The following questions were posed to me on the class-internal blog for Rhetoric 103B, Aesthetics and Politics, by my professor. I thought both the questions themselves and the answers provided would be interesting, and illuminating as to what my college life is like, so I’ve chosen to reduplicate them here.
First, a bit of exposition. The questions are in response to two texts that we read for the class that amount to a conversation between Marxist artists Ernst Bloch and George Lukács. The question of their sometimes heated debate is Expressionism and other “anti-realist or pseudo-realist” art movements like Surrealism contribute to, or take away from, the Marxist project. Lukács argues that they only ever distract from real conditions, thus being products of conservative reaction that aim to destroy the proletarian struggle for class consciousness, while Bloch argues that they help expose fissures in thought and life under advanced Capitalism and thus help the proletarian struggle by subversively attacking its dominant ideological paradigms. Now, the questions:
Four Yes or No Questions
1. Should art represent reality?
2. Can a work of art fail?
3. Is there such a thing as avant-garde art?
4. Does some art contribute more to progress that others?
(These questions were written and posed by Dale Carrico, my professor, and are not my creation in any way)
Now, for my answers.
Four Non-yes-or-no Answers
1. Art should be in communication with reality, be it in direct representation or total discontinuity. That is all that can ever be asked of it. To channel Marx, art seems to do one of two things, with respect to Lukács’ and Bloch’s argument (I tend to side with Bloch, and this explanation should serve to explain): art in the Marxist mode either serves to describe the chains of humanity in a realistic manner, or it serves to expose the imaginary flowers decorating the chains to motivate humanity to see the chains for what they are. [The reference here is to Marx’s criticism of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, in which he famously states that religion is the opium of the masses, meaning that it provides them into a false happiness, putting imaginary flowers on the chains of society. Marx wanted criticism to be that which plucks the imaginary flowers off of those chains, not to make life that much more miserable but to make the chains recognizable for what they are so that society's response would be to break free of the chains and enjoy the flowers of real (Communist) life.] Not all art is in the Marxist mode, of course, but locating art (at least some of it) there seems to be the focal point of their debate. To me there can be no question that in this project, art of both types is communicating with reality, it’s just approaching the problem differently.
2. Anything can fail. Art just fails more interestingly than many things do. Art only fails politically with respect to its creator's intent, or if it fails to be in communication with reality. Either case is itself a communication with reality, and thus art cannot indeed fail to have an effect; art can only fail in regard to its personal situational intentions.
3. Is there such a thing as non-avant-garde “art”? I scare-quote “art” here because the distinction I’m drawing is between art and non-art. Of course there are things that consider themselves art and are considered art, and these things are certainly something, but if there’s anything crystallizable that I’ve taken from the class thus far, it’s that art is perhaps the avant-garde of politics, in whatever form it chooses to take, be it Communism or Fascism or lifestyle politics or the readiness of Homeland Security to deal with Boston bomb threats (and/or advertising). I just want to make clear that I’m not saying that “art’ is by its character avant-garde, but that being avant-garde is one of the qualifications of art.
4. Probably, but then again, not all art inevitably tries to. Progress is such a fuzzy notion to begin with that the question itself seems to be aimed far away from the crux of the debate. The question seems to be whether or not Expressionism contributes to the progress of bourgeois reaction and the defeat of the proletariat or its awakening, regaining consciousness, and eventual liberation. I don’t want to dwell in subjectivity, but I think the important point has to be made that art, like politics in most cases, pushes against itself as often as it pushes in one direction. Each piece of art progresses its respective movement, but in a teleological sense the only answer we can ever provide to the given question is yes, some art works more towards any one given end than others do. Art does not have a unified end; if it did, almost all of its interest would fade. I think the far more interesting debate is what the end that a given art object or artistic movement conceives itself and strives toward.
Since you wouldn't (couldn't?) answer in the yes/no format posed, I'll do it for you, with no explanation.
1: No.
2: No.
3: No.
4: Yes.
I'll leave it to you to decide why, though I'd be happy to answer any questions. On a separate note, I find it humorous that the original question posits an either/or situation and takes no consideration that maybe none of this has anything at all to do with Marxism. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the process and suppositions, however.
Well, both Lukacs and Bloch are Marxist theoreticians, and Marxism has a funny way of co-opting just about every argument on its own terms; that said, much of the art discussed in the conversation also considers itself Marxist, and they are largely debating the legitimacy of this claim. So yes, it's an either/or situation, but the context is Marxism, it's not an invented supposition; the class itself is largely concerned with the interactions between the proletarianization of the world (which faces a choice of communism, fascism, or high capitalism) and the art that is produced in conversation with the debate, so the Marxist answers are relevant here.
I was later pressed by my teacher to answer the questions in a yes/no format, and answered the following:
1. Yes
2. Yes, but.
3. Yes, always.
4. Yes.
None of these answers should be particularly surprising given what I've written.
And now some questions for you. First, if art doesn't represent reality, what does it represent? keep in mind that this doesn't mean it's photorealistic; representing reality just means that art is in some way referential to or a product of its time. Second, art cannot fail? Does this mean it has no objective, or merely is always already going to attain its objective? Then why criticize art? Why not logically assume that all of it is perfect and be done with it? This one is probably the most debatable of my claims, as I myself have some qualms with my answer, but it's as close as I can approximate. Third, have you ever called art (or anything approaching art) experimental, abstract, difficult, obtuse, etc.? If no, are you really being honest with yourself? If yes, then what is the difference between these terms and avant-garde? Is avant-garde a term you don't use because it sounds elitist, because it sounds fuzzy, or because it legitimately sounds wrong? I'd be interested to hear your answers.
Answers to your questions:
1: "[I]f art doesn't represent reality, what does it represent?" Interestingly, the actual question is, "Should art represent reality?" Notice the should there. Should art represent reality? No. Why? Because it should be whatever the creator wants it to be. If the creator wants a representation of reality so be it. It gets more difficult to answer this if you take the perspective of the perceiver of art. You carry your own baggage and will interpret art how you desire to see it. If that's through the filter of Marxism and the "proletarianization" of whoever, then so be it. It's your reality.
2: You deliver a whole slurry of questions that deal with the answer to, "Can a work of art fail?" For this I will point you to Einstein's Theory of Relativity and its practical application to the daily layman's life. You say tohmato and I say tahmato. An artwork will always succeed for someone, so the artwork cannot fail. It's a zen answer. I don't know if Marxism understands zen... From the POV of Marxism all art is a failure if it doesn't espouse Marxism. This applies to any [fill-in-the-blank]ism.
3: Have I ever called art (with qualification) anything like [series of adjectives]? You'll love the answer to this; I like some piece of art or I don't. As I don't comprehend the subtle nuances between Dada and Cubist Alliterism I tend not to label things and say, I like it, or, I think that's crap. It drove my ex crazy but it was how I felt.
Experimental, from my experience, means the person doesn't know WTF they are doing but want to be taken seriously. In this sense this applies to artists and President Bush equally.
BTW, avant-garde is not an adjective and should never be used that way. I don't know what it is but you will never -not ever in your life in an honest way- hear a normal person look up at the sky and say, "It looks avant-garde today." This also means you'll never hear someone say, "Wash your hands; they're avant-garde."
I don't know if any of that really answered your questions the way you wanted them answered, but I do hope they clarified my answers somewhat.
It's still crap.
1) Depends on the artist. If the person is good, then sure. If the person is horrible, then no. But what represents what is reality? Take "David." There are plenty who would say David was fictional. Assuming he was real (regardless of one's belief in the bible, David probably was real), did he really run around naked? and how did Mike know what David looked like? So, even if it's a real person, the "art" itself doesn't really represent reality, because even if it does look like David, that would have been a lucky guess. Then of course there's the portrait ... say Lenny's famous portrait of the chick that doesn't smile ... ok, that's a representation of reality. I think most people, despite what one thinks about the picture itself, would say that yes, it is art, and yes, it is/was real. The fact is that regardless of whether one thinks are SHOULD represent reality, because of Lenny's picture, it's hard to argue that is DOESN'T. Since it does, denying that would be ignorant (or possibly even stupid). Therefore, art doesn't HAVE to represent reality, but it SHOULD. How one defines reality however, is entirely up to the "viewer" (reader, listener, etc). Since the ultimate response to the question is in fact relative to the "viewer," the answer changes depending on perspective, therefore there's no way to determine if the question is answerable or not. Therefore, art is crap.
2) Let's make it simple. I draw a line on a piece of paper and call it art. Is it really art? no. What if I'm starving, or homeless, or crazy? Doesn't matter, I've drawn a line on a piece of paper. Requires no skill. Is someone going to buy it? Probably not, but they might. Do artists have to be skilled? Again, what's the definition of what is a skilled artist? Since there are no real standards on this sort of thing, there's no real way to answer the question of whether or not it can fail. Once again, art is crap.
3. This is the only question that is possibly answerable of the four, but unfortunately, it requires that the others be answered to determine whether or not the answer is yes or no. If one believes that art can fail (no to #2), then it is likely such a person believes the answer to this question to be no. If on the other hand, the response to #2 is yes, then pretty much anything can be testing the limits of what is proper or accepted (again, depending on perspective). This isn't even addressing question #1 - if the response to #1 is no, then #3 would be yes, unless that person said "no" to #2, in which case they are contradicting themselves with their response to #3. Art has manifested itself as crap.
4. Because there are so many different variables that exist that influence "progress," and so many different interpretations of what "progress" actually is, it's impossible to determine whether or not art have contributed to that progress, provided it's agreed that the change is indeed progress. This isn't even to mention the fact that it's impossible to know if it was the art the led to the change or some invisible naked boy wearing underwear on his head.
I already said such, but you guys wanted some proof ... art is crap.
Hope Tuesday was a good class.
Click the button to
Nicole wrote
Hmm...I really agree with you on number 2; you've actually put into words what I haven't been able to articulate. I think that the two ways that art can "fail" are just those. But number three...I either don't agree or don't follow. I feel that avant-garde is a really annoying term. I never feel that specific movements or pieces are particularly avant-garde, and while I know that's not what you're saying, isn't art continually inspired by politics? It can't really exist in a state by itself, but is part of a political and social texture. So how can it be avant-garde, ESPECIALLY avant-garde in terms of a political standpoint? I commented!