Academic Sessions: Liverpool 2002
Like a Bat Out of Hell? Marxist Art History in the 21st Century
Convenors:
Jonathan Harris, School of Architecture, University of Liverpool, Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 3BX, jharris1@liv.ac.uk
Christopher Riding, Department of Visual Arts, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, cjriding@keele.ac.uk
This session will investigate the present state of, and future prospects for, Marxist art history. If Foucault once remarked that \'Marx out of the 19th century is like a fish out of water\', then maybe the same could, and should, be said about Marxist art history in relation to the 20th. What agreement exists now about the definition, and purpose, of \'Marxist art history\'? What is \'historical-materialism\' supposed to be now?
Updating Arnold Hauser\'s Marxist Account of Romanesque Art
O. K. Werckmeister (independent scholar, Germany)
Writing the pre-modern part of a new Marxist art history of Europe, I am obliged to take Arnold Hauser\'s The Social History of Art of 1951 as a reference point. In this presentation, I will compare his and my treatment of Romanesque art in order to ascertain how the Marxist tradition can inform art-historical synthesis. Hauser has characterised Romanesque architecture as an enforcement vehicle for class oppression by means of committing inordinate amounts of surplus value to art production as a religious sacrifice. I characterise it as a part of the production process and its dynamic expansion as an integral vehicle of changing social and political relations. I stress two aspects of Romanesque art which Hauser disregarded: (1) its drive at capturing the Roman ideal of monumental art in urban settings, linked to geo-political schemes of economic and social development; (2) its liturgical and aesthetic function as a disciplining tool of religious acculturation in addition to secular law. Since German emperors as well as Anglo-Norman and Spanish kings embraced both aspects in their support of big-time Romanesque buildings, they relate to the process of state formation which lay beyond Hauser\'s attention to class and ideology.
Modell Deutschland: German Public Art and Architecture
Deborah Ascher Barnstone (Washington State University, USA)
By 1987, the year Gunter Behnisch\'s design for the Bundeshaus was ratified by the German parliament, Germany had emerged as a world economic power and model of successful parliamentary and social democracy, with strong liberal institutions. German politicians referred to the situation from the late 1970s onwards as the era of \'stability\' and \'Model Germany\'. Although the notion of the Federal Republic as a provisional entity remained enshrined in the constitution, in the minds of many West Germans, the division of Germany was permanent at least for the foreseeable future. The new Bundeshaus design was approved because the parliament desperately needed modern quarters, and because no one anticipated imminent reunification. Then, in 1989, the East German government suddenly eased restrictions on movement from the east to the west, the wall was razed, and Germany began the process of reunification. In 1993, the Bundestag voted to move the capital from Bonn to Berlin, from the barely completed modern Bundeshaus, to the historic Reichstag. This decision posited a different image of Germany in the postwar era - a strong reunited Germany, confronting and living with its past as well as celebrating its stability. Where the Federal Republic of Germany was clearly one part of two, post-reunification Germany has had to reconcile the two into one. The architecture and artwork of both the Reichstag and the Bundeshaus were located in the political climate. Understood as the \'representation of the democratic state\', the architecture and artwork for the two projects depict the subtle differences in the political identity of Germany before and after reunification.
Can Art or Architecture Survive Urban Regeneration?
David Dunster (University of Liverpool, England)
The recent flowering of Urban Regeneration policies across the Western world raises more questions than answers. What drives this apparent consensus; what equipment or processes are brought into play; and are resources available to achieve regeneration? To these questions I would like to add: what is being expected of the arts and architecture? Is it a blank chequebook or an empty noose? The techniques of axial planning and monumental sculpture employed in earlier centuries underlined state power, but there was a city to exercise power over. If a view of the nature of cities is emerging its buzzwords appear to be \'branding\', \'best practice\' and \'signature work\' locating 21st century cities within the tourist industry, sub-branch culture. The questions will be asked in this context.
William Morris, Primitive Communism and a Dream of John Ball
Stephen Eisenman (Northwestern University, USA)
William Morris had a dialectical understanding of history; this means that he believed that artists, writers and revolutionaries with a progressive vision of the future could profitably gain inspiration from a critical interrogation of the past. The idea of this was not to revive the past - that was obviously an impossibility - but to understand the peculiar nexus of community power and individual autonomy that made possible a former balance between nature and society. Only by fully understanding the past - and by negating the present system of unfettered accumulation - could a new balance be established. The theoretical bases for this critical project were many - Rousseau, Ruskin, Engels and Marx. Less well-known, but equally important is the work of the American evolutionary ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan, whose works posit the existence of a distinct phase of society called \'primitive communist\'. This concept was crucial to Morris in his own ethnohistorical writings, his utopian fiction, and in much of his design work. A close look at a handful of works by Morris and his friend Burne-Jones, including the text and illustration of The Dream of John Ball, will expose the rudiments of this late 19th century dialectical and primitive consciousness.
The Subject of Marxism?
Gen Doy (DeMontfort University, England)
In this paper I want to look at possible ways of approaching a Marxist analysis of the self/subject, and how useful this might be for art historians. It\'s commonplace to read dismissals of the Cartesian/Enlightenment subject as autonomous and reactionary, whereas the postmodern de-centered and fragmented subject is considered to be open to more radical development by "marginalised" subjects such as Black people, women, gays and lesbians. I want to question this conclusion, since I feel that this is an undialectical view of Cartesian and Enlightenment notions of the self/subject, and it is also ahistorical. In this paper I will argue for the importance of a discussion of Descartes\' comments on subjectivity in their social and historical context, and speculate on their relevance to representations of the self in mid-seventeenth-century French art. I want then to go on to suggest ways in which postmodern theories of the self can be countered by alternatives based on a Marxist approach which, among other things, considers work, and not play (of discourse, language etc) as important for the embodiment and construction of subjectivity. Finally, I will try to suggest reasons for the persistence of so-called "modernist" notions of the self and self-expression in art eg. In contemporary representations of the self in the work of Black British artists, and in the work of Tracey Emin. These co-exist in dialectical relation with the drive to commodify and market the self in contemporary capitalism, both in the artworld and in the world of consumer objects.
Performativity Theory and Visual Culture - a Marxist Critique
Andrew Kennedy (Kingston University and Buckingham University, England)
This paper investigates whether there is a basis for a Marxist critique of performative theories of the self, particularly in relation to the theory and history of visual culture. In Judith Butler\'s work, in particular, performativity theory is considered to offer a radical critique of the powerful, patriarchal subject. My argument is that while such an approach can offer insights into the relationship between subjectivity and social/discurvise structures, performativity theory ultimately legitimises acquiescence to capitalist structures of power by positing an individual who is little more than the function of a set of power relations in a given situation. Such an individual would have few grounds in reality to resist such power, partly because s/he would possess no \'deeper\', continuous self to be injured by it. Any \'resistance\' that s/he might offer tends to be conceived by Butlerites in terms of play - testing out different roles in order to establish their fictiveness and to assert some sort of agency - a kind of decentred individualism. In contrast, the Marxist theory of alienation, at least in the work of the younger Marx, seems to depend upon some notion of a real, oppressed \'deeper self\' that may be fragmented but is not simply categorisable as \'psychic excess\'. Moreover, it is arguable that a resistant collective subject, while not completely excluded by performativity theory, is inconceivable without some grounding in oppressed and (potentially) resistant individual subjectivities. I will, therefore, consider whether the related Marxist concepts of alienation and reification have any critical purchase upon performativity theory, illustrating my points by reference to one or two case studies in visual culture.
Jonathan Harris, School of Architecture, University of Liverpool, Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 3BX, jharris1@liv.ac.uk
Christopher Riding, Department of Visual Arts, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, cjriding@keele.ac.uk
This session will investigate the present state of, and future prospects for, Marxist art history. If Foucault once remarked that \'Marx out of the 19th century is like a fish out of water\', then maybe the same could, and should, be said about Marxist art history in relation to the 20th. What agreement exists now about the definition, and purpose, of \'Marxist art history\'? What is \'historical-materialism\' supposed to be now?
Updating Arnold Hauser\'s Marxist Account of Romanesque Art
O. K. Werckmeister (independent scholar, Germany)
Writing the pre-modern part of a new Marxist art history of Europe, I am obliged to take Arnold Hauser\'s The Social History of Art of 1951 as a reference point. In this presentation, I will compare his and my treatment of Romanesque art in order to ascertain how the Marxist tradition can inform art-historical synthesis. Hauser has characterised Romanesque architecture as an enforcement vehicle for class oppression by means of committing inordinate amounts of surplus value to art production as a religious sacrifice. I characterise it as a part of the production process and its dynamic expansion as an integral vehicle of changing social and political relations. I stress two aspects of Romanesque art which Hauser disregarded: (1) its drive at capturing the Roman ideal of monumental art in urban settings, linked to geo-political schemes of economic and social development; (2) its liturgical and aesthetic function as a disciplining tool of religious acculturation in addition to secular law. Since German emperors as well as Anglo-Norman and Spanish kings embraced both aspects in their support of big-time Romanesque buildings, they relate to the process of state formation which lay beyond Hauser\'s attention to class and ideology.
Modell Deutschland: German Public Art and Architecture
Deborah Ascher Barnstone (Washington State University, USA)
By 1987, the year Gunter Behnisch\'s design for the Bundeshaus was ratified by the German parliament, Germany had emerged as a world economic power and model of successful parliamentary and social democracy, with strong liberal institutions. German politicians referred to the situation from the late 1970s onwards as the era of \'stability\' and \'Model Germany\'. Although the notion of the Federal Republic as a provisional entity remained enshrined in the constitution, in the minds of many West Germans, the division of Germany was permanent at least for the foreseeable future. The new Bundeshaus design was approved because the parliament desperately needed modern quarters, and because no one anticipated imminent reunification. Then, in 1989, the East German government suddenly eased restrictions on movement from the east to the west, the wall was razed, and Germany began the process of reunification. In 1993, the Bundestag voted to move the capital from Bonn to Berlin, from the barely completed modern Bundeshaus, to the historic Reichstag. This decision posited a different image of Germany in the postwar era - a strong reunited Germany, confronting and living with its past as well as celebrating its stability. Where the Federal Republic of Germany was clearly one part of two, post-reunification Germany has had to reconcile the two into one. The architecture and artwork of both the Reichstag and the Bundeshaus were located in the political climate. Understood as the \'representation of the democratic state\', the architecture and artwork for the two projects depict the subtle differences in the political identity of Germany before and after reunification.
Can Art or Architecture Survive Urban Regeneration?
David Dunster (University of Liverpool, England)
The recent flowering of Urban Regeneration policies across the Western world raises more questions than answers. What drives this apparent consensus; what equipment or processes are brought into play; and are resources available to achieve regeneration? To these questions I would like to add: what is being expected of the arts and architecture? Is it a blank chequebook or an empty noose? The techniques of axial planning and monumental sculpture employed in earlier centuries underlined state power, but there was a city to exercise power over. If a view of the nature of cities is emerging its buzzwords appear to be \'branding\', \'best practice\' and \'signature work\' locating 21st century cities within the tourist industry, sub-branch culture. The questions will be asked in this context.
William Morris, Primitive Communism and a Dream of John Ball
Stephen Eisenman (Northwestern University, USA)
William Morris had a dialectical understanding of history; this means that he believed that artists, writers and revolutionaries with a progressive vision of the future could profitably gain inspiration from a critical interrogation of the past. The idea of this was not to revive the past - that was obviously an impossibility - but to understand the peculiar nexus of community power and individual autonomy that made possible a former balance between nature and society. Only by fully understanding the past - and by negating the present system of unfettered accumulation - could a new balance be established. The theoretical bases for this critical project were many - Rousseau, Ruskin, Engels and Marx. Less well-known, but equally important is the work of the American evolutionary ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan, whose works posit the existence of a distinct phase of society called \'primitive communist\'. This concept was crucial to Morris in his own ethnohistorical writings, his utopian fiction, and in much of his design work. A close look at a handful of works by Morris and his friend Burne-Jones, including the text and illustration of The Dream of John Ball, will expose the rudiments of this late 19th century dialectical and primitive consciousness.
The Subject of Marxism?
Gen Doy (DeMontfort University, England)
In this paper I want to look at possible ways of approaching a Marxist analysis of the self/subject, and how useful this might be for art historians. It\'s commonplace to read dismissals of the Cartesian/Enlightenment subject as autonomous and reactionary, whereas the postmodern de-centered and fragmented subject is considered to be open to more radical development by "marginalised" subjects such as Black people, women, gays and lesbians. I want to question this conclusion, since I feel that this is an undialectical view of Cartesian and Enlightenment notions of the self/subject, and it is also ahistorical. In this paper I will argue for the importance of a discussion of Descartes\' comments on subjectivity in their social and historical context, and speculate on their relevance to representations of the self in mid-seventeenth-century French art. I want then to go on to suggest ways in which postmodern theories of the self can be countered by alternatives based on a Marxist approach which, among other things, considers work, and not play (of discourse, language etc) as important for the embodiment and construction of subjectivity. Finally, I will try to suggest reasons for the persistence of so-called "modernist" notions of the self and self-expression in art eg. In contemporary representations of the self in the work of Black British artists, and in the work of Tracey Emin. These co-exist in dialectical relation with the drive to commodify and market the self in contemporary capitalism, both in the artworld and in the world of consumer objects.
Performativity Theory and Visual Culture - a Marxist Critique
Andrew Kennedy (Kingston University and Buckingham University, England)
This paper investigates whether there is a basis for a Marxist critique of performative theories of the self, particularly in relation to the theory and history of visual culture. In Judith Butler\'s work, in particular, performativity theory is considered to offer a radical critique of the powerful, patriarchal subject. My argument is that while such an approach can offer insights into the relationship between subjectivity and social/discurvise structures, performativity theory ultimately legitimises acquiescence to capitalist structures of power by positing an individual who is little more than the function of a set of power relations in a given situation. Such an individual would have few grounds in reality to resist such power, partly because s/he would possess no \'deeper\', continuous self to be injured by it. Any \'resistance\' that s/he might offer tends to be conceived by Butlerites in terms of play - testing out different roles in order to establish their fictiveness and to assert some sort of agency - a kind of decentred individualism. In contrast, the Marxist theory of alienation, at least in the work of the younger Marx, seems to depend upon some notion of a real, oppressed \'deeper self\' that may be fragmented but is not simply categorisable as \'psychic excess\'. Moreover, it is arguable that a resistant collective subject, while not completely excluded by performativity theory, is inconceivable without some grounding in oppressed and (potentially) resistant individual subjectivities. I will, therefore, consider whether the related Marxist concepts of alienation and reification have any critical purchase upon performativity theory, illustrating my points by reference to one or two case studies in visual culture.