Hadjinicolacou, Nicos - Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo Pg_087-100_quintana5(1)

7/28/2019 Hadjinicolacou, Nicos - Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo Pg_087-100_quintana5(1)

1/14

HISTORIA DEL ARTE MARXISTA:UN INFORME NO DEFINITIVO

RESUMEN

Nicos HadjinicolaouUniversity of Crete

En esta aportacin que responde a una conferencia impartida en 2002 en la University College London se analiza la relacin de marxismo e historia del arte a lo largo del siglo XX. A travs de un desglose de las diferentesaproximaciones de impronta marxista se definen los contenidos generales haciendo notar adems la muy desigual expansin de estos estudios segn los diferentes pases. Asimismo se plantean las amenazas que se ciernen en la actualidad sobre una disciplina como la Historia del Arte. El desdn con que la clase poltica mira a lashumanidades y el mercantilismo que fomenta alrededor de la disciplina artstica. O la creciente disolucin delconcepto de arte, los inamovibles planes de estudios europeos centrados nicamente en el arte occidental yreduciendo el conocimiento de la Historia a lo banal. A partir del diagnstico de la realidad actual se reivindicala teora marxista como un mtodo de anlisis vlido an con sus insuficiencias.Palabras: Marxismo, poltica, siglo XXABSTRACTThis study, which was presented in 2002 at University College London, analyzes the relationship between Marxism and the history of art throughout the twentieth century. By examining various approaches within Marxism,its general characteristics are defined, as is the unequal expansion of these studies in different countries. At thesame time, attention is drawn to threats currently posed to the discipline of Art History. Among them are thedisdain with which politicians view the humanities, the mercantilism that is encouraged around the arts, theincreasing dissolution of the concept of art, or the unchanging university focus on western art, reducing knowledge of history to the banal. Through an examination of the current reality, the Marxist methodology is proffered as the most valid of approaches, even with its weaknesses.Key words: Marxism, politics, twentieth century

Algunos considerarn que la organizaClonde una conferencia en abril de 2002 con el ttulo El marxismo y las artes visuales en la actuali-dad es una provocacin, otros una especie debroma surrealista y la conferencia en s mismaser vista como una reunin de dinosaurios, unencuentro de los pocos supervivientes de unatribu en extincin, que se comunican en un idioma, el cual, tras su muerte, no entender nadienunca ms.

Me temo que no exagero. A las fuerzassocioeconmicas dominantes y al poderoso sistema de persuasin del que disponen les encan-

tara que las cosas fuesen as. Por este motivo,el sistema tiende a denigrar, ridiculizar o ignorar,lo que considera ms apropiado en cadamomento y lugar.

Esta iniciativa, emprendida por nuestroscolegas del Departamento de Historia del Artedel University College London fue sin duda unamagnfica idea y me gustara felicitarles por ello:slo a travs de estos encuentros y debatespodremos hacer frente a la fragmentacinimpuesta por el sistema y contribuir, dentro delos lmites de nuestro poder, a la creacin deuna alternativa poltica y cultural.

QUINTANA N5 2006. ISSN 1579-7414. pp. 85-98


2/14

86 Historia del arte marxista: un informe no definitivo::JOO"OOi i 'O::I:ti )OOZ

Un informe, una recapitulacin, un planteamiento histrico de la historia del arte marxista,resultara til en algn sentido hoy en da? Yen caso afirmativo, en qu sentido? Desdeluego no como una lista de referencias bibliogrficas. Ni siquiera como un inventario de tendencias. Sino con la idea en mente de obtenercon ello algn beneficio, quiz un mayor conocimiento colectivo, una mejor comprensin dednde nos encontramos en la actualidad y denuestros movimientos hacia el futuro. "Nosotros". Quines somos "nosotros"? Es muydifcil de definir. Vamos a aceptar, al menos deforma provisional, lo evidente, que este "nosotros" tan heterogneo est formado por todosaquellos que trabajamos en el mbito cultural,sobre todo en la historia del arte, y consideramos que el marxismo y los diversos movimientosque inspir durante el ltimo siglo y medio, apesar de sus incoherencias y sus contradicciones, constituye un punto de referencia, unpunto de encuentro.

En ocasiones, la relacin de marxismo e historia del arte se benefici, en cierta medida, dela conexin directa entre marxistas y poltica,conexin que tambin le fue perjudicial. La poltica (entendida exclusivamente con el significado restringido de partidos polticos) lo decidatodo. Incluso la definicin del propio marxismoy su planteamiento de las artes visuales y de suhistoria. Lo cual implic (en Occidente, porqueen Europa Oriental y en la Unin Sovitica lassituaciones adquiran a veces formas ms violentas) las conocidas exclusiones mutuas y ladesintegracin gradual de todos los esfuerzosprcticos para crear un gran frente de los historiadores marxistas del arte con independenciadel modo en que cada uno de ellos entenda elmarxismo y la historia marxista del arte.

Bastar un ejemplo de los aos cincuenta ysesenta. Con el auge del fascismo en Hungra yAlemania, un joven historiador del arte se sintiatrado por las ideas marxistas, escribi artculosy libros y ofreci conferencias. Me refiero a Fre-derick Antal, el cual, que yo sepa, nunca se defi -ni como marxista al menos en sus escritos; el

QUINTANA NS 2006. ISSN 1579-7414. pp. 85-98

cual, debido a su contribucin a los estudios delRenacimiento italiano y el Manierismo, fue calificado

- por w. S. Kemenow como" un historiadordel arte burgus", que particip en la campaacontra la cultura artstica del Renacimiento(Gegen die brger/iche Kunst und Kunstwis-senschaft, 1954, edicin rusa 1951);

- por Valentino Gerratana como un "vulgarsocilogo" (11 Contemporaneo, 27.11.1954);

- por Franco Fortini como alguien "que sinduda no fue marxista", sino un seguidor encubierto de Benedetto Croce (11 Contemporaneo,25.12.1914);

- Ypor Anthony Molho como un "destacado historiador marxista del arte en el mundoangloparlante" (Socia/ and Economic Founda-tions of the Ita/ian Renaissance, 1969).

Quin es marxista? Quin no es marxista,aunque dice serlo? Quin es marxista, aunquenunca haya dicho serlo? Quin lo decide? Sonproductivas en algn sentido este tipo de "decisiones"?

El hecho es que las divisiones polticas delmovimiento socialista y, a partir de la dcada delos aos treinta, el predominio de la concepcinestalinista del marxismo y del socialismo hantenido una influencia directa con consecuenciasduraderas en el mbito cultural.

De la concepcin estalinista surgi un canonpara la poltica cultural del que, antes de 1940,muy pocos espacios de la Izquierda se libraban,como el movimiento surrealista o el Institut frSozialforschung de Frankfurt, y para el que, despus de 1945, no existan alternativas reales, yaque el canon surrealista se encontraba en grandeclive, Brecht y Bloch haban sido en ciertamedida absorbidos por el sistema o aislados,con lo cual quedaba poco espacio para lo quedeberamos denominar dentro de esta lgica"movimientos herejes" o para el desarrollo deuna investigacin marxista independiente.

En qu consista este canon? Por supuestome veo obligado a generalizar en gran medida,corriendo el riesgo de provocar malentendidos ycaer en grandes simplificaciones. Se podra decirque su estructura bsica estaba formada por la


3/14

plataforma poltica del "realismo socialista", elcual, a su vez, descansaba sobre la construccinde una "esttica marxista" y su principal propuesta ideolgica-gnoseolgica, la teora delarte como reflejo de la realidad. Por consiguiente, se esperaba que los historiadores del arteestudiasen la historia del arte con referencia alas categoras conceptuales de "realismo","realismo crtico", "realismo socialista" y"decadencia". Todos los esfuerzos realizadospor Bertolt Brecht entre otros, para rebatir esteplanteamiento tan simplista fueron en vano.

El instrumento principal en el que basar ycon el que difundir estas ideas fue el Instituto deHistoria del Arte de la Academia de Ciencias dela URSS, el cual (en colaboracin con su Instituto de Filosofa ye l Instituto Gorky para la Literatura Mundial) lleg a publicar un manualtitulado Elementos bsicos de la esttica marxista-leninista. El primer intento, y sin duda el msinteresante, de sistematizar consista en el antiguo estudio de Mijail Lifschitz, Karl Marx y laEsttica (publicado por primera vez en 1933).Los cursos sobre esttica marxista-leninista deMoissej Kagan o Avner Ziss fueron muy posteriores. De la misma naturaleza era el trabajo realizado en el mundo hispanohablante por AdolfoSnchez Vsquez (Las ideas estticas de Marx,1965 o su antologa Esttica y marxismo, 1969),el trabajo realizado en Francia por Jean-MichelPalmier, en la Repblica Democrtica Alemanapor Hans Koch, etc., etc.

Qu problema planteaban estos documentos? Que se confinaron en las obras ocasionalesy no sistemticas sobre arte y literatura (principalmente sobre literatura y menos sobre arte)de Marx, Engels y Lenin. Obras que, desdeluego, a veces suelen ser brillantes y contienenideas extremadamente tiles; pero que no permiten detenerse en ellas y utilizarlas como basecasi exclusiva para la construccin de un sistemaque funciona inevitablemente como una camaprocusteana o como una guillotina.

Las obras de Marx, Engels y Lenin fuerontratadas (qu irona!) como las Sagradas Escrituras de los cristianos y judos, como una especie de revelacin, mientras que Marx y Engels sequejaron pocos aos despus de la primerapublicacin del Manifiesto Comunista de que

Historia de l arte marxista: un informe no definitivo 87no disponan de tiempo suficiente para rescribirdeterminadas partes de l y actualizarlas.

Adems, si los propios textos no bastabanen s mismos un siglo despus, las interpretaciones eran necesarias. Quin poda "garantizar"la exactitud de una interpretacin que no fuese"el Partido"? Cuntas personas perdieron supuesto de trabajo, su libertad individual temporalmente, en ocasiones incluso la vida, en laUnin Sovitica por defender una visin delmarxismo que se consideraba sectaria o reformista?

Este planteamiento estril, dogmtico y conpoca visin de futuro de las obras de Marx,Engels o Lenin es todava ms evidente si secompara con las obras de la primera generacinde marxistas, personas como Franz Mehring(cuya La leyenda sobre Lessing, publicada en1891-92 en la Neue Zeit y como libro independiente en 1893, sigue teniendo hoy en da unafrescura increble) o incluso Plekhanov (cuyaobra pionera "French Drama and Painting ofthe 78th century fmm a sociological point ofview" , se public por primera vez en ruso en1905 y en una traduccin al alemn en 1911).

El trabajo del propio Georg Lukacs, queabarca desde la dcada de los aos 20 hasta losaos 70, y est relacionado principalmente conla literatura y la filosofa, es demasiado importante para ser rechazado por su dogmatismo.

11

Siendo esta la tendencia predominante en laUnin Sovitica desde principios de la dcadade los 30 y en las Repblicas Populares de Europa Oriental desde 1945 (realmente desconozcocul era la situacin en China, Vietnam o Cuba),es interesante mencionar que en Europa Occidental y en EEUU se han llevado a cabo grancantidad de trabajos importantes, sobre todo apartir de 1945.

Esto se debe claramente al hecho de que"elCanon" se aplicaba mucho menos all, si se llegaba a aplicar en algn caso.

Una vez ms, no creo que una lista de autores y obras sea til en este contexto.En Estados Unidos, aparecieron bastante

QUINTANA N5 2006.ISSN 1579-7414. pp. 85-98

::JoO'Oo=oOXenooZ


4/14

88 Historia del arte marxista: un informe no definitivo::JOe"Oo:5ue::I:enooZ

pronto ensayos importantes sobre arte moderno en publicaciones peridicas como PartisanReview y Marxist Quarterly.

En las universidades se ha desarrollado ungran trabajo, especialmente a partir de la dcada de los 60, lo cual ha tenido como resultadola publicacin de tesis doctorales fundamentales de inspiracin marxista.

En el Reino Unido, ya en los aos treinta,con el auge del fascismo en Europa, el FrentePopular y el flujo de refugiados de Alemania,aparecieron una serie de estudios importantes,relacionados bien con el Partido Comunista ocon el Partido Laborista. Las universidades britnicas permanecieron cerradas hermticamentepara todo aquel que defendiese estas ideas, almenos en lo que a la historia del arte se refiere.

Historiadores del arte como Klingender oAntal se encontraban bastante aislados, a pesarde la resonancia de sus obras. De este movimiento de los aos treinta y cuarenta surgiJohn Berger, quien comenz su trabajo de unmodo bastante convencional con estudioscomo Guttuso, pero enseguida desarroll obrasms interesantes publicadas en Marxism Today yLabour Monthly. Despus apareci su incisivo yosado libro sobre Picasso (un estudio muyimportante aunque no se est de acuerdo con laecuacin "Cubismo igual a materialismo dialctico en la pintura") y por ltimo sus Modos dever, una obra extraordinaria de escritura militante, llena de percepciones profundas queabri nuevas vas para la investigacin y quetodava no se ha explorado por completo.

Un nmero creciente de estudios de historiadel arte de inspiracin marxista aparecieron, asimismo, en Alemania, en la dcada de los aosveinte y principios de los treinta hasta la llegadade Hitler al poder, casi exclusivamente en publicaciones peridicas de ideologa comunista (lasuniversidades alemanas permanecieron igual devacunadas contra el virus marxista) y despus,tras la guerra, primero en Alemania Oriental y acontinuacin en Alemania Occidental, sobretodo despus de 1968. No debemos olvidar lasprimeras publicaciones en Alemania de un"outsider" como Max Raphael o la gran asociacin de historiadores del arte fundada en Alemania Occidental en 1973, la Ulmer Verein fu r

QUINTANA NS 2006. ISSN 1579-7414. pp. 85-98

Kunstvvissenschaft, que editaba la publicacinperidica titulada Kritische Berichte.

En otros pases europeos, como Francia oItalia, que tenan por aquel entonces los partidos comunistas ms fuertes del mundo, los cuales obtenan entre un 25 y 30 por ciento delvoto en elecciones generales, eran escasas lasobras de los historiadores del arte de conviccinmarxista, incluso estaban restringidas al mbitode la crtica de arte por aquel entonces.

En mi opinin, el caso de un famoso conservador del Louvre, miembro militante del Par-tido Comunista, que luchaba permanentemente por las subidas salariales de los vigilantes de los museos, cuyas publicaciones de historia del arte no se pueden diferenciar de las deun acadmico apoltico e indiferente, es representativo de un cierto espritu muy vivo en Francia e Italia entre aquellos a los que tenemos porcostumbre denominar historiadores del arteprogresistas.

111

Nos hemos reunido hoy aqu, no slo porque nos interesa el pasado, sino porque estamos ms interesados en el presente y en elfuturo. Y este es el verdadero motivo por el quenos interesa el pasado.

Qu nos han dejado las obras sobre arte deinspiracin marxista que pueda ser de importancia? Es pertinente en la actualidad? Siobservamos el conjunto de las publicaciones deconviccin marxista que aparecieron durante elltimo siglo en artes visuales e intentamos averiguar lo que tienen en comn, yo dira queestn centradas en determinadas cuestionesque ha ignorado en gran medida la corrientemayoritaria y conservadora de la historia delarte. Esto no quiere decir que slo los marxistashayan estudiado estas cuestiones. Ni que loshistoriadores del arte marxistas estn interesados nicamente en estos aspectos.

Sin duda, uno de estos aspectos es lo quepodramos denominar la economa de la produccin artstica. Se han publicado importantesestudios, sobre todo acerca de arte y arquitectura medieval, que analizan los contratos existentes y los aspectos financieros de una obra. El


5/14

culto medieval a un santo es una empresa ideolgica con importantes efectos econmicoscolaterales. Este tipo de planteamiento es caracterstico y constituye una novedad destacada enla investigacin.

Un segundo punto de inters importante es,desde luego, la relacin ente arte y poltica.

En este sentido, en Francia, Inglaterra y Alemania se han realizado gran cantidad de trabajos, centrados principalmente alrededor delarte, digamos desde la dcada de 1770 hasta lade 1850. Se cuestionaron obras individuales y eldiscurso de la crtica de arte acerca de su posicin en el contexto de los conflictos polticos ysociales. El estudio del arte de los siglos XVIII yXIX es impensable hoy en da si no se tiene encuenta la contribucin de las publicaciones marxistas de los ltimos 100 aos.

Un tercer mbito de predileccin es, contotal seguridad, el inters por concebir la produccin artstica como una prctica social,inmersa en la sociedad y al servicio de los intereses sociales. Resulta significativo que, despusde Historia social de la literatura y el arte, deArnold Hauser, publicada en 1951, hayan aparecido impresas como mnimo dos historias delarte social, ambas realizadas por historiadoresque abrazan abiertamente el marxismo, Historiasocial del arte moderno de Albert Boime, dosvolmenes publicados hasta la fecha (1987 y1990) que trata los periodos de 1750 a 1800 yde 1800 a 1815 y Social History of Paintingform the Late Middle Ages to the 20th Centuryde Jutta Held y Norbert Schneider publicada en1993.

Sin embargo, adems de los estudios generales, tambin se ha puesto de manifiesto esteinters en innumerables estudios de casos querelacionan las obras de arte con el gusto de susmecenas, que consideraban que su funcin eraservir de propaganda poltica o que mostrabansu relacin con las diversas secciones de lopblico.

Un cuarto punto de inters que han demostrado los historiadores marxistas del arte ha sidoel consumo de arte. En este sentido se han escrito Anti-catalogues (dos de los protagonistas delAnti-catalogue famoso en la actualidad yelabo-rado por "Artists meeting for cultural change"

Historia de l arte marxista: un informe no definitivo 89celebrado en Nueva York en 1977 se encuentran hoy aqu) y se han publicado libros dedicados a la organizacin de exposiciones temporales o a la ideologa de los modos de exponer las colecciones permanentes de los museos.En Alemania, en volmenes recopilatorios editados por miembros del Ulmer Verein, se prestgran atencin a la responsabilidad pedaggicadel historiador del arte que trabaja como conservador de una exposicin o en un museopblico.

Suponiendo que estos cuatro mbitos (laeconoma de la produccin artstica, arte y poltica, arte como una prctica social y el consumode arte) hayan atrado a los historiadores delarte de inclinacin marxista ms que ningnotro, se puede plantear la pregunta de si estascuestiones siguen teniendo alguna importancia.

IV

Antes de plantearnos esta pregunta, creoque sera til analizar la actitud actual de lassociedades capitalistas, la Unin Europea, elReino Unido o Estados Unidos, respecto de lashumanidades en general y la historia del arte enparticular. Creo que es un secreto a voces quelas humanidades, al menos tal como estn definidas desde el s. Xv, no tienen el ms mnimointers para las fuerzas que ostentan el poder.Por este motivo se las restringe gradualmente,cada vez se les conceden menos fondos hastaque llegan a estancarse. No del todo, porsupuesto, ya que en cierta medida son necesarias para la industria cultural al servicio del turismo. Pero el antiguo ideal "burgus" de lashumanidades ha sido trastocado por los revolucionarios de derechas que ostentan hoy en dael poder. La historia del arte como tal, como dis-ciplina independiente, relacionada con otras disciplinas con las que colabora, como la historia,la filologa o la filosofa, con sus propios mtodos de investigacin, resulta completamenteintil para ellos. Su nico inters es servir comobase del " con noisseu rsh ip" , por motivos demercado, y como preparacin general paraestudios musesticos, los cuales continuarn creciendo sin duda, de nuevo por motivos de mercado. Por estas razones, si las fuerzas en el


::::Joo"Oo:5:cOJ:enooZ


6/14


7/14

t su coleccin siguiendo un orden temtico(desconozco si sigue siendo as) y abandon elorden histrico, se limit a seguir la nueva tendencia de la negacin de la historia, aunque,supongo, su pretexto era librar a los visitantesde fechas innecesarias que les impedan tenerun contacto directo e inmediato con las obrasde arte.

Por ltimo, otra tendencia que debemosmencionar, quiz la ms terrible de todas, comodira el espejo del cuento, es la fragmentacin.La intencin es romper todos los vnculos quemantienen unidos los grupos de individuos,capaces de resistir, y transformarlos en entidades aisladas sin ningn inters que no sea elconsumismo.Encontrar la resistencia que se mereceeste nuevo Mundo feliz que se est preparando? No queda claro que tienen una gran res-ponsabilidad las personas que trabajan en elsistema educativo pblico, en los colegios y universidades? Los historiadores del arte puedeneludir tomar posicin?

Probablemente no conozco lo suficiente loque se est publicando hoy en da, pero tengola impresin de que carecemos de anlisis de laeconoma de la produccin artstica contempornea. Disponemos de estudios excelentes acerca del arte y la poltica durante la RevolucinFrancesa o la Segunda Repblica en Francia. Nocabe duda de que podramos tener otros dedicados a otros periodos cruciales de la historiaeuropea. Sera el ltimo en decir que debemosabandonar el estudio del arte en la Edad Mediao durante el principio de la Edad Moderna enEuropa, pero se ha estudiado el tema del artey la poltica actual? Basta con repetir los ensayos de Max Kozloff, Eva Cockroft o Serge Guilbaut de la dcada de los setenta y ochenta? Eltema poltico ya no tiene ningn inters? Lapropaganda poltica de las fuerzas que ostentanel poder ha conseguido que adoptemos algunosde sus argumentos? Me temo que en granmedida se trata de esto. O estamos hartos delos polticos porque observamos el espectculode corrupcin que nos rodea? Pero es esto unargumento? no se trata del camino que conduce al fascismo?

y qu ocurre con el arte como prctica

Historia del arte marxista: un informe no definitivo 91social? A qu problemas se enfrentan los artistas hoy en da si quieren vivir de su arte? Qupapel desempean en la actualidad los mecenas? Qu proyectos apoyan y cules se niegana apoyar? Qu papel desempea el Estado?Qu conforma la poltica cultural de la Comunidad Europea o del gobierno de EEUU, quintereses representa y qu ideales difunde? Larecepcin del arte actual est relacionada con la11 estratificacin social ll o la 11 estructura de clases ll ?

Se pueden plantear preguntas similaresacerca del consumo de arte. Quin visita losmuseos y las galeras de arte hoy en da? Quincompra en las subastas? Cules son los planteamientos principales para la presentacin deobjetos en una exposicin temporal o en unmuseo? Quin cobra qu y con qu tipo dedinero? Qu papel desempean las galeras enel proceso de consumo de arte? Qu papeldesempean los crticos de arte y los medios decomunicacin? Disponemos de estudios crticos acerca del discurso crtico sobre arte quepredomina en la actualidad?

Creo que no servira de nada continuar, aadir ms y ms preguntas que slo ponen demanifiesto mi ignorancia. Sin embargo, estoyconvencido de que, en cierta medida, estamosinfluenciados por aquellos contra los que luchamos. Ya existe cierto abandono del estudio delarte del pasado y, lo que yo definira como unaabsorcin excesiva por el arte contemporneo,el cual se plantea, no obstante, con un espritums descriptivo que crtico. La izquierda est,por definicin, interesada en el arte y la culturacontemporneas. Sin embargo, la izquierda setraicionara a s misma si dejase de pensar desdeel punto de vista histrico, si renunciase a suconciencia histrica; "EI presente como historia" era, creo recordar, el ttulo de un libro deensayos de Paul M. Sweezy. Esta actitud es fundamental para mi visin del marxismo.

Vivimos, sin duda, momentos difciles.Desde la cada del Muro de Berln y la disolucinde la Unin Sovitica, el capitalismo del mundopersigue sus objetivos sin enmascarar sus intenciones. Las libertades civiles, por las que lucharan muchas generaciones, han sido "abolidaslegalmente ll , mediante la aprobacin de nuevas

QUINTANA NS 2006.ISSN 1579-7414. pp. 85-98

::JOO(5o=oO::I:enOoZ


8/14

92 Historia del arte marxista: un informe no definitivo::JOO"Oo=oO::I:enOoZ

leyes en los Parlamentos, recientemente ennombre de la lucha contra el terrorismo. Yahace aos que asistimos a la aniquilacin fsicay moral del pueblo palestino, que lucha convalor y desesperacin contra la poderosa maquinaria de destruccin que Estados Unidos proporciona a Israel. Se han bombardeado pasescausando miles de muertos civiles, la destruccin completa de su infraestructura econmica,el entorno envenenado y otros esperan a queles llegue su turno. Entonces fue un errornuestra protesta contra la invasin de Praga porparte de las tropas soviticas en 1968? No locreo. Pero, en nombre de los mismos principiosno estaramos obligados a adoptar una postura en la actualidad?Quiz no sea tan importante si conservamosel trmino "Marxista" o si preferimos utilizar eltrmino "Materialista", como parece proponerAndrew Hemingway; o si utilizamos el trmino"radical", como parecen preferir nuestros amigos estadounidenses (aunque no debemos olvidar que la maquinaria ideolgica del PresidenteBush tambin est formada por radicales, sloque de otro tipo). En cualquier caso este debate, no debe degenerar en una pugna medievalde denominaciones. Por otra parte, podemostrabajar sin anlisis, sin cierta aclaracin en loreferente a los conceptos que utilizamos?

Sea como fuere, estamos empezando denuevo, partimos de cero, desde el principio,


continuamos una tradicin, seguimos una tradicin, pero con los ojos bien abiertos y con esp-ritu crtico.

Creo que se puede afirmar sin ningn gnero de duda: nunca antes haba sido tan necesaria la teora marxista, aun con todas suscontradicciones, nunca antes haba sido tannecesaria una crtica socialista del capitalismocomo lo es hoy en da.

Los historiadores marxistas del arte tienenimportantes cuestiones que plantearse dentrode la disciplina, que no deben dejarse para losconservadores: en Europa con el argumento deque el arte europeo del pasado ya no nos afecta, en Asia con el argumento de que el arte asi-tico anterior al siglo XX es demasiadoconservador para despertar inters alguno, enAmrica con el argumento de que la historia delarte es una disciplina europea incapaz de tratarel arte no europeo de forma correcta.

Asimismo, tienen que plantearse cuestionesimportantes externas a la disciplina, en el mbito de la cultura y la poltica cultural, pero tam-bin en el de la poltica como tal.

"Marxism and the Visual Arts Now"Nicos Hadjinicolaou

University College LondonLondres, 8 de abril de 2002


9/14

TEXTO ORIXINAL

MARXIST ART HISTORY: A TENTATIVE ACCOUNT

Marxist ar t history: a tentative account

Nicos HadjinicolaouUniversity of Crete

The organisation in April 2002 of a conference with the title Marxism and the Visual Arts Now, will beregarded by some as an act of provocation, by others as a kind of surrealist joke, and the conference itself as anassembly of dinosaurs, a reunion of the few surviving members of a tribe which is dying out, speaking a language that after their death no one will understand any more.

1 am afraid that these are not exaggerations. The dominant socio-economic forces and the powerful systemof persuasion at their disposal would very much like to see things in this way and this is why the system has thetendency to denigrate, to ridicule or to ignore, according to what is considered more appropriate at each timeand place.

This initiative, undertaken by our colleagues of the Art History Department at University College London,was certainly an excellent idea and 1 would like to congratulate them fo r it: it is only through such events anddiscussions that we will overcome the fragmentation imposed by the system and contribute, within the limits ofour power, to the creation of an alternative politics and culture.

An account, a recapitulation, a historical approach of Marxist art history, is this in any sense useful today andif so, in what sense? Certainly not as a list of bibliographical references. Not even as an inventory of trends.Rather with the idea in mind to gain something from it: perhaps a better collective self-awareness, a betterunderstanding of where we stand now and of our movement towards the future. "We". Who is "we"? 11'5 difficult to say really. Let us accept, at least provisionally, the obvious, that this very heterogeneous "we" is composed of all those working in the cultural field, particularly in art history, who consider that "Marxism" and thevarious movements inspired by Marxism during the last one and half centuries, in spite of all their inconsistencies and contradictions, is a point of reference, a rallying point.

The relationship of Marxism and art history has occasionally benefited, to some extent, from the immediateconnection of Marxists to politics, but it has also suffered from it. Politics (understood exclusively in a narrowsense as party-politics) decided everything. Even the definition of Marxism itself and its approach to the visualarts and their history. And this led (in the West! beca use in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union things sometimes took more violent forms!) to the well-known mutual exclusions and the gradual disintegration of all practical efforts to create a large front of Marxist art historians, independently of how each one understood Marxismand Marxist art history.

One example taken from the fifties and sixties will suffice. With the rise of Fascism in Hungary and Germany,a young ar t historian becomes attracted to Marxist ideas, writes articles and books, gives lectures. 1 am thinkingof Frederick Antal. Someone who, as far as 1 know, never called himsel f a Marxist, at least in his writings. Someone who, for his contribution to the studies of the Italian Renaissance and Mannerism, has been characterized,

- by W.S. Kemenowas "a bourgeois art h istorian", who participated in the campaign against the artistic culture of the Renaissance (Gegen die burgerliche Kunst und Kunstwissenschaft, 1954, Russian edition 1951).

- by Valentino Gerratana as a "Vulgar sociologist" (JI Contemporaneo, 27 .11.1954).- by Franco Fortini as someone "who certainly was not a Marxist", but rather a disguised follower of

Benedetto Croce (11 Contemporaneo, 25.12.1 954).- and by Anthony Molho as "the outstanding Marxist art historian in the English speaking world" (Social andEconomic Foundations of the Italian Renaissance, 1969).


93::JOe"Oo:5=oe

~ enooZ


10/14

94::JOO'OO:5=oO::I:enOOZ

Marxist ar t history: a tentative accountWho is a Marxist? Who is not a Marxist, although he claims to be one? Who is a Marxist, although he never

claimed to be one? Who decides? Are "decisions" of this kind in any sense productive?The fact is that the political divisions of the socialist movement and, from the 1930'5 on, the predominance

of the Stalinist conception of Marxism and Socialism have had a direct impact and lasting consequences in thecultural field.

From the Stalinist conception emerged a canon for cultural politics from which, before 1940, very few spaceson the Left remained untouched, such as the Surrealist movement or the Institut f r Sozialforschung in Frankfurt, and to which, after 1945, no real alternatives existed, the surrealist canon having been to a large degreedeflated, Brecht and Bloch being to a certain measure absorbed by the system or isolated, all this leaving littlespace for, what in this logic we should call "heretical movements", or fo r the fruition of independent Marxistresearch.

In what did this canon consist? Of course I will have to generalize to a very large degree, risking misunderstandings or gross simplifications. One could say that its basic structure consisted of the political platform of"socialist realism", which, in turn, relied upon the construction of a "Marxist aesthetics" and its main ideological-gnoseological proposition, the theory of art as reflection of reality. Consequently, art historians were expected to consider the history of art with the conceptual categories of "realism", "critical realism", "socialist realism"and "decadence". AII efforts by Bertolt Brecht and others to refute this simplistic approach were in vain.

The main instrument to support and propagate these ideas was the Institute of Art History at the Academyof Sciences of the USSR, which (in collaboration with its Institute of Philosophy and the Gorky Institute fo r WorldLiterature) even published a manual entitled Basic elements of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. The first and certainIy the most interesting attempt to systematize consisted in the early study by Michail Lifschitz, Karl Marx and theAesthetics (first published in 1933). The courses on Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics by Moissej Kagan or Avner Zisscame much later. In the same spirit was the work done in the Spanish speaking world by Adolfo SanchezVsquez (Las ideas esteticas de Marx, 1965, or his anthology Estetica y Marxismo, 1969), the work done inFrance by Jean- Michel Palmier, in the German Democratic Republic by Hans Koch, etc. etc.

What was the problem with these writings? That they made a strait-jacket out of the occasional and unsystema tic writings on art and literature (mainly on literature and less on art) by Marx, Engels and Lenin. Writingswhich are indeed often brilliant and contain ideas that are extremely useful. However, it is not possible to sta ythere and, relying almost exclusively on them, build a system which inevitably functions like a Procrustean bedor like a guillotine.

The writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin were treated (what irony!) like the Holy Scriptures of Christians andJews, as a sort of Revelation, whereas Marx and Engels complained only a few years after the first publicationof the Communist Manifesto that they did not have the time to rewrite certain parts of it and bring it up to date.

Moreover, since the texts themselves, as such, did not suffice a century later, interpretations became neces-sary. Who could "guarantee" the correctness of an interpretation other than "the Party"? How many peoplelost their jobs, temporarily even their individualliberty, sometimes even their lives in the Soviet Union fo r defending an understanding of Marxism that was considered either sectarian or reformist?

This dry, short-sighted and dogmatic approach to the writings of Marx, Engels or Lenin becomes even moreapparent if we compare it with the writings of the first generation of Marxists, people like Franz Mehring (whoseLessing Legend, published in 1891-92 in the Neue Zeit and as an independent book in 1893, has an astonishing freshness still today) or even Plekhanov (whose pioneering "French Drama and Painting of the 18th centuryfrom a sociological point of view", was first published in Russian in 1905 and in a German translation in 1911).

The work of George Lukacs himself, extending from the early 1920'5 to the 1970'5, and mainly related to literature and philosophy, is much too important to be dismissed as dogmatic.

11

This being the predominant trend in the Soviet Union since the early 1930'5 and in the People's Republics ofEastern Europe since 1945 (1 really do not know anything about the situation in China or in Vietnam or in Cuba),it is interesting to note that a lot of important work has been done in Western Europe and in the US, mainlysince 1945.

This is clearly due to the fact that "the Canon" functioned much less there, if and when it functioned at all.Again, I do not think that a list of authors and writings is in this context useful.



11/14

Marxst ar t hstory: a tentatve accountIn the United States some important essays on modern art appeared quite early, published in periodicals like

Partsan Revew and Marxist Quarterly.A lot of work has been done in the Universities, particularly since the 1960's, resulting in the publication of

fundamental Ph.D. dissertations of Marxist inspiration.In the United Kingdom, already in the thirties, with the rise of Fascism in Europe, Popular Front politics and

the flow of refugees from Germany, a series of important studies appeared, related either to the CommunistParty ar to the Labour Party. British Universities remained hermetically closed to people who defended such ideas,at least as far as art history is concerned.

Art historians like Klingender or Antal remained rather isolated, in spite of the resonance of their writings.Out of this movement of the thir ties and forties came John Berger, who started rather conventionally with studies like his Guttuso, but soon produced some more interesting work published by Marxism Today and LabourMonthly, then his incisive and courageous Picasso book (a very important study, even if one disagreed with theequation "Cubism equals dialectical materialism in painting") and finally his Ways of Seeing, an extraordinarypiece of militant writing, full of insights, which opened new paths to research that have not yet been fullyexplored.

In Germany also, both in the 1920's and in the early 1930's, up to the rise of Hitler to power, almost exclusively in periodicals of Communist persuasion (the German Universities remained equally untouched by the Marxist virus), then, after the war, first in East Germany and then, mainly after 1968, also in West Germany, a growingnumber of art historical studies of Marxist inspiration appeared. We should not forget the initial publications inGermany of an outsider like Max Raphael or the large association of art historians founded in West Germany in1973, the Ulmer Verein fu r Kunstwissenschaft editing a periodical with the title Krtische Berchte.

In other European countries, like France or Italy, which had then the strongest communist parties in theworld, getting something between 25 and 30 per cent of the vote in general elections, art historical writings ofa Marxist persuasion remained rather scarce and even then they were restricted to art criticismo

I believe that the case of a well-known curator of the Louvre, who was a militant member of the Communist Party, constantly fighting fo r salary raises fo r the museum attendants, whose art historical publications cannot be distinguished from those of an indifferent, a-political scholar, is representative of a certain spirit very muchalive in France and Italy amongst those we are in the habit of calling progressive art historians.

111

We have gathered here today, not only beca use we are interested in the pasto We are even more interestedin the present and in the future. And this is actually why we are interested in the past.

What did the writings on art of Marxist inspiration bring to us that is of importance? That is relevanttoday?If we looked at the totality of publications of Marxist persuasion that appeared during the last century concerning the visual arts and we tried to see what they have in common, then I would say that they are focused oncertain issues which have been largely ignored by conservative and mainstream art history. This does not meanthat these issues have been exclusively studied by Marxists. Or that art historians of a Marxist persuasion areexclusively interested in these aspects.Certainly one of these aspects is what we could call the economics of artistic production. Important studieswere published, particularly on medieval art and architecture, analysing the existing contracts and the financialaspects of a construction. The medieval cult of a saint is an ideological enterprise with major economic sideeffects. This kind of approach is characteristic and constitutes an important innovation in research.

A second majar centre of interest is without doubt the relaton of ar t and politics.Here a lot of work has been produced, centred mainly around art in France, England and Germany, let's say

from the 1770's to the 1850's. Individual works and the art critical discourse have been questioned as to theirposition in the context of political and social conflicts. The study of the arts of the 18th and 19th centuries isunthinkable today if one ignared the contribution of Marxist publications of the last 100 years.

A third field of predilection is certainly the interest to conceive artistic production as a social practice, inserted in society and serving social interests. It is significant that after Arnold Hauser's Social History ofArt and Lt-erature, published in 1951, at least two more social histories of art have appeared in print both by scholars whoopenly adhere to Marxism, Albert Boime's Social History of Modern Art, two volumes published so far (1987 and

QUINTANA NS 2006.ISSN 1579-7414. pp. 85-98

95::JOO(5O=oO::I:enOOZ


12/14

96::JOO"OO:5=cO:I:InOOZ

Marxist art history: a tentative account1990) covering the periods 1750 to 1800 and 1800 to 1815 and Jutta Held's and Norbert Schneider's Social His-tory of Painting from the Late Middle Ages to the 20th Century, published in 1993.

However, apart from general surveys this interest has also manifested itself in innumerable case studies relating works of art to the taste of their patrons, considering their role as propaganda or showing their relationshipto the various sections of the public.

A fourth major interest manifested by Marxist art historians has been in the consumption of arto Here theyhave written Anti-catalogues (two of the protagonists of the now famous Anti-catalogue produced by the"Artists meeting fo r cultural change" in New York in 1977 are in this room today), and published books dedicated to the issue of the organisation of temporary exhibitions or to the ideology of the modes of display of thepermanent collections of museums. In Germany, in volumes of collected papers edited by members of the UlmerVerein, a lot of attention has been paid to the pedagogical responsibility of the art historian acting as curator ofan exhibition or working in a public museum.

Assuming that these four fields (the economics of artistic production, art and politics, art as a social practiceand the consumption of art), have attracted art historians of a Marxist persuasion more than anything else, thequestion can be raised if these issues are still now of any relevance.

IV

Before considering this question, 1 believe that it would be useful to examine the present attitude of capitalist societies, the European Union, the UK or the US, towards the humanities in general and art history in particular. 1 think that it is an open secret that the humanities, at least as they were defined since the 15th century,are of no interest any more to those in power. This is why they are gradually restricted, receiving less and lessfunding until they are brought to stagnation. Not completely, of course, beca use they are, to a certain extent,needed fo r the cultural industry serving tourism. But the old "bourgeois" ideal of the humanities is indeed subverted by the right-wing revolutionaries now in power. Art history as such, as an independent discipline, relatedto and collaborating with other disciplines, such as history, philology or philosophy, having its own methods ofresearch, is fo r them completely useless. It is of interest only as a base for connoisseurship, because of the market, and as a general preparation fo r museum studies, which of course will keep growing, again beca use of themarket. For these reasons, if those in power manage to impose their views, art history (amongst other disciplinesof course) will be dissolved into "cultural studies", which will become a passe-partout, indispensable in the elementary knowledge they will provide for any "cultural worker".

The second trend 1 consider characteristic of present-day developments is the negation of the validity of anycriteria of judgment, with the sole exception of those concerning market analysis and projection. A sophisticated version of this appears under the disguise of opposition to dogmatism or as a defense of the liberty of theindividual.

The new slogan is "any judgment is valid", there is no "right or wrong", there is no "art and non-art",everything is art if it has the intention of being arto A result of this trend is that soon "art history departments"in the Universities will be transformed into "departments of the history of images". There is no doubt that today,because of the prevailing, officially encouraged, trends in artistic production, the frontier between art and nonart is almost invisible. Which does not mean that one is released from the responsibility to recognise the difference. But this is anyway not the case for the 15th or the 18th century when the criteria then prevailing andaccording to which one used to paint or to sculpt, permitted a relative delimitation between art and non-artoBehold the new Canon: the negation of the validity of any collective criteria of artistic judgment.

A third tendency, slowly appearing, still marginal, yet c1early visible, is the shift of the centre of interest, following the trend in economics and politics, from Europe to the US and Asia, where the main potential dangerfor the US now Iies. "Forget Europe!" was the slogan of a major conference, mainly of African artists, financedby US institutions. Who cares about Leonardo da Vinci or the Bauhaus? Aren't we against European colonialismand the racist ideals of European supremacy? It is, 1 think, the first time in history, that European intellectualswho have fought against European colonialism and racism feel obliged to defend their right to be Europeansand study their own traditions. 1

Art history is certainly not exclusively the history of European arto But isn't it logical that in China or 'in Japanart history will be predominantly the history of Japanese and Chinese art, and only secondarily the history cpfAfrican or European art? In the same vein, shouldn't art history taught in Denmark, in H ~ n g a r y or in Italy be pre-



13/14

Marxist art history: a tentative accountdominantly the history of European art, with a clear accent, in ea eh country, on Danish, Hungarian or Italian artand only secondarily the history of African or Asian art? That Indian, Japanese or African art is not at all taughtin European high schools and that "our" art history students (that is, mainly European students studying European art) are not obliged to take some courses in non-Europea n art is a deplorable fact, which has to bechanged. That does not mean however that all the local European artistic traditions have to be forgotten orabandoned in the name of a justified denial of any claims to supremacy.

A fourth trend whose growth certainly menaces the humanities in general and art history in particular, is thehostility towards history.

The present world system of corporate interests wants to eliminate historical consciousness, whose existenceit considers a potential menace. Shouldn't we forget the struggle fo r the respect of human rights in the SovietUnion? Why should we remember these centuries of struggles against privilege, fo r equality before the law, fo rthe right of all citizens to free education at alllevels, fo r the right to free medical care, for the right to strike, andso many others? Who needs history? Certainly not those who are now abolishing these rights. And, of course,does one have to say that history is not "chrono logy"? Chronology and dates are only there as useful reminders,and not as an end in themselves. When Tate-Britain presented its collection in a thematical order (1 do not knowif this is still the case) and abandoned the historical one, it simply followed this new trend of the negation of history, although, I imagine, it pretended that it only liberated visitors from unnecessary dates, which preventedthem from having a direct and immediate contact with the art works.Finally, a fifth trend we should mention, perhaps the most terrible of them all, as the mirror in the fairy talewould say, is fragmentation. The intention is to break up all bonds that unite individuals into groups, capable ofresisting, and transform them into isolated entities, uninterested in anything except consumerism.

Will this "Brave New World" in preparation encounter the resistance it deserves? Isn't it clear that a greatresponsibility lies with those working in the system of public education, at schools and universities? Art historians could contribute from their position.

1 probably do not know sufficiently what is being published today, but 1 have the impression that we lackanalyses of the economics of contemporary artistic production. We have ar our disposal excellent studies aboutart and politics during the French Revolution or the Second Republic in France. No doubt we could have othersdedicated to other crucial periods of European history. 1would be the last to say that we should give up the studyof the art of the Middle Ages or of the early modern period in Europe. But has the issue of art and politics todaybeen studied? 15 it enough to repeat Max Kozloff's, Eva Cockroft's or Serge Guilbaut's essays of the 1970's and1980's? 15 the issue of politics of no interest any more? Has the propaganda of those in power made us adoptsome of its arguments? I am afraid that this is to a very large extent the case. Or are we fed up with politicsbecause we look at the spectacle of political corruption surrounding us? But is this an argument? 15 not this theroad to Fascism?

And what about art as a social practice? What problems do artists face now, if they want to make a livingfrom their art? What is the role of sponsors today? What do they support and what do they refuse to support?What is the role played by the State? What informs the cultural politics of the European Community or of theUS government, whose interests do they represent and what ideals do they propagate? 15 the reception of arttoday related to "social stratification" or "class structure"?

Similar questions can be asked about the consumption of arto Who goes to art galleries and museums today?Who buys at auctions? What are the predominant approaches to the presentation of objects in a temporary exhibition or in a museum? Who is collecting what and with what kind of money? What is the role played by galleries in the process of artistic consumption? What is the role played by art critics and the media? Do we haveany critical studies of today's predominant art-critical discourse?

1 do not think that it is useful to go on, adding more and more questions which probably only betray myignorance. But 1 am convinced that, to a certain extent, we are influenced by those we are fighting against.Already, there is a certain abandonment of the study of the art of older periods and, what 1would call, an exces-sive absorption by contemporary art, which is however approached in a more descriptive than critical spirit. TheLeft is by definition interested in contemporary art and culture. But the Left will betray itself if it ceases to thinkhistorically, if it gives up its historical consciousness; "The Present as History" was, 1 remember, the t itle of a bookof essays by Paul M. Sweezy. This attitude is essential to my understanding of Marxism.

We are indeed living in difficul t times. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Unionworld capitalism is pursuing its objectives without masking its intentions any more. Civic liberties, for which manygenerations fought to obtain, have been "Iegally abolished", through new laws passed by Parliaments, recent-


97::JOO"OO:5=oO::I:VIOOZ


14/14

98::JOO"OO:5:cO::I:enOOZ

Marxist art history: a tentative accountIy in the name of the struggle against terrorismo For years now we have been assisting in the physical and moralannihilation of the Palestinian people, fighting courageously and in despair against the powerful machinery ofdestruction provided to Israel by the United States. Countries are bombed with hundreds of civilians dead, theireconomic infrastructure completely destroyed, the environment poisoned, others are waiting for their turn tocome. Were then our protests against the invasion of Prague by Soviet troups in 1968 a mistake7 I do not thinkso. But in the name of the same principies aren't we obliged to take a stand now7

It is perhaps not so important if we stick to the term "Marxist" or if we prefer to use the term "Materialist", as Andrew Hemingway seems to suggest (although one could object that this gives the impression that heis inclined to sacrifice dialectics); or if we use the term "Radical", as our American friends seem to prefer(although we should not forget that President Bush's think-tank is also composed of Radicals, only of anotherkind). In any case this debate should not degenerate into a medieval nominalist quarrel. On the other hand, canwe work without discussions, without some clarification as far as the concepts we use are concerned7

Be it as it may, we are starting anew, we are starting from zero, from scratch, continuing a tradition, following a tradition but with open eyes and a critical spirit.

I think it can be said without hesitation: never before was Marxist theory, in all its incompleteness, in al! itscontradictions, never before was a Socialist critique of capitalism as necessary as they are now.Marxist art historians have important issues to raise inside the discipline, which should not be abandoned to

conservatives: in Europe with the argument that European art of the past does not concern us any more, in Asiawith the argument that pre-20th century Asian art is too conservative to be of any interest, in America with theargument that art history is a European discipline unable to approach non-European art in a satisfactory manner.

They have also important issues to raise outside the discipline, in the field of culture and cultural politics, butalso in politics as such.

"Marxism and the Visual Arts Now"Nicos Hadjinicolaou

University College LondonLondon, 8 April 2002


Hadjinicolacou, Nicos - Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo Pg_087-100_quintana5(1)

Documents

Transcript of Hadjinicolacou, Nicos - Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo Pg_087-100_quintana5(1)