I called what you wrote a "blog" because I thought that was the right word. I'm sorry if I'm wrong. On the ICC's forum there are different "threads". There is currently one about the Bauhaus art/furniture movement in Germany just after the 1st.World War and after all the revolutionary ferment there - and disasterous revolutionary defeat. It seems there's an exhibition of Bauhaus stuff in London now. Posters ( not bloggers!) have been discussing whether the bourgeoisie can produce effective "art" or not in the decadence of capitalism , as they did during it's ascendant period, on this ICC forum/thread. A poster, Fred, has taken up your point that art is a bourgeois invention, and gone on about fetishism of art-as-commodities. I thought you would be interested to hear about this, that's all. For myself, I like yourvpost above, very much, but wouldn't go along exactly with every word. I have to think about it. It's complicated. It would be nice too, to know what Jock, or an ICTer thinks. If they believe it is an issue of any consequence. Perhaps they don't!

,

Interesting discussion Charlie which I could not participate in since I was away. Perhaps we should start from the question of the output of art as a commodity. In this sense it is strange because its value is totally divorced from the labour time needed on average to produce it (although the first sale of a painting might reflect that at least from the painter's perspective). A lot of art gets produced by workers in their spare time who then get "discovered" by some bourgeois who then promotes it turning the product of someone' own thoughts into a ridiculously overvalued commodity. I once read that the US painter Jackson Pollock deliberately tried to create work which would deteriorate after his death in response to this phenomenon but I have to admit having only a nodding acquaintance with the issue. Perhaps Sandman you would like to submit a longer piece which we could not only publish but print?

Beginning in the 1950s in France, the Letterist International and after the Situationist International developed a dialectical viewpoint, seeing their task as superseding art, abolishing the notion of art as a separate, specialized activity and transforming it so it became part of the fabric of everyday life. From the Situationist's viewpoint, art is revolutionary or it is nothing. In this way, the Situationists saw their efforts as completing the work of both Dada and surrealism while abolishing both.[52][53] The situationists renounced the making of art entirely.[4]

The Situationist International was probably the most radical,[4][54] politicized,[4] well organized and theoretically productive anti-art movement, reaching its apex with the student protests and general strike of May 1968 in France.

Wikipedia

It's interesting this subject has sparked debates in both the ICC and ICT recently. In addition to the Bauhaus thread mentioned here there is also one on the ICC site about art in decadent capitalism which was the subject of a recent day of discussion, along with a text:

en.internationalism.org

This is obviously an area where there isn't a clearly defined 'class line' like on Russia or the trade unions, etc., although Trotsky wrote a lot about the proletariat and culture and in particular about the effects of capitalist decadence on art.

I don't disagree with a lot of the fundamental points being made here about how art is an alienated activity of 'specialists' in class society, that inevitably reflects the ruling ideology, and will be 'abolished' in a future communist society. But, surely as marxists, we need to base our view on the fact that the proletariat, as a revolutionary class which cannot develop its own culture within capitalism, must begin its task of creating a communist society by appropriating the best of all past cultures - and the art of the Renaissance, the art of Leonardo and Michelangelo, is surely part of the heritage of humanity, one of its highest artistic expressions so far, which cannot be reduced to religious propaganda? The best art transcends the limits of the class society it is created in - the best art belongs to humanity not the bourgeoisie!

I understand Sandman has changed some of his views as well, and it would certainly be good to read a clarification of his position in the light of the comments made here. His original position was perfectly valid: it was similar to the stance of the Dadaists who wanted to demolish bourgeois culture and abolish art. I think that veered too close to anarchism but it certainly expressed a genuine proletarian reaction to war and decadence and was obviously a crucial point of reference for all subsequent art movements, including the Situationists, whose positions quoted in the wikipedia entry are still very relevant today as a starting point for debate.

The art of Leonardo or Michelangelo may be the "heritage" of humanity but as most of this has been turned into a commodity which is currently in the possession of rich collectors it will only really become the ehritage of humanity when it is owned by humanity in general.

Well, yes, and I think the interesting thing about this discussion is that it seems to show an interest in working out a more developed marxist orientation towards art, and modern art in particular, which would potentially inform the role of revolutionaries today. Granted this is not the most vital political issue in front of us today, but it is very relevant to our understanding of decadence, and of what is at stake for the proletarian struggle given the gravity of capitalism's crisis, which potentially threatens the survival of all human culture, either through war, economic convulsions or ecological degradation.

"the understanding of decadence" is a quasi-religious concept. Decadence does nothing. Human beings do.

Excuse me....are you serious? Is this the forum of a marxist left communist organisation or have I wandered into libcom by mistake? Seriously, didn't Marx say something about men (sic) making their own history but not in circumstances of their choosing?

I would have thought, to say the very least, that it's impossible to understand the evolution of art since the start of the 20th century without using the marxist concept of decadence, which is precisely why most bourgeois art history is completely mystified and mystifying on the subject ('decline of the west', 'crisis of civilization', moral collapse, etc).

Decadence is a heuristic device to explain where we are in the history of capitalism i.e. the monopolistic state capitalist imperialist phase.

Well "heuristic device" is an advance on "quasi-religious concept" I suppose. In fact there is nothing in your first paragraph that I (or, I suspect, the ICC) would disagree with, as far as it goes. You agree that capitalism is in decay, I agree that this is because of its own contradictions.

I also agree that decadence per se doesn't explain everything. Trying to explain every phenomenon, especially in the sphere of art, with reference to the falling rate of profit or the saturation of markets would be nothing but vulgar materialism, wouldn't it? You know that Marx was always very clear that the economic factor is the decisive one only in the final analysis. So if you don't agree with the concept of decadence, fine, go ahead and analyse the development of art on the basis of "the materialist conception of history and the laws of motion of capital", and let's see how different your analysis is. It would be really interesting.

As you said not the most vital issue facing internationalists today so why then try to tack it on to the issues which are vital?

The nature of art is clearly not the most vital issue facing revolutionaries today - excuse me for pitching in and trying to relate it to some broader issues like the historic crisis of capitalism. If you don't think this is important enough to discuss on this forum, just say so.

I'd urge Sandman to contribute to all left communist forums on this and any other topics. This isn't a contest and we should be encouraging the widest possible discussion within the revolutionary movement today on all issues.

I'm not sure all the old art objects will merit much attention in the future, even if they are the property of society in general.

I think the point is that the world the classless humanity of the future will build will not be divided between a horrible profit making 'real world' and a separate art sector.

Its all speculation but one thing is for sure, the break with class society won't be instant and old habits die hard.

This reminds me of my first class in community (when I first wrote that word I accidentally typed "communist", lol) college. It was a songwriting class and we were watching a TED Talks by the author of "Eat, Pray Love". The whole talk was about how she thinks that her "best"/most popular work is behind her, and how it makes her feel so depressed, how this is indicative of how we treat artists in our culture, etc.; her main idea was that in ancient societies like the Ancient Greeks they used to think of "artists" as not responsible for their work (she goes into the etymology and evolution of the word "genius" and how it demonstrates this) and that it was great that artists should not be held to a particular standard or even associated with being the originator of the work, and that we should do that now, for the sake of the artists, even if we understand it is completely bullshit. I had a hard time not laughing throughout the lecture (If anyone is interested I might try to find a link, the whole thing was hilariously pathetic). After the video, during the class discussion afterwards, I commented that the idea was great and all (I was trying to let them down softly) except one teeeensy little thing that might be just a little bit of a factor in the popular culture of those societies expressing a more fluid boundary between mental and physical labor and a tolerance for unproductive labor:

They all had f*ing slaves.

The class looked like such a hilarious mixture between confused and horrified, I was given so many faces filled with nothing but shock. It was awesome to see the horror on the faces of all the capitalist pig-dogs.

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand:

I agree that Sandman should post on as many leftcom forums as he can find, maybe even non-leftcom forums that are rather, errrrr, unsavory, such as RevLeft, just for a wider audience (there are a couple leftcoms there though, myself included [although rarely]).

But of the wider issue of decadence "theory", and I am aware of Sandman's annoyance at the thread being derailed to it, I really do think it is important to the entire discussion. I think Sandman's formulation faces a real danger of losing at least some of its value and insight if forced into a framework of "decadence theory" (not sure where I want the scare quotes, I'll play around 'till it feels right), and at worst, total distortion. I think the fact that references to the concept of "decadence" showed up so early in the comments section shows this danger.

Art exists so that we can not all have it.

Beautifully concise. I'd almost call it art.

Qirequiam

Just to let you know that in trying to delete your first post on the other thread on the US elections I accidentally deleted the original article and whole thread on The US elections. My apologies to you and the comrades who contributed. I hope you kept a copy but I might still have one (I have to check our email system). I will restore as much as I can today. I take your suggestion for an edit button for contributors (I will ask the admin as I am only responsible for the English speaking pages and not the technical issues of the whole site). It would save me work too as I generally correct typos etc in posts (but no-one makes more than me!)

Taking up the point raised by Qirequiam with reference to the author of "Eat, pray, love" who said something like 'great artists don't always feel responsible for what they produce' I would make the following comments.

D.H. Lawrence, regarded in some quarters as a major novelist along with George Eliot and Henry James, said a number of times in his letters that there were moments when he was so immersed in his writing that afterwards, reading it through, he didn't feel as if he had written it at all, merely transmitted it so to speak from some other unidentified source. In his autobiography Trotsky says something similar about some of his writings: that something had so to speak "taken over" and he had merely written it down. So I am prepared to give Greek playwrights such as Sophocles and Aeschylus the benefit of the doubt abut their feelings with regard to "authorship", especially as they were immersed in their very original experimental dramas in deep psychological territory. But in any case I assume we only have the word of the author of Eat Pray Love for how the Greek writers felt, and her very personal commitment to bourgeois obsessions and life style could leave her a bit suspect!

In the case of Trotsky perhaps it was the working class which "took over". After all, revolutionaries are the direct product of the class are they not, and what they know about proletarian politics they learn from the class. Didn't Marx learn from the class in its experience and practices in the Paris Commune that the class cannot just seize bourgeois instruments of rule unthinkingly and use them for new revolutionary working class purposes? Didn't Lenin learn from the class that the Soviets were the new discovered form of proletarian democracy replacing worn out bourgeois parliaments?

I am not going to get hot and bothered over art - does it exist, who owns it etc! I know the Sistine Chapel ceiling was produced by Michelangelo and that it's amazing with all those nudes. If it has a religious underpinning it also more dramatically has a passionate homosexual basis too! But this is served up under the disguise of religiosity, for the ceiling is dominated by Michelangelo's vision of the all powerful, all dominating, ancient, hirsute and patriarchal figure of God the Father, so fantastically robed and tweeting life into the finger of a languid Adam, reaching out lazily. Michelangelo was a very gifted man but of his time. Surely the artist, like the politician, cannot be otherwise?

Music is the same. Beethoven's 3rd. symphony, the Eroica, embodies Beethoven's feelings about the exciting possibilities for life released by the French Revolution, in an explosion of organised sound such as had never been heard on this planet before. Feudalism is blown away. Emotional freedom of expression, bourgeois style, is unleashed. Wordsworth felt the same. "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive," he writes. But both he and Beethoven were to realise soon enough that the emancipation they had anticipated from the French Revolution was not provided for in the limited one dished up "democratically" by the triumphant bourgeoisie in their Dictatorship which followed on.

I don't really know what I am doing here in this post! I am trying to respond to Qirequiam and his expressions of regret and sorrow at his own confusions and muddles, and being all excited at attempting a prelimnary kind of political statement, to do with art, and speaking from a proletarian point of view. But I am easily confused and muddled myself and can only apologise as Qirequiam has done, if I've made things worse! But at least I believe we're both trying to say something, and clarify something. Like Sandman who started all this. Perhaps Qirequam will reply?

I think like Marx we want to "negate the negation" but I not sure that being provided with "a negative space" helps all that much here.

I don't think revolutionaries " learn from experience" which is the standard model for bourgeois citizens to follow. I think rather they learn from the working class itself, as it struggles and developes its consciousness. Class consciousness is something quite different from the concept of the individualised, privately possessed bourgeois "intelligence", and a profound advance on it. For essentially it is plain straightforward thinking uncluttered by deceitful ideology, and has the future interests of humanity and the planet at heart as opposed to the bourgeoisie's interest in the production and amassing of profit and money and sod everything else.

But regarding your anecdote. Is it possible that your anecdote was better than you thought and that the author of Eat, pray, love, was onto something more significant than she knew? And that serious artists - not I think that Leonardo, or even Mozart necessarily regarded themselves as "artists" in the way in which bourgeois society uses that word now - through a massive commitment to what they are doing are capable of losing themselves and their commoditised persona in the process and thus produce works that transcend normal constraints?

I am sorry you didn't sleep last night. Don't feel you have to reply to posts immediately like I'm doing now! This isn't Facebook or Twitter after all. But I must finally confess that I don't actually understand the final sentence of your paragraph one at all. Maybe it doesn't matter?

When I said negative space, I was referring to its usage in art, not like a dialectical categorical opposite... probably... I think I was just trying to say that maybe my misunderstanding could be used as like a - you know what, you're right. Who cares? Not me! Next point:

Maybe I should have been more specific, when I said "learn from experience" I didn't mean like: Bob sticks a fork in the electrical socket. Bob gets electrocuted. Fortunately, it was AC instead of DC, so Bob had a chance to get away when the current switches. Bob remembers pain of electrocution. Bob no longer stick fork in electrical socket.

I meant instances where a revolutionary, because they are driven by class consciousness, can recognizes the pros and cons of any particular class action, including possibly (in fact, necessarily) ones they themselves happened to be involved in directly, and can differentiate between actions which will aid and actions which will damage the revolutionary movement. This is the entire point of being a revolutionary.

Class struggle is what leads to class consciousness. However, I don't see what is wrong with stating that, although what class consciousness "is" is determined by the relations surreounding the entirety of the class, some members of the class attain class consciousness sooner than other. I don't see the contradiction between understanding the process of developing class consciousness as the process of the proletariat developing towards being a class in itself, for itself, and having individual members of the class developing a more clear, or more quickly developing, class concsciousness.

Yes but it is not direct. Workers in struggle are not going to become revolutionary communists simply due to a particular strugle but the experience may allow revolutionary theory, however presented, to penetrate."I agree, I hadn't meant it in a direct, mechanical-determinist way. Otherwise, when I first moved away from "liberal socialism", I would have probably gone in an accelerationist direction (petit-bourgeois tendencies for impatience asserting themselves and not kept in check by a surrounding revolutionary movement), and would have never found my way to real revolutionary politics (at least not any time near when I did). Indeed I meant it in the sense that class struggle historically precedes any revolutionary theory and praxis and that the masses (usually) will not be particularly motivated by revolutionary work or theory if they aren't already involved in some kind of overt struggle. On an unrelated note (but still related to the overall thread): I started reading Dauvé's "Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement", and I came across this:"This is only possible through the positive analysis and development of the communist programme: abolition of the market economy; creation of new social relations where labour does not rule the whole of life, but is integrated into it; destruction of economics as such, of politics as such, of art as such, etc.