CANADIAN T H E ~ S
NOTICE
The quality of this microfiche is heavily dependmt upon the
quality df the original thesis subnlttted foc microfifming.Every
effM has been made to ensure tre highest qmMy of reprcduction possible.,
la qualit4 de Gene mero4ii
grandement de la quallt4
de fa th& soumtse au microfilmage N w s avons tout tail pour
assurer une qual~tbsup2neure de reproduction
%
If pages are missing, contact the universrty which panted Pte
degree.
S'il manque des pqps, veudrer communiquer avec I'untver-
Some pagesmay have indistinct prin+k$&ially if the origins!
pages were typed with a poor typewriter rbbm or if the univksity sent us an inferior photocopy.
' ~ u J i t 6
d'impression de certaines pages peut laisser B
&tw,surtocrt SI IBS P a m originales ont 618 dactylographieeg
8 l'aide d'un ruban u* r>u SI l'univemt6 nous a fait pwenir
une photocopie de -lit&
infbneure
,
Previously copyrighted materials (journai art~cles,published
tests, etc.) are not filmed.
Les documents qui font d4j4 I'objet dun drat d'auteur (articles
de revue, examens publib, etc) ne sont pas mibofilm4s.
Reproducth in fult or in part of this film is gcrvmed by the
C-dian
Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970,c. C-30.
La reproduction. mi%mpartielk, de ce rnidrofilrnest k i s e
8 la Loi canadicme sur le droit d'aut@uf,.SRC.1970, c. G30.
site qui a conf4r6 le grade
-
J
-3-t-5;
,
THIS DISSERTATlON
HAS BEEN MICROFILMED
EXACTLY AS RECEtVED
h
LA T H ~ S EA
MICROFIL~A~E
TELlE QUE
Prous C A M REqW€
. "
Two INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE C O M W N I C A T I V E A S P ~ C TOF,.ART I N THE
B.A.,'rtni.versit&
du Qubbec
a
-
Montrbal, 1978
B.P.A., ~ o n c o r d i a ~ ~ n i v e r s i t y1980
,
THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FYLFILLMENT O F
MASTER OF ARTS
L
in the-Department 8
Communicat i o n
4
'
--.
May 1985
2 1 1 rights reserved. T h i s work may not be
reproduced ir, whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of t h e author.
-
-
-
Permission has been
to t h ~National Library of
~ a n a d a to microfilm this
thesis and to lend u sell
copies of the. film.
-- ---
p
-
---
- - - --- ---
L' autorisat ion a GtS a c c o k d ~ e
a la Bibliotheque nationale
d u Canada de microfilmer
cette these et de pr$ter ou
de vendre des 2xempiaires du
film.
+p
--
t
-
The auti(;;r (copyright o w n e r )
h a s
reserve^
o t t- e=
p u b l i c a t i o n r i g h t s , an
n e i t h e r the t h e s i s . IT'&^'^
extensive extracts from . it
may be pri&ted or otherwise
,reproduced without his/her
written
perrnis'sion.
ISSN
LBauteur (titbl~ired u droit
d,'auteur) se _ reserve l e s
autres droits de publication;
n i la these ni d e longs
e x t r 3 i t s . d'e celle-ci ne
doivent @tre imprimes ou
autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation Bcrite.
8-315-38719-6
d
-
.
.
>I
*
i-
4
Degree :
Title of 23-lesis:
d
I h e r e b y grant t o Simon Frasrr Vnlversity the r i g h t t o l e n d
ray t h e s i s or d f s e e r t a t ion ( t h e t i t l e 0 1 which, i s shown below) t o rtsrrs
Simon Fraser C n i ~ e r s i t y L i b r a r y , and t o make pa2fial or single
t
o n l y f o r s x h users or i n response t o % r e q u e s t Irorn t h e l i b r a r y
of a n y o t h e r u F f v e r c i r j ,
cir ot3iFr- eXucarIona3 i n s t i t u f f o n , OK
or for o n e of its users.
--
-
~ t okn
s
-
F f u r t h r r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r
m u l t i p l e c o p y i n g of this t h e s i s for s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d
b y me or t f i P ~ ~ o i ? C i ~ d u aStudies.
re
ft
Is understciod rhat co?ymg
P
*
.
or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s thesie for f i n a n c i a l g a i n shall n o t b e allowed5
w i t h u t n y w r i t t e n permission.
9
-
(Xmrmica+icm within the Sociofap
,.
Author :
of Art :
- -
-
ABSTRACT
The thesis exsines the work o f two sociologists of art,
I
,-
Jean Duvignaud and Arnold Hauser, who speak of an imaginative
Rower of anepoch as a critical elementsFis imaginative power,
they aGgue, leads to a capacity of in9bidtkls to develop
,
L
self-awareness: art plays a critical r o k d n s~ciql
communic~ztion.For both Duvignaud and Hauser
t
-
-
-
-
,
the study of a-rt
and of the social relations within an epoch are 'intrinsically
& role of the
related and their positions regarding the centr
communicative
aspect of art are assessed.
-
-
-
---
-
Duvignaud's and Hauser's arguments are critiqued from the
point of view that both
interpretation are socially
and hist~ricaffyconditione
contention is made that the
communicative aspects of art, which today are ofte~_neglected,
should be'a cential par)
-
of' the study of art. If modern:&
is to
%
s e s s e d , I r : ~ ~ - p p r o a c ? m dnot only in t e r m s o m a t
is produced as art, and,not only in terms of the social
relations of the society of the wdernist artists, but also in
terms of its cultural implicat'ions and its system of meaningful
referents.'
ill be shown that the approach taken by Duvignaud and
Hbuser goes at least part way in correcting tendencies to
interpret art as an autonomous segment of culture. The thesis
-
-
concludes that neither Duvignqud nor Hauser deal with the full
- --
7
-
connotative aspects of art.
bfl
,,?
iii
-
& ,
a'
-
--
I would like to acknowledge tbe partikular emotional or
intellectual (or both) contribution and support of the 'many
.
.
in'dividuals who have participated in many ways in the writing of
my thesis. Because of the inherent and immanent characteristic
1
of a text, I believe that the only way I can fully express my
gratitude to these people isby- giving-them the oppclr-t-unityt&--pass into posterity by having their names print.*d:
--
r
Charlotte Baxter, Sharon Blair, Carmen, Ginette, Lise,
and R e d Charbonneau, Peter Cook, Chris Creighton-Kelly,
Jan D a v i s o ~Lyn& Drury, Oiane Fort in, T
w -Wasym,
Paul yeyer, Lynne Hissey, Sut Jhally, Martin .Labat
Margot Lacroi.~,Cam Landell, Wi-llliamLeiss, Nicholas
Lewis, Joanne Lyle., Sheila McFadzkan, David Marshall,
Robert Meister, Christine, Dominique and Franqois
~ o d l i ,Irena And Rcman Onufrijchuk; Richard Pinet, '
Jerry Zaslove,
-
I
,
n.
-
-- -
-
-
* .
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
,
A
-
-
-
-
- -- -
4
CApproval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i
ABSTRACT .......................................-.............iii
1
ACKNOWLEWMENTS.
1
...............................................iv
<
PREFACE .......t.....,......t................................vii
1.
d
Int oduction: Language, Image and the ~ o c i o l o g y ~ o f
#
.......Art
....................
-
-
-
-
- -
--
..........14
......... .:. 15
- -- --
--
- -
--
I, The Sociology of Art: ~uvignaud's Interpretation
/
1.
T o w a p a Sociology of
&-&
rei is ti?
Expression
9
Applitation of the Sociology
'
OF
of
;
.................-24'
~rt-
I
.
3. The Role*
Aesthetic Attitudes in the ,Imaginary and
Collective Experience
;.........;............~......36
..
..................45
5. Art Today (1968) (\........................... .........-53
The Sociology of krt: Hauser's Interpretation ............56
1 . ~ u n dmental Assumptions ............. k. ....: ........ -57
3
2. Interactio~between art and society ....................69
.
-
4. Communication: Meanings and Contexts
11.
4@
;
-
3. Historical Materialism
".
...............1................86
...................103
........~.......11
5..The Production and Reception of Art
.
6. Art and Cultural Stratification
'7. Pr-esent-day Art: ,Assumptions and Symptoms of Crisis ..I28
............................... .I36
he Sociology of Art: Misunderstanding and
pndcrstanding ....................................... 137
\
111. A Last Salute to 'Art'?
1.
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. The Sociology of Art: Last Preserve of the Humanists .I47
3; Conclusdpn: The 'How' and 'What' of Communication
Processes
..........................................
.l6lt
I
and Society', a term which refers-to the production
'Art
0
-
and integration of art in society, has grown in popularity in
. the last thirtyfysars. In art theory the sociology of art is one
>
of the major aspects of the social investigation of art, This
thesis examines the works of Jean Duvignaud (French 'homme de
historian, 1892-1978). The works I have chosen to discuss are
the writings of these authors that pertain to the sociology of
a l\art
- --
art: Dwignaud's Sociologie
(1967) and Hauser's
-
Soziologie der Kunst (1974).
When I became familiar with their essays, I noticed that
between social and aesthetic considerations, they both address
the ccrrelation between art. and society in terms-of
the
communication processes. As a student in communication, I was
t
'
interested in the issue, and decided to investigate it further.
~ h cthesis unfolds from the premise that, like any other system
of signification which can be studied in terms of its
communicative aspect, art is a key element in culture:
A special part of culture is .the communication system.
Art provides a special kind of communication and the
analysis of how it works leads us to consideration of
social relationship. It also leads us to a consideration
of the meaning in art and the ways
influences h w n behavi6r. Art is
propaganda and advertising. It may
-consideration of -the deeper struct
experience. (Foster, 1979:325)-
Of three sections
3f
my thesis, two are reserved for the
examination of ~uvignaud's and Halser's writings on the
vii
a r d ev&ttatim c&
their ue&sF *
+
i
&
lertgthy and cumbersuse for some, pet it offers-a rather
comprehensive explication of their works. %is,
work,
I feel-is
,
Pgior to my discussion of Duvignaud and Hauser, I have
chosen to present a s e r y of the historical and sccial context
- -
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
---
-- -
--
of the social investigation of 'art: the setting ir, which the
sociology of art has originated. I believe that chis excursion
-
-
C
,.
.
-
-
into the past and present of the sociology of art is necessary,
-.
especially since surveys which~discussthe subject in a
*
comprehensive manner are rare, In addition, it gives us a chance
to locate Duvignaud and Hauser in their respective intellectua'l
J
-
tradition&. In this in&oducficn,
I too am concerned with the
significance of considering the communicative aspect of art, an'
-
issue which, formerly has
een relegated in the shadow of other,
social and aesthetic considerations.
I have learned from Duvignaud's and.HauserFsdiscussion on
the communicative aspect of art that at least three disciplines
have influenced its formulation: structuralism, psychology and
media studis. Structuralism, which is -essentially a theory of
communication, has contributed-lar~ely to the conceptualizatiori
of the comunicative aspect of 2rt. A new perspective dn a r t
-
-
results from the establish'ment of art as language.
k
significant the structuralist approach may have been initially
'
viii
-
#
-
-
restricted to the French intellectual tradition (Jean
Duvignaud) .'
Psychology is another theoretical smrce+which has shaped
x
__
__---
-----
the concept of communication in the sociology of art. Following
7
a psychological argument, Duvignaud and ha use^ assert that the
-to
of creative activitiek resides in the need for people
essence
-J
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
- - - -
-
-
--
-- -
p
-
c o m u n i c a t ~with each other, Both emphasize the intersubjective
/
nature of the process, and claim that a sense of community
I
arises through this social exchange.
-
-- -
-
----
111 response to the,growing use of radio, television, and
cinemi in the making of art, media studies have recently been a
4
point of departure in the interpretation of art. Duvignaud and
Hauser refer to McLuhanls work in their interpretation of
1
contemporary art. Nevertheless, it has to be emphasi'zed that in
I
n o t a n . c e i s ~ t k m g h of
i in. t m s of inhrmdtion, but
always as a form of communication, of expression.
The last part of the thesis is crucial and reveals my
contribution to a different'r'eading
of the sociology of art, and
the icommunicative aspect of art. Since secondary sovrces on the
sociology of art hardly exist, I have chosen to explore the
field through an interdisciplinary approach, which has given me.
the possibility to apprehend the influence, implication and
-
limitation of the sociology of art.
--
G8l
--
-
-
-
This per?spective gave me the opportunity, not only to
present Duvign&ud1s and Hauser's interpretation of the sociology
--
-
-
-
'k,
p
c
- -- -
-
--
---
-
r
p
-
/
of art, but to undetscore the ideological bias -of the;;
-
-
- - ----
-
-
-
**
&
-
-
F4--
.
-7
A
argument, ThereTore, E claim that the sociologists of art have
consolidated the
aesthetic
and qocial values of the modern era.
C
In'this fight, their "concept of communication needed to be
--
.
assessed.
f
-
-
t
--
--
f'-.-
- - -
i
-
C
f
--
- - --+-
p
P
p
p
p
p
p
p
7'
-
Y
-
1.
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
-
--
-
C
-
Introduction: Language, Image and the Sociology of Art
Subject to bombardment by a multiplicity of images, our
generatkn has come to realize the importance of visual
experience in everyday lifg. Contrary to McLuhan's assumption
-
aQ
the 'printing press during the fifteenth dentury has yielded to
acoustic and tactile phases, the invention of new technologies
a
-(especially kilm nd telev-ision) has -meant that visual images
-
-
-
-
-
-
--- --
-
-7
V
are more than ever
at the centre of human relations. In 1970,
Pierre Francastel reflected upon the subject:
- -r
-
.I1 est fragrant que notre &poque nemesure pas du tout
l'ampleur de 1akCvolution culturelle qui est en train --- de se produire. I k ne s'agit plus, depuis une
cinquantaine d1ann6es, des d6veloppements ou des
modifications d'un 6quilibre 6tabli B l'intbrieur d'un
syst&me de connaissances et de reprgse-rrserv6
Lid. I1 s l a
*
de substi:
le plus rbpandu entre les individus qui forment notre
<soci&t6
et dans une mesure qui d'ailleurs reste 3
dhterminer, l'image au langage: ce dernier terme 6tant . ici employ6 dans son sens 6troit de langage verbal,
6ventuellement-fix6par 1'6criture. (Francaste1,1970:13j
--
J
1
\
'McLuhan argues t h a t t9-printing press was the strongest
stimulus to t~ntechqnrmtim,ratiemlk&tl5cm---
depersonalization of o u r F because of its imposed visual
homogeneity and linearity.
,-
,
1
.
Y
0
W
0,
U
([I
F
U
0
JJ
aJ
r(
i-i
i-4
-
..
(0
m
m
UJ
8
.A
(0
k
W
aJ
0
k
h
C:
cr
aJ
2
rl
.4JC
aJ
C
U
aJ
0
d
C
N
0
.
W
1 4 4
rl
r-4
+
C
0,
.r(
b'r
.A
r-i
Ctl
k
aJ
VI
aJ
C
+J
m
C
C
JJ
2
C
cr
4
JJ
JJ
d
C
4J
U)
.
.r(
e:
m
k'
m
k
w
m
C
U
3
(0
C
rl
.0
0
aJ
r-i
cr
id
U
+c
cr
tn
"
a
5
aJ
3
*ri
W
r(
r(
.C
.br
w
0
W
communication.
La valorisation du langage % e T o X S F C p a s aux arts du
langage verbal la primah6 et ' la puissance motrice,
qu'avait dCtenues fa musique dans la pkiode
prbromantique et romantique avec la grande th6orie de
llRarmonie. Cc ne sont pas les arts du langag'e'qui
passent au premier plan, mais le langage comme tel, de
sBrte qufil devient le paradigme de tous les arts.
Ceux-ci se con oivent a l'instar du langage, c o m e des
langues partie les et techniquement sp&cialis6es,
peinture, musique etc. (Lefebvre,1962:176)
f
-- -
The growing inEerestin comunica-tron, wkich-folrows-from------
the structuralist study of langdge 4 s not only the result of
this approach, but also derives from interest in the
commuiricatfon proe~sses-
af how a message is
-
0
given and received, While the first interpretation emphasizes
the correlation between constituent elements necessary for
meaning to occur, the second stresses the way people impart
messages to e&4?1er.
The-aatter, which was primarily
introduced as an explanation of interpersonal relations, rapidly
extended to the field of media studies.
Since the' fifties, especially in France, there is an
intellectual trend that covers the communicative aspect of art:
the so-called 'sociologie de l'art'. At that time
-
for lack of
an approach that could study art from a communicative and
aesthetic
perspective -,it was felt that sociology should take
up the task,
Or 'fa t h t ~ r i e5 e f'information et de fa communication
appartient & la sociologie, puisqu'elle postule
. .
f'&&issement
d
e
w enkre?esiR81viifiis.
Urrc
-
nouvelle sociologie de l'art est donc possible; mais il
faut avouer qu'efbe n'est pas encore faite et que, pour
fe moment, 1'esthCtique de l'art-langage se situe au
niveau des lois c y b e r d t i q u e s de la ccamwtication p l u
n
L
3
i
While the French may ha\-5 been the initiators of this
perspective, other- intgllectual traditions have.approached the
communicative aspect of art from different viewpoints. In a rare
survey that covers the ensemble of ekforts to approch art from a
socioloqica& point of v i m , ArcoJd
4e
W.
F'oster3 mentions t h a t one
focus is communication, This emphasis is illustrated in t h e
.
works of Marshall McLuhan, Arnold Hauser, Wilhem Wundt, George
*
Mead, ~ o h nDewey, Jane Harrison, and Claude Levi-Strauss.
-
Intelleo45ual Roots
and
- -
+
--
Historical Contexts
-
J
The intellectual backgrqund of a socio~ogicalperspective
-
-
on art is tooted in the European intellectual tradition of the.
nineteenth century, The flrst attempt to emphasize the
1
relationship between art and society goes back to the turn of.
the century with the work of m e de Stael (~renchwriter,
t-
176o-1817).
avec les
--
In De 2 r;ltCrature qonsbidCrk dansses rapports
instituti m s ,e;ciales
- *
she discusses the
correlation betwee,? race, c.'imate,, literary style, and the
.
implications of uom?n and religion in art.
'The other themes mentioned by ~osterare the following: 1 ) the
biological aWpsgchological empliasis 2) €he-tocus on art as
part of culture 3) the stress on the metaphysical qources of art
4 ) the emphasis on the non-aestnetic aspect of art.
(Foster,1979:307-332)
B
--
Throughout the nineteenth century, her attempt is echoed in
-
-
-
---
other writings. Karl Harx (German philosopher, economist, and
politi;ian,
1818-1883)
-
-
1845 (The Economic
drew together art and qociety as early as
and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844).
He 'was
followed by Herbert Spencer (EngLish philosopher, 1820-1903) who
thought that hid evolutionary theory c-ould account for the
arigi-n and pefsi stencs of -aes~hetic
emoti-ons,srtThe--Begimimq----
-
of Art
-
( 1 8 9 5 ) , Ernst Gross (England) applied his materialist
-
interpretation of art which emphasizes art a s - a reflection of
the varietis e
7
c
?
m s ~
t a p o
change in the function of art f
0
civilization.
society, aft& #hi&
stresses HHZ
/
-
m the early stages to modern.
.
/'/
w
*c:
Although no sociological book about t$F
subject of art or
in
aesthetics was written during the nineteenth century, references
-
-
--
--
--
-
-
to the socia1,ccmtext of art are made in the work of Max Reber
--__
-
(German sociologist, t864-1920). Hippolyte Taine (French
'literary critic and historian,
,
-+
litt rature anglaise
de la
in his Histoire -
elaborates on the thesis that the
Cevelopcnt of mental functions and historical facts ought to be
expJained by surrounding circu&stances such as race, environment
and historical movement, and art was part of his consideration.
-
'With L'art au Ro,nt de vue sociologique (18891, 3ean-Marie
Gttyatt f F r e n c h
phi f osupher and p e t , t 854-1 888f f o m u fated ,+or-
the i i r s t t i e , e socie-
wad b
f
-
defended a thesis that social integration is embodied in works
of art,
--
social nature.uf ark during the nineteenth century, early
-
--
twentieth cengury art theorists were more concerned with
developing purely historical viewpoints. Yet, during the first
half of our century, some attempts were made to str2ss the
suc~ialcharacter of art in the works of ~merican,European, and
~ov'ietintellectuals.
r n America, t h e investigat i-onof the relatianship-betweerr---
-
art and society was rare. The conc.ern with the social nature of.
art was fsr greater in Europe and the Soviet Union where Marxist
-
thoqkt
$5 tire
c
*--
v gr~ttffd& waft t h e e e i c a l
American-sociologis~stands out who is interested in the social
context of art production: Pitirim Sorokin (Born in Russia,
1889-1968)
who wrote Social and Cultural Dynamics; volume I ,
----
Fluctuations 03 Form of Art ( 1 9 3 7 ) . First interested in the
sociology of. behaviour, he came to study the specificity of
sociocultural fscts through a comparative and statistical
1
investigation.
In Europe, the most well-known and recognized atternpt'to
deal w.ith the issue of art and society was made by Gyorgy Lukks
-
(Hungarian philosopher, critic, and politician, 1885A3_9711
. who
,
\
--
developed a sociological analpis in two major works: so;<nd
X
Form ( 1 9 1 1 ) and The Theory of the Novel (1914-1915). In Germany,
his endeavour is reffe=tcd in :fie early works of the Frad-birt--
-
f c h 3 with Fhe&x
k 3 e r ~ e( G e r m phihsephwk -03
- 1969)
and
Walter Benjamin ;German philosopher, 1892-1940). In England,
--
-- - - -- -- -
during the Lq30'.s, Christopher faudwsll
,zencs&
(
F407-3937 1- wa*
- -
-
the same ksue*Meanwhile,-
wi,*
the need to define an aesthetic which corresponds to
1
\
4
;rising socialist state.
i
<
Approaches: America vs Europe
-
TI& use of
+
- -
--
i sociological
-
-
-
--
-
-
- - -
-
rationale to explail artistic
activity came td flourish during the 1950.'~
and 1960's. It was
felt that in order to speculate on present artistic
-
-
-
preoccupations, a suitable theoretical framework was necessary.
'
The emergence of s u c h an interpretation, emphasizing that art is
not produced in a vacuum, corresponds to the iqtegration of
%
daily life.intp works of art initiate .by pre-World War 11
mpvcments such as cubism, Dadaism, and syrrealism, and followed
during the fifties and sixties by a second generation of art
~ovements- Pop art and its offshoots.
Although there is a consensus about the signizirance of
assessing the correlation between art and society, there is no
sense of cohesiveness between the various sociological
practitioners (they are not a l l sociologists or *sociologues')
of different theoretical bias
-
positivism, materialism,
ideal'srn have produced studies in that genre, While they share
!
in common the need to elaborate on the sociological nature of
art, they are not concerned with the definition ofamrticular
',
discipline of study and their efforts often remain isolated.
*
- --
In America, the soi=iological interpretation 6f-KfFisF
relationship between art and society. However precise and
objective these studies can be, they fail to demonstrate the
*
specific charactge of creative activity. Facts may provide a
ind of information but they do not explain the
certain,
emergence of cultural forms. The principal reason for the lack
\
-
--
-
- -- -
--- ----
-
-
I
-- ----
st in artistic activity characteristic of the writings
inte?I
of.most American sociologists, resides in their relative lack of
Of
expertise in art history.'
In Europe, the efforts to elaborate on the correlation
between the social erpeiience and the experience o•’art reflects
the influence of the Marxist tradition upon intellectual
discourses (Critical theory, Marxist aesthetics,
Situa'tionists,
B
J
social histo&
.
of art, the sociology of aft, and reception
_ t h e m y ) . The main .rontributions, mostly in France and GermanyYII
-
are characterized by a common concern "with the ideological
significanc'e of art, the nature of ideas, values and befiefs
expressed in art in terms of the socio-historical context and in
the manner by which t h y are expressed'by the artist."
/P
t
(~ydie,1981:16) In France, the attempt to link society and art
is found in the works oi Pierre ~ourdieu,Roger*Bastide, Jean
Duvignaud, Pierre ~ r a n c a s t q ,and Lucien Goldmann.
------------------
-
-
a Examples of the American attempts are: John H. Muller.
American Sym@mnp Orrhestra, A Social History &Musical Taste
( 1 951 1. Robert ilko on. The ~mzricanPoet: A ROE
f
( 1 9 5 2 ) . Milton A-lbrecht; James Barnett; and Mason
The Sociology of Artand Literature ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
-
-The names of Alphons Silbermann, a German sociologist, and
-
-
-
--
--
--
7-
%
-
of Arnold Hauser, a ~ u n ~ a r i asocial
n
historian of art, are
,
-
mentioned with respqct to.their efforts to discuss the social
production- of art. The extensive scope of HauserVs.workmakes
him an irnp~rtant~figure
in the field. In ~ngland',the
speculation on the social nature of art is rather a recent
phenomenon. The concern 'for such an enterprise came to flourish '
-
-
-
--
-
- --
-
--
-
-
--- --
-
--
I
in the 19701s, while in other countries it had a tendency to
decrease or even disappear. Recent attempts to define a
sociological perspective based on a Marxist tradition are
-.-
-
,
pursued by the social historians of art and 14terature: John
and
Berger, T.J. Clark, Terry Eagleton, Raymond ~ill.iams,
recently Janet Wolff."
The dissonance between the American
and.European
sociological approaches6 to art 'lies in variations in the
'
languages. In French and G.erman, bociology is more comprehensive
.
(focusing on human social h&an
systems); therefore the
------------------
relations and representational
determination of knowledge o r of the
+--
5She has published three books since 1975: Hermeneutic
Sociolo of Art (1975), The Social
and Aesthetics and the Sociology
L
6The peculiarities of this distinction are well illustrated in
Canaaa where the two'intellectual traditions co-habit. While
English Canada is more or less preoccupied by a social
interpretation of art, French Canadian 'sociologues' have shown
a greater interest irr the suisf~ct.The i n •lo’err---Europeans is well represented in the writings of Fernand Dumont
( l964), Maurice Lemire ( 1 9 6 9 ) Gilles
~
Marcotte ( 1 9 6 4 1 , and
Marcel Rioux ( 1 9 7 1 ) .
-
--
imaginary is understood as part of the formation of spacial
-
4
reality. In Bnglish,' the sense of' sociology is narrower
(stressing organizations and institutions); thus a:t
a.nd artists
pre relegated to a subsystem status expressive cf symbolisu. The
2
follc;ing
definitions will -help to illustrat* where the
differences lie between the main intellectual traditions.
m
,
I
-
- n.f.
(1830; mot cr66 par Comte; de 'socioV-et -1ogie).
Etude scientifique des faits sociaux humains, consid6rCs
c o m e appartenant B un ordre partlculier, et Ctudibs .
dans leur ensemble ou 3 un hauf degrC de gCnCralitC.
(Robert, 19?2: 14581
-
-
SOCiology :'
,
n. .(F soeiol*ogie, fr; socio- + -1ogie -logy) 1. The
science of society, social instctutions, and social
relationships; sp&if:
the systematic study of the
development, structure, interaction, and collective
behavior of.organized groups af human beings. 2. the
scientific analysis of a social institution as a
functioning whole and as it relates to the rest o f '
society. (Webster,1979:1095)
. t
Soziologie:
The science of society; i.e. of the, forms of appearqnce
of phenomena initiated and transmitted by social
contact$. In a narrow sense sociology is understood as a
systematic interpretation of the sequence and the "
effects of social activities (Max ~eber),as science of
the social relations and form (L. v. Wiese), or as a
systematic analysis of the general order of social life,
its laws of movement, and its relationships to the
natural environment and t~~culture
(R. Konig).'
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'.
'The German text reads as follows: die Wiss. von der
Gesellschaft, 3,h. von den Erscheunungsformen durch
'~ozialkontakteausfusten und vtrmittelten Phiinomene; i.c. S.
verstarrden als systemat. Deutunq *d
Ablauf s und der Wirkungen
sozialen. Hahdelns (M. webcr ) , als Wiss. von den sozialen
Beziehungen und Gebilden (L.v. Wiese) oder als systemat.
Behandlung dkr allg. Ordnungen des Gesellschaftslebens ihrer
Bewegungsgetze und Beziehungen zur nature. Umrelt und Zur ~ultur
(R. Konig). (Der
- Grosse Brockhaus,1980:280)
-
-
--
Investigations-carried under the label 'the sociology of
art' are surprisingly
few. Contrary to the ensemble of the
-
I
sociological approaches concerned with the social production of
art, the practitioners working within the sociology of art are
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
concerned to define their objict of study. While there is a
debate over the existence of such a field, sociologists of art
who have elaborated individually8 on its definition agree and
1
insist on the pertinence of creative activity to our existence.
They are mostly concerned with the social roots of knowledge,
and with the manner in which the social is manifest in cultural
forms. Europe is the cradle par excellence for such a sociology:
les institutions
...ce que la sociologie intLess6e
de la sensibilitg
ns p u t voir? les m&amorphoses
collective: les rgves de l'imagbnaire historique, les
,variations des systhies de classification, les visions
du monde enfin des divers groups sociaux qui
constituent la sociCt& globale et leurs hihrarchies,
(Bastide,1970:203)
rl
In.retrospect, it can be assumed that the focus of thesociology of art was whether art and society are related. Once
the relationship between art and society ;s established the .
question arises;of how the correlation takes place. The
sociologists of art who have chosen to investigate the
------------------
-
'It a&ears
that an 'imaginary' impediment walls off
intellectual traditions from one another. While similar efforts
are carried on in different countries, exchanges are rare
occasions,
--
4
-
.
t
-
-
-
-
--
--- ---
- - --
-
-
-
-
communicative aspect of art 'have stressed the need to better
,dnderstand the relationlhip. T5e-f
F E F h e focus on
.'
4
..
communication processes becomes necessary in order to understand
the role of the imaginary, disclosed explicitly or not, as a
central component of the sociology of art.'
The imaginary is the
point of convergence from which communication emanates. In its
centre, the producer and the recipient of language meet and
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
---
-
-
- -- --
participate to .the construction-and perpetuation of this system
a
I
of signification.
An
order to discuss conkunicatidn
within ,the sdcioiogy of
\
..
art the writings of Jean Duvignaud and Arnold Hauser are
respectively presented, They are both concerned with tht
elaboration on the relationship between art and society, and the
v
6iscussion of the communicative aspect of art. When corn
their writings show similarities and distinctions. As proponents
-susc,
-
the2 discms thz so&*-aning
of art, wLilt
stressing the importance of seeing art as a system of
L.
I
signification.
s "Rappelons que le sens courant du terme imaginaire, qui pour
l'instant-no:s suffira: nous parlons dlimaginaireclorsquenous
voulons parler de quefque chose drinvent6 - qu'il s'agisse d'une
- histoire ima-de
toutes iCces), ou
invention absolue (une
d ' un glissement , d' un dCplacement de sens,ohspbo
es d6 ja
disponibles sont investis d'autres significations qut leurs
significations rrommles ou canoniqares iUqu'est-ce gue tu-vats
imaginer la", d?t la femme d l'homme qui rkrimine sur un
sourire 4~j + ~ eEk w e e wt &e~&. - ~ C % Y I I X
C B S , il
est entendu que l'imaginaire se sCpare du-rCe1, qu'il prCtende
se mettre
sa place (un.rnensonge) ou qu'il ne le prCtende pas
(un roman)." (Castoriadis,t975:177f
E-r
-
-
In a short essay entitled Soeioloqie & l'art ( 1 9 6 7 1 , Jean
Duvignaud lays out the significance of .the imaginary as vital to
>
h w n exidtence. He claims that art is a positive activity
P
initiated by the artist which brings indivi uals to participate
/
in the making of social ;eality.
0
By emphasizing the imaginary,
Duvignaud is more concerned with the productive end of art. In
-
addition, his interest resides i K a socialogical-bbservafio~of1
the phenomenon, and puts aside any aesthetic considerations..
Prom a theoretical viewpoint, his essay embodies elemegts of
Marxist philosophyi his-work
is informed by structuralism and
-
LU~SCS'work.
In Soziolo
vehicle of expr
dcr Kunst ( 1 9 7 4 1 , Hauser claims that art is a
on, an 'address and discussion'. He suggests
+that the dialectical relationship between production and
-
reception have to be looked
- at in order to understand the
on-going historical process which characterizes the creation.of
a
meaning in art. Although his concern%lies in the correlation
. between art and society, he goes' into great detailb to emphasize
.1
.
the aesthetic quality of art. He tries to delimit tie field of
/
J
the sociology of art within the context of a non-orthodox
Marxist perspective,
-
,
1.
Toward-a Sociology of ArtisticExpression
I
. .
'-%
Under the.titl% Sociologie de ifart, Duvignaud deveaops a
i
sociology of artistic expression, a concise outline of a largerproject called 'sociologie de l'imaginaire'
.. In this book he
uses the t e w s sociology of art and sociology of artistic
-
-
--
--
-
- -
-
-
--
--
expression, .interchangeably. This absence of distinction does not necessarily confuse the issue of a proper sociology of art
e
7
as Duvignaud endeavours to define it; rather, it shows one of
-
-
the possible directions that the sociology of art can take. I
\
will argue that th4s effort to understand art is far from being
comprehensive, because it looks at only-one aspect of art
-
its
production. In'addition, I contend that his effort to describe
<
s
the notion of the imaginary and atti~tic~creation
is worth
~
-
~
~
r
i
o
u
s
l
y
,
,
statement about the tot
,*
- Im3ginary
The
'
L
Artistic creation, creative imaginati.on,'ast, and the
imaginary are almost synonymous terms in ~ u v i ~ n a u d 'The
s
--
Socioloqy of ~rt,"without *
doubt, among these ideas the
**.
imaginary is the central concept in Duvignaud's notion of the
------------------'The English translation of Duvignaud's Sociologie de l'art has
been used each time a quotation is presented.
i
-
t
-
'
-
w
4
--
-
-
-
-
-
x t c i o l w o•’
ax:-he
definition af it,-&
A
-
fails, however, to offer-asomprehensive--
----
-
-
--
reader i s m to
n-i
interpretation based on various clues found in the text, and on
the connotations of this word in the French intellectual
tradition.'
I
.
-,
The imaginary is characterized by a princ'iple of
,
-totality (echoing Luk6cs's concept of total'ity) ' which
transcends individuals, social groups, and classes. It is a
communication.' Artistic creation 'is rooted in the thre-ad of
collective existence: through the imaginary, mankind finds its
\
/
4
--
-
-
-
raison dtGtre.The
imaginary is more than t h e m a c i t y to invent
a
images
-
it is a vital substanc.e where humanity creates social
4
f
I
reality. Thus, art is perceived as a dynamic phenomenon, the aim
I
i
.of which is to carry on social energy. The work of art is the*
\.
carrier of this social substance, which reveals the potential
,
'
/'
future; art is a form of anticipation of the-social hereafter, p
'
' .
2 f n the French infellectual tradition, the imaginary has been
-
the focus of many writers for some decades. Its psychological
connotation is rooted in Lacan's works, *but other intellectuals
have used it in different contexts; G. Bachelard, La pohtique de
that the French intelfectuals are concerned with the development
a 'sociologie de l'imaginaire'
J of
.
'
3"La totalit6 dont il est question chez h i n'est pas 1'Etre en
devenir de la totalit6 du monde, -.is la totalit6 du processus
de l1exp&rience sociale et historique telle qu'elle _se constititueet se dgvoile dans ct par la praxis sociale et la lutte des
classes.
semblage de tous les faits connus, et en .
oauit par nous qu7X appelle totalitb. in
et conscience de classe. Paris, Les
Editions de Minuit, 1 9 6 0 T p . ' d .
\
-
&
-
-
I
-
/
' *-\
-/
\
J .
-
--
'
-
-
-
--PA
wager on eventual reality:
- -- -
--- -
-
--
-
-
-
In tm, whisk
incorporate i
of a society in which the social substance, the 'mana'
which holds the secret of our future existence, is
crystalllzed. Perhaps he can do this because we will
never know absolute joy. (Duvignaud,1972:20)
The specificity of artistic creation is found in artistic
dractice, which takes place within the social context of daily
Z
ic expression is concerned wi-ththepresent- and-does---l i fc, ~rtist
-
not represent eternal or d s t forms. This tight relationship
\
between art and social exi,ktence, however, is not a ple,a for a
/
type of realism in art.
ob+&
contrary, artistic practice is-
-
seen as autonomous and free of any tie to the political,
economic or ideological; Moreover, the validity of a work of art
is measured'by its force of conviction, itself related to the
message it expresses. Art is rarely the representation of social
-'
order but is r6tleri
)
. -
permanent contestation-of it. Each work
is a new datum~~h~cch'is
-----taken from the artist's experience, but
a150 suggests a landscape unrealized until now. The imaginary,,
an intellectual*construction, re-orders in its own manner an
'
intellectual representation of social events. The artist creates
his own landscape, but from a mental structure rooted in a
coflectivity,
For Duvignaud three characteristics define the creatzve
imagination: first an unrealizable participation: second, a
' l e a p ' from real experience to possible e=riencs;and
third, a
human capacity to invent new relations and emotions. The
*
imaginary competes with the essence of social groups and offers
,
a .sense of total communication or tptal cohesion? "The work of
- --
-
-
- -
- -
art creates anew behind us an order which brings together the
separated fragments of mankind," (Duvignaud,1972:19)
/
'
Art transcends social divisions and reunftes, through
appropriate signs r - ; symbols, a humanity which would remain
otherwise divide3. As anticipation of real experien~e,creative
6'
imagination is an existential attif~de
- -
-
-
-
--
-
-
captures the
-
experience of mankind in its'totality
r
to foresee from
present emotions to ;;rtur~,ones. TWe are /as much what we have
-
been as what we are able to imagine."
. . (~uvignaud,1972:149)
-- - --
To say that art cannot be seen as a form of entertainment
should occasion no surprise here, Cuvignaud suggests-that
artistic creation is a fcrm of incitement that encourages
t
participation within society. fie recogniz'es that such
l-
participation is possible
only if the groups unfamiliar with
,
s u c r h a f - ~ ~ r a - r ~ ~ n t - ~ & ~ ~ e ~ ~ t ~ pe
u c
g i ha 1e1y~ t~n ruo~ 'ahg T i ~
a proper sociology of art, to such an enlightened culture which
would
- sha-ke. them out of their 'entertainment sleep'. The work of6 .
art is conceived of a s a stage where future existence unfolds,
and it ma& be the only place where such a future can exisf
. In
many cases, it seems that Duvignaud understands art as being
able
release tension, especially in times of radical changes, '
when social enexgy is channelled through the irhaginary.
I
?
b
According to Duvignaud, all signifi h n t imaginative
.
activity is a "communication from a distance" between two
subjects. Its actuality is explained by the necessity to
-
-
communicate that characterizes mankind. Regardless of time or
- - --
-----
-
space, creative imagination transcends groupsand classes in
order,to reach &he individual. Here, it is important to stress
the significance of rooting the imaginary in -the thread of
collective experience:
...
-"a
--
every ' sighificant imagined action is a communication
from a distance which is never reconciled-to this
d i stake. We say 'fsot~= distance ' because ~ rnrret5i&
nob have to reach out to one another, separated by space
and time, through the barriers created by groups and
classes, they would not need to rely on signs any more
than on the imaginary. (Duvignaud,1972:52)
-
s
spite of its psychological connotation, the intersubjectivity of
the imaginary is rooted in colletive exprience. In this gense
the role of the artist is to establie3 a dialogue, a new
communication, and to incite people to participate in the making
-
of social reality.
.
,
The Socislogy of Artistic
--
Expression
Duvignaud suggests that a psychology of art cannot
represent art qdequately because of the biased way in which it
distinguishes particularities from the totality. Only the
sociology of art can achieve a comprehensive analysis. Further,
a true sociology of art is not meant to reduce the individual to
a collectivity, but rather to understand them&-%
-
\
individual within the collectivity. A proper sociology of art
concerned with the totality of 'social experience',must keep a
-
-
certain integrity and see that the dynamism
of the imaqinary is
--
extended to the totality of social existence. Under such a
-
sociology, any partial analysis is eliminated. Therefore, the
sociology of art must be concerned with art as such and not with
the arts, art institutions and others.
.
Dltvignaud presents certain aesthetic,ideologies or
--
.
--
mystifications that 'musf be questioned by a sociology of art
concerned with creation rooted in collective existence. He
denounces ideologies because they create beliefs which do not
..
m t h e n t k existence. He aisrrusmfour myths
~rr==sp~
to. fmart%
#
--=
5
*
the essence of art, the primitive origin of the art, the
submission of art to reality or 'nature', and the relation of
art to religion
-
which veil the real purpose of a living
practice of art which is to continue social dynamism. Therefore,
artistic expression, a social exwrience4, has to be perceived in
',-
its totality and not through its possible paqticularities as the
different mystifications would try to imply.
The myth of the essence of art attributes creative
w
imagination to an absolute
mental function that transcends
0
bodily conception
-
e
art as a pure ideal, a spiritual activity.&
Duvignaud argues that to attribute art to spiritual factors
fails to 8$omprehend that art arises, from a concrete situation
bd
ted in human experience. Therefore, in-
meanings r
-------i----------
'For e&le,
i n later years tke 8 d t . m & t e 1 o l o g y , r d i o ,
television, and cinema results in the expansion and
vulgarization of art. The idea of a 'museum without walls'
reinforces the belief that beauty can be experienced by
everyune
.
II
is mare c m p k x than simply ascr
. .
. .
to art a splr-1-t-ual
functi~noutside humag experience. The specificity of art
resides.in its affinity with the thread of collective
'experience.
In hiseattack on the myth of the wimitive origin -f the
arts, Duvignaud questions the notion of continuity i-n-history.
-
--
-
-- --
-
--
-
He dismisses the 'evolut~onisf' and 'historicist' tendencies in
art theory which originated in the thought of Spencer, Cdmte,
--
Durkheim, and Bergson. Duvignaud does not reject history, but
more specifically its concept of perpetuation. He believes that
history is made up of breaks because societies
-
being dynamic
-
do not progres~continuously. Further, he denies the possibility
of man, the universal and unique subject, as the central focus
of such tendencies:
It is, finally, doubtful whether one can prove any real
cont1'niityBetween different ~ s O C i e t i e s w ~seem
h
foreign to us now on account of their very antiquity.
And it is highly unlikely that we will ever succeed in
projecting ourselves to the other end of history which,
after all remains ill-defined and only an extensioa of
our present time. (Duvignaud,1972:27-28)
Duvignaud stresses the importance of the present. History
is an intellectual construction which is conceptualized from the
P
'
' o r e s e n t . Harmony in history can only be created through such
conceptualization. Duvignaud's emphasis on the present
challenges our nostalgia for the past: the past has to be
--
-
I
recognized, but it is not somethl'ng we s B o ~ l 3 1 o n g ~ . T n e ~
b
experience of the present is more pertinent because it is the
p-
source of our creative anticipation. The past a c t s f l ' k e a veil
-
proper sociology of art should be concerned with the present
because it prolongs the .path of the existing work of art.
2-
2.
The submission of art t ,reality or 'nature', thehthira'
myth under consideration,
9
characterized by'the reduct ion of
artistic creation to a mere function of the imitation of nature.
-
-
- -
-
-
-
--
----
- - -
--
-
This aesthetic mystification does not take into account that the
nature we experience is already transposed by social and
intellectual representation. The artist inverts it a second
--
-
time. The artist presents us with a socialized nature; it is
impossible to get a pure rendition of nature without a mediator:
What i's this 'nature' or 'reality'. if not the 'system of
images which a group or a society constructs in order to
mirror its mastery over the universe, if not sometimes
the triumphant vision of a world completely'organized by
man's social i n ~ t i ~ c t sand
, which the artist then
transforms strictly according to his own. individuality?
(Duviqnaud,l97-2:31)
--
Mental structure, classification, and codification of
nature or .reality are key notions in Duvignaudfs idea of
0
sociality. Because man lives in groups, he has to appropriate
the cosmos in the same manner in order to give an appearance of
harmony. The artist fuwtions within this system by enriching it
-
with artistic signs and symbols that are also intellectual
conceptualizations.
-
A
last interpretation of art relates creation to religion;
--
-
the sacred is emphasized as opposed to magic, and this
contributes, with the mystifications examined above, to hinder
'
--- ---
the elaboration of a proper iiving art practice. For example, in
- --- ----
modern society, the belief in the sacred has taken a .new
dimension which hides the s;mptoms
of a divide3 humanity (larger
I
t
*public, multiplicity of milieux, communication technologies).
The artist has to find new justifications in order to explain
the.inconsistency and relativism of modern life,. Only an
at;olute
position is possib&.
In many cases,
he acts like a man 'inspired',.a representative on earth of a
t
religiGus force who has to express sacro-saint themes.
-,
*
According to Duvignaud, therefore, it is important to cover
- ---
I
---
1
these mystifications about artistic practice. These ideologies
tend to split the t-&ality
of experience, accentuating certain
>=+
&%
aspects, and thus'mutilating experience.
A
living art ptactice,
4
implanted in social experience, would not base its essence on,
such illusions, even if the individual needed to search for
artistic practice. ~rtisticexpression'is a specific activity
which cannot be explained away by concepts of sacredness or
primitiveness.
,
-
-
d
-
-
-
-
-
&.,The Application of the Sociology of Art
I
.
In this chapter,'the issue of defining a theoretical
frame'work and tool&
analysis, necessary to what Duvignaud
believes to be a suitable sociology of art, will be considered.
First, in search of his theoretical framework, Duvignaud looks
I
upon the works of .G
~ u k 6 c - sand his f o l l o w ~ e r s ~ _ ( B e n j a r n i n , ~ d o _ r n o ,
p
p
and Goldman), and of the Warburg School (Panofsky) as
interpreted by P. Francastel. But, notwithstanding their notable
attempts to root art within a social existence, he believes that
-
they have failed to eliminate certain philosophical
explanations. Second, in order to understand fully the totality
1
of creative experience-within the totality of collective
experience, he p-roceeds to def i n ~ $ eo w r a t ive concepts. These
I
serve as tools of anaEysis, and are meaningless unkess they are
+
--
serproperiy within +social context. TFey allow us to examine
the various situations in which art can be identified as a
*
component of different types of society.
I
G. Luk6cs -and P. Francastel
-
From L U ~ ~ C SDuvignaud
,
retains,the idea of establishing
correlations between the totality of social experience and the
-
--
vision of the individual who, through imaginary representation
conceptualizes his period.' ~ u k l c thad recourse to the notion.of
/
a world vision that.unites the work of art, as a system where
-
4'
-
--
- --
- -
-
--
-
-
f eel'ings and emotions are experienced, a1ong with-coalect-ive
-
feelings a&
mnotiORsr
is - W ~ h e i n g
a n valid a c
any
otherpctivity of the community. Lucien Goldmann, a follower of
,
~uk6cs,was inspired by this concept when he juxtaposed the
literary world to a world vision:
,..the idea of 'vision of the world' becomes a model of
life and existence by uniting disparate artistic
expressions in a conrnon inspiration. In contrast to
popular materialism, which~uperimpos-essrbitra-ryconcepts on an a-lreadzdogmatic and rigid interpretation
of reality, this idea,ensbles us to place a work of ,art
in its existential, every day human Nrspective.
Similarly, we can juxtapose d,ifferent 'visions of the
world', thereby including a number of artists within the ;'
framework of a s-ingle era. (Duvignaud, 1972238)
-
7
- ---
Duvignaud disagrees wi-th the notion of world vision because
,
*
of the internal cohesion needed in order to join the style of a '
work of art 'with a world vision. In addition, it is
problematical that an individual be taken to represent an entire
era. To assert that Leonardo da V i n c i is the sole representqtive
t
of the Renaissance is-to limit the range of human experience. He
rep@ches
Lukbcs for having idealized the work of art as a form
of knowledge of the world - knowledge in the sense df the
nineteehth century humanistic ideal. According to Duvignaud,
artistic knowledge is only one of the possible directions that
.
can be chosen by the human psyche, The notion of art as a
e+
dominant re'&sitory
of knowledge is rejected.
~uviinaudaccuses Luk6cs of having concealed the a_ctive
part of art: the potential to anticipate the future. Luk6cs
-
-
-
--
---
--
-
,alleges that the work of art is a translation and reconstitution
\
of themes prior to its existence. Du~ignaudcalls this pure
-
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
---
- -
-
- -
-
--
'academism', and refuses to acknowledge the a priori in art. The
artist 2s never an acai3ernIct or--makerof images, but a creator
of anticipation originating from human reality. Luk5csV attempt
.-
does not locate the wor'k of art in the present. His endeavour to
correlate art pracfice and social experience falls into4the
traps of philosophical reasoning. In other words, ~ u k k s ' s
*
effort might be perceived as another kind of mystification where
-
-
-
-
*
-
- -
-
--
r
-
-----
.
art is a sort of universal and spiritual force; the world vision
being a model of life,
The next effort that Duvignaud undertakes is to study the
-
--
Warburg school, mostly the work of Erwin Panofsky (Art '
historian, 1892-1968) who has recognized that -any
. form of
intellectual representation is rooted in collective existence.
%
He acknowledges the artistic-capacity to stimulate social
experience in groups or collectivities; in short, the potential'
-
followers have underestimated this communicative aspect of &rt.
For them 'the artist as a mere "academician cannot be interested
in communication.
Panofsky and Francastel have developed what Duv i gnaud
designates as an 'archeology' of the fundamental structures of
imaginary life. They
have concentrated their effort on the
genesis of the art object, Francastel has analysed t e +ormation
.
P
-
-
of mental structures, especially through his s t b y of space in
-
-
-
-
-
-
-- -
-
painting. He has shown that space is an intellectual
representation, far from being an immediate response to daily
-
- ---
life,-which has evolved through th
--
ars. In other words,
.
-
F
reality .is constructed and not imrned
I
given. The painter
conceptualizes his view of nature. Accord
*
, Fra?iRias.tel
\ .
'
.
believes that a proper sociology of art must be concerbed with
w
'
art as an intellectual speculation rooted in the real and simp14e
elements of our living existence.
Francastel has end-e
to show that-artistic-cr-eation
-
- -
-
is an individual and collective action acting upon human
experience. This action helps man to define himself in a world
A
=
that he is trying to conquer; thus giwing rise to the nee6 for
creating intellectual structures. Again, Francastel believes
--
that a suitable and dynamic sociology of art must be concerned
with the present.
e ran cast el's attempt to integrate art and
society supports Duvignaud's effort. Both are convinced of the
I
totality of artistic and living experience and suggest a
sociology of art that will take into account this totality.
!
Duvignaud describes the work of Francastel as being an
important contribution to a 'Marxist' conception of the
sociology of art. Francastel has illustrated Marx's notion of
man's appropriation of nature (nature becomes socialized nat,ure
under
human domination) in studying space. According .to
Duvignaud, Francastef has. extended Marx's idea and given it a
new meaning:
,
-
-
Space becomes a problem beeause through it man gains G ,
social solidarity which is inde@-6ndenii/oftm mystical
intuition of reality which materialists claim exists.
The origid and growth of creative activity are the same
a s those of social life, and social life rediscovers in
the creative individual the principles an$ driving force
- -
-
-
C,
a
C,
C
a
.C
a
-
m
Q,
a
Q,
V
U
C
0
rl
aJ
C,
((I
m
U
m
C
aJ
0
a . m
m
k
0
k
C,
c
m
f
.
JJ
~
Q,
c,
C
ri
.0
C,
((I
d
m
B
0
a
k
.d
a
3
3
ti"
J
k
@
k
0,
a C , c
U
m
C
a
J
C
C,
J
-ri
n3
aJ
.ri
,
c
n
+J
Q
3 - a
Erc
**
a
~
X
Q
o
C
rl
a , +
d
3
a
u
d
.C
C,
a.4
aJ
((I
C,
0)
+J
C
0
4J
U'
a .
((I
k
+J-
0)
w
0
CI
lu
4
m
a
.G
0
Y
U
g3
C
&
z
I4
fia
-ul
C,
Q,
d
m
m
U
C
m
k
Erc
C,
V)
d,
a
U
o
t-i
m
C
*
C,
C,
3
k
aJ
m
a
0
k
LC
'((1
((1
C
C
id
JJ,
C,aLTu.
U U O d
C O k O
c,
C
0
k
5:
C,
m
C,
. C
k
,
d
JJ
C,
Q,
k
0
-4
Q
C
a,
dX
-
'u
N
*rl
((I
t-i
3
k
a
l-i
Q,
k
m
*d
Q,
U
d
ul
-
'
0
'
--- -
- --
- --
--
--
-
after its creation: i.e\khg
communicative aspect;-Open
-
-
-
/
~uvi~n&ud discourse ifart is to be located within a living
?
,
existence.
Definition of Ope rative Concepts
.the totality of collective existence, ~uvignau'ahas
within
4
f
designed five 'operat ve concepts: drama, the polemic sign,
I
.structures of different.c~assifications, anomie,'and the atypic.'
These concepts are tools of analysis that permit identification
of the var'ious situations- and characteristics of human
experience. However, these forms are meaningless unless they are
grounded in the living society that, is the canvas of all
-
description. It is important to emphasize that the perpetual
transformation of society is an underlying principle in
Duvignaud's
discourse, It is only through the living presence .of
. .
.
'
s
society that all aspects of human existence take the,ir meaning.
,
Moreover, it is imperative to .postulate an a p p r o p r i m image of '
B
C
>
-
social creation in order to understand artistic creation,
Dram takes from psychology1 the notion,of a concrete
situation. It proposes to divide human experience in an'ensemble
.
-
-
- -
- -
of behaviours which might seem separated, yet are integral parts
------------------
*
*Ouirigna~takes the meaning of drama from Gecrges Politzer's
'Pondements de la psychologie'. Revue de la pspchologie
concrgte, no 1 , 1929.
- -
of a totality in progress. It suggests that h h a n experience is
invofvkd in a conff kt, a-srrUgg*e-agnst
an obstacle and that
most of the -'actorsTparticipate to define their own place in
the collectivity, In the sociology of art, drama is
L
a combination of behaviours, emotions, attitudes,
ideologies, actions and creations which, for the
creative individual, crystallizes,the whole of soc.iety
and places the genesis of a work of art within the
complex of those contradictory forms which make up
collective &if-e, (Btwignaud,t972:49)
-
-
-
The work of art becomes the expression of such a conflict. Each
individual creator gives shape to col-lectiveexperience by
society. Dramatic experience is more a perception than a
comprehension of the state of the collectivity. Thus, as in the
case of Shakespeare, the,unusual and individual factors that
have influenced his writings can be explained:
...
-
>
the poet's position in a society which was affected
by real, ifLh&ly perc~ptibl~,
changes P
power-orientated ideologies of the bourgeois, the latin
and Italianizing education of artist, as well as his . .
personal singularity as an artist, the relationship
between psychological themes (which psychoanlaysis can
detect if it re-integrates them into the working of the
whole) and the existing literary forms.
(Duvignaud,l972:49)
'
The first advantage of such a concept is that i t avoids
reducing the work to biography or vice versa, because the
1
artistic activity is perceived as an attempt to exteriorise and
to objectify the latent thems found in individual and &i+l
- -
- - - - - - -
a
existence, Another advantage &rives
fim - t h e ~ ~ r t n f
art in a living social constithncy where the artist momentarily
embodies society, It allows for the rejection of the idea of
subjective and objective viewpoints because drama covers,
A
analytically, all aspects of creation. Furthermore, the
separation between form and content is evicted; a division
created by theorists unaware of the heterogeneity and
universalitg of creative experience. Form is understood
-
as a particular attempt of the imagination to discover
the common origin of certain elements to which everyone
csn respond emotionally ( 'the -9-enetic structuresf of
Francastel), and content as the imaginary attempt to .
create immediate meanings which refine a spontaneous
mental response from an audience. (Duvignaud,1972:50)'
--
-
-
- -
-
- -
--
--
-
Another of Quvignaud's conceptual tools is the polemic sign
which embodies-aspects of total communication. The work of art,-
as a partial element designating thd totality of experience is
understood, more or less, as a cohereht system of explicit
activities directed.towards real communication. The sign has a
7
double activity: on one hand, the presupposition of an obstacle
to overthrow, on the other, a reai or imaginary attempt to
overcome it. The-idea of polemic, or intentions, suggests the
nature of the obstacle confronted by the artist in creative
activity. This obstacle varies according to different
situations. It can be a* reaction to a physiological reality
I
which has more profound psychofogical implications (deafness in
the ca=e of Goya)
-
which results in an interruption of
-
communication, It can also take the form of a conscious effort
from the artist to use his means of -expression in ordes to
transcend his class fuse of poetry by Jean mcine) , or to-
-
proclaim the rise of individuality in a divided society by the
creation of heroes (Julien Soref, Frederick Horeauf. In
-
- --
-
-
--
-
-
p
p
p
-
-
-- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
addition, this obstacle can be an dstacle in itself which
--
P
C
-
refers to its transformation and sublimation?by metaphysics: the
C
attempt 'at non~~ommunication,~
the absurd, solitude (Kafka)
.
Structures of different classifications constitute the
third item of Duvignaud's conceptual scheme: the conjunction of
'
k
the systems of cosmic classifications wi h the systems of social
classi f ications.' T h i s concept inkroducest h e ideaofintegration--
-
of mental and social systematization as a fundamental element -of
individual and cc7lective experience. Durkheim said: "It is
#
because men have established groups that they were able to grQup--=
*
things." (~uvi~na<3,1972:53)Tor Duvignaud, $he e'f fort to
classify is a factor of social validity. Man needed to give
.order to his society; social categories were thus established on
the basis of gender, labour, religion. As a result man felt the
necessity to categorize things. Such classification of things
-
'becomes an attempt to socially recuperate the cosmos. Thus, a
double activity of classification was constituted, which from
then on allowed'man t~ comprehend the cosmos and to master it.
The conjunction of cosmic and social classifications is
>
often located in grirnitive societies and is an aspect of some
developed societies. The necessity to classify in these cases
,
acts as a derivative to writing in host developed,countries; a
means to survivk, It is from this merging that art (as w e know
<
it) finds its origin in primitive societits,-Art becomes a group
--
*
of meanings bearing the two system of cl~assificationand also
carries a new significance c r e a t e d by the artist. However, the
-
--
different classifications and artistic signs
because they share the same features
-
met
wi-thina same
-
-
contrary to the
explanation of evolutionist or primitivist points of view.2
Moreover, the aesthetic figures created by this junction have
I
open meaning. This means that out of their original existential
structure they become 'signifieds without signifiers,' and they
-
-
-
--
-
-
- -
-
--
--
- --
A-
A
-
are infused with new weaning when industrial societies integrate
and transform them in their own art.
The last two of Duvignaud's concepts; anomie and 'the
--
-
--
atypic, are complementary, and privilege the comprehension of
-
individual fact6 by sociology. The concept of anomie was
?stablished by Durkheim. Duvignaud gives us his in-rpretation:
The concept of anomie derives from this, for it refers
to the overall state of disorders cause-d by the continuous process of change i,n-the social structure.
Whether such changes are sudden or gradual, whether they
-snr~re
ilr
two or three c e ~ d e ~ ~ o ~
decades, the important factor is that people, separated
from the norms which until then controlled and ordered
their desires, suddenly find themselves confronted with
unrestricted aspirations. (Duvignaud,t972:59)
-
~
According to Duvignaud, the scope of this concept is such
that it enables us to understand hhenomena we would be
hard-pressed to explain without it. He believes that anomic
-
?*by
periods are intense moments because they can be.the recipients
i
of imaginary activities unknown to other periods: the
~voluticmijtand primitivist themils agr-e-eel~saythst
societies contribute to the ordering of the natural wor9d by
giving themselves different classifications systems and artistic
signs.
~
I
1
~
I
1 %
I
d
I
&
::a
4,
h
4J
Q
0,
4J
C
E:
a
1
01
Q,
Q,
UJ
C,
C
h
'd
0
4i
h
4J
$
m
8
k
-
1
al
ul
C
aJ
cn
m
Q,
Q,
UI
0
C
Iw
0
w
0
S l E
x
!,
4
0
4J
0.rc.A
U a J 3
Q, U I d
0,
.
3
3 k
rltn
- a0, -a4
ra- iJOU U
kJ
-4
C4
0J U
o
$2
CC, % O
3 4
tn0.d.Q
a
accalo
0
o
aJa4JaL.I
3
.A 0
aJ k u ) 3 w m1
dOQ,.l.r
0
3.5 3 c
C QI.4
OidUI
rl
C,
u
a
aJ
4J
W
~
C,
3
c
.r(
E
-d
r-i
4
3
((I
2-
4J
C
A
m
.ri
4JCiUOt-4aJ
auca
rl
m
E
0
aJ
LC
Q,
4JY.d
a ..I4 J-J
0.4 P:,d aJ 3
C W
a
U
.rlr
a
&
.C
r3
0
U
U
C
aJ
a
C,
w
0
4J
C
Q,
a
3.1
r)
C,
m
L
U
a
C
3
a
d
4J
s
r(
.C
r(
.a
.a3
ri
m
0
*
-
2-4
4J
aJ
s
.rl
.d
4,
0
a-
.r(
m
cn
0
t-4
3
.d
C
0
U
J-J
ul
a
C
2
u
k
0
a
k
a
C,
Q)
rl
((I
C
a
C
UI
.r(
a
r(
.
C
E
*I4
cn
.r(
VI
0
C
4J
0
ul
a
JJ
a
C
al
al
C
a
C
-4
r
4~
4,
Q
.
C
+J
s
1,
!I
0
0
I.r(
:1
R
aJ
C
ul
.r(
J-J
w
0
4J
1
C
a
id
a* m
s
4J
Q,
m
.Q
N
e
l
W
C
8
c,
k
.'-I
U
.r(
C
w
4J
O a aJ
C
C
0
.r(
3.(
k
a
C
.c(
m
.PI
~
c
~
much creations of possible participation or anticipation. -
3. The Role of Aesthetic Attitudes in the
magin nary and'
Collective Experience
I
It is important to restress Duvignaud's assertion that
human relations, emotions and,feelings are defined by each
collective existence, and-that the work of art -is--closely
--L
I
related t o t h e intentions of an ,epoch, a group, an individual or
a collectivity. In order to comprehend the creative' imagination
wi'tfrin such a s t r u c t u r e , it is crucial to define it in relat-ion
to aesthet4c attitudes that are explicit o.r implicit, and in
relatidn to t.he functionsof art in specifjc types of society.
AS
Duvignaud suggests, the sociology of artistic expression finds,
here, its raison d'btre.
.
Aesthetic attitudes are dir~ctionsthat have,been
circumscribed by intelligence in order to understand the role of
the imaginary in its integration within a collective existence..
Usually, an epoch will acknowledge only one possible attitude,
*when in
same period is characterized by a diversity
society, it is possible to find a variety
of these attitudes, with the exception of the most recent one,
art for art's sake, a nineteentfi century intellectual invention.
It must be stressed that only in industrial sctcieties d o all
Three elements can help to identify these attitudes: a
stimulating factor, a w i l l t o , g r o u p , and ideological
---?
-
just if ications. These creative directions are ideological
-
-
--
-
justifications because they are related'to the mental
.
repreqentations of artistic creation
to which the'artist
r
Adheres. They describe genuine situations as much.for the artist
as for his c~ntemporaries.yet' they cannot be reduced to these
partial representations because they are as much in relation
offer an eventual future. This introduces the effort to group
,
\
that characterizes these directions. This grouping takes place
3
because the att'itudes propose a new order of aesthetic and
social signs that suggests an hypothetical solidarity. This?
solidarity remains always a project (anticipation) which is.
never experienced by the actual society
collective expectation.
~
an individual and
.
key principle'is that creative activities not only invent
A
-
-
-
~
~
a
t
~
~
'
"
"
C
~
attitudes participate in the formation of social stmxtures:
This is where they derive their valiadity. Thus, they cannot be
.
perceived as 'world visions' or psychological attitudes based on
the affective. Duvignaud notes, here again, the importance of
locating the imaginary within the thread of =xistence. He puts
an .emphasis on its.existential vocation; the imaginary as a
'
force of incitement and not of entertainment. However, there is
a limitation to these attitudes, which in turn erodes the
--
-
-
- -
influenc=,ofartistic experience in a collectivity, as opposed
to the influence of social experience. This limitation
h
~
-
-
- - - --
-
-
+
originates from the fact that these directionsare foundpfn
-
-
-
,
small
.=-ni
cOERBM
RWF~ES,
1
1
They characterize the different vocations of art as attributed
.(
by man throughout hlstory.
-
The first attitude under discussion is the aesthetic of
total communion; it implies an immediate dialogue between an
individual and the group. The artistic experience is shared and
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
--
--
--
-
understood by all. In such situations, art, as we understand it,
is nonexistent. The signifizd suggested by the creator is
immediately filled with signifiers by the receptive group, Any
--
foreign element that cannot be known by all is rejected. This
attitude is mostly found in what we have named archaic or
primitive societies, and in the f i'rst urban manifestations
(urban societies which are in the process of growing out of a
powerful rural civilization like in the case of anci~ntGreece
and modern Japan 1
p
p
.
b
\
Theatre, dance, festivals are the forms of expression
privileged by these societies. Furthermore, it is essential to
consider this attitude in its context. It would be easy to lose
the meaning of this attitude if it isdnot properly set in time
and space. Attempts were made by Nietzsche and ~ousseau'who
tried to reanimate the sense of total communion,-yet their
eifort is only reminiscent of this attitude.
-
-
-
-
'1n the Social Contract, Rousseau ponders over societies which
are isolated from the rest of the wor-ld by a common belief or a
religion.
-
a
-
-
--
-
-
--
1
I
- ---
- --
<
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
- -
-
he nostalgia of .a lost communion emerges when fraternity
-
becomes a forbidden dream. EssenTial~thisattitude is a
romantic one.'It is found in the works of Europeans like
Schiller, Goethe, ~oelderlin,Nietzsche (lost Greece), Hugo,
Wagner (evocation of a legendary Middle Ages) and within the
works of ~ a p n e s eaesthetes preoccupied with the 'Great Past'.
The iditration that these creators feel is--a double *ostalgia;
--
--
-
-
-
- --
- -
-
-
-
on one hand, the longing for past traditions inherent in modern
s~ci-etj,
especially when they ekerge, on the other the pathqs of
powerlessness vis-a-vis an effective intervention in'social
--
-
1
life.'~heprinciple of such a frustration reflects the
atomization of human life in modern society. The artist attempts
to overcome this en trying to reconcile a humanity divided in
groups, classes, ideologies
-
.
creative activity represents his
search for a lost unanimity. Yet18thereconciliation is
in primitive societies), which does not correspond to modern
'
societies.
The sacred is the foundation of the next attitude. Here,
'
-'jsacred art and the sacred are confused. The artist is seen as
the priest 'of the absolute
-
the representative of God on earth.
.
His supernatural power is k n o k a n d respected by all. Like all
.
. others, the attitude of sacredness is specific to ,certain
societies. It occupies a limited space and time in artistic
--
-
-
experience and cannot pretend to explain it in its totalkity.
/
Two distinctions characterize this attitude; on one hand,
*
-
---
-
-
art which expresses religious feelings, and on the other, art
influenced by sacred spirituality. In the first instance, the
artist lets himself be fascinated by. 'primordial forms', which
in the meeting of human and non-human signs give birth to
'
fantastic figures. From this fascination, creative edperience is
Icharacteriz-ed by
-
a non-human w i l l to sacra'lization-using-----
figurative representation; the core of charismatic mental
C
societies as in Ancient Egypt, and in the Inca Empire for
example.
,
In the second instance, the artist proposes a religious
.
4
passion. by expressing his own-consciousness which is represented
by a well calculated humanization as in the case of chbristian
and Buddhist art. Here this attitude does not serve spirituality
but interprets a .sacred situation in societies where different
religious ~ierarchiesestablished in institutions and/or groups
I
.
compete with other social hierarchies.
The direction labelled "sublimation of daily lifen is an
attitude corresponding to the dynamism of an ensemble of
- *
individuals linked together by d common interest: either caste,
group, class. They share a common reflection upon society:
...the group is looking at
B
itself in a mirror, and it
uses the system of classification on which its economic
activity is based (as in Holland), its equilibrium, its
momentary security (Persia) to provide a m a n s bf
exaltation, of contentment, of comfort, of consolidation
and of confirmation, in order =to support its way of
life, its 'destiny'. (~uvignaud,t972:76)
-
-
-
--
-- -
-
--
-
-
--
--
-
The ensping,deliberate illustration of 'dei-ly-l-i-fe is a--necessity- for th.is group because it ~
I
- -
--
X
an element
Uof
consolidation and of protection. It establishes a sense of
-
-
security and of duration which is necessary to these groups
0
particularly when they feel the threat of their decline. In
J
'
spite of the existence of such an attitude in vaarious types of
societies, each group responds in'the same manner, either by
.'
escaping in the.spectacle they provide 'for themselves or, by
\
4
-
- - - -
- -
-
--
--
- - -
extension of daily life to its possible magnificatioh.
The art of reservations of closed doors takes form within a
-
small circle of artists, priests, and educated men. Far from
being the active group of the previous described attitude, these
indivichdls are preoccupied by art of an esoteric nature.which
could satisfy their own entertainment needs. The art prodiced is
<
often hi?rmetic and has a tendency to'reproduce itself. Further,
I
-
the language used is understood only by its 'memberst - an
exclusivity of meanings belonging tq the artist and a specific
audience.
r-
With the "'We clerics' or*'We artists' becoming 'We mantn
(Duvignaud,1972:78), we have a symptom of this attitude. For
example, most of the pre-nineteenth century definitions of
h anism have taken their origin from such a belief. Through the
d
benturies, this attitude has been known to fascinate deople by
its esotericism and has been given an importance that i s more
-
apparent than r e a l . Under this esoteric n a t u r e 5 l d e s a system of
protection which allows intellectuals to live in an enclo3ed
-
- -
culture of society and to its established values has taken a
-
-
-
D
certain importance in Europe during the infiltration of the
modern economy. This aesthetic attitude is of importance for
Duviqnaud because of its relation to the concept of anomie.
Here, the imaginary is used to free social tensions and to offer
possible solutions during times of intense social changes;
,
=ither t f i e passage-from-one type o f societyto-another-whichsucceed in time or the establishment of new set of values that
does not annihilate the old ones. Far from being a form of
literary rebel f ien er ,romantic anarchism this a t t %t&e is the
instigator of iztense creativity which proposes new human
relations to dissolving society.
-2
@-a
The theatre and novel are the craiie of the imaginary
.c
nse periods. '~hroughouthis creative activity,
T
the artist offer'simaginary figures (RameaG's nephew or Julien
during these i
Sorel) that are new sigpifieds yet without signifiers. It is
i
b
'
important 'to realize that the artist's conception of an
3
imaginary world,is part of an eventual experience wh ch does not
have to be objectified. Julien Sorel, Robinson Crusoe, Hamlet
and Faust were never rea1ized.a~characters but became symbols.
a
Thus, the 'literary space' created is the core of eventual
- actions, where the existential and real universe of emotions and
lived experiences
taken d
-
possible or real
-
is constituted.
rent connotations from one period to another.
--
-
-
-
-
- --
- -- -
However, it has acquired its full meaning during the growth of
r
sake is
industrial sucieties. The principle of art f ~ art's
based on a sacrifice
-
the artist's commitment to creation. This
-
-
attitude represents the-will to detach one's self from all
relations with public life. The artists w.ho espouse such an
aesthetic direction are believed not to deal with politics and
history. Yet, this attitude is not loneliness for the-sake of
\
\
it, but a form of struggle against alienation. Political
involvement is another aspect of it; for example, the
*
surrealists and the Russian revolutionary intellectuals after
1917 vowed themselves to art, but were also politically active.
-.
,
4. Communication,: Meanings and Contexts
To ascribe one universal function to art is inconceivable
7
in Duvignaud's mind because of the diversity and contradictory
nature o f its functions. In order to understand the role p r t
in a social cofitext, Duvignaud elaborates a typology of
societies that integrates society and art to the same context.
His typology is an operational onstruction rationalizing the
explanation but not the experience itself. Further, it is a
conceptual classification which groups together varying
1
functions in distinctive societies with similar particularities.
Hist0ry.i~too concerned with filling the.gap of discontinuities
and ruptures to be interested in seeking the relations. In
4
addition, the operative concepts described earlier here take
their full meaning.
L
P
The ~uncti.onsof Art
-
Duvignaud emphasizes that =Feative expression is alive and
exciting, predominant19 in epochs of change from one social type
- t o another, as a result of war or c o n b s t , change in politics,
ckan5c in mode of production or the imposition of a r.,d
,
'technique' on t r a d i t i m a f s o c i e t y f t k case qf Third World
countries). Yet an equal value on creative activity produced
during calmer periods has to be acknowledged. They are two
L
-
- - -
-- -
- ---
experiences of the same research, but are located differently in.
relation to collective existence,
As described previously, primitive, societies distinguish
*
-
themselves by their secondary functioh of art - the-search for
total c,ommunication and a will to classify. The conception of
P
1
art is tied to 'the conjun~iionom ;osmic and social
classifications and the principle of total communication
and
-.
participation which gives to art a comprehensive,significance
9
within the totality of human existence. The plastic figures thus
created, become the ,recipient of sociality.
In theocratic societies (Ancient Egypt, the Inca, ~ncienft
Mexican and Middle Eastern civilizations), the symbolic
expression is greater than in primitive societies. An
accentuated hallucinatory value shades the already frightening
world of the hereafter. In these societies, menacing figures are
created in order for man to rempmber that the after-life world
is more actual than the present. In spite of this fascination
with death these cultures were rich in imaginative speculation;
the hallucination aboat the hereafter being its motor.' The
function of art, here, is to intercede between society and a
transcendental power which has constituted its own hierarchy.
Patriarchal societies are located in the middle of a
transfer qf values; from traditional classifications (mythic
beliefs.&to ,a
,.individualclassifications (human content). Man
.
becomes the focus of attention and a transier of authority can
,
6
be witnessed in the change from the'god-king figure to the
*
-
father-owner-priest figure. The family bec-omes the centre of all
activities on *hich society itself finds its foundation.
Ufysses' character in the Illiad and the Odyssey is an excellent
example of this transfer of value: in spite of ~ l ~ s s e s '
encounter with various deities, he returned to a human destiny
by the end of the odyssey.
The function of art in patriarchal society is to immabilize
and to consolidate man in his human nature. These societies,
ignorant of plastic ana dramatic representations, use language
as a principle of cohesion for the collectivity. Nowhere else
has oral tradition ever taken such an importance. The Illiad,
>
the Odyssey and, the Old Testament are vivid examples.
Within the c3ty-state societies (Greek cities and Italian
*
Trecento cities), a new definition of man is necessary. The
sudden concentration of population affects man's exist'ence. The
gathering af men in an enclosed space gives rise to a new social
form which sets a genuine kind of artistic expression unknown
until then
-
the passage from myth to book. With the birth of
L
the poetic space, of Literature, and a plastic conceyn with
space, art takes its full meaning. Until that period, Duvignaud
as.serts that'works of art produced were no.more than an snsemble
of representations. Furthermore, a change occurs in the
relationship between the sign and it
g; from the cohesive
-
nature of sign and signification of the m y t h = sGtem, the sign
of the symbolic system does not necessarily find a me&ing.
-
u
C
0
U
c,
Ll
w
0,
k
aJ
a
-5 g
aJ
4
n
.l-4
I n Ul
d
ui
r-i
d
.Pi
'
m
a
k
U
0
r 4
J
W
k
aJ
W
:J 8,h
a
aJ
k
Rt
h
aJ
H
C
0
C
0
C
c , R t + '
'0
k
a
.
aJ
a
aJ
C
0
LI
O
-4
U)
r-i
m
4,
r-i
U
rl
.U
m
0
.rl
C,
2
a
U
0
.r(
m
J
~ c r l c c
t 4 h . G
L,
.4
In
V l 4 J a . J
a
P ( 4 J
SO
aJ
In
cn
3 * Q , a J
k
-r(
.ti
C
J
k
x
.
aJ
U
C
aJ
-,-I
k
8 4
SO
aJ
Cr
C
P
r-i
-r(
totally involved.
Hefe, the function of art is multiple because of the
1
i
r ivalr; o'f ~ s f f e r e n iand contradictory conditions. The mult ltude
'L
of interventions may be too various to be actually understood.
Pet the rivalry is the principal motor of art; through it man
gives order to things with possmibilitiesthat are not
necessarily realizable - deferred victories or absolute defeats.
I
Three pecularities shape the medieval imaginary which is
transcribed into sculpture, architecture and theatre: the birth
of a religious and mystical art imposed by the Church, which
0
pretends to be universal, the mystical, art of the 'trobar clus'
representing interpersonal communication (exaltation of love in
poetry), and the illustration of daily life (high in colour and
sounoj directed to all levels of population. '
So
far, all the societies which have been surveyed were
similar in that the change of value they imposed on the previous,
societies is n ~ tt
1. With monarthic societies, radical
mutations in economic life question every aspect of human
existence, and are followed by a phenomenon bf multiple ruptures
. represented in psychic
life. Here:
the phenomenon of anomie, the
main char-acteristic of modern society, takes.its full meaning.
In artistic creation, ~uvignaudassumes that impacts and
multiple contradictions are benefici&Theatre
is a privileged
form of this period of ruptures, Murders and crimes found in
Elizabethan theatre supposed different directions:
...
new tendencies which are stil' individualized and
apparently negative, and whic?~were as much protest
--
t
explores them. Characters like Julien Sorel; Rastignac and Moll
Flanders are vivid examples of this.
Industrial societies are limited in location. Only
societies that have a real industrial grdwth and where this
development produces major modifications are considered. Taking
this definition into cbnsideration, only modern societies like
the USSR, USA, Japan; and Europe belong, here. Because of the
technical development associated with these industrial
societies', all forms and functions of art-afe possible. This
,
advancecof technology is important, along with the fact that
technology continuously provokds changes which become the centre
of human exispnce.
On one hand, through mechanical reproduction man has access
to all works of art around the world (principle of the 'muse'um
without walls').
ow ever,
the meaning of these objects is lost
in this context: a new meaning is given by the context of the
reception, On the other hand, with the rise of consumerism, the
problem of communication appears to be essential to creativity.
--
Art is granted to all instead of to a privileged circle; it
allows everyone to participate.
Duvignaud -suggests that the need for consumerism is a
desire to participate:
One does not, however, discover how much this need to
attend is above all a desire to participate, which at
the, same time accentcates all the emotions which b e x n g
to t h e fndivi8ual's situation in societv and also to
- integrate'him into a wider human perspe6tive. Two
processes are involved: the first serves to enrich a
framework of given experience through a creative
identification with imagined characters, and the second
-
-
--
-
produce6 homogeneity, the fading away of distinctive
features as a result of identifying with common
stereotypes, (~uvignaud,i972:1261
we are far from the common belief in media studies that
consumerism stupefies more than generates activities. On the
contrary, ~uvignaud-;echoing McLuhan, believes that consumption
creates a sense of intregation for the individual within society
and a sense of intense communication (the technological means
help to give meaning to the work of art).
This last observation is related to the work of art and the
modification in its 'perception. The reference is made to the
increasingly nebulous boundary between event and spectacle. The
work of art, closer to daily life than ever, has the potential
to confound the public, The world, as presented through the
viewing of televisidn, takes the form of a spectacle. This new
perception of the event causes stupefaction from the public to
its real and spectacular experience. This phenomenon is part of
the social rooting of art in concrete life, The imaginary,
.
.
f
immersed deeply in social existence is far from realizable
because socG t r a t i f i c a t i o n increases in modern society. Here,
the imaginary is confronted by an obstacle greater than +ever. I n
order 'to counteract the imposition of the banal and a common
homogeneity, an authentic creation will have to search for new
meanings.
5. Art Today ( 1 9 6 8 )
~ u v i ~ n a uhas
d suggested earlier that a proper sociology of
art should begin with the present artistic practice. Under the
title ~ r Today,
t
he discusses .the development of modern art
(1900
-
1968). He argues the i~possibilityof determining the
function of art in industrial society because of the lack of
distance: because of the'immediacy
of tdday's art practice, it
is difficult to reflect comprehensively upon it-. According to
him, this,difficulty has an advantage:-freedom of creation whi,ch
would be impossible i f we knew the function of art. The
imaginary is nurtured and kept alive.
,
.
The event and collage help to clarify the significance
of artistic creation in the contemporary industrial
world, but they do not define its function. This would
be impossible: those actually living in society cannot
be aware of the real functions exercised by the
activities of that society. Ideologies clarify, to a.
certain extent, these functions, but this 'is to
anticipate the explanation which only history at a later
date can give. Fortunately for us, creativity in a
living society does not completely explain itself to us.
To be left in doubt is part of our freed+.
(Duvignaud,1972:141)
/
Industrial societies are characterized by the existence of
various groups, classes, the intensity of social mobility, and
the development of new communication techniques. Modern society
has'undergone many changes since the time it evolved from
traditioral preindustrial modes of living. The imaginary has
felt the consequences of such a tumult and, as never before,
-
-
This valorization of the event and tbe tight relationship
?_
-
'1
of art to it has been felt in cinema (actors and actresses),
J
visual arts (Pop Art and.Op Art 1 , the novel
(
' nouveau roman' )
and, theatre (happening). Daily life, invaded by the dramatic
1
sign, becomes a spectacle. Yet, these signs are expresqidns of
'-d
an action which is an attempt to represent events as
manifestations of partial or
pending liberty. Through cinema,
the most meaningful form of
ression of our times, elements
never reached before are now represented.
This expansion of art into daily life takes another form in.
modern visual arts. Collage is a technique which juxtaposes
reality and fiction in one form of expression. This technique
originated during the nineteen thirties in painting, poetry,
photography, and cinema. The Surrealists are believed to be the
instigators of the juxtapositio~of reality and fiction. The
5
meeting of these-two different entitie's cr&ates a shock which is
as full of creative energy as the meeting of cosmic and social
I
classifications was in primit4ve societies. Here again,
Duvignaud points to the generating power of elements confronting'
each other.
,
11. The Sociology of Art: Hauser's Interpretation
1.
Fundamental Assumptions
~auser'sThe Sociology of Ar.t ( 1 9 8 2 ) ' is a comprehensiye
essay *n the relationship between art and society. He.is
J
concerned with developing a proper sociology~ofart, one that
emphasizes the intricate and paradoxical nature of the subject.
The importance he accords to dialectic which aims at an
exhaustive, holistic comprehens.ion sf things, calls for'such an
a p p r o a ~ h .The
~ theoretical structure of his book is based on
&farxist principles, especially historical materialism, which he
reinterprets according to his own convictions.
There is one.peculiaqity that gives Hauser's essay an
especially original touch: his stress upon the communicational .
aspect of art. In this he is responding' to:the increasing
concern with communication studies that has resulted since the
1950's. He is concerned&ith
the growing influence of new means
.
of-expression (radio, television, film) in art practice which
threaten the existence of more traditional modes (painting,
sculpture, architecture, mu$ic
)
\
.
'For the purpose of our discussion, the English translation of
der Kunst will be refetred to.
Soziologie 'Hauser' believes that most phe-nomena take place in a dialectical
manner: contradictory determinations and attitudes are essential
factor$ to our existence. Thus, in order to fully understand
social exZstence the contradictions need to be unveiled.
h
--
- --
--
- - --
Hauser claims that art is the 'substratum of normative
'aesthetic behavior' (Hauser,1982:4) -as long as it is related to
the totality of our life
It is relevant to our
existebce as a vehicle-of expression and as a medium of empathy
for the whole person. Art must be able to embrace the totality
of life experience and to translate its essent'lal aspects into
aeaningful forms. An authentic aesthetic phenomenon is tied to
human experience as a receptacle, where the creative and the
b
-
- percqiving subjects meet to communicate and participate in the
ordering of existence.
of
Life
- and Totality of Art'
' ~ o t a l i t~ The principle of the totality of life refers to man's
actual relation of sense and being in which all'his
inclinations, tendencies, interests and endeavours take part in
a
.
human actualization. Totality is found in'tvo categories of
human activity: in the complex natupe of everyday life; and in
the homogeneous forms of art. In both cases, the striving for
spontaneity and immediacy is in constant opposition to the
t
growing dev&fopnent of systematization, abstraction and.
\
generalitation found in other human' spheres (social, political
and other). Htunan existence is constituted of facts, questions
a ~ difficulties
d
that need to be mganingfully organized in order
to give meaning to an otherwise chaotic life. Hauser suggests
that the problem-solving aspect of our existence is meant to be
-
--
- -
7-
a better way to understand roality.
ekause ,our survival is
dependent on our ability to solve problems, the accuracy of our
rn
j-udgment of the conditions of existence, and qur evaluation of
the problems posed, is of prime *necessity in order to keep a
~nifiedexistence.
Art and science, a s intrllectuaJ structures share the same
for existence in.coming to terms with reality. The
solution of problerrk takes shape within their concern wi@
rimesis (imitation .of reality). In both cases, reality is
transformed, stylized and idealized. They form an indissoluble
configuration through which they participate in the formation of
reality. Art, as a source of knowleage, completes and continues
the works of science and locates the limits of its competence
and terri-tory. As with science; art derives its elements from
-
life experience. However, the two aistinguish themselves by the
fact that a+rt is specifically concerned with human activity
%
while science is interested in more abstract phenomena.
Art, as an active fBrce struggling to take possession of
the world, always remains realist and activist. I t uses the
instrkment of bagic,' ritual and propaganda, and is by no means
.
I
the product of a purely contemplative attitude. Peace and
harmony may be the product of art but are rarely its source. The
rooting in human existence and the concern to alter life explain
tde realism of art. The common distinction made in art theory
between naturalism and realism and the attendant debate over
--
which one is clnser to reality is here insignificant. *Art
reflects realiky and expresses its totality, which is found in
every part cf the work and not in the sum of its parts. So
-
whatever nodifications or truncations are made to the work of
b
>
art,.it remains total and unified,
\
P
since the Renaissance artistic attitudes have been
\
. explained in terms of their immanence and $tonomy.
The
k+
separation of art from the totality of life was stressed even
more during the romantic period when the principle of the 'flight
from reality was given definitive form. Art became the centre of
and enjoyment bbr those who lack such sensation in
th;ir
life. With the principle' of l'art pour*llart,~art
is
pgshed further from reality. As a sociohistorical phenomenon,
ahii doctrine is the symptom of the prog.rcssive specialization
and atomization of vital tasks.
According to Hatrser, this ~ i n c i p f eis Bisappearing as the
J
resuit of the emergence of sociology. The appearance of
sociology represents a recent stage of development in the ,
history of culture. I t has.the potential to break up the false
autonomy of art that has prevailed since the Renaissance, and to
integrate different intellectual attitudes within-the totality
of life. This integration ia quite different from the one prior
to the separation; neverthe1ess;life
------------------
and culture would be
31t is pointless to distinguish between them because, at best,
It is a question of 8egree. They are both part of a movement
that rejects what is ciassical, formalistic and strictly
stylized, and favours xhat is mor, frceely unified and closer to
r e a l experience.
\
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mepingless if one was to ignore the ro'le played by unity-and
humlan efforts.
totality of
and Convention
Spontaneity considers that a sociology of art which claims to be
a true science, must revolve around the concept of spontaneity.
Hq stresses the importance of the notion 'nathing will come of
L
nothing' and that everything which exists has its roots in
previous existence. Artistic acti'vity, like any other act,
C
cannot be explained by spontaneity itself. Artistic activity is
a dialectical p r o d i sformulated on the basis of two principles:
-
spontaneity and causality.,
-
But where everything is improvised, there is no
'history': this qnly starts when improvisations change
into institutions and sp6ntaneity functions within the
limits of conventions. The first convention is the first
constftution, the first assured possession of mankind,
and the foundation of its future history.
1982:39)
(~auser,
,
The primacy of the concept of spontaneity originates and is
interpreted by e
{
t
resistance of its negative cbunterpart:
convention. The bialectical process of artistic creation based
b
upon these two principle$ reaches its full significance in the
d&ussion
of art as a form of ' language'
. Yet ,. there is nothing
universal about language, it is mostly a 'dialect'.
b
In other words, art is a form of ,omrnunication which, in
order to be understood, needs convention and schematisation. Any
art forms devoid of convention are uncomrnunicable.'~he most
-
-- -
-
--
-
--
C
significant element of convention resides in the far t that the
forms of esprassion themselves shape partly the content of what
is presented. As in thought formation, the dialectical nature of
art dwells not only within the use of conventional form; to
express oneself but within the source of their creation. As
/
Haus4r suggests, 'we only want to express what can be
expressed'.
Social causality is the foundation of the grounding of
artistic activity in human existence. However, the correlation
i,
between social forms and stylistic forms is not based on strict
8
logic, but on a sense of a common denominator. This unity of
outlook does not mean that a uniform spirit of a people or an
age is thinkable, -Rather, Hauser stresses the concept of
correspondence as more appropriate. The connection between
Versailles baroque and French absolutism or the Naturalist novel
and the modern bkurgeoisie a r e examples
of this timultanait-y of
phenomena which is significant and informative. These encounters
b
cannot-be called either necessary or coincidental.
'The meeting between artistic forms and'social forms is not
a necessity, it just happens.that social changes occur that are
fo1,lowedmore or less intensively by artistic changes. The
reverse may be more difficult to assess. Hauser arg
s that
7
"eSerything is%not possible in every sociohistoric 1 situation
f
an43 under all possible social conditions". (Hauser,1982:24) A
social situation is an opportunity for an artistic activity to
happen, not a cecessary reason. Because societies are
4
5
stratified, the appearance of different art .forms and styl$ tic
--
trends varies from one to another according to the specific
4
t
social order; certain seemingly obvious artistic solutions may
be ignored altogether.
and Psychology4
Hauser suggests that men are born social beings before they
+
can be distinguished from on; another. Their individual
*
chara~teristics~rise
out of their relationship with-others.
Their reciprocal relation is not based upon a simple antithesis
I
-
confrontation of an individual with another one. As much as
societywis constituted not only by, but also in the individuals,
I
the latter are conditioned by society from without and are
inhibited by social principles within themselves. A social
collective is, s i w l t a n e e t t s l g , more than the sum of individu81s
and differs from them in a qualititative way. This totality
,
t
gives to its comgonents a new dimension which, in return,
,
-
affects them. Individuals are not necessarily eliminated during
the process; they keep their own integr-ity,yet, are enhanced by
the new amalgamation. No one individual can be entirely the
recipient of the totali-ty, even if social forms3are represented
by specific individuals.
-
The actual relation of sociological and psychological
-tivation is based on total reciprocity, and
essentially consist of the fact that a social
modification of psychologica.1 in'variables on one hand
corresponds to a psychological dif,ferentiation of social
constants on the o t h e r . Such a relationship excludes the
UI
h
u
to
a
0
C,
C
a
m
C
Q,
U
LC
W
aJ
3
-d
- u
0
aJ
l-i
rl
0
U
Q
0
k
c
m
d
.UI
a
m
F:
Q,
0,
m
6
m
C
c:
'a
aJ
C
-ti
C
m
o
k
0
3:
4J
U
.d
"
ca
c:
U
0
+J
..4
rl
L)
iu
-ul
m
0
C
In
rl
3
- 0U
aJ
C
Ln
l
a
a.4
* . aJa
.ti
0
aJ
aJ
r(
a
Sv-4
aJ
3
0
k
d
aJ
o
.ti
J
'
0
k
q
a
C
o
.rl
m
C,
k
k
0
UI
a
.ti
U
.ti
-d
r l o
m
Q , c
k
m
'4
a
m
rl..-I
a
'd
c
a
-4
>
-4
3
$
VI
,
Social rationales are constructions that are
. -
potentialities, not actualities. Historically constituted, they
are constantly in movement and never fixed a priori. They exist
as long-as the individual
within a class position.
formed them assert themselves
usly, all socdial rationales are
formed sociologically rather than psychologically. The.
consciuus/unconsciuus issue is-raised in terms of a-sociological
context. In ideology, the standards that give a context of
,meaning to individuals are not manifest within the individual.
The difference between ideology and class consciousness lies in
the fact that the influence of ideology on individual will and
thought is more obvious, and that'ideology serves as an
,
instrument to class struggle and class consciousness.
In artistic creation, the relation between individual and
society is just as complex. More than in any ,other human
*
activity social and extra-social factors are difficult to
differentiate. The artist, product and producer of society,
expresses- e%btions, feelings and ideas similar to the ones
shared by the' society he lives in:He
acts and speaks on behalf
of others. The individuality of the artist emerges during the
6
accomplishment of the task he has assigned himself to complete;
i.e. to solve and interpret, in his own manner, the histori~al
,
and social conditions of his time. Even though during the course
of history the principle of individuality (individualistic and
anti-individualistic periods have been recognized in culture)
,
has played a more or less' important role in the elaboration of
U
-
*
arti-stic creatian, the work of art, product of an individual, takes its significance against,a specific social background.
The concept of style follows the premises attributed
earlier to class consciousness. Like other social structures, a
style "is neither a single, concrete thing nor a qollective
f-
conc pt; it cannot be\deri,vedfrom characteristics of its
exponents, either by additions or abstractions."
(Hauser,1982:68) Style is a dynamic and dialectical concept that
cannot be defined in terms of a single individual, or a single
period. It is always changing according to th8 historical and
social conditions of the time. The notions 'of ideal type or
universality are inconceivable.'
A
style is the result of individual production in a given
time, but which never materializes in the consciousness of its
creator. The common stylistic characteristics of a period do not
have to be conscioysly manifested in individual.creation in
F
order to be r e a c As much as social totality comes about not
only as the result of the summation of individuals, but as the
.
product of their interaction, the totality of the work of art
,
rises with the differentiation of the details within the work
itself: in dialectical and dynamic relationship of words, notes,
or brush-strokes.
Art and .
Historicity
The historicity of art lies in its novel, unique and
unrepeatable quality. Art is the product of experiments, changel
and modifications; the phenomenon of change is nowhere else.feltA
as intensively as in art!$-becausethe paradoxical nature of art
1
lies in the fact that, as an historical phenomenon,-it is always
transitory. However, art has to renounce this transitory state
in order'to become an object of an immediate, evocative and
microcosmic experience related to the totality of life.
Since every image of the past is oriented toward a
consciousness of the present and we only see as much of
art of the pastras is visible from the present, the
retrogressive force of the actual developmental tendency
is no less powerful than the impulse which drives it
forward. The new arises from the old, but the- old is
always changing in the light of the new and takes on
features which were not visible at any former stage.
(Hauser,1982:76)
-
--
Art is an artificial, cultural product, historically
conditioned: nothing is naturax or organic about art. works of
art cancot escape contingency; their reproduction and their
?.
.*-
t,
renaissance are limited by circumstances. Like societies, they
are always in a state of becoming. Never completed, they take
-'
new meaning during their birth, apparent death and renaissance.
They never disappear totally from human sight. It becomes clear
that the true historical nature of art is not found in the work
of art but in the actual artistic experience, which includes the
production, renaissance and reception of art objects: thus
rejecting the notion of the immutable nature of art. In other
words, art acquires meaning through its practice.
Because~thetotality of art is closely related to the
totality of life, different attitudes or solutions toward the
same object, event or problem are possible. Every subject
discovers and interprets its own reality and cannot he ccontradicted by the representation created by another. There is
no such thinq as a correctlor true representation. Validity in
..
art differs from the one in science because the only valid form
i
'9
is the one discovered b) a single subject. The aesthetic value
of the work is 'found in $he work itself ,' where this value has to
be realized.
In different stylistic periods or generations, the
i
similarities and continuities which seem to illustrate these
epochs are art historical contructions that differ from reality.
In"actuality, if one aspeet might hold together a stylistic
period, it isr a technical one. Otherwise, each artist follows
__I
his own path and inspiration. As much as the production is
chara;terized
by its diversity, a proper receptive.aesthetic
experience must respond to the same diversity. No singular
interpretation is possible. The greater the artist
,
,
is , the more
significant the points of contact,between artistic creation and
%
historical conditions.
-
,
2. ~nteractionbetween art and society
%'
The mutual rela+ienship between art and society is based
upon a mutual dependence. Art and soc'iety exist like two
distinct realities, though not isolated. Their mutual relation
is interactive and' not dialec
. Antagonisms are
each constituent, but not
the two. Their Znteraction
found within
I
rests upon simultaneity and reciprocity. Like body and soul,
I
they are indivisible, yet, they share no cornpun aim or meaning.
They cannot contradict or correspond to each other; they cannot
J
divide or unite. A proper sociology of art should consider the
.4
mutuality and contemporaneity of social and artis c effects,
#
.
because as much as qrt influences society, the reverse influence
.
determines the nature of.the relationship more than the former.
~oveier,there is no doubt that art cannot e3ist "ithout
L
society, but we can imagine a society without arr.
According to Hauser, $9 siitsble sociology of art -has to
-
_ . _-
,--411-4_1-.
take into accbunt the fact that only a method ori_M-.toward-
binteraction and cultural process can adequately study artisgic
>
creation. Artistic creation is the result of the interact'ion of
mutually dependent variables. To reduce the analysis of art to
'one of these variables wouf5 be to ignore that "the result of
rl
.
,
I
every historical development is often.a rnultifariuusJ+.mediated
-4-
_
by-product of forces at work in the process." (Hauser,1982:97)
Hauser emphasizes three variables; natural factors, generat ion
I
__
01
w
m
C
4.J
i%
W
Q,
I-i
'
aJ
U
d
k
fa
C
.A
m
cr
0
k
Q
n
4
.r(
-4
m
u)
0
a
111
-6-4
aJ
X
s l c r
4J
m
aJ
cr
arc
0
U
.d
U)
aJ
a
0
aJ
k
aJ
X
a
Id
C
h
k
0
e,
C,
i
A
ld
C,
J2
.m
W
\
,'
-
-
-
.
- -
=ailed to play. In other words, the concept of generation
becomes relevant when social and cultural elements are attached
to it. . ~ t soc.iological
s
struccure is represented by a system of
=
relationships which remains valid without its members having t'o
account for their' homogeneity (no sense of consciousness).
The cultural proci?ss is formed by generations which are
characterized by change and interac$ion factors biolo~ifally and '
sociologicaly canlitioned. No single historical element can
-
*
account 'for one single generation. The dialectical hature of the
cultural process lies in the cooperation and competition of all
the bearers of culture within an historical .moment. Moreover,
.
I
'
\
"
the rhythm of succession of ,the generations makes the generation
8'
factor a principle of cohtinuity otherwise nonexistent in the
erratic course of history.
The essence of cultural factors resides in their emergence
r~
out of natural (physical and psychic) data and of soc-ial needs:
-
Distinct from the natural elements, the cultural components have
to be fulfilled; thoughtfully constituted, theqkneed to develop+
and to be protected. They form Lhe content of histcry, a
substratum in which consciousness and will are expr-essed as
'
principles of mobility and dynamism. Culturai factors
-
,
"
. . .'.
t
partieipate
-.
with the natural elements in the Formation pf
historical 'process. Yet, in. spite+
4
.
the mutability and freely
.
,a,
J
-
chosen means of solving prakt.;ical problems, it rebains that the
,
,-
cultural factors tranklorm themselves*in fixed, a&oio,mous
and
.G
quasi-logical forms wdicil claim to be &timeless.
.
."
*
d
>
one the less, the
'
-
-
--
- - --
-
----
-
cultural factorslare produced by free, more or less spontaneous
subjectg whose inqellectual mobility is -limited by material
,
d
e
.reality.
e
-
l
Every cultural process is characteriqed by a dialectical
,
Q
-,*
movement where progress and regression are at play. As in the
totality of society, change is the foremost principle where
&
\
continuous and discontinuous factors interact. The tension
a,
between tradition and innovation is mostly Felt. in art because:
a
art in a stricter sense is .'languaget,remains more
strongly attached to its particular form of expression,
and makes more generous use of its collected store of
,gems of cumaunicafion than ether forms of culture.
~ o n s e r v a ~ sand
m conventionalism are essential
characteristics of all 'linguistic' communication and
thus of tradition in art. While the principle of
continuity comes*into play more here than elsewhere
because for the significance of the medium, its
influence-diminishes because in the sphere of art,
continuous progress in the sense of scientific or
technological development is hardly the question.
'l
-(Hauser,1982: 1 4 8 )
"
f
.
I
as an imperative without which
Tradition is
communication and recognktion are ckherwise difficult. Tradition
i t s e l q s not static: it takes a new meaning whenever confronted
or used simul'taneously with an innovation. The idea that a new
form ( b terms of tradition, it is mostly a matter of form
rather than content 1 arises from nowhere is irrelevant. In most
~
cases, the traditional conceptualization of an 'innovation is
%
I jected 'or not
acknowledged. The role of tradition acts upon
the artist in two ways: on the one hand through his artistic
+
,
Ormat
a
i9n
on the other as an innovator, he uses convention in
His ability ko master techniques is
-
,
..A
C;
U
C
U
a
C
a
a
0
+J
-91
:*%Icaa
0,
k
~ a t n.
m .rl
C,
mr
-arc
rl'
3
U
-A
w
r(
.w
3
m
aJ
d
>
0
aJ
UI
J-J
.b+
k
C,
a
aJ
4J
C
0
W
C
C,
0
.rc
.r(
0
U)
a
4
U
r(
.a
0
m
'aJ
ul
'b
-4
cr
4
C
C,
t-l
aJ
UI
m
111
m
m
+J
c
-6-4
C
31
U
a
aJ
C
a
1
JJ
.r(
L:
- 3
m
k
0
C
.0
rl
aJ
c
J-J
U)
C
0
id
C
r(
.C
1
3
0
ul
4
4
U
3
k
C,
.rl
\
C,
4
m
' a
U
C,
aJ
Ul
W
m
3
a,
U
0
In
U
rl
----
-
--
4
family,
and social tradition.
C.
kith the concept of the intelligentsia (prestige, genius
\
and intellectual pr?p&ty
are attached to this concept) Hauser
promotes further the prc liarities of a cultural stratum. He
u;_
\
-
suggests that a sociology p eoccupied only with classes would.
not accept the presence of
to use this concept, Hauser
concept. However, by choosing
certain obstacles in trying to
\
\
define it. The concept revolves arobnd two p~emises:.
intelligence tarid class.
'\
\
*
\
\
r
On one hand, to be an artist does not necessarily mean tha-t
one is an intellectua'l. "The problernat3cal relationship between
the creative intellSigentsia in general and t-he artist in
particular points to a fu~damentallack of clarity in the
concept of intelligentsia."
(~auser,1982: 1 6 9 ) The
.,
intelligenstia is composed of professionals and higher civil
J
servants, and possesses neither the traits of an inst itutionaf
structure, community nor of a family. However, i f the concept is
applied tc artists and writers, it would be necessary to make a
\
distinction between creative and receptive intellectuals. .
On the other hand, its class situation is not determined.
5
There is a common belief that the intelligentsia is 'socially
floating' (class originates from its supposed rootless social
)
,
position). Yet, as much as any social subject, the intellectual
7
belongs to a specific class and has more than one affiliation
with others. The floating'situation of the intelligentsia
reflects the many-sided and complex relations of the
intellectual's dependence on various class interests and
ideologies discussed earlier. Moreover, to assume that the
.
intelligentsia is a ,criticai body, is as much a myth as to
\
suggest its potentiality
as ideology maker.- There is no doubt.
,
I *
that criticism is part of the intelligentsia, yet, it is not a
*
generalized tendency; it is mostly the mouthpiece of ideology.
Propaganda and Idebloqy
Each artistic period distinguishes itself by the different
task it assigns to the artist. In each case, the purpose of art
is to %aise and to evoke
. emotions and simulations that stimulate
the spectator to act (reaction or opposition). This bevocation Is
more than an exchange of feeling and form from a productive
subject to a receptive one, because the production of art is
condit'ioned by the artist's servitude to a particular
organisation more or less governed and extensive
-
'
4
ruler,
@.
.government, party, state, church, etc. Therefore, the artist's
task takes either*the-form of an explicit utterance or one of
In both cases, it is a question of bias; on one hand, in
2
propaganda, the tactic is blatant and direct, on the other, in
.
ideology, the attack is veiled and indirect. Propaganda is
%
characterized by its conscious falsification and intentional
manipulation of truth. Ideology identiyies itself by its
self -deception and its preservative nature, which is commonly
i
perceived as aconcealment of truth. Moreover, the social and
1
political effect of a work is more effective when its goal i$
.
.
.
/
hidden than when it is exposed. -Art of a propagandistic nat re
*
I
distinguishes itself by the separation of its political messaget
,
aid its formal elements, while the political motifs and formal
components are integrated in the work of art produced with an
ideological bias. However, in both cases, their aesthetic value,
artistic validity a&
suitability of the means of production are
never questione&-,
The legitimacy-of tendentiousness in,art is based not
only on the constant involvement of ar,tistic creativity
in practice; it rests upon the fact that art never wants
just to represent but always wants to persuade at the
.same time. It is never entirely expression, but always
addr-ess as well. Rhetoric is one of its essential
elements. The most simple and o3jective enunciation of
art is already evocation, provocation, subjugation and- often violence
In his way there was always only an
activist art and fofm from the end of-the prehistoric.
period to l'art pour l'art, one which was-only
:I
conditioned paoegyrically, apologetically, and
ideologically. (Hauser,1 9 0 2 : 2 1 9 )
,
...
*
-
ff
\
The issue of tendentiousness in art has been discussed many
1
times in sociological~andaesthetic investigations. Yet, Marxism
was the first approach to bla%rate
comprehensively on the
subject. However, the ideo:logical nature of art--wasof ten
overlooked while its propagandistic nature was constantly
referred to. Hauser undertakes to stress the iqportance of the
&
4
concept of'ideology r n artistic activity. He-believes that
t
.
<
ideology is characterized by a sublimated and sophisticated
.
.
-
esseme, but at the same time, by a veiled propagandistic
feature. He rejects t h e notion of a lie which has been tied to
. a
-
ideology since the emergence of historical materialism
-
-
--
-
-
the
liar does not think falsely, he only tries to deceive others.
Here again, Hauser makes himself conspicuously different from
traditional Marxism, which emphasLzes the concept of 'false
The Marxist
based upon
pretation of the concept of ideology is
forces and leaves no place for
psychological motives. The concept of ideology derives its
essen.ce from the conditions of social existence. The individual
represents,the society in which he is rooted whether he accegts
or rejects it. One does not have to belong to a class in order
to represent its ideology. The individual is the subject of
ideology and does not participate in its conceptualisation. In
L
spite of the social bias of historical materialism, the
existence of an empirical psychologicaL subject is recognized.
The individual participates in the creation of historical
~
process. Yet, he does it blindly. The subject knows nothing of
\the goal of his act because of the existence of a social
distortion ('false consciousness' principle). 2
b
In Marxist thought, man is first and foremost a social
I
being. Ideology is defined in terms of class stratification and
determination. The individual is not free but always tied to his
socioeconomic'position. "In Hegel's terminology4%
e could here
speak of a 'cunning'
------------------
of.class reason, which asserts itself over
'The Marxist dictum, "they don't know. that, but they do it"
could be th motto of the whole doctrine of ideology.
'Hauser,, 9 8 3 2 31 1
77
I
the heads of its representatives." (Hauser,1982:231) The concept
'
of class is based upon itself and &evelops according to its own
.
>
logic and laws; the subjects cannpt act upon it. In addition, in
certain interpretations of the Marxist doctrine, ideology and
class consciousness are reduced to one principle: the emphasis
on social order over the individual one.
Hausee makes two essential observations while discussing
ideology: on one hand the limits of knowing the influence of
ideology upon us; on the other hand, the application of the
*
principle 03 ideology. to its own assumptions. He notes: "all
*thought is ideological even if *ideological thinking is
uncondttionally erroneous, and correct thinking does not merely
mean freedom 'from ideology." (Hauser, 1 9 8 2 : 2 2 3 ) In the first
instance, the critique of-ideology must recognize the
*
\
I
one-sidedness and the bias'of thought withopt being able to
c
eliminate i
.
%
he issue at stake is to finb'out the depth o f Y h e
1
affection; how rooted is the ideology in our lives. Any
correction-or modification iSaas much a% ideological
construction as ideology itself. In the second instance, the
.
critics of ideology have to recognize that they'think
ideologically themselves.
A
proper criti,c,has to be conscious of
1
the limitation of his discourse. ' A mode of thought is
ideological because it is confined to a particular view'.
(Hauser,1982:225) Thus, ideology is far from being a rigid
formula, it modified itself according to various conditions.
'
-
In Hauser's d e f i n i k i ~of ideology the connection between
the social and individual'nature
1
of'man is based upon the
----
dialectic of his existence; neither the sociological f a c t o q r
/
the psychological elements dominate. Man finds himself in a
constant tension between the two; on one hand, he creates
ideology, on the other, he is' affected by ideologies; thus,
.actual people are making ideologies on the basis of prior
I
<' *
conditions. He stresses that subjects cannot create ideologies3
the way they would like them to be because they would turn to be,
mere speculative constructions or inventibns. Furtherqore, he
asserts that ideology is actualized in every subject as opposed
to class consciousness,'which does not exist in every
individual
.,
. .
Hauser takes a step further-fr*om historical materialism
when he 'asserts that not only economic motives but, class
situation itself determines ideology. To stress the material
.
-
basis of artistic creation and scientific theories is to forget
P
they are representations and interpretations of a sphere
3
.
eyond the economic one. However negative it may sound, the
\concept of ideology in Hauser's The ~ocibloqyof Art is not
totally a negative principle because it is onlmossible to
4
understand the relation between art a)d society within the
limits of ideology.
;d
I
ish for f r e f k x n row ideology is only a variant of
losophical idea of redemption which is supposed
to o m to man access to a world of absolute and eternal
values, a w ~ r l dthat is beyond history, is beyond the
super-art history - the relationship of the
interpretation of historical phenomena with the practice
.
+
'I
-
\
o f W u a l aspirations a
'
-
- - --- ---
- -
-
that there is no access to such
a world for us, that ideology is not only error,
disguise, and deception bvt at the same time a
challenge, a desire, and a will, a view of the past as a
reflex of the present with a view toward the future.
Gauser ,1982: 2,421
--
The sociology of art is confronted with a delicate task
when it studies the relationship betwee* forms ,of kc/ety and
art styles because a reduction of one component to the other
L
,. would be a rather simplistic solution and false interpretation.,
>
The conjunction of a style and a form of society emerging at a
given moment is only possible because of the existence of
precise factors (social and stylistic) which give momentum to
'
Y
the meeting.
Hauser assumes that art is produced within a specific
ideological and social.moment, and that art interpretation is
jxst as much conditioned by the same factors. The issue of
relativism is raised, here, in relation to art interpretation.
\.
Is there any correct or false interpretation of art? As Hauser
f
has suggested earlier, the idea of truth- n art cannot be
(or any other interpretation)
retained. Therefore,
1
is pragmatically and
I
empirically,
past from our present point of view. The reoccurrence of styles
or appraisal of pastsworks of art are in tune with contemporary
b
Social Effect of Art
Hauser stresses that only art that aims at a social order
can be considered in terms of its social effects. The part that
art plays in ,the formation of society might not be as apparent
luence of society 'upon art: yet, as minimal as it can
as the in•’
be, it is always perceptible. Its social effectiveness may take
varioug directions, according to the historical con6itions of a
specific+society. However, no matter how art reveals its social
effect, either positively or negatively, critically or
1
/
apologetically, it remains that art not only reflects reality
but criticizes the society, thus forming it. '
The function of art is not only con~ernedwith opening the
9
9
eyes of individuals., it 'has to .help to prevent=the closing of
the eyes when they are 'confronted with difficult tasks. ~ r tis
'
normative and exemplary for society in its validatiop ofhumanistic ideals and norms% and in its consolidation of new
*
social behaviouts (attitudes, habits, morals) by making them
acceptable, Two roles are attributed to art; on'one hand, a,
,
J
revolutionary force in time of changes, onQt%he
- -.-other, a
stabilizing e f f e k that establishes harmony between
t
,
I
%.*
heterogeneous~socialelements. It would beefalse to assume that
only great works of art can influence society* the contrary
z7
*
seems to be'the rule. Moreover, it would be wrong to think of
the beneficial role of the artist only in time of peace.
L
'
0
object always reaches beyond its aesthetic dimension. It is
4
concerned with questions and answers rooted .in social existence.
Thus, art reflects.reality but takes its distance from it in
order to act upon it. An art object does not necessarily seek to
be an homogeneous entity if it is the product or the producer of
reality: homogeneity of form being part of th-e theory of l'art
pour l'art. In zdditian, Hauser rejects the principle of,
autonomy of art as prescribed by fhisdoctrine, qnd emphasizes
I
the practical, moral and qocial functions of art.
The aim of artistic effort is apparently the total
immediacy of content aj>d fdrm, the absolute merging of
the'thoughts and feelings to be communicated in the
medium of communicatio~. Nevertheless it remains a mark'
of what is crtistic that form is not content and content
is not form. The merging of the one principle with the
other is 'nothing more than a figurative, metaphorical
expression for their mutual accommodation.
(Hauser,1982:320)
Hauser stresses the dialecii-calprocess (dialectic
aesthetic
that unites form and content: their'indivisidle
1
nature
-
no w;,rk of art can be pure form or cantent
-
and t,he
tension between them - a change in one means a change in the
other. However, in spite of their correlation they remain
separated entities. Their dialectical relationship is based on a
f
paradox that empfiasizes this mutuality, but at the same time
stresses the importance of a formal element. A work of art, in
or$er to be communicative presupposes a formal effectiveness. I t
is not a one-sided formafist perspective but it is suggested
that all forms are not present at all times and thgt only
certain forms are suitable in precise social and aesthetic
-
conditions. ~urthermore,the primacy of content.'over form does
-
-
--
only one,form can express adequately such a content.
'u
'$The answers to the problems of life which transcend art
- questions abcut the meaning, value, and aim of human
existence - and the @th to their solution Are not' only
inseparable from the formal c,riteria.of artistic
achievemnent they are often presupp6sed by the form
itself. (Hauser,1982:323)
\
Therefore, every work oi arf refutes the principle of l'art
'
pour l'art because of its double 'order' : an aesthetic value apd
3
a moral achievement. Every,work of art is a humanistic'me'ssage
C
a utopia, an ideal of life. However, the artist
practical effects of his art and he may
not
consciously
9 at one, Not only aesthetic motives lie
'
7
v
artistic creation, but reasons beyond the sphere of art
-
are potential impulses
to create works of art. It might.be more
*
difficult to decipher the more or less explicit message lying
-
outside of the aesthetic mdtiveq of certain fine arts (music,
dance or painting) than it is to understand the clear sense,of
the discourse of literature (explicit form of utterance);
9
nevertheless, every work of art refutes the prkqiple of l'art
Dour l'art.
The common ground on'which the meeting between the producer
of art and his receptive public occurs is larger:.than the one of
a particul'Ar class, ideolbgy or political party. ~ u s tas the
artist's link to a specific, class is never established, how is
J t h e receptive p u b l i c attached to a particular position; unless
2.
:he
a r r i s t zh0se5 ts serv&ea * s p c i f i c situation. However, i t
is
to assessqthe universality trf art
.--
-
.
3. Historical MaterialiAsm
-
Hauser discusses the relevan=
of Historidkl, materialism as
*
t h s theorkt i
f ramewcrk &r
a
-
f o >ha
~
sociology 'of
.
I
'
+
b
'
art. As a:non-orthodox Mafx-ist theorist he develops'his
interpretation
of historical materialism
in order- to explain
the
- .- -- -- - - - - --
situation 'bf cultural production (superstructure) within
society. Rejecting thc one-sided economic determinism,
--- --
-
.
I
.
1
characteristic of an orthodox interpretation of historical
.
'materialjsrn, ~aussr-dndertakesto stress the dialectical.
S-
-* ,-
A
correlatibn between infraztL ucture and superstructure:
The thesis'not only that it is the in'frastructure which
determines the,superstructure, but also that this takes
part in the form~tion.ofthe infrastructure, is thus not
to be viewed in t,ne light that a completed
superstructure sffects a completed infrastructure by way
of & i f ieatio~- a n & e ~ e ~ f i cNt
t ~ rather t h a t both
develop and change hand in hand. Ideal forms change
while the economic form changes, and this, too, changes
to some extent according to the change in spiritual
str.uctures.
(Hauser,1982: 191 1
According to Hauser, the only way to explain the
-
-
superstructure/infrastructure relationship is from a dialectical.
\
viewpoint; otherwise the two factors are either 'seen as two
*-
independent variables, or the primacy o•’the infrastructure over
l9
A
the s~~erstructuie*
is assumed. He emphasKzes the materiality
..
of
/
4
the superstructure and the spirituality of. the infrastructure,
a n d ' c a s s u m e ~ that the notion of pure essence i n both cases is
. impossible. The dialectic is subjecz to c y n g e in harmony with
.
C,
'L,
L,
aJ
.c
0
c
d,
U 1 0
Q)
E
u
0
r
l
0
0
3
C,
@
l
C
id.
d
C
3 r w
,
c
4
*
.
J
l
4
c
r
l
Q
4
U
u
aJ
L
u
C
a
n
aJ
n
O
ln
0,
G
0
-
3
3
,
4 o J - J
C
L
,
,
J
C
i
4
a
R
d
( d
4
.r(
4
h
0-+p
C
4
o
V)
'
4
.
-4
cn
(D
CS
s
V
I
.+I
-4
Q
.c4
;
Q)
LA
c
k
ul
a
Q,
.c
U
.
W
W
0 ' 3
-
U
U
3
a
k
a
,c
U
0-
31
L:
0
a
C
0
'44
'
~
m
t-
t
P
s,
J
*
*
s
of 'social existence into-art 1'S E V
GTi5ii€$n~th~~-'
. .-
tran;fbrmation
th*: two phenomena difter in essence~,and rbat the la-tter is not
;cus~omaryreplica
.
.Jr,
of the former, the issue of the sociological
. A
significance of art within an art historical and sociohistorical.
,
* .
'
process has to be-examined. .
;
-
4
4
- ,
In Hduser's opinion, the a@arition
-
of idea2 fbrms is not'
-
4"
* \ -
,
4
an3y based upon the socioeconomic Structure, but on thei; own
--
-
-
--
-
-
---
-
;2 -
e kistory of arf does not only represent the
,
%
of artistic production, but has to &ccount
.
*
*
=
that is characterized by its 'history
I ,
of f o r m ' , individual spontaneity
and social convention.
*
F
Of course it is conceded thqi material circumstanc~scan
hinder the assertion of certain ideal forms, but by n~
means'that they are in a position to bring about the
genesis oaf.such forms or to ,determine.their pafticular
nature and the change of their structure.
!Hauser,1982:204)
d
'
6
/
+
*
\
,
Throughout his disc siion
of historical materialism, He'lser
'
.ccnst&ntfY reminds of us
----
.
a
-
-
-
=
m
z
7
t
-
*--=
1
approach i,n respect to,the relationship between art and society.
Again, historical materialism fails to explain properly the
,
reccurrence or appeal of past phenomena such as Greek art.
Opposed to historicity and time,lessness which suggest the
imperishable charm of 'the childhood.of man', Hauser rejects
su'ch a naive interpretation and stresses that works of art do
nok absolutely lose their artisticsvalue after theIr time of
-~ r 3 d ~ k t i o 1is
- 1 passed, and moreover, they cannot be appreciated
and rediscovered by e v r y p e r j o d . They may reappear undzr
'
certain circumitances on one hand, when the s o c ~ o e c o ~ ~ o m i ~ .
1
.
-
as the
when traditions of certain iechnic
re-evaluation of aekthet i c itan
research*or education.
- Hauser-raises a
+
nd Lartistic methods or
s aie csrried by historical
..
.
,.
:-*
.
#
,
G
T
.
position which teaches that all.art is his
c&lly+ conditioned,
*
.Histof.ica1
Z.
last failur2 of the historicai mattridlist
d
3
'
r
matiirialism.is a genetic theory that ;an
expose7the
genesis of any+social structure but 'wben it comes .time to
-
.
-- --
-
discuqs values, it makes nothing out'of them. Hauser .claims that
.
I
artistic values do not have any sociological equivalent. He
&
0
stresses the incommensurability of social and artistic values.
J
However, the independence of these values, one from another,
does not mbqn that artistic attitudes are free froh social links
--
but that in no instance can an artistic value be qualifi&
terms of political causes.
-
-
.9
-
in
,
--
---
-- -
-
-p
p
--
-
.
I
4
the resistance between obposi~eforccs. However, the--mf-f-few-*
*
,
&
---
I
contradictions existing side by side as part of the same
r
' %
*
phenom&$on is the main stimulus of existence: Therefore, the %
7
4-
%
stnctur% of existence based-on a dialectical correlation talcG$\ "
the form of
release
-
dialogue
- question.and answelc,- tension and
,
t
between.the c&f&icting
$
\.
-
@
.s
transformation-of role and meaping of the conflicting foices and
-
3
-
P'
For ~ause?, dialectic is a twafold doctrine;. the first step
*
-
6
.
-
is a negation and the iecond step, ~ u f , h i b u n(negation
~
,
negation) without which t h e &st
OF
.
stage would rema.in mere
negation. As much as history and thought need the.negation in
. *a
order to be set in.m o t i o p t h e concept of Aufhebunq is the most\
fruitful and creative moment of the dialectical process. On oneq
hand, 9 s a decisive final act of the dialecticgl operati&,
it
contains the 'substance of the logical or historicai process". On
- *
1
the otherohand, it meansothe substitution of a thing to a higher
ievel. &reover,
the ~ u f d e b u nof
~ a condition conveys the idea
tkat elements 'of a previous 'stage remain alive in the new phase
cre3ted while other elements dissolve-and fade.- constancy in
C
change. The inherence of thespast in the present is a vital
aspect of the historical w
would appear discontinuous.
s
'
s without whiih its devilo@nent
\
The sensetof Attfhebun2 bf an ' ~ l dideas into a topidal
. one, from the'actualization which an effete form
undergoes as a r d u l t of the forces overtaking.it, in
short, from the functioning o c ~ n d l ~ o n ~ w h iresulted
ch
from their'earlier function. % & - & s e r v e d "idea"
differs.from t h & "old one" by hiding the gap between ,
-
@
*
,
components ht playa:
s
principles inste~ddf their destruct ion.
-*
'G:
,+++.>
c
/
I
-
historical phcnomeea, continuW with tQ4 dissblutipn of
one form by the other; and finally leads .t(o their
7
- mergitng rafiher in t-he sense df Marx's words that m&,
- while 'affecting nature outside himself and changing it,
1
changes his own nature at, the same ,timel:&auser,
,
-1 982: 3 6 4 )
'
Tkadition take;' its' full m e a n i k through the concept of.
-3
'
' Aufhebung'
k
1
. ~hr&tened
with extinct'ion, traditions
-
the bdnd
*-
#
between past, present and
future
8
,
*
- have to defend themselves..
r
against discontinuities, which arise with the introduction df
'
P
e.
new elements. The conflict between tradition and the new forces -
\
give the historical'processs its movement. The historicity of a
I
phenomena is understpod -through this concept whereby elemdrit s,
.
during their'dissolution, have- an ongoing effect within the new
-
a
stage.4Their actuality remains as long as they are alive; .
L
a • ’terward it
i w u r relationship to them that changes. However,
,
the'quintessence of dialeciic is that Aufhebbnq fuhctions
,
, .
T
,
without any one,acknovledging it or wan&g
A
it - - i n the Mariist
-
---
sense, "no one knows,what e v e c y o W is &?ing".
Discarding &-gel's notion of totality, which consists of
1
A
its pursuit and realization through the 'absolute spi i t 1 ,
-I.
S a u s e r presents totality as being more than the '%hXr-df ?ts
Qrtr
,
,
The totality informs every part with a new meaning,
something previously non-existent in any of the parts. An
euthentk wor-
art illustrates, more, than
ph'_losophy,,the
-
totality because the juncture between the parkicular and the
general eliminates the apparent conflict between them while
I
maintaining it. ~hilosbphyantagonizes the totality and
. , the
-
'
-
particularity.
However, the seeking of the toteiity shorrkcFnbt--;:
endanger the significance of the particular. - ~ h pea r t & h
- e 'Lr
end
L
. the general assume each other. In order to understand 'the\vholc,
P
\L
the place of the particvlar has t~ be determined.,While
-
C-
investigat-ing the totality of a phenome on, the concepts of
anaiysis and synthesis arg relevant beciuse they help to
t.
\
understand the notion of the particular and the general which
iill thange through the various interpretation^^&,^
Lf'
...the
J
fact that 'the un-ified organizetion of the
material at one's disposal and the formation of a total
8
notion cannot be postponed until relevant facts have
been investigated, collected,and'ordered, primarily
o n ordering never ends, but a l s o
because t h e ~ o f ~ ~ c t Iand
(and mainly) becal~sewe cannot start the analysis of a
bodykof fact before there is a system of relationship
and the assumptio,~of a synthesis. However, the
anticipated systen demands continuous modification and
revision to the extant that the previously unknown facts
become visible ana capable of investigation.
(Hauser,1982:368)
-
t -we
In other w
know and what
-
1
C
&.
.
there is a tension that exists between what
w e waM
to know, which is the mtor sf every
f
perception. As f ~ rexample, in art, the process of cognition is
constituted by- the basic knowledge that the artist has a
definite goal in order to arrive
ho% many detours he'may take to
its'compl-eteness,no matter
-
Limits
of the Dialectic
.
(r
e
*The releyance of dialectic rests upon its..essence as a
*
pragmatic and theoretic'gl process. As a methodological'tool
(Hegel!,
4
the validity of dia1ectic.i~undoubted, yet it is one
d
\
suitable mode of analysis among others to find the-truth. With
.-
,
'
thi h61p of its investigatibn, reality6can be explained, y e t it
,
'
1
'
. '.
overlooks the content of truth, or the>political or moral values
of the conc~usions. As a mere'formula', it cannot comprehend the
totality of reatity; only through its relation to history is it
t
realized as 'an actual process, Furthermore, dialectic, as a
speculative instrument
+
cannot be applied automatically upon a
/ t suitability
phenomenon; ~
s
depends on the presence of
;
'
The application of the dialectical apparatus is
conditioned by the real processes, but whether a
can be 'hought of dialecfically depends on th
of the corresponding conceptual apparatus.
f~akkse~,
F9&2:3?F)
The thought of a dialectic of nature is inconceivable and
fictitious because nature is not a conflict-laden structure.
' ~oiarities (posshssion of two contrasted principles/tendencies)
/
----/
are present, but they are far from being antagonistic forces
2 3 3 ,
p2
( e . 9 . tradition and innovation). On the other hand, a dialectic
*
of2?history,*whereall occurrences &e
L
pregnant with antagonistic
forces, is possible. However, history is not always driven by
dialectical principles; antimonies and antagonisms may be the
most common events, yet they are not nkessarily the most
I
.
I
-
I
0
0
C
0
.C(
.JJ
v 1 0
a J C
h
n
I
I
h
O
l
u
r
>~
JJ
-
I
a
U
u
aJ
m
aJ
2)
J
C
m c
h
X
u,
b
J
C
"
C
k X
0
icr
aJ
M
L a
,U)
s
m
s 2 2
2
-
S
m
u
k
aJ
m
3
u
V
3
=
,
-
aJ
aJ
w
~
-4
3
4J
C
a
0
Q.4
cl
..4
3
1
*C
+
o
.+i
-4
3U
m
'3
~
-4
aJ
.,4
u
'Q)
a
h
ac
aJ
cr
3 '
m
m
c
.r(
+J
0
c
a
CI
aJ
"
0
UI
u
a,. 0
s
k
a*aJ
c
a
L
,a
4
UI"
c
0
QI
m
m
a
n
w
I
C,
C.
4
QJ
Q)
3.
l
-
h
aJ
l
o
2 4
rl
J
U
U
01
J-J
-4
k
3
*j
a
C
C
u
0
u
S
i
2,
RI
U
c*
.a
u
aJ
0
W
a
ri
h a a
.
0\
o
m
4>
U
0
u
r
L
a-
a
U
-ri
C
w
+ . @ a
G
-4
C,
UI
UJ
.
h
k
I
o
C,
r
.rl
C
a
.t4
.4J
l
O Q L U I
cr)
C
d
c
a
x
*
m
ul
C,
.U
.@
cEl
c
..
3
% - A 2
&.
r
D
I
(n'
:
aJ
' U a a
/
J
UI
a
.
,
J-J
.c
,
c
, c . c c = l - t J J
.,4
.C(
.
~
I
I
c
u J c , c n m
V I c n C , m
L - 4 c w a
P
r
o
P
M
*
*
C
U;
0
O
.+-I
r
hi+
0
4J
U
m
'
iu
.
J
I
' - ' D C O - r l
~
JJ
.C
O
"$:" ' ? ; 5 : 2
aJ
k
04'
.
a
U
'. Q)
C
aJ
a
aJ
Li
a
L
c
d)
J-J
..-I
-
p
p
p
-
and reduce them to a common denominator: the differentiation
being part of the realization of 'consciousness',
Z
J
With Man, the ontological nature of dialectic was revealed
=.
4
through his not ion that every dialectic is 'Realdialektib' and
9
everything real is dialectic. He believed that dialectic-was.
meant to carry out % process or to engage in direct activities.
>
/
The foundati.on of dialectic in the concrete existence of h k a n
3
,
beings is the basis of the meeting between the ontolog;cak and
,-i
methodological aspect zf dialectic. Hauser assumes that both
factors are decisivei
Dialectic, as an intersjstematic process of thought and
history which integrates tke most diverse, even
antithetical; factors and aspectsbof reality; proves
that substratum of the rational activities also changes
with thoughts, desires and actions and that history
becomes what people-make of it. It is always a question
of an act 03 thought and not a mere method of thinking.
(Hauser, 1982:373)
-
. In Hauser's idea of dialectic, there
' .
ik
/'
-
--
no doubt whatsoever
that i t contributes to circu~isctibeany phenomenon. However,
--
what is problematical is its pretention fo universality; its
,
>
value is
application to the whole of reality. ~ts~methodolo~ical
questionable because of the impossibility of percei"ing and.
dra wing a complete image of the world: what is really expressed
the will to .grasp this totality. Its ontological counterpart
which-,a,sserts
.the precedence of totality pver partial elements
might be properly justified 'because "the fact that the.
,
'individual moments of all human attitudes point beyond
L
themselves and are directed toward'accomplish~ent;whether or
:
not this can be achieved". (Hauser,1982:4N)
'
x
0
C,
C,
0
W
4
rg
PI
m
u5
'u
.+-I
0)
r-i
.d
U
m
C
J-,
4
0
d
ac
fi
m
U)
0
u
m
&
P
C
aJ
a
$2
r i
'4
-
.rc
rd
r-i
-I4
aJ
k
i
4
a
ri
C,
.U
.C r
al
6
'4
aJ
.PI
0
m
d
a
r-i
.d
Cd
#.aJ
.rl.dm
-C
ua
u u .
0 h'w:
c c
((I
.
aJ
.d
uk
C,
.d
k
-d
C
JE
O
a
X
C
U)
m
aJ
0
U
Q,
(r
C
aJ
m
d
U
3
" C,
C
.r
8
$ 3
U
C
m
c,
-
aJ
i-i
r-i
m
w
c,
.Cd
k
aJ
c,
0
C
.b
r
* - .
of l~onffictingforces and Aufhebunq
-
remain 6isctrnible a&
-
influence each other. In other words, a true work of art keeps
-
,-
traces of its origin.
,
At 'fifst, the genesis -of art reveals itself as an'objective
form wherein its dialectical nature is established through the
mutua 1 relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. I t is
'
0
'
true that t.he kind of objectivity associated with art d i f f e ~/'
L
from the ond claimeb by science. Nevertheless, in order t o he
effective and relevant, an art object cannot be reduced entirely
---<
to its subjective movefit or, i~ the same manner, to its
objective one. A proper ref lectim of reality is 'induced by the
I
tension between the two in3tances.
-+
Subjective- inwardness and objective expression, depth of
feeling and wordly brea'dth, spiritual immediacy and
formal commun?cation nat bnly are indivisible in art but
also achieve ,their mutual limitations. fWauser,l982:391)
Furthe
-f
the antagonistic forces at play in the subject
"
,
itsef f n e e d
acce~tttate&~OF
onc'hand,
f
the
art ~ b 3 c c tis'
.-
expression of the will to be in the world acceptancewf the rules of the game, an affirmation of existence
an5 agreement o v e r enduring human conditions; on the other hand,
it constitutes a critique and rejection of it. At the same time,
it is-both a representarion of the world as given to us, and a
flight from reality. V t is dialectical because of its capacity
to reveal the facts and r o transcend them at the same time.
'
In the strict s e n s e it becomes dialectic not even as a
r e s u l t of this eppsition 'but through the fact t h a t , for
a l l its steadfastness t o the factual; it h a s something
in view which tra~scendsthe factual, sanething new
which h a s never existec befcre, completely
--
incommensurable, that on-the other hand even its
imaginary castles in the air are built from the bricks
of reality. The %ialectic of its b i n g goes so far thSt
its castles in the air have such a fantasbic effect
because they arc built of such materials, and their
realism amazes us only because conscious self2decegt!m
d a y s such a decisive role in the process,"
'
The relationship between the art object~and It.s.creator
another
-
of dialectic. Warx has suggested that product ion
creates an-object for the subject while at the same time
:onsti&8ting
L- this inverted
a subJect for the object. In ar
4&lotionship
-
is .illustrated by the concept -that notd only the art
o 6 j e c t is a crgation of a producer, but the product fashions its
creator as well. In other words, the creator is by no means a
complete person at the start of a project but rather develops
gradually through the Srocess
creation.
Hegel's idea of a work of art is Another prototype of the
paradoxical nature of art. On one hand, the art object-is the
#
-
result of individual and social impulses; on-the other the
creator's ownership over his proiluct is limited. In this last
instance the property of the object is questioned because, in
L
most cases, the producer has no idea of how the work acquires
the form it bears, and answers to social and artistic questions
posed are not necessarily found.
I
In artistic creation, the mutual correlation between the
individual moments
-
she needs,and their satisfaction, the w'ill
ts,expression and the :leans of expression, the contents of
,
representation an2 t h e . f o r m s of depiction - is so tight that it
the
.
dialecticuof *siyle is only conceivable
j n terms of something in
a ' s t a t e of 'becoming"
I
-
-
-
-
-
emphas5s on the not iofi of continuousr
acquires its meaning an'd
- relevance through its
encounter with o t h e r moments end tendencies: particularly
movement.
A style
4
through a productive and lively present (principle of
~ u f h e b u n ~ fIn
. addition, a style is the result of the
rC-
dialpctical relationship between a new formal principle and a
new
.
technical achievement. ~n no instance is ,it possible to
a s s e r t the e-stablishment .of.one over t h e other because of the
reciprocity betweeq artistic forms and technical means, or to
?redict' t 5 e next step of
style. This contingent n a t u r e
reinforced by t h e f a c t that a style never develops in a straight
P
of collectivity esrerqes thraugh the-
A s e nI & of c-unity,
' process of ,proiuction and reception o
4
1
a work of art. The
F
I
creative activity is a s much based upon individual feelings and
will to expression as it is influenced by social factors, the
b
r•‹
receptive su~jectsexperience the works of art from their
*
individual and social position. Not-only the artist and its
creation inform and alter each other through their* f~rmation,
'
but the audience transform itself
hruugh +he experience of a..
4
~ o r k .The public of a concert is not the same before and after
Y.
the performance.
However, in spite of the apparent tight correlation between
f
the producer and its public, in no instance does A an homogeneous
audience exist. This is the case in high art, and popular or
populist art. The artist may have in mind a particular class:
yet, the chances that this may happen are quite low because the
so-called audieke for a r t is a' mixed grqup and the boundaries
*
'between
i
L
public is, the experience of art
+
1
individua: classes are fluid. No matter how large the
-
prbcess, even when similar,ities
an individualistic
are found in social
The social nature of art rises from the notion that -to be
non.
comunication, a common formal language is sine qua -
Language here means simply an instrument of
cdmmunication, not only of'logically discursive process
of thought, but also hpontaneously discovered
irrational signs and symbols, even if these are based
upan practice and are tacitly agreed upon, (Hauser,
!982:518)
The estabiisnment of art as a language is not only tied-to its
-
aJt
0
.
.
I
m
LC
>.
, C
-
a
0
.*
cn
ql
u
4 ,
b-i
VI
'a
a
a r c
m
3
. 4 r r ( o m
cr
C
'CJ
G I aJ
4
k
J
rl
a
&
cr
L,
4J
m
3
-d
b-i
b-i
k
i-i
b-i
R
+r
k
3
-4
u
u
*G
- d U L c O
-
C
a
E'
.dS
d
In
(Il
L*
C
3
r
b
- 4 c r a J
u
k
QI
arc
0
Z
u
-o a 3 a J
u
cr
a
aJ
'0
a
0
m
0
k
0 ,a
aJ
4J
+c
k
0'
-
W
k
C,
a
d
.C
m
U
a
JZ
a,
k
LC
aJ
3
0
aJ
k
0
x
aJ
Cn
m
3
0
C
a
l-4
a
aJ
C,
i-i
a
6,
m
i-i
C
m
cd
k
C,
.A
3
U
a
0
aJ
a
3
.-I
C,
s
4
* 0
W
aJ
10
C,
0 "
I-i
0
a
ti
Q,
C
L
4
. 3
0
U
k
aJ
11
>
C
+rl
a
aJ
0
9,
k
c,
C
0,
w
0
3.I
C,
*rl
UJ
UI
aJ
W
a
aJ
U
aJ
C
w
i-i
<>
a
4J.A
%C,moaJ(.j
E-c
L,.rl-rlcsrl
aJ aJ
rt3 3 L ( L :
.daJOU
C m
3ln
v&+"+'.!:
a,
. ~ ~ m s a a c
o m w
O U O
m
mmE.rl..I
- 0 C
4JcaCPw
(d-rl3m
K k
k o a . r l o ~ a ~
aoa,
v n ] a J w 3 u x
. d U k O O
aJ
k O
C . d a
G O
:Id PI
O C
ti0orc-c
h 7 C aJ
0
k
a
2
ti.4 UJ h m m
tiOU3-c-4 k C
a J U c d U I U 3 a
aJ
am
-
m.G.:a
JJC
w a
ti wr-4
. r l ~ c
LC C . 4 UJ
a0 vl aJ
U Crl
o
aJ
-m3.(?c k
o a
o
a OJ
W k E k
f3al-l
emuti
Cd 0 0
In
C,
rl
.
1
m
UJ
7
cr'
t'
C,
1
aJ
C
0'
aJ
Ln
3
ln
a
0
2
U)
a
C
'u
b . 1.
m
C,
x
9.J
L4
C
a
a
*
.d
m .
m
l4
C
0
.c
a,
a
a,
>
u
0
k
a
llJ
>
k
0
3
cm
-'-i
C,
a,
k
a
3.(
k
0
ul
1
rl
aJ
k
C,
C
aJ
.A
m
aJ
a
rl
.ri
C,
3
rl
Ei
0
k
W
. 13aJ
2-4
2
C
rl
-0
m
C,
aJ
JJ
k
k
a
C,
cr
C
aJ
7
..-I
ul
c,
H
.
Q,
a
31
2
a
.r(
m
C,
5
aJ
Q)
C
a
k
a
U
0
-rl
C
0
C'
lu
a
k
aJ
U
a
Q,
C,
.rl
C
0
rl
.r?
0
C
ri
3r
'
C,
aJ
C
A
4J
.d0
lu
k
m
r-i
aJ
a
k
(D
r-i
aJ
k
U
0
&
----
/'
second case, while the recipient may still feel alienated fr-
-
the work, the art specialists may increase his Envolvement in
I
the completion of the work. Only* in rare cases, can a w o r k e
received without mediation. In most instances only a con
ksseur
A
r
. *
can appreciate art without further intervention. In popular
/
the relatiqnkbetween produition and reception is more imrnediat
because in most cases the artist and his public belong to the
same social
stratum. .I
=
In addition, Hauser promotes further the contingency of the
mediation by assuming that not only is interpretation a
necessitp, but no reception - and as a matter of fact no
production
-
can take place without an appropriate institution.
i
He emphasizes that the coutts, salons, art trades, academies and
schools, museums and art galleries, theaters, concert halls,
artists' associations, prove once more that the receptive and
productive experience 'of art is a social process.
A<
the same
time, it demystifies the notion that we may have about the
C
\
relatively simplistic nature of communication processes. An
unmediated exchange between a speaker and a listenk is
impossible because there is always sorething between them, i f
/
ndthing other than the language itself
6
.
'Hauser claims that a pbblic is not constituted but
I
/
'becomes' one under certain circumst~nces.He stresses both that
works of art are intended not only for connoisseurs, and that
one does not have tc be a specialist in order to reconstruct and
/
complete the creative process, or to ha&
a normative
*
relationship to art. Art becomes a nee*, a task-.
Art is, however, not first and foremost f o artists
~
but
for laymen, for people who at first have nothing to do
have a great
with it even if they
be within reach if people
deal to-do with it.
be forced upon anyone..
have a'need for it,
to love art, but a .
'It is neither a duty
1982:460)
test of strength and
1
w
However, Mauser assumes that art can only be perceived by
/
b
one who can demonstrate an ability to complete the work of art;
one who has the discipline of thought
:.
-
sensibility and sense of
quality.
Nevertheless, in spite'of the apparent irrational
character bf these quaiities, a certain training and reasoning
is needed in order toyunderstand and appreciate conventions and
traditions. The interpretation of art is not a simple operation,
and misunderstanding and understanding are a normal
form
of
*
reaction. Any reading of art objects of the past is subject to
this issue, In these cases, it' is important to take:into
account
these basic questions: "for whom? an# in what sort of context?".
,(Hauser,19&:526)
The appropriate interpretation of the meaning content of
works of art is a question of intelligence, maturity,.
,experience of life, and the proper assessment of
problems of existence, social points of view and
humanitarian problems. The ability to judge formal
aesthetic values is a question of feeling for quality and the sensibility which underlies it. The two aspects*
and abilities are completely distinguishable, but they
are by no means independent. There exist between them an
interdependence and reciprocity, but they cannot be
reduced to the same principle. (Hauser,1982:474)
.
Z
In other words, Hauser suggests that art is intended-for
practical people w f t o h a v e an aesthetic sense and a-.fef ing for
quality: this closes the gap between art and life and stresses
'
its humanYstic nature.
h he
problems of the re&tion
b e h e m - art
-
I
and life rest upon the concept that love and understanding of
art is a matter of art revolving around life and not the
t
converse. The function of art in this context is twofold: on one
hand, the producer experiences art as an.articulation and
.
I
'
definition of chaotic mental states; on the other, the receiver
perceives it as a means of catharsis, a better way of
understanding himse4f and the world, and a proper guide to a
meaningful life.
Again "no wdrk of art exists - p u r e q • ’ o our
r
own pleasure."
(Hauser,1982:440) It is misleading to presuppose that an
x-
acthentic work of art can only be entertaining and hedonistic,
8
en in actuality its reception is a difficult task. Not only
&?
does the rs&eption demand a certain accuracy, but the recipient
."
+
.
-
i
has to confront the difficulty of sorting what is qood from what
is inferior in eve-ryday production.
-7
-
The enjoyment and completion of a work of art cannot be
attached to a monet_ary value. Hauser affirms that art transcends
the market and cannot be reduced to the principle of commodity:
Of course a work of art does not belong to the person
who buys the canvas on which it is painted. Anyone who
appreciates a painting with understanding, with a
feeling for its quality, a<nd with insight into its
structure can possess it more completely than the
purchaser who puts it into his collection as a new
acquisition. (Hauser,1982:541)
A
It is clear that, for Hauser, a work of art is an
intellectual experience that cannot allow i.tsc1.f to be measured
in terms of money. With the ove'rqmphasis on the monetary value
B
of present-day 'art, Hauser questibns whether it is st-i-llpossible to find p l e ~ x r ein a r t at a l l :
%
.
/
6. Art and Cultural Stratification
l
-
*
t
I
'. .;\-
z5
\
It becomes more and more evident toward the end of The
r
L
.
Soc ioloqp of Art that ~ a k e l s"h d c u s s i o n of art and its social
. ;ontext is far'more libe.ral and humanistic than any.-orthodox
marxist pers ective can ever pretend to be. in this discussion,
?
L
he establishes the idea that a cultural stratum is a mor;
-
l--
\
appropriate concept than the 'one of class with its rigid
properties. Yet he recognizes that the category of cultural
stratum is not a fundamental form of organization:
-
However, to,the extent that - specially in the sociology
of art and culture - the economic and social community
of interests proves an insufficient motive for
integration, so the cultural factys - with the '
corresponding reputation and the intellectual influence
associated with them - acquire more and more
significance. (Hauser,1982:547)
-
The use of this open citegory allows Hauser to adequately
*
'
- --
frame the artist's position as well as the situation of his
public. I'n no instances, is it- possible to discuss the direct
,
relation between a class and a specific artistic activity,
M
because Hauser ,assumes the mobility o d e intelligentsia
-
the
principle of the 'free floating intelligence'; social privileges
and artistic abilities are not th.e same as one another.
Moreover, as much as the artist wants to create for his peers,
there is no certainty about who will. receive his product.
-
---
However, the artist'never pruduces art for "mankind", but always
for a specific group or 'class.
-
-
--
-
, -L3
Hauser implies that "national spirits" or "spirits of the
agen are unthinkable concepts bec'ause every society/ hds'-%s
many
, different sorts of art as it has cultural strata. 'in the present
,
state of cultural development, Hauser distinguishes what he
calls three "authoritat-5&e strata of culturen: folk--art,which
is threatening to d i s ~ p p e a ~ if
; indeed it has not already been
extinguished in
r
ern civilization; art of
the cultural elite,
which has been deprived of its exclusive dominance since the
ninetee,nth century;. and popular art, which has been transformed'
the in mass. art which seems to be pre'vailing. These forms of art
are historical and cultural categories that emerge and change
according to the social cmdi-tions of the time.
. .
They are ideal types, contingent-upon historical
-
conditions, ihich do not exist as pure forms. They influence
each other in many aspects; folk-art a.nd popular art borrow from
1
high art, while the latter includes elements of the former. This
correlation between the various -arts reinforces the concept,
k
discussed earlier, of the different attitudes and reactions of a
'
public vis-A-vis the same event. The difficulty of the notion of
an homogeneous public is the result of a work of art always
being received by an individ6al. In order to understand properly
the multiple conne~tionsbetween two forms of art themselves and
their relation to their public, only a cross section analysis is
possible; a longitudinal interpretatipn of cultural strata would'
overlook the complex nature of art.
Art of the Cultural Elite
-7-
-
,
--
Hauserf*sposition on art lies within the realm of artisticr
activities supported by the cultural elite. Horeper, i? has to
be conceded that his posi,tion is contingent upon the historical
\
circumstances of our time where art of the cultural elite is the
most enhancing experience compared to the anti-cultural feature
of popular art. It has been proyen by modern research that folk
.
.
songs were mostly 'art songs in the mouth of the people', thus
suggesting.that works of high, great or aut3entic art do not
originate only at the highest level. Pet, art of the cultural
elite seems to be the only one which can enhance human
experience.
*
The art of the cultured is a forum where discussion of
life's problems and directions are canvassed. The inadequacies
of folk-art and the banal entertainment characteristic of
popular art can, in no instance, be as satisfying. Hauser goes
so far as to declare that only-one art is possible and suggests
that non-art can be its unique counterpart.
-
Whoever knows the emotional shock which is bound to the
experience of a true work of art will not be taken in by
the cheap effects employed by popular art. Indeed, the
more one feels the former ekperience to be threatened,
the more one inclines to the view that there is only o
art, with unalterable criteria, which if ailuted, lea
to non art. (Hauser,1982:554)
8
..
The art of the c u l t u r a l elite is definitively the richest
artistic experience acccrrding,to Hauser, The works of art
created within this category rev'olve around 'la condition
-t
humaine';,they have the putential to change our lives. Immanent
principles are the driving force behind their existence. They
ask pertinent questions that permit us to better understand our
surroundings because they aye concerned with giving meaning to
,
our existence; their comprehension becomes a moral and
intellectual test. Yet they can be pleasurable. Because of their
pretension to revolve around the hufnan condition they should be
able to reach anyone who is willing to &cipher
their message.
*
The works of art produced are characterized by their
complexity: a centre af antapnism, of conflict, where the
resolution of continuous and discontinuous development takes
place. The notion of simplicity, and of a common and naive sense
of art is' an -~nlightenmentinvention that tried to democratize
and popularize art to the detriment of its real significance
3
The art of the cultural elite distinguished itself by the r$cher
variety of types than the artistic products of lower strata. The
real works of art are heterogeneous in their artistic effect;
-
----
-
p
p
p
p
- --
--
-- -
--
they are stylistically advanced and often unpopular. They rely
on their traditions, nevertheless they need progressive
M
I,
ments
order t-o evolve. Another feature of high art is its
---
an individual reader, listener or spectator even i f it is cast
within a specific social stratum. "Folk-art in contrast only
expresses spiritual feelings which are common property or which
can become comnion property." (Hauser,1982:573]
--
Folk-Art
Without doubt, %wrybody has a' vague idea about what is
meant by folk-art. However, Hauser suggests that in many cases
our notion of fog-ar: is !ased upon misconceptions. In no
-
instance, is it possi~lato discuss the equivalence of folk-art
to peasant or pr*ovincial art, or to-assune the possibility of a
-.
folk soul'. The latter originates fr2m Romanticism which has
-
deprived folk-art of it
e a l identity and created a myth. The
primitive communal practice
, of folk-art lies in the distinction
between,the,producer a n d the consumer which is not as clear-cut
as in other forms of art. In all other forms of art; an
individual is the source of the artisti; activity, and'the*\
.
1
concept of class or group prdducer has to be dismissed.
Another error
is made when folk-art is looked upon as a
a
natural phenomenon. I n reality, &here
is nothing natural abo'ut
it; it is bound by time and history and arises from cudtural
-
-
-
-
-
--
needs. Furthermore, Hauser assumes that the. existence of
folk-art is contingent upon high art. "Folk-art is mainly only a
copy of high art, and the value it creates stands in proper
relationship to the loss of artisti-c quality which the
prototypes'suf~erin the process." (Hauser,1982:563) Therefore
1 ,
the concepts of folk art as naive, completely individual,
w i thou: guiding principles or critical approach, must be
questioned. However, it is possible to assert that folk
activities are taking place without the people being-conscious
*
of them. They create art rithout being aware that they are
something which goes beyond their daily life routine.
produ&g
,A'
--i
It seems that folk-art creation lies in the hands of
/
dilettanti who borrow elements from high art and give them
another meaning without having a sense of originality. As
,
opposed to high art, they are never interested or preoccupied by
'
formal problems. The folk-art people do
-
and do nos have the asifity to
,*
taste. Their creation is governed by something other,than
kdste,
-%+
:.:
yet it. is difficult to discern the qualities a work of high art
&
must have in o r F r to be adopted 'andvaried.by tkfe".folkartist.
1
Nevkrtheless, this does not mean that their art is inferior;
what is lacking are "the abilities which are inspired by a
higher power and intelligence." (Hauser,1982:570-571)
-
"The appropriation, transformation, and popular'ization of
h i g h art through folk-art may seem to be a menace to the
integrity of high art. Yet, folk-art takes great examples from
works of high art while popular art d i k e s and corrupts them:
:folk-art remains faithful to the original intentions. In
b
addition, the relation between high art and folk-art take,s place
/>
in a for% rf'-b'double exchange 'where the f orrner may borrow
motifs of tf;d'&tter
for the sake of originality which is, in
reality a recuperation of an idea which was previously its oqn.
rl
m
- Eccl
U
4
k
aJ
3
ul
a
x
-
m
-
C
0
o
ET.4
t
5
c
c-
3 0 a a
0 4 s
aJ
o m
m .d m
al L4
U n aJ
.d
r-i
d
.r
ad-
-
7m
W E -
k h O J 0 0'
k mcv
a m
ax
U O
m
maJ
aJaJC,4-'k
C *LC .d
> w
0saJ
O-ccO
c:
-r(aJOalfi
(d krl C aJ
C , Q O @ O
G k C
a J h U
a
k
C, a rbrw C
C r c U) C C
w aaa a
readiness of the artist t4 offer a product of a 'lower quality,
regardless of his abilities, "in order to achieve success."
b
Another misconception that Hauser rejects is the one put
forward by Hannah Arendt, which suggests that-only popular art
can be interpreted in economic terms; i.e. as goods to be
consumed. Hauser refutes this argument because, in the
industrial-commercial era, every form of art is consumed as
4
goods. However, the-re is a difference between the role of the
market and trade in high art. and popular~consumption; while it
is veiled in the former, it is more blatant in th$ latter. The
\
P
commercial character of popular art is emphasized a%d revealed
through its blunt expediency.
is mostly interested in
creating a kind of 'fantasy island' where one's problems are
annihilated.
Instead of producing desires of action which high art
1
motivates, popular art has an anesthetic effect that causes a
.
sense of self-satisfaction and passivity. However, not only the
underprivileged (culturally and.economically) are inspired by
this escape art in order' to avoid duties and responsibi'lites.
The fear that conditions this sort oi attempt at escape
inspires not only the classes which arc threatened from
above but those which are threatened from below as well.
The ruling middle class - with the exceptim of those
parts of its intelligentsia which are uprooted regards
the future with just the same anxiety- as the lower
classes they dominate, It is one widespread nature of
this fear which explains the unusual extent and the
irreducible mixture of the.audience which-is interes-ted
in popular art. I t is patronized because of the
anesthetic effect which emanates from it in all
directions. (Hauser,1982:582-583)
i
3
The public of popular art is an undemanding one, It can be
p
-
said that they determine artistic creations by honartist-ic
viewpoints, They do not react aesthetically and they, cannot
judge between what is good or bad. Their response orPiginates
from the easiness or uneasiness they feel vis-3-vi,S a work of
art that may reflect, or not reflect their feelings, emotions,,
hopes and fears. Yet, it 5s impossible to state unequivocally
that these' people get what tl?ey want
-
I
popular art being a
ponse to a demand - or that they are trained to be satisfied
'
Y
by/what is given to them.
rt is not completely a manipulation of taste and
P
does hot correspond to a spontaneous need. The difference which
I
.
I
exists between high art and popular art is that hibh art exceeds
every wish and expectation, while popular art does not.
Furthermore, popular art has a public among the intelligentsia a more demanding, critically and aesthetically oriented audience
!an audience which, for example, could praise Charlie Chaplin).
Therefore, popular art can appeal as much to a higher
stratum while, in some cases, high art may be attractive t o .
lower strata. The boundaries between the different arts are
fluid and constantly shifting. The distance between high art and
popular art is immeasurable, yet they are not completely walled
3
off from each other. Th? question which needs to be raised is
whether popular art is an art form or not. According to Hauser,
popular art cannot be dismissed as an 'art' because of its use
of formulas yhich are often used in more.succesfu1 art, e.g. the
-
Homeric.
The question of whether it is "art" at all is pointless.
If we can establish the principle - vis-6-vis the
problematical artistic efforts of the current
ava.nt-garde - that art is what counts as art, then we
must show the same tolerance toward the less demanding
However strongly we may deny
forms of popular art
that we can judge popular.art - which may serve merely
for entertainment and diversion - by the same criteria
as we can ihe art which demands for its proper
understanding a feeling for quality, sensibility,
mat;-city, and seriousness, we must still insist that
even the most modest form of sensually concrete
reflection of reality - which in its effect, even if not
its origin, is autonomous and..immanent - contains
something of the special quality which distinguishes and
sets off all art from the rest of the world.
(Hauser,l982:585)
...
'
-
.
I
Hauser assumes that the problematical issue of popular
culture is caused by the lowering of standards of quality,
especially in the modern period where rubbi-shgnd kitsch objects
are produced in a more skillful manner. An attempt and a beaief
3
in the possibilities of raising the'standards of quality would
be more appropriate,. A true popularization of art means that the
lower strata are given the means to understand more demanding
a-rt forms'and not that art has to descend to a
eve1 of
9
stupidity. There is always a danger, a problem of
misinterpretation, when high art is popularized (e.g. through
distribution), even if the creator wanted it.
Mass
Art
-Hauser establishes his investigation of art as qne that is
I
concerned with artistic creation as an inteJlectua1 and
spiritual activity. His notion of the sociology 'of art does k t
allow space far a preoccupation with statistical data
-
e.g. the
number of books read during a certain period. Mass art which
'o~iginatesfrom popular art
-
the ,transformation whic,h place
during the last half of the nineteenth century
-
is approached
in the same spirit.
The democratization of culture has caused the increasi'ng
appeal for mass art objects
cheapness
-
-
their colossal distribution and
which, with the lessening of educa.tiona1 criteria
for the enjoyment of grt, make this art ib;m more accessible to
\
a larger audience. Each ti.me there is an expansion in the
audience, there is a -lowering in the level of taste. The same
phenomenon happened in the eighteenth century during the ,
transition between the courtly-ari'st~craticart-and the end of
the Rococco and the bourg60is culture of the Enlightenment.
However, the improvement of the ways and means of mass art is
'
not related to the disappearance of economic exploitation, or
S
the democratization of culture. The industrialization and
-
B
of art, which favored repetitions of motifs an
L
fornulas, has narrowed to a minimum the potential of new talent;
a new and better taste is possible if invention of new forms and
relations is again allowed.
-
--
-
Works of mass art are highly standardized: clichCs,
formulas and conventions are determining fac_t-ors,This use of
4s
preparkd formulas facilitates their manipulation and their
reproduction. Moreover, the normalization.of patterns and the
\
ready-made questions and solutions have a leveling effect on the*
public. The most well-kmrn products of mass art are the
best-sellers. and works o-f arc on film, in television and in
radio. They share in common t h i r industrial character; on the
one hand, as a generati-on of objects created
$ -
the most
up-to-date mechanical means'and on the other, as,consumer goods
.
designed by the 'entertainment industry'.
The appearance of cohesion which is suggested by-the term
'mass' is confusing because it does not refer to the sense of
integration that could be expected from such a word. 'Mass' has
more to do with its market value andsthe democratization-of'
culture. In reality, the public of mass art forms is unlimited
.
e public of a Jean-Luc Godard
=t
film1 and the audience of a Brian de Palma filmZ differ
and heterogeneously composed.
entirely, while Chaplin's art, which integrates comedy and
social comment, is received by a larger audiente.
'.
The feeling of atomization, of individuals isolated from
one another, reflects more the attitude of the receptive
-
subject. A s there is no folk-art soul, a miss art soul is
unthinkable: individuals still poduce and r'eceive the works:
------------------
'French filmmaker known for his political films in the sixties.
i
2American filmmaker known for the use of horror and gore;
I
however, the .relations between the artist and his public has
-
-
3
altered and has become more problematic. Mor over; the larger
.
the audience is, the less critical it, becomek; the more passive
and aesthetically indif feren; it becomes.
i
something has to be said with regard to the technical
aspect of mass art. Every artistic work presupposes a technical
process, therefore suggesting that a mass art technical'feature
is nothing new, yet the ends and use of this' characteristic
Q3
mass-art alter the meaning
.
of art
hy
in some ways. The invention of
mechanical graphic reproduction has challenged the individual,
irreproducible and inexchangeable nature of most works of art'-
I
pain,ting, sculpture, architecture. This loss of 'aura' was
extended'further with the extension of technology; the same film
can be shown to a million people gathered in different y
locations. The trace of the artist's hand is' no longer
*
recognizable, yet the works of art gain a larger public.
The issue
+' raised here is that unless uniqueness is the
determining factor of artistic creation - artist's intentidn there should be no problem whatsoever in using a technique which
implies reproduction. The artistic value and quality of-a work
. is not dependent on the.nature of the technique but on its use.
,
Therefore, the work of4art does not suffer its application.
Hauser assumes that some artistic criteria may be lost through
the process, yet some other norms take shape at t!he
\
film creates new ,artistic effects.
same time
-
,
-
-
-
- -
-
- --
The spoken work'generates a sense of belonging to a "tribal'
communityw khich is opposed to the -notion of individuality
- -
emphasized by the written ar printed word. McLuhan suggests that
the electronic media have revived this sense of ~ommunity,of
participation
-
the notion of the "global villagew
-
which
existed during the pre-Gutenberg era. According to Hauser, such
a concept mysticiz& - past and future culture in differentiating,
01,
in a strict manner, the spoken and the written word. He rejects
the mythical and mystical utopian character of McLuhanls
'
argument.
I
Wi-th the thesis of the Gutenbergian atrophy of the
senses - which he sees as followin-g one epoch of sensual
development and as being the precursor of another - he
falls into a double romanticization of the historical
process. He constructs a golden age which should be lost
and an utopian one in which the lost unity is to be
found in different form. (Hauser,1982:615)
I
Another faux pas in McLuhanls thought lies in his belief
that all evils of modern man have sprung from the visual
.
81
homogeneity imposed by Gutenberg's invention and his disregard
-
of the fact that Western culture may Rave gained a sense of
cohesion. Moreover,,Mcluhan is wtdng in assuming that with
,
television there is an end to the era of the visual. On the
contrary, Hauser asserts that in spite of the heterogeneous
character and simultaneity of impressions, with television one
can talk about the victory of the visual and not of its defeat.
In addition, Hauser argues that McLuhan ik not right in assuming
that television was the first means of expression to break the
homogeneity; film, theater and most primitive dance were
4
2
.
accompanied by music or sound*
- -
Hauser claims that McLuhan raised some important questions.
?
He has introduced the concept of "technical reproducti~ility"in
the realm<of,c u l t ~ r e .He
~ argues tFlat the first mass produced
object was the printed book; The concept of monotony ass'ociated
I
-
with multiple reproduction will only disappear with the
introduction o
tronic media. Yet, as much as he praises
k
the heterogeneous and "tribal" elemehts of these media, ,McLuhan
.holds them responsible for the intellectual passivity of
--
industrial society.
-
--
McLu'han discusses the new media as electronic extensions of
*
our nervous system.~On one hand, these new media are coordinated
kess of
to achieve a multidimensiona1,effect regar
-
,
91
the various
cultural strata, on the other, our whole urban environment is
shaped by the sensory and multiplicity of 'these media. In other
words, we cannot escape them as much as they are foreign to our
intentions (as is our nervous system).
The dPcturn
/
medium is the messagen is quite
controversial, taken seriously or not. According to Hauser, this
.
I
thesis has confirmed his own notion that the medium is not only
the bearer of communication but a constituent element of the
message to be communicatead; thus reinforcing the dialectical
relationship of form and content. Yet this does not prevent, in
-----------------'It appesrs that McLuhan had never 'heard of Walter Benjamin's
work on mechanical reproduction, "The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction." 113minations. New York, Schocken
Bcoks, 1978. pp.253-264.
-
i
A
.
-
certain c a s e s , the form or means of expression influencing
--
-
a
people wore than the message itself.
-
In addition, Hauser claims that McLuhanrs
may
have been a reflection of the actual message
P
content, but a comment about the diversity of our media as
inadequate tools of communication. Hauser asserts that we nay
have a vast number of tethniques, means of expression, but we
are lacking in ideas worthy of being,communicated.
-
-
-
'7.
Present-day Art: Assumptions and Symptoms of Crisis
In present-day art, one controversial principle is at the
centre of many debates: "the demise of artn. (~auser,1982:657)
----+
8
'-
First introduced by Hegel, the collapse of art, a sign of the
3
4
dissolution of culture, is discussed by Hauser; however, he
argues that any reasoning about an actual end to art misses the
poi,nt because art remains alive as long as it has a function in
society. At the most, it is possible to canvass the symptoms of
a crisis which threatens the apparent continuous deveiopment of
culture. "However long it has to stop, there can be.no talk of
I
the final existence of art as long as it appears problematical
to itself and can formulate its questionability as a,lack of
'.
articulation". (Hauser,1982:666) Hauser ass'erts that he would
contemplate the end of art onl'y i f it were possible to assume
that art could be functionless. Puesent-day art, even with its
anti-art features'is still functional.
b u s e r emphasizes an important misconception which is often
made about present-day art: the presumption that it is the first
time that t h e existence of art is problematic. Through the
course of history, evidence of.the reoccurrence of this
phenomenon is found: through the Neolithic era,,at the birth of
Christianity, and during Mannerism and Romanticism. Therefore,
it is implied that crises are not timeless and jntransitory; in
other words, that w h i c h has a beginning has an end. According to
\
//
Hauser the apparent $ause in artbgives it a special
,
&
significance. The continuation and rejuvemtion of art is not
only contingent upcn a uniform and harmonious progression;
.
equally significant -
breaks mady be
thus stressing that the form
r
and function of art are called upon to change through history.
The discussions about, the collapse of art revolve around
.
two principles: a new definition of art and the emphasis, in
contemporary society, on nonartistic productivity. Our notion of
art is quite different from its nineteenth century meaning based
on Naturalism, Impressionism and Aestheticism. On one hafld, the
anti-art movement
-
characteristic of the first half of our
'
century with movements ~i ke Futurism, cubism, Expressionism,
Dadaism and Surrealism - and the relatively recent attitude
which is translated adequately in the dictum "art is what is
I
couqts as art'
end of art
-
(Hauser11982:702)'are indications of the possible
at least in its nineteenth century version.
Another threat to the existence of art is technology. I n
this context, the significance of the finality of art is
attached to its failure to be able to compete with the
continuous chain of scientific and technological achievement?.
However, according' to Hauser, science
exists in relation to. art:They
is' what
it is because it
may differ in substance and
purpose, yet they are both needed.
1
Main ~ssumptions
--
.
+
i
Hauser claims that our modern era originates from the
aftermath of World War I. This event was the first of a series
of t~aumaticperturbations
L
Hiroshima, Guernica
-
-
Hitler and Auschwitz, Stalin,
which have shaken our age and have left us
with a sense of hopelessness. During the,thirties, social
3
discomfort reaches its culmination and the symptoms of
discontinuities become more apparent. An increase in social
criticism is notic able and is no longer confined to the Left.
_/d
Positivists,. idealists and spir;itualists - mentors of the
-
?;lourgeoisie
recognize the
- shortcomings
bf
the capitalistic
system. For Hauser, in Zhe philosophical sphere, ~xistentialism,
=
psychoanalysis and Marxism emerge as the most..important
.
doctrines which try to give meaning to a drifting humanity.
In art, artistic values cherished by nineteenth century
aesthetes are rejected by a new generation of movements. They
'4
I
represent a turning point in the continuous history of art.
However, in spite of their breakthrough~characteristic they have
not lost their ties to pfevious tradition$. Notwithstanding
this, they have some distinctive peculiarities which favor
-
0
deformation of natural phenomena, a pluralistic point of view, a
flight from decorative and.'-pleasingeffect and an aversion to
hedonism. Their anti-aesthetic attitude t-ranslates itself in
their art practice which has introduced the concept of anti-art.
Furthermore, they have adopted, following Dadaism, a negative
m
aJ
&J
C
.d
C,
-.-I
Q,
C,
3i
rl
.
a,
.C
aJ
aJ
a
C
C
u
*.
r-i
aJ
3
.d
m
C
U
0
10
aJ
aJ
3
4
&J
C,
X
.,-I
U
aJ
W
aJ
a
IJY
a
a
a
U
C
aJ
3
cn
4
W
l-4
aJ
d
0
3 '
Q,
31
k:
P
k
k*
.C
+aJ
aJ
a
C
3,
aJ
+J
C
h
Q,
h
4 4
aJ
cn
aJ
x
-d
to
' JJ
U
C
aJ
aJ -
0
3
.r(
4
k
3
0
a
. C
a
V
Hauser alleges that an authentic work of art nee&
to be
conimitted to life as a bearer of a valid message or a pioneer of
*
3
a promising future; a role,which cannot be entirely carried out
,by this ge'neration of art movements, and which 'is totally
-\
I
ignored after the sixties
-
the apogee of &the criiis in art.
CO
Commitment 'in art 'means that the work of art is not only the
8
P
-conveyor of better -conditions of life auring a hope~ess~period,".
it must also not be content with a lie which veils actual
catastrophe: "that is not behave after ~uschvitzas though there
had been no Auschwitz." (Hayert1982:671) Art can contribute to
.X
e
4*
-
the salvation of mankind as long as humanity is itself on its
. way to redemption.
.
.'
1
,--
Hauser claims that the last remnants of authenticity,'inart
lie within the confines of Expr,es$ionism and Surrealism. He
m
suggest; that Surrealism has given a positive tone to modern
art, otherwise gloomy, by introducixfg a new form of compositi'on.
< ,
&
A
dualism is created by the use of empirical eliperience andI
:
supernatural and unconscious forces. "Their combination first of
4
1
,
all alienates, and then illuminates, an affinity which would7
otherwise be hidden." (Hauser,t982:701~'The .montage and the
F
'metaphor are the most significant technique-s which express this
dualism. Art which is produg&
-
on this dualistic principle is an*
effective means of expression which "reveals and rfincealsw
L
(Hauser,t982:701) simuftanebusly our experience, The metaphor is-
-a w r t i c t t l a ~ l yefficient
experience.
way to break out- of the rea2ity of
-
-
-
Symptoms
Since World war 11, the dehumanization and destruction of
art initiated during the debut of modern art is carried out more.
L
intensively by the avant-garde. Two circumstances undermine our
belief im art as "a means of deliveting people from sorrow and
f
as a Gehicle of aesthetic distance". (Hauser,l932:719) On one
hand, it appears that present ideology is in no position to find
a .solution to the nihilistic and pessimistic feeling of life; on
,
the other,cthe clajm of art as an appropriate means of
I
.
1.
communication is threatened by technics and scient icism, which
*.,
appear to be more suitable means of expression.
&
4 .
Hauser alleges that the crisis of present-day art is mostly
I
a problem of communBcat-ion. (Hauser,1 9 ~ 2709,711
:
j 7 5 3 ) He.
I .
maintains that all flights from .the p b s t , hedonism, beauty,
subjectivity, credibility, sincerity, plot and hero are symptoms'
of the flight from the cofnmynication of messages and rules of
\
conduct that characterize modern art: Literature suffers
extensively from the consequences of the crisis.
-
During t8e coursE of our century, linguistics, which'moved
at the central position of the science of thought, was able to
emphasize the dialectical relationship between language and
linguistic medium as equal'constitutents in the internalization
and comunication of facts. However, it appears that the modern
era is unable to keep the balance between the two elements.. our
'/
4
century has realized the i n a d e q u w a n d limitation of speech in
expressing the totality of our experience; hut, more significant
is the discovery that language is by no means a neutral medium
of communication.
Present-day art is preoccupied with .presenting reality in a
less counterfeit and mediated manner. The concept's and
'
that pivi)lege beauty, illusion, subjectivity and
Y>
fiction are rejected by,the avant-garde on the basis that they
w
\
falsify reality. The need fo reinf,orce truth and objectivity i n art is the result of the fear tbat art may be overturned by
-
3
I
techndlcgy or science as more valid means of communication and
. of experience. Therefore,
is order
to-offer a 'real\' picture of
t
reality, the avant-garde uses the tecviques of documentation,
a*;,
- -.
and of reportage. The old media --paint<ng+ sculpture, music,
epic
-
unable to support this attempt to reach veracity are
eliminated. while the newest media
-
pseudoscientific film,
.sci@rtJfic novel, radio and television
-
seem fit to express the
need to:break the illus'ioh, yet, their value is never
questioned.
However, the art*ist,,who is c.onfident that it is possible
to give a faithful account of reality, forgets that:
.
Percepticns can only be formed and received with the
help of a formal system, of a linguistic, musical, '.
visual or haptic apparatus. The media of expreSsio,n,
however not only are essen~iallydifferbent from the
material b e i n g represented and not only adulterate, from
the beginning, the uniqueness and pu.rity of' perceptions,
but also are highly artificial and at best fsrm a
dialectical unity with these perceptbns in which the
original qu8lity of the perception is -no longer present.
(Hauser,1982:708-709)
#
Thesefpre, an unmediated depiction of reality can onlp be
t
an idealistic concept. The apparent absence of aestheticism, the
use of the ugly and unattractive in principle are in no
instances a rejection of art because no matter how the artist
includes reality in his work it is still done in an artistic
f
mnner. Art may seem problematic,,yet is still alive as long as
it has to legitimize (and does s.0) its position vis-3-vis'the
growing concern with technology. (~auser,1982:657-660) Hauser
claims that only art which is best at 'criticizing itself, can
put an end to its own development.
0
i
111. A Last S a l u t e to ' A r t ' ?
*---,
1. The sociology of Art:
isu understanding and Understanding.
I
There is no consensus whatsoever among sociologists of a;t
'-
about what the 'ideal' sociology of art might be. In addition,
the impossibility of arrivi++at
a comprehensive definition of
,
the sociology of art is hindered by the belief that such an
approach does not exist. This i s because it has failed to define
its object and to prove its scientific validity. Yet, the real
problem of the sociology of art resides in that, despite its
sociological foundation,- it is set apart from the main
contentions of sociology. Therefore, in order to understand
properly the sociolbgy of art, it is necessary to look upon it
as an interdisciplinary rather than as a disciplinary approach.
In many cases, as for example in Duvignaud and Hauser, the label
'the sociology of art1 is misleading: they both synthesize*:
components of sociological and non-sociological disciplines such
as history, philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, 'and
communication, thus making their venture unique.
.
History and Socioloqy
According to Nicss Hadjinicolaou, the sociology of art is
\
non-existent because it has failed to prove the scientific
validity of its subject-matter. H e argues that only a social
history of art based on historical materialism is suitable to
examine the relationship between art and society. He defends the
c
4
a
taJ
0
C,
aJ
k
L-c
0
a
3,
A
-C
k
0
C,
U)
-r)
C,
C
m
k
C
0)
a
r)
.a
aJ
k
k
3
0
atask. Traditional art history is characterized by its
-
-
aristodratic attitude: the hierarchical order of thb-arts, and
its non-critical nature (of historical events or of its owm
*
discourse). Contrary to the viewpoint of its traditional
counterpart, the social history o r k t pretends to unveil the
economic, political, social and ideological conditions of
artistic production.
-
-
The sociology of art takes into account two considerations:
on one hgnd, how art and society are related: on the other, the
analysis of a contemporary situation. Because there is no one
5"
distinct definition of the sociology of art, every practitioner
elaborates differently on the correlation. For Duvignaud, a
proper sociology of art 5 s the continuity of actual art
practice: an active participant in its crfation. He argues that:
Or il faut rappeler: une sociologie de 1'art.suppose une
intervention directe dans les groupes que n'atteint pas
la 'culture' (et qul.ellen'atteindra jamais) non pour y
diffuser des produits connus, mais pour inciter ou
provoquer ces groupes, momentanbment endorrnis, dans la
'socihtb de consommation', la misere ou simplement la
torpeur sociale, & s'engager dans l'expbrimentation
imaginaire. (Duvignaud,1967:6)
For Hauser, the sociology of art represents an arena of
\
Y
ociological investigation which, like the social history of
art, is interested in unveiling the sotial conditions of art
i
production, but he is careful to establish'that the major
problem which the sociology of art found itself confronted by:
Class position and ideological derivation of ,the
,
different aesthetic forms is based on a fundamentally
and generally valid concrete relationship between the
two, though in particular cases it is often arbitrary
and purely metaphoric. It is presently here that the
sociology of art runs most risk of equivocati6n.
(~auser;1971:144)
It is suggested here that the sociology of art should avoid
the reduction of the artistic sphere to the social. This kind ~f
relationship is found in Hadjinicolaou's social history of art,
/--
in Marxist aesthetics (which emphasizes thArole of tge base
over the superstructure).and to a certain extent in Duvignaud's
Scciologie de lfart. For Hauser, not only the social order
>
influences the making of an art object, but the inner'logic of
*
the artistic sphe;e needs also to be taken into account.
The concept of history is another element which makes art
history and the sociology of art associate in-a concern to
'
-
interpret art in its proper context, but,simultaneously makes
them eminently distinct, On one h ~ n d ,it is impossible to ignore
the active part of history in any suciclogical investigation.,
Meanwhile it is possible to assert that history can exist
without sociologicaf-consi&erations; however, this should not be
perceived as an ideal situati'on.
On the other handIYarthistory and the sociology of art
have a use for-history that is rather dif'ferent. Laws of
continuity, of tradition govern art history. Art history not
only imposes a sense of uniformity and homogeneity, but, by
making 'high art'- the focus of its discksion, it vdils
.
-
important distinctions between the arts. It favours more
traditional forms
art such as painting, sculpture, and
arcpitecture. In addition, art historians have a tendency
'.
forget that the factual resdarch and the criteria of objective
*
-
-
- -
--A
truth that they have recourse to in order to interpret art-are
/
what Hauser call% ideological claims. Hauser suggests that a
proper soci.ology of art needs to be not'only critical vis-8-vis
\
art, but shouEd question its own position:
...
the tea.zhings of art history can neither be
completely objective nor absolutely final. As the
interpretation and judgments they essentially are, they
do not correspond to any real knowledge, but express
certain ideological~claims,desiderata, wishes and
ideals considered to have been realized in the past and
to be realized in the future. (Hauser,1971:150)
q
D
I
For the sociology of art, history is an important element;
,
--
Hauser, and less so Duvignaud, spend somi time discussing and
.'
denouncing the notion of continuity impos9d by history. They
-
claim that a change is more likely i d c u r through a 'leap1
1
than through the gradual modification ok a phenomenon: They both
argue, but again Hauser elaborates further on the subject, that
history is an intellectual construction which, created from the
present, gives light to past +experience. "The artistic
tendencies and achievements of the past are valued,
1
.
overestimated, or ignored.-accordingto the aspiration and
Standards of the present.,"(~auser,1971:150)
r_"
.&
The Socioloqy of- Art:
-
A Skientific Model
Attempts hzve been made to define the subject-matter and
,
the scientific vaLidity of- the sociology of art. In 'Aesthetic
,Neutrality and the Sociology of Art., Elisabeth Bird raise-s the
question of method in the sociology of art. I-n'reference to a
suitable sociological .model, thhee .premises are enunciated: the
.
'formulation of general laws', the 'necessity of aesthetic
,
=*;
neutrality', arid The 'socio-economic model'. However, Bird comes
to realize'that $he sociology of art based on these principles
is an impossibility because they reflect only the .&nxiety to
define properly such a sxiology and not actual preoccupation.
*
According to her, the.sociology of art is 'pass&' because the
issue is no more a matter of whether art and society are related
4
\
but. how they are related.
-
The problem is not whether art or literature is related
to society, but how they are related. The question
whet=
culture is determined, o r T n i n g , or both,
is a s"oEiologica1 question, but is not
e which
sociology has to answer, for it is a que tion which
transcends the boundaries of any one discipline. (Bird,
She claims that three factors make'the sociology of art
t
irrevelant during the seventies. First, while positivistic
theories are challenged, the sense of objectivity, t,he
scientific study of facts and the destiny of theories against
ihe ,accumulation o'f evidence
are proven ineffectual. Secondly,
* ,
is the convergence of disciplines by which more traditional
forms of art theories become concerned with social and
scientific circumstances: e.g.
the influence of structuralism or
serniology (Barthes) on art criticism or the influence of
economics on art history (T.J.
Clark). Third, is the rapid
growth of cultural studies that permits a cross disciplinary
..
analysis wherein culture is analysed in its totality.
-
.
Since the t97OSs, rare are the peopce who are interested in
carrying further the social investigation of art under the label
of the sociology
of art. Janet Wolff's coctribution to the field
,
appears to be more of a rhetorical nature>. Wolf f does not seem
to be preoccupied with verifying her theory whereas Duvignaud
and Hauser are interested in applying their theoretical
framework to'actual art practice. However, her ef,fort follows
!
previous concerns of other sociologists of art, iq th$t she
acknowledges the importance of considering the specificity of
4
9
art (its creative and innovative nature) while studies such as
cultural studies, the sociology of culture or communication
studies, whose object of study is culture instead of art, may
not Mke this aspect into consideration.
I
As Raymond Williams suggests ins=
Socioloqy
of
Culture,
looking at art as a,cultural product brings about new sets of
relations and questions:
The modern convergence, which the contemporary sociology
of culture embodies, is in fact an attempt to rework,
from a particular set of interests, those general social
and sociological ideas within which it has been possible
to see communication, language and art as marginal and
peripheral, or as at best secondary and derived social
processes. A modern sociology of c lture, wheth-er in its
internal studies or in its interv ntion in a more
geceral sociology; is concerned a ove all to enquire,
actively and openly, into these received and presumed
relations, and into other possible and demonstrable
relations, As such it is not only reworking its own
field, but putting new questions and new e-vidence into
the general work of the social sciences, (Williams,
1982: 1 0 )
f
1
Although the sociology of culture, cultural studies and
communication studies, are worthy of natice, it is believed that
4J
-d
ri
.
&
aJ
C
ti
a
W
.d
C
a
C
u
o
.r(
r
X
3
a
.c
4)
p
c,
n
a
J
c
U
c
.4
c , 0
+
0
W
J
2
0
$;4
m
la
C1
w
C
0
u
*
,
-
c4
r
(d
z
4
g,
a
rr
*J
m
a
'0
c
O
U
:;.
bj
o
I
'
*,
a
,
-A
w
U
c
."0
g
tm
~
'U
C
3
c
a
r-4
0
U
a
L4
m
r.4
6
U)
.-(
11
r n 0
a J l
Q
U
J U
r c
Q
PJ
C
0
UI
a
."
LJ
U
0
m L , . r l
'
w
i
O
0
v,
sr-4
J ' J
J 0
.
c
a
4
.d
m
a
u
C,
.
k
aJ
3
o
aJ
a
(d
c
a
a
n
~
C 4 J + J O
3 1 4 J U I 4 . J
aJ
a
O
'C
a
0
0
4
&
r-i
S1
QI
r-i
([I
*,-I
.i
N
s.4
rc
U
m
-4
0
.d
m
$a
UI.
aJ
s
U
C
tn
*d
([I
'$
Q1
m
a
aJ
5
0
C,
tn
aaJ
0
a
a
0
2
rl
.tn
C
.d
k
6'
4J
a
0)
a
r-i
0,
rl
5
0
aJ
([I
L4
A
C
4J
d
0
W
3
3
3.(
U
W
0
d
a,
0
k
. O
m
0
u
.A
0,
a,
C
a
'u
o
a
arguments.
-
BV making the imagina-y its central focus, the sociology of
q
art needs to cut across,more traditional forms of analysis (art
history, philosophy of art or aesthetics) in arder to explain
the totality
df
artistic'hperie,nce and the totality of life
experience. Duvignaud and Rauser have gone beyond established
disciplines in order to explain the particular nature of
artistic-creation. This brings about another accusation which
may be made in reference to the validity of 'the sociology of
1
art: its incapacity to rely solely on sociological paradigms
(sociology itself has been discriminated against more than once
with this same argument). Nevertheless, the convergence of
borrowed elements makes the sociology'of art a unique approach.
Cpncerned a priori with whether art and society are'
.
'
related, both Duvignaud and Hauser rely on a sociol~ogicalmodel
a s the starting point of their analysis: Durkheim influences
'h
Duvignaud's work, a n d Hauser formulates his sociblogical theory
t
mostly from ~ u k A c s ,Weber, P a r x and Freud. Although they both
a pure sociological
recognize the
Investigation, t h e y
ratner iiifferent paths. For Duvignaud,
who borrows elements from anthropology, psychology
1
archaeology
and art history, it is important --to denounce the mysticism of
-
-
?hilosophical and aesthetic efplanations. In Hauser, aesthetics,
along with the study cf communication processes, plus phi10,sophy
4 '
(Sege!)
, rather ad=;ecua:eiy inform his conception of.t h e
-
L
The interdisciplinary essence of the sociology of arT not-
only resides in its comprehensive nature but in its faculty t o 8
-
+
percei.re its own de.velopnent and renew itself according to
-
particular situations. Both Duvignaud and Hauser use %the.essay
.
as their form of expression. This form of writing permits them
to elaborat; on a subject yithout making a final statement, thus
allowing them the possibility to reassess in the future their
L .
viiwpoints.
de l'art represents another step
For Duvignaud, Sociologie toward a more comprehensive sociology that would embody the
+
-
imaginary itself. Because of a shift in concern in so'cial theory
K
I
which has occurred since the 196€Jrs,one wonders if this project
The Sociology
will ever be completed. In -
of
Art, Hauser .develops
lurther the-argument he previously formulated in
\
-
The
Philosophy
of Art.' Conscious of the possible existence of hiatus and
-
insuffi'ciencies in ,its elaboration of the sociology of art, he
confesses "that the sociology was for me always an excuse to
look at art from dne-_poinf of view, in the process of which new
or insuf liciently co-nsidered
characteristics would appear."
--
h he Philosophy cf Art
/--
(Hauser,l982:XX) I n
Histary, Hauser.
foretold the possible dissolution of the sociology of art.
~ t is
' interesting to note that'~he
- Philosophy of Art
I:957:English translation) is one of Hauser's pieces of writing
which is often overlooked. Allusions to Hauser are mostly made
i c reference to The Social History of Art [I955:Engl i
The Sociology of Art With.out The
translat ion1 , and recently Phiioso h of Art ~istory;the theoretical counterpar t =-fo
d t o r r 3 Art,
- the latter remains more or les
excellent nomenclat~rcof a. r t even'ts.
.
r(
.
.u
In
LC
a
Q,
3*
m
1
d
.k0
0
m
e-i
C,
' rn
.4
w
0
C,
C
m
.A
2
aJ
c,
C
rd
o
From the
--
Enlightenment
to
Modernism
..
-
The main preoccupation of the Enlightenment was a concern
-
,
with human-nature. As practitioners of humanism, the
I
philosophers of the eighgeenth century were careful to develop
principles of life such as bbjective science, universal morality
and law, .and autonomous art, whi,ch were meant to enrich everyday
-life. While they insisted on the inner logic of these'spheres,
they were careful to tie them to the fulfillment of practical
1
needs. However enlightening this project.may have been, by the
end of the eighteenth century, its validity was already
questioned, With the twentieth century, a11 optimism is gone. As
Habermas argues: "The differentiation of science, morality and
art has come to nean the autonomy of the segments treated by the
specia2ist and at the same time letting them split off from the
-
hermeneutics of everyday communication."(Habtrmas,1983:9)
Walter D. Bannard describes modernism as follows: "In
spirit, modernism is aspiring, authoritarian, hierarchical,
self-critical, exclusive, vertically structured, and aims for
the best, " (Bannard,1984: 6 9 ) ~ranslatgdin artistic terms, the
universal nature of art, the differentiation between high and
low a r k , the fascination with the new, the duality between life
r
and a r t (emancipation of sit), the att/language dilemma are
character ist ics or n-mdern art, U - t h e -nFneteenthmtury+art
became p r o g r e s s i v ~ y ~ a ~ t o n o m o u and
S , needed to be treated in a
special manner:
-
-~
-
-
P
-Paymond Williams has pointedrout how the closing decades
of the eighteenth an the opening decades of the
nineteenth centuries the word 'art' changed its meaning;
when written with a c pita1 ' A ' it came to stand not for
s previously) but only for
just any human skill
certain 'imaginative' or 'creative' skills; moreover,
'Art' (with a capital ' A ' ) came also to s5gnify a
special kind of truth, 'imagihative truth', and artist a
special kind of person, that is a genius or purveyor of
this truth. (~uller,1980:44)
-
"i,
The Pafadoxical
-
-
Nature of the Sociology of Art
tr
One can assume therefore, that. the paradoxical position of
,
the sociology of art lies in its capacity to support
simultaneously, on one hand the universal nature of art -'every
individual is entitle2 to the experience of art (Duvignaud) or
r
art is a vehicle of expression and a medium of empa.thy for the
whdle person (Hauser), and on. the other, only ' fine art' can
enhance huma'n experience. Sandor Radnoti ' s discussion of the
universal concept of art, which emerged during the secpnd half
of the eighteenth century, clarifies'the position of the
sociology of art
.-
The autonomous and universal concept of art essentially
takes into consideration only the arts at the top of the
hierarchy. Its expeczation is that an art work adequate
to-khe concept of a r c should evoke a peak experience,
have a cathartic impact, and alter the reci2ient's life.
tXadnoti,1981:451
With the concept of the imaginary2 which transcends ail
caste., group or class divisions in order to establish total
2"La creation est p l z s v a s t e que les arts particuliers."
I3v~ignaud,1967:6i
.rl
h
3
JJ
-d
U
rll
.d
+,
+J
.r)
.r4
C,
m
4
-
aJ
L.4
0
E
k
.
(d
m
cr
..
3
Ih
(0
k
U
aJ
J-J
0
aJ
c,
aJ
c
24
v.4
m
3
cl
.c
L
a
I-r
0
Iw
.
L1
k
-4
k
3
a,
'a
cl
C)
QI
0
4.J
A
4
3
.d
r-4
a
k
C
a
C,
L:
h
8
nj
4
N
0
'
-r(
l-i
m
.a
8 i2
k
0
k
a
0
.A
TFl
a,
(d
Ei
UI
k
4
U
.c
d,
3.1
a
0
'k
a
JJ
w
W
m
C
cn
3
v
a
3
.d
C
d,
ti
C
JJ
0
L:
r-i
.ri
C
0,
W
C,
C.
W
Q
ti
4
10
m
'0
U
cr
-d
-3.
1 4
C
8
.ri
aJ
!i
.c
a
.+J
m
al
A
aJ
m
U
ri
C
Ln
L-r
Ei
m
4
2
0
k
U.
C,
s.4
4.J
'4
c)
rd
a,
t,
m
m
a
*A
C,
-m
c)
k
.d
a
nl
R
Q,
4
k
a
a,
U
k
r-i
aJ
aJ
Q,
r-i
4
m .
0
aa)
-
W
b'
al
fi
0'
W
i
A2
0
0
Trc
L)
r(
C
U
QI
-4
aJ
>
a
&
a1
.C
U
Q,
!i
b
Vygautas Kavolis claims that the sociology of art remains
-'the last preserve of the humanists'. (~avolis,1968:4) It' is,
,
evident, if we take the case of ~uvignaudand Hauser to
illustrate his claim, that the establishment of the necessity 03
art is more important than any statistical considerations,
However Kavolis fails'to see that, the btmost contention of the
sociology of art is to preserve the humanistic notion of art
-
notb'bqly in its eighteenth century version (its universality and
significancefin everyday life practice), but in its nineteenth
century interpretation. From c m e n t s made by Marx through some
of .his major works (The
-
--Y
cono omit and Ph,ilosophicManuscripts of
1844, Critique of. Political
humanistic perspec-tive on art.
1
, and Capital) has sprung a
\
The question of the values and ra
&f
these ideas, a s
well as the possi'bility of constructing an aesthetic
using them a s starting points (rather than as fully
developed syste , requires an understanding of Marxism
as,a philosophic 1 praxis: more precisely of a praxis
which aims to transform human capitalist system of
society, so as to establish a society in which humanity
can give rein to its essential powers, frustrated,
+denied, postponed and emasculated for so long
' A
thetics cannot be alien to this humanist Marxism
)Gzquer, 1911ClD)
3
...
i
...
Folfowing Marx-'-sinfluence on aesthetic 'considerations, one
of the concerns of mo,;fern art, with respect t o q t s necessity,
its redemptive quality: art can initiate social change.. Howeve
t h e scope of this lationale 'is known40 o w a t e between the
.
.
.
distinct i-ntelleckualpositions: from
a
-- -li
-
,
,
-
more idealistic position
/
(~uvignaudand Hauser) which holds that the creation qf social
reality is sufficient to explain the relationship between art
-.
5
and society, to a more materialistic v'iewpoint (Arvon and
VSzquez) where the issue of human and artistic pfqxis cannot be
separated.'.
Contrary to Arvon's and V&zquezls suggestion that art can
be a tool of revolutionary pract-ice,neither Duvignaud nor
Hauser allude to the overcoming of capitalism. For example,
Hauser has definitively abandoned the golden rule of Marxism,
.
which puts class struggle at the centre of all activity, by
giving away the concept of class for one of cultural stratum. In
'
addition, by affirming that the art of the cultural elite is the
most enhancing and liberating human experience, Hauser makes
himself 'mote conspicuous from
a retolutionaty position.
I
The diffusi-on of present-Bay art into culture has
F
7-
the redemptive aspect of art
-
art hds lost its
aspiration\s to project into the future, whi'ch was the dominant
characteristic of modernism. Daniel Bell rightly summarizes the
3-
situation:
.:
D
@Douglas Davis offers another .version on the same theme: "But
here again we find the familiar assumption that art must exhort
us to idealism or stand convicted of disinterest in the world the reverse of the coin that finds Utopianism in movements like
radical Constructivism and any body of work charged with social
content. Unlike its critics, art oscillates with.ease between
thes? two simplistic extremes; art can also employ them both at
once: it can utilize otherwordly means directly to deal with the
world. Like language, art can state, use, and resolve
cpradoxes.w (Davis,1977:135-136)
-
A nineteenth-century tradition, one deepl~rimrpreg'nabd-
with Marxist conceptions, held &at changes in social
structure determined man's imaginative reach. An earlier
version of a a n - as homo pictor, the sywbof-producing
faber the tool-making
animal, rather than as home -'
animal- sawahim as a creature uniquely able to
prefigure, what he would later 'objectively' or
construct in reality. It thus ascribed to the realm ofculture the initiative for zhange. Whatever the truth of
these older arguments ab6ut the Rast, today culture has
clearly become supreme; what is played out in the
imagination of the artist foreshadow, however dimly, the
social reality'of tomorrow. (Be11,1976:33)
',
-
*
\r
Bell argues, like many art theorists, tor the effectiveness
-?
of art as an instrument of social change; he thus depiores its
*
loss. However not everybody believes in this redemptive aspect
of art. Hans ~ a a c k ecame
~
to realize how it is utteriy naive to
believe that the production of art can make life more humane.
"Nothing, but really absolutely nothing is changed by whatever
type of painting or sculpture or happening you produce on the
level where it counts, the political level." (Haacke,1975:130)
However, one can assume that Haacke's position does not
challenge the tendentiousness of art, as proposed by Hauser.
.
.
~ r o p a g b d aand ideology are the centre of Haacke's artistic
0
activity and they are an active part of any creative act or any
+
b
form Gf art' interpretation.
visual artist whose art works have denounctd and shown the
functioning of the art world.
*
A
4%.
'Not Until ,Humanity Itself ---Dies Wi.11 ~ r Die1
t
k
?
Following the assumption made earlier about the concern
shown by the sociologists of art totperpetuate the modernist
conception of art, it comes without surprise that their
interpretgbion' of contemporary art (and of art throughout
history) has to include a discussion about the significant
. . : change in its conceptwlizatid,n, From Duvignaud and Hauser, it
is reasonable to assert that from the Paleolithic age onward,
images have hever failed to be produced. However, the same
argument cannot be applied to the social meaning of art
throughout history from its prehistoric conception to 'Art'.
Notwithstansing that, a disti'nction has to be made between
Duvignaud and Hauser. Duvignaud, whose viewpoint is
optimistically colored, stresses the danger of the supremacy of
the realm of art over everyday experience. ~eanwhile,Hauser's
discussion of prese~t-dayart reflects upon the possible demise
art, an issue which came
,.
.
*
its full meaning shortly after
' ~ spite
n
of the different pa-ths taken by Duvignaud and
Hauser, one can assume that they would fully support Ernst
Fischer's statement about the necessity of art:
"
Man who became through work, who stepped out of the
a n i p l kingdom as transformer of the natural into the
'artificial, who'became therefore the magician, man the
creatoi of social replity, will always be Prornetheys
h r - i g i n g - f u - f r o m , , h e a v e n to earth, will always be
Orhpeus enthralling nature with his music. Not until
humanity itself dies will art die. (Fischer,1963:225)
a~
z
3
0
7
rn
u rn.
.ri
m
k
rl
4
aJ
*
rl
,
tn
0
aJ
Id
c,
u
k
m
tn
J
at-4
C
U
a
tn
k
al
"u
al
1
C
7
-4
c,
3
rl
rl
U
J-J
a
c,
C
O
i u g
c,
U
m
C
l
+
w
o
C
a
J
O
C
0
U J - J J - J
h
c,
r
rn
-
P
w
m
-
a
k
C,'
n
.ri
aJ
k
a m + ,
J a C P m
a 3 r l
n
3?
al
C
w
0
r
L
Q
rn
u4
J
c
c
d
C
U
U1
rn
3
ul
0
m
aJ
S
C
X
r
C,
aJ
.
a
c
m
a~
-
-
m
"
3
C
aJ
U
d
rn
,
3 : G
n
3
**
aJ
(\l
w
U I c , a 3 0
a
r
2 8
U
z
L
C , a J x P :
. d T I a J
--
F
nonartistic production.
Two factors threaten the evolution of
art: on the one hand, technology is more than ever a threat to
art (the failure of art to compete with the continuous change of
technological achievements); on the other, the dictum 'art is
what counts as art' is destroying every sense of privilege and
purity attached to 'Art'.
From ~ausei'sdiscusgion of the collapse of art, it comes
.
to Light that the debate over the subject is often misleading.
Nuances have to be made in order to properly frame the question,.
Actually, the concept of the demise of art is.concerned with the
.
notion of " ~ r t ' Therefore, it is impossible to detach Hauser's
elaboration onbthe subject' from this context. In fact, Hauser
, deplores the loss of this art. Hi's discussion about the various
.
- .,
ibeal types reveals his elitist position. In other words, he
supports the idea, claimed by aesthetic movements, that _
'Art' ,
is
_--
.
a splteri of its own which, in order to be ef f icie55 in its role
of salvation, should not be contaminated by debased elements of
popular art, mass art, pop art or folk-art. Thus, he perpetuates
the hierarchical order of the modern era:
/
The problem of access to- 'Art' is never directly addres.sed
by th% popl; who 'hold the position that the distinction'between
high and low art has to be main'tained. Hauser's ideal notion
------------------
&His stress upon ci.vilizationlsnonartistic producti-on can be.
read in terms of the difference which can be made between
.aesthetic and artistic production. Hauser's simultaneous use of
artistic ?nd acsthebic may confuse the issue of what he really
means by 'nonartistic'. From his position vis- 8-vis the ideal
types of art, it can be suspected that artistic should bcunderstood as aesthetic.
-
>
-
9
that everyone is entitled to experience art'conceals the
distinction. The examples that he uses in order to illustrate
his viewpoint clearly identify his position: the influence of
popular art on t ? ~ eart of the cultural elite can only be
detrimental; the influence of the art of the-cultural elite can
.
enlighten.anyone who is willihg to put an effort into
understanding it.
His concern is echoed by many, and sinde f i e t 9 7 0 1 s a sense
of' cynicism and nostalgia has tinted the discourse and practice
of art. The debate over the end of Modernism and the rise of a
6
new epoch called Postmodernism is characteristic of this
phenoinenon. The use of the term Postmodernism sugqcz's
-
that,
once more, the old and new spirit cannot 'be dissociatea. Hauser
explains this phenomenon rather adequately when he discusses the
dialectic, especially its principle of Aufhebunq.
Since the I9?O1s a pluralistic perspective seems to prevail
in the production and interpretion of art. The boundaries
between the various types of art appear (and simultaneously are
reinforced) to be more flbid than ever. However not many people
have looked upon the diffusion of ' ~ r t 'in a- positive Fanner.
Achille Bonito Oliva's comment about 'he
'trans-avantgarde' may
be perceived as an antidote to the predominantly dim appraisals
J'
present-day art.
The artists of the trans-avantgarde have shifted things,
replacing the myth of a unitary vision of the world,
assured by an ideology designed to explain all
contradiction and antimony, with a more open position
and readyness to drift along any number of t a n g e n p and
advocating a fragmentary vision and unique, ~ o m a d i c
I
iL.
:
Q
U1
F
C
aJ
0
CO
a
3
a,
5t
31
b
C
k
CJ
a
0
e
v,
P-4
a J 7
C
f,
1
Q
C
.Pi
a
u-4
o
C
a
a
4J
C
tr
0,
0 ,
C
4J
3
o
k
cr
Q
w
0
a
.r(
aJ
X
((1
EI
a
Pi
aJ
w
0
C
3
a
0
Q
0
3
k
-d
U
Y
m
4J
C
r(
.
r-i
a) 0
x
0-
C
C,
.d
U
C
3.
w
c;
.d
aJ
k
* *
aJ
U
m
.d
m
tn
C,
C
Q1
r4
4
0,
0,
rc
0
C
r(
r-i
3
a
C
4.J
a
r-i
C
d
".
4.4
?4
trj
C
aJ
Q,
0
a
m
Ll
m
€i
0
a
0
.U
0
VI
2
0
w
w
'
Ei
k
t
0
ul
'd
3.
ca
ln
.*-r
k
a
r-i
aJ
2
k
h
V)
'
r-i
o
In
U)
tn
d
a
CP
.C
..
U
C:
aJ
7
a
(d
a
0
k
m
a
a
QI
C
C
Cr,
..-i
3
3
a
k
k
.C
m
d
4J
-
a
-il
a
.r(
o
I:
1
tn
0
-4
, €5
+J
3*
R
a
aJ
U l o
a
U
C
u-(
0 .-(
a
Ei
a
.Cd
4
k
a
3
0 -
meeting of art and fife; the dramatization of khe,event is
.perhaps j u s t as liberating. He claims that bnc of the
consequences of the invasion df t h e artistic realm into our life
has been to modify our relationships with each other. Therefore,
fie suggests that the encounter is boundlto affect our habits and
morals.
A
J
.
And doubly affected, in sexual relations, feelings or
passions, because this predominance of the event gaias
an importance as a result of a rediscovery of man's
Basic requirements, his basic needs, at least in their
dramatic form. A certain rhetoric dissolves under our
eyes - that which for too long has permeated our
feelings and collective representations, so tha& our
affections and w r relations with one another were
guided more by abstract justifications than by real
experience, (~uvig-naud,1972:136)
,
In the French intellectual tradition, Duvignaud's
perspective on the valorization of the .event has been looked
upon as a major issue of the present-day situation. However, not
ina n y intellectuals share Duvinaud' s optimism. For Guy Debord,
the transfo>mation of everyday life into a spectacle is a step
c3caer ,to total alienation. *The entire life of societies i n
which modern conditions of production reign ann_ounces itself as
an immense accumulatior, of spectacles. Everything that ,was
directly lived has moved away into representation."
{
Debor,dlsargument puts the weight of the problem of-the
spectacle on qateriqf production. Meanwhile Jean Baudrillard
- and
Henri Gefebvre seem go m u r n the distinction between art and
*
life which reflects,+ longing for past values. ~audrillard
appears to deplore t h e loss of utopia:."L'i~gination est au
'
- --- -
-
-
-
pouvoir, la Iumidre, I'intelligznce est au pouvoir, nous vivons
,
. cief
T
'
est dtscendu sur ttrre, le cief de l'utopie,
et' ce que se
.
profilait c o m e une perspective cadieuse se vit dCsormais c o m e
/
une catastrophe au ralenti." iEaudriflard,1983:101~
s comment reflects social concerns,
While ~audrillard'
Lefebvre!~appraisdi of the situation is directly refated to
.
contemporary art.
I
"
,
. Le pur spectacle dissout les formes de l'art-,toutes
rCalisCes j a d i s pour obtenir la participation (&motive,
affective, concrete) de f'individu B f'oeuvre -prCsentCe
ct au =an&
de E C S oeuvres, paur mettrc fin A
r
1'extCrlorltC (des h o m e s et de la nature, du crCateur
et d u r6cepteur). Devenu eatbriorite et spectacle, le
monde esthCtique n'est plus <n monde.
1Lefeb$re,1962:329)
'sd
Lefebvre's comment echoes, in a different manner, Hauser's idea
about the shrinking state of the aesthetic sphere. ~hereiore,it
has to be stressed that not only has the distinction between low
\
and high art been an issue for modern art, but the distinction
between art and reality has ~ e e na focus of attention as well.
3. Conclusion: The 'How' and 'What' of Communication Processes
During the 1950's and 19601s,'the sociology of art' came
forth as the major proponent of the communicati
The purpose of the sociology of art, which is t
v
art and society are related, was reinforc d when it
look simultaneously at this correlation and to
of,art as communication. Duvignaud and Hauser h
this concern, yet in different ways. Duvignaud is interested in
discussing f h e productive end of art (imaginary), whe,reas Hauser
I
claims that the meaning of art takes place not onlyin the hands
of the producer, but in the hands of, the receiver. Howeve'r,
their treatment of the com:un~t~tiveaspect of art is similar
a
because they both locate the normative value of art within the
.
concept oi universality (everybody ig entitled to art).,
~ k Production
e
and Reception of Art
a
,
The reference to the communicative -aspect of art made by'<
Duvighaud rests upon his discussion of the imaginary. According
to him, any significant
imaginative-activity is a communication
.
<
from a distance between subjects. Therefore, he claims that the
L
imaginary is intersubjectively constituted, yet rooted in'
ccflective experience. A sense o
ity emerges from ihe
necessity to cornmupicate; thus, t h e art object'arises f r m thz
$
u
O
%
r-i
m
4-J
0
C,
m
C
a
k
m
5 ,
aJ
o
C:
0
W
h
JJ
t-i
.4
.d
C
0
.aa
d
a
0,
In
k
m
C
'tl
+J
*
C .
aJ
-'4
.0,
5
d
- Cd
z
c,
C:
'-4
.C
a rl
@ a + '
a J c , u l
c,
-A
k
c,
-0
4
a
w ' m
0
m
U
-4
o C , E
m
-.-4
>*
o
U'
3
k
ul
o
-+ ' a 0
C
l
a
a k a J
5
-c, cn
0
r
m
.A
Q
3
i
E-,
W
Q
rl
.C
-4
r
k
"
3
aJ
w
J
a
m
C a
-,+
G
0-l
-A
2
.
-
.$
C
a,
4J
W
a
C
m
5t
0
Q,
k
U
o
.d
m
0
3
L,
a
a ' aJ
m
m
c
m
U
c,
.d
Q)
3
A
k
. , c
3*
U
C id
a
d
3
m
c , c ,
c,- al
aJ
4J
L:
O
D
JJ
C
O
d
a
.d
U
U
@
Q
-I7
,
-ul
c,
c,
Q
4J
Q.4
k
m
m
Q
-d
U
.A
c,'
a
; E z 4
m
aJ
x
4 4 ul J o
C:
8
42
L:
c,
.
k
U)
%
a.
m
c,
-rl
.
k
w
3
aJ
3
0
x
-
- -
- --
--
assumed.' Like Duvignaud, Hauser claims the intersubjectivity of
the communication process. However, he suggests that the social
character of the work of art arises when the artist 'speaks' to
+
more than one person; the sense of collectivity &arises through
the production and ?eception of the work of art. He emphasizes
-
that the creation r f art does not end with the producer, but
co~~tinues
with a f i r ~ tinterpretation and subsequent ones
'q
regardless of time and space. He stresses that not only the
3'
production of art, but also its re-ception is conditioned by
aestheti
and social factors.
L
By p u t t i n b h e accent on the relationship between
production and reception, Hauser tries to correct the
overemphasis on production which characterizes most Marxist
analysis of art (such as ~uvignaud's). He simultaneously
denounces' the stress upon reception which is advocated by
reception theory, Hauser is, here,.influenc& by Marxist
philosophy. His notion of the creation of artistic meaning not
only corresponds to Marxist principles, but his discussion of
comniunication processes reveals'a knowledge of structuralism
-
(sign and lang~age),' psychology (intersubjectivity) and media
studies (McLuhan);
----------i-------
'This 'ideal witnessf.is found in psychological literature. This
'spectator within' acts as a normative controller by which an
individual sets his/her behaviour according to social *standards.
'Hauser never directly mentions- sttucturalism a s his source of
inspiration because,.by the 19701s, the terms sign and language
were already given in art theory,
0,
n
rl.
m
J2
d
m
.d
Q
3.
C
0
.d
U
a
u.
C
.d
3
U
0
0
W
-
b
-
art. However crucial the two sections,of the book3 addressing
9
these two points may be for further !ri search, their impact is
jeopardized by Hauser's own confusion. This reflects the
.
ambiguities and contradictions found in The Sociology of Art. On
the one hand, Hauser i.s able to recognize that other types\•’
art exist outside the art of the cultural elite, while on the
other, all assumptions,about the communi;at ive aspect of art ar'e
carried under the label of 'Art'.
'The Missing
-
Link'
One can assume that4n the sociology of art the
communicative aspect of art cannot be dissociafed from the
universal.concept of art. We learn from Dwignaud and Hauser
that communication is only conceivable in terms of its
I
unibergality, thus implying tHkt each individual holds and has
access to the means of urderstanhigg. Radnoti argues that this
way'o•’thinking reflects the position of "the art of the ,
bourgeois world epoch [which] calculates on an abstract (open)
and free reception that is capable inzprinciple of integrating
recipients from totally alien cultural-intellectual
backgrounds". -(Radnoti,l981:36) Or as Martha Rosler frames it:
A
It can be meaningfully claimed that virtually the entire
society is part of the art audience, but in making that
claim we should be aware of what we are saying. The
widest audience is made up of onlookers - people outside
------------------
3'En Route from Author to Public' and 'The ~ifferentiation of
Art according to cultural Strata'.
*,J
the group generally meant by the term ' a W n e & ,-They
know of high culture mostly through rumor and report.
(~osler,1982:10)
-
*
4Le
"ost
arguments about the communicative aspect of art
9
revolve a'round an intellectually safe, but significant question:
-
'how communication occurs'. Duvignaud and Hauser do not escape
this i&llectual
trap. A more pertinent issue is rarely alluded
to which could unveil the actual social implications of
co~unicationprocesses: 'what is being communicated'. Both
~uvignacdand ~ahser.
overlook the ideological essence not only
k
of the messages, but of the
Notwithstanding this,
ns of communication as well.
indirectly at this issue %n
his argument about the tendentious nature of the work of art,
i
but fails to mak-e the connection between ideology and
I
communication.
.
f.
i
By assuming that ideology and communication cannot be
disassociated, it can be assessed that through communication
processes each individual is bound .to embrace an ideological
I
v-iewpoint which may or may not be his/her own position;
Theref ore, the maintenance of the capitalist order is guaranteed
through the wo'rk of art; ihether the individual is incited to
\
making of social reality through,art
to understand a work of art after z great
intellectual effort (Hauser).
i
\
everth he less,
*
\
\
~
'
I
to suggest the d$f iciency of Duvipnaad and
Hauser in b e s e terms is t o overlbok\heir,
the ideology of modern art and its cri&a1
\
oin position within
discourse. In other
Ir
words, significant questions such as 'Whose..idea of art?' ,
0
a
LC
.A
c c n c
a c Q ,
c o a
.rc
h
k
l-i
aJ
a
ET
BI BLIOGRAPHY
Rdorno, Thebdor. 'Commitment'. New Left Review. no. 87/88,
Sept. -Dec. 1978. pp.
..98-57
7
*
%
-
C
Arlen, Michael. Th Camera Age* ~ssays.
on Television. Middlesex.
(England); New Pork, Penguin ~ o o k z1981.
Arvon, Henri. Marxist'Esthetics. London, Coraell'University
Press,. 1973.
4
,
Bannard, 'Walter Darby, 'On Postmodernism'. Arts Magazine, Vo1.58
n0.6, Feb. 1984. p.69.
*
- -%'
Barber, Bruce. 'Modeqnism and Modernits Investigating the
Avankgarde' s "~ecrophiliacal"Maniq for .
1
~risis/Death/~eSirthFollowed by Crisis....' -Fuse
~ovember/~ecsmber1981. pp.271-273.
,
...
Barnett. James H. '
"A'rt,is now what is consumed as Art.";
A Journal of Reviews, Vol. 12 no.3,
cbntemPorary Sbciology,. 1983. pp.270-272.
'
.
'The Sociology of Art'. -In Albrecht, Milton C.,
Barnett, James H.; Greff, Milton (eds.1 The Sociology of
Art and Literature; a
Praeger, 1970.
Reader. Neb York; ~ashington,
I
Bastide, Roger. Artet soci6t6. Paris, Payot, 1977.
9,
s
Baudrillard, Jean. Les strategies fatales. Paris, ~ernard
.
P
'
Grasset, .3891
'4
ell, Daniel. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New,
T-
*
York,. Baslc Books, 1976.I
Be~lavance,Guy. .'fie cristal se venge. Une entrevue avec Jean
Baudrillard.' Parachute, Juillet/AoGt 1963. pp.26-33:
I
i
*
Benjamin, Walter. 'The Author as Producer'. lnkt?nberstanding
. Brecht. London, NLB, 1973.
\
\
'
I
a
..
..
Bertrand, Yves. 'Disciplinarith ou interdisciplinsritb.' ~ o u r n
. of CmaPian Studies, ~ o l T 1 5 ,no.3, Fall 1980. pp.19-24.
~ i r d ,Elisabtth. 'Aesthetic Neutrrlity .arid(the Sociology o<
Art'. In Barnett, Michele; Cosrigan, Ph51ip,'Ruln, ~nnqtte .
and Wolff, Janet.'(eds.). Ideo'loqy &a
Cultural ~roduction.'
London, Croon Helm, 1 9Y9.
-
b
Bullock, Alan and Stallybrass, Oliver. The Fontana ~ictionaryof
C
.
-
--
~ o d e r nThouqht
. ond don,
9
+
Fontana/follins , 1472,---
-
-
86-
Bgrger, Peter. 'The significance of the Avant-Garde for
Habermas'. New
Contemporary ~esthetics:A Reply to Jur&gen
Germah$ Critique. no. 32, Winter 1981. pp,19-22.
7
-
Castellano, victot. 'Pour une nouvelle concapti'on de-la
sociologie de bar-%. ' Revue internationale lde
socioloqie/~nterpational Review of Soc.ioloqy, 301. 12, no.
l/2, ~pril-~ugust
1976.p.3-15,
6Q
~a;toriadis, Cornelius. L ' in-stitytbn imaqinaire de la socibtk.
Paris, Editio~s4,uSeuqk, 1975. ,
. i
Coutts-Smith, Kenneth. 'Thesis on' the Failure of Gomrnunication
in the Plastic Arts;' Praxis, no. 3, 1976. pp.77-97.c '
I-
'
%
'
_
pavzs, Douglas. )utopia:
Thinking (with Ad ~ e i ~ h a r d cAbout
)
the
on the ~oshodern.New
End of Art.' in Artculture. Essays York, Icon Editions;Harper & ROW, 1977. pp.125-149,.
-
n~bord,Guy. Society of the
1970.
" b p
*
Der Grosse
-
Black and Red;
,
Brockhaus. SADL~TAC..Wiesbaden. F.A., Brokhaus, * 198.0.
b
Duvignaud, Jean. Sociologie du thCatre: eSsai sur les' ombres
collectives. Paris, presses Universitaires de France,
n r r
.SocioloqTe de f'art. Paris, Presses Universitaires d e .
France, 1972.
he Socioloc;y\of Art. New-York; London, Icon
Editiws; PMarper
.
& Row, 1972.
D
I
b
*
a
8
':~~e;taule et socihtg. Paris, ~enoll/Gcnthier, 1970.
-+
Ellul, Jacques. L'em i;e dy non-sens. -1L'art et la socikti
,technicienne.,Pa i s 7 ~ r e s s e sUniversitaires de France,' ,
1980.
e
~ n c ~ c l o ~ e dUniversalis.
ia
Vo1.8, GRECO-INTERET. Paris,,
~ncyclopediaUniversalis, 1968.n B
.
.
~ o s t . e r ;Al. 'The Roblem of Pluralism'. Artin -~merica
Vol. 70,
I
no. 1 , January l"982. pp.9-14.
~ o s t e c ,~ r n o l dW.. q'~orninantThemes in interpreting the Arts:
Materials fbr a- Sociological Model.' Archives europhennes
C
1
lde
- sociofogie
, Vol. XX, 1979. pp.301-3W.
Fcancastel, Pierre. Etudes de la socioloqie
-*
Denoel/Gonthier, 1970.
de
l'art. Paris,
.L1image, la vision et 1' imagination. L'objet filmique
et l'objet plazique. paris, Denoel/Gonthier, 1983.
-
.La r6alit6 figurative: 616ments structurels de la
socioEgie & l'art. Paris,
---Gonthier,
1965. --
.
-
-
-
Fuller, Peter. 'Fine Art after ~odernism'. New Left Review,
9 0 . 1 1 9 , January/February 1980. pp.42-59.
Giddens, Anthony. 'Modernism and Post-Modernism.'
Critique, no. 22, Winter 1981. pp.15-18.
New
German
L*
Gombrich, E. H. 'Art History and'the Social'Sciences'. In Ideals
and 1dois. Essays on values in history
art. Oxford,
hai id on, 1979.
.
Haacke, Hans. Framing and7Being Framed. 2 works 1970-1 975.
.Halifax; New York, The Press of Nova Scotia College of ~ r t '
and Design; New York University Press, 1975.
Habermas, Jurgen. 'Modernity - An Incomplete Project'. In
The Anti-Aesthetic, Essays on Postmodern
Foster, A1 (eds.) Culture. Port Townsend,-Bay Press, 1983.
Hadjinicolaou, Nicos. Art History
Pluto Press, 1978.
and
Class Strugqle. London,
The Philosophy of Art Hystory. New Pork, Alfred
Hauser, Arnold. A. Knopf, 1959.
d
I
.'~ropaganda,Ideology and Art'. In ~stvAn,M6sz6ros
ed.) Aspects of Histor and Class consciousness. London,
Lout ledge & K . ~ a d 9 m .
.
<
.
.The Socioloqy of Art.
Chicago Press, 1982.
The Social History of Art. Renaissance, Mannerism,
Paroque. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977.
Chicago, The University oi
Huyssen, Andreas. 'The search for Trsdition: Avant-Garde and
PostModernism in 1 9 7 0 ' s . ' New German Critique, no. 22,
Winter 1981. pp.23-40.
Kavolis, '~ytautas.Artistic Expression - A Sociological
Analysis. New Pork, Cornell ~niversytyPress, !968,
I
pit,
c on aid
B. 'The Unhappy Consciousness of Modernism.
Artforum. Vol. 19, No. -5, January 1981. pp:53-57.
-
Lefebvre, Henri. Everyday Life
-in the Modern World, New York,
Harper Torch Books, 1971.
.
k
.IntroZxtion a -la modernit&. Prkludes Paris, Les
Editions de -~inui't,1962.
.
Arts Magazine. Vol. 54, No.
Levin, Kim. 'Farewell to Modernism'. 2, October 1979. pp.90-92.
LinkerttKate. 'From Imitation to the C o p ~to Just Effect: On
keading Jean Baudrillard.' ~rtforbm,Vo1.12, no.8, April
1984. pp.44-47 4
-*qLischka, Gerhard Johann. 'The Postmodern: a Mul'ilateral
Approach'. Flash
no. 115, January l9b4. pp.22-25.
'
\
Macdonald, Dwight. 'A Theory of Massculture. ' Dioqenes, no. 3,
Summer 1953. pp.1-17.
Marcuse, Herbert. 'Art in the One-dimensional Society'. Arts
Magazine, no.41, May 1967. pp.26-31.
--
.
* -The Aesthetic Dimensibn. Toward a Critique
Marxist Aesthetics. Boston, BehcOn ~ r e g s ,,1978.
of
Munro, Thomas. Evolution in the-Arts
- and other Theories of
Culture History. Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of'~rt,
Oliva, Achille B
lash Art
-1
'The International ~rans-~vantgarde'.
October-November 1981. pp.36-43.
The Dehumanization of Art and other
Ortega asset, Jose. Essays on Arts, Culture and Literature
Princeton,
princeton University Press, 1972.
.
1
A
O'Sullivan, Tim; Hartley, John and al. Key Concepts in
Communication. Lopdon; New York, Methuen, 1983,
Pajackkowska, Claire. 'Structure and Pleasure'. Block, no. 9,
1983. pp.4-13.
.
Radnoti, Sandor. 'Mass Culture.' Telos, no. 48, Summer 198).
pp.27-47.
0
Renzio, ~ o n idei. 'Art &/or language.'
December. 1975. g p . 10-13.
-
and ~rtists,no.
U
\
10,
Robert, Paul. Dictionnaire a1 -hablti ue e t ,analogique de
langue fran~aise.Parls Soc1 t d r ~ o u v e a uL i t t z , 1972.
-+A-
.
-
Rosier, Martha. 'Lookers, Buyers, Dealers, a&-Makers:-Fhotlghkson Audience.' Artforum, Vol. 20, no. 08, April 1982.
pp.5-15.
.
*
Salter, Liora. Communication Studies & Canad&/Etudes canadiennes en communication. Toronto, Butterworths, 1981.
Sandlcr, Irving. 'Modernism, Revisionism, ~ ~ u r a l i s mand
,
Postmodernism+.' Art Journal no. 1/2, ~all/~inter'l980.
pp.345-347.
-- -__
- -
*
-
"
-
p
_
_
_
_
p
-
-
-
Sydie, R. A . 'The State of the Art: Sociology of Art in the
and
Canadian Context.' Canadian Review of Socioloqy Anthropology, Vol. 18, February 1981. pp.14-29.
~ r History,
t
-Past and Present. Bandoorz, Victoria, La
Tomory, P. Trobe University, 1973.
Turner, Frederick. 'Escape from Modernism: Technology and the
Future of Imagination.' Harper's, Vol. 269, No. 16P4,
November 1984. pp.47-55.
\
\
V6zquez,
Adolfo Sbnchez.
-Art and Society. Essays in Marxist
+esthetics. New York: London, Monthly ~ e v i e w ~ r e s s1973.
,
~ebster'sNew Collegia'te Dictionary.. Springfield
Merriam; Toronto, Thomas Allan & Son, 1979.
7
ass.), G&C
~illiams;Raymond. ~ommunic'ations.3rd ed. ~armondsworth,
Middlesex; New York, Penguih Books, 1977.
. A n -
.The'~ociolog~
of Culture. New York, Schocken Books,
Wolfe, Tom. 'Art: New Religion of the Educated.' The Globe and
Mail, ~ebruary 19, 1985. p.7.
Wolff, Janet. Aesthetics and the Sociology
*
George Allen & Unwin; 1983.
of Art.
London,