In Ernst Fischer’s writings, one will find extraordinarily powerful discussions about art’s function, form and content. In one sense, Fischer’s The Necessity of Art: A Marxist Approach is more than just a departure from Stalinism. The book is a triumphant art criticism of the 1950s that heightened modern art criticism through the lens of Marxist esthetics. The Necessity of Art argued a new set of central themes such as alienation and art under capitalism for Marxism to redefine itself as serious subject matter in the discourse of art history. Fischer’s wonderful observations of social conditions in connection with art, pushed forward art as an enduring necessity of the human condition. The Necessity of Art demonstrates Fischer’s critical view of art as an endless unfoldment in mankind which brings about unity through Marxist speculation of the function of art, alienation and the present state of art.
Fischer’s guide to the social interpretation of art begins with artists reintroducing social questions and problems into their creative works. Fischer considered the function of art’s relationship to psychology, philosophy, and every area of thought is to question its legitimacy in the extent to which it is able to deal with the subject matter at hand; that is the question of how to interpret art’s nature of dependence on social conditions.
Fischer recognizes that the function of art changes in juxtaposition with changes in the social order. According to his own claim, the function of art has been a constant necessity of man since its inception many years ago. More in depth, this necessity derives from the perpetual need of man to reach his fulfillment in the natural and social world. Fischer capitalizes on the momentum of his Marxist point of view when he says, 1
“Art is the indispensable means for this merging of the individual with the whole.”1
Fischer deeply concerned himself with the idea of art structuring the bridge between man and his impressionable surroundings so that he can achieve a higher level of self awareness and realize his full potential as a part of society.
Man desires to be more than himself, to define the exact content of his potentialities is quite difficult, but in The Necessity of Art, Fischer articulates a comprehensive description of man’s desire for fulfillment. In the views of Fischer, man wishes to go beyond the limitations of being an individual. He wishes to attach his being to a larger experience than the self. Man is troubled with the ambiguous limitations of living a separate and individual life. Instead he strives to be a part of the social world, uniting himself, fragmented and limited, with a commercial experience to make his individuality social. Fischer’s definition of art encouraged living a self examined life with art as the path to a world where one can find oneself. If man is to identify with a commercial existence beyond any individual narrative he will have to approach it through art. Furthermore, he leads to the notion that his definition can be the original function of art while art itself is contradictory in nature.
Fischer compares and contrasts the artist’s reality and art through original contradiction that is demonstrated in the opposition between Apollo and Dionysus in ancient Greek drama. Fischer refers to the consenting character of Dionysus through which the Dionysian vision is a “drunken reality [that] seeks to destroy the individual and redeem him by a mystic feeling of Oneness.”2 The dionysian experience is an erotic event taken place in a whimsical world lacking any objective meaning. Dionysus is presented as an affirming God only concerned with unity and revelry to drown the sufferings of individuation with pleasure. Apollo’s solution for the suffering of the individual comes from suppressing the “primordial unity” in the dionysian experience.
1 Ernst Fischer. The Necessity of Art, a Marxist Approach (Baltimore: Penguin, 1963) 8.
2 Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, and the Case of Wagner (New York: Vintage, 1967).
The apollonian vision dramatically criticizes the instability and subjectivity of reality while searching for absolute truths to justify life in its totality.3 Order and logic is the nature of Apollo, the Apollonian Greek must understand that the foundation of one’s existence is suffering and knowledge, suffering that is revealed through the dionysian. This is why the apollonian and dionysian are in union. It is through Apollo and Dionysus, in their most expressive forms, that art derives from reality.
The Marxist philosophy of Alienation is brought to the forefront in Fischer’s claim that form must proceed function and captivate the alienated world in a stimulating fashion that incites decision, action and togetherness. Fischer’s combination of art and magic being broken by class society suggested that the preexistent tribal unity found itself in what was the unity of man, animal and his contextual environment.4 Fischer claimed that alienation was brought about by people ‘represented’ by government figures, state growth and the illusion of popular representation. Unity ultimately deteriorated in the class society as the individual felt himself more and more detached from the social whole. He shared this belief with fellow German philosopher, Friedrich Schiller, who asserted that the “Increasingly complex machinery of state necessitated more rigorous separation of ranks and occupations.”5 Fischer would further agree with Schiller’s genuine sentiment of the, “inner unity of human nature”6 also being severely disconnected in alienation.
3 W. Jackson Rushing, The Impact of Nietzsche and Northwest Coast Indian Art on Barnett Newman’s Idea of Redemption in the Abstract Sublime (New York: College Art Association, 1988) 188.
4 Dominic Alexander, “Ernst Fischer, The Necessity of Art: A Marxist Approach, ” Counterfire Book Reviews, July 23 2010, http://www.counterfire.org/articles/book-reviews/6012-ernst-fischer-the-necessity-of-art-a-marxist-approach
Man’s departure from nature through work and production reduces his role in society to that of lesser power in opposition with the social world. Art in every sense is a manual mastery that requires skill from the artist. Mastering and manipulating nature results in man feeling estranged in his own production. Eventually, the objects that he created are no longer under his control, interacting in such a society pivots the man’s standing from that of master to slave in the production of his own work. In this world driven by commodity, the product controls the manufacturer. Fischer states that, “Industrial society is distinguished not only by this objectification of social relationships, but also by an increasing division of labour and specialization.”7 An overwhelming sense of powerlessness afflicts man’s individuality when he’s a part of the system in large firms and corporations. When he comes into contact with a representative of the system who relays information from a virtually invisible director, dialogue comes across cold and impersonal. Decision making is completely removed from his hands, and put into the control of a minority of rulers. Partially in despair, the man sees himself alienated from ‘the powers that be,’ a gripping paranoia of being replaceable and too small to make a difference in an unprincipled company will eat away at his consciousness.
5 Friedrich Schiller, Sixth Letter, On the Aesthetic Education of Man: In a Series of Letters (New York: F. Ungar Pub., 1965), 176-77.
6 Schiller, Sixth Letter, On the Aesthetic Education of Man: In a Series of Letters, 104.
7 Ernst Fischer, The Necessity of Art, a Marxist Approach, 82.
According to Fischer, surviving market values in art and mass production, excess of tasteless art and the fetishism of commodities represented great decadence. He disagreed with the general mixing of highbrow and lowbrow media such as books, films and art sharing the same retail space. Fischer understood meaningful creative works as triggers for experience opposed to merely objects. He’d adhere that the subjective mechanism which produces art consists of the artist or designer and the spectator. In this case, the task of a socialist society is to create an overall satisfaction among the public, enlighten their understanding and put forward the artist’s responsibility.
In fact, all of the decisions made by the designer should be questioned. What did the designer do, and why was the designer doing it? It’s clear that only a few thousand out of the millions who create are accepted by the spectator, and even less are included in the chapters of art history for posterity. As a human being filled with the best intentions for the whole world when man approaches his practice, Fischer understands that the artist can’t be entirely responsible for society’s judgement of the dominant taste.
He explains, “A work of art does not have to be understood and approved by everyone from the start. It is not the function of art to break down open doors but rather to open locked ones.”8 How should Fischer describe the phenomena which prompts the spectator to react critically to meaningful works of art? He attempts to describe the transference from meaningful work to the spectator as a passing of aesthetics and form in a very intimate and personal way. The artist’s activity and creative works are for a community, a role that is overlooked by capitalist spectators.
8 Ernst Fischer, The Necessity of Art, a Marxist Approach, 210.
Fischer understood the danger in the proliferation of art, lack of responsibility for the excess of superficial art and the perversion of taste. Fischer comprehended that the growing demand for art on popular demand couldn’t be satisfied with just the classics, creative works with high merit or the upper echelon of socialist artists. The market demanded art that existed for pure entertainment, he reluctantly deems such art ‘legitimate.’ The difference between art that’s approachable versus art that is less accessible to society is unclear and perhaps these differences are fixed. A certain seriousness in a creative work’s character shouldn’t validate its standing as a serious work of art, at the same time, a book bent on light heartedness shouldn’t be condemned to being labeled mass produced or pointless. Both the public’s social discourse and the artist’s social consciousness should work together in preventing art to be so limited in context.
Communism must accept the inevitable number of average designers who will flood the market with media such as films, musical works and books that are entertaining and superficial by nature. Fischer believes that there is no utopia in the future for a society in such conditions. However, Fischer’s overarching critique on art is more than drawing out the interrelationship between the structure of chosen art works with the structure of chosen societies. Fischer carefully developed a necessary interpretation of an historical sociology of art. In fact, Fischer’s idea of the function of art tries to solve the problem of restoring unity, freedom and man fulfilment in a way that the tools the conceptual tools he developed can be applied to all art in any human society
Bibliography
- Alexander, Dominic. “Ernst Fischer, The Necessity of Art: A Marxist Approach, ” Accessed October 6, 2016. http://www.counterfire.org/articles/book-reviews/6012-ernst-fischer-the-necessity-of-art-a-marxist-approach
- Fischer, Ernst. The Necessity of Art, a Marxist Approach. Baltimore: Penguin, 1963.
- Fischer Ernst, The Necessity of Art , a Marxist Approach, 82.
- Fischer Ernst, The Necessity of Art , a Marxist Approach, 210.
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, and the Case of Wagner (New York: Vintage, 1967).
- Rushing, W. Jackson. The Impact of Nietzsche and Northwest Coast Indian Art on Barnett Newman’s Idea of Redemption in the Abstract Sublime. New York: College Art Association, 1988.
- Schiller, Friedrich. Sixth Letter, On the Aesthetic Education of Man: In a Series of Letters. New York: F. Ungar Pub., 1965.
- Schiller, Sixth Letter, On the Aesthetic Education of Man: In a Series of Letters , 104.