and the Motivation to make Politic:al Art

ion from the audience's response to it. Thus a synthesis of the main themes of Luk~cs' and Benjamin's analyses is in principle possible. Here I offer only some notes on the implications of such a synthesis for the debate on art and politics. Consider the various levels of artistic production There is first the artist's use of his/her tools. This conditions the meaning of the product and is ctirectly under the artist's control. Artists can choose to use a large camera with a long exposure which allows a detailed, sharp and rich photograph which cannot be achieved with small, short-exposure cameras. At a second level, there are the artist's social relations with his/her employer and audience. These relations condition the meaning of the artist's work. In the most obvious case, the work may simply not be accepted by publishers or dealers until the artist learns what is expected of him/her. In less obvious cases the artist comes to accept the norms involved in his/her social relations and produces work expressing these norms while rationalizing this process by theories about the nature of art. For example, the artistic values of originality and newness are invoked, and distorted, to justify the proliferation of new styles which keeps the New York art market healthy. Yet, as Benjamin saw, both these levels of production can be transformed by the artist. He/she can develop the technical forces of production. And he/ she can avoid the distorting conditioning effects of the social relations by changing the relations with employers and audience artists can work through dealers or through poster campaigns, in street theatre or in concert halls. At a higher level of generality, artistic production is conditioned by conventions which the artist may not recognise. The existing language (and I include 'languages' of painting, film and music) defines the artist's tasks in ways which seem natural. While individual artists may introduce major revisions as Cezanne did they must rebuild their linguistic boat while they are sailing in it. Yet the conventions they accept often express a particular way of seeing the world and thus have indirect political import. Further, as Georg Lukacs perhaps overemphasised, artistic production is conditioned by forces and institutions outside the individual artist's control. The socio-economic structure of the wider society to a large extent defines the norms and problems which the artist meets throughout his/her life. Phenomena like depressions and wars thrust themselves upon the artist's attention. More subtle and pervasive are the structures of experience formed in, for example, anonymous, fast moving, violent American cities. Such structures of experience cannot be escaped. Even if the artist tries to ignore them, they are so pervasive that they reappear in disguised form in the artworks produced. For example, if the artist tries to produce sacred pictures in a society where the ritual and religious context of life has vanished as in the United States or where it is permeated with secular issues as in the six counties of Northern Ireland the artist must fail, for the secular norms of the age will be expressed in the picture and this will prevent the achievement of a religious art like that of the middle ages. For another example, take the abstract expressionists. They tried to ignore social reality and explore what Franz Kline called the 'tragic and timeless' themes embedded in their psyches. Yet, their work is intensely social and, at its best, expresses the fragmentation of experience in contemporary America and gives a timely critique of the society. Thus, while artists have some freedom to change the process of production and the content expressed in their work, socially conditioned norms still appear in their work, even against their intentions. These may, as Lukacs argued, prevent the achievement of their artistic goals. Even at this level, artistic creativity remains a possibility. If certain social norms and themes are going to be expressed in the artworks anyway, the only choice for the artist who wants to change or reject these norms is to make them the content of his/her work and use them to suggest the possibility of new norms and new forms of social organisation. So, in Brecht's Caucasian Chalk Circle, the hero Azdak exemplifies all the evils of the present society arbitrariness, one law for the rich, another for the poor, legalism but in Brecht's play Azdak uses these vices to remedy existing social evils and under his guidance the people prosper and are happy. Similarly in some abstract expressionist works the theme of fragmentation of community and of experience is taken to the extreme so that the promise of happiness and order is seen to emerge. In one of Aaron Siskind's abstract expressionist photographs the cracked, splintered paint-man on the wall almost splits apart; he also almost flies. Such use of socially conditioned norms to suggest new possibilities is common to successful, socially critical artworks. Siskind only suggests the promise of happiness by showing the chaos of a fragmented society. Brecht's 'alienation effect' at once takes to an extreme our everyday lack of concern about injustice, and makes us all too aware of the institutionalized injustice all around us. Franz Kline's work shows the conflicting forces which threaten total destruction, yet he builds a complex equilibrium out of this conflict. Such art is not necessarily political in senses Ca), Cb), Cc) or Cd). It is politically progressive in so far as it uses socially conditioned norms to suggest new possibilities in art, thus making us more aware of the institutions which presently embody these norms and of the fact that these institutions are not eternal. We see that in social life, as in art, a new order can be made out of existing materials and the works suggest what this new order might be like. They are not simply Utopian, not pure projections of the desire for happiness, for the hope only emerges through portrayal of the existing social norms. In the situation sketched above, it is only through such 'realistic' focusing on contemporary social norms that artists can transcend these norms and achieve their artistic ~oals. Here, as Lukacs would argue, the artist has an aesthetic motivation to concentrate on present social life. Indeed this motivation towards social consciousness and involvement may lead artists towards art which directly refers to social and political issues political art of type Cc). In the above discussion I accept some of Lukacs' criteria of realism that art should refer to central features of contemporary social life and project radical hopes for the future. I differ from Lukacs in accepting a pluralism of forms of politically progressive art abstract painting, music, as well as more traditional novels may be politically progressive. Further the need for such art must be seen in the context of the whole process of artistic production, for the structure of the productive process may prevent the achievement of such art. Benjamin argued that there was an artistic motivation to transform the social relations of artistic production. Whether or not such a motivation exists depends on two aspects of the structure of the social relations: Ci) whether insightful politically progressive art can be made within them; Cii) whether the lack of a suitable audience reaction within these production relations gradually destroys the artist's ability to make such insightful art. In this case, the artistic production relations would cause the degeneration of artistic styles and the move from good art to bad art. r 14 ] In such circumstances an aesthetic motivation would exist to transform the existing social relations of artistic production to make political art of type Cd). There is no general answer to the question whether artists should concentrate primarily on transforming the artistic production relations or on showing central features of the social world, whether they should make a new theatre or new plays. The aesthetic considerations will vary with the social circumstances mentioned above, just as the political considerations on the probable benefits of either choice will vary with the strength of the working class movement and the state of the capitalist economy. Artists may have an aesthetic motivation to produce two sorts of political art. They may be motivated to make works which do not directly challenge existing social relations yet which use socially conditioned norms to suggest new social possibilities. On the other hand, they may be motivated to make works which transform the existing production relations and help remove art from its traditional function as an entertainment and legitimation for the upper classes. Either sort of political art can exist alone. The abstract expressionists, some of whom made political art of the first type, worked for a small audienceexpressionists, some of whom made political art of the first type, worked for a small audience and if anything increased the sense that. art is for an elite. Daguerre, the inventor of photography, provoked a radical change in the artistic production relations, yet the content of his own work is rather conventional. The best and most politically effective art I think of Brecht, Chaplin, Eisenstein, much jazz music combines both aspects. In the contemporary debate on politics and art one side champions Daguerre, the other the abstract expressionists. I have tried to show that this is a false dilemma. It is not a matter of choosing to concentrate on the process of artistic production alone, or on aesthetic meaning and value alone; on audience reaction or on formal qualities of the work; on actual political effectiveness or on eternal meaning; on working class culture or on high art. Rather an integrated analysis is necessary where the relationship between the processes of artistic production and consumption, on the one ha