“The history of Marxist aesthetics is that of a series of responses to pressing problems” [Laing, 1978, Introduction]. These said ‘problems’, argued by Marx, are the restrictions the bourgeoisie (the owners of property who control means of production) place onto those who rely on the labour they offer to make a living (the proletariat). Marx and Engels have branded this dynamic “the history of all hitherto existing society” and claim it has created a lifetime of “class struggles” [1848, Page 14]. As a formulaic process, these obstacles generate opposition against the Capitalist values they endorse. The drive for active change fuelling the counteraction results in an uprising against this economic oppression, thus, Marx’s anticipated vision of a Communist society has been fulfilled. A community as such is one where private enterprise has been abolished and wealth is equally distributed. Marxist art plays an integral character in every stage of this process, with the thinkers who create it bestowing a vital role upon themselves to remind the proletariat of the hardships Capitalism forces them to encounter.
One must first observe how art can bring a Communist society to the forefront. This can be carried out by analysing the roles of what Marxists deem the ‘base’, the methods of production, and the superstructure, mediums of arts and religion. Williams credits this concept to be of great importance as “any approach to a Marxist theory of culture must begin by considering the proposition of a determining base and a determined superstructure” [1980, Page 31], thus, the dynamic between these two mediums is a key area of Marxist study. Benjamin and Althusser provide respectively a Marxist aspect for critics to locate a theoretic procedure for how the artistic medium of literature can be orchestrated to overthrow Capitalism concerning a direct association with the base. Production theory. This is credited as the ability of literature as art to influence the base and, thus, alter how it treats its inhabitants. Slaughter encapsulates this in declaring that “art is not a reflection of society” but is actually “a product” of it [1980, Page 23], proposing that it can easily dictate spectators’ reactions to society. Althusser proposes that “cultural” mediums such as “literature, the arts” are vessels that “present themselves”…in the form of distinct and specialised institutions” in what he deems “Ideological State Apparatus” (civil facilities that exert an ideology) [1970, Page 96]. The vital constituent in Production theory being successful is the concept of ideology which incorporates a belief system into the matter. Marxists consider that ideology can be both positive in that it creates a more admirable world, in addition to the negative manner of it serving only the interest of a repressive system. Artists searching to contend Communism over Capitalism are required to focus on economical ideology in a combination of the negative and positive, meaning they work to expose the societal ills Capitalism is composed of to propose a society that is free of them. Essentially, they require the negativity of oppression so they can show the argued appeal in the option of a more proletariat positive society. Marxist writers construct their literature to reveal to the proletariat that the ideology that has been imposed onto them is one that does not benefit them, yet they have accepted it and in turn have fallen to false consciousness. The novelist Richard Wright exemplifies this in a statement from his 1940 novel, “Native Son”, which can be read as “men can starve from a lack of self-realisation as much as they can from a lack of bread” [1940], demonstrating the reality of the proletarian experience in a work of fiction. Marxism perceives literature to have a higher value in the socioeconomic aspect of cultures rather than as a simple aesthetic medium, stemming from the proposal that the content is more important than the form in executing Marxist ideals. To promote the initial steps to constructing a Communist society, artists should feed the criticising of classist circumstances in the immediate subject matter of their art since this is viewed as more revealing of how Capitalism mistreats a mass group of people due to its overt manner and sympathetic presentation. One can build on this when observing how Wright’s work operates to counteract any justification of the emotional states his characters are being forced to undergo by the physical and economical conditions. This is done by dissecting the novel’s subject matter which presents a young male from a proletariat background struggling underneath a society that promotes private enterprise. Wright uses the narrative of his central character residing in a depressive state due to his unpleasant environment, “the shame and misery” [1940, Book 1] of his life as Wright puts it, generating emotional responses of pity in spectators. The emotional state this Marxist author structures the character to have represents the reality that many proletariats experience, thus, unveiling the disfigurement of Capitalism.“Art is then seen as a particular sector of the ideological level of the superstructure” [Laing, 1978, Page 2], thus, this concept establishes the significance of artists in obtaining a Communist society because they have brought the ideology needed to reach Communism using literature. Furthermore, Wright is embodying Althusser’s claim that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” [1970, Page 109], which is a thesis that underlines literature’s contextual significance because as a work of fiction, it is a high form of imagined representation of Marxist relationships between people and conditions. Overall, artists have had a significant role in Communist society by constructing their work to imply why it is needed. Mostly done through the representation of Capitalist values as idiosyncrasies, for example presenting private ownership as something that keeps groups of people in unpleasant environments likewise to Wright’s portrayal. This, in turn, colours Communist factors as more alluring and appropriate for the proletariats because it strives to eliminate the cause of this social problem.
Once Production theory has fulfilled its objective and has created a Communist society, Marxist artists find themselves taking on the role of reminding their artwork’s spectators why this society suits them more than the previous Capitalist one. This is done in the reversal process to Production theory and is classified as Reflection theory, meaning that the superstructure mirrors the base in ideals and environments. Marxist critics have credited Lucaks as the one who is “responsible for what has become known as reflectionism” [Dobie, 2011, Page 85], as he brought this observation of the relationship between literature and society to the Marxist sphere and thus created his own viewpoint of “the key to Marxist cultural analysis” [Williams, 1980, Page 31]. Marxist critics associate this concept with the idea of Weltanschauung which is the “understanding of that system and the author’s worldview” [Dobie, 2011, Page 85]. The author’s worldview in question here is one that endorses values such as common ownership of the means of production, as well as collectivism to keep proletariats co-operating as a union since it promotes land being owned by people who will work with one another. As a result, Marxist artists across all creative mediums are expected to upkeep this environment and therefore, must represent a Communist society of common ownership and collectivism as a beneficial one consistently. One can identify these ideals being portrayed in a positive light in works such as “Firmes Junto a Fidel”, which translates to “Stand Strong With Fidel”, [1], and was created a year after Cuba became Communist under Castro. It presents the image of a strong arm and closed fist serving as the outline for a smaller image of a mass crowd of workers, thus, encapsulating the idea of Collectivism. The creator of this piece as an artist is embodying Marxist ideals in a new Communist society and representing how a vision has become a reality. The piece of art is deemed as a reflection of the society in which it was created because it presents a key element to Marxism and Communism which now influences the sociopolitical ideology of the country, one that strays from Capitalism and its ideology. To elaborate in a comparison of Communist and Capitalist attitudes to the same concept, one can observe how a Capitalist piece of art would portray the opposite of Collectivism, which is Rugged Individualism, as private enterprise relies on promoting this as a method of survival. This refers to the proposal that individuals should remain as such; that they should be self-reliant and independent from others and the state to prosper. Marxist artists have the role of completely rejecting this concept since it does not reflect a Communist society, and should instead portray Collectivism because this is perceived as the appropriate layout for a civilisation. Artists creating works underneath a Marxist theoretic scope and Communist society are required to consistently prove why the said theory and fellowship work. Reflecting the base and the values it endorses in works that convey the support they should receive is an effective method of maintaining a Left-wing society that encourages common ownership and eliminates privatisation since Marxists argue this weakens and harms rather than enhances.
Building off from Lukacs’ ideas of Reflection theory, one can find new artistic ideologies to observe Marxist art and the role of artists through. Laing provides an area such as this when referencing Lukacs’ attitudes towards the guidelines for how Marxist art should be constructed, looking into the “Soviet literary circles in the late 1920s” where “the key term was Realism” [1978, Page 47]. This term is classified as the rejection of abstraction when creating artworks as it is an endorsement of detailed and accurate depictions of life being the foundation of artistic mediums. A pragmatic presentation of life in artworks is consistently praised throughout Marxist theoretic scopes, shown in how “there are Marxist positions which regard classic realism as the only basis for revolutionary art” and how it is proposed that “the arts as second only to the sciences in the validity of their insights into reality” [Laing, 1978, Introduction]. These credit Realism and Marxism co-operating with a close relation. As a result, artists creating underneath a Communist society are responsible for demonstrating this stance towards how art should appear to spectators, possessing the necessary tools to contrive works of art that would be an appropriate reflection of Marxist attitudes towards the relationship between political demands and aesthetic concerns. Laing progresses with his articulation of Lukacs’ reinforcement of Realism in stating how “art was ‘decoded’ to determine in what way it related to the underlying social reality [1978, Page 21], conveying how Marxist artists have to create work that will be analysed underneath the assumption that it will reflect what is going on in a sociopolitical aspect. Evidence of this can be located in the literary works of prose, where the subject matter of class as the foundation of the narrative can emanate its reverberations. The novelist John Steinbeck exemplified Marxist undertones consecutively in his works, including the Realist novel “The Grapes of Wrath” which focuses on a family of farmers attempting to survive the Great Depression. Steinbeck orchestrates his characters’ statements to be the vessel for which Marxist ideals are communicated to his readers, for example branding the corporate bank as “a monster” that doesn’t “breathe air” but instead “breathes profit” [1939, Page 34]. This imagery orientated metaphor portrays a realistic attitude that many individuals in the same status as the family held towards corporate institutions, in which they are perceived as morally evil and destructive. Slaughter provides insight into the idea of using artistic techniques that rely on imagery to outline ideology, stating “in art and literature, men find images to communicate and share their apprehension” [1980, Page 10], which is what Steinbeck is executing as his metaphor derives from fear of corporate facilities. In addition to this, Steinbeck is demonstrating in this example the emotional strain Capitalism places on the proletariat, which is effective as “a novelist may use” the novel form “to express the extreme tension between…forms of Capitalist society” [Slaughter, 1980, Page 14].
This solidifies how “the novel form rests…on the assumption that the description of everyday realities…can be truth” and “can be art”. [Slaughter, 1980, Page 13], due to how Steinbeck has bridged aesthetic literary devices such as metaphorical identifications and Realism in authentic situations to create Marxist art. He has fulfilled Engels’ declaration on what is known as “the triumph of Realism”, meaning that “the ability of art to transcend…a particular ideology” [Laing, 1978, Page 14] is evident in this work of Marxist art which criticises the banks. Overall, Steinbeck is providing examples of what an artist working underneath a Communist society would be expected to portray using Realism. This is done by showing how “the novel is the true reflection of the form of Capitalist society” [Slaughter, 1980, Page 12], with relation to the negative representation required to execute Marxist ideology.
However, despite the prior stated positive presentations of a Communist society, one of the most discussed and observed demonstrations of its policies in history proves to dilute the alluring qualities of its intention and execution. The art that was created to represent it can be perceived as concealment of these harmful aspects, since the praise driven imagery does not correlate with the reality of the government. Castro’s Cuba, which became Communist in the 1960s following Barista being overthrown by Castro in 1959, is studied as the execution of Communist policies with its artwork standing as infamous in visual representations of Communism. For example, the previously mentioned “Firmes Junto de Fidel” which embodies the Marxist and Communist ideal of Collectivism in the people, brought together with the iconography of a bold red and images of a crowd which condenses Marx Communism aesthetics.
This piece, alongside others such as Alberto Korda’s”Che Guevara” [2] which is credited as a visualisation of the hope that this newly Communist country would provide, has been created by artists to present Marx Communism as a positive and beneficial foundation for a society, done as a method for persuasion of social enrollment into the extreme Leftist agenda.
The Cuban government publicly commended artistic mediums as “Cuban arts and letters were widely regarded as among the most sophisticated…of Latin America” [Sweig, 2016, Page 55], demonstrating the apparent praise and support artists under this Communist society received. “The revolution did a great deal to further develop…this rich artistic and cultural tradition” by placing all artworks as “more widely accessible” [Sweig, 2016, Page 56], thus, artists appeared to have a highly respected role in the community. Sweig highlights Communist Cuba wasn’t consistent in being a positive environment for artists, however. This is exemplified in her statement that “intense debates over the fundamental purposes of art and artists” restricted the creativity of these artists, as well as the dire threat of the fact that “exceeding established boundaries could result in..expulsion” [2016, Page 56]. In addition to this, Cuban artists were not permitted to incorporate any non-Cuban elements into their work, as ” “repression and censorship turned more aggressive…” meaning that artists were forced to face “ostracism from cultural authorities who viewed their admiration for western artists as symptoms of cultural imperialism” [Sweig, 2016, Page 57]. This elevates the creatively restrictive hegemony that the radically Left government was forcing onto their artists, who found their role in the society being controlled through the politics of the time. The artwork one would obtain when they are observing political art from this period of Communist Cuba would not reflect this reality, mostly because it counteracts the image of unions and collective reliance that Marx Communism presents initially. This contradicting limitation to this Communist society lies not just in aesthetic spheres but socio political ones as well, with art aiding in masking these political inconsistencies. While any art from this time reflects the Marx Communist intention of Collectivism and the rejection of Conservative traditions, “cultural biases of the previous centuries persisted…”, specifically in racial relations since “Afro-Cubans continued to be underrepresented, particularly in the political leadership” [Sweig, 2016, Page 53]. Black Cubans were not the only already marginalised group to succumb to Cuba’s covert discrimination, as Sweig mentions how “homosexuals and others deemed to be ‘antisocial’ by Cuba’s culturally repressive domestic intelligence service were rounded up and sent to work camps for Communist re-education” [2016, Page 65]. Regardless of these demonstrations sociopolitical discriminations and separations, Marx Communist artists were still expected to present the Communist society as a utopia for all its members, demonstrated in works such as “Firmes Junto de Fidel” with its central imagery of a united crowd although this crowd had hidden requirements based on Identity politics. Likewise to “Che Guevara” as a symbol of hope and change standing as a contradiction when presenting how minority groups remained to be treated with oppression and judgment, opposing the concept of optimism Korda claimed to embody. One can encapsulate this proposal by observing its dynamic between the specific aim and execution. The art of this society’s ideological intentions did not align with its physical implementations because contradictions severed opportunities for both concepts to correlate. Artists of the time had the role of ensuring this, by consistently constructing pieces of visual and literary art that eliminated representations of what was happening to people of colour and queer sexualities living in a Communist Cuban society, they contributed to the concealment of any hypocrisy residing in the comparison between Communist intention and execution.
To bring forth a conclusion in light of the points made, it can be said that artists working under a Communist society, whether it be in the stages of strategically endeavouring it or residing in it, are placed under a highly significant role of responsibility. They are tasked with acting as the ideological cultivators in spreading the word of Marxism to spectators and must do so by directly exhibiting as much criticism as they can of the current Capitalist society. This has to succeed in generating the motivation and execution of overthrowing this society and once that is done, consistently reflect the benefits of the Communist civilisation and present reminders of why society must not return to Capitalism. Furthermore, artists have the role of upkeeping Marx Communist ideals as positives even when the society may not be objectively beneficial, as proven in the environment in Cuba. This all results in a mass display of the highest expectations of artists, enhancing the integral position they possess in culture, as the artistic vessels of ideology and maintainers of it.
Word Count: 3,075
Bibliography
Laing, David, “The Marxist Theory of Art”, 1978, The Harvester Press Limited
Marx, Karl and Engles, Fredrich, “The Communist Manifesto”, 1848, Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969
Williams, Raymond, “Problems in Materialism and Culture”, 1980, Redwood Burn LTD
Slaughter, Cliff, “Marxism, Ideology, and Literature”, 1980, The Macmillian Press LTD
Althusser, Louie, “Ideology and and Ideological State Apparatus” Essay, 1970, “Lenin and Philosophies and Other Essays”, 2001, Monthly Review Press
Wright, Richard, “Native Son, 1940, HarperCollins Publishers.
Dobie, Ann, “Theory into Practice”, 2011, Wadsworth Publishing; 3rd edition
Steinbeck, John, “The Grapes of Wrath”, 1939, Penguin Books
Sweig, Julia E., “Cuba: What Everyone Needs To Know”, 2016, Oxford University Press
Footnotes
- “Firmes Junto a Fidel” 1960. Illustration created to represent the collectivism that a recently transformed Communist Cuba would seemingly bring.
2. “Ge Guevara”. Portrait created by Alberto Korda in 1960. Credited as a symbol of change and hope for the newly Communist Cuba.