Before we address the question contained in the assignment, we will have to get an insight into what the concept of art actually stands for, which in itself, represents a great challenge, simply because there is no uniformity in how social scientists define this concept.
Nevertheless, within the context of discussing art as a socio-political phenomenon, it is best described as an aesthetic indication of cultural and scientific progress’ continuity. In its turn, this explains why the objective value of artistic expressions cannot be thought of as a “thing in itself” – people’s inclination to indulge in artistic pursuits actually reflects their ability to build and maintain civilization. For example, without knowing anything about such countries as Italy and Equatorial Guinea, one can still get a very good idea as to what these countries represent, simply by the mean of looking at Michelangelo’s statues, on one hand, and on primitive African figurines, carved out of wood, on another.
Therefore, it is not simply a coincidence that the existence of totalitarian political regimes in the 20th century had not only resulted in the political power of art is significantly increased, but also in providing additional momentum to the pace of scientific progress. Apparently, a totalitarian form of political governing creates metaphysical preconditions for citizens to associate their existence with the concept of purposefulness. In its turn, this boosts up people’s sense of perceptional idealism; thus, increasing their willingness to participate in artistic pursuits and also making them more psychologically susceptible to the ideological meaning of government’s sponsored art.
Nowadays, it is being commonly assumed that the concepts of art and totalitarianism are diametrically opposite, while in fact, it is actually another way around – the very essence of art is totalitarian, simply because, during the course of the creative process artists strive for nothing less than having their works being referred to as such that represent an unsurpassed aesthetic value, while often denying even a remote possibility that the works of other artists might be equally valuable.
In her article “Art and Political Agendas”, Martica Sawin is making a very good point when she suggests it is conceptually fallacious to associate art with the concept of democracy alone: “It is utterly simplistic to assume that artistic independence goes hand-in-hand with democratic institutions while it is absent completely in totalitarian states” (Sawin, 1993, p. 94).
Today, only very ignorant people would deny the fact that ancient Roman and Greek ideals of physical beauty and intellectual excellence served as the foundation for Western aesthetics, throughout the history of Western civilization, due to these ideals’ objective value. In other words, during the course of millennia, Europeans subconsciously longed towards antique ideals of beauty, despite being spiritually oppressed by Christianity, which glorified the “destruction of flesh”.
However, it was namely Fascist and National-Socialist regimes that allowed citizens to realize such their artistic longings, by encouraging artists to popularise the aesthetic ideals of antiquity and Renaissance. In his article “Fascist Aesthetics and Society”, George L. Mosse states: “The aesthetic which stood at the center of this civic religion (Fascism) was the climax of a long development. The idea of beauty was central to this aesthetic, whether that of the human body or of the political liturgy.
The longing for a set standard of beauty was deeply ingrained in the European middle classes, and the definition of the beautiful as the ‘good, the true, and the holy’ was an important background to the fascist cult” (Mosse, 1996, p. 246).
Thus, we can say that it was actually the “totalitarian art”, from which both: Fascism and National-Socialism derived and not the other way around. In its turn, this explains why today’s students that specialize in art, are being encouraged to admire antique aesthetics, while being simultaneously taught to deny the artistic value of Arno Breker’s sculptures as such that glorify Nazism, despite the fact these sculptures emanate the original spirit of ancient Greek aesthetics.
The same can be said about Communist totalitarian art. When we look at artistic representations of “class struggle”, as such that define the essence of socio-political dynamics in a particular society, it will appear that these representations are being concerned with antique aesthetics as much as the Nazi art itself – “proletarians” have always been depicted as youthful, proportionally perfect and physically strong individuals.
In his book “Movies and Methods”, Bill Nichols states: “The taste for the monumental and for mass obeisance to physically impeccable hero is common to both Fascist and Communist art” (Nichols, 1976, p. 40). Apparently, both: Communist and Nazi ideologists were well aware of what corresponds to people’s aesthetic anxieties.
This is the reason why totalitarian regimes, associated with political ideologies of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, had made a point in heavily investing in art as the tool of propaganda – it is only when citizens are being united by the same aesthetically idealistic perception of surrounding reality that they can act as productive members of society, simply because such their perception inevitably prompts them to consider society’s well-being as deserving to be put above their personal interests.
Democratic / neo-Liberal governments, on the other hand, could not possibly be concerned about investing in art, as a socially unifying factor, because these governments pursue an entirely different agenda, as opposed to the agenda of totalitarian governments – an “atomization” of society down to its basic components, as it is only when citizens are being deprived of their sense of national belonging, that they will be more likely to “celebrate diversity” as their foremost priority.
This is the reason why realistic art, based on the principles of antique aesthetics is now being ostracised in Western countries as “outdated”, “unsophisticated” and “intolerant”; whereas, degenerative art is being praised to the sky as only the one that deserves admiration, which in its turn, results in such “masterpieces” as Malevich’s “Black Square” being sold for millions of dollars at auctions.
The fact that Liberal governments are now being solely preoccupied with the promotion of multiculturalism had drastically shifted these governments’ priorities. In societies where the practice of racial mixing has been officially legitimized, the utilization of art as the mean of strengthening government’s political authority is no longer possible, simply because people affected by such practice, tend to lose their sense of existential idealism, which in its turn, causes “ethnically unique” and intellectually marginalized white citizens to grow increasingly incapable of appreciating art.
Therefore, instead of investing in art, Liberal governments invest in entertainment. In its turn, this created a situation when the motto “bread and entertainment” now defines the existential mode of the majority of citizens in Western countries, just as it was the case in the Roman Empire, during the time of its decline.
It is not a secret that nowadays, the real art is being covered with the thick layer of dust in public museums, as we speak, and that many young people now have grown to refer to classical music as “music for old people” while being increasingly attracted to rap tunes and to drawing graffiti on the walls of public buildings as only the “artistic” pursuits worthy of their consideration. Moreover, the way in which Liberal governments encourage people to seek entertainment and to indulge in primitive consumerism, as the ultimate mean of diverting citizens’ attention from social and political issues that really do matter, points out the fact that these governments are being quiet as totalitarian as Nazi or Communist governments themselves.
In his book “Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art”, Esther Pasztory says: “In the twentieth century, with Nazism and Communism, these concepts cannot help but relate to the ideas of “totalitarian” and “democratic” governments. Problems arise as to what is actually totalitarian both in the present and projected back into the past. For example, in the minds of many Europeans, the “democratic” United States is really “totalitarian” as a result of soft commercial brainwashing” (Pasztory, 2005. p. 34).
However, Europeans would be much better off paying closer attention to their own governments – after all, American citizens’ freedom of speech is guaranteed by Constitution’s First Amendment, whereas citizens of the EU now enjoy even less freedom as it was the case under the totalitarian dictatorships of Fascism and National-Socialism. Nowadays, in such countries of EU as Germany, France, and Britain, people are being sentenced to lengthy terms in jail, simply because of having suggested that Jews were not only the ethnic group that had suffered during the course of WW2, with these countries’ governmental officials suggesting that there is nothing wrong with punishing citizens for their thoughts.
In his article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship”, Paul Belien quotes a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who had suggested that slowly but surely, the European Union transforms itself into an equivalent of Soviet Union: “The Soviet Union used to be a state-run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve of homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays.
Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. (Belien, 2006). In other words, many today’s formally democratic countries are nothing but left-wing ideological dictatorships, even though citizens of these countries often do not even realize it. Given the fact that the concept of art is quite inseparable from the concept of “evil” euro-centrism, it appears to be only the matter of time, before hawks of political correctness would try to ban classical European art in its entirety, as such that promotes “intolerance”, and to declare the “art of graffiti” as the only legitimate way for citizens to express their aesthetic leanings.
It is important to understand that In multicultural countries, run by neo-Liberal governments, there can be no art by definition, simply because multiculturalism implies the absence of any objective criteria for the concept of artistic finesse (cultural relativism) – whatever is being graphically shocking enough, gets to be automatically declared as “sophistically artful”, because spiritually corrupted citizens are incapable of distinguishing art from cheep entertainment.
For example, Gunter Von Hagen skins people’s corpses and exhibits them in his “Body Worlds” galleries. Predictably enough, Western “progressive” Medias refer to intellectual by-products of Hagen’s mental illness as “art”. German photographer Sebastian Kempa takes pictures of thousands of naked people (specifically old and ugly ones) in a single setting, while referring to such his practice as “naked art”, etc.
There is nothing new about people’s mental depravity being confused with art. In ancient Carthage, which was ruled by financial oligarchs and which praised itself on being multicultural society (striking similarity with today’s Western societies), the publically staged killings of slaves (earlier equivalent of decadent Rome’s gladiator fights) were considered to be an art.
This is exactly the reason why we now cannot discuss particularities of Carthage’s cultural and artistic legacy – such legacy is simply non-existent. We all know what had happened to Carthage in the end, as well as we know what had happened to Roman Empire, once it began following Cartage’s footsteps. Therefore, it does not represent much of a challenge to predict what will eventually happen to Western civilization, if promoters of existential decadence are not being removed from position of political power.
People’s tendency to operate with such vaguely defined categories as “totalitarianism” and “democracy”, while trying to expose the essence of art’s relation to politics, could not possibly provide them with a deeper insight on the subject matter. As we have suggested earlier, there are many good reason to consider neo-Liberal form of political governing as being more totalitarian, as compared with Nazism, Fascism and Russian Communism. It is not the politics that define art, but vice versa.
Apparently, it is absolutely natural for mentally and physically healthy people to seek a higher purpose for their existence, which in its turn explains such an immense popularity of Fascist, Nazi and Communist governments with the masses and also the fact that these governments have had placed a heavy emphasis on popularization of antique aesthetic ideals among the citizens. Therefore, instead of referring to the forms of political governing as “totalitarian” and “democratic”, we would be much better off referring to them as “aesthetically totalitarian” and “anti-aesthetically totalitarian”.
Bibliography
Belien, P. (2006). Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship. The Brussels Journal. Web.
Erjavec, A. & Grois, B. 2003. Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art under Late Socialism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Moore-Gilbert, B. J. 2002. The Arts in the 1970s: Cultural Closure?. London: Routledge.
Mosse, G. 1996. Fascist Aesthetics and Society: Some Considerations. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 245-252.
Naremore, J. 1991. Modernity and Mass Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Nichols, B. 1976. Movies and Methods. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Pasztory, E. 2005. Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sawin, M. 1993. Art and Political Agendas. Art Journal, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 94-99.
Tal, U. 2004. Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Third Reich: Selected Essays. London: Routledge.