Marxist criticism concerns itself with class differences and the modes of production that produce oppression. Class conflict will be reflected in different forms of art because the marxist school believes that everything in a society is based on the current modes of production. A change to the mode of production will bring change to politics, law, philosophy, religion, and art. Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin are three of the most notable critics of Marxism. They write about the production of cultural subject in capitalist societies, agreeing that reproduction of art has drastically changed due to mechanization. Horkheimer and Adorno’s The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception and Benjamin’s The Work of …show more content…
Art will be made for the purpose of reproduction to reach the highest audience. The aura of an object will no longer matter because it will not be part of the class consciousness. As Benjamin brings up the debate of the cult value versus the exhibition value, the value of art will change so that it’s only function will be based on how many times it can be reproduced. Horkheimer and Adorno describe the culture industry as, “ millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods” (1256). Benjamin argues that as soon as the authenticity is lost, art’s function is transformed. Horkheimer and Adorno describe a new function of art, to produce for mass consumption. Those in control of the modes of production want to replace the ritual value with a exhibition value to increase profit. Thus creating a bigger divide between the working class and the upper class. Art is being given a new value under capitalism. Benjamin suggests that what is being created within the society is correlated to that value that society puts on art. The quality of art being produced will shift from the cult value and the exhibition value. As Horkheimer and Adorno describe as art being created for almost instantaneous disposal, the culture doesn’t allow art to be held on to but rather be discarded for the new. Mechanical
Marxist literary criticism as defined by Peter Barry approaches a literary text through terms introduced in Karl Marx’ and Friedrich Engels’ Communist economic theory. Their jointly written text titled The Communist Manifesto called for a society with “state ownership on industry… rather than private ownership”. The social theory later became known as Marxism. As stated in Barry’s text, “The aim of Marxism is to bring about a classless society, based on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” (156). One of the theory’s main aspects looks to the “exploitation of one social class by another. The result leaves one class alienated.” Central to Marxism is a belief in its ability to change the material world, which it theorizes. According to Marxist theorists, only through conflicts between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, can the status quo positively change (157).
In today’s society, we are constantly being bombarded with visual art forms. Whether they be classical paintings from the Renaissance, a towering and modern skyscraper, or even a cheesy 90’s R&B music video, they all have one thing in common. According to Carolyn Dean’s definition, these would all fall under the category of “art by intention.” In her essay “The Trouble with (The Term) Art” she advocates a distinction between art by intention and what she deems “art by appropriation.” The difference is that one work was created with the intention of being consumed for visual pleasure, while the other was not. However having been educated in the Western school of thought, many art historians cannot help but project their rigid definition of art onto civilizations that may have
In the contemplation of art, or rather the conceptually intangible definition it currently possess, it is imperative to be mindful that “art” has been utilized as a promotional device, ceremonial item, aesthetically purposed article or perhaps none of these or all. It is because of this vague term that Carolyn Dean, in her text, “The Trouble with (The Term) Art”, makes a case for the consequences of applying the term “art” in societies that lacked such a notion which also accounts for the Western-centric lens the field intrinsically utilizes when viewing non-Western art. The claim is deftly supported by the utilization of expert accounts in the subject, alternative perspectives for what is considered the current norm, and self-examining questions,
Art is able to evoke different feelings and emotions to each person that sets their eyes on it. The act of ‘looking’ is simple, but a lot comes from it. Where the eyes are first drawn to, the duration that the eyes are focused on a specific detail, and the thoughts that flood one’s brain when viewing art is all significant. These actions say more than the piece itself, it reveals emotions of both the artist and the audience. Art can be expressed through infinite forms, but the underlying importance is not with the art itself. It represents a place in time, displaying what was noteworthy to an individual in their own life. It serves as a lasting creation representative of human imagination with the ability to bring out a multitude of emotions from whoever views it. When art is created it represents the creativity of the human mind compacted into a physical object. Art has little usage aside from pure observation, yet it has prevailed throughout time, showing its importance to humanity. Art provides a lens into humanity, showcasing the human ability over time. When studied through history, art is a view into the development of humans and their interests. Through something as basic as commonly using symmetry to transitioning to asymmetry, the European’s perspective following the Renaissance is revealed. The making of art is solely up to one individual and their creativity. It is the pinnacle of
In his work, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Theodor Adorno analyzes the nature of the culture industry. People everywhere are constantly being consumed by the culture industry, which is a term for the mass production of cultural goods such as films, magazines, and music. Adorno is concerned that the government uses the cultural industry as a way to deceive the masses and manipulate them into passivity. This idea remains true in today’s society. Young men and women are more interested in the release of the newest Taylor Swift or Adele song than political issues. People have become less intellectual as they are being consumed by the culture industry. It is much easier for a person to let himself be consumed by mass media and to let the media
In the text Adorno and Horkheimer primarily focuses on the issue of art such movies, radio program and etc becoming a commodity and the fusing of the market and art areas. The criticism of the culture industry stems from the fact that for Adorno and Horkheimer culture held the answer for liberation, however the mass produced culture that they found in America was instead enslaving people. Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument regarding mass culture produced products and its effects and commoditization of art remain important to contemporary society because these issues have continued to have a negative effect on contemporary society this can be observed by analyzing contemporary mass culture products such as television, movies and the internet.
Throughout history, art has changed and transformed dramatically as empires have fallen and new civilizations have formed. There have been many different forms of art and extremely different tastes of art based on which civilization you decide to focus on. According to this opinion, out of all the different types of art, “the highest form of art is realism.” The writer then claims how many civilizations have undergone intellectual and creative declines when creating unrealistic art. This, of course, is simply an opinion, but the the thoughts and ideas of this writers bring up many intriguing questions about art and how society perceives art.
The earliest forms of art had made it’s mark in history for being an influential and unique representation of various cultures and religions as well as playing a fundamental role in society. However, with the new era of postmodernism, art slowly deviated away from both the religious context it was originally created in, and apart from serving as a ritual function. Walter Benjamin, a German literary critic and philosopher during the 1900’s, strongly believed that the mass production of pieces has freed art from the boundaries of tradition, “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependance on ritual” (Benjamin 1992). This particular excerpt has a direct correlation with
A massive artistic change begins with a sense of something about this is wrong. The next step is anger against the wrong and a decision to rectify it. Later, the anger and need for change bleed into every artistic form to revolutionize culture itself. There is no better example of a counter-culture movement than America in the 1960’s, as defiance of previous social norms took place in the Civil Rights movement, the beginning of feminism, and the construction of a radical “hippie” lifestyle. Through cultural changes came rapid controversial evolution in the arts, particularly in music and fashion.
The way we see and perceive this art is predetermined by a variety of different factor ranging from cultural background to socioeconomic status. “A people or a class which is cut off from its own past is far less free to choose and to act as a people or class than one that has been able to situate itself in history. This is why -- and this is the only reason why -- the entire art of the past has now become a political issue” (J. Berger pg. 33) He argues that if a group of people are robbed of being able to create their own culturally relative and socially correct standards for art, then they are being oppressed from engaging as political equals. People use art to understand their place within world history and create social and political meaning for themselves or their culture. Art gives you the power to control how people perceive the past, the present and possibly even the future. Although now the ability to control what art people see isn’t as “regulated” as it once was, but prior to the invention of the camera and the internet, art was controlled by the minority of the elite and wealthy. “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (J. Berger, Pg.157). The upper class mystifies the general population to stay in control; without the ability to see things through our own eyes, people are being deprived of their right to understanding themselves and placing themselves in a role of society. Mystification contributes a negative influence on our society. Mystifying of art distinguish upper class and low class, and more importantly causes the past of certain groups and cultures, such as women,
Marxism is a perspective that was first introduced in the mid 1800’s by Karl Marx and is still applied to situations today. Marxism believes that the mode of production in society determines the social relations of productions (Mack & Ott, 2016). It is considered to be a materialistic philosophy as it has a strong focus on the material world and how it plays a part in human thought. This helps in learning more about the product consumption of the media industry and how social institutions such as family structures, religion and education reflect on different
Just as other works that reflect art, pieces in the category of fine arts serve the important message of passing certain messages or portraying a special feeling towards a particular person, function or activity. At times due to the nature of a particular work, it can become so valuable that its viewers cannot place a price on it. It is not the nature or texture of an art that qualifies it, but the appreciation by those who look at it (Lewis & Lewis, 2008).
As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art
Benjamin’s death in 1940 at the age of 48, is rumored to be a suicide when the Naza’s took office, but is still a mystery. His ideas and concepts however, would live on for decades to come. Much of what he wrote about when discussing art came essentially after the development of photography and film. In his work, “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin addresses his perception of the changes in art and the aesthetic experience congruent with societal changes. He writes with concern of how the great artworks are viewed after the introduction of photography and film. His idea of mechanical reproduction changed the art world as society knew it, particularly in how the public views artwork and the value of that work as more and more people are able to own, view and discuss it. This paper will specifically look at aspects of Benjamin’s groundbreaking essay and how educators can relate his ideas to the practices in their art classrooms.
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and