proudhon, marx, picasso review by tagg
TRANSCRIPT
8/12/2019 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso REVIEW by TAGG
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proudhon-marx-picasso-review-by-tagg 1/6
Proudhon, Marx, Picasso: Three Studies in the Sociology of Art by Max Raphael; Inge Marcuse;John TaggReview by: David CravenTheory and Society, Vol. 12, No. 5 (Sep., 1983), pp. 692-696Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/657425 .
Accessed: 19/07/2014 09:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:08:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso REVIEW by TAGG
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proudhon-marx-picasso-review-by-tagg 2/6
69292
well-documented changes in culture, in values and preferences. We leave it to
pollsters to report in the newspapers,and to a fringe movement of academic socialindicatorspeople.
The question of Hirschman'sessay can be formulated as: Is it sometimes useful to
think of humans as the kinds of animals who changetheir mindsa lot, oftenjointly,about what is good, true, beautiful,just, and preferable? am convinced that the
answer is yes, along with Hirschman and Sorokin and James A. Davis. The prefer-ence for public versusprivate consumption goods is probablyone of these changingvalues.
It seems to me, however,that mechanisms ike disappointment will not do thejob.First, much of the change is by new cohorts learning different values than older
cohorts;theyare not likelyto be the most disappointed.Second, not all suchchangesare cyclical - for example the proportion of all economic activity done by govern-ments has moved always upward (though irregularly) n Western Europe and the
United States in recent history. Alternating private and public disappointmentscannot explain public movement in a single direction. Many of the other value
changes (e.g., on virginity or abortion) do not seem to representonly individual
choices of behavior; instead they represent(mostly) judgments of the behavior of
others.
Hirschmanhas shown us againthat culturalorvaluechangeis out therein theworld;
butwe arenearlyas theoretically impoverishedfor the explanationas we were before
Hirschman'sessay.
ArthurL. Stinchcombe
NorthwesternUniversityStanford GraduateSchool of Business
Proudhon, Marx, Picasso: ThreeStudies in the Sociology of Art by Max Raphael,translated by Inge Marcuse, edited, introduced, and with a bibliographyby John
Tagg (New Jersey:HumanitiesPress, 1980).
In 1965 John Bergerdedicatedhis book on Picasso to Max Raphael,whom he called
a forgotten but great critic. This characterizationwas true duringRaphael's later
years, when he died in 1952, as well as in the decade after his death. In the last
ten years,however,Raphael'scriticismhas received ncreasingattention.His critiqueof Picasso's work, for example, has become more timely than ever in light of the
extravagantPicasso retrospective n 1980 at the Museum of Modern Art. Ironically,
many of the observationsnow used to praisePicasso'sart wereinsightsearliermade
by Raphael, but for reasons that were often critical.Not only did Raphael anticipatemuch of the continued acclaim, he also showed how this acclaim would itself be
relatedto contemporarysocial developments.
Raphael's most significant criticism does not entirely divorce what art formally
expresses from the way art is receptively completed. In this respect, his essays are
notable for methodological reasons, as evidenced by the recent emphasis in art
criticism on rezeptiongeschichte. This is not to say that Raphael's writings are
well-documented changes in culture, in values and preferences. We leave it to
pollsters to report in the newspapers,and to a fringe movement of academic socialindicatorspeople.
The question of Hirschman'sessay can be formulated as: Is it sometimes useful to
think of humans as the kinds of animals who changetheir mindsa lot, oftenjointly,about what is good, true, beautiful,just, and preferable? am convinced that the
answer is yes, along with Hirschman and Sorokin and James A. Davis. The prefer-ence for public versusprivate consumption goods is probablyone of these changingvalues.
It seems to me, however,that mechanisms ike disappointment will not do thejob.First, much of the change is by new cohorts learning different values than older
cohorts;theyare not likelyto be the most disappointed.Second, not all suchchangesare cyclical - for example the proportion of all economic activity done by govern-ments has moved always upward (though irregularly) n Western Europe and the
United States in recent history. Alternating private and public disappointmentscannot explain public movement in a single direction. Many of the other value
changes (e.g., on virginity or abortion) do not seem to representonly individual
choices of behavior; instead they represent(mostly) judgments of the behavior of
others.
Hirschmanhas shown us againthat culturalorvaluechangeis out therein theworld;
butwe arenearlyas theoretically impoverishedfor the explanationas we were before
Hirschman'sessay.
ArthurL. Stinchcombe
NorthwesternUniversityStanford GraduateSchool of Business
Proudhon, Marx, Picasso: ThreeStudies in the Sociology of Art by Max Raphael,translated by Inge Marcuse, edited, introduced, and with a bibliographyby John
Tagg (New Jersey:HumanitiesPress, 1980).
In 1965 John Bergerdedicatedhis book on Picasso to Max Raphael,whom he called
a forgotten but great critic. This characterizationwas true duringRaphael's later
years, when he died in 1952, as well as in the decade after his death. In the last
ten years,however,Raphael'scriticismhas received ncreasingattention.His critiqueof Picasso's work, for example, has become more timely than ever in light of the
extravagantPicasso retrospective n 1980 at the Museum of Modern Art. Ironically,
many of the observationsnow used to praisePicasso'sart wereinsightsearliermade
by Raphael, but for reasons that were often critical.Not only did Raphael anticipatemuch of the continued acclaim, he also showed how this acclaim would itself be
relatedto contemporarysocial developments.
Raphael's most significant criticism does not entirely divorce what art formally
expresses from the way art is receptively completed. In this respect, his essays are
notable for methodological reasons, as evidenced by the recent emphasis in art
criticism on rezeptiongeschichte. This is not to say that Raphael's writings are
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:08:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso REVIEW by TAGG
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proudhon-marx-picasso-review-by-tagg 3/6
693
withoutflaws,as this reviewwillshow. Nevertheless, he shortcomingsof hiscriticism
often resultfrom a betrayalof his own methodological sophistication.
Raphael beginshis triadicstudy, Proudhon, Marx, Picasso, withan excellentdiscus-
sion of PierreJoseph Proudhon'stheoryof art. He startshere becauseof his viewthat
much of what is inadequate about early twentieth century art has its historical
precedentin Proudhon's ideas. Labeling most French artists Proudhonians, Ra-
phaelelucidatesboth how Proudhonattemptedto go beyondKantianformalismand
how he ultimatelyfailed to do so. Insteadof declaringartautonomous, as did Kant,Proudhon did the reverse.He subordinatedart to science and moralconscience,
which, as Raphael notes, were obviously related to Kant's concepts of theoretical
reason and practical reason. Having retained these abstractions, Proudhon thenreinstitutedapriorism, which he was supposedlydisavowing, by proclaimingall art
to be based on a principle inherent to the human mind, namely, the progressivemission to reconcileart with the moraland the useful. Proudhon'srecognitionthat
Kant'saesthetic was without any historicalgrounding led him to try to ground his
own position empirically.
By locating artempirically,however,Proudhon had in mindthat art works expressthe ideas of theage as advancedbythe collectiveforce. RaphaeldemonstratesthatProudhon's efforts as an art critic merely displayed internal contradictions of his
criticalframework.When the art was acclaimed and Proudhon disprovedof it, as inthe case of Vernet, the art was not fulfilling its mission. When the art was not
collectivelyacclaimedand Proudhon approvedof it, as in thecase of Courbet,the artwas fulfilling its mission. In both situations the mission was at odds with the
collective force and it was imposed a priori, not arrived at a posteriori as any
empiricalapproachwould. In neithersituation is the relationshipof collective forceto inherent principles or that of the ideas of the age to a universal mission
seriouslyaddressed.Consequently,Proudhon'scritiqueof the art in his own histori-cal epoch is based on a self-containedconcept of art'sdevelopment- a concept withlittle more concrete
groundingthan Kant's
argumentfor
autonomy.
The conclusions Raphael draws from Proudhon's flaws aresignificant, although forreasonsRaphael did not realize.He shows on the one hand that Proudhon's view of
society as a mere continuation of nature implies not only a vulgar, deterministicmaterialism in the guise of biological evolutionism. This view also leads to thedefinition of the artistic faculty as one of perceiving pre-existing beauty and a
predeterminedmission, whereas a dialecticalapproachwould recognizethedynamic
interchange between perceiver and perceived. In addition, Raphael shows thatProudhon'sevocation of a uniform,abstracthistoricalconsciousness is hardlyplau-
sible, becausethere is no significanthistoricalconsciousnesswithout classconscious-ness. To achieve the historicalgroundingProudhonsought invain,we must,Raphaelobserves, firstof all studythe relationshipbetweenideologicaland materialproduc-tion, with reference to various social groupings. In the last analysis, Proudhon'seclectic fusion is what Raphael terms historicalsyncretism. Not surprisingly, his
approach resultedin what he considered Proudhon's most basic error,namely, theelimination of human needs as a cause of both material and spiritualproduction.Instead of understandingart as a means of self-realizationthrough historical re-
sponses, Proudhon reified art as something to which human realization was itself
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:08:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso REVIEW by TAGG
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proudhon-marx-picasso-review-by-tagg 4/6
694
subordinated.In makingthis criticism,Raphael parallelsMarx'scritiqueof Proud-
hon'svulgarsocialism,that is, hisfetishization of equaldistributionat theexpense ofreclaiming the modes of production for greater human realization prior to the
distribution of any products.
The art to which Raphael's critique most applies, however, is not the utopianmodernismhe had in mind,butZhdanovism,the official Stalinistaestheticfrom 1935to 1956, which was codified only two years after Proudhon, Marx, Picasso was
published in 1933. Contrary to what was said about it, the socialist realism of
Zhdanovist doctrine had no real connection to Marxism, as MaynardSoloman has
noted. The traits of this aesthetic - its crudetendentiousness,its rejectionof formal
complexity, its iron-handedcensorship, its revolutionary myths - are as close toProudhon's idealisttheory, with its imposed social message,as they are distantfrom
Marx'sstatements(in TheEconomic and PhilosophicalManuscriptsof 1844)about
art, especially his emphasis on developing the subjectivehuman sensibility. Both
Zhdanovand Proudhon reifiedartin the nameof objective ocial edificationand at
the expense of anydialecticalinterchangebetweenhistoryandart,art and audience-
all of which assumea one-dimensionalpostureof passivetransmissionor receptivitywithin these two theories. Proudhon's theory of art is analogous to his reductive
distributionism, whileZhdanovist art is related o what Paul Sweezyhastermedthe
reductive economism ofStalinist society.
The second essayin Raphael'sbook isdevoted to The MarxistTheory of Art. With
two epigraphs romEngels' etters on whythe historical materialistmethod should be
a guiding principle,not a ready-madepattern, Raphael seems preparedto avoid a
reductivistapproach. As a basis for his interpretation, Raphael takes what he calls
Marx's most importantstatement on the subject, namely,the discussionof art in the
Introduction to a Critiqueof Political Economy (1857). He notes that in this passageMarx disavows any unilateralprogressionof art and economic productivity- a view
which posits the relativeautonomy of things in the ideological domain. Raphael
then adds that when we are content to assigna givenartist to a particular deology ora class, we fall into mechanicalsterility.
Unfortunately, Raphael does not heed his own advice in otherpartsof the essay. His
statement hatthefundamental ask of aMarxistpositionis to illuminate theconcrete
manifestations of the most general laws of dialectical materialism n the domain in
question is unacceptable. As used by Marx, a dialectical method is a way of
understanding historical developments; it is not an immanent set of laws within
history awaiting recognition. Here Raphael's position is flawed by an essentialism
which is firmlyin the tradition of classical Europeanrationalism.This essentialism,
whereby the dialectic becomes something to discover rather than something with
whichto discover,underminesRaphael'sstudyin severalplaces.Whendiscussing he
issue of ruling class ideas, he adopts the untenable view - similar to the Lasallian
position - of a pure,monolithic class ideology, except where theperverseneedto be
stimulated eads to influences from otherclass ideologies. WhendealingwithGreek
art, he implies that it has a normative value and that it is anti-dogmatic in an
absolutelyradical sense. Yet the Fascists'preference or Greco-Romanart disallows
the assignment of normative value to theforms of Greek art. As Adolfo Sanchez
Vazquezhascontended,a Marxist concern with a normativeaesthetics s self-contra-
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:08:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso REVIEW by TAGG
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proudhon-marx-picasso-review-by-tagg 5/6
695
dictory. The result would only be a Gotha program for the arts. Certainly Marxaddressedthis issue
directlyin a letter
(November 26, 1885),which
Raphaeldoes not
cite, when he said the artist should not be concerned with showing the futurehistorical solution of the social conflicts, but should be concerned instead with
calling into question the eternalvalidity of the existing order.
Since the Economic and Philosophical Manuscriptsof 1844werenot publisheduntil1932 (while Proudhon, Marx, Picasso was going to press), Raphael can hardly becensuredfor not usingthe extremelyimportantsections on artin them.Nevertheless,his study would have been enhanced had these thoughts of Marx been assimilated.The emphasis in the 1844Manuscriptson the progressiveemancipationof the senses
and on the development of the subjectivehuman sensibility counteracts the con-strictiveessentialismand the overridingobjectificationof formto whichRaphaelfallsvictim. He definitely avoids the historical relativismto which an exclusive concernwith art as a mode of self-conscious realization could lead, yet he does so only bylimitinghis studyto an antithetical concernwithartas a socially normativeobject- aconcern which is much more a-historical, than trans-historical. For this reason,
Raphael'ssecond essay, on Marx, in Proudhon, Marx, Picasso is by far the weakestof the three. The essentialism which appears only infrequently in the other two
critiques is here the dominant characteristic.Unfortunately, in some of Raphael'slaterwritingsthis tendencybecomeseven more pronounced,so that, in Toward an
EmpiricalTheory of Art (1941) he advocates an artcriticismwhich will someday beformulated in mathematical terms. This position contradicts the emphasis in
Raphael's best studies on criticism as a constitutive act involving synthetic inter-
change, not just neutral description.
A critiqueof Picasso, whom Raphael met in 1911and kept in touch with until 1913,forms the concluding section in this book. This essay about Picasso's work is
probablythe most importantone of the three,because of itscontemporaryrelevanceand its methodological sophistication.The task outlinedby Raphaelis to investigate
the material and ideological conditions that have influenced him and how he hasreacted to them in his art. Not only does he generallyavoid any artas reflection
thesis, he also carefullydifferentiatesfree enterprisecapitalismfrom the monopoly
capital context within which Picasso's art was made.
Raphael uses this contextual frameworkto explain a frequenttrait of Picasso'sworkthat has puzzledmainstreamcritics, namely, the humor whichsurfaces in his other-wise serious art. Normally seen as life-enhancing or connected to anecdotes, this
aspectof Picasso's work has beendownplayedas affectionatemockery byconven-tional historians like Gert Schiff. Raphael, however, contends that this rending
ambivalence n Picasso'sartisdirectlyconnectedto a caricaturaldimensioncentraltomuch modern art. Far from being a topical addition, as is often assumed, thiscaricatural thrust is deeply rooted in a responseto the contradictory way humanityhas been defined in modern western society. The tension in Picasso's art, betweencreative involvement and disengaging irony, is an aesthetic expression of thesecontradictions.Such tensionentailsan internal distance fromthegeneralideologicalcontext out of which the artgrew.Thus, Picasso'sart,in Raphael'sview, is importantto the extent that it expressesequivocation about its own existence.
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:08:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso REVIEW by TAGG
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proudhon-marx-picasso-review-by-tagg 6/6
696
ConcerningPicasso's art as a whole, Raphael makes veryperceptiveremarksabout
how Picasso's oeuvre has come to signifyseveralthings in contemporarysociety. HeconsidersPicasso'sextremelymultifariousdevelopmentandcompetingstylesto be a
signifierof the various counter-forcesnecessarilyat work now. He notes that Picas-
so's voracious eclecticism,his continuous use of differenttraditions and contempor-
ary trends, signifies the rapacity of monopoly capitalism(now we should add the
relentlessnesswith which monopoly capitalappropriatesalmost everythingto create
legitimacyfor itself).He furtherargues,in a waythat recalls hisessentialismfrom the
precedingstudy, that Picasso was incapableof creatingan art based on materialist
dialectics. In light of these aspects of meaning in Picasso's art, Raphael concludes
that Picasso is the most important symbol of contemporary bourgeois society.
Raphael's attempt to explain Picasso's unparalleledfame in the history of art still
accountsforagood deal.One of the most frequentlycited andhighly regardedreasons
for Picasso'sposition is, to quoteElizabethMurray,a contemporaryAmericanartist,that He truly says you can do anything. This emphasis on creativityas an end in
itself, coupled with an appreciationof Picasso's subjectiveeclecticism and his multi-
facetedtalent, have made his artextremelyimportantto the cultureof narcissism,with its concomitant pluralism.In this respect,Picasso's oeuvre has come to signifyan absolute ndividualityfreeof any ordering nterchangewith society. His art has
been exaltedfor its freedom, s if this freedom itself werenot related o a self-defeat-
ing groundlessnessor whatDonald Kuspithastermedthe immanentanti-harmonyof
contemporarylife. In a brilliantextension of Raphael's argument, Kuspit has noted
(Parachute: revue d'art contemporain, Winter 1980) that Picasso's art is so imperious
in its creativitythat it has erasedthe rules which formerlypreventedit from ruling
arbitrarily.Consequently, in Picasso's work, as in late capitalism, unending free-
dom has necessarilyresultedin an endless eclecticism- an eclecticismwhich is the
answerto a dissolutionof any totality,a dissipationof allgivens.Whilea legitimationcrisis awaitsthe contradictoryarrangementsof monopoly capital,Picasso'soeuvreis
being legitimatedin the name of an absolute creativitywhose essenceis a supposed
transcendenceof all contradictions.
Many of the other observationsin Raphael'sstudy are far less fecund and penetrat-
ing. His insistence that Picasso should have based his arton dialecticalmaterialism
is an unfortunate apseinto Cartesian laws. Nevertheless,whenRaphaelshiftedthe
discoursefrom dealingwith Picasso's artas a reflection of society to considering t
as being in a complex interchange with society - whereby new signification is
continually accrued- he did something very significantfor art criticism. As John
Bergeronce noted, Raphael shows that the revolutionary meaningof an artworkis
not self-contained,but is a meaningcontinually awaitingdiscoveryand release.
David Craven
SUNY, Cortland
Theoryand Society 12(1983) 681-696
Elsevier Science PublishersB.V., Amsterdam- Printed in The Netherlands
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:08:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions