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.'
Full Post
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.'
