The Aesthetic Dimension [electronic resource] : Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics

In a situation where the miserable reality can be changed only through radical political praxis, the concern with aesthetics demands justification. It would be senseless to deny the element of despair inherent in this concern: the retreat into a world of fiction where existing conditions are changed and overcome only in the realm of the imagination. However, this purely ideological conception of art is being questioned with increasing intensity. It seems that art as art expresses a truth, an experience, a necessity which, although not in the domain of radical praxis, are nevertheless essential components of revolution. With this insight, the basic conception of Marxist aesthetics, that is its treatment of art as ideology, and the emphasis on the class character of art, become again the topic of critical reexamination. 1 This discussion is directed to the following theses of Marxist aesthetics: 1. There is a definite connection between art and the material base, between art and the totality of the relations of production. With the change in production relations, art itself is transformed as part of the superstructure, although, like other ideologies, it can lag behind or anticipate social change. The Aesthetic Dimension is a response to previous writings within critical theory on the subject of art, notably those of Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno. Marcuse rejected Benjamin's call in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" for the politicization (i.e., a literal reflection of perceived political realities) of modern, reproducible art both to reflect the state of a society and to incite change. Like both Benjamin and Adorno, Marcuse believed that art promises resistance to societal repression, and that a cultural revolution is necessarily connected to a political or social revolution. Adorno (as represented mainly by his posthumous Aesthetic Theory) and Marcuse agreed that this possibility must be realized through artistic detachment and symbolism. Marcuse however offered a more inclusive and less radical suggestion for modern art's source of power than did Adorno, who believed that the works of high culture were the sole artistic source of potential emancipation Developing a concept briefly introduced in Counterrevolution and Revolt, Marcuse here addresses the shortcomings of Marxist aesthetic theory and explores a dialectical aesthetic in which art functions as the conscience of society. Marcuse argues that art is the only form or expression that can take up where religion and philosophy fail and contends that aesthetics offers the last refuge for two-dimensional criticism in a one-dimensional society Front Matter....Pages i-xv I....Pages 1-21 II....Pages 22-39 III....Pages 40-53 IV....Pages 54-61 V....Pages 62-69 Conclusion....Pages 71-73 Back Matter....Pages 75-88