewhere, not ex nihilo.
I submit that much of this trouble with art and "who am I" and "where has truth gone" (yes, it affects epistemology as well) derives from theorists trying to tell man that he is something that he isn't - i.e. that he is just like everything else.
Post a Comment