CANADIAN T H E ~ S

NOTICE The quality of this microfiche is heavily dependmt upon the la qualit4 de Gene mero4ii grandement de la quallt4 quality df the original thesis subnlttted foc microfifming. Every de fa th& soumtse au microfilmage Nws avons tout tail pour effM has been made to ensure tre highest qmMy of reprcduc- assurer une qual~tb sup2neure de reproduction tion possible.,

%

If pages are missing, contact the universrty which panted Pte S'il manque des pqps, veudrer communiquer avec I'untver- degree. site qui a conf4r6 le grade

Some pages may have indistinct prin+k$&ially if the origins! pages were typed with a poor typewriter rbbm or if the univk- sity sent us an inferior photocopy.

Previously copyrighted materials (journai art~cles, published tests, etc.) are not filmed.

Reproducth in fult or in part of this film is gcrvmed by the C-dian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30.

' ~ 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 , - Les documents qui font d4j4 I'objet dun drat d'auteur (articles de revue, examens publib, etc) ne sont pas mibofilm4s.

La reproduction. mi%m partielk, de ce rnidrofilrn est k i s e 8 la Loi canadicme sur le droit d'aut@uf,.SRC .1970, c. G30.

J -3-t-5; ,,

THIS DISSERTATlON LA TH~SE A HAS BEEN MICROFILMED MICROFIL~A~E TELlE QUE EXACTLY AS RECEtVED h Prous C A M REqW€

Two . "

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMWNICATIVE ASP~CT OF,.ART IN 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 y , 1980

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FYLFILLMENT OF

MASTER OF ARTS

L 8

in the- Department -

4

Communicat i on ' --.

May 1985

2 1 1 rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced ir, whole or in part, by photocopy

or other means, without permission of the author.

-p- - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - - -

L' autorisat ion a GtS accokd~e a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de microfilmer cette these et de pr$ter ou

- -

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. de vendre des 2xempiaires du

film. +p - - -

The auti(;;r (copyright o w n e r ) LBauteur (titbl~ire du droit t h a s reserve^ o t t e - =

d,'auteur) se _ reserve l e s publication rights, an autres droits de publication; - neither the thesis. IT'&^'^ n i la these ni de longs . > I

extensive extracts from .. it extr3its . d'e celle-ci ne . may be pri&ted or otherwise doivent @tre imprimes ou * ,reproduced without his/her autrement reproduits sans son w r i t t e n perrnis'sion. autorisation Bcrite.

d i- 4

ISSN 8-315-38719-6

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 end

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 01 which, i s shown below) to rtsrrs

of any

Simon Fraser Cni~ersity Library , and t o make pa2fial or single t

o n l y for 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

- - - - 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 ~ t s okn

or for one of its users. F f u r t h r r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n for

m u l t i p l e c o p y i n g of this thes is for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d

- -

by me or t f i P ~ ~ o i ? C i ~ d u a r e Studies. f t Is understciod rhat co?ymg -

P

* .

or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesie for f i n a n c i a l g a i n shall n o t be allowed5

w i t h u t n y w r i t t e n permission. 9 -

(Xmrmica+icm within the Sociofap of Art :

, . Author :

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

, self -awareness: art plays a critical r o k d n s~ciql L

communic~ztion. For - - both - Duvignaud - and Hauser t the study of a-rt ,

and of the social relations within an epoch are 'intrinsically

related and their positions regarding the centr & role of the 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~ricaffy conditione 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 d not 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

- --

- bfl

connotative aspects of art. ,,? - & , a'

i i i

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 is by- giving- them the oppclr-t-unity t&---

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, , n.

-- Jan D a v i s o ~ Lyn& Drury, Oiane Fort in, T w - W a s y m , - - -- - -- - Paul yeyer, Lynne Hissey, Sut Jhally, Martin .Labat Margot Lacroi.~, Cam Landell, Wi-llliam Leiss, 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

* . ,TABLE OF CONTENTS

, A - - -- - - - - -

4 CApproval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

ABSTRACT .......................................-.............iii 1

ACKNOWLEWMENTS. ............................................... iv 1

<

PREFACE .......t.....,......t................................vii

d 1. Int oduction: Language, Image and the ~ociology~of # Art .....................................................

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- .......... I, The Sociology of Art: ~uvignaud's Interpretation 14 /

1 . T o w a p a Sociology of rei is ti? Expression ......... ; ..:. 15 9

&-& Applitation of the Sociology of ~ r t - ................. -24' ' I

3. The Role* OF Aesthetic Attitudes in the ,Imaginary and . - Collective Experience .. ;.........;............~......36

.................. 4. Communication: Meanings and Contexts 45

5. Art Today (1968) (\ ........................... .... ..... -53 4@ ............ 11. The Sociology of krt: Hauser's Interpretation 56 I

1 . ~ u n d mental Assumptions ............. k. ... .: ........ ; -57 3 2. Interactio~ between art and society .................... 69

. ". -

3. Historical Materialism ............... 1................86

................... 5..The Production and Reception of Art 103 . ........ 6. Art and Cultural Stratification ~.............111

'7. Pr-esent-day Art: ,Assumptions and Symptoms of Crisis ..I28

\ 111. A Last Salute to 'Art'? ............................... .I36 1. he Sociology of Art: Misunderstanding and - - ....................................... pndcrstanding 137

- - - --

2. The Sociology of Art: Last Preserve of the Humanists .I47

3; Conclusdpn: The 'How' and 'What' of Communication Processes .......................................... .l6lt

' A r t and Society', a term which refers-to the production 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 - --

art: Dwignaud's Sociologie a l\art (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 c thesis 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

ard ev&ttatim c& their ue&sF *+i&

lertgthy and cumbersuse for some, pet it offers-a rather

comprehensive explication of their works. %is, I feel-is

work, ,

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 C

sociology of art has originated. I believe that chis excursion . ,. #

- - - - - -

into the past and present of the sociology of art is necessary, -.

especially since surveys which~discuss the 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.HauserFs discussion 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) .'

x Psychology is another theoretical smrce+which has shaped _ _ ----- __---

the concept of communication in the sociology of art. Following 7

a psychological argument, Duvignaud and ha use^ assert that the

essence -J - of creative - - - - activitiek - - -- -- resides - - - - - in the - need -- for p- people - - to - - -

comunicat~ 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 i of 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

- - - - - - -- -- - - -- - rp- & - - /

- -- - F4-- - - ** -7

of art, but to undetscore the ideological bias -of the;; . t

- - - - - - -- - 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 -- . f

assessed.

-- - - - - - f'-.- - - - - - --+- pP -pp-pppp

i - - - - --

7' - -- - --

C

-

C -

f Y - - - - -

1. 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

-(especially kilm nd telev-ision) has meant that visual images - a - - - - - - - - - - - -

-7 --

V are more than ever at the centre of human relations. In 1970,

Pierre Francastel reflected upon the subject:

.I1 est fragrant que notre &poque nemesure pas du tout l'ampleur de 1akCvolution culturelle qui est en train --- - -- de se produire. Ik 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 - -r -

J

1 * - 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-fix6 par 1'6criture. (Francaste1,1970:13j

'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

.. m

m

(0

UJ

- 8 .A

W 0

aJ U C

aJ C

. rl 4J

2 aJ C: cr

h

k

0

aJ C

cr

JJ k'

m

e: .r

( .

U)

4J C

d 0 r-i aJ 3

aJ 5

a

tn " +c

cr

0

JJ

r(

aJ i-i

i-4 (0

k

d N . C

0

14

4

0,

.r(

r-i aJ k

Ctl C

m

C

JJ

2 4

JJ k

m

w m

C U

3

(0

C 0

. rl cr id U

*ri

W

. r( C br . r( w W

0

W

0

0,

U

F

([I U

+ rl

W

r-4 C

b'r

.A

VI

aJ C

+J

communication.

La valorisation du langage %eToXSFCpas 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, come des f langues partie les et techniquement sp&cialis6es, -- - peinture, musique etc. (Lefebvre,1962:176)

The growing inEerestin comunica-tron, wkich-folrows-from------

the structuralist study of langdge 4s 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 tht~rie 5e 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 cyberdt iques de la ccamwtication plu 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 4e

socioloqica& point of v i m , ArcoJd W . F'oster3 mentions that one

focus is communication, This emphasis is illustrated in the .

works of Marshall McLuhan, Arnold Hauser, Wilhem Wundt, George * Mead, ~ o h n Dewey, Jane Harrison, and - Claude - - Levi-Strauss. + --

Intelleo45ual Roots and Historical Contexts

- J

- The intellectual backgrqund of a socio~ogical perspective - -

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 (~rench writer, t-

1 7 6 o - 1 8 1 7 ) . In - De 2 r;ltCrature qonsbidCrk -- dans ses rapports

avec les 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 ~oster are 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) - drew together art and qociety as early as

1845 (The - Economic - 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 ( 1895 ) , Ernst Gross (England) applied his materialist -- interpretation of art which emphasizes art a s - a reflection of -

7 the varietis e c m ~ s t a p o society, aft& #hi& stresses HHZ ? /---

change in the function of art f m the early stages to modern. /'/

0 . civilization. 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 -+ elaborates on

in his Histoire de la -- 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 French phi f osupher and pet, t 854-1 888 f f omuf ated ,+or- --

the i i r s t t i e , e socie- wad -bf-

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~ial character of art in the works of ~merican, European, and

~ov'iet intellectuals. - r n America, the 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 - t h o q k t $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 (1911) 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 f audwsll ( F407-3937 1- wa* - - -

-

,zencs& wi,* the same ksue*Meanwhile,-

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 such 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, \ I

emergence of cultural forms. The principal reason for the lack - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - -

Of inte? st in artistic activity characteristic of the writings

I of. most American sociologists, resides in their relative lack 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 .

-- _themy). 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 ~rancastq, 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 ~mzrican Poet: A ROE f

( 1 9 5 2 ) . Milton A-lbrecht; James Barnett; and Mason - The Sociology of Art and Literature (1970) . - ---

-The names of Alphons Silbermann, a German sociologist, and % - - - -- -- --

7- -

of Arnold Hauser, a ~un~arian social historian of art, are , - mentioned with respqct to.their efforts to discuss the social

production - of art. The extensive scope of HauserVs.work makes 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

pursued by the social historians of

Berger, T.J. Clark, Terry Eagleton,

Marxist tradition are -.- ,

art and 14terature: John

Raymond ~ill.iams, and

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 relations and representational . systems); therefore the determination of knowledge or 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 in•’ loerr---- Europeans is well represented in the writings of Fernand Dumont ( l964), Maurice Lemire ( 1969)~ Gilles Marcotte (19641, 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 - n.f. (1830; mot cr66 par Comte; de 'socioV- et -1ogie). , Etude scientifique des faits sociaux humains, consid6rCs

come appartenant B un ordre partlculier, et Ctudibs . I

dans leur ensemble ou 3 un hauf degrC de gCnCralitC. (Robert, 19?2: 14581 - -

- , SOC iology :'

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 of' 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 - - --

'~ozialkontakte ausfusten 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:

... ce que la sociologie intLess6e les institutions ns p u t voir? les m&amorphoses de la sensibilitg 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 the-

sociology 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 relat ionlhip. 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 I

L.

signification.

s "Rappelons que le sens courant du terme imaginaire, qui pour l'instant-no:s suffira: nous parlons dlimaginaireclorsque nous voulons parler de quefque chose drinvent6 - qu'il s'agisse d'une invention absolue (une - histoire ima-de toutes iCces), ou E-r d ' un glissement , d' un dCplacement de sens,ohspbo es d6 j a 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 wee 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

In a short essay entitled Soeioloqie & l'art (19671, Jean

Duvignaud lays out the significance of .the imaginary as vital to >

h w n exidtence. He claims that art is a positive activity

initiated by the artist which brings indivi uals to participate / P 0

in the making of social ;eality. By emphasizing the imaginary,

Duvignaud is more concerned with the productive end of art. In -

addition, his interest resides i K a socialogical-bbservafio~of 1

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 dcr Kunst (19741 , Hauser claims that art is a

vehicle of expr 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 - -- a

on-going historical process which characterizes the creation.of

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 larger-

project called 'sociologie de l'imaginaire' .. In this book he uses the tews 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 \

-

Socioloqy -- of ~rt,"without doubt, among these ideas the **. * i - - - --

t

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. w

4

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

, *

The - Im3ginary

'L

Artistic creation, creative imaginati.on,'ast, and the

imaginary are almost synonymous terms in ~uvi~naud's The

A-

xtciolw o•’ a x : - h e fails, however, to offer- asomprehensive-- ---- - - --

definition af it,-& reader i s m to i-n

interpretation based on various clues found in the text, and on

the connotations of this word in the French intellectual . -,

tradition.' The imaginary is characterized by a princ'iple of I

, -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 / -- - -- - -

a raison dtGtre. The - imaginary is more than themacity to invent

images - it is a vital substanc.e where humanity creates social 4 f

reality. Thus, art is perceived as a dynamic phenomenon, the aim I

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 J of a 'sociologie de l'imaginaire' . 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 constititue- - -

et 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, 1960Tp. '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

l i fc, ~rtist ic expression is concerned wi-ththe present- and- does---- -

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

' leap' 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 - - - - - -- - - - r

experience of mankind in its'totality 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 ~ u g h e ~ ~ u ~ a T i ~ n ~ e ~ pe c i a 1 1 y t n r o ~'g h

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 as 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 signif ihnt 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:

. . . every ' sighif icant imagined action is a communication from a distance which is never reconciled-to this --

-"- d i stake. We say 'f sot~= distance ' because ~ rnrret5i& a 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 ..

~ r r = = s p ~ . f # to mart% mthentk existence. He aisrrusmfour myths --= 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

e

bodily conception - 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

meanings r bd ted in human experience. Therefore, in- -------i----------

'For e&le, i n later years tke 8 d t . m & t e 1 o l o g y , rdio, 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

II

ever yune .

. . . . is mare c m p k x than simply ascr to art a splr-1-t-ual

functi~n outside 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 ~ h seem 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 -- - p-

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

-

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, characterized by' the reduct ion of 9

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 in~ti~cts, and 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 t

I

*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. ~rtistic expression'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 - s and his fo l low~ers~_(Ben ja rn in ,~do_rno ,~~ pp

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 ~ $ e owrat 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

G. Luk6cs and P. Francastel - -- -

of society.

I

From L U ~ ~ C S , Duvignaud 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.' ~uklct had recourse to the notion. of /

a world vision that. unites the work of art, as a system where

- - -- - -- - - - -- - -

f eel'ings and emotions are experienced, a1 ong with- coalect-ive

feelings a& mnotiORsr is - W ~ h e i n g a n valid ac 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~uper impos-essrbit ra-ry- - concepts on an a-lreadz dogmatic 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 '; 7

framework of a s-ingle era. (Duvignaud, 1972238) - ---

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

4' 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.

~uviinaud accuses 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~ignaud calls 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 into4 the

traps of philosophical reasoning. In other words, ~ukks'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

For them 'the artist as a mere "academician cannot

in communication.

Panofsky and Francastel have developed what

designates as an 'archeology' of the fundamental

aspect of &rt.

be interested

Duv i gnaud

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 stby 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 given. The painter

I 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

totality of artistic and living experience and suggest a I

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 as those of social life, and social life rediscovers in the creative individual the principles an$ driving force

0) C

+J

0

4J

.G

U '

a

0 I4

fi a ul - d

Q

, C

, m

m

U

C

m

k

Erc

C, a

C

* m

a.

- +

J-

' 4

k

0)

((I C

I m

w

lu

0

U

C

Y

z g

&

3

C,

a

C

C,

a

.C a - m

Q

, a

Q, V C

0

U

rl aJ C

, m

((I U

C

m

k

LC

C

m

5:

C,

'u Q, N

*rl

t-i ((I k 3

l-i a

Q

, k

m

*d

Q,

U

d ul

c,

C 0

. ri C,

((I .d

k a

0

B m

C

. d

m

ad

C

, C

a.4

C,

aJ aJ

C,

+J ((I

3

U

n

o

-ri

t-i k

C,

0

C,

c, '((1

a

0

C

C,

((1

C,

m

C

aJ id

k

JJ

, 3

aJ 0

JJ c

a.

m -

C,

0

f ~

kk

m.

3

-a

m

Q,

Erc U

a

C,

c

*3

Ca

J

* Q

.ri

rl

c

ti" k

C a,+

0, o

-d

~a

3

a

X

Q,

3k

@

un

JJ

UU

Od

d,

CO

kO

V

) C

,aL

Tu

. -

k .C JJ

d 0

d

X

CQ

,

a, -4 k

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

within . - the totality of collective existence, ~uvignau'a has

designed five 'operat ve concepts: drama, the polemic sign, f 4 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 approprim image of ' >

C B - 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 -'actorsT participate to define their own place in

the collectivity, In the sociology of art, drama is

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

L 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-lective experience 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 it 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--pp --

- - - - - - - - - - -

addition, this obstacle can be an dstacle in itself which -- PC--

refers to its transformation and sublimation? by metaphysics: the C

attempt 'at non~~ommunication,~ the absurd, solitude (Kaf ka) . Structures of different classifications constitute the

third item of Duvignaud's conceptual scheme: the conjunction of '

the systems of cosmic classifications wi k h the systems of social classi f icat ions.' T h i s concept inkroduces t 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~assification and also

carries a new significance c rea ted by the artist. However, the

different classifications and artistic signs met wi-thina same - -

because they share the same features - 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~irrler two or three c e ~ d e ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ e w 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 - ? * b y

periods are intense moments because they can be.the recipients i

of imaginary activities unknown to other periods: the

~voluticmijt and primitivist themils agr-e-eel~say thst societies contribute to the ordering of the natural wor9d by giving themselves different classifications systems and artistic signs.

al

1 ul

C

aJ cn m

Q

, x

,! -

C,

u

a aJ

C,

.r(

E

-d

r-i aJ LC 0

E

m

.ri

rl

a

U

.rlr a

3.1 C,

a

Q, C

4J

* w

2-4

0

4J - aJ

C,

.d a

U

aJ 0

U

ul

C 0

0

U

C

.d

r3 3

.C

t-4 &

0

cn m

.r(

a -

I 1 ~ I 1%

Id

I & :: a 4, h

4J Q

0, C

Q,

UJ Q

, C

C,

h

'd

C

0

4i a

C

JJ

h

a

ul

0

4J

4J 0

C

VI

.r(

cn *I4

C

E . r( a

.r(

$ UI

4, C

C,

a

C

((I

3.( k a

C

.c(

m

.PI

1 1, 01 s

+J C

al

al

r 4~

4, .Q a

-4

C

Q,

UI

0

C

I w

w

0

0

rl

Oid

UI

4

Sl

E

aJ

a4

Ja

L.I

3

.A 0

aJ ku

) 3

w m

1

dO

Q,.l.r

0

3.5

3 c

Q,

UI

d C

Q

I.4

c~

o.

~c

~

Ua

J3

3

ac

ca

lo

0

.rc.A

a 3

k

4J r

lt

n

CC

, %O

tn

0.d

.Q

34

0

, a

$2 -a -4

r-iO

a

JU

UJ

C4

Jo

k

-4

0 U

A

m

au

ca

4

JC

iUO

t-4

aJ

0

.4 P

:,d aJ

3

CW

4

JY

.d

a ..I4

J-J

4J I!! 0

E: I.r(

a 0

a*

m

s

id

4J Q

, 1:

.Q

m

a

N

1C 4J el W

w

0

C

R

J-J .r

(

8 ul

.'-I

C

k

aJ U

c, C

w

.r(

Oa

aJ C

C

0

4J .r

(

m

8 k

W

4J 3

0

4

m 3

a

. ri 3

. r( a

C

. r( Q, s

4J

d

r)

3

a

C

a

U L

m

s .rl J-J a

rl

Q)

k

a C

a

2 k 0

u

0

0, 0

((I 4J C

2-

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 tothe intentions of an ,epoch, a group, an individual or

a collectivity. In order to comprehend the creative' imagination

wi'tfrin such a structure, 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. A S

Duvignaud suggests, the sociology of artistic expression finds,

here, its raison d'btre. .

Aesthetic attitudes are dir~ctions that 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 do all

Three elements can help to identify these attitudes: a

stimulating factor, a w i l l t o ,g roup , 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 - an individual and collective expectation. .

A key principle'is that creative activities not only invent

- ~ - ~ ~ a t ~ ~ ' " " C ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ T ~ e

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=,of artistic experience in a collectivity, as opposed

to the influence of social experience. This limitation

- - - - - -- - -

originates from the fact that these directionsare foundpfn - -

+ -

, small R W F ~ E S , cOERBM in-=.

1

They characterize the different vocations of art as attributed 1 .( 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~nt Greece b

and modern Japan 1 . pp

\ 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 I 1

- - - -- - - - - - - -- - --

< - - - - - - - - -- -

he nostalgia of .a lost communion emerges when fraternity -

becomes a forbidden dream. EssenTial~this attitude 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 ~apnese aesthetes 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 intervent ion in' social --

- 1

life.'~he principle 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. Yet18the reconciliation 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 knokand 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

I charac ter iz-ed by a non-human w i l l to sacra'lizat ion-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 ~ierarchies established 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 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 mans bf exaltation, of contentment, of comfort, of consolidation -

and of confirmation, in order =to support its way of B 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 ~ X U an element of

I 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 . ' 4

- -- - - - -- - -- -- - - -

escaping in the.spectacle they provide 'for themselves or, by

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 is more

apparent than real. Under this esoteric n a t u r e 5ldesa 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 ie passage-from-one type o f society to-another-which-

succeed 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

during these i nse periods. '~hroughout his creative activity, T the artist offer's imaginary figures (RameaG's nephew or Julien

Sorel) that are new sigpifieds yet without signifiers. It is b

i '

important 'to realize that the artist's conception of an

imaginary world,is part of an eventual experience wh ch does not 3 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 - possible or real - is constituted. -- - -

taken d rent connotations from one period to another.

- - - -- - -- -

However, it has acquired its full meaning during the growth of

industrial sucieties. The principle of art f ~ r art's sake is

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 of 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.ons of Art - --

Duvignaud emphasizes that =Feat ive 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 * - P

themselves by their secondary functioh of art - the-search for - total c,ommunication and a will to classify. The conception of

1

art is tied to 'the conjun~iion om ;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 ,.individual classifications (human content). Man . ,a

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 myth= sGtem, the sign

of the symbolic system does not necessarily find a me&ing. - -

-5 g a

aJ aJ

4

0, n

k

.l-4 w

I

n-

U

l

r4

' : 8,

ma

Jh

a

JW

k

W

U

aJ k

k

aJ 0

C

c,

Rt

+'

0

k

aJ a

Jh

0

'0

Rt C

LI O

CC

0

H

C -4

.ti

U)

In

cn 3

*Q

,a

J

r-i k

-r(

r-i P

(4

J

m

SO aJ

U

4, .r

( . rl

U

C,

U

0

.rl

m

2 0

am

aJ

L

, .4

In

Vl

4J

a.

J

t4

h.

G

~c

rl

cc

u C 0

U

c, Ll a . aJ k

aJ x . aJ

U

C

aJ -,-I

k

84

SO aJ

Cr C

P

-r(

r-i

d r-i

ui d

.Pi

totally involved.

Hefe, the function of art is multiple because of the 1 i

r ivalr; o'f ~sffereni and 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 possmibilities that 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 ~ t t 1. With monarthic societies, radical t

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, ~uvignaud assumes 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

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 bexng - 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 soc Gtratification increases in modern society. Here,

the imaginary is confronted by an obstacle greater than +ever. In

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 )

~uvi~naud has suggested earlier that a proper sociology of

art should begin with the present artistic practice. Under the

title - ~ r t Today, he discusses .the development of modern art

(1900 - 1968). He argues the i~possibility of 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 if 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's - The 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~of art, 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

approa~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 Soziologie - der Kunst will be refetred to.

'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 b -

human experience as a receptacle, where the creative and the

- - percqiving subjects meet to communicate and participate in the

ordering of existence.

'~otalit~ --- of Life and Totality of Art' --

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 ~ d difficulties 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

a better way to understand roality. ekause 7 - dependent on our ability to solve problems,

rn

- -

,our survival is

the accuracy of our

j-udgment of the conditions of existence, and qur evaluation of

the problems posed, is of prime *necessity in order to keep a

~nified existence.

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. It 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 -

b > whatever nodifications or truncations are made to the work of

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 e is 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. It 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 rea l experience. \

mepingless

totality of

Spontaneity

1 - - - - - - - -

if one was to ignore the ro'le played by unity-and

and Convention -

considers that

humlan efforts.

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 s formulated 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 constf tution, the first assured possession of mankind, and the foundation of its future history. (~auser, 1982:39)

The primacy of the concept of spontaneity originates and is

interpreted by t{e 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'.

In other words, art is a form of b ,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

cannot-be called either necessary or coincidental. b

'The meeting between artistic forms and'social forms is not

a necessity, it just happens.that social changes occur that are

fo1,lowed more or less intensively by artistic changes. The

reverse may be more difficult to assess. Hauser arg s that

"eSerything is% not possible in every sociohistoric 7 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

stratified, the appearance of different art .forms and styl$ tic 5 --

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 societyw is 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 iwltaneetts lg , 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 other . Such a relationship excludes the

.ti aJ

UI *.a

aJ 0

a.

4

r(

aJ a

ka

C

Sv-4

c

oa

m

.rl C,

aJ Ln

m3

ul

k

.ti aJ

q0

C

k

m

00

3

o

0

UI

- rl

aJ

hU

.ti

aJ In

U'

dC

.ti

k

0

rl

o

U

m

Q,

cm

k

-d

-u

l iu

rl- m

rl

m

'4

L)

..-I

a

3

$a

"

VI

-4

..4

> +J

-4

0

a

ca c

c: ,

'd

U

to a C

, 0

C

a

C

m

Q,

U

LC

W

aJ 3

-d

- u 0

aJ l-i rl 0

U

Q

k 0 U

I . d

m

a

F: 0,

6

Q,

C

m

c: 4J .d

3:

k

0

o

m

C

-ti

C

aJ 'a

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 formed them assert themselves

within a class position. 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

conc pt; it cannot be\deri,ved from characteristics of its f- 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 reac 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!$-because the 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~the totality 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 '9

i

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 , the more , is ,

significant the points of contact, between artistic creation and %

historical conditions. -

2. ~nteraction between 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 found within each constituent, but not the two. Their Znteraction

rests upon simultaneity and reciprocity. Like body and soul, I 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

mutuality and contemporaneity of social and artis c effects, . 4 # 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 I - _ . _ - ,--411-4_1-. __

b take into accbunt the fact that only a method ori_M-.toward- - >

interaction 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 of ten. a rnultifariuusJ+.mediated -4- _

by-product of forces at work in the process." (Hauser,1982:97) -

Hauser emphasizes three variables; natural factors, generat ion

aJ d

4

Q

n

U

.r(

-4

m

k

u)

0

0

cr a

m

.A

111 C

-6-4

fa k

sl

cr

4J

X

aJ aJ

.d

U

cr 0

m

U)

ar

c

X

a

aJ C

Id

aJ k h

aJ k a

0 0

e, m

C,

. ld

J2 A

C,

'W

i

w

01

m

4.J C

i%

Q,

I-i W

\

,' - - - - -

=ailed to play. In other words, the concept of generation . becomes relevant when social and cultural elements are attached

to it. . ~ t s soc.iological 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+ the mutability and freely 4 . , 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. one the less, the ' . >

." * d

- -- - - -- - - --- --

cultural factorslare produced by free, more or less spontaneous - , *

, subjectg whose inqellectual mobility is -limited by material -

d e .reality. e

l

Q , Every cultural process is characteriqed by a dialectical

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 ~ s m and 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. (Hauser, 1982: 1 4 8 ) l' --

" . I

f Tradition is as an imperative without which --

communication and recognktion are ckherwise difficult. Tradition

itselqs 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

+ , on the other as an innovator, he uses convention in

Ormat i9n a His ability ko master techniques is

- m

aJ 3

d

0

> aJ

J-J U

I .b+ C,

k a

aJ C

4J

W

0

C 0

.rc C,

.r(

U) 0 a

4 a

. r( U 0

m

'aJ C

cr 4

UI

aJ m

C a

L: U

31 4

ul 3 0 1

C

. r( C,

C 0

U

a :*%I 0 caa

C a

~a

tn

. m

r

0,

+J -91

-arc C, k m

.rl

rl'

3

U

-A

w

w

. r( 'b

ul -4

C,

t-l

m

111 aJ C

m 1

0

. rl U

U) C 0

U

Ul

W

id

rl U

..A

C a

C; U

,

U

-6-4 +J

c

m

- 3

.r(

JJ C

k

0

a

.rl

C,

aJ m

c

3

J-J C,

\

4

4

'a k

aJ m

3

In

a,

- -- -- - - --

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 concept. However, by choosing

to use this concept, Hauser 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~damental lack of clarity in the

concept of intelligentsia." (~auser, 1982: 169) 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, if 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 '

4

organisation more or less governed and extensive - 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 conditioned paoegyrically, apologetically, and : I --

ideologically. (Hauser, 1902:219) ff \

The issue of tendentiousness in art has been discussed many 1

times in sociological~and aesthetic investigations. Yet, Marxism

was the first approach to bla%rate comprehensively on the

subject. However, the ideo:logical nature of art--was of ten

overlooked while its propagandistic nature was constantly

referred to. Hauser undertakes to stress the iqportance of the 4 &

concept of'ideology rn 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 pretation of the concept of ideology is

based upon 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 ~ I

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

4% socioeconomic'position. "In Hegel's terminology 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, ,98323 1 1

7 7

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, 1982:223) In the first *

I \ instance, the critique of-ideology must recognize the

one-sidedness and the bias'of thought withopt being able to . %

eliminate i he issue at stake is to finb'out the depth ofYhe c 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 definiki~ of ideology the connection between

the social and individual'nature of'man is based upon the 1

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

they are representations and interpretations of a sphere 3.

eyond the economic one. However negative it may sound, the P \concept of ideology in Hauser's - The ~ocibloqy -- of Art is not

4 totally a negative principle because it is onlmossible to

understand the relation between art a)d society within the

limits of ideology.

;d ish for frefkxn row ideology is only a variant of losophical idea of redemption which is supposed +.

I to o m to man access to a world of absolute and eternal values, a w~rld that 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 - 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

' 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

has suggested earlier, the idea of truth- n art cannot be f retained. Therefore, (or any other interpretation)

1 b

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

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

as the in•’ luence of society 'upon art: yet, as minimal as it can

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~erned with opening the 9

eyes of individuals., it 'has to .help to prevent=the closing of 9

the eyes when they are 'confronted with difficult tasks. ~ r t ' is

normative and exemplary for society in its validatiop of-

humanistic 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 t - - .- L '

stabilizing e f f e k that establishes harmony between I , % . *

heterogeneous~social elements. 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.

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-cal process (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. It

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

C

3 a moral achievement. Every,work of art is a humanistic'me'ssage

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 t as 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&e a * 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

*

f ramewcrk &r f o ~ >ha sociology 'of + ' ths theorkt i I . b'

a 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 .

I

society. Rejecting thc one-sided economic determinism, . 1

characteristic of an orthodox interpretation of historical .

'materialjsrn, ~aussr-dndertakes S- to stress the dialectical. * ,- -

A correlatibn between inf raztL 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.of the 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 c t ~ Nt 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 l 9

A

the s~~erstructuie* is assumed. He emphasKzes the materiality .. of /

4

the superstructure and the spirituality of. the infrastructure,

and 'cassume~ that the notion of pure essence in both cases is

. impossible. The dialectic is subjecz to cynge in harmony with

0

C

3

id.

C,

Q)

C

E@

ld

aJ L

u

u

0

3r

w

4o

J-

J

a

0'

3

L4

.C

-

r,

C,

,*

cJ

U

ai

W4

4

UR

WU

rn

3

aJ a

k.

dC

Q

ln

0

ln

al

(d

4J

ul

cO

,c

4

0-

+p

U

Q)

C

0,

LA 4

G

0

-

k

V)

.r(

0

31 '

oh

-

ul 4

43

,'

t-

L: a

-4

m

0

Uc

;Q

I.

~

0

.+I s

(D

C

Q,

CS

cn a

.c 3

'44

.c4

-4

V

C,

'L,

0

aJ c

.c L, U

10

.

d,

t

P s,

J * * s

tran;fbrmation of 'social existence into-art 1'S EVGTi5 i i€$n~ th~~- ' . .- th*: two phenomena difter in essence~, and rbat the la-tter is not .

Jr, ; cus~omary replica 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~s can 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 t 7 - * - - =

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 1 - 1 is passed, and moreover, they cannot be appreciated

and rediscovered by e v r y per jod . They may reappear undzr

' certain circumitances on one hand, when the soc~oeco~~omi~. 1 . -

as the

when traditions of certain iechnic nd Lartistic methods or

re-evaluation of aekthet i c itan s aie csrried by historical . . .

research* or education. + # , . , . : -*

- Hauser-raises a last failur2 of the historicai mattridlist Z. G

T-.

position which teaches that all.art is his c&lly+ conditioned, ' 3 * d r

. Histof.ica1 matiirialism. is a genetic theory that ;an expose7 the

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.

However, the independence of these values, one from another, J

does not mbqn that artistic attitudes are free froh social links - -

but that in no instance can an artistic value be qualifi& in

terms of political causes. .9 - , - pp -

-- -- - -- -- --- - - - - -

. - I

4

the resistance between obposi~e f orccs. However, the--mf-f-few-- --- * & I

* , r contradictions existing side by side as part of the same

' % 7

% - * phenom&$on is the main stimulus of existence: Therefore, the *

4- % 'G: stnctur% of existence based-on a dialectical correlation talcG$ - *

\ " ,+++.> @

the form of dialogue - question. and answelc, - tension and $ , t

, - \. release - between.the c&f&icting components ht playa: .s

transformation-of role and meaping of the conflicting foices and - 3 -

s principles inste~d df their destruct ion. P'

* For ~ause?, dialectic is a twafold doctrine;. the first step 6 .

is a negation and the iecond step, ~uf,hibun~ (negation OF , - -

negation) without which t h e &st stage would rema.in mere .

negation. As much as history and thought need the.negation in . * a

order to be set in. motiopthe concept of Aufhebunq is the most- \

fruitful and creative moment of the dialectical process. On oneq

hand, 9s 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 n ~ of 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 s s without whiih its devilo@nent

would appear discontinuous. \

The sensetof Attfhebun2 bf an ' ~ l d ideas into a topidal . - - c

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 i c h resulted from their'earlier function. % & - & s e r v e d "idea" @

differs.from t h & "old one" by hiding the gap between ,

- 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&, k

1 - while 'affecting nature outside himself and changing it, changes his own nature at, the same ,timel:&auser, -1 982: 3 6 4 ) '

Tkadition take;' its' full meanik through the concept of. -3 ' 1 *

' Aufhebung' . ~hr&tened with extinct'ion, traditions - the bdnd # *-

between past, present and future - have to defend themselves.. r 8 - ,

' against discontinuities, which arise with the introduction df e. P

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 it --in the Mariist A -

---

sense, "no one knows, what evecyoW is &?ing".

Discarding &-gel's notion of totality, which consists of 1

- its pursuit and realization through the 'absolute spi it1,

-I. A ,

Sauser 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. ~hilosbphy antagonizes the totality and . , the

particularity. However, the seeking of the toteiity shorrkcFnbt--;: ' -

endanger the significance of the particular. - ~ h e part&her - 'L 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'

J ... the 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 because t h e ~ o f ~ ~ c t I o n and ordering never ends, but a l s o (and mainly) becal~se we 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 .

t -- revision to the extant that the previously unknown facts become visible ana capable of investigation. -

(Hauser,1982:368) - C 1

In other w there is a tension that exists between what & . we know and what w e waM to know, which is the mtor sf every -

f perception. As f ~ r example, in art, the process of cognition is

constituted by- the basic knowledge that the artist has a

definite goal in order to arrive its'compl-eteness, no matter

ho% many detours he'may take to

. 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!, the validity of dia1ectic.i~ undoubted, yet it is one 4 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

realized as 'an actual process, Furthermore, dialectic, as a t speculative instrument + cannot be applied automatically upon a

/ phenomenon; ~ t s suitability 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 * L

of2?history,*where all occurrences &e 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

- 3

0

4J C

I

C

0

a

I 0

.C(

h

.JJ

Q.4

I.

I

hv

10

0

Oa

JC

I

JJ

> c

rn

~l

ul

o

~ .C(

.,4

- ..4

,c

.c

c=

l-

tJ

J

U

aJ 3

ua

mc

m

aJ I

Sk

XJ

,

icr 0

.c 2)

J-J M

bC

.

.L

aJ

mc

,

aJ C

a

I ,U)

C

u, C

- w

2

s"

X

h

UI

C,

I s

22

UI

m

UJ u

Jc

,c

nm

V

Ic

nC

,m

L

-4

cw

a

OQ

LU

I

C

cr) k

aJ

rc

cu

ul

.

Pd

3h

o

am

k

Pm

xo

C,

.4J

M

U *

VI

*

. ul

.t4 3 a

U; *

%-

A2

C

0

0

& .@

C

.rl

4J

hi+

. ..

Ur

Or

c3

r

m

.+-I

cEl C,

'-

'D

CO

-r

l

'D

-1

JJ

iu *C

.C

. (n

'

aJ .+i

~J

I=

~+

JG

""

'?;5

:2

$: 3

OI

-4

U

aJ

:,

wm

-

k

aJ aJ

-4

04'

'U

aa

/

.

'. Q)

U

C

aJ a

Li aJ a

L

d)

J-J c

..-I

'Q)

.,4

au

a

CI

h

0

aJ ~

ca

-4

0

'3 aJ

UI

su

m

a,. 0

c

" .r

(

a

+J c

km

a

*a

J

3'

cr

UI"

aJ

c ,a a

04

Lc

-r

i Q

I +

.@

a

U C. I

-4

C

, w

a

4

a- -

QJ

Lh

ln

u

Q)

r

3.

a

0

aJ U

lm

o

m

01

24

C

U

4>

*-

-4

C

J-J u

j3

U

0m

aJ

k

rl

ha

a

0\

. ri o

ua

.a

W

2, c* 0

Si RI

u

U

aJ

-p---p-p------- - and reduce them to a common denominator: the differentiation

being part of the realization of 'consciousness', J Z 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 hkan 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~isctibe any phenomenon. However, -

what is problematical is its pretention fo universality; its , >

application to the whole of reality. ~ts~methodolo~ical value is

questionable because of the impossibility of percei"ing and.

dra wing a complete image of the world: what is really expressed x

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)

Cd

cc

ua -C

#.aJ ((I 0

h'w

: .rl.d

m

.

uu

.

C, 0

C,

W 0

4

rg PI 'u

.+-I

0) C

J-, 4

fi m

.rc r-i rd -I4

k

aJ

i 4

a

U

. ri C,

0

aJ r-i m

.d

a

u5 m

r-i m

U

.d

d

ac 0

U)

0

ri

- '4

$2 a aJ C

P

&

u

m

C r

. '4

6

.PI

d

al

aJ uk

.d

k

.d

C,

a

JE

-d

X

OC

C

U)

0

U

m

aJ d

C

m

aJ 3

(r

" C,

U

Q,

aJ C

i-i

c, r-i

- w c,

m

C

m

. d

C

k

U

aJ $

3

C

8

c, .r

0

.-

r b

* - .

of l~onfficting forces 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

true

1 relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. It is '

0'

that t.he kind of objectivity associated with art d i f f e ~ L /'

from the ond claimeb by science. Nevertheless, in order to 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 I of reality is 'induced by the

tension between the two in3tances. -+

Subjective- inwardness and objective expression, depth of - feeling and wordly brea'dth, spiritual immediacy and -f

formal commun?cation nat bnly are indivisible in art but also achieve ,their mutual limitations. fWauser,l982:391)

Furthe the antagonistic forces at play in the subject " ,

itsef f n e e d a c c e ~ t t t a t e & ~ O F f onc'hand, the art ~ b 3 c c t is' -- .- 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 has something in view which tra~scends the factual, sanething new which has 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

L- :onsti&8ting a subJect for the object. In ar this inverted

4 &lotionship is .illustrated by the concept -that notd only the art -

o 6 j ec 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 . I

posed are not necessarily found.

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 the.forms of depiction - is so tight that it

the

dialecticu of *siyle is only conceivable j n terms of something in - - - - -

I a ' s t a t e of 'becoming" - emphas5s on the not iofi of continuousr

movement. A s t y l e acquires its meaning an'd relevance through its 4

- - encounter with o the r moments end tendencies: particularly

P

through a productive and lively present (principle of

~ u f h e b u n ~ f . In 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 the other because of the

reciprocity betweeq artistic forms and technical means, or to

?redict' t 5 e next step of

reinforced by t h e f a c t

style. This contingent n a t u r e

that a style never develops in a straight

A s e n & of c-unity, of collectivity esrerqes thraugh the- I

' process of ,proiuction and reception o a work of art. The 4 F 1 I

creative activity is a s much based upon individual feelings and

b will to expression as it is influenced by social factors, the r•‹

receptive su~jects experience 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 ~ork. The public of a concert is not the same before and after

the performance. Y. However , in spite of the apparent tight correlation between

f the producer and its public, in no instance does an homogeneous A 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 *

1

'between individua: classes are fluid. No matter how large the L i

public is, the experience of art an individualistic

+ - prbcess, even when similar,ities are found in social

The social nature of art rises from the notion that -to be

comunication, a common formal language is sine qua - non.

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 ..I

4,

>. 0

b-i

LC 'a

.* -

m

cn a

VI

ql 0

,C

.

4r

r(

om

a

u

cr a

rc

m

3

-d

UL

cO

GI aJ

G

- 4

'CJ

* C

kC

k

oa

3a

J

- rl

u

uu

aJ

u

'0

arc R

(Il +r

k

In 0

E' Q

I .d

S

cr 0

u d

Z

C3

rb

-

4c

ra

J

ma

a

L* k

aJ 0, a

0

k

w

i-i

aJ +c

4J

k

0 '

W - C,

k a

C

. d

m

U

a

JZ k

a, a - 6

, i-i a

0

aJ a

s

C,

4 .-I

3

aJ 10 L4

.3

0

U

k

aJ 11 C

+rl

w

0

3.I C

, *rl

UI

UJ aJ U

aJ C

LC aJ 3

0

aJ k

0

x aJ Cn m 3 0

C a

l-4

a

aJ C

,

m

i-i

3

U

.A

C,

k

cd

C

m

W

* 0

C,

C

Q,

ti a

0

I-i 0

"

> 0,

a

aJ C

c,

9,

k

0

W

aJ a

&

cr a

L, 4J

m

3

b-i

b-i

-d

In C

, . rl

1

C,

UJ C

m

aJ

C

1

0' L4

aJ 9.J

Ln x

a

C,

3

m

ln

b. 1.

t' 'u

cr

' C

a

7

a

a

U)

* 2

m.

0

m

.d

a, l4

u

a

0

> k

a

a,

.c llJ

0

>

-'-i C

C,

cm a

3

a,

0

k

k

%C

,m

oa

J(

.j

L,.r

l-rlc

srl

aJ aJ

E-c 4J.A

rt3

3

L(

L:

a

.d

aJ

OU

<

>

v&+"+

'.!: a,

.~

~m

sa

ac

o

mw

O

UO

m

m

mE

.rl..I -

0C

C

m

4J

ca

CP

w

3ln

k

oa

.r

lo

~a

~

(d

-r

l3

m

Kk

a

oa

,

vn

]a

Jw

3u

x

.d

Uk

OO

aJ

C.

da

k

O

OC

ti0

orc

-c

h7

C

aJ 0

k G

O :Id P

I a ti.4

UJ h

m

m

tiO

U3

-c

-4

k C

aJ

Uc

dU

IU

3a

m.G

.:a 2

i-i

b-i

-4

3

JJ

C - aJ

.r

l~

c w

a

ti wr-4 a

m

LC C

.4

UJ a

0 vl

aJ U

Cr

l

o

aJ -m

3.(?

c k

oa

o

f3a

l-l a O

J WkEk

Cd 0

0

em

uti

3.( k 0

ul 1

rl

rl

.ri

3r ri C 0

r? . rl C 0

.rl

C, a

Q, U

aJ k a

C '

lu

C 0

-rl

C,

U

7 a 0

k a

C

Q)

aJ 5

C,

aJ A

C

'

0

. d

4J lu r-i aJ k k 0

U

k

aJ C

C,

.A

aJ a

aJ C,

m

rl 3

Ei k 0

W

. aJ 13 2-4

2 C 0

- rl

C,

m

JJ aJ k a

k

aJ cr C

..-I

ul

c, H

. a Q,

C,

m

.r(

a

2 31 a

m

aJ k

r-i (D

&

----

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 relatiqnk between 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

I

'Hauser claims that a pbblic is not constituted but /

'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 with it even if they have a great

1 deal to-do with it. be within reach if people have a'need for it, be forced upon anyone..

'It is neither a duty to love art, but a . test of strength and 1982:460)

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 convent ions 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 have 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 -pureq•’or our 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 B

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

of present-day 'art, Hauser questibns whether it is st-i-ll-

possible to find p l e ~ x r e in art 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 .

Soc ioloqp of Art that ~ a k e l " s L

-- h dcussion 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 dis~ppea~; if indeed it has not already been

extinguished in ern civilization; art of the cultural elite, r

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

high art, while the latter includes elements of the former. This 1

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~tions between 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*s position 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 -t

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

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 -~nlightenment invention 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; - ---- pppp -- - -- - - - - - - -

they are stylistically advanced and often unpopular. They rely

on their traditions, nevertheless they need progressive ments

,MI order t-o evolve. Another feature of high art is its ---

an individual reader, listener or spectator even if 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~la to 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 and 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. In 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~er in 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

produ&g something which goes beyond their daily life routine. --i

It seems that folk-art creation lies in the hands of / ,A'

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 Fr to be adopted 'andvaried .by tkfe".folk artist. 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

high 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.

C 0

- ET

.4 5

mt

oc

30aa

04s

al L4 c

-

Un

aJ om

.d

m .d

m

k

hO

J0

0' a

m k

mc

v

ax

ad-

UO

7m

WE-

C *L

C .d

- a

Ja

JC

,4-

'k

>w

maJ

O-ccO

m

-

aJ r

. d

r-i

m

E

- rl

ccl 4

U

k

aJ ul 3

a

x

c: 0

sa

J

-r

(a

JO

alf

i (d

krl C

aJ C

,Q

O@

O

k

Gk

C

aJ

hU

a

C, a rb

rw C

Cr

c U

) C C

w a

aa

a

readiness of the artist t4 offer a product of a 'lower quality,

regardless of his abilities, "in order b to achieve success."

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. It is patronized because of the anesthetic effect which emanates from it in all directions. (Hauser,1982:582-583)

3 i

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 I

that these' people get what tl?ey want - popular art being a ponse to a demand - or that they are trained to be satisfied - 'Y

by/what is given to them.

P rt is not completely a manipulation of taste and

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 to.

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 forms of popular art ... However strongly we may deny 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-sh gnd 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~iginates from 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 - their colossal distribution and cheapness - 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~cratic art- 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

of art, which favored repetitions of motifs an - L

B 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 thir 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 .

=t and heterogeneously composed. e public of a Jean-Luc Godard

film1 and the audience of a Brian de Palma filmZ differ

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

I

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;

however, the .relations between the artist and his public has - -

altered and has become more problematic. Mor over; the larger 3 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 hy Q3 .

mass-art alter the meaning of art 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 same time - \

film creates new ,artistic effects.

- - - - - -- - - -

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, 0 1 ,

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, cult~re.~ 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

to achieve a multidimensiona1,effect regar k ess of the various ,

91

- 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 cases, 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 --l

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 if 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 which has a beginning has an end. According to

// Hauser the apparent $ause in artb gives it a special ,

&

significance. The continuation and rejuvemtion of art is not

only contingent upcn a uniform and harmonious progression; . breaks mady be equally significant - 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' (Hauser11982:702)'are indications of the possible

end of art - at least in its nineteenth century version. Another threat to the existence of art is technology. In

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 is' what it is because it exists in relation to. art:They 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~aumatic perturbations - Hitler and Auschwitz, Stalin, L

Hiroshima, Guernica - which have shaken our age and have left us with a sense of hopelessness. During the,thirties, social

discomfort reaches its culmination and the symptoms of 3 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.'-pleasing effect 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

.d

C

C,

C

u . * r-i

aJ 3

.d

m

C

aJ &J X

aJ C,

.,-I

a

aJ U

C

aJ 3

4

W C

. d

aJ + a C

3,

aJ C

+J h

h

cn aJ 3

.r(

4

k 3

0

a

.C

a

V

aJ C

&J

a

aJ aJ a, C

. rl . 3i

C,

Q,

-.-I

U

0

10

4

3

W

aJ U

a a a

IJY cn aJ

l-4

k * 0

aJ k

P 31 k:

Q,

3

' Q

,

44

0

aJ -

U C

aJ ' JJ to -d

x aJ

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 P

8

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 ~uschvitz as 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 - .' 1 . way to redemption. . ,--

Hauser claims that the last remnants of authenticity,'in art

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 and- :

I

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 y efficient way to break out- of the rea2ity of - - - experience.

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 ~ 2 : 709,711 j 7 5 3 ) He. I .

maintains that all flights from .the pbst , 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 inadequwand 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 I 3 -

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.onf ident 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~ially differbent from the material being 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 Sa lu te 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. He 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

4

c

a t-

aJ 0

C,

k

aJ a

L-c 0

C

- A

3, k 0

C,

U)

-r)

C

C,

k

m

C

0) a a

. r)

k k

aJ 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.elle n'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 handIYart history 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

truth that they have recourse

/ what Hauser call% ideological

proper soci.ology of art needs

to in order to

claims. Hauser

to be not'only

art, but shouEd question its own position:

- - - - --A

interpret art- are

suggests that a

critical vis-8-vis \

... 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.-according to 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, f 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: 10) 1 Although the sociology of culture, cultural studies and

communication studies, are worthy of natice, it is believed that

&

C

aJ ti a

0

r-i

4

-d

0

4J ([I

U

N

0

s.4

m

rc

a

aJ -4

5 0

m

C,

C4

J+

JO

+J

3

14

JU

I4

.J

&

aJ

a

OW

W

Ca

'C

0

.d

.d

U

.4

ac

c

c, 0 0

C

C

la 0

C1

$;4 2 *

J

mu

mu

wm

a

o

tm -A

'0

rr a

U

bj

a

' .;:

g, u

4J

wo

ca

4

.c

~~

g,

zo

a

C,

.r(

3

U

(d

XC

'

k.

rc

UI

O*

r

aJ c

*,

c4

3

3 r.4

0

o

a

." a

-

aJ

UU

6,

m

aJ .c

rc

r-4

L4 a

4)

mL

,.

rl

a

(d O

QQ

'U

p

i

aw

LJ c,

0

." 0

c n

sr-4

U

I U

)

aJ

'J

UC

rn

0

aJ

00

0a

Jl

n a

v, P

J .-(

11

a aJ

tn 0 a a

0 -

2 tn . rl C .d

6'

k

0)

4J aJ a

rl ([I L4 3

4J d

3

U

W 0

k

0,

a, C

a

'u

.d

m

S1 $ a

UI.

aJ s

U

C

*d

tn ([I '$

Q1 0,

a Q

I r-i 5

0

C

A

W 0

3.( a, 0

d

.O

.A

u 0

m

*,-I

r-i

.i . ri

arguments.

BV - q making the imagina-y its central focus, the sociology of

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~ogical model

as the starting point of their analysis: Durkheim influences 'h Duvignaud's work, and Hauser formulates his sociblogical theory

t

mostly from ~ukAcs, Weber, P a r x and Freud. Although they both

recognize the

Investigation,

who borrows

a pure sociological

t h e y ratner iiifferent paths. For Duvignaud,

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 4 ' phi10,sophy -

(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.

For Duvignaud, Sociologie - de l'art represents another step + -

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

will ever be completed. In - The Sociology 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." /--

- -

(Hauser,l982:XX) In - h he Philosophy cf Art 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 translat ion1 , and recently Phiioso h of Art ~istory; d t o r r 3 -- Art, the excellent nomenclat~rc of a

History of Art [I955 The Sociology of Art - the theoretical coun latter remains more . r t even'ts.

: Engl i . With terpar or les

.out The t of-=

u

. r( .

In

LC a

Q,

3*

m 1

0

. d

k 0

e-i m

' rn C,

.4

w 0

C,

C

m

.A

2 aJ C

c,

o

rd

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 ) ~ranslatgd in 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 progressiv~y~a~tonomouS, and needed to be treated in a

special manner: - -~ -

- - P

Paymond Williams has pointedrout how the closing decades

"i, -

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 just any human skill s previously) but only for 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)

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

.d

.rl

+,

+J

h

rll JJ

-d

U

3

.r)

.r4 .+

J C,

m

m

'4

aJ c)

L-r k

U

rd U

.

a, s.4

t, C

, .d

m

c)

*A

a

C,

Q,

k

U

nl

aJ k

aJ r-i

m

4 . JJ

C

d, ti C

JJ L: 0

.ri

r-i C

W 0,

C.

C,

W

Q

ti 10 4

!i .c al A

4.J

2 m

R

m

- r

i

C k

Q, a 0 '

fi W

0

Trc C

. r(

U

Q,

i!i

m

w

C

0

cn .d

l-i 3

(d

3

a, a

TFl v

.A

-

aJ L.4

0

E

k a

W

0

'k

a

3.1 d, .c U

4

UI k

aJ c, 0

Ei 0

k a

'0

m

.ri

C

14

aJ a 0

Ei

m 4

a

a, N

4

4

r-i

nj al b'

i

A2

0

L)

a1 > a &

m

.. Ih

(d

aJ 3

cr -r(

k

J-J (0

U

0' c

m

v.

4

k

24

8 i2

.a

m

-3

. 3

-d

.c cr

cl U

8 L

Ln I-r

aJ a

k.

L1 Iw

-4 0

'a L:

a, cl

k

3

C,

8 a

h

C

W

k

- a

a

.d

a)

r-4 0

3

m

. C) QI

4 0

4

aJ U

Q

I C

A

-4

4.J

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 ~uvignaud and 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 --Y

of .his major works (The - cono omit - and Ph,ilosophic Manuscripts of 1

1844, Critique - of. Political , and Capital) has sprung a

humanistic perspec-tive on art. \ The question of the values and ra &f these ideas, as well as the possi'bility of constructing an aesthetic using them as starting points (rather than as fully developed syste , requires an understanding of Marxism as,a philosophic 3 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) i Folfowing Marx-'-s influence on aesthetic 'considerations, one

of the concerns of mo,;fern art, with respect toqts 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 . .

-- -li - , , -- distinct i-ntelleckual positions: from a more idealistic position

/

(~uvignaud and 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~r imrpreg'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 animal, rather than as - home faber the tool-making -' animal- sawahim as a creature uniquely able to prefigure, what he would later 'objectively' or construct in reality. It thus ascribed to the realm of- culture 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 e ~ came 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. . .

~ropagbda and ideology are the centre of Haacke's artistic 0

activity and they are an active part of any creative act or any + b

4%.

form Gf art' interpretation.

A visual artist whose art works have denounctd and shown the functioning of the art world. *

'Not Until ,Humanity Itself Dies Wi.11 ~ r t Die1 - ---- 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-day art reflects upon the possible demise

art, an issue which came its full meaning shortly after

. * ,. ' ~ n spite 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 anipl kingdom as transformer of the natural into the 'artificial, who'became therefore the magician, man the " creatoi of social replity, will always be Prornetheys hr - ig ing- fu - f rom, ,heaven to earth, will always be Orhpeus enthralling nature with his music. Not until humanity itself dies will art die. (Fischer,1963:225)

4

aJ rl

rl

* m

,

k

tn 7

"u

c, al

k

rl

10

3

C

U

-4

al

c,

J-J rl

C

tn i

ug

O

a

c, U

U

3?

aJ C

al

C

at-4

w

c, 0

C

tn m

ua

J

Id

m

k

rn

OC

0

L

UJ

-J

J-

J

Qh

+J

r

lw

o

rn

c, C

u4

rn a

am

+,

J

Ja

CP

m

ca

3r

l

U1

rn

aJ 3

ul

k

0

m

aJ S

CX

rn

C

, -

.ri

C -

aJ U

P

C,'

.d

mk

a

cw

a

3

** aJ

(\l

w

UI

c,

a3

0

ac

m

- aJ

28

-

U

z 3

: G

Ur

nC

,

a~ 3

rn L

m"

d

C,

aJ

xP

:

.d

TI

aJ

a~ rn

7

z u

-

3

rn.

0

.ri

-- -

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's discusgion 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 onb the 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.vilizationls nonartistic 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 bc- understood 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?~e art 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 tangenp and advocating a fragmentary vision and unique, ~omadic

I iL.

4J C

tr 3

0,

cr k

Q

w 0

Y k 0

3

Q

0

a

C 3

w 0

aJ P

i a

EI ((1

X

aJ

C,

C

Q1 r

4

4

0, 0

?4 aJ

C

trj

m

a

U)

o

In

'd

r-i a

aJ k

' h

2

V)

C

.Pi

a

u-4 C

ao

a

0, C

4J

o

m

C

4J

- d

a

r-i U

a) 0

x C 0 -

.d

C, U

C

3.

w

c; .d

* m

C a

C

".

a

4.4 0

m €i

Ll

Q,

0

C

. d

a

aJ C: U

a 0

k a a

m

aJ aJ k

U

m

r-i a

U

. d

0

VI

2 w

0

Ei k 0

w

m .. a 7

(d

C

Cr, ..-i

3

3

a

U1

Q

F:

0

aJ CO

C

5t C

31 k

b

CJ a,

a

3

0

a

e v,

aJ

7 1 '

Q

C

P-4

+J f,

, €5 3*

-4

R 0

:I ul

t

a

o

aJ tn

. r(

Ulo

4J

0

.-( a

Ei a

C

. d

a

u-(

4

k

C 1 ad -

0- a

il 3

U

-

. r( * .d .r

(

r-i tn r(

4.J 3

0

0,

C

rc

CP tn

C

. C

k

QI k

ln

3.

.*-r r-i

k

a

ca

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. .

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

A dramatic form. A certain rhetoric dissolves under our eyes - that which for too long has permeated our

J 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 in

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,dls argument 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 the loss of utopia:."L'i~gination est au

- - -- - - - -

pouvoir, la Iumidre, I'intelligznce est au pouvoir, nous vivons

, T '

. cief 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~

While ~audrillard' s comment reflects social concerns,

Lefebvre!~ appraisdi of the situation is directly refated to

. contemporary art. ",

I

. Le pur spectacle dissout les formes de l'art-, toutes rCalisCes jad i s pour obtenir la participation (&motive, affective, concrete) de f'individu B f'oeuvre prCsentCe - ct au =an& de ECS oeuvres, paur mettrc fin A r 1'extCrlorltC (des homes 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 n a 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 fhe productive end of art (imaginary), whe,reas Hauser

claims that the meaning of art takes place not onlyin the hands $

I

of the producer, but in the hands of, the receiver. Howeve'r,

their treatment of the com:un~t~tive aspect 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 e Production - 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 rm thz

aJ C: o

W

0

h

*

JJ .4

t-i .d

a

. d

a

C

0 a

In

0, k

'tl C

m

+J

C.

0,

. '-4 aJ 5

aJ L: JJ

c, m

L: c,

U) . k

% a.

m

c,

-rl

. k

w 3 aJ 3 0

x

d

C: C

c,

- d

z C

. '-4 a

rl

@a

+'

a

Jc

,u

l

a -0

-A

c,

c, 4

k

m

w'

m

-4

0

U

oC

,E

m

oo

-

>*

-.-4

ul

+'

a0

C

k

rl

3

0

a

U'

ak

aJ

5

-c,

cn

.$ 5

E-, 3

Ut

-i

Q

0

Q 3

.d C

.A

4J c,c,

a, "

. rl d

3r

C

4J

k

-4

-u

l m

w

W

Ca

J

a

-,+

a

0-l C

aJ

m2

.G

-A

m

% 5

,

OC

k

um

a

.,

cm

3*

U

C

id

W

ad

o

3

m

A

c,-

al k

UC

O

@O

D

-I7

QU

Q,

k

.d

C: 4J

c, m

a8

42

Q.4

44

Jo

ul

a'

aJ

Qm

m

x

0

c

a

m

L,

aJ 3

c,' a

;E

z4

.A

m

m

U

.d

Q

, -d

U

k

Q)

c,

r-i m 4-J 0

C,

- - - - - - --

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 fir~t interpretation and subsequent ones 'q

'3

regardless of time and space. He stresses that not only the

production of art, but also its re-ception is conditioned by

aestheti and social factors. L By puttinbhe 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 as his source of inspiration because,.by the 19701s, the terms sign and language were already given in art theory,

n

0,

rl.

J2 m

d

.d

m

3. Q

C 0

.d

u.

a

U

.d

C

3 0 U

W 0

b - -

art. However crucial the two sections,of the book3 addressing

these two points may be for further r i! search, their impact is 9

jeopardized by Hauser's own confusion. This reflects the . * , J

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:

It can be meaningfully claimed that virtually the entire A 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'.

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~unication processes: 'what is being communicated'. Both

~uvignacd and ~ahser. overlook the ideological essence not only k

of the messages, but of the ns of communication as well.

Notwithstanding this, 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. . i f.

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 \ ~

\ 'I

everth he less, \ to suggest the d$f iciency of Duvipnaad and

* Hauser in b e s e terms is to overlbok\heir, oin position within a

the ideology of modern art and its cri &a1 discourse. In other \ Ir

words, significant questions such as 'Whose.. idea of art?' , 0

cc

n c

ac

Q,

c

oa

.rc

LC .A

h

l-i k

aJ ET a

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Rdorno, Thebdor. 'Commitment'. New 7 Left Review. no. 87/88, Sept. -Dec. 1978. pp. 75-89..

* % C -

Arlen, Michael. - Th Camera Age* ~ssays. on Television. Middlesex. (England); New Pork, Penguin ~ o o k z 1981.

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 . ,

~risis/Death/~eSirth Followed by Crisis....' - 1 Fuse ~ovember/~ecsmber 1981. pp.271-273.

Barnett. James H. ' . . . "A'rt ,is now what is consumed as Art."; cbntemPorary Sbciology,. - A Journal - of Reviews, Vol. 12 no.3, '

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 Reader. Neb York; ~ashington, -- Praeger, 1970. I

Bastide, Roger. -- Art et soci6t6. Paris, Payot, 1977. 9, s

Baudrillard, Jean. Les strategies fatales. Paris, ~ernard ' Grasset, 1983. . P

'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 I

Baudrillard.' Parachute, Juillet/AoGt 1963. pp.26-33: i *

\ Benjamin, Walter. 'The Author as Producer'. lnkt?nberstanding

. Brecht. London, NLB, 1973. \

' Bertrand, Yves. 'Disciplinarith ou interdisciplinsritb.' ~ o u r n w of CmaPian Studies, ~olT15, no.3, Fall 1980. pp.19-24. . -

I

a ~ 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 ~ictionary - of C .

9

~odern Thouqht . ond don, + Fontana/follins , 1472,--- -- -

86- Bgrger, Peter. 'The significance of the Avant-Garde for

Contemporary ~esthetics: A Reply to Jur&gen Habermas'. New - -

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,u Seuqk, 1975. ,

. i Coutts-Smith, Kenneth. 'Thesis on' the Failure of Gomrnunication

I- in the Plastic Arts;' Praxis, no. 3, 1976. pp.77-97.c '

' _

pavzs, Douglas. )utopia: Thinking (with Ad ~ei~hardc) About the End of Art.' in Artculture. Essays on the ~oshodern. New -- York, Icon Editions;Harper & ROW, 1977. pp.125-149,.

n~bord, Guy. Society of the Black and Red; - - 1970.

-- * " b p ,

Der Grosse 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 de. France, 1972.

D

I he Socioloc;y\ of Art. New-York; London, Icon - -- Editiws; PMarper . b & Row, 1972.

* 8 a ':~~e;taule et socihtg. Paris, ~enoll/Gcnthier, 1970. -

Ellul, Jacques. L'em i;e dy non-sens. L'art et la socikti -+ -1- ,technicienne., Pa is7~resses Universitaires de France,' , 1980. e

~ n c ~ c l o ~ e d i a Universalis. Vo1.8, GRECO-INTERET. Paris,, ~ncyclopedia Universalis, 1968.-

n B .

.. ~ o s t . e r ; Al. 'The Roblem of Pluralism'. Art in ~merica Vol. 70, -- - I no. 1 , January l"982. pp.9-14.

~ o s t e c , ~rnold W.. q'~orninant Themes in interpreting the Arts: 1

Materials fbr a- Sociological Model.' Archives europhennes C

lde sociofogie , Vol. XX, 1979. pp.301-3W. - Fcancastel, Pierre. Etudes de la socioloqie de l'art. Paris,

Denoel/Gonthier, 1970. - * .L1 image, la vision et 1' imagination. L'objet f ilmique

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.' New German Critique, no. 22, Winter 1981. pp.15-18.

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 and7 Being Framed. 2 works 1970-1 975. .Halifax; New York, The Press of Nova Scotia College of ~rt' and Design; New York University Press, 1975.

Habermas, Jurgen. 'Modernity - An Incomplete Project'. In Foster, A1 (eds.) - The Anti-Aesthetic, Essays on Postmodern Culture. Port Townsend,-Bay Press, 1983.

Hadjinicolaou, Nicos. Art History and Class Strugqle. London, Pluto Press, 1978.

Hauser, Arnold. - The Philosophy -- of Art Hystory. New Pork, Alfred 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 Social History of Art. Renaissance, Mannerism, Paroque. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977.

. - The Socioloqy -- of Art. Chicago, The University oi Chicago Press, 1982.

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 ~niversyty Press, ! 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, k

Harper Torch Books, 1971.

.IntroZxtion - - a la modernit&. Prkludes Paris, Les - . . Editions de -~inui't, 1962.

Levin, Kim. 'Farewell to Modernism'. - Arts Magazine. Vol. 54, No. 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

-*q- Lischka, 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 of * - Marxist Aesthetics. Boston, BehcOn ~regs, ,1978.

Munro, Thomas. Evolution ---- in the Arts and other Theories of Culture History. Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of'~rt,

Oliva, Achille B 'The International ~rans-~vantgarde'. lash - 1 Art October-November 1981. pp.36-43.

Ortega asset, Jose. - The Dehumanization of Art and other 1

Essays on Arts, Culture - and Literature . Princeton, A princeton University Press, 1972.

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.

. U

0 \

Renzio, ~ o n i dei. 'Art &/or language.' - and ~rtists, no. 10, December. 1975. g p . 10-13.

-

Robert, Paul. Dictionnaire a1 -hablti ue e t ,analogique de langue fran~aise. Parls -+A- Soc1 t dr~ouveau Littz, 1972.

- Rosier, Martha. 'Lookers, Buyers, Dealers, a&-Makers:-Fhotlghks-

on 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, ~~uralism, and

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 Canadian Context.' Canadian Review of Socioloqy - and Anthropology, Vol. 18, February 1981. pp.14-29.

Tomory, P. - ~ r t History, -- Past and Present. Bandoorz, Victoria, La 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 ~eview~ress, 1973.

~ebster's New Collegia'te Dictionary.. Springfield ass.), G&C 7 Merriam; Toronto, Thomas Allan & Son, 1979.

~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 Mail, ~ebruary 19, 1985. p.7.

Wolff, Janet. Aesthetics -- and the Sociology of Art. London, George Allen & Unwin; 1983. *

and -