Abstract art: a reflection of revolutionary times

Scan page 9

SOCIALIST ACTION NOVEMBER 1991 In his opinion article in the August issue of Socialist Action, Franklin Balch initiated what has become a wide-ranging discussion on art. This was particularly brought on by his assertion that contemporary art has become "mired in irrelevant abstraction."

This is certainly true, but Balch neglected to point out that the visual arts are mired in irrelevant figurative work as well. To counterpose figurative art (specific mimesis) to abstract art (general, universal) is a fruitless debate.

In 1851, on the heels of the revolution of 1848, the great painter Gustave Courbet sent his paintings off to the Salon in Paris, the yearly show of French "Burial at Ornans," were first exhibited in Ornans and other rural areas. By the time they arrived at the Salon, they were causing near riots.

Courbet's frank portrait of the emerging bourgeoisie had touched a sensitive nerve among Parisian society, and resulted in drunken debates raging before his paintings.

Let us look more closely at the "Burial." It is a figurative work; it shows particular burghers, with particular red noses. Yet it contains many abstract elements as well, in the way Courbet breaks up his lines, in the way the faces seem to float over the plane of their black garb, in the disjointed perspective that tilts the figures towards us.

Let us take another example, a work by the great Soviet Constructivist El Lissitsky.

Inspired by mass spectacles and mobilizations of the workers on the boulevards, Soviet artists began to develop architecture based on open spaces, not the closed space of classical building. This new way of seeing began to be reflected in drawings and paintings. This work was completely non-objective, and appeared as forms floating in space.

And yet this work was designed to relate to the great mass of uneducated Soviet workers and peasants. In the particular example used here, the title is "Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge." Created in 1919, when the revolution was surrounded by counter-revolutionary White armies and fighting the imperialist encirclement, this work was quite specific in its form and content.

Roots in the past Art may succeed or fail based not on whether it is abstract or figurative, but whether it is good or bad art. All great art contains much that is abstract and appeals to us on many conscious and unconscious levels. That is why the greatest art of the past, such as Egyptian or El Lissitsky's "Beat the Whites With the Red Wedge"

Greek art, which had a far different specific meaning to its viewers, transcends time and still can evoke strong feelings from us today.

Abstract art, like all art, has roots in the art of past societies. Ideas, like commodities, are produced socially, and the images that artists create today are based on what they have seen before.

Much of the work of early Cubists, like Picasso and George Braque, was based on African art and African ways of seeing. In similar ways, the Constructivists and other schools which came out of the modernist movement-and the Russian Revolution—-were influenced by Asian art and the national struggles that helped tear apart the old Czarist empire.

Here I must take exception to certain conclusions drawn by Samia Halaby in her reply to Balch in the October issue of Socialist Action. While I agree with much of what she has to say, I do not believe that "nationalism has no future." As we can see from liberation struggles from Central America to Eastern Europe, millions of people are mobilized in the fundamental struggle for the right to determine their own national destinies.

The democratic right develop a unique art is as fundamental as the right speak your own language or today, because there is a connection between the two.

The link between materialism as a philosophical point of view and our current political program lies in the method of historical materialism. Marx and Engels developed that method by analyzing the past: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," they wrote in the "Communist Manifesto." Then they applied that same method of historical materialism to the analysis of their contemporary political situation.

This method penetrates beneath the superficial appearance of events. The focus is not on individuals, but on social classes, and social classes are defined by their role in the process of economic production. Again, "being determines consciousness"—individuals play a role in political events that is strongly influenced by their class interests.

To take one example: without the method of historical materialism, we might be misled into thinking that the restoration of capitalism is imminent in Eastern Europe. Large numbers of workers in Eastern Europe say they don't like socialism, they don't care for Marxism, they are attracted to the American way of life, and so forth. If all of this is taken at face value, it would seem that a counterrevolution is in the offing.

But since the restoration of capitalism would not be in the workers' class interests, we are justified in doubting that that is what they are talking about. And sure enough, on closer inspection we find that when East European workers complain about socialism and Marxism, their real hostility is aimed at their repressive governments and against the Kremlin's "great-power chauvinism."

If they praise the American dream, they mean they want to raise their stanwear your native dress. While we must recognize the destructive effects of cultural chauvinism of the imperialist powers and their allies, we must likewise recognize the progressive aspects of the oppressed nations struggling to develop their own cultural identity.

What better example of this than the Mexican mural movement, one of the high points of painting in this century. This movement was created not by individual geniuses, but by millions of Mexican workers and peasants, who-arms in hand-created a revolution that compelled the Mexican painters to come forward to decorate the buildings with the heroic story of their revolution.

A hunger for art Balch asks if the visual arts have a future, and while there is merit to many of his criticisms of contemporary art, he misses the boat in assessing how much interest exists towards the arts.

It is true that painting and other "high" art remains primarily the domain of the upper classes, and reflects their demoralization and confusion. But in many ways these mediums have been surpassed by newer art forms like the electronic media, film-making, video, and performance art. Contemporary movies like "Do the Right Thing" or "Thelma and Louise," evoke wide-ranging discussions throughout society.

Today there is a great hunger for art. It is a reflection of the alienation that people feel from society. Although they desperately seek meaning in movies, literature and music, however, it is rarely found. There is a class content to art, and in our society that most often means the ideology of the ruling class, which remains as vacuous as their social vision.

Halaby ends her article with a somewhat puzzling call to artists. She says, "But instead of making art, let them prepare the best leadership parties for the working class."

It is the rare artist who is fortunate enough to survive on their art. Most of us are workers, and we like other workers can play an important role in organizing our class for the conquest of power. But artists also have a special role to play by making art—not the art that flatters the ruling class, but the art that educates, agitates, and inspires.

A revolutionary party is not simply a group of workers with the correct program, but also an organization of revolutionaries that can reach into the hearts of our fellow workers and inspire them to struggle.

dard of living and have the right to organize independent trade unions and read uncensored newspapers. Nowhere are workers demanding the reprivatization of their factories or their national economies.

Impelled by class interests What all this shows is that the workers are impelled by their material circumstances—their class interests— not in the direction of capitalism, but toward socialist democracy.

In American politics, our principled opposition to the Democratic and Republican parties results from a similar application of historical materialism. Democratic Party candidates like Bella Abzug or Jesse Jackson often appear attractive to people we work with in movements for social change. But our materialist understanding of the class struggle in ancient Greece and in 18th century France gives us a different perspective.

We know the class basis of the Democratic Party and we know that its material interests are fundamentally opposed to those of the women's movement and the struggle for Black liberation.

No matter how talented, sincere, or progressive-minded a Jesse Jackson or Bella Abzug may be, they cannot contribute to the process of social change as long as they are representing a political institution devoted heart and soul to defending the status quo.

I've tried to show that, from ancient Greece to the class struggle today, a materialist method is indispensable to a scientific understanding. But we will see that while a materialist outlook is necessary, it's not enough. It has to be a certain kind of materialism-dialectical materialism. We'll discuss dialectics in next month's issue of Socialist Action.

----- pull-quotes -----

OPINION academism. His paintings, including the enormous