Society, Artists, and Communism
An Anti-Aesthetics Hit Piece
Morning Comrades.
I amuse myself occasionally, well, no, often actually, by getting worked up about shit that on the surface, don’t matter all that much. I woke up on Sunday to see a number of artists jump on the Harris bandwagon, most famously Shepard Fairey of Obey and it had me seething all day - or rather it still does. One can say and think of “his” work what one will, and I positively despise the entirety of the Fairey/Obey production for a plethora of reasons but as always, art and the appreciation thereof is a highly subjective reality and therefore so is its criticism.
What is genuinely important to think and talk about though is the role of art and artists in both the maintenance and the opposition to the dictatorship of the bourgeoise and capitalism in itself.
Of course this has been a subject for over a century and my silly brain woke me up this morning with an unshakable need to find and then translate a essay from 1921 by Wieland Herzfelde - brother to the infamous John Heartfield - entitled "Gesellschaft, Künstler und Kommunismus" ("Society, Artists, and Communism") that explores the relationship between society, artists, and the ideals of communism. It’s well over 20`000 words long and while I have translated the majority of it, I will outline it briefly in a second. If you are wondering why this person is important, briefly, his brother (Heartfield) and him essentially founded Dadaism, were the first communist and violent anti-nazi propagandists from the 1920s onwards and were on the Nazi’sMost Wanted List until the end of the war. For those that want more detail:
As to the translation of the essay that kickstarts todays dispatch, a summary of it would be this:
In the present age, the question of the relationship between the artist and society, as well as the social purpose of art, is being posed with renewed urgency. The artist, who once lived in splendid isolation, now finds himself confronted with the demands of the collective. The issue is no longer whether art should serve society, but how it should do so.
Historically, artists have often been perceived as isolated figures, removed from the everyday concerns of society. However, this perception is increasingly untenable. In a society undergoing profound social changes, the artist cannot remain indifferent to the struggles and aspirations of the masses. Art is no longer a luxury for the few; it must become a tool for the many.
Communism, as a social and political movement, seeks to create a classless society in which the means of production are owned collectively. Within this framework, the role of the artist must also be redefined. The artist should no longer create for an elite audience but should instead contribute to the cultural and intellectual development of the working class. The artist’s task is to reflect the realities of life under capitalism and to inspire the masses to struggle for a better world.
The artist has a responsibility to use their talents for the benefit of society. This does not mean that art should be reduced to mere propaganda. Rather, art should strive to depict the truth about society in all its complexity. The artist should be a witness to the times, exposing the contradictions of the capitalist system and pointing the way toward a socialist future
In the landscape of contemporary art, figures like Shepard Fairey and other artists who adopt revolutionary aesthetics have risen to prominence, often celebrated for their bold and politically charged works. At first glance, these artists seem to embody the spirit of resistance against the established order, using their platforms to challenge the status quo and amplify voices of dissent. However, these artists serve a more insidious role within the framework of capitalist society. By appropriating and commodifying revolutionary imagery, they act as conduits for the bourgeoisie, diffusing and neutralizing the very revolutionary potential their art ostensibly supports.
Revolutionary Aesthetics as Commodification
One of the central critiques of contemporary revolutionary art is the process of commodification. As described by thinkers like Theodor Adorno and Guy Debord, capitalism has a remarkable ability to absorb and neutralize dissent by turning revolutionary symbols into marketable products. Shepard Fairey’s iconic "Hope" poster of Barack Obama, and now the “Forward” piece on Harris is emblematic of this process. While the image conveyed a message of change and mobilized a sense of collective political action, entirely obfuscated the material reality of their policies and politics.
Adorno's concept of the "culture industry" is particularly relevant here. He argues that capitalist society produces cultural goods in much the same way it produces material goods: for profit and mass consumption. In this context, the revolutionary aesthetic becomes another commodity, stripped of its radical content and repurposed to fit within the existing power structures. What was once a potential symbol of resistance is now a profitable product, its meaning sanitized and its power to inspire real change diminished.
The Process of Diffusion
The process by which revolutionary aesthetics are diffused within bourgeois society can be understood through Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. Gramsci posited that the ruling class maintains control not just through political and economic means, but also through cultural dominance, where the values and norms of the bourgeoisie are presented as the natural, universal standards. In this context, the incorporation of revolutionary imagery into mainstream culture serves to co-opt and neutralize the threat posed by these images.
Artists like Fairey, who do not even believe in the radical potential of their work, wittingly contribute to this process. By participating in the capitalist art market, their work becomes a part of the cultural hegemony that supports bourgeois interests. The revolutionary content of their art is thus defused, rendered safe for consumption by the masses without posing a real threat to the capitalist system.
Debord’s notion of the "Society of the Spectacle" further illuminates this phenomenon. In a society where social relations are mediated by images, the spectacle serves as a tool of distraction, a way to keep the masses pacified and disengaged from the realities of their exploitation. Revolutionary art, when commodified and disseminated as part of the spectacle, becomes a tool of diversion rather than a catalyst for change. It provides an illusion of resistance that satisfies the desire for rebellion without challenging the underlying structures of power.
The Role of the Artist in Bourgeois Society
Herbert Marcuse argued that in a capitalist society, even the most radical art can be absorbed and rendered harmless by the dominant culture. This is because the artist, like any other worker, is subject to the pressures of the market. To survive, they must produce work that sells, which often means conforming to the tastes and demands of the bourgeoisie.
Moreover, the success of revolutionary artists within the capitalist system often serves to legitimize the system itself. By allowing a certain level of dissent to be expressed, the bourgeoisie can present themselves as tolerant and progressive, thus diffusing the revolutionary potential of the art. This phenomenon, described by Marcuse as "repressive tolerance," illustrates how the capitalist system can accommodate and neutralize dissent, ensuring that it never reaches a point where it could threaten the existing power structures.
The social conditions for most artists are initially the same. They have nothing but the hope of fame, wealth and a colourful life. If financial support is provided by parents, the "artist's life" usually only comes about, and work only when the support is withdrawn. Thus the artist, like everyone else who works to survive, would be an object of exploitation by capital. In fact, he is. The exploitation of the artist, however, is not the same as that of the worker, firstly because, as a creator, they are too closely connected to the product of their work to be left uninformed about the profits from it, but above all because the art business operates with such incredible risk that the entrepreneur is not willing or able to bear it alone.. As a result, the artist participates in the speculation and the risk of the art dealer and so they themselve becomes a bourgeois - a petty bourgeois who works, but not for wages, not for life, but for profit and, as soon as possible, as they please. This is where their political role comes in. They are apolitical at best, when they have to show their colours and is anti-worker. This is also ensured by their audience, who pamper and flatter them like prostitutes. Certain anarchistic tendencies are socially conditioned by their solo work, which undermines the sense of community, and also by the pressure of the bourgeoisie, whose whims they are dependent on, especially at the beginning of their career, like a farmer on the weather, which they hate and which they serve at the same time. The atmosphere of individual deification with which they are surrounded at first by their own ambition and later by the environment, stifles any sense of solidarity and class consciousness.
All this is just to say, be aware of the manipulation at hand. My own personal dislike of this work is relatively irrelevant in a larger context, what is important is understanding what it does and what it stands for and no matter what any of us think of it aesthetically, its purpose of existence and prodcuction is very much aimed against us.
As always, thank you for your time and interest.
We serve the revolution.
Yours,
V.