The Specificity of the Aesthetic, Volume 1

821 Pages·2023·3.148 MB·English

by  György Lukács, Erik Bachman (trans.)

TheSpecificityoftheAesthetic
Historical Materialism
Book Series
EditorialBoard
LorenBalhorn(Berlin)
DavidBroder(Rome)
SebastianBudgen(Paris)
SteveEdwards(London)
JuanGrigera(London)
MarcelvanderLinden(Amsterdam)
PeterThomas(London)
GavinWalker(Montréal)
volume 76
Lukács Library
Editedby
ErikM.Bachman
TyrusMiller
volume 2
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/ll

TheLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataisavailableonlineathttps://catalog.loc.gov
lcrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2022062015
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill‑typeface.
issn1570-1522
isbn9789004526068(hardback)
isbn9789004526075(e-book)
Copyright2023byEstateofGyörgyLukács.CopyrighttotheEditor’sIntroductionErikM.Bachmann.
PublishedbyKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillNijhoff,BrillHotei,BrillSchöningh,BrillFink,
Brillmentis,Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,Böhlau,V&RunipressandWageningenAcademic.
KoninklijkeBrillnvreservestherighttoprotectthispublicationagainstunauthorizeduse.Requestsfor
re-useand/ortranslationsmustbeaddressedtoKoninklijkeBrillnvviabrill.comorcopyright.com.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents
Editor’sIntroduction:ArtinItsEigenart vii
ErikM.Bachman
Acknowledgements xliii
NoteontheTranslation xliv
TheSpecificityof theAesthetic
Preface 5
1 IssuesofReflectioninEverydayLife 22
2 TheDisanthropomorphisationofReflectioninScience 116
3 PreliminaryIssuesoftheDisentanglementofArtfromEverydayLife
asaMatterofPrinciple 174
4 TheAbstractFormsoftheAestheticReflectionofReality 214
5 IssuesofMimesisi:TheComingintoBeingofAesthetic
Reflection 302
6 IssuesofMimesisii:ThePathtotheWorldednessofArt 381
7 IssuesofMimesisiii:ThePathoftheSubjecttoAesthetic
Reflection 462
8 IssuesofMimesisiv:TheWorldPropertoWorksofArt 538
9 IssuesofMimesisv:TheDefetishisingMissionofArt 608
10 IssuesofMimesisvi:UniversalFeaturesoftheSubject-Object
RelationshipinAesthetics 680
References 747
Index 764

editor’s introduction
Art in Its Eigenart
ErikM.Bachman
For those apt to take note of such a thing, the publication here of the first
English-language translation of the first volume of Georg Lukács’s The Spe-
cificityoftheAesthetic(DieEigenartdesÄsthetischen,published1963)maycall
forth a certain bemusement and scepticism.1 Bemusement because the very
endeavourundertakeninTheSpecificityoftheAestheticdoesnotappearatfirst
glancetobeofits–muchlessour–time.Afterall,Lukács’sambitioninthese
twovolumesistoofferasystematicandconsistentaccountofMarxistaesthet-
icsthatrelatesart,itscreation,anditsreceptiontoallothersignificantareasof
humanlife(especiallytoscienceandtheeveryday)aswellastothebehaviours
thathavepromotedorimpededthegenesisofartassuchthroughoutthehis-
toryofthehumanraceindifferentpartsoftheworld.Thisentailsaddressing
manyareasthatotherwisemightseemextraneoustoaesthetics.Forinstance,
Lukácselaboratesatlengththeprinciplesbywhichandtheanthropological
conditionsunderwhichartandsciencehaverespectivelydetachedthemselves
fromeverydaylife,labour,magic,andreligionasmodallydifferentiatedwaysof
reflectingasharedrealityoverthecourseofmillennia(Chapters1,2,3,and5).
ThefirstvolumeofTheSpecificityoftheAestheticdoes,however,devoteagreat
dealofattentiontomorefamiliaraesthetictopics,suchasthelong-drawn-out
development of some notable abstract components of form (rhythm, sym-
metry,proportion,ornamentation)thathavelongsincebeenincorporatedinto
worksandperformancesnowlegibletousasart(Chapter4).Lukácsdevelops
theimplicitclaimthatmimesisisnotmerelyreceptivebehaviourbutratheran
activeformofappropriatingrealitythatextendstoallhigherorganisedforms
oflife,includingbutnotlimitedtoart(Chapters5,6,and7).Furthermore,he
itemises and expansively describes the mimetic qualities of art objects that
inform,andareshapedby,theproperlyaestheticcomportmentstobeadop-
tedbycreatorsandreceiversalike(Chapters5through10).2
1 Theinsights,reservations,criticisms,andquestionsofTyrusMiller,H.MarshallLeicester,Jr.,
NicholasGaskill,andJamesBachmanregardingearlierdraftshavebeenimmenselyhelpful
tomeinpreparingthisintroduction.
2 FormoreonmimesisasactivityandreceptivityinLukács,seeGöcht2012,pp.80–1.Darío
Villanuevahashelpfullypointedoutthat,inarticulatingatheoryofmimesisthatextends
©
viii bachman
In this view the aesthetic sphere is a hard-won zone of highly mediated
humanactivitythatischaracterisedbypluralismintermsofthegenres,works,
andformsof artitencompasses,thoughtheseareallneverthelessultimately
linked together by a shared defetishising mission that we as their users and
makers can fail to live up to (Chapters 8 and 9). The cost of such a failure
is that in the end we do not see the art object or performance for what it
trulyisnordoweactupontheopportunityitprovidesforustoreshapeour
ownsubjectivitiesbymeansofthevarietyofcatharsis-likeexperiencescalled
forthbysuchobjectsandperformances(Chapter10).Lukácsundertakesallof
thiswhilemoreoverventuringagrandunifiedtheoryofsocialactionwhereby
theautonomousformsof disanthropomorphisingreflection(science)andof
anthropomorphisingreflection(art)eachintheirownwayhelptocultivatea
deeperengagementwiththevitaactivaofagrouporpeopleintheireveryday
lives.3Whereasthedisanthropomorphisationperformedbyscienceleadstoan
evergreaterconsciousawarenessofhumanactivityandthesurroundingworld
thatexistsbothinrelationtoandindependentof thatactivity,theanthropo-
morphisationcommencedbyartissaidtoeventuateinnothinglessthanthe
self-consciousnessofthehumanraceassuch(Chapters2,5,and7).Thismeans
that,whenusedbycreatorandreceiveralikeinthewayssetforthinthetwo
volumesofTheSpecificityoftheAesthetic,artallowsustomeaningfullyexper-
iencetheidentityof theindividualwiththehuman(of thesingularwiththe
universal)and–justasimportantly–tocontest,transform,andprogressively
expandtheverydefinitionofwhatitistobehumanbymeansofthenewori-
entationstowardsactiondisclosedbysuchanexperience(Chapter8).
Onitsface,Lukács’sambitiontosynthesisethesedisparateaspectsandhis-
toriesintoacoherent,unitarywholewouldthusseemtobemoreof apiece
withnineteenth-centuryGermanmonolithslikeHegel’sLecturesonAesthetics
(delivered 1818–1829, published 1835) or FriedrichTheodorVischer’s Aesthet-
ics, orThe Science of the Beautiful (Ästhetik oderWissenschaft des Schönen,
published1846–1857)thanitiswiththosetwentieth-centuryworksonartand
aestheticsthatremaintouchstonesinmuchEnglish-languagescholarship.To
besure,itsscopeandsystematicityarenotoutofstepwiththemajoraesthetic
worksoftwentieth-centuryanalyticphilosophy–SusanneLanger’sFeelingand
Form: A Theory of Art Developed from Philosophy in a New Key (1953), Ernst
Gombrich’s Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Represent-
ation(1960),NelsonGoodman’sLanguagesof Art:AnApproachtoaTheoryof
beyondartintootherpartsoflife,LukácsdrawsonPlatoasmuchashedoesonAristotle.See
Villanueva1997,pp.26–7.
3 FormoreonthevitaactivaandLukács,seeMiller2013,pp.xvi–xviiandxx.
art in its eigenart ix
Symbols(1968),RichardWollheim’sArtandItsObjects(1968)–butitsreliance
ondialecticalmaterialismtodefinethatscopeandtorealisethatsystemati-
citycertainlysetsitapart.Thecontrastisevenmorestrikingwhenthemajor
aesthetictheoriesoftwentieth-centurycontinentalphilosophyandAmerican
pragmatismareconsidered.NexttotheesotericessaysofMartinHeideggeron
artandpoetry,thedown-to-earthre-positingofaestheticsintermsofeveryday
experiencesinJohnDewey’sArtasExperience(1934),orthepricklyparatactic
shardsofTheodorAdorno’s AestheticTheory(1970),TheSpecificityof theAes-
theticlookslikeamoulderingVictoriantriple-decker:aloose,baggymonster
redolentoffoundlings,hansomcabs,poorhouses,andunlikelyturnsofevent.
Moreover, when one considers the specific claims and theories that are
relieduponthemostinTheSpecificityof theAesthetic,anynumberof famil-
iarquestionsarise.Forinstance,whatarewetodowithLukács’sexpectation
thatworksof artdoindeedconstituteorganicwholes?Isn’titaltogetherout
of stepwiththemethodsof collageandmontagefruitfullyexploredbymany
of thehistoricalavant-gardesandverymuchstillwithusintheageof digital
samplingandpiracy?4Likewise,didn’tthehistoricalavant-gardesaimtodes-
troy the autonomy of art (that is to say, such things as organic totalities and
worksofartassuch)andtotherebyreintegrateartintolifeitself?5Ortotrans-
formtheverynatureof aestheticjudgementfromacontemplationof beauty
intoaquestionofwhatcountsasartinthefirstplace?6Whatarewetodowith
atheoryofthecreationandreceptionofartthatdoesnotevenconsidersuch
waysof makingartexceptasexamplesthatarebestnotfollowed?Moreover,
hasn’ttheconceptionofrealismatthefoundationofTheSpecificityoftheAes-
theticbeenrepeatedlydiscredited?Intermsoftheory,didn’tRomanJakobson
andRolandBarthesconvincinglyshowrealismtobemoreamatteroflinguistic
conventionsthanofthefaithfulreflectionofreality?7Intermsofpractice,what
doesthepartisan,butnonethelessapproximatelyaccurate,reflectionofreality
ascribedbyLukácstoartworthyofthenamehavetodowiththecrisisofrep-
resentationinfluentiallyregistered,expressed,andworkedthroughbyartists
aroundtheworldoverthepastcentury?8Simplyput,whatof valuecanThe
SpecificityoftheAesthetictellusaboutartmadeaftermodernism?
4 See,forinstance,Lethem2012.
5 Bürger1984.
6 deDuve1998.
7 Jakobson1987;Barthes1986.
8 Thescholarshiponmodernism’srelationtoacrisisofrepresentationistoovasttoadequately
accountforinasinglefootnote.Iadducemerelythreenotableinstancesofitthatincreas-
inglyshiftthelocationofthiscrisisfromimperialnation-statestothecolonies:Benjamin
2006;Jameson2007;andHanscom2013.
x bachman
Countlessmorequestionsinthisveincouldberaised,buttheywouldjust
morefinelyindividuatethevarietiesofscepticismthatarelikelytoaccompany
perplexity.Foronething,Lukács’svisionofart’sprogressiveroleinthehistory
andfutureof thehumanracebespeaksabelief inthetwomaster-narratives
(oftheemancipationofmankindandthespeculativeunityofallknowledge)
that were famously said to have become obsolete in the period of postmod-
ernism.9 On every page, the postmodernist’s incredulity will thus clash with
whatsheperceivestobeLukács’snaïvefaithinliberation,totality,andnarrative
itself.Moreover,ifanAnglophonereader’sframeofreferenceisnotpostmod-
ernism but Marxist literary and cultural criticism, thenThe Specificity of the
Aestheticwillverylikelybesubjecttothesamesortsofdismissivejudgements
thathavetendedtoclingtomostofLukács’spost-1930swritingsonart:though
certainlyestimableinmanyrespects,itwillnonethelessbeseentohaveseri-
ousblindspotsrequiringaBrechtoraBenjaminoranAdornotosupplement
andredress.10Emblematicof sucharesponseremainsTerryEagleton’sblunt
assessmentofLukácsianaesthetics:
ItbelongstoLukács’scritiqueofbothStalinismandleftistavant-gardism
to invoke the wealth of the bourgeois humanist legacy, overvaluing the
undoubtedcontinuitybetweenthatheritageandasocialistfuture;and
theRomanticrootsofhisownbrandofMarxismleadhimoftenenough
to ignore the more progressive dimensions of capitalism, including the
needforanaestheticswhichhaslearntfromthecommodityformrather
than lapsed back into some nostalgic totality before it ever was.To say
this is not to deny the admirable force and fertility of the Lukácsian
theory of realism, which represents an invaluable contribution to the
canonofMarxistcriticism,andwhichamodernistMarxismhasunjustly
demeaned; but Lukacs’s failure to take Marx’s point that history pro-
gressesbyitsbadsideneverthelessconstitutesaseriouslimitationtohis
thought.11
Toobeholdentothehumanismof thepastandnotdialecticalenoughtosee
thattheonlywayforwardisthroughtheevilsofcapitalism–and,correlatively,
through the unsightly forms given to these evils in modernist, avant-garde,
and postmodernist works of art – Lukács merely repeats the mistakes made
by almost all other major contributors to the discourse of aesthetics since
9 Lyotard1984.
10 Cf.thekeydocumentsoftherealism-modernismdebatecollectedinBlochetal.1980.
11 Eagleton1990,p.325.