Reaction Paper on

Karl Marx: Marxist Aesthetics &

Marxism and Critical Art History

Karl Marx must have stirred and had a bone rattling episode when the “Salvador

Mundi” was auctioned off by Christie’s in New York for $450.3M in November 2017.

Such “transaction” in the context of art was exactly what he was referring to when he

said that “art has lost its way due to capitalism.” Imagine an art piece sold at a price

greater than the GNP of at least 20 countries, not to mention that it is a painting of

Jesus Christ (“religion is the opiate of the mind”), and the painting has been in the

middle of a string of scandals.

Marxism – as a social, political and economic ideology – instills in strongest terms

the principle of collective ownership as a standard of equality, rapid increase in

production, and a rise of a large working class.

The sale of the “Salvador Mundi” is not in any way aligned with any of the

principles. For one, the private ownership of a piece of art valued at such

extraordinary amount is the exact opposite of collective ownership specially if it will

be kept out of public view. These art pieces, for Marx, is more appropriately

displayed in a state museum, or as a mural, for everyone’s enjoyment, inspiration

and appreciation.

In the Marxist view, I suppose as an effect of a social, political and economic

framework, art is therefore also an ideology. And as an ideology, it should

emphasize class as its primary character. And the class that Marxist/Socialist
ideology professes to uphold is the working class, the class that sweats and

produces the necessities that the society needs.

As the rise of the Marxist/Socialist movement is a result largely of the struggles

against the ruling class – capitalists, oligarchs, elite – the ART appreciated by the

working class and prescribed by the movement’s leadership cannot coincide with the

taste and standards of the existing social structure and the very class they were

revolting against.

The Marxist/Socialist dogma’s strength lies in labor and productivity. The BASE

of the ideology is therefore anchored on the factors of production – like capital,

goods, raw materials, commodities and tools. Art is part of the superstructure, that

part heavenly influenced by the economy and not directly related to production and

output. Yet, art as an ideology is recognized as something that maintains and

influences the base, a recognition that humanities have a role in shaping the entirety

of humankind. In this lies the commonality between ideologies. Be that Marxism,

Capitalism, or Communism, there is a realization that man should transcend the

material aspects of the economy as existence much have to do with the fine arts,

family, culture, religion, law, etc.

True art in Marxist terms should also be a revolution, transformative and

evocative. It should stir emotions and ideas. This is basically the same in the sense

of other thoughts – western, eastern or afro. But because of the diversity of

background and experiences, beauty takes differing forms and views.

 The difficult experiences of the working class would have contributed much to

the formation of the lenses of the Marxist view point. Recall that they struggled.

Recall that there was a time when their social classes were banned from engaging in

art. Recall that sitting for a portrait is in the domain of rich alone – time and resource

consuming and yet does not produce anything for the benefit of the common good.

These social classes would naturally be alienated and would learn to abhor the

symbols of excessive wealth that unfortunately the art of old ultimately symbolized.

But it is human to appreciate art as it is also human not to exhibit that you are

enjoying the symbols of the injustices you are struggling against. The Marxist art

ideology thus came up with their lenses in evaluating beauty via the aesthetic

experience.

I cannot argue against what they say. Art should be realistic. Art should be for

the appreciation of the multitude. Art should drive conscious altering. From these

we see the value of art, not on its price tag, although real art genius should be justly

rewarded, as well.

There is also truth that in a corrupt world, man gets alienated from himself and

became less capable of being human, incapable that they fail in evaluating beauty

via the aesthetic experience. This is the part where capitalism erodes the value of

art, when beauty is measured by the price tag it brings in.

What then are the lessons from these thoughts? The bottom line is art evokes

thoughts and feelings, whatever ideology we subscribe to. Art can be a strong force,
it can inspire people to move, even to be radical. But, to be on the same level of

appreciation art should be based on what is realistic and the aesthetic experience.

Putting a price on art may distract us in finding what is really beautiful. Basing

beauty on the experience of the multitude is a standard that both socialists and

democrats can agree on.

Hoping that Karl can laugh at Groucho’s jokes.