A Marxist Theory of Aesthetic Inquiry: The Contribution of Max RaphaelAuthor(s): Willis H. TruittSource: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1971), pp. 151-161Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3331583 .

Accessed: 19/07/2014 09:07

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofAesthetic Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Marxist Theory of Aesthetic Inquiry: The Contribution of Max Raphael

WILLIS H. TRUITT

It is, of course, quite obvious that the Marxist theory of art has indulged itself mischievously in the fallacy of historicism. But in defense of Marx- ism it must be recognized that it has embarked upon a social history of art as a way of dispelling even more insidious fallacies about the nature and subject matter aesthetics. Further, it will be admitted by most aes- theticians that the social history of art and the sociology of art, both of which are part of the Marxist program, can contribute something to the understanding of art, though this kind of understanding may be said to fall outside the domain of "purely" aesthetic considerations.

In this paper I shall not defend the sociological and social-historical

approach to aesthetics, although I am convinced of its worthiness. My chief concern will be to show how a very important Marxist philosopher, Max Raphael, has attempted to relate the historical and sociological dimension to the creative and compositional dimension. If he is suc- cessful, then I believe we will be obliged to admit the possibility, at least, that there are no "purely" aesthetic considerations, except when such considerations are deliberately decontextualized.

In a concluding remark I will attempt to show some of the implica- tions of Raphael's method for aesthetic inquiry. This will require ref- erence to three studies, only one of which has been discussed at any length in this paper. The appended short bibliography will supply the

WILLIS H. TRUITT is presently Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Florida. His main areas of research and writing are aesthetics and social theory. He has published articles in The Journal of Human Relations, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, and Interdiscipline (India). An earlier version of this paper was read at the twenty-seventh annual meeting of the American Society for Aesthetics on October 25, 1969 in Charlottesville, Va.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152 WILLIS H. TRUITT

textual resources necessary for readers interested in a more complete elucidation of the method through actual studies.

It has been characteristic of much Marxist aesthetics -a charac- teristic to which Raphael was keenly sensitive - to offer reductionist and causally one-sided hypotheses which explain away art as a social function of the class struggle. This concept of art requires us to understand it as a part of the ideological facade which reflects the more fundamental dynamics of transformation in the means of production, exchange, and distribution of social wealth. Such an analysis, as Raphael clearly sees, is untenable. What is required on his theory is (1) a more dialectical conception of the work of art, and (2) a complete reformulation of the analysis of the relationship between ideology and the work of art, and (3) the employment of a new method of analysis. This new method begins with the work of art as its single datum. It is a method- ology which, to my knowledge, has not been used by other Marxists or by non-Marxist sociologists and social historians of art. Nevertheless, it is a method which purports to unite social theory and aesthetics. Let us consider these three significant reformulations in order.

THE WORK OF ART

Within Marxism there appear to be two ways of viewing the work of art dialectically. These two views are compatible but refer to quite different functional levels. Whereas one form of dialectical analysis attempts to grasp the social and historical function of art, the other focuses attention on the creative activity itself; it construes the art object as an extension of human sensuous behavior. The broader social and historical dialectic has been most eloquently expressed by Caudwell:

Just as art, by adopting the genotype [human nature] and projecting its fea- tures into external reality, tells us what the genotype is, so science, by receiving the reflection of external reality into the psyche, tells us what external reality is. As art tells us the significance and meaning of all we are in the language of feeling, so science tells us the significance of all we see in the language of cognition. One is temporal, full of change; the other is spatial and seemingly static. One alone could not generate a phantastic project of the whole uni- verse, but together, being contradictory, they are dialectic, and call into being the spatio-temporal, historic Universe; not by themselves but by the practice, the concrete living, from which they emerge. The Universe that emerges is explosive, contradictory, dynamically moving apart, because those are the characteristics of the movement of reality which produced it, the movement of human life.'

1 Christopher St. John Sprigge (pseud. Caudwell), Illusion and Reality (New

York, International Publishers, 1947), p. 263.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A MARXIST THEORY OF AESTHETIC INQUIRY 153

It is not this somewhat global dimension that is of interest to Raphael. His principal task is that of uniting history, society, and the artist in an individual, a dialectical theory of creativity. And it is in the individual artist and his concrete work that Raphael will be required to show how and in what manner the social and historical are exhibited. How do aesthetic media display the significant processes, contradictions, and forms of consciousness that define the artists's social existence? This is

Raphael's problem and it must be resolved without denying individuality and personal creativity.

According to Raphael, the individualized aspect is to be disclosed pre- cisely in the successful comprehension and expression of emerging social themes, themes which are unique, which are becoming. We are reminded that no man, least of all the artist, lives in a social vacuum. The creative

eye is never entirely turned inward. Man moves among forces many of which he can neither understand nor control. And as an artist he can

express himself only within the social and historical conditions which limit his media and consciousness. History and society impose upon all men limited options for expression. There is no creation ex nihilo, no

expression a priori. Herein the artist's role is essentially dialectical. For he stands between

a recalcitrant and unyielding inhuman reality and transmutes by his very creative act this reality into its opposite, art, an aesthetic reality. The

impersonal forces of history and society are thus transformed into the personal. The method that Raphael uses to exhibit this dialectic of creativity is exemplified in his analyses of specific artists and their works. We shall return to this later, but first it is necessary to see how

Raphael disentangles the relationship between art and ideology. The

problem, he suggests, is not the inevitable result of Marxist analyses of art, but rather of crude analyses put down by crude and paranoiac dialecticians.

IDEOLOGY AND THE WORK OF ART

The extreme emphasis which many Marxist analyses of art have

placed on the material relations of production has to be modified and corrected if Marxism is to be made an intelligible theory in this area. Raphael, like many Marxists, is unwilling to subvert crudities

by means of sheer and direct revision. Hence, his reinterpretation is

partially exegetical. He calls to our attention a passage from Engels' correspondence:

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154 WILLIS H. TRUITT

A principal task of philosophical idealism [says Raphael] is to exhibit the specific and numerous characteristics of ideational culture and thus to explain the facts and forms of existence from an ideational or a priori standpoint. Historical and dialectical materialism, however, formulates the problem in a different way. It is childish, from the materialist point of view, to focus one's attention on the more ideological product. "We as materialists were bound to lay the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical, and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from fundamental economic realities. In so doing we often neglected the formal or ideational element, which is the means by which action is implemented. This we lost sight of through concentration on the material or substantial aspect." (Engels to Franz Mehring)2

Once we are in a position to grasp the historical character of Marxism as a method, we will recognize both the fundamental importance of economic class analysis and at the same time its limitations in certain contexts. In the arts, for example, the determination of consciousness and technique may be far more heavily influenced by ideological struc- tures than by the material basis of society. This is so according to

Raphael, "because the economic organization of life and society does not determine anything directly. It merely 'sets the framework and limits the possibilities of creation within each cultural domain.' It in-

directly conditions the manner in which thoughts are evolved and

expressed."3

Raphael is suggesting that Marxism supplies a methodology which, when correctly applied, enables us to conduct a scientific sociology of art. On the one hand it allows us to discard traditional pseudo-scientific studies of art which serve as a refuge for reactionary, bourgeois scholar-

ship. But on the other hand, it also permits us to abandon the crude and superficial analyses of pseudo-Marxists, who have mistaken the con- tent of Marxist analysis for its powerful and illuminating methodology. In other words, it allows us to see that bad Marxist analysis of art is an historical phenomenon with historical causes and is not necessary.4 It is only by the use of Marxist method that we are able to distinguish the ideological from the material and then be in a position to decide which preponderates in any specific instance. Raphael's analysis sug- gests that a tendency toward increasing complexity of economic and social organization will obscure the relationship between artistic produc-

2 Max Raphael, Proudhon, Marx, Picasso: Trois etudes sur la sociologie de l'art (Paris, Editions-Excelsior, 1933), p. 123 (author's translation).

3Ibid., pp. 129-130 (author's translation). Also compare Engels's letter to Conrad Schmidt in L. Feuer, ed., Marx and Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy (New York, Anchor, 1959), p. 406.

4Ibid., p. 125.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A MARXIST THEORY OF AESTHETIC INQUIRY 155

tions and the economic basis of society. This makes it possible for

ideologies to predominate in certain epochs and over certain genres. And this he suggests is characteristic of late (decadent) capitalist class

society. It typically gives rise to aesthetic hedonism, I'art pour l'art,5 or what Gombrich has called "anti-art." Conversely, primitive social organi- zation and a primitive mode of production (hunting and gathering) accede to an interpretation which more directly relates material life to the production of art. Raphael has demonstrated this relationship in his

important study of the cave drawings: Paleolithic art [he suggests] is centered around the animal; there is no place in it for the middle axis, for symmetry and balance inspired by the structure of the human body. Rather, everything is asymmetric and shifted. The objects are not represented as they appear when seen from a distance, as we are accustomed to seeing them in paintings from the times of classical antiquity, but as near at hand - for the paleolithic hunters struggled with the animal at close quarters, body against body; only the invention of the bow, which in the paleolithic age meant a revolution comparable to the invention of the boat and the plow in the neolithic age and of the steam engine in the Chris- tian era, made the distant view possible. Finally, the object of paleolithic art is not to picture the individual existence of animals and men, but to depict their group existence, the herd and the horde.6

In summary, Raphael asserts that it is a mistake to conclude that Marxism demands a unidirectional determination of artistic expression by the economic basis of society. Rather, we must conceive of the eco- nomic foundations of society as setting the limits of creativity and growth in each separate ideological domain and governing only indirectly the evolution and transformation of thought and expression in cultures of relative complexity. Hence, each ideological domain, i.e., politics, law, religion, philosophy, literature, painting, possesses its own internal criteria and system of growth. Each domain tends to influence other domains similar to it; there is ideological cross-fertilization. These internal standards are not, however, entirely autonomous. They vary and fluctuate in relation to the more fundamental economic structures which determine the extent of the allocation of social resources to each.7

But the simplest assumption is false. The view that art proceeds directly from the economic foundations of society neglects the dialectical relation among the work, the artist, and society. We must, according

5 Compare similar analysis by Georg Lukacs in The Historical Novel (Boston, Beacon Press, 1963), Chapter IV, and Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art (New York, Vintage, 1951), Vol. 4, Chapter 3.

Max Raphael, Prehistoric Cave Paintings (New York, Pantheon, Bollingen Series, 1945), p. 1.

7 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso, pp. 129-131.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156 WILLIS H. TRUITT

to Raphael, take account of the mediating elements and of the inter- action of all elements, the ideological, the personal, as well as the ma- terial.8 It is only on this basis that Marxism can make a significant contribution to the theory of art:

The first task of Marxian aesthetics is to exhibit the relation between artistic manifestations and the general laws postulated by historical and dialectical materialism.

Thus, the basic problem may be stated as follows: In what way are concrete forms of thought and reality opposed to each other; how are their relations to be dialectically conceived, and in what manner is the aesthetic domain involved, as distinct from the involvement of other ideological forms?9

The actual method of analysis recommended by Raphael in this passage is carried through in his very rich and suggestive studies in The Demands of Art.l? It is to one of these studies that we shall now turn.

RAPHAEL'S METHOD

A complete exposition of any one of Raphael's studies in The Demands of Art is beyond the scope of this paper.1l I shall attempt only to highlight several of his significant considerations in regard to a

single subject. In his study of G6zanne, Raphael consolidates the cogency and depth

of his earlier theoretical remarks with a force and erudite precision lack-

ing in most social interpretations. Before we can comprehend Cezanne's work, we must comprehend the structure and movement of the tensions among nature, society, and self which converge in the paintings them- selves. We must begin with the work itself as the basic datum. For in Raphael's words, the three elements of creativity, nature, and art, must be situationally concretized:

The given situation is itself highly complex, for in addition to being a com- ponent of nature it contains a personal psychic experience and a socio- historical condition; nature, history, and the individual do not tend to coin- cide, to be harmonious, but conflict with each other and so accentuate their differences. The artist seizes upon this conflict and thereby divests it of its factual character, transforms it into a problem--a task which consists in bringing these three factors into a new relatedness .. ,12

8 Ibid., pp. 127-128. On "mediation" and "totality" see also G. Lukacs, Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein (Berlin, Malik Verlag, 1923).

Ibid., pp. 131-132 (author's translation). 10 Max Raphael, The Demands of Art (Princeton, Princeton University Press,

Bollingen Series, 1968). 1A more complete analysis is found in my unpublished manuscript, Social

Theory and the Foundations of Aesthetic Culture (1968), Chapter 8. 2 The Demands of Art, p. 11.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A MARXIST THEORY OF AESTHETIC INQUIRY 157

a task which involves reseeing, reconceiving the commonplace. And for Cezanne, this reformulation can be accomplished within painting without going beyond the limits or boundaries of painting. Hence, the painter need not create or re-create an illusory world; his task is rather that of seeing through the illusory "facts" to "reality itself as opposed to any kind of abstraction or fantasy."l3 For Cezanne, the avoidance of fantasy was to be achieved by avoiding the impressionistic preoccupation with "ethereal" light, "painting the air." His painting is animated by a drive toward material, substantial nature itself, toward the unification of man and his world, the restitution of concrete affective unity with what is most natural, and the overthrow of an alienated ideology of abstract relationalism. Thus Raphael remarks, Cezanne wanted to paint the substance of things, not their relations alone- that which is in and for itself, not that which is only by virtue of its relations to other things. His is the palette of a peasant who takes long walks over the land, every natural object pressing against him, one who feels the world in terms of the resistant bodies and heavy masses around him. He was a man who spent long days alone with earth and sky. His was not the palette of the city dweller, for whom walls are not substantial realities but merely occasions for the refraction of light."

In Cezanne's work we find a living, vibrant interpenetration of ob-

jects - color communicates and informs color, there is no sharp break-

ing off. There is an attempt to mold an organic unity, not a unity of

superimposed abstract relations, but a growing internal, almost visceral, unity. "The artist is thus the mediator between things that are alienated from each other and their common metaphysical sources, which have been lost."'5 He is a mediator of estranged entities. But for Cezanne this sought unity, this return to existential sources, is never to be com-

pletely achieved, never is it entirely successful. His reconciliation was to be thwarted, because of the incommensurability of life process and

quantitative matter - he could not paint a concrete process. In his analysis of Mont Sainte-Victoire Raphael has laid bare the

primitive, materialist, and naturalistic nature of Cezanne's conception of art and nature. In this painting, says Raphael,

Cezanne gives us a space which is tightly closed at the back.... The reason for this lies in Cezanne's conception of space as filled rather than empty. . . .

There is an essential difference between ... two kinds of space. Filled sub- stantial space is composed of corporeal points. . . . Empty space, on the

18 Ibid., p. 13. 4 Ibid., p. 14.

15 Ibid., p. 15.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158 WILLIS H. TRUITT

other hand, is defined by its external boundaries, within which bodies are assigned positions largely independent of those boundaries . . . the point in space is much less important than the boundary or the movement conceived a priori. In filled, substantial space there is no continuous movement from point to point, but there is the double movement of attraction and repulsion between points of space. This is effected [by Cezanne] by means of contrast, and the simultaneous attraction by means of intermediate tones situated between the contrasting ones.'1

Herein is the basis of Cezanne's anti-apriorism, his antiformalism, and also his repudiation of "imitation." His art is not photographic, it is not faithful to visual perception. Rather it subordinates the eye to the

idea, vision to concept: "to see is to conceive and to conceive is to

compose."'7 This conception brings an affective unity to the whole. It is the inner world coming to grips with the outer world. It grasps nature, history, and society in a moment. But before such a conception can be realized we must go back ". . . to the region where man and the cosmos

have their common origin. .. . "1 This is a return to a feeling rooted

in man's racial past, but which remains accessible to him through art; it is a feeling that enables man to comprehend the "historical conditions of his life ... including the economic means of production which trans- forms [human] nature."19 In modern industrial society this affective

unity is suppressed, nearly lost. It needs reawakening through the aes- thetic. We no longer find nature "natural," man is alone, he is at the

mercy of pecuniary forces and a "ferocious population" which, in C6zanne's own words, "had only one instinct, that of money .. ."20 Hence we may look upon Cezanne's work as a balanced synthesis of

critical, negative ideology structured by means of primitive, affective

principles - a blend of ideological and affective constituents. Cezanne links the past and the present, his work epitomizes the meaning of the aesthetic in its deepest sense.

As Raphael suggests, the epistemological foundations (broadly speak- ing) of Cezanne's later works attempt to synthesize the rational and the

emotional, the cognitive and the affective dimensions of nature, history, and society. "He divests sensations of the absolute metaphysical charac- ter they had for the impressionists and firmly situates them between emotion and reason, between the irrational and the rational."21 The aesthetic conception as a whole that arises out of this synthesis is, how-

Ibid., p. 20. Ibid., p. 26.

18 Ibid., p. 27. 19 Idem. 20 Idem. 21 Ibid., p. 28.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A MARXIST THEORY OF AESTHETIC INQUIRY 159

ever, rooted initially in feeling. Historically, rationally, socially condi- tioned affect becomes in art a reality of its own and serves functionally as "a bridge" or mode by means of which "the world of things" can be humanized. Socially and historically speaking, the artist is conceived here as "intervening," exercising his faculties on the world of things "... which had become fragmentary and specialized in CGzanne's period. . . "22 Thus the artist is the principal agent of de-alienation, he restores

to men a world of objects which have already become alienated by capi- talist expropriation and exploitation. He, the artist, as E. M. Forster once noted, erases self-alienation and "brings men back into touch with

things."23 The social and historical context that surrounded and conditioned

Cezanne's aesthetic response serves as the final justification for this inter-

pretation. In the Second Empire anachronistic, false consciousness, aes- thetic banality, artificiality, and debasement of the arts reached a high point. Rampant commercial exploitation and economic subjugation of the working classes were also in a state of high development. And it was in deliberate opposition to these states of affairs that Cezanne formed his world view. If we argue, as some have done, that Cezanne epitomizes l'art pour l'art, or that he was not engaged in political propagation, or that he was not a Marxist, then we will be patently correct. But what we must recognize in the Marxian interpretation of Czanne is that he can be fully understood only in his historical and sociological context, and that like most creative geniuses he was involved in a single struggle, to liberate humanity, whether they knew it or not. He once said:

I paint my still lifes, these natures mortes, for my coachman who does not want them, I paint them so that children on the knees of their grandfathers may look at them while they eat their soup and chatter, I do not paint them for the pride of the Emperor of Germany or the vanity of the oil merchants of Chicago. I may get ten thousand francs for one of these dirty things, but I'd rather have the wall of a church, a hospital, or a municipal building.24

Some Implications of This Method for Aesthetic Inquiry

If aesthetic inquiry is to acquire a level of objectivity comparable to other fields of inquiry, it must, in Raphael's words, execute a

. . .methodical comparison of works of art. This involves the comparative study of works of art from all epochs in the history of all peoples. From this comparative study are abstracted the most general elements, relationships,

22 Idem. 28 See his essay on Soviet art, "The Last Parade," Two Cheers for Democracy

(London, E. Arnold, 1951), p. 6. 24

Op. cit., p. 43.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160 WILLIS H. TRUITT

totalities, and domains of concretization. In this manner, the ideal work of art in its most typical aspects is constituted. . . . Moreover, the laws for the construction of form in the work of art, as well as the laws of connection among various kinds of art, are at the same time the laws of relation and association [of society].2 This is a radical proposal in that it makes aesthetic inquiry the pre- condition for a general sociology of art. Raphael suggests that the mathe- matical or formal analysis of a work will reveal not merely the laws of construction of the work, but will also exhibit the causal connections between aesthetic form and the social conditions which give rise to it. Furthermore, this is not an idle remark, as is made clear by Raphael's adherence to his method in practice. A summary of several studies may help to clarify the implications of the method.

Raphael's grasp of the internal compositional elements and the structural totality of paleolithic cave drawings allowed him to establish a direct correlation between the material mode of production and orga- nization of paleolithic communities and their artistic production. He has also shown how modifications in the mode of production are reflected in the formal and compositional aspects of the art of the neolithic period, after the invention of the bow.26

In his analysis of Cezanne, Raphael, as we have observed, is able to reconstruct those social-political factors which are reflected in an alien- ated form in the works. He carries his analysis through, however, with- out dividing his attention, i.e., by giving strict attention to the internal and autonomous elements of the work until the social laws which inform it are immanent in it and not superimposed from the outside. And the connection established between the internal logic of Cezanne's art and the external logic of the social conditions in which this art was created is confirmed in Cezanne's own correspondences and writings.

Raphael's study of Giotto's work as mediating a certain theological world view is also of interest from the standpoint of theory and method. For it reinforces just that point that Raphael insistently emphasized: the conditioning power of ideology. By mathematical analysis Raphael has established correlations between Giotto's development and the pro- gressive articulation of the theological relation between finite and infinite substance in his work. This was accomplished by Giotto in the use of the seemingly "extraneous" factor of the frame, and the juxtaposition of Christian and Greek motifs.27

25 Proudhon, Marx, Picasso, p. 135 (author's translation). 26 See his Prehistoric Cave Paintings, passim. 27 The Demands of Art, pp. 73-105.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A MARXIST THEORY OF AESTHETIC INQUIRY 161

Although Raphael was primarily concerned with studying the aes- thetic process in the visual arts, his principles and methods can be gen- eralized to cover other fields. Some application of a method very similar to his in literary criticism can be found in the recent studies of Beckett and Solzhenitsyn by Ernst Fischer28 and in my study of the writings of E. M. Forster.29

Besides the richness of interpretation that Max Raphael brought to his

materials, perhaps the most attractive aspect of his work is his commit- ment to art. For he believed in the vital importance of art for society. This commitment is present in all his writings. Through an understand-

ing of art and its social relations he thought we could achieve the crea- tive perspective toward life and society which is a check against the

repressive mechanization which is a symptom of moder technological societies. His is an important contribution both to the spirit and method of aesthetic inquiry.

A PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAHY OF PUBLISHED WRITINGS BY MAX RAPHAEL ON AESTHETICS AND RELATED SUBJECTS'0

"C. G. Jung vergreift sich an Picasso." Information, No. 6, December, Zurich, 1932.

Der dorische Tempel, dargestellt am Poseidontempel zu Paestum. (Augsberg, Filser Verlag, 1930).

"Die Wertung des Kunstwerkes" (pre-Marxist). Deutsch-Franziisische Rund- schau, Vol. 36, No. 2, May, Berlin, 1915.

Idee und Gestalt: Ein Fiihrer zum Wesen der Kunst (pre-Marxist). (Munich, Delphin-Verlag, 1921).

Prehistoric Pottery and Civilization in Egypt. (New York, Pantheon Books, Bollingen Series, 1947).

Proudhon, Marx, Picasso: Trois etudes sur la sociologie de l'art. (Paris, Edi- tions-Excelsior, 1933).

The Demands of Art. (Princeton, Princeton University Press, Bollingen Series, 1969).

Von Monet zu Picasso: Grundziige einer Aesthetik und Entwicklung der modernen Malerei (pre-Marxist). (Munich, Delphin-Verlag, 1913).

Zur Erkenntnisstheorie der konkreten Dialektik. (Paris, Editions-Excelsior, 1934).

"Zur Kunsttheorie des dialektischen Materialismus." Philosophische Hefte, Vol. 3, Nos. 3-4, Berlin, 1932.

28 Ernst Fischer, Art Against Ideology (New York, George Braziller, 1969). See also a discussion of the similarity of approach in my forthcoming review article "Art Against Ideology: Ernst Fischer and Marxist Method," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

29 Forthcoming article, "Thematic and Symbolic Ideology in the Works of E. M. Forster," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

80 I am indebted to Professor Robert S. Cohen of Boston University for initially calling these materials to my attention.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:07:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions