On the one hand, regarding the social status of artists, Marx criticized Steiner's concept of "the only one" and pointed out: "Because of the division of labor, art can be completely concentrated on individual special people, so the art of the broad masses can be suppressed. ..... In * * * capitalist society, there are no simple painters, only people who take painting as one of their various activities "(Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 3, page 460). Here, according to Marx's general view on the importance of eliminating division of labor, the existence of art itself as a special activity is problematic. "In the capitalist society, no one has a specific scope of activities, and everyone can develop in any department. Society regulates the whole production, which makes it possible for me to do this thing today and do that thing tomorrow, hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon, animal husbandry at night and criticizing after dinner, but it does not make me a hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic (Selected Works of Marx and Engels). This idea is not only pure speculation, but also close to "making recipes for future restaurants". From its meaning, for any complex and technologically developed society, However, it shows an important concept about human nature, especially in Marx's early works (see Human Nature; Practical items). Starting from this concept, the aesthetic consciousness in art and development is regarded as a universal and unique ability of human beings like language; As Gramsci pointed out, although only some people in society undertake the work of intellectuals, they are all intellectuals, so they can be said to be artists.
The pioneering works of Marxist aesthetics were written by Merlin (1893) and plekhanov (19 12). Merlin's main concern is literature, not decorative arts or music. On the other hand, plekhanov aims to develop a strict determinism. He said, "In my opinion, the art of any nation is always closely related to their economy" (see Bibliography ⑦, page 57). From this perspective, he analyzed that in primitive society, dance was to express the pleasure of labor (such as hunting), while music was to assist labor (through rhythm). However, when expounding the general relationship between labor, games and art, he pointed out that although the production of art has the utilitarian source needed by material life, aesthetic pleasure has its reasons for pleasure. In plekhanov's view, apart from primitive society, economy only indirectly determines art through the intermediary influence of class differences and class rule. For example, when talking about French drama and painting in the18th century, he pointed out that they showed the victory of "elegant aristocratic atmosphere". However, in the next century, as the aristocratic rule was challenged by the bourgeoisie, the art of Boucher and gruse was "concealed by the revolutionary paintings of David and his school" (ibid., p. 157).
The October Revolution in the Soviet Union and the Central European Revolutionary Movement pushed two opposing themes-revolutionary art and proletarian art-to the forefront of the debate. In the Soviet Union, Luna Tsarski, a member of the People's Education and Art Committee from 19 17- 1929, "rarely stopped introducing avant-garde" (see "Bibliography", p. 34); For example, he supported Vechebusk Art School headed by Chadar, and also supported the reconstruction of Moscow Art Room, which was taught by Kandinsky, Lovzner and others and became the cradle of "constructivism" (ibid., pp. 38-39). In Germany, the movement of workers' committees also supported the avant-garde in art. Although the movement failed politically, some of its achievements (such as the House of Architecture in Gropius) were preserved until the victory of fascism. In the early 1920s, there was still active communication between the representatives of revolutionary art in the Soviet Union and Germany.
On the other hand, the concept of proletarian art (or culture) has been criticized by some Bolshevik leaders (including Trotsky), and it has reached the point where proletarian cultural organizations are regarded as opponents of the party and potential counter-revolutionary organizations. However, in a relatively long period of time, the idea that the proletariat needs its own class art and artists should have "party spirit" first had a great influence, and it became an important part of the Soviet Union's "socialist realism" aesthetic doctrine under the coercion of Stalin and zhdanov. Under such a system, it is impossible to carry out radical experiments or avant-garde movements in art, so the dull and mediocre wind prevails. However, even in this case, artistic novelty has not been completely ruled out. Lifschitz (who worked with Lukacs in the Marx and Engels Research Institute in Moscow) not only edited the first Collection of Marx and Engels' Art Criticism (published in 1937), but also published an interesting paper on Marx's aesthetic thought on the basis of extensive reference to Marx's notes and early works (see
However, in the 1930s and beyond, the main contribution to Marxist art theory was made in the West. Brecht put forward his own "epic drama" to oppose socialist realism. He commented on Lukacs and his colleagues in Moscow: "Frankly speaking, they are the enemies of creation. They don't want to create themselves, but (instead) they play the role of an official and exercise control over others" (see Bibliography, page 97). Brecht's viewpoint profoundly influenced Benjamin's aesthetic theory, and he regarded epic drama as a model of how to change the form and means of artistic creation to the socialist direction (see "Bibliography"). The debate between Brecht and Lukacs is actually a part of a wider debate, that is, the debate between the advocates of "socialist realism" (that is, bourgeois realism enriched with new contents in the 9th century/kloc-0) and the supporters of "modernism" (especially German expressionism, cubism and surrealism); Besides Brecht and Benjamin, the supporters of "Modernism" include Bloch and Adorno (see Bibliography (2) and Pet-name ruby).
Raphael's book contains three papers on sociology of art (see "Bibliography"), which was another great contribution to Marxist art theory in 1930s, but it was not widely known until recent years. In a paper on Marxist art theory, the author starts with a detailed analysis of the original text of Marx's Outline (Introduction) in order to establish an art sociology, thus overcoming the weakness of dialectical materialism that "at most, only some uncertain and fragmentary research can be carried out on individual art problems" (ibid., p. 76). Raphael emphasized the importance of Marx's view that Greek mythology is the intermediary between the economic base and Greek art, and put forward a series of new questions about the general relationship between myth and art. He also investigated various problems about the "unbalanced development" of material production and art. Finally, he criticized Marx's explanation of the "eternal charm" of Greek art, which was "fundamentally incompatible with historical materialism" (ibid., p. 105). Raphael's own explanation is that Greek art has the "standard value" of art in several periods of European history: whenever the economic and social changes make the whole culture experience a crisis, there will be a "retro" phenomenon. In the third of these papers, Raphael thinks Picasso's art is the most typical example of modernism, and points out that modernism is related to the transition from free enterprise capitalism to monopoly capitalism.
In the past 20 years, Marxist works on art are mainly methodological works (that is, abstractly formulating a suitable Marxist concept of art), and only a few works have engaged in some substantive research. A notable exception is Colin Candir's outstanding research on the topic of art in the industrial revolution (see "Bibliography"). He pays special attention to the interaction between art and technology and the influence of the growth of the power of "newcomers" on art; His research was completed earlier, but it was republished in recent days. Another notable exception is willett's detailed investigation of the modernist movement in German painting, architecture and music in Weimar period (see "Bibliography" pet-name ruby). As for the recent theoretical discussion, it focuses on the following two themes: (1) Art is ideology, and (2) Art is a basic expression of human creativity. These two themes have attracted the attention of Marxist thinkers from the beginning, and their roots lie in Marx's own different views on art.
On the one hand, the analysis that art is ideology inevitably shows that artistic style (including form and content) occupies a special position in the whole ideology of the ruling class in a special historical stage. This must be like what Goldman advocated in "Literary Creation" (see Bibliography (1 1)): firstly, we must establish the inner meaning and style structure of artistic creation, and then determine the position of this structure in the broader structure of class relations under a certain mode of production. Plekhanov and Raphael both tried to do this in the research work mentioned above. On the other hand, because some art can be regarded as the ideological weapon for the oppressed class to strive for their own liberation, the debate between realism and modernism revolves around the internal characteristics and analysis of "revolutionary art" to a great extent. Taking art as a meaningful aspect of Marxist ideology is an increasing interest in popular art and "cultural industry". The works of some members of Frankfurt School (such as Adorno and Marcuse) are particularly prominent in this respect. According to their point of view, in the advanced capitalist era, art is not only introduced and degraded because of mechanical reproduction and its wide spread, but also promotes the stable alliance of controversial classes and groups. At the same time, because radical innovation is easily absorbed by the dominant ideology, the ideological influence of any revolutionary art is weakened. However, Benjamin holds the opposite view; In his view, the main function of mechanical reproduction is to destroy the artistic "halo" of elite figures, to "destroy tradition" (see Bibliography, page 223), and to create the connection between the proletariat and new cultural forms (such as movies).
People regard the artistic theme as the expression of creativity, and thus put forward a very complicated problem when analyzing aesthetic value (see aesthetic item) and human nature (see psychological item). In these two aspects, not only until recent years, Marxist thought was relatively underdeveloped, but also some works that have gradually increased in the past 20 years reflect the profound differences among Marxist thinkers. However, in the sense of social practice, the view that art is the universal expression and liberation force of human creativity (although this view can be summarized in theoretical terms) means that in socialist society, Marxist attitude towards art has two principles: the first principle is that art (like general spiritual life) should develop freely and form a "hundred flowers", and it is not necessary to adapt to the requirements of some artistic dogma, especially a political power. The second principle is basically consistent with the thought expressed by Marx in the German Ideology mentioned above, that is, while allowing outstanding talents to develop like Chun Xue, we should cultivate and encourage creative activities of art as the source of ordinary people's needs and fun.
Video Art Festival is a cultural communication mode with the stage as the carrier. Through outdoor big screen and other media, classic art moves from theater to urban public space, creating a strong urban cultural atmosphere.