The Ideology of Art
Within the Institutional Theory
Contents
Introduction 3
Institutional Theory of Art 4
Dickie’s Institutional Analysis 9
The Historical Perspective 17
The Ideology of Art 21
Conclusive Remarks 26
3
Introduction
Investigations on art have mostly existed in the realm of philosophy,
especially investigations regarding the essence of what art is, the definition of
art. Answers to this question of ‘what is art’ have been extensive, ranging
from; art is imitation, art is beauty and art is expression etc. It seems common
and fashionable today not to engage with the persisting difficulty of the art
question especially, in my experience, within the art institutions. In the same
way that you need not know how the engine of a car works before you
operate the vehicle or you do not set out to understand the mechanics and
science which produced the washing machine before you operate it, there is
no fundamental need or requirement to have an understanding of what art
really is to participate as an artist or participate in the artworld. The motive
behind such a desire to understand what art really is, is in its essence, a
There exists no Marxist analysis of art.
Not quite yet.
There is however much Marxist commentry. But no application of the Marxist method, no analysis of history and class factors, of the movement of people and ideas regarding Art.
I have seen mentioned quite often on this topic the reason being is that Art is fairly less important for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism compared to economics and the state. And this would be why Marx paid little time on questions of art, despite having rumored to have written a fair bit on aesthetics in his youth.
Although it is true Art is less important, it is still of some importance. After all it is a petty bourgeois practice economically speaking. And it is this realm of small private production that retain bourgeois ideology and bourgeois practice in a transitional state towards socialism.
How Does a Marxist Go about understanding Art ?
Read the commentary by many Marxists past. The few statements in the Grundrisse and the German Ideology regarding small artisans and painters. The remarks by Trotsky on literature and art. And more recent commentators such as Ernst Fischer. But this is only preparatory research.
It is necessary to go to the Bourgeois, who have spent considerable time fumbling on the questions of Art. To the intelligentsia- historians and philosophers. But with a critical approach. In the same way that it was necessary for Marx to read Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, Malthus etc. For art , it is today necessary to read Danto, Shiner, Dickie, etc. And deal with the idealism, mistakes and to learn what is important from them. It is therefore, essential in order to actually develop a Marxist understanding of Art to tackle the history of art and the philosophy of art (and sociology) In order to move from a communist perspectives towards art towards a materialist and dialectical comprehension of Art.
Situationists - suggested and experimented with the “construction of situations,” namely the setting up of environments favorable for the fulfillment of such desires. Using methods drawn from the arts, they developed a series of experimental fields of study, including unitary urbanism and psychogeography.
Bauhaus- (The state school for building) Tried to re-unite craft and fine art,(a reconciliation with fine art and the applied arts) however putting craft above art, and making art subservient to craft. The idea was to create a ‘total’ work of art in which all arts, including architecture would eventually be brought together
Constructivists-
beginning in 1919, which was a rejection of the idea of autonomous art.
in favour of art as a practice for social purposes, ‘Art is Dead – Long Live Tatlin’s Machine Art’
DADA- Born form world war 1. Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition. It concentrated its anti-war politics through a rejection of the prevailing standards in art through anti-art cultural works. Its purpose was to ridicule the meaninglessness of the modern world as its participants saw it. In addition to being anti-war, Dada was also anti-bourgeois and socialist in nature. reject prior definitions of art and question art in general. Most expressively by Marcel Duchamp who stated at one point that he wanted to abolish art.
Fluxus- a form or descendant of Dadaism.
In its foundation, advocated for a revolutionary ‘tide’ in art which would propote living art, anti-art and non-art reality. Particularly infantile.
All these art movements listed have to varying degrees an ‘anti-art’ sentiment. And they all have to varying degrees a ‘left-wing’ revolutionary and socialist tendency. Most explicit with the Constructivist and the Situationists and less so with Bauhaus and Dada.
All these movements and groups deal with Art making movements away from the established Art of their time.
All these movements can be characterized as being Utopian in a literal sense for example the Situationists had a very mystical approach to making a space out side of bourgeois life. However in regards to their anti-art sentiments all these groups are Utopian. This isn’t necessarily a negative or a criticism. In the same way early socialism was inevitably Utopian anti-art ideas too were Utopian. These art movements are great and bold, just as Robert Owen was great and bold for his time.
If we further condense these movements, we can draw general trends. The most important is a trend to reunite art with life and for art to serve social life. It attacks the independence of art and attacks its social status.
However attempts to reform art-to reunite art with life - art with craft- have failed.
Why?
They failed because the approach to their solution was Utopian- Grand and inspiring- epecially constructivism and the Bauahus- but idealistic.
To reunite art and life art and craft means first to understand the reason for their separation.
The first problem is that art and craft when they were united never existed as art and craft. That is before the division of art and craft there was no art and no craft. That distinction did not exist. There was a certain point n history which saw the emergence of art and craft. Art and craft were born from the revolutionary changes and birth of capitalism.
Therefore the reuniting of art and craft cannot be done independently from the base economic social system from which it grows from. All projects of trying to put art and craft together again failed due to this lack of understanding which led to utopian projects.
What, therefore, is the solution?
Art is a symptom of society. To resolve the issue of
the art-life divide we must focus practice on resolving the
contradictions in society that perpetuate arts existence. Revolutionary practice
is necessary to change existing society. The need for this is only made clear
owing to the understanding of art as ideology. The first step for the avantgarde
artist is to forget about making ‘art’. Evacuate art. Join a political
revolutionary organization (this is only if they are serious and put as a priority
the resolving of the division with art and life). Therefore when we talk about
revolutionary art, we should revise our understanding. A painting or film about
revolutionary subject matter is only a communicative product. And can play a
role as any other form of communication may. But no more than that.
‘Revolutionary art’ won’t change the world, only serious revolutionary practice
can alter the social relations of production in society.
The critique of art shakes art and challenges its continuing existence.
For theory, examine history. For practice, abolish the art ideology by
abolishing the social conditions which art is symptom of. Avant-garde art
practice should transform to become revolutionary practice, it is necessary to
overthrow capitalist society. To abolish the false idealized category of ‘art’ it is
necessary to change society and liberate all human production, it is necessary
to attack the causes, alienation, wage-labour etc.
Murakami- Fine art wallpaper
It can be argued, and often is argued, that art is a product of specific or different forms of labour. That art is a ‘particular’ form of labour.
This difference is determined by ordinary usefulness and spirtual usefullness. I.e art is that which attends to the needs of our ‘spirit’.- aka ‘spiritual labour’
Therefore all labour is ‘creative’ in some sense but art is a special creative work. Art would therefore be defined as art if it is determined that its main purpose is not utility but the satisfaction of our ‘spiritual’ needs. [By spiritual’ we can concern ourselves with the additional needs of people, psychological.]
In this sense, art, is any labour done that does not attend to material needs.
Let us make an example:
Baking bread for people to eat could not be art, but baking bread and displaying it as an art work would- as it would then attend to the non-material needs of humanity. The art work could be about anything, labour, famine, shapes, everyday aesthetics etc.
Similarly this would also explain, to some degree, Duchamp’s urinal: A urinal used as a urinal is a normal product of labour, however once displayed as an art work is removed of its ordinary utility and given the special function of attending to spiritual matters. It is abstracted from it use value.
There is some truth to the idea that art is a special and particular form of labour however it is confused. It is first true that artistic labour is labour, and that all labour is creative to some degree. But it is a distortion to place art as a particular type of labour. For example with the ready-made it was not laboured artistically, it was laboured ordinarily and was simply placed in the context by which it was given the status of being art. Art is not simply the labour which attends to ‘spiritual matters’ if it were then flower arrangement and gardening would be art as well as childrens tv. Also wouldn’t fine dining also be art, even drugs such as hallucinogens are products notorious for there ‘spiritual’ properties.
The truth within this however is when we look at stereotypical forms of art. Such as a canvas painting it is a specific form of labour and has in common with things such as dance which is another specific form, the common quality of being attentive to our psychology or ‘spiritual needs’. However art in our society is not based upon this. This is similar to the problem of saying art is that which expresses something-… some art does some art does not, the mistake is taking a relative property common to some and investing it as a fundamental basis.
The understanding of art as a particular form of labour is a powerful idea. As in a basic sense it is true. A painting is a particular form of labour, that sculptor is a particular type of labourer. All art productions are in some form or another the product of a specific form of labour. But what it cannot answer is why something is actually art. It would jump before itself and say that it is a specific form of labour that attends to spiritual needs. But what about the art that does not, such as the artist that created the lamp which is just a lamp, or the one who makes instruments and plain pots, or rather decoration(are above fine artist Murkami’s wallpaper).
The problem can be seen from a different angle if we look at like this. Art is not simply decoration-the useless decoration that may attend to spiritual needs is not art. DIY home redecoration is a labour which certainly attends to the spirtual needs of people and not simply out of necessity such as a flood, or damp. However there is a distinction between ‘mere’ decoration and art. BUT even when they are the same, such as Murakami’s wall paper. Design is not Art but can be categorized among the arts. The essential point of difference is the concept of (fine) art.
Their is however a distinction between general labour between labour which is utilitarian in character and labour which is ‘spiritual’. But it is a mistake to categorize all that which is ‘spiritual’ as art and all that is not as mere labour.
DIVISION OF LABOUR
“No one can do Raphael’s works for him”. Sancho could surely have known, however, that it was not Mozart himself, but someone else who composed the greater part of Mozart’s Requiem and finished it, [112] and that Raphael himself “completed” only an insignificant part of his own frescoes. ”
“Sancho imagines that Raphael produced his pictures independently of the division of labour that existed in Rome at the time. ”
“In any case, with a communist organisation of society. there disappears the subordination of the artist to local and national narrowness, which arises entirely from division of labour, and also the subordination of the individual to some definite art, making him exclusively a painter, sculptor, etc.; the very name amply expresses the narrowness of his professional development and his dependence on division of labour. In a communist society there are no painters but only people who engage in painting among other activities.” - k. Marx - german ideology on ‘saint max’.
The most elementary form of the division of labour is between intellectual and manual or physical labour. Art is a manifestation of the division of labour in class society. Most notably in the old system of the arts where the division of art and craft had yet to be established- vulgar art was relative to manual labour. Such as Painting was a lower/vulgar art. In the courts the court painter would refuse money for his service and try to mingle with the nobility. In the success of this Painting began to rise to a higher a status. Along with other factors.
Locke looked at abstract ideas in this way. He took an example such as “apple” and reasoned that the abstract concept of “apple” is a purely mental construct. And is constructed as it is useful for classification. And also held that the abstract idea is not the essence of the apple.
Let us contrast this with Lenin.
“…all scientific (correct, serious , and not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely. From living perception to abstract thought…”
Although abstractions, it is true, are mental constructions they are formed always in relation to the objective material world. In this sense scientific abstractions or true abstractions contain the essence of apples in general.
Abstract concepts are in a basic sense generalizations which we construct based on our experience in a dialectical way within the world. (Not simply a tabla rasa absorbing experience and consciousness through sensory perception).
Our ideas and abstract ideas are imperfect reflections of our physical existence in the world. (Perfect reflections are the ultimate aim of science -true knowledge).
What then should we make of our Abstract Concept of Art. First history tells us that its real name was once ‘Fine Art’ however the ‘fine’ was commonly dropped in the 19th century to its establishment and institutionalization. And we also have Art which simply refers to skill or craft ’ the art of motorcycle repairs’ this is inherited from pre-art civilization. Where there was no distinction between art and craft as there is today.
So Fine art is what we are really talking about when we speak of Art.
Is this abstraction, “art” a scientific or true abstraction? No. It is an ideological abstraction.
Its formation is an imperfect reflection via human experience. And was formed not as generalization of something really existing but was more a mental construction which generalized common ideals regarding production during a period off economic and social transition.
What do particular artworks have in common regarding there existence- all as ‘art’. Nothing material or physical, but something social. They all are formed in relation or are attributed to the general idea of art, and thus move physically in certain areas i.e. through art galleries, art museums, art schools, or art markets. This is because ideas have no influence or existence in themselves. People carry out ideas.
taken from Gaurdian 2012
Ian Simpson obituary
Painter and educator who democratised and demystified the world of art
“Anyone can learn to draw, just as anyone can learn to speak or write. Drawing is a perfectly ordinary way of communicating information.” These words, from Drawing: Seeing and Observation (1973), by the artist and writer Ian Simpson, who has died aged 78, exemplified his conviction throughout a long career in art education that drawing and painting are not divine talents given to the few, but can be taught and bring great pleasure to all manner of people.
For Ian there was no real distinction between the amateur and the professional, and he particularly delighted in writing about unknown artists.
Although the point is very true: Anyone can learn to draw and that drawing and painting are not divine talents but can be taught to everybody, this only concerns painting and drawing and not art specifically.
The difference can be explained in this way, Art i.e. Fine Art where people produce ‘art’ (this could be potentially anything). And the ‘art of painting and drawing’. In this second sense we could equally talk about the art of crochet for example. With this second sense we are talking about art forms, and when we dig underneath we find we are talking about anything which involves skilled human labour is an art form. But the essential point, is that Art is not the same as this.
What is demystified is the belief that people who can paint well or draw well have some sort of ‘gift’. But art is still mystified. The mystery of art remains, why are somethings art and others not. No one appears to know really why somethings are art and this is expressed in the problem of defining art in the first place.
(There are expressions of belief to what ought to be art such as art is what is beautiful, art is imitation, art is expression. These appear as theories of art. However they are mistaken in as much as they mistake for an essential property of art a property which is presumed always accompanying. i.e. a popular one today is expression, things which are ‘art’ often expression something, however this isn’t something which defines art. There exists art which says nothing. Duchamps fountain was to a degree saying nothing, it was just a urinal.(another good example of this was an art work which consisted of a lamp in a gallery. When the artist was asked what its about he replied ‘nothing’. Its a lamp, however it was still seen as art and as art worth many thousands- this example can be found on the art safari series on relational aesthetics) Those who believe art is expression, therefore use expression to identify for their distinction of art from not art (This constitutes their belief or ‘theory’ of what art is). Therefore if it isn’t expressive it is not art. Something non-expressive and art is then falsely called art from this perspective.
In this sense we see the importance of interpretation. You could take at random an object such as a traffic cone and place it in an art gallery, you aren’t expressing anything. However it could be interpreted as a comment on the readymade, an aesthetic expression regarding the orange of the cone with the black of the painting it is placed next to, hours of nonsense could be dreamed up from nothing regarding the expression of the artist whether it was an expression or not. To experience this first hand visit a ‘crit’ of an art school exhibition.)
The term “everyone is an artist” is associated with Joseph Beuys. But is an echo of something said long before by the German romantic philosopher Novalis who stated that “every person is meant to be an artist”. Meaning that people are meant to indulge in ‘creative’ work and not just submissive work. There is evidence that Beuys meant what he said by his action of abolishing entry requirements whilst he was at Düsseldorf Academy of Art.
“A SOCIAL ORGANISM AS A WORK OF ART’… EVERY HUMAN BEING IS AN ARTIST who – from his state of freedom – the position of freedom that he experiences at first-hand – learns to determine the other positions of the TOTAL ART WORK OF THE FUTURE SOCIAL ORDER.” Beuys
(The above quote from Beuys is in the context of art being a revolutionary agent. the only agent to overthrow the existing social order (capitalism). This stems in part from Beuys spiritual beliefs.)
The stating of everyone is an artist, at first slaps in the face of reality. Everybody is not an ‘artist’. In the economic sense, of making a living from the production and sales of ‘works of art’. However anyone could be an artist. However the problem becomes that art can be anything and artists can be potentially anyone.
“every sphere of human activity, Even peeling a potato can be a work of art as long as it is a conscious act.” Beuys
Returning to Beuys belief that art is the only revolutionary agent to overthrow capitalism. Then really what we are talking about underneath the idealism is that conscious action is the only way to overthrow the existing capitalist order.
Therefore once we brush off from Beuys his spirtualism, romantascism and his anthroposophy. We can re-examine the worth of his words. First that every conscious human activity is art- i.e. he is alluding to the old sense of art as skill or human activity (techne, ars) but in a fully liberated sense, after all labour is conscious activity: labour eradicates art. In terms of the art and life dichotomy life subsumes art. And further, regarding revolutionary ‘art’, and a social organism as a work of art. We are really talking about revolutionary activity and the restructuring and development of social life on a new basis.
What revolutionary activity should this be? - Join a Marxist Organisation - http://www.socialist.net/socialist-appeal-stands-for.htm
“Revolutionary practice, which aims at transforming social relations so that labour may become framed in social relations which are no longer relations of domination”.
Labour freed from domination will also be free from the art and craft divide as the social classes which support these ideological distinctions and instituted re-productions wither away.
REVOLUTIONARY PRACTICE IS THE ONLY WAY TO OVERCOME IDEOLOGY AT ITS ROOTS BY SOLVING THE REAL CONTRADICTIONS WHICH GIVE RISE TO IT. Art, and so to religion, can only resolved under communism.
Despite their well-documented presence in the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo’s assistants have often been overpainted in the history, not least by Michelangelo himself in the version of events he later gave his two biographers, Giorgio Vasari and Ascanio Condivi. Writers of the Renaissance, such as Vasari, needed a myth to sustain a belief in the greatness of modern man, of his abilities to equal and even surpass the artists of the ancient world from whom those of the Renaissance took their cue. Michelangelo’s work in the Sistine Chapel appeared to offer this evidence in spades, and so, obviously, the idea that the fresco was actually a bickering group effort held less appeal. And we, with our own fantasies about greatness, have frequently been only too happy to play along.
An older system of the arts prior to our modern idea of fine art saw a division in ‘art’ into the vulgar arts or ‘servile arts’ and the liberal arts, which span loosely from the Roman to the Medieval period. Such a division of art, is not a division of what we may consider art but rather a division in all human skills and labour’s.
The vulgar arts were those which involved physical labour and for payment. Whereas the Liberal arts were those which were intellectual and deemed appropriate for the highborn and educated. Examples of the liberal arts are; rhetoric , grammar and dialectic as well as the mathematical art of arithmetic and music. In the medieval era divided into the trivium (grammar, rhetoric,logic) and the quadrivium (arithmatic, geometry, astonomy, music). Under this grouping painting would be grouped among things such as agriculture. There was no such thing really as Art, the category we have today.
Music, a liberal art, if performed for payment would be rendered vulgar. This division of the arts (general human skill) is really a reflection or expression of the class character of society. The division of liberal and servile arts is really a reflection of aristocratic prejudices. Something becomes vulgar or servile once it is done for payment and manual labour conducted by the lower classes is divided from the labour occupied mainly by the higher classes. The division of labour/arts is thus purely social and is a reflection of the particular class society. Here the division of vulgar/servile and liberal/free reflects directly the class position of the people the serving lower classes and the free (free from; manual labour, working for payment etc etc) higher classes. The actual labour of the vulgar/servile arts are not however really in anyway ‘lower’ than the labour of the liberal arts as the term vulgar suggests. What really is different is that in the case of music being done for payment is that it is done no longer by the higher class but the lower classes, it is the lower classes who are perceived as vulgar. It is the lower class and therefore their labour/art which is perceived as lower. By which music done for payment would be disassociated from being a liberal art and would be rendered vulgar.
What then for our modern division, which produces Fine Art, Craft and Life.
