A leading Marxist of his time, Hungarian art historian Arnold Hauser (1892-1978) reflected deeply and wrote extensively on how changes in society and social institutions and organizations influence art. “The Philosophy of Art History” is a collection of six detailed essays where the author addresses such topics as psychoanalysis and art, the concept of art history, folk art and popular art, and the sociology of art. As a way of providing a taste of what a reader will discover in these pages, I will include quotes along with my comments on this last topic, the sociology of art, specifically outlined in Hauser’s first essay, “Introduction: The Scope and Limitations of a Sociology of Art.”

“A work of art is a challenge; we do not explain it, we adjust ourselves to it.” ---------- The author makes an excellent point, one fundamental requirement: we resist the urge on first viewing to “explain” the work of art in terms of our preconceived notions or categories; rather, we accept the challenge the work of art offers and permit ourselves to become vulnerable in our encounter and let the art speak to us and possibly even move us.


“In interpreting a work of art, we draw upon our own aims and endeavors, inform it with a meaning that has its origin in our own ways of life and thought. In a word, any art that really affects us becomes to that extent modern art.” ---------- For example, if we read “Crime and Punishment,” we color the novel -- plot, characters, events, language-- with our own specific memories and experiences; in a way, Dostoyevsky’s work becomes our “Crime and Punishment,” and thus, a 21st century novel! Same applies to a cubist painting of Picasso or a Symphony of Mozart. Personally, I find this way of looking at art a particularly creative approach.

“We are now living in the day of the sociological interpretation of cultural achievements. This day will not last forever, and it will not have the last word.” ---------- Very humble statement from a man who spent his entire professional life studying and writing on the sociological context of art and culture. And what the author says is true: thousands of articles, reviews and books have been written evaluating artists and writers in the context of her or his society, culture, epoch; true today as it was true back in 1958 when Arnold Hauser penned these words. However, like anything else, if it takes 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years, our current methods of evaluating art will change.


“But the exponents of the theory “art for art’s sake” maintain that any reference to actualities beyond the work of art must irretrievably destroy its aesthetic illusion. That may be correct, and yet this aesthetic illusion is not all, to produce it is not the exclusive or the most important aim of the artistic endeavor.” ---------- Let’s take an obvious example: a war memorial where the intention of the organization funding the work is to commemorate and memorialize those who participated in the war. Certainly, the war memorial might have an aesthetic appeal, it might even be beautiful (I personally find the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to be of high aesthetic quality), but this is not the war memorial’s primary reason for being. However, pertaining to claims of “art for art’s sake," I think it wise to evaluate such claims one work at a time.


“If we do not know or even want to know the aims that the artist was pursuing through his work – his aim to inform, to convince, to influence people – then we do not get much farther in understanding his art than the ignorant spectator who judges a football game simply by the beauty of the players’ movement.” ---------- Such a statement can be tricky. Let’s take the World Cup – when a team fails to score and loses, that country’s players, coaches and fans are disappointed, no matter how beautiful the players' movements. But, if we look at a Cirque du Soleil performance, the dynamics are not at all the same - acrobats and dancers perform successfully when all their movements are beautiful; there are no ends beyond the beauty of perfectly executed movement. The point being, in some art and performance, we need not concern ourselves with the artist’s aim beyond the art or performance itself.


“Every honest attempt to discover the truth and depict things faithfully is a struggle against one’s own subjectivity and partiality, one’s individual and class interests; one can seek to become aware of these as a source of error, while realizing that they can never be finally excluded.” ---------- Again, this can be tricky. For example: Karl Ove Knausgaard leans heavily on his own subjective experience, matter of fact, his experience is the juice of his writing – rather than attempting to exclude his feelings and individuality, he mines his feelings and individuality as the very subject of his novels.

“It is no more than an idle dream to suppose that social justice and artistic worth in any way coincide, that one can draw any conclusion with regard to the aesthetic success or failure of a work of art from the social conditions under which it has been produced.” ---------- How true! A free, open society does not necessarily produce all great or even good artists and writers; a oppressive, unfree “bad” society does not necessarily produce all bad artists and writers. Case in point: “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


( )

A leading Marxist of his time, Hungarian art historian Arnold Hauser (1892-1978) reflected deeply and wrote extensively on how changes in society and social institutions and organizations influence art. “The Philosophy of Art History” is a collection of six detailed essays where the author addresses such topics as psychoanalysis and art, the concept of art history, folk art and popular art, and the sociology of art. As a way of providing a taste of what a reader will discover in these pages, I will include quotes along with my comments on this last topic, the sociology of art, specifically outlined in Hauser’s first essay, “Introduction: The Scope and Limitations of a Sociology of Art.”

“A work of art is a challenge; we do not explain it, we adjust ourselves to it.” ---------- The author makes an excellent point, one fundamental requirement: we resist the urge on first viewing to “explain” the work of art in terms of our preconceived notions or categories; rather, we accept the challenge the work of art offers and permit ourselves to become vulnerable in our encounter and let the art speak to us and possibly even move us.


“In interpreting a work of art, we draw upon our own aims and endeavors, inform it with a meaning that has its origin in our own ways of life and thought. In a word, any art that really affects us becomes to that extent modern art.” ---------- For example, if we read “Crime and Punishment,” we color the novel -- plot, characters, events, language-- with our own specific memories and experiences; in a way, Dostoyevsky’s work becomes our “Crime and Punishment,” and thus, a 21st century novel! Same applies to a cubist painting of Picasso or a Symphony of Mozart. Personally, I find this way of looking at art a particularly creative approach.

“We are now living in the day of the sociological interpretation of cultural achievements. This day will not last forever, and it will not have the last word.” ---------- Very humble statement from a man who spent his entire professional life studying and writing on the sociological context of art and culture. And what the author says is true: thousands of articles, reviews and books have been written evaluating artists and writers in the context of her or his society, culture, epoch; true today as it was true back in 1958 when Arnold Hauser penned these words. However, like anything else, if it takes 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years, our current methods of evaluating art will change.


“But the exponents of the theory “art for art’s sake” maintain that any reference to actualities beyond the work of art must irretrievably destroy its aesthetic illusion. That may be correct, and yet this aesthetic illusion is not all, to produce it is not the exclusive or the most important aim of the artistic endeavor.” ---------- Let’s take an obvious example: a war memorial where the intention of the organization funding the work is to commemorate and memorialize those who participated in the war. Certainly, the war memorial might have an aesthetic appeal, it might even be beautiful (I personally find the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to be of high aesthetic quality), but this is not the war memorial’s primary reason for being. However, pertaining to claims of “art for art’s sake," I think it wise to evaluate such claims one work at a time.


“If we do not know or even want to know the aims that the artist was pursuing through his work – his aim to inform, to convince, to influence people – then we do not get much farther in understanding his art than the ignorant spectator who judges a football game simply by the beauty of the players’ movement.” ---------- Such a statement can be tricky. Let’s take the World Cup – when a team fails to score and loses, that country’s players, coaches and fans are disappointed, no matter how beautiful the players' movements. But, if we look at a Cirque du Soleil performance, the dynamics are not at all the same - acrobats and dancers perform successfully when all their movements are beautiful; there are no ends beyond the beauty of perfectly executed movement. The point being, in some art and performance, we need not concern ourselves with the artist’s aim beyond the art or performance itself.


“Every honest attempt to discover the truth and depict things faithfully is a struggle against one’s own subjectivity and partiality, one’s individual and class interests; one can seek to become aware of these as a source of error, while realizing that they can never be finally excluded.” ---------- Again, this can be tricky. For example: Karl Ove Knausgaard leans heavily on his own subjective experience, matter of fact, his experience is the juice of his writing – rather than attempting to exclude his feelings and individuality, he mines his feelings and individuality as the very subject of his novels.

“It is no more than an idle dream to suppose that social justice and artistic worth in any way coincide, that one can draw any conclusion with regard to the aesthetic success or failure of a work of art from the social conditions under which it has been produced.” ---------- How true! A free, open society does not necessarily produce all great or even good artists and writers; a oppressive, unfree “bad” society does not necessarily produce all bad artists and writers. Case in point: “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


( )