Art and social life. G

The first Russian Marxist, outstanding literary critic and art theorist Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov was born on December 11, 1856 in the village of Gudalovka, Lipetsk district, Tambov province (now the village of Plekhanovo, Gryazinsky district). His father, a poor Tambov landowner, Valentin Petrovich Plekhanov, was a stern man and demanding of himself and those around him. From his mother Maria Feodorovna, née Belinskaya (the grandniece of V.G. Belinsky), Georgy inherited kindness, impressionability, and attention to people.

The Plekhanovs' house had a large library, which was dominated by books on military affairs. Georgy sat in it for hours and, having read books on the art of war, decided to devote himself to military service. He successfully passed the entrance exams to the Voronezh Military Gymnasium and was immediately enrolled in the second grade.

In addition to studying military sciences, Georgy Plekhanov worked a lot on himself, became acquainted with the works of the classics of Russian literature, the best works of critics of the revolutionary-democratic camp. The names of Pushkin, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky became close to him throughout his life.

In 1873, Plekhanov graduated from a military gymnasium (his father had died shortly before) and entered the Konstantinovsky Military School, where he did not stay long, only a few months, after which he resigned and returned to his homeland - the village of Gudalovka. From here at the end of March 1874 he went to St. Petersburg, where he successfully passed the entrance exams to the Mining Institute.

While studying at the school and then at the Mining Institute, G.V. Plekhanov visited his native places several times, lived in Gudalovka and Lipetsk. The amazing nature of the Black Earth Region, the first impressions of childhood and adolescence, undoubtedly influenced the formation of his aesthetic tastes.

“When I met the “green town” - Lipetsk, truly immersed in greenery, with its wonderful location on the hills, from which an unforgettable view of the Voronezh River valley opens, with its shining ponds, lakes, lush meadows and dense coniferous forests - I said to myself: I now understand Georgy Valentinovich’s love for everything beautiful, for nature, animals, sculpture, poetry. Here, in Lipetsk, this poetic side of Georgy Valentinovich’s nature developed,” 1 - this is what his wife Rosalia Markovna wrote after visiting Plekhanov’s homeland in 1927.

In 1876, G.V. Plekhanov finally took the revolutionary path, and in the summer of 1877 he was expelled from the institute. Plekhanov's worldview underwent a complex evolution. Initially the leader of the populist organization “Land and Freedom,” he, under the influence of the ideas of Marxism, breaks with populism and becomes a passionate supporter and propagandist of Marxist ideas in Russia.

From January 1880 until the February Revolution of 1917, Plekhanov lived in exile (Switzerland, Italy, France).

Actively participating in the struggle of ideas, Plekhanov wrote many works on aesthetics. His interest in issues of art was constant.

The period from 1883 to 1903 was the most fruitful in the work of Plekhanov, a literary critic. During these years the following works were written: “Belinsky and reasonable reality” (1897), “Belinsky’s literary views” (1897), “Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic theory” (1897), “Letters without an address” (1899-1900).

In them, Plekhanov defended revolutionary democratic traditions in aesthetics and criticism. Among Marx's followers, he did more than anyone else to apply historical materialism to aesthetics, the theory of art and literature.

Plekhanov's notable theoretical and critical speeches include the articles “The Proletarian Movement and Bourgeois Art” (1905), “Henrik Ibsen” (1906), “On the Psychology of the Labor Movement” (1907), “Art and Social Life” (1912-1913) , articles about L.N. Tolstoy, as well as numerous letters from Plekhanov to figures of literature and art.

Returning to Russia on March 31 (April 13), 1917, Plekhanov witnessed the October Revolution, but did not accept it, although he did not oppose Soviet power.

According to his own dying wish, he was buried at the Volkov cemetery in Leningrad, near the graves of Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, dear to him. Plekhanov's archive and library are kept in the Plekhanov House, specially created in Leningrad.

Lipetsk residents honor the memory of their fellow countryman. In 1928 Gudalovka was renamed into the village. Plekhanov, in the same year Prodolnaya Street in Lipetsk was renamed Plekhanov Street. In 1972, Plekhanov Square at the intersection of Plekhanov and Zegel streets was named in his honor. A memorial museum for G.V. Plekhanov was opened in Lipetsk, on which a memorial plaque was installed in 1956. On October 30, 1998, a sculpture by G. V. Plekhanov (author E. A. Volfson) was installed in front of the house-museum. December 6, 2006 in the village. Plekhanov, Gryazinsky district, a memorial sign was unveiled in honor of the 150th anniversary of the birth of G.V. Plekhanov (sculptor I. Mazur).

1 Berezhansky A. Years at home // Interlocutor. – Voronezh, 1971. – P. 90.

Author's works

• Works: in 24 volumes - M.-Pg., 1923-1928. – (Institute of the European Union of Marx and F. Engels. Library of scientific socialism).
• Literary heritage: in 8 volumes - M.: Mosekgiz, 1934-1940.
• Selected philosophical works: in 5 volumes - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1956-1958.
• Selected works / comp., author. entry Art. and comment. S. V. Tyutyukin. – M.: Rosspen, 2010. – 550 p. – (B-ka of Russian social thought from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century).
• For twenty years: Sat. articles lit., economics. and philosophical-historical – Petersburg, 1905. – 652 p.
• On the tasks of socialists in the fight against hunger in Russia. – St. Petersburg. : Ed. M. Malykh, 1906. – 84 p.
• Articles about Tolstoy / preface. V. Vaganyan. – Moscow: Gosizdat, [b. G.]. – 95 ​​s.
• N. G. Chernyshevsky. – Petersburg: Rosehip, 1910. – 537 p.
• December 14, 1825: speech delivered at the Russian meeting in Geneva, December 14-27, 1900. – Pg: Gosizdat, 1921. – 31 p.
• Art: Sat. Art. / entry Art. L. Axelrod-Orthodox and W. Fritsche. – M.: New Moscow, 1922. – 216 p.
• Art and social life. – M.: Moscow Institute of Journalism, 1922. – 68 p.
• Predecessors of K. Marx and F. Engels. – M.: Moscow worker, 1922. – 230 p.
• V. G. Belinsky: collection. art. – M.-Pg., 1923. – 333 p.
• A. I. Herzen: collection. Art. – M., 1924. – 215 p.
• Art and literature. – M.: Goslitizdat, 1948. – 888 p.
• Letters without an address. Art and social life / afterword. and note. U. Guralnik. – M.: Goslitizdat, 1956. – 248 p.
• Literature and aesthetics: in 2 volumes / prepared. text, intro. Art. and comment. B.I. Bursova. – M.: Goslitizdat, 1958. – (Monuments of world aesthetic and critical thought).
• Philosophical and literary heritage of G. V. Plekhanov: in 3 volumes - M.: Nauka, 1973.
• Aesthetics and sociology of art: in 2 volumes / intro. Art. M. A. Lifshitz; note I. L. Galinskaya. – M.: Art, 1978. – (History of aesthetics in monuments and documents).
• Political testament: pro et contra (Last thoughts of G. V. Plekhanov) / ed. A. Berezhansky. – Lipetsk: De facto, 2006. – 120 p.

Literature about life and creativity

• Aptekman O.V. Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov: from personal memories / O.V. Aptekman. – L.: Kolos, 1924. – 96 p.
• Klokov A. Yu. On the history of the G. V. Plekhanov Museum in Lipetsk // Bartenev readings: materials from the interregion. conf. November 18-19, 2003 – Lipetsk, 2005. – P. 113-117.
• Berezhansky A. Plekhanov lived here: a museum of the man who predicted the consequences of the revolution: [history of the creation of the Plekhanov Museum in Lipetsk. Exposition] // Museum. – 2005. – No. 5. – P. 34-35.
• Berezhansky A. S. Plekhanov: from populism to Marxism / A. S. Berezhansky. – 2nd ed., revised. and additional – M.: Rosspen, 2006. – 264 p. – (Plekhanov Foundation Library).
• Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov and figures of Russian culture: photo album. – Lipetsk: De facto, 2006. – 33 p. – (To the 150th anniversary of G.V. Plekhanov).
• Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov: on the 150th anniversary of the philosopher, thinker and public figure. – Lipetsk: Lipets. region Museum of Local Lore: Respect, 2006. – 130 p.
• The soul is full of memories: Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov and the Lipetsk region: from the collections of the Lipetsk Regional Scientific Library, the State Archive of the Lipetsk Region and the archive department of the city of Lipetsk. – Lipetsk, 2006. – 143 p.: ill.; 1 CD (CD-R).
• Historical and philosophical heritage of G. V. Plekhanov and modernity: materials of the All-Russian Federation. scientific-practical conf., dedicated 150th anniversary of the birth of G. V. Plekhanov, December 5-6. 2006 – Lipetsk: Institute for Educational Development, 2006. – 199 p.
• Catalog of the memorial fund of G. V. Plekhanov. – Lipetsk: Lipets. region Museum of Local Lore, 2006. – 31 p.
• Plekhanov Georgy Valentinovich (1856-1918) // Outstanding economists of Russia and the world: collection. scientific works – Lipetsk: Leningrad State Pedagogical University, 2006. – pp. 12-20.: photo.
• Nenakhov A.V. On the historical views of G.V. Plekhanov // Interuniversity scientific and methodological readings in memory of K.F. Kalaidovich: collection. materials. – Yelets, 2006. – Issue 7. – P. 99-101.: ill., photo.
• Shchukina E. P. Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov: [according to archive. materials] // Bulletin of the archivist. – 2006. – Issue. 1. – pp. 130-134.
• Koltakov V. M. House-museum of G. V. Plekhanov // Historical and memorable places of Lipetsk / V. M. Koltakov, A. V. Ovchinnikov. – Lipetsk: De facto, 2007. – P. 77-83.: photo.
• Grigoriev E.K. Marx and his “disciples” in the homeland of Leninism: [G. V. Plekhanov, mentioned. documents from GALO] // Questions of history. – 2007. – No. 1. – P. 58-78.
• Shakhov V. Great son of the Understeppe // Rising. – 2007. – No. 5. – P. 176-183.
• Gudukhin V. Illumination: a documentary story about the life and work of G. V. Plekhanov / V. Gudukhin. – Lipetsk: Neon City, 2008. – 67 p.

Reference materials

• Social thought in Russia in the 18th and early 20th centuries. : encyclopedia. – M., 2005. – P. 404-407.: ill.
• Voronezh Historical and Cultural Encyclopedia. – 2nd ed. – Voronezh, 2009. – P. 413.
• Lipetsk encyclopedia. – Lipetsk, 2001. – T. 3. – P. 62-66.
• Tambov encyclopedia. – Tambov, 2004. – P. 446-447. : portrait
• Bunin Encyclopedia / author-comp. A. V. Dmitriev. – Lipetsk, 2010. – P. 578-579.: portrait.
• Glorious names of the land of Lipetsk: biogr. reference about the known writers, scientists, educators, artists. – Lipetsk, 2007. – P. 271-277.: ill.
• History of Russian literature of the late XIX – early XX centuries: bibliogr. decree. / ed. K. D. Muratova. – M.-L., 1963. – P. 339-347.
• Russian writers. 1800-1917: biogr. dictionary. – M., 1999. – T. 4. – P. 642-647. : portrait
• Social and political figures of the Lipetsk region: biobibliogr. decree. – Voronezh: Central-Chernozem. book publishing house, 1980. – P. 3-4.
• Writers of the Lipetsk region: bibliogr. decree. – Voronezh, 1986. – Issue. 1. – pp. 84-88.

Based on the work “Art and Social Life” (1)

... Everything written by Plekhanov on philosophy
...this is the best in all the international literature of Marxism.
V. I. Lenin (2)

Never, perhaps, has Marxism as a philosophical doctrine been subjected to such fierce criticism as in our turbulent times. There are, of course, good reasons for this. This is the collapse of socialist ideals, discredited by Stalinist ideology and economic voluntarism due to the Marxist illiteracy of the leaders, and the unviability of the regimes created by them.

And yet, turning again and again to primary sources, rereading the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, you come to the conviction that there is no more harmonious and flexible system of views on the world around us, its development and the variety of forms it takes, than the teachings of Marx, based on a materialistic approach to the most diverse manifestations of nature and the human mind.

And if we consider such a branch of human mental activity as aesthetics, then, perhaps, no one has contributed so much to its development and renewal from the perspective of Marxism as the great Russian philosopher G. V. Plekhanov. Perhaps this will sound too loud, especially if we bear in mind the enormous interest that idealistic philosophical systems, created by other great Russian philosophers, such as Solovyov, Fedorov, Bulgakov, Karsavin.

But, as usually happened in Russia, interest was aroused not so much by the fidelity of these systems, but by their long oblivion, closedness from the mass reader, and the bias of official propaganda towards materialism in recent years. Now, it seems, the skew, according to the law of the pendulum, is happening in the other direction.

And therefore, in our opinion, the desire to go against the flow in order to prevent imbalance or, at least, weaken it, becomes especially relevant.

In this sense, Plekhanov’s personality and his works seem to be a natural continuation of that line of Russian thought, which can be designated by such names as Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev. Plekhanov brought this line to such a high level that his judgments on aesthetic topics are of considerable interest to a modern researcher. To ward off accusations of Plekhanov’s one-sidedness, it is worth citing the statement of one of the best experts on his work, G. I. Kunitsyn: “G. V. Plekhanov was one of the few followers of K. Marx and F. Engels who (despite numerous literary slander against him in the past) did not reduce either the aesthetic or the artistic only to the class. He was a great master of precisely the clear separation of the universal human essence of the artistic and aesthetic itself from their class application and interpretation.” (3)

Of course, it is difficult in a small work to even briefly touch on all the problems that interested Plekhanov, and therefore we will dwell only on a few issues that he considered in one of the most interesting works, “Art and Social Life.”

The fact is that in it Plekhanov touches on an issue that has not lost its relevance to this day. After all, his civic, aesthetic, and creative position depends on how the artist resolves this issue. Either art for art's sake, or art for society. In order not to misinterpret, it is better to give the floor to the author:

“Some have said and continue to say: man is not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is for man; not society for the artist, but the artist for society. Art should contribute to the development of human consciousness and the improvement of the social order.

Others strongly reject this view. In their opinion, art in itself is a goal; to turn it into a means to achieve some extraneous goals, even the most noble ones, means to humiliate the dignity of a work of art.” (4)

The differences between these two views remain the cause of ongoing controversy to this day and may always exist. Perhaps this contradiction is the driving force behind the development of artistic thought.

However, Plekhanov, as a dialectical Marxist, poses the question differently - not which of these views is more correct, but why one or another view prevails in a given period in the history of a given society. To pose the question this way, one must really have a completely different point of view compared to how others did it.

What conclusion does Plekhanov come to when looking at the relationship between social life and artistic creativity from this angle?

It is worth noting here that the work “Art and Social Life” is notable for the fact that the author draws conclusions from his judgments in a concise, concentrated form. This is apparently due to the fact that the work was written on the basis of lectures he gave in France.

So, the first conclusion that Plekhanov makes:

“The tendency towards art for art’s sake arises where there is a discord between artists and the social environment around them.” (5)

This conclusion is not unfounded; it is confirmed by the example of Pushkin, and then by the example of French literature. It would seem that the French romantics were not at odds with their environment. Where then did the sentiment expressed by Gautier come from:

“I will with great joy give up my rights as a Frenchman and a citizen in order to see an authentic painting by Raphael or a naked beauty.” (6)

Plekhanov proves that the romantics could not help but dissociate themselves from the bourgeoisie, who thought only about how to earn more and invest their earnings better. Romantics treated them with contempt. Another thing is that such a demarcation did not threaten the power of these “bourgeois” in any way, since the departure of an artist into “pure art” does not pose anything dangerous for the authorities.

“When the bourgeoisie took a dominant position in society, and when its life was no longer warmed by the fire of the liberation struggle, then the new art was left with one thing: the idealization of the negation of the bourgeois way of life.” (7)

But that's not all. Clarifying the previous conclusion about artists’ inclination towards “art for art’s sake,” Plekhanov adds:

“The tendency of artists and people keenly interested in artistic creativity to art for art’s sake arises out of a hopeless discord between them and the social environment around them.” (8)

This explains why contempt for the bourgeoisie is not expressed in the desire to overthrow their power, but causes them to withdraw into “pure” art. Feeling the impossibility of practically changing anything, artists are looking for ways to realize their ideas in art for art’s sake. At least establish justice in imaginary worlds, if this is impossible in the real world. This reason for going into “pure art” has not lost any of its relevance even now.

But what reason brings to life a different view of art? Here is how Plekhanov answers this question:

“... the so-called utilitarian view of art, i.e., the tendency to give its works the meaning of a verdict on the phenomena of life and the joyful readiness that always accompanies it to participate in social battles, arises and strengthens where there is mutual sympathy between a significant part of society and people, more or less actively interested in artistic creativity.” (9)

But there is a difference between when such relationships develop spontaneously between the artist and society, as, for example, during revolutions, and when political power tries to impose such relationships.

And Plekhanov clarifies: “... any given political power always prefers a utilitarian view of art, of course, since it pays attention to this subject.” (10)

But it is interesting that “... a utilitarian view of art gets along just as well with a conservative mood as with a revolutionary one. The inclination towards such a view necessarily presupposes only one condition: a living and active interest in a known, no matter what kind of social order or social ideal, and it disappears wherever this interest disappears for one reason or another.” (eleven)

And here is another very interesting conclusion that clarifies many things even today:

“The muses of artists ... would begin, having become state muses, to reveal the most obvious signs of decline and would lose extremely much in their truthfulness, strength and attractiveness.” (12)

Next, Plekhanov touches on another complex but important topic. We are talking about the ideological content of a work of art. He is convinced that ultimately the value of any work is determined by its content, that is, the value of the idea contained in the work. "… When false idea is placed at the basis of a work of art, it introduces into it such internal contradictions from which its aesthetic dignity inevitably suffers.” (13)

Here Plekhanov gives the example of one of Hamsun’s plays, where the main character is inspired by the idea of ​​a superman, but as a result the play itself did not work out, because: “Only something that promotes communication between people can give true inspiration to an artist. The possible limits of such communication are determined not by the artist, but by the height of culture achieved by the social whole to which he belongs.” (14)

It is worth noting here that when you come across a work as densely written as this work Plekhanov, it’s difficult to get your word in, but you just want to quote and quote, risking being accused of simply taking notes. What can we do, and our capabilities are determined by the height of culture.

But let's continue. In the same work, Plekhanov argues with Lunacharsky, who accused him of the fact that if you believe Plekhanov, then there is no absolute ideal of beauty at all, since “... it is always rich in quite definite, and not at all absolute, i.e., not unconditional content.” . (15)

To this Plekhanov replies: “... if there is no absolute criterion of beauty, if all criteria are relative, this does not mean that we are deprived of any objective opportunity to judge whether a given artistic plan is well executed.” (16)

How then to evaluate works? What can serve as a yardstick, independent of existing social relations, that can measure the quality of a work of art? Plekhanov gives the following answer: “The more the execution corresponds to the plan, or, to use a more general expression, the more the form of a work of art corresponds to its idea, the more successful it is. Here’s an objective measure for you.” (17)

In this work, we wanted not so much to argue with Plekhanov, since such an argument would require having different convictions, but to once again be convinced of the strength and vitality of the Marxist method in any science, including aesthetics. This strength and this vitality exist because Marxism stands on the solid foundation of a really existing world with all its contradictions and zigzags of development.

Not the construction of certain spiritual systems that exist only in the imagination of their creators and are therefore unviable, but the study of the laws of social and economic development and, on this basis, the choice of a path always from several possible options. The more known facts about the previous path, the easier and more correct the choice. This is precisely what I would like to learn from Plekhanov. Actually, that’s why we turned to his work.

Sources:
1. G. V. Plekhanov. Collected Works, vol.5.
2. V.I.Lenin. Selected works in three volumes. vol.3, M., Politizdat, 1976, p. 457.
3. G. I. Kunitsyn. Universality in literature. M., Soviet writer, 1980, p. 243
4. G. V. Plekhanov. Collected Works, vol. 5., p. 686
5. Ibid., p.693
6. Ibid., p.694
7. Ibid., p.696
8. Ibid., p.698
9. Ibid., p.699
10. Ibid., p.700
11. Ibid., p.703
12. Ibid., p.703
13. Ibid., p.717
14. Ibid., p.716
15. Ibid., p.708
16. Ibid., p.745
17. Ibid., p.746

IV.32. Plekhanov G.V.

Art and social life

Plekhanov Georgy Valentinovich(1856–1918) – founder of Marxism in Russia, politician, consistent opponent of V.I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, social philosopher, esthetician, art theorist.

Plekhanov's views on art flowed from his materialist understanding of history. Viewing art as social phenomenon, Plekhanov argued with the definition of art given by Tolstoy, who saw in art only emotional content (with art “people convey their feelings to each other”). Plekhanov argued that art expresses both people's feelings and thoughts.

By this he emphasized the ideological nature of art; he saw in the imagery of art the specificity of its ideological nature. From the point of view of dialectical materialism, literature and art are “ideologies,” specific forms of social consciousness, Plekhanov believed.

The question of the relationship of art to social life has always played a very important role in all literature that has reached a certain degree of development. Most often it was and is being resolved in two directly opposite senses.

Some said and say: man is not for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is for man; not society for the artist, but the artist for society. Art should contribute to the development of human consciousness and the improvement of the social order.

Others strongly reject this view. In their opinion, art itself is target, turn it into a remedy to achieve some extraneous, even the most noble goals, means to humiliate the dignity of a work of art.

The first of these two views found vivid expression in our advanced literature of the 60s. Not to mention Pisarev, who in his extreme one-sidedness brought it almost to the point of caricature, one can recall Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov as the most thorough defenders of this view in the criticism of that time. In one of his first critical articles, Chernyshevsky wrote:

“‘Art for art’s sake’ is as strange a thought in our time as ‘wealth for riches’, ‘science for science’, etc.”<…>

The opposite view of the task of artistic creativity had a powerful defender in the person of Pushkin. The people, demanding from the poet that he improve social morals with his songs, hear from him a contemptuous, one might say, rude rebuke:

Go away! What's the matter

The peaceful poet before you?

Pushkin formulates the poet’s tasks as follows. words:

Not for everyday worries,

Not for gain, not for battles,

We were born to inspire

For sweet sounds and prayers!

Here we have before us the so-called theory of art for art's sake in its most vivid formulation.

Which of these two directly opposite views on the task of art can be considered correct?<…>

If the artists of a given country at a given time shun “everyday excitement and battles,” and at other times, on the contrary, greedily strive for both battles and the excitement inevitably associated with them, then this is not because someone outside is prescribing for them various duties (“must”) in different eras, but because under some social conditions they are dominated by one mood, and under others by another. This means that a correct attitude towards a subject requires us to look at it not from the point of view of what should have been, but from the point of view of what was and what is. In view of this, we will pose the question this way:

What are the most important of those social conditions under which artists and people with a keen interest in artistic creativity develop and strengthen a penchant for art for art’s sake?

When we get closer to solving this question, then it will not be difficult for us to solve another one, closely related to it and no less interest Ask:

What are the most important of those social conditions under which the so-called utilitarian view of art arises and strengthens among artists and people who are keenly interested in artistic creativity, that is, the tendency to give its works “the meaning of a verdict on the phenomena of life”? <…>

We are faced with the following conclusion:

The tendency towards art for art's sake arises where there is a discord between artists and the social environment around them.<…>

Romantics. were at odds with the bourgeois society around them. True, in this discord there was nothing dangerous for bourgeois social relations. The romantic circles included young bourgeois who had nothing against these relationships, but at the same time were outraged by the dirt, boredom and vulgarity of bourgeois existence. The new art, which they were so keen on, was for them a refuge from this dirt, boredom and vulgarity. IN last years restoration and in the first half of the reign of Louis Philippe, that is, during the best time of romanticism, it was all the more difficult for French youth to get used to bourgeois dirt, prose and boredom, because shortly before that France experienced the terrible storms of the great revolution and the Napoleonic era, which deeply shook up everything human passions. When the bourgeoisie took a dominant position in society and when its life was no longer warmed by the fire of the liberation struggle, then only one thing remained for the new art: idealization of the negation of the bourgeois way of life. Romantic art was such an idealization. The Romantics tried to express their negative attitude towards bourgeois moderation and neatness not only in their artistic works, but even in their appearance.<…>Fantastic costumes, like long hair, served as a means for young romantics to oppose themselves to the hated bourgeois.

Given this attitude of the young romantics towards the bourgeoisie, they could not help but be indignant at the thought of “useful art.” To make art useful meant, in their eyes, to make it serve the very bourgeois whom they so deeply despised.<…>The Parnassians and the first French realists (Goncourt, Flaubert, etc.) also infinitely despised the bourgeois society that surrounded them. They, too, constantly vilified the “bourgeois” they hated. If they published their works, then, according to them, it was not at all for the general reading public, but only for a select few, “for unknown friends,” as Flaubert puts it in one of his letters. They were of the opinion that only a writer without great talent could please any wide reading public.<…>

Now, I think I can supplement my previous conclusion and say this:

The tendency of artists and people keenly interested in artistic creativity to art for art's sake arises out of a hopeless discord between them and the social environment around them.

That's not all. An example of our “people of the 60s”, who firmly believed in the near triumph of reason. shows us that the so-called utilitarian view of art, that is, the tendency to give its works the meaning of a verdict on the phenomena of life and the joyful readiness to participate in social battles that always accompanies it, arises and strengthens where there is mutual sympathy between a significant part of society and people, more or less actively interested in artistic creativity. <…>

To put an end to this side of the question, I will add that any given political power always prefers a utilitarian view of art, of course, insofar as it pays attention to this subject. Yes, it is understandable: it is in her interests to direct all ideologies to serve the cause that she herself serves. And since political power, which is sometimes revolutionary, is more often conservative or even completely reactionary, it is already clear from this that one should not think that the utilitarian view of art is shared mainly by revolutionaries or, in general, by people of progressive thought. The history of Russian literature very clearly shows that our guardians were not at all averse to it.<…>

Those servants of Nicholas I looked at art in exactly the same way, for whom, according to the unofficial position, it was impossible to do without some kind of view of art. You remember that Benckendorff tried to direct Pushkin on the path of truth. Ostrovsky was not spared the concerns of his superiors. When in March 1850 his comedy “Our People – Let’s Be Numbered” appeared in print and when some enlightened lovers of literature... and trade began to fear that it might offend the merchants, then the Minister of Public Education (Prince P.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov ) ordered the trustee of the Moscow educational district to invite an aspiring playwright to his place and “to convince him that the noble and useful goal of talent should consist not only in a lively depiction of the funny and bad, but also in its fair censure, not only in caricature, but also in the dissemination of the highest moral feeling: therefore, in contrast to vice with virtue, and pictures of the ridiculous and criminal - such thoughts and deeds that elevate the soul; finally, in the affirmation of that belief, so important for the life of public and private, that crime finds a worthy punishment still on earth."

Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich himself looked at the task of art primarily from a moral point of view.<…>

And do not think that the Russian rulers were any exception in this case. No, such a typical representative of absolutism as Louis XIV was in France, was no less firmly convinced that art cannot serve as an end in itself, but must promote moral education of people. And all the literature, all the art of the famous century Louis XIV were thoroughly imbued with this conviction. Likewise, Napoleon I would have looked at the theory of art for art’s sake as one of the harmful inventions of unpleasant “ideologists.” He also wanted literature and art to serve moral purposes. And he succeeded to a large extent, since, for example, most of the paintings exhibited at periodic exhibitions of that time (“Salons”) were devoted to depicting the military exploits of the consulate and the empire.<…>

But let’s leave government “spheres”. Among the French writers of the Second Empire there are people who rejected the theory of art for art's sake not at all for any progressive reasons. Thus, Alexandre Dumas the son categorically stated that the words “art for art’s sake” have no meaning.<…>

From all this it follows with complete conviction that the utilitarian view of art gets along just as well with a conservative mood as with a revolutionary one. The inclination towards such a view necessarily presupposes only one condition: a living and active interest in what is known, no matter which one, social order or social ideal, and it disappears wherever this interest disappears for one reason or another.

Like all questions of social life and social thought, this question does not admit of an unconditional solution. It all depends on the conditions of time and place. Let us remember Nicholas I and his servants. They wanted to make of Pushkin, Ostrovsky and other contemporary artists servants of morality, as the gendarme corps understood it. Let us assume for a moment that they managed to carry out this firm intention. What was supposed to come out of this? It's not difficult to answer. The muses of artists who submitted to their influence would, having become state muses, show the most obvious signs of decline and would lose extremely much in their truthfulness, strength and attractiveness.

Pushkin’s poem “To the Slanderers of Russia” cannot at all be considered one of his best poetic creations. Ostrovsky’s play “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh,” favorably recognized as a “useful lesson,” is also God knows how successful. Meanwhile, Ostrovsky took barely a few steps in it towards the ideal that the Benckendorffs sought to realize. and others, similar to them, supporters of useful art.<…>

Works of art are always something they say because they are always doing something express. Of course, they “tell” in their own special “way.” An artist expresses his idea with images, while a publicist proves his idea with the help of logical conclusions. And if the writer uses logical arguments instead of images, or if he comes up with images to prove famous topic, then he is not an artist, but a publicist, even though he wrote not studies and articles, but novels, stories or theatrical plays. All this is true. But from all this it does not at all follow that in a work of art the idea does not matter. I will say more: there cannot be a work of art devoid of ideological content. Even those works whose authors value only the form and do not care about the content still express a certain idea in one way or another.<…>

But if there is no work of art that is completely devoid of ideological content, then not every idea can be expressed in a work of art. Ruskin says it well: a girl can sing about lost love, but a miser cannot sing about lost money. And he rightly notes that the dignity of a work of art is determined by the height of the mood it expresses.<…>Otherwise it can not be. Art is one of the means of spiritual communication between people. And the higher the feeling expressed by a given work of art, the more conveniently, other things being equal, this work can play its role as the indicated means. Why shouldn't a miser sing about lost money? Very simply: because if he sang about his loss, then his song would not touch anyone, that is, it could not serve as a means of communication between him and other people.

They may point to war songs and ask me: is war really a means of communication between people? I will answer this that military poetry, expressing hatred of the enemy, at the same time glorifies the selflessness of soldiers - their willingness to die for their homeland, for their state, etc. It is to the extent that it expresses such readiness, it serves as a means of communication between people within those boundaries (tribe, community, state), the breadth of which is determined by the level of cultural development achieved by humanity or, more accurately, by a given part of it...<…>

Even Belinsky, who quite rightly asserted in last period of his literary activity, which is “pure, detached, unconditional, or, as philosophers say, absolute, art has never happened anywhere,” admitted, however, that the works of painting of the Italian school of the 16th century to a certain extent approached the ideal of absolute art, since they were the creation of an era during which “art was the main interest, exclusively occupying the educated part of society.” For example, he pointed to Raphael's Madonna. But Italian schools The 16th century completed a long process of struggle between the earthly ideal and the Christian monastic ideal. And no matter how exceptional the interest of the most educated part of society of the 16th century in art was, it is undeniable that Raphael’s Madonnas are one of the most characteristic artistic expressions of the victory of the earthly ideal over the Christian monastic one.<…>

The ideal of beauty that dominates at a given time in a given society - or in a given class of society - is rooted partly in the biological conditions of the development of the human race, which, among other things, create racial characteristics, and partly in the historical conditions of the emergence and existence of this society or this class . And that is precisely why it is always very rich in quite definite and not at all absolute, that is, not unconditional, content. Who worships " pure beauty”, he by this does not at all make himself independent of those biological and socio-historical conditions that determined his aesthetic taste, but only more or less consciously turns a blind eye to these conditions. This was the case, by the way, with the romantics.<…>

The general rule was that, while rebelling against bourgeois vulgarity, the romantics at the same time were very unfriendly to socialist systems that pointed to the need for social reform. The Romantics wanted to change social mores without changing anything in the social structure. It goes without saying that this is completely impossible. Therefore, the uprising of the romantics against the “bourgeois” led to it. few practical consequences. But its practical futility had important literary consequences. She reported romantic heroes that character of stiltedness and fictionality, which ultimately led to the collapse of the school. The stilted and fictitious character of the heroes cannot in any way be recognized as the merit of a work of art, therefore, next to the above We should now add a well-known minus as a plus: if romantic works of art gained a lot thanks to the rebellion of their authors against the “bourgeois,” then, on the other hand, they lost a lot due to the practical meaninglessness of this revolt.

Already the first French realists made every effort to eliminate the main drawback romantic works: the fictional, stilted nature of their heroes. There is not a trace of romantic fiction and stiltedness in Flaubert's novels. The first realists continue to rebel against the “bourgeois,” but they rebel against them in a different way. They do not contrast unprecedented heroes with bourgeois vulgarities, but try to make vulgarities the subject of an artistically faithful depiction.<…>

Ecclesiastes says excellently: “By oppressing others, the wise become foolish.” The discovery by bourgeois ideologists of the secret of the struggle between their class and the proletariat led to the fact that they gradually lost the ability to calmly scientific research social phenomena. And this greatly reduced the intrinsic value of their more or less scientific works. If previously bourgeois political economy could put forward such a giant of scientific thought as David Ricardo, now talkative dwarfs like Frederic Bastiat began to set the tone among its representatives. In philosophy, an idealistic reaction began to take hold more and more, the essence of which lies in the conservative desire to reconcile the successes of modern natural science with the old religious tradition, or, to put it more precisely, to reconcile the chapel with the laboratory. Art did not escape the common fate. We will see to what ridiculous absurdities the influence of the current idealistic reaction has driven some of the newest painters. Now for now I will say the following.

The conservative and partly even reactionary way of thinking of the first realists did not prevent them from thoroughly studying their environment and creating things that were very valuable artistically. But there is no doubt that he greatly narrowed their field of vision. By turning hostilely away from the great liberation movement of their time, they thereby excluded from the number of “mastodons” and “crocodiles” they observed the most interesting specimens, those with the richest inner life. Their objective attitude towards the environment they studied meant, in fact, a lack of sympathy for it. And, of course, they could not sympathize with the fact that, with their conservatism, only one thing was accessible to their observation: “petty thoughts” and “petty passions” born in the “unclean mud” of everyday bourgeois existence. But this lack of sympathy for objects observed and invented quite soon caused and was bound to cause a decline in interest in him. Naturalism, to which they laid the first foundation with their remarkable works, soon found itself, as Huysmans put it, in “a stupid alley, a tunnel with a blocked exit.” He could, as Huysmans put it, make everything his subject, up to and including syphilis. But the modern labor movement remained inaccessible to him.<…>This method was closely connected with the point of view of that materialism, which Marx called natural science and which does not understand that actions, inclinations, tastes and habits of thought public people cannot find a sufficient explanation for themselves in physiology or pathology, since they are determined social relations. By staying true to this method, artists could study and depict their "mastodons" and "crocodiles" as individuals rather than as members of a great whole. This is what Huysmans felt when he said that naturalism had found itself in a blind alley and that he had no choice but to talk once again about the love affair of the first wine merchant he met with the first petty shopkeeper he met. Narratives of such relationships could be of interest only if they shed light on a certain aspect of social relations, as was the case in Russian realism. But the French realists lacked public interest. As a result, the depiction of “the love affair of the first wine merchant he met with the first petty shopkeeper he met” eventually became uninteresting, boring and even simply disgusting.<…>

An artist who has become a mystic does not neglect the ideological content, but only gives it a unique character. Mysticism is also an idea, but only dark, formless, like fog, in mortal enmity with reason. The mystic is not averse to not only telling, but even proving. Only he tells something “not done”, and in his evidence he takes the denial of common sense as the starting point. But when artists become blind to the most important social trends of their time, then the nature of the ideas they express in their works greatly decreases in their intrinsic value. And these latter inevitably suffer from this.<…>

The tendency towards art for art's sake appears and is strengthened where there is a hopeless discord between people involved in art and the social environment around them. This discord has a beneficial effect on artistic creativity to the very extent that it helps artists rise above their environment. This was the case with Pushkin in the Nicholas era. This was the case with the Romantics, the Parnassians and the first realists in France. By multiplying the number of examples, it would be possible to prove that this has always been the case where the indicated discord existed. But, rebelling against the vulgar mores of the social environment around them, the romantics, Parnassians and realists had nothing against the social relations in which these vulgar mores were rooted. On the contrary, while cursing the “bourgeois,” they valued the bourgeois system—at first instinctively, and then with full consciousness. And the more the liberation movement directed against the bourgeois system intensified in modern Europe, the more conscious the attachment to this system of the French supporters of art for art's sake became. And the more conscious their attachment became, the less they could remain indifferent to the ideological content of their works. But their blindness to the new trend, aimed at renewing all social life, made their views erroneous, narrow, one-sided and lowered the quality of the ideas that were expressed in their works. The natural result of this was the hopeless situation of French realism, which gave rise to decadent hobbies and a tendency towards mysticism in writers who themselves had once gone through the realistic (naturalistic) school.<…>

When a given class lives by the exploitation of another class below it on the economic ladder, and when it has achieved complete dominance in society, then go ahead- means for this class go down. This is the solution to what is at first glance incomprehensible and perhaps even incredible phenomenon that in economically backward countries the ideology of the ruling classes is often much higher than in advanced ones.

Now Russia has already reached that height of economic development at which supporters of the theory of art for art's sake become conscious defenders of a social order based on the exploitation of one class by another. That’s why we now say a lot of socially reactionary nonsense in the name of “absolute autonomy of art.”

In the book: Plekhanov G.V.

Selected philosophical works: In 5 volumes. T. 5. M., 1958.

INSTITUTE OF K. MARX AND F. ENGELS

Workers of all countries, unite!

G. V. PLEKHANOV

ESSAYS

STATE PUBLISHING HOUSE MOSCOW

Art and social life 1)
("Contemporary", 1912, NoNo 11, 12 and 1913, No 1)

I

II

Art: Collection of articles / G. V. Plekhanov; With introductory articles: 1) L. Axelrod-Orthodox “On the attitude of G. V. Plekhanov to art according to personal memories”; 2) V. Fritsche “G. V. Plekhanov and scientific aesthetics.” - Moscow: “New Moscow”, 1922. - 216 p.

[Preface]

Marxist literature on art is known to be extremely poor.

Of the greatest theoreticians of Marxism, only G. V. Plekhanov definitely set the task of constructing a Marxist doctrine of art.

G. V. Plekhanov approached the solution of the problem he posed with his characteristic breadth of view and interest, subjecting to the study not only literature, moreover, on a global scale, but also the plastic arts and music - (it must be remembered that not all , what he thought and said about this subject is published) - covering the creativity of both primitive tribes and highly civilized peoples, and it seems that there is not a single fundamentally important question in this area that would not have been put forward by him: the origin and essence art, the influence of the environment on it, the meaning of a “brilliant” personality, factors in the evolution of artistic creativity, form and content, etc., etc. - all these questions were posed and resolved by him in the spirit of historical materialism, in the spirit of the theory of class struggle , for only “by taking into account the class struggle and studying its manifold vicissitudes, can we at least satisfactorily explain the spiritual history of civilized societies,” and therefore, anyone “who is not aware of the struggle, the centuries-old and varied process of which constitutes history, he cannot be a conscious art critic.” ¹)

True, G.V. Plekhanov did not systematically set out his “scientific aesthetics” anywhere, because he did not initially set such a task for himself, and in any case he did not have the time to complete it. However, both in the articles printed below and in his other piles (“Basic questions of Marxism”, On the question of the monistic view of history”, “On the role of the individual in history”, “The aesthetic theory of Chernyshevsky”), as well as in his articles , devoted to issues of literature and literary criticism ("Belinsky's Literary Views", "The Fates of Russian Criticism", in articles about populist writers, etc.), such a great variety of theoretical positions and specific illustrations are scattered that on the basis of them it would not be at all difficult to recreate in a systematic form the basic principles of “scientific aesthetics”, the doctrine of art on the foundations of Marxist sociology.

____________

¹) The fate of Russian criticism.

²) Before his death, he regretted that he did not have time to write a book about art.

It should not be forgotten that Plekhanov posed these questions not as an armchair scientist, not as a “specialist,” but always in combat, as a militant Marxist, and therefore his articles on these issues are usually of a polemical nature, taking up arms against those who are not sufficiently correct or clearly false methods of research, for example, against the exclusively biological point of view as applied to primitive art, or against the essentially idealistic sociology of Taine, or against the “philosophical” criticism of Volynsky, or against the populist approach of Ivanov-Razumnik, etc., and even the most The issues he wrote about were usually of such a combative, polemical nature, combining scientific significance with topical relevance.

This militant position, depriving him of the opportunity to systematize his views, at the same time allowed him to discover, along with enormous erudition and methodological clarity, the brilliant gift of a polemicist-fighter, a destroyer of bourgeois methods and values, and what, if not this, is the significance of the ideologist of the fighting proletariat?

Every young Marxist should become familiar with the following published articles by the founder of “scientific aesthetics.” The first “On Art” (reprinted from the collection “For Twenty Years”) clarifies the fundamental positions of historical materialism in its application to art. The following (actually two articles from the collection “Criticism of Our Critics”: “Art among Primitive Peoples” and “More about Art among Primitive Peoples”) explores the main problems of primitive art, indirectly illuminating the question of the origin and original meaning of art. Article "French" dramatic literature and French painting of the 18th century. from a sociological point of view” (“For Twenty Years”) shows, using a particular example in a masterful analysis, how class evolution and class psychology predetermine the evolution of artistic “form” and artistic “content” in the field of literature, theater and painting. Finally, the last article, given initially as a lecture in Paris and Liege (reprinted from the Sovremennik magazine, 1912, No. 11 and 12 and 1913, No. 1), brilliantly reveals, on the one hand, the various social combinations that lead in other cases to the dominance of the theory of “art for art’s sake”, and in others - to the triumph of the theory of “art for life”, and on the other hand, raises the question of the artistic and social value of modern art, making it clear that the art of a class leaving the historical stage, must inevitably lead to extreme subjectivism, symbolism, mysticism, lack of ideas and technicalism, and that the incorrectness and wretchedness of thought caused by the class affiliation of the creators of such art fatally reduces the very artistic value of their creations.

Reviewing G. V. Plekhanov’s articles on art, you involuntarily regret that it does not exist, because at the present time, when obvious chaos reigns in the field of artistic creativity and aesthetic assessments and a strong public opinion on these issues has not yet crystallized in party and Soviet circles, his instructions would, of course, be of enormous value, and who would consider it possible not to listen to his voice in this area?

ABOUT G. V. PLEKHANOV’S ATTITUDE TO ART, ACCORDING TO PERSONAL MEMORIES ¹).

¹) Speech delivered at a meeting convened by the sociological department of the Academy of Artistic Sciences and dedicated to honoring the memory of G. V. Plekhanov on the occasion of the 4th anniversary of his death and published in No. 5 of the magazine “Under the Banner of Marxism”.

Comrades! I am speaking today from the sociological department of the Academy of Artistic Sciences and will stick strictly to my topic. I will not touch on Plekhanov as a political fighter, and in general his multifaceted personality, rich in diverse spiritual content, but will briefly characterize his attitude to art based on my personal memories. But let me nevertheless make a few preliminary remarks. The historian of materialism F. A. Lange, defining materialism as a worldview that forms the basis of positive knowledge, reproached it for poverty with subjective ideological content.

Ideological metaphysics, although it is the poetry of concepts, can be proud of its kinship with religion, poetry and art, and this is a great advantage.

In a sense, F. A. Lange was right. Materialism before Marx and Engels, indeed, kept aloof from the historical content of human culture. His main field of study was the fundamentals of natural science. Only in critical eras did materialists turn their attention to the state and ethics, such as T. Hobbes and the French materialists of the 18th century. Aesthetics and art should have seemed to them to be an exclusively subjective area, to which it is impossible to apply scientific methods of research, and what cannot be the subject of positive science is not of interest to materialists. Only Diderot, partly following his deeply artistic nature and the pressing demands of the era, laid some foundation for scientific aesthetics.

The materialist understanding of history, which set as its goal to give a strictly scientific explanation of all historical content, should, naturally, pay attention to art.

But the founders of the materialist understanding of history, Marx and Engels, were not only armchair thinkers, but also fighters on the battlefield of life. Theoretical tasks directly related to the interests of the practical movement of the proletariat were in the foreground. Issues of art were therefore relegated to the background.

In the found draft of the preface to Marx's Critique of Political Economy, there are three pages devoted to art. But, unfortunately, the manuscript ends. As always with Marx, the content of these pages is interesting due to its deep approach to the problem, but this is incidental. It is important that Marx, in the preface, where the formulation of the materialist understanding of history is given, dwells specifically on the question of art; Engels left us nothing in this area.

G. V. Plekhanov paid serious attention to the problems of art. G.V.’s attraction to this problem is explained, in my opinion, by the following reasons. Firstly, G. V. Plekhanov was an extremely complex, artistic person: beauty and art played an outstanding role in his spiritual life. Secondly, G.V. received his revolutionary, spiritual education from the works of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. In all European countries, literary criticism was of enormous importance in critical eras. But here in Russia she has played a particularly outstanding role. Under the conditions of police autocracy, artistic criticism was a protesting, revolutionary principle, subjecting literature, and in its face, Russian reality, to critical examination. Art criticism had historical significance. Our famous critics combined a philosophical worldview and deep artistic appreciation with revolutionary thought. G. V followed in the footsteps of his first teachers - Belinsky, Chernyshevsky. As you know, G.V. dedicated an extensive article to Belinsky; Chernyshevsky and his work became the topic of an extensive work.

Plekhanov felt such a deep affection and such a strong spiritual kinship for “The Furious Vissarion” that his dying wish was to be buried near the grave of the brilliant critic. This wish has been fulfilled. The ashes of G.V. rest next to the remains of the brilliant critic.

From what has been said, I think it is quite obvious what strong influence Russian social thought had an impact on the spiritual development of the founder of Russian Marxism. Further, G.V.’s attitude to art was determined by another moment that had decisive and final significance.

This point is the teachings of Marx and Engels, the views of the founders of scientific socialism on social development and their idea of ​​the nature and content of the revolution.

The populists of the 70s, to whose movement Plekhanov belonged in his youth, were more than indifferent to art. Going among the people required simplification. For them, art was tolerable because it was tendentious, i.e. since the “artistic” work sinned against the requirements of aesthetics. Reshetnikov’s tendentious stories, devoid of artistic merit, were placed above “Childhood, Adolescence and Youth,” which found proper appreciation only in select literary circles. This attitude towards art flowed from the entire worldview of populism. Another thing is the revolutionary teaching arising from historical materialism. There can be no talk here of simplification, of adapting to the masses by lowering cultural forms. The task of representatives of scientific socialism, as is known, is mainly to develop the consciousness of the masses, not only political consciousness, as many are inclined to think, but comprehensive: scientific, ethical and aesthetic. The form of propaganda of socialist ideas must correspond to in-depth, serious scientific content. The true preaching of a Marxist should lift up the listener or reader, and therefore crude form, demagoguery, and cheap effects are as inappropriate as such forms of expression of thought in a scientific work. The popularity of the presentation, necessary for propaganda to the masses, requires an even more urgent artistic form.

Plekhanov was imbued with these views.

In support of what has been said, allow me to cite the following, in my opinion, unusually characteristic episode.

In 1905, after the significant January 9th, Gapon arrived in Geneva, who immediately after his arrival came to Plekhanov. I will not tell the interesting, however, details of his appearance, subsequent negotiations, conversations and meetings with this unfortunate man. In connection with my topic today, only the following scene deserves attention.

Gapon wrote something like a poem, the theme of which was the march of the Petrograd proletariat, with him at its head, to the royal palace. The poem was written in rude, demagogic tones, the vulgar content was expressed in a correspondingly rude, demagogic form. Gapon decided to read it to Plekhanov and me. I read it in G.V. Gapon’s office. There was no one there except the three of us. During the reading, G.V. listened, as always, seriously, attentively, without missing, I am sure, a single word - G.V.’s manner of listening was well known to me. It would be impossible to determine from the expression of his face whether he liked the thing or not, which, by the way, did not stem from deliberate secrecy, but was a consequence of complete attention to what he was reading. Gapon read, only occasionally glancing at his listeners, especially, of course, at G.V. The reading ended, there was a moment of silence. Then Plekhanov stood up. I saw Plekhanov over long periods and in different situations. But this was the first and only time I saw him. G.V., generally having a rather impressive appearance, seemed to immediately grow many times over and somehow suddenly became extremely large and majestic: “So you think,” he turned to Gapon, “that people can and should be treated with such childish fairy tales? The people are the greatest force in the historical movement, the people are a great thing, and turning to them with soothing tales is a direct and unjustifiable crime. To go among the people means to be able to speak seriously, and, accordingly, to clothe your speech in a simple, clear and truly beautiful form, but you have imagined that the people are made up of boys, and that therefore you can tell them vulgar fairy tales.”

Gapon was very embarrassed and turned terribly pale. Then Plekhanov looked, letting me understand that it was better for me to leave, since my presence prevented him from developing his political speech properly: he still spared Gapon. I left. The next day Gapon came to me. I turned to him with a question: “What, Father Gapon, how did you like Plekhanov yesterday?” - Let me make a digression and tell my impression of Gapon. It is as follows: the unfortunate aspects of this man’s character led him to the most terrible crime - betrayal. Nevertheless, Gapon was a very sensitive person, and in his soul there was an undoubted contact with the masses. Therefore, he vividly felt a great man and a true representative of the people and answered my question in this way: “You know, Lyubov Isakovna, if my habits as a priest had not offended Plekhanov, I would have fallen on my knees before him and kissed his feet; he is a true representative of the people."

He understood Plekhanov. I am convinced that this trait of Georgy Valentinovich - his understanding and interpretation of the development of the consciousness of the masses - determined his deep attitude towards art. He dealt with issues of art very seriously.

Starting with the suit, which was always decent, despite poverty - I recognized Plekhanov and his family in that era when need was the absolute ruler of the house, when he had only one suit - G.V. never had a downcast appearance and never looked like the usual type, the type of Russian nihilist emigrant. From his costume to his style, which he worked on with extreme care, he was an esthete in the true, highest, true sense of the word. And as already mentioned above, this aestheticism was in full connection with his ideas about the cultural meaning of the proletarian movement.

Without having the slightest desire to talk with you on theoretical topics, I will, with your permission, continue my speech with cursory memories of G. V. Plekhanov’s attitude to art.

Four years ago, just this evening, the amazing news of the death of G.V. came to me. Vividly remembering this difficult hour, I would like to dwell on the personal, intimate side of Plekhanov’s relationship with art. I hope and am confident that you, who have come here to honor the memory of the founder of Russian Marxism, share this sentiment with me.

Plekhanov always read fiction. I lived in his house for two years, from 1892 to 1894, and subsequently lived nearby for two years, in the next house. (The Plekhanovs lived in Geneva, Rue de Candelle 6, and I lived on the same street, no. 4). Consequently, I had every opportunity to observe the process of G.V.’s work. I always read G.V. And G.V., in my mind, exists only with a book. And among the reading on a variety of issues, fiction occupied a prominent place. Of the Russian artists, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy and Ouspensky were favorites. He treated Dostoevsky with obvious dislike.

I remember how once, in a conversation about Russian literature, I expressed the idea that Dostoevsky is a more democratic writer than Tolstoy and Turgenev, who have a strong sense of belonging to the nobility. Dostoevsky, I said, is sensitive to the oppressed. “Yes,” answered G.V., “Dostoevsky, indeed, sympathizes with the oppressed, but this oppressed person must be at least a little crazy.” He also loved to read Nekrasov, but the form did not satisfy him in everything. However, attitude. G.V. to Nekrasov was expressed in his article about the poet.

Of the literature of the later generation, G.V. loved and rated Chekhov and Korolenko very highly. I read and re-read Chekhov often. In Gorky, of course, he recognized great talent, but he was offended by the coarseness of the form, the low degree of aesthetic culture, and the romance of tramps in Gorky’s work did not correspond to the general direction of Plekhanov. In German literature he was a deep admirer of Goethe. He did not like Schiller, and this dislike for Schiller’s work is explained, in my opinion, by one main feature of G.V. Plekhanov. Plekhanov was distinguished by his extraordinary sincerity, in the real meaning of the word, that very sincerity that Romain Rolland says is such a rare quality as intelligence, beauty and kindness. Plekhanov was offended by the slightest falsehood, the most insignificant artificiality. Whatever he did, whatever he talked about, he was all there; this is sincerity. Schiller’s work seemed to him somewhat elevated, however, there were exceptions - G.V. was very fond of “William Tell.” He worshiped the genius of Goethe, in the literal sense of the word, he especially admired the first part of Faust, he considered the second part not artistic. He took special interest in Mephistopheles. The thinking of this philosopher of dialectic and destruction was in some way consistent with the dialectical method. It is not for nothing that Hegel and Engels quoted him so often. But while placing a high value on “Faust,” G.V. found one element unnecessary, violating the greatness of this creation.

Gretchen's tragedy of love was such an unnecessary element. This tragedy spoiled, in his opinion, the overall picture. Faust, this is the tragedy of knowledge, this is the epic of man and humanity. And the tragedy of Gretchen’s love is a small, insignificant episode, Mephistopheles, this philosopher-destroyer, Satan-fighter of God, and what does he do in the tragedy of “Faust” - helping Faust seduce 14 year old girl. At the same time, he lovingly referred to the passage in Hegel where the great German idealist speaks with stern irony about the ingrained habit of artists always tinkering with the plot, just as young Hans fell in love with young Gretchen. Plekhanov fully supported Hegel’s point of view that it was time to finally stop considering sexual romantic love as the main theme in creativity. Romantic love, of course, has its own significance, G.V. did not deny this, of course, but its significance is nothing in comparison with other phenomena of historical activity.

G.V. loved Heine very much, mainly his satire. From intimate lyrics, G.V. loved “Stormy Stream” and “Azra”. He always listened to this romance by Rubinstein with admiration and often asked his wife Rosalia Markovna to sing it (his wife had a wonderful voice).

Of English literature, his favorite authors were Shakespeare, Byron and Shelley, and he had a particularly touching feeling for Dickens. In Shakespeare's works, he highly valued historical dramas, which reflected the political life of England and some features of the Renaissance. He loved Hamlet, whom he sometimes quoted, noting: “That’s what the Danish prince thought.” He often quoted Macbeth. But he couldn’t stand “King Lear” and considered this dramatic figure an eccentric old man. Not being in agreement with this assessment, I expressed my view on this tragedy of Shakespeare, and one day it seemed to me that G.V. had given up. This was under the following circumstances; at the end of the nineties, when there was a struggle between the “Emancipation of Labor” Group and the revolutionary Social Democrats and economists adjacent to it. The “Emancipation of Labor” group, after many unpleasant vicissitudes, gave the union its revolutionary property: a font and some other printing supplies: The “Emancipation of Labor” group was left without tools. It was necessary to print something, and now Plekhanov found himself in a dramatic situation. At that moment, turning to him, I remarked: But you see, G.V., you are now in the position of “King Lear.” He smiled, after thinking a little, he replied, “But King Lear is still an eccentric old man.” This attitude towards King Lear did not stem from the whim of individual taste, it, I think, was rooted in his revolutionary nature. Despite all the versatility of G.V., he, apparently, was not able to penetrate the tragedy of the king, who was prematurely deprived of his throne.

Being actually engaged in art and the development of artistic movements in Russian literature, G.V. always rushed around with the idea of ​​​​subjecting research to this great branch of human culture from a materialistic point of view. He began this work with complete certainty in the early nineties. And so, while working on this topic, he read an incredible number of books. I have a significant number of Plekhanov’s letters; from these letters you can see how much he read. The fact is that he lacked his own extensive library, or the Geneva libraries, and I sent him books from Bern. The Berne State Library had the opportunity to order books from German libraries for certain people. I remember well how I pestered the librarian, and I immediately cannot help but express admiration for this wonderful old man, who always met my requests. Books on aesthetics were sent in large packages to Plekhanov in Geneva. These were works of classics in aesthetics. But abstract metaphysical aesthetics, which poses the problem of beauty in itself, could give little to the theorist of historical materialism.

The question was posed on a purely historical basis, namely: what is the origin of art? G.V. turned to ethnology, which he knew very thoroughly up to that time. But the problems of art required consideration of facts of a different order in culture. And so the work began. I again began to bother the librarian of the state library. But the dear Swiss retained his old attitude.

I can say with complete conviction that Plekhanov read everything that was available on this issue when he finally read his article on primitive art (it was published in the collection “Criticism of Our Critics”). He came to give it as a lecture in Bern. In general, it should be noted that G.V. loved to read his works before they were published to the public. The immediate impression that the composition made on the listeners was of great importance to him. This is explained by the fact that Plekhanov was a fighter and that the main desire of his work was the propaganda of his favorite Marxist ideas. The public remained generally indifferent to the lectures on primitive art. She did not understand Plekhanov at all. It seemed to her that we were talking about primitive culture in its general sense, which she had read about in famous books Lippert et al.

I remember Plekhanov’s story about how a girl came up to him after a lecture and said with a decisive look: “But I knew all this,” to which G.V. replied: “I sincerely envy you, I only learned some things 2-3 times.” weeks ago." This encyclopedist undoubtedly reflected the general attitude of the majority of listeners¹).

____________

¹) This was in 1903 (before the second congress, in the summer); The Iskra team decided to organize a series of lectures in the Berne Colony, where there were a lot of youth sympathetic to Social Democracy, Plekhanov gave 8 lectures on art, Lenin - 7 lectures on the agrarian question, and I - 6 lectures on Kant’s philosophy.

Plekhanov continued his work stubbornly and seriously, but the complexity of the subject, on the one hand, and the high demands, on the other, work on “The Development of Russian Social Thought,” on the third, fatally pushed the planned essay on art into the background.

About three months before his death, when G.V., apparently, was summing up the general results of his life and work, he noted with deep regret that he somehow failed to use all the accumulated material on issues of art and complete the planned work. He attached colossal cultural and utilitarian propaganda significance to art.

In a general cultural sense, art was supposed, from Plekhanov’s point of view, to replace religion. Religion, being a fruit of fantasy and imagination, pretends to be reality, while art, reflecting reality, is what it really is - a fruit of artistic imagination. In particular, the theater should replace the church. A number of authors and artists who were highly valued by Plekhanov passed before us. Among them we saw both realists and romantics. The question arises, what direction in art did Plekhanov adhere to? It goes without saying that talent is in the foreground in artistic creativity, which explains the fact that Byron and Shelley were among the favorite poets. But as far as the general direction is concerned, Plekhanov stood on the solid ground of realism. Art has as its task to reflect reality, but not only as it is, but as it should be; in other words, reality in its forward movement and development. It is clear, therefore, that the ought, the ideals that should be reflected in artistic creativity, are also contained in reality. This point of view can be briefly formulated in the words of Goethe:

„Greift nur hinein ins volle Menschenleben,

Ein jeder lebt"s, nicht vielen ist"s bekannt,

Und wo ihr"s packt, da ist"es interessant.“

G.V. had an extremely negative attitude towards symbolic art. Admiring Ibsen's colossal talent and recognizing his enormous dramatic power, he still could not talk about Peer-Gynt without irritation. It should also be added that the realistic direction in art flowed from the general principle of the materialist understanding of history. It was a logical consequence of that high assessment of the historical process itself and the general optimistic view of human history.

What else can I say to you in conclusion? It’s a mournful hour, and it’s hard, too hard to remember that four years ago, in the prime of his spiritual powers, a great and noble thinker, the founder of Russian Marxism and one of the pillars of the international proletarian movement, died prematurely. G.V.'s life was a beautiful, artistic poem, full of deep dramatic episodes. More than once G.V. was in the position of Ibsen's doctor Shtokman. But such is the lot of truly historical figures.

17 notes were submitted from the public with various questions. Here are the answers to some questions that were given by L. I. Axelrod.

How did Plekhanov feel about Tolstoy? Let me point out that there is an article by Plekhanov about Tolstoy, published in 1910 in the Moscow Bolshevik magazine Mysl. According to my personal recollections, the general assessment is this: as an artist, Tolstoy is strong and great, but as a thinker, he is weak.

Plekhanov was a revolutionary from the ground up, and the principle of non-resistance to evil through violence, of course, could not evoke any sympathy in him from any point of view.

Who was Plekhanov's favorite composer? G.V. loved music in general, but Beethoven made the deepest and strongest impression on him. The powerful harmony, strength and heroism in Beethoven’s work found a full response in Plekhanov’s complex and strong soul. I remember one, as it seems to me, curious episode of the following nature. I had to listen to Beethoven’s performance several times together with G.V., and I always heard enthusiastic reviews from him about the work of the great master. One day, a wonderful choir in Geneva (it was, and perhaps still exists, a city choir, consisting of 500 people, all the musical forces of the city took part in it, no matter what class) decided to stage Beethoven’s solemn mass.

Famous soloists and a wonderful orchestra were invited, in short, much was expected from the concert. I expressed my desire to go to the concert, asking immediately if he and his family were going to the concert. G.V. replied that he does not like religious music. It should be noted that G.V. had complete aversion to religion. He could not understand how educated and intelligent people could find subjective satisfaction in the worldview of their grandmothers and great-grandmothers. That, of course, did not in the least prevent him from considering the scientific, historical study of religion a serious task. But this is by the way. I'm going back to the concert. I continued to insist that the concert would undoubtedly be very interesting. Rosalia Markovna Plekhanova joined, and it ended with G.V., his whole family and I going to listen to the “solemn mass.” The performance was classic, deeply soulful, and now I remember with amazing clarity this reverent grandeur and power of feeling. G.V. listened seriously, intently, and the further he went, the more clearly that strong effect, which the performance of the “solemn mass” had on him.

5. Proletarian movement and bourgeois art... 193

Sample pages