HADJINICOLAOU, Nicos. Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo.

RESUMENEn esta aportacin que responde a una conferencia impartida en 2002 en la University College London se ana-liza 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 des-igual expansin de estos estudios segn los diferentes pases. Asimismo se plantean las amenazas que se cier-nen 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 XX

ABSTRACTThis study, which was presented in 2002 at University College London, analyzes the relationship between Marx-ism 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 knowl-edge of history to the banal. Through an examination of the current reality, the Marxist methodology is prof-fered as the most valid of approaches, even with its weaknesses.

Key words: Marxism, politics, twentieth century

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

HISTORIA DEL ARTE MARXISTA: UN INFORME NO DEFINITIVO

Nicos Hadjinicolaou University of Crete

Algunos considerarn que la organizacinde una conferencia en abril de 2002 con el ttu-lo 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 idio-ma, el cual, tras su muerte, no entender nadienunca ms.

Me temo que no exagero. A las fuerzassocioeconmicas dominantes y al poderoso sis-tema 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.

Nicos Hadjinicolaou

86 Historia del arte marxista: un informe no definitivo


cual, debido a su contribucin a los estudios delRenacimiento italiano y el Manierismo, fue cali-ficado

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

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

- por Franco Fortini como alguien que sinduda no fue marxista, sino un seguidor encu-bierto de Benedetto Croce (II Contemporaneo,25.12.1914);

- y por Anthony Molho como un destaca-do historiador marxista del arte en el mundoangloparlante (Social and Economic Founda-tions of the Italian 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 deci-siones?

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, des-pus 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 lgicamovimientos 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

Un informe, una recapitulacin, un plantea-miento 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 biblio-grficas. Ni siquiera como un inventario de ten-dencias. Sino con la idea en mente de obtenercon ello algn beneficio, quiz un mayor cono-cimiento colectivo, una mejor comprensin dednde nos encontramos en la actualidad y denuestros movimientos hacia el futuro. Nos-otros. Quines somos nosotros? Es muydifcil de definir. Vamos a aceptar, al menos deforma provisional, lo evidente, que este nos-otros tan heterogneo est formado por todosaquellos que trabajamos en el mbito cultural,sobre todo en la historia del arte, y considera-mos que el marxismo y los diversos movimientosque inspir durante el ltimo siglo y medio, apesar de sus incoherencias y sus contradiccio-nes, constituye un punto de referencia, unpunto de encuentro.

I

En ocasiones, la relacin de marxismo e his-toria del arte se benefici, en cierta medida, dela conexin directa entre marxistas y poltica,conexin que tambin le fue perjudicial. La pol-tica (entendida exclusivamente con el significa-do 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 vio-lentas) las conocidas exclusiones mutuas y ladesintegracin gradual de todos los esfuerzosprcticos para crear un gran frente de los histo-riadores 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


Nicos Hadjinicolaou

87Historia del arte marxista: un informe no definitivo

no disponan de tiempo suficiente para rescribirdeterminadas partes de l y actualizarlas.

Adems, si los propios textos no bastabanen s mismos un siglo despus, las interpretacio-nes eran necesarias. Quin poda garantizarla exactitud de una interpretacin que no fueseel Partido? Cuntas personas perdieron supuesto de trabajo, su libertad individual tempo-ralmente, en ocasiones incluso la vida, en laUnin Sovitica por defender una visin delmarxismo que se consideraba sectaria o refor-mista?

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 indepen-diente en 1893, sigue teniendo hoy en da unafrescura increble) o incluso Plekhanov (cuyaobra pionera French Drama and Painting ofthe 18th century from 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 impor-tante para ser rechazado por su dogmatismo.

II

Siendo esta la tendencia predominante en laUnin Sovitica desde principios de la dcadade los 30 y en las Repblicas Populares de Euro-pa Oriental desde 1945 (realmente desconozcocul era la situacin en China, Vietnam o Cuba),es interesante mencionar que en Europa Occi-dental 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 lle-gaba a aplicar en algn caso.

Una vez ms, no creo que una lista de auto-res y obras sea til en este contexto.

En Estados Unidos, aparecieron bastante

plataforma poltica del realismo socialista, elcual, a su vez, descansaba sobre la construccinde una esttica marxista y su principal pro-puesta ideolgica-gnoseolgica, la teora delarte como reflejo de la realidad. Por consiguien-te, se esperaba que los historiadores del arteestudiasen la historia del arte con referencia alas categoras conceptuales de realismo,realismo crtico, realismo socialista ydecadencia. 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 Institu-to de Filosofa y el Instituto Gorky para la Litera-tura Mundial) lleg a publicar un manualtitulado Elementos bsicos de la esttica marxis-ta-leninista. El primer intento, y sin duda el msinteresante, de sistematizar consista en el anti-guo 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 poste-riores. De la misma naturaleza era el trabajo rea-lizado 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 documen-tos? Que se confinaron en las obras ocasionalesy no sistemticas sobre arte y literatura (princi-palmente 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 per-miten 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 Escri-turas de los cristianos y judos, como una espe-cie de revelacin, mientras que Marx y Engels sequejaron pocos aos despus de la primerapublicacin del Manifiesto Comunista de que

Nicos Hadjinicolaou



Kunstwissenschaft, que editaba la publicacinperidica titulada Kritische Berichte.

En otros pases europeos, como Francia oItalia, que tenan por aquel entonces los parti-dos comunistas ms fuertes del mundo, los cua-les 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 con-servador del Louvre, miembro militante del Par-tido Comunista, que luchaba permanen-temente por las subidas salariales de los vigilan-tes de los museos, cuyas publicaciones de histo-ria del arte no se pueden diferenciar de las deun acadmico apoltico e indiferente, es repre-sentativo de un cierto espritu muy vivo en Fran-cia e Italia entre aquellos a los que tenemos porcostumbre denominar historiadores del arteprogresistas.

III

Nos hemos reunido hoy aqu, no slo por-que nos interesa el pasado, sino porque esta-mos 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 impor-tancia? Es pertinente en la actualidad? Siobservamos el conjunto de las publicaciones deconviccin marxista que aparecieron durante elltimo siglo en artes visuales e intentamos ave-riguar 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 interesa-dos nicamente en estos aspectos.

Sin duda, uno de estos aspectos es lo quepodramos denominar la economa de la pro-duccin artstica. Se han publicado importantesestudios, sobre todo acerca de arte y arquitec-tura medieval, que analizan los contratos exis-tentes y los aspectos financieros de una obra. El

pronto ensayos importantes sobre arte moder-no en publicaciones peridicas como PartisanReview y Marxist Quarterly.

En las universidades se ha desarrollado ungran trabajo, especialmente a partir de la dca-da de los 60, lo cual ha tenido como resultadola publicacin de tesis doctorales fundamenta-les 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 brit-nicas 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 movi-miento 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 dialc-tico en la pintura) y por ltimo sus Modos dever, una obra extraordinaria de escritura mili-tante, 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, asi-mismo, en Alemania, en la dcada de los aosveinte y principios de los treinta hasta la llegadade Hitler al poder, casi exclusivamente en publi-caciones 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 unoutsider como Max Raphael o la gran asocia-cin de historiadores del arte fundada en Ale-mania Occidental en 1973, la Ulmer Verein fur


Nicos Hadjinicolaou


celebrado en Nueva York en 1977 se encuen-tran hoy aqu) y se han publicado libros dedica-dos a la organizacin de exposiciones tem-porales o a la ideologa de los modos de expo-ner las colecciones permanentes de los museos.En Alemania, en volmenes recopilatorios edita-dos por miembros del Ulmer Verein, se prestgran atencin a la responsabilidad pedaggicadel historiador del arte que trabaja como con-servador de una exposicin o en un museopblico.

Suponiendo que estos cuatro mbitos (laeconoma de la produccin artstica, arte y pol-tica, 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 defi-nidas 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 necesa-rias para la industria cultural al servicio del turis-mo. Pero el antiguo ideal burgus de lashumanidades ha sido trastocado por los revolu-cionarios de derechas que ostentan hoy en dael poder. La historia del arte como tal, como dis-ciplina independiente, relacionada con otras dis-ciplinas con las que colabora, como la historia,la filologa o la filosofa, con sus propios mto-dos de investigacin, resulta completamenteintil para ellos. Su nico inters es servir comobase del connoisseurship, por motivos demercado, y como preparacin general paraestudios musesticos, los cuales continuarn cre-ciendo sin duda, de nuevo por motivos de mer-cado. Por estas razones, si las fuerzas en el

culto medieval a un santo es una empresa ideo-lgica con importantes efectos econmicoscolaterales. Este tipo de planteamiento es carac-terstico 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 Ale-mania se han realizado gran cantidad de traba-jos, 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 posi-cin 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 mar-xistas de los ltimos 100 aos.

Un tercer mbito de predileccin es, contotal seguridad, el inters por concebir la pro-duccin artstica como una prctica social,inmersa en la sociedad y al servicio de los inte-reses sociales. Resulta significativo que, despusde Historia social de la literatura y el arte, deArnold Hauser, publicada en 1951, hayan apa-recido 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 gene-rales, 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 demos-trado los historiadores marxistas del arte ha sidoel consumo de arte. En este sentido se han escri-to Anti-catalogues (dos de los protagonistas delAnti-catalogue famoso en la actualidad y elabo-rado por Artists meeting for cultural change

Nicos Hadjinicolaou



intelectuales europeos que lucharon contra elcolonialismo y el racismo de este continente seven obligados a defender su derecho de sereuropeos y de estudiar sus propias tradiciones.

No cabe duda de que la historia del arte noes exclusivamente la historia del arte europeo.Pero, no es lgico que la historia en arte deChina o Japn sea, principalmente, la historiadel arte chino y japons, y slo en segundolugar la historia del arte africano o europeo? Eneste mismo sentido la historia del arte que seensea en Dinamarca, Hungra o Italia no debe-ra ser principalmente la historia del arte euro-peo con un claro acento en cada pas, en el artedans, hngaro o italiano, y en segundo lugar lahistoria del arte africano o asitico? El hecho deque el arte indio, japons o africano no se ense-e en absoluto en las escuelas de secundariaeuropeas y de que nuestros estudiantes de his-toria del arte (esto es, estudiantes europeos queprincipalmente estudian arte europeo) no estnobligados a estudiar asignaturas de arte noeuropeo es deplorable y es algo que debe cam-biar. Esto no significa, no obstante, que tengaque ser olvidado o abandonado el arte europeoen aras de una negacin justificada de cualquierreivindicacin de supremaca.

Una cuarta tendencia cuyo crecimientoamenaza sin duda las humanidades, en general,y la historia del arte, en particular, es la hostili-dad hacia la historia.

El sistema del mundo actual de interesescorporativos desea eliminar la conciencia hist-rica, cuya existencia considera una amenaza enpotencia. Deberamos olvidar la lucha por elrespeto de los derechos humanos en la UninSovitica? Por qu debemos recordar estossiglos de luchas contra los privilegios, por laigualdad ante la ley, por el derecho de todos losciudadanos a una educacin gratuita a todos losniveles, por el derecho a una asistencia sanitariagratuita, por el derecho de huelga, y tantosotros? Quin necesita la historia? Queda claroque no es necesaria para aquellos que estnaboliendo estos derechos. Y, por supuesto,debe de afirmar uno que historia no es cro-nologa? La cronologa y las fechas slo estnah a modo de recordatorios tiles y no como unfin en s mismas. Cuando la Tate Gallery presen-

poder consiguen imponer sus intereses, la histo-ria del arte (entre otras disciplinas desde luego)se disolver en los estudios culturales, que seconvertirn en un passepartout indispensablepor el conocimiento elemental que proporcio-narn a cualquier trabajador cultural.

La segunda tendencia que considero carac-terstica de los avances actuales es la negacinde la validez de cualquier criterio de juicio, conla nica excepcin de aquellos relativos al anli-sis y a la proyeccin de mercado. Una versinsofisticada de esto aparece encubierta comooposicin al dogmatismo o como una defensade la libertad del individuo.

El nuevo eslogan es cualquier juicio es vli-do, no hay justo y errneo, no existe unadistincin entre arte y no arte, todo es arte sitiene la intencin de serlo. Una consecuencia deesta tendencia es que los departamentos dehistoria del arte de las universidades pronto seconvertirn en departamentos de historia delas imgenes. No cabe duda de que hoy enda, a causa de las tendencias de produccinartstica que prevalecen, fomentadas oficial-mente, la frontera entre el arte y el no arte escasi invisible. Lo cual no significa que un histo-riador del arte no est obligado a tener en cuen-ta la diferencia. Pero esto no se corresponde enabsoluto con la situacin de los siglos XV oXVIII, cuando los criterios que prevalecan ysegn los cuales uno pintaba o esculpa permi-tan una relativa delimitacin entre lo que esarte y lo que no lo es. Contemplemos el nuevoCanon: la negacin de la validez de cualquiercriterio colectivo de juicio artstico.

Una tercera tendencia, que est aparecien-do despacio y an es marginal, aunque clara-mente visible, es el cambio del centro de intersque sucede a la tendencia econmica y poltica,desde Europa hasta EEUU y Asia, donde radicaen la actualidad el principal peligro potencialpara EEUU. Olvidmonos de Europa! fue eleslogan de una importante conferencia, princi-palmente de artistas africanos, financiada porinstituciones estadounidenses. A quin leimporta Leonardo da Vinci o la Bauhaus? Noestamos en contra del colonialismo europeo ylos ideales racistas de la supremaca europea?Es, creo, la primera vez en la historia que los


Nicos Hadjinicolaou


social? A qu problemas se enfrentan los artis-tas hoy en da si quieren vivir de su arte? Qupapel desempean en la actualidad los mece-nas? Qu proyectos apoyan y cules se niegana apoyar? Qu papel desempea el Estado?Qu conforma la poltica cultural de la Comu-nidad Europea o del gobierno de EEUU, quintereses representa y qu ideales difunde? Larecepcin del arte actual est relacionada con laestratificacin social o la estructura de cla-ses?

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 plante-amientos 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 crti-cos acerca del discurso crtico sobre arte quepredomina en la actualidad?

Creo que no servira de nada continuar, aa-dir ms y ms preguntas que slo ponen demanifiesto mi ignorancia. Sin embargo, estoyconvencido de que, en cierta medida, estamosinfluenciados por aquellos contra los que lucha-mos. 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; El presente como histo-ria era, creo recordar, el ttulo de un libro deensayos de Paul M. Sweezy. Esta actitud es fun-damental 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 inten-ciones. Las libertades civiles, por las que lucha-ron muchas generaciones, han sido abolidaslegalmente, mediante la aprobacin de nuevas

t su coleccin siguiendo un orden temtico(desconozco si sigue siendo as) y abandon elorden histrico, se limit a seguir la nueva ten-dencia 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 entida-des aisladas sin ningn inters que no sea elconsumismo.

Encontrar la resistencia que se mereceeste nuevo Mundo feliz que se est preparan-do? No queda claro que tienen una gran res-ponsabilidad las personas que trabajan en elsistema educativo pblico, en los colegios y uni-versidades? 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 contempo-rnea. Disponemos de estudios excelentes acer-ca del arte y la poltica durante la RevolucinFrancesa o la Segunda Repblica en Francia. Nocabe duda de que podramos tener otros dedi-cados 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 ensa-yos de Max Kozloff, Eva Cockroft o Serge Guil-baut 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 con-duce al fascismo?

Y qu ocurre con el arte como prctica

Nicos Hadjinicolaou



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 maqui-naria de destruccin que Estados Unidos pro-porciona a Israel. Se han bombardeado pasescausando miles de muertos civiles, la destruc-cin 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 postu-ra 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 trminoradical, como parecen preferir nuestros ami-gos estadounidenses (aunque no debemos olvi-dar que la maquinaria ideolgica del PresidenteBush tambin est formada por radicales, sloque de otro tipo). En cualquier caso este deba-te, 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 tradi-cin, pero con los ojos bien abiertos y con esp-ritu crtico.

Creo que se puede afirmar sin ningn gne-ro de duda: nunca antes haba sido tan necesa-ria 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 afec-ta, 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 mbi-to de la cultura y la poltica cultural, pero tam-bin en el de la poltica como tal.

Marxism and the Visual Arts NowNicos Hadjinicolaou

University College LondonLondres, 8 de abril de 2002


Nicos Hadjinicolaou

93Marxist art history: a tentative account

TEXTO ORIXINAL

MARXIST ART HISTORY: A TENTATIVE ACCOUNT

Nicos Hadjinicolaou

University 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 lan-guage that after their death no one will understand any more.

I 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 I would like to congratulate them for 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? Its dif-ficult to say really. Let us accept, at least provisionally, the obvious, that this very heterogeneous we is com-posed 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 inconsisten-cies and contradictions, is a point of reference, a rallying point.

I

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! because in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union things some-times took more violent forms!) to the well-known mutual exclusions and the gradual disintegration of all prac-tical 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 art historian becomes attracted to Marxist ideas, writes articles and books, gives lectures. I am thinkingof Frederick Antal. Someone who, as far as I know, never called himself a Marxist, at least in his writings. Some-one who, for his contribution to the studies of the ltalian Renaissance and Mannerism, has been characterized,

- by W.S. Kemenow as a bourgeois art historian, who participated in the campaign against the artistic cul-ture of the Renaissance (Gegen die burgerliche Kunst und Kunstwissenschaft, 1954, Russian edition 1951).

- by Valentino Gerratana as a Vulgar sociologist (Il Contemporaneo, 27.11.1954).

- by Franco Fortini as someone who certainly was not a Marxist, but rather a disguised follower ofBenedetto Croce (Il 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 ltalian Renaissance, 1969).

Nicos Hadjinicolaou

94 Marxist art history: a tentative account


Who is a Marxist? Who is not a Marxist, although he claims to be one? Who is a Marxist, although he neverclaimed 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 1930s on, the predominanceof 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 lnstitut fr Sozialforschung in Frank-furt, 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 for the fruition of independent Marxistresearch.

In what did this canon consist? Of course I will have to generalize to a very large degree, risking misunder-standings or gross simplifications. One could say that its basic structure consisted of the political platform ofsocialist realism, which, in turn, relied upon the construction of a Marxist aesthetics and its main ideologi-cal-gnoseological proposition, the theory of art as reflection of reality. Consequently, art historians were expect-ed to consider the history of art with the conceptual categories of realism, critical realism, socialist realismand decadence. All 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 lnstitute of Art History at the Academyof Sciences of the USSR, which (in collaboration with its lnstitute of Philosophy and the Gorky lnstitute for WorldLiterature) even published a manual entitled Basic elements of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. The first and certain-ly 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 unsys-tematic 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 staythere 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 individual liberty, sometimes even their lives in the Soviet Union for defend-ing 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 astonish-ing 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 1920s to the 1970s, and mainly related to lit-erature and philosophy, is much too important to be dismissed as dogmatic.

II

This being the predominant trend in the Soviet Union since the early 1930s and in the Peoples Republics ofEastern Europe since 1945 (I 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.


Nicos Hadjinicolaou


In the United States some important essays on modern art appeared quite early, published in periodicals likePartisan Review and Marxist Quarterly.

A lot of work has been done in the Universities, particularly since the 1960s, resulting in the publication offundamental Ph.D. dissertations of Marxist inspiration.

In the United Kingdom, already in the thirties, with the rise of Fascism in Europe, Popular Front politics andthe flow of refugees from Germany, a series of important studies appeared, related either to the CommunistParty or 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 thirties and forties came John Berger, who started rather conventionally with stud-ies 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 1920s and in the early 1930s, up to the rise of Hitler to power, almost exclu-sively in periodicals of Communist persuasion (the German Universities remained equally untouched by the Marx-ist 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 fur Kunstwissenschaft, editing a periodical with the title Kritische Berichte.

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 criticism.

I believe that the case of a well-known curator of the Louvre, who was a militant member of the Commu-nist Party, constantly fighting for salary raises for 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.

III

We have gathered here today, not only because we are interested in the past. 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 relevant today?If we looked at the totality of publications of Marxist persuasion that appeared during the last century concern-ing 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 side-effects. This kind of approach is characteristic and constitutes an important innovation in research.

A second major centre of interest is without doubt the relation of art and politics.

Here a lot of work has been produced, centred mainly around art in France, England and Germany, lets sayfrom the 1770s to the 1850s. 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 ignored 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, insert-ed in society and serving social interests. It is significant that after Arnold Hausers Social History of Art and Lit-erature, published in 1951, at least two more social histories of art have appeared in print, both by scholars whoopenly adhere to Marxism, Albert Boimes Social History of Modern Art, two volumes published so far (1987 and

Nicos Hadjinicolaou



1990) covering the periods 1750 to 1800 and 1800 to 1815 and Jutta Helds and Norbert Schneiders 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 relat-ing 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 art. Here theyhave written Anti-catalogues (two of the protagonists of the now famous Anti-catalogue produced by theArtists meeting for cultural change in New York in 1977 are in this room today), and published books dedi-cated 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, I believe that it would be useful to examine the present attitude of capi-talist societies, the European Union, the UK or the US, towards the humanities in general and art history in par-ticular. I 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, because they are, to a certain extent,needed for the cultural industry serving tourism. But the old bourgeois ideal of the humanities is indeed sub-verted 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 for them completely useless. It is of interest only as a base for connoisseurship, because of the mar-ket, and as a general preparation for museum studies, which of course will keep growing, again because 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 ele-mentary knowledge they will provide for any cultural worker.

The second trend I 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 sophisticat-ed 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 art. A result of this trend is that soon art history departmentsin 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 non-art is almost invisible. Which does not mean that one is released from the responsibility to recognise the differ-ence. 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-art.Behold the new Canon: the negation of the validity of any collective criteria of artistic judgment.

A third tendency, slowly appearing, still marginal, yet clearly visible, is the shift of the centre of interest, fol-lowing the trend in economics and politics, from Europe to the US and Asia, where the main potential dangerfor the US now lies. 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? Arent we against European colonialismand the racist ideals of European supremacy? It is, I 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.

Art history is certainly not exclusively the history of European art. But isnt it logical that in China or in Japanart history will be predominantly the history of Japanese and Chinese art, and only secondarily the history ofAfrican or European art? In the same vein, shouldnt art history taught in Denmark, in Hungary or in Italy be pre-


Nicos Hadjinicolaou


dominantly the history of European art, with a clear accent, in each 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 Euro-pean art) are not obliged to take some courses in non-European 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. Shouldnt we forget the struggle for the respect of human rights in the SovietUnion? Why should we remember these centuries of struggles against privilege, for equality before the law, forthe right of all citizens to free education at all levels, for 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 chronology? 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 (I do not knowif this is still the case) and abandoned the historical one, it simply followed this new trend of the negation of his-tory, 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? Isnt it clear that a greatresponsibility lies with those working in the system of public education, at schools and universities? Art histori-ans could contribute from their position.

I probably do not know sufficiently what is being published today, but I 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. I would 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? Is it enough to repeat Max Kozloffs, Eva Cockrofts or Serge Guilbauts essays of the 1970s and1980s? Is 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? Is 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? Is the reception of arttoday related to social stratification or class structure?

Similar questions can be asked about the consumption of art. 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 exhi-bition or in a museum? Who is collecting what and with what kind of money? What is the role played by gal-leries in the process of artistic consumption? What is the role played by art critics and the media? Do we haveany critical studies of todays predominant art-critical discourse?

I do not think that it is useful to go on, adding more and more questions which probably only betray myignorance. But I 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 I would 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, I remember, the title of a bookof essays by Paul M. Sweezy. This attitude is essential to my understanding of Marxism.

We are indeed living in difficult 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 legally abolished, through new laws passed by Parliaments, recent-

Nicos Hadjinicolaou



ly in the name of the struggle against terrorism. 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 mistake? I do not thinkso. But in the name of the same principles arent we obliged to take a stand now?

It is perhaps not so important if we stick to the term Marxist or if we prefer to use the term Material-ist, 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 Bushs 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 concerned?

Be it as it may, we are starting anew, we are starting from zero, from scratch, continuing a tradition, fol-lowing 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 all 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 toconservatives: 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 London

London, 8 April 2002

HADJINICOLAOU, Nicos. Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo.

Documents

Transcript of HADJINICOLAOU, Nicos. Historia Del Arte Marxista, Un Informe No Definitivo.