What do you think?
Rate this book
فلسفۀ تاریخ هنر
این کتاب درباره شناخت روشهای تاریخ هنر و بررسی مسایل مربوط به تفکر تاریخی به رشته تحریر درآمده است؛ و پژوهشی است در خصوص آنچه تاریخ علمی هنر میتواند انجام دهد، درباره امکانات و محدودیتهای آن. این کتاب حاوی اندیشههایی فلسفی درباره تاریخ است، ولی اشارهای به فلسفه تاریخ به معنای طرح نظری تاریخ جهان، یا منطق فرآیند تاریخی و حتی پیشگویی تاریخی ندارد؛ در اینجا کوششی برای استنباط فرآیند تاریخ از اندیشهای والا یا گنجاندن همه رخدادهای گذشته و آینده در یک قالب واحد به عمل نمیآید. از این لحاظ، به اصول راهنمای من در نگارش کتاب تاریخ اجتماعی هنر (۱۹۵۱) وفادار است. لیکن، دیدگاه و شکل تشریح موضوع، از پایه با کتاب یاد شده متفاوت خواهد بود. در آن کتاب، روش توصیفی را برای خود برگزیدم و هدفم این بود که پیشپنداشتهای نظری و قوانینی را که گمان میکردم کشف کردهام بهطور کامل تابع توصیف و تفسیر پدیدههای تاریخی گردانم. در آنجا وظیفه برگزیدن و انتقاد کردن از مقولههایی که مبنای ادامه تفسیر بودند به خواننده کتاب واگذار شده بود. عمداً از نوشتن پیشگفتاری به منظور توضیح مستقیم درباره هدفها و روش کارم خودداری کردم. در یک معنا، کتاب کنونی میخواهد جای آن پیشگفتار نانوشته را بگیرد. در اینجا پیشپنداشتهای فلسفی مفهوم تاریخ هنر از دیدگاه من، روشن و کامل مطرح شدهاند و از مدارک تاریخی فقط برای نمایاندن مفاهیم بنیادی از نوع روشمند سود جستهام. این بار، خواننده میتواند در پرتو تجربههای شخصیاش در زمینه هنر و با یاری گرفتن از نگرش تاریخی خویشتن، این نظریهها را محک بزند. هر جا عدم توافقی احساس کند، ممکن است نویسنده یا خواننده در خطا بوده باشند؛ نویسنده، در صورتیکه واقعیات مشخص تاریخی را که موضوع کارش هستند از نظر انداخته باشد، و خواننده در صورتیکه نتوانسته باشد از عهده تجرید لازم برای هر پژوهش روشمند برآید.
522 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1958
17 people are currently reading
447 people want to read
About the author
Arnold Hauser
165 books70 followersArnold Hauser was born in Temesvar (now Timisoara, Romania), to a family of assimilated Jews. He studied history of art and literature at the universities of Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. In Paris his teacher was Henri Bergson who influenced him deeply. To earn extra income he reported on art, literature and cultural events for the Temesvári Hírlap (Temesvár News). For a period he was a teacher at a Budapest Gymnasium.
In 1916 Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher György Lukács. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers Béla Balázs, and the musicians Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály. Mannheim, who had at first rejected the idea that sociology could be useful in the understanding of thought, soon became convinced of its utility. Also Frigyes Antal (1887-1954) applied the sociological method to art.
After World War I Hauser spent with his bride two years in Italy doing research work on the history of classical and Italian art and earned his Ph.D. in Budapest. His dissertation dealt with the problem of aesthetic systematization. In 1921 he moved to Berlin. By that time he had developed his view that the problems of art and literature are fundamentally sociological problems. Three years later, when his wife declared that she wanted to live closer to Hungary, the couple settled down in Vienna, where Hauser supported himself as a freelance writer and as publicity agent for of a film company. He also worked on an unfinished book, entitled Dramaturgie und Soziologie des Films. Later he said, that "For me this was the period of collecting data and experiences which I used much later in the course of my writing my works on the sociology of art."
Fleeing the Nazis after the Anschluss in Austria, Hauser and his wife emigrated in 1938 to Great Britain. Shortly upon their arrival, his wife died of influenza. Alone and without any regular income, Hauser then began to research for Social History of Art. It took ten years to finish the Marxist survey, his magnum opus of more than a thiusand pages, which appeared when he was 59. Still following what is going on in the film world, Hauser also wrote a number of essays about films for Life and Letters Today and Sight and Sound. From 1951 he was a lecturer on the history of art at the University of Leeds, and in the late 1950s a visiting professor at Brandeis University in the United States. In 1959 he became a teacher at Hornsey College of Art in London. He worked again in the United States in 1963-65 and then returned to London.
When Hungarian Radio aired a Budapest-London conversation between Hauser and Lukács in July 1969, Hauser confessed: "I am not an orthodox Marxist. My life is devoted to scholarship, not politics. My task, I feel, is not political." In 1977 Hauser moved to Hungary, where he became an honorary member of the Academy of Science. He died in Budapest on January 28, 1978, at the age of 86.
Hauser's last book, Soziologie der Kunst (1974, Sociology of Art), which he wrote racing against time and declining health, investigated the social and economic determinants of art. In this pessimistic work he distanced himself from Marxism and historical determinism. "The foreseeable future," he said, "lies in the shadow of the atom bomb, of political dictatorship, of unbridled violence and cynical nihilism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin left, as a permanent testament, a feeling of fear and apprehension which cannot be mastered." Hauser's suggestion that art does not merely reflect but interacts with society is a widely accepted premise. He also saw the art establishment and art reviewers as servers of commercial interests. As in his Social History of Art, Hauser's approach was Euro-centered and did not pay much attention to non-Western art.
Social History of Art was the result of thirty years of scholarly labour. It traced the production of art from Lascaux to the Film Age
In 1916 Hauser became a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, which was formed around the critic and philosopher György Lukács. The group included Karl Mannheim, a sociologist, the writers Béla Balázs, and the musicians Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály. Mannheim, who had at first rejected the idea that sociology could be useful in the understanding of thought, soon became convinced of its utility. Also Frigyes Antal (1887-1954) applied the sociological method to art.
After World War I Hauser spent with his bride two years in Italy doing research work on the history of classical and Italian art and earned his Ph.D. in Budapest. His dissertation dealt with the problem of aesthetic systematization. In 1921 he moved to Berlin. By that time he had developed his view that the problems of art and literature are fundamentally sociological problems. Three years later, when his wife declared that she wanted to live closer to Hungary, the couple settled down in Vienna, where Hauser supported himself as a freelance writer and as publicity agent for of a film company. He also worked on an unfinished book, entitled Dramaturgie und Soziologie des Films. Later he said, that "For me this was the period of collecting data and experiences which I used much later in the course of my writing my works on the sociology of art."
Fleeing the Nazis after the Anschluss in Austria, Hauser and his wife emigrated in 1938 to Great Britain. Shortly upon their arrival, his wife died of influenza. Alone and without any regular income, Hauser then began to research for Social History of Art. It took ten years to finish the Marxist survey, his magnum opus of more than a thiusand pages, which appeared when he was 59. Still following what is going on in the film world, Hauser also wrote a number of essays about films for Life and Letters Today and Sight and Sound. From 1951 he was a lecturer on the history of art at the University of Leeds, and in the late 1950s a visiting professor at Brandeis University in the United States. In 1959 he became a teacher at Hornsey College of Art in London. He worked again in the United States in 1963-65 and then returned to London.
When Hungarian Radio aired a Budapest-London conversation between Hauser and Lukács in July 1969, Hauser confessed: "I am not an orthodox Marxist. My life is devoted to scholarship, not politics. My task, I feel, is not political." In 1977 Hauser moved to Hungary, where he became an honorary member of the Academy of Science. He died in Budapest on January 28, 1978, at the age of 86.
Hauser's last book, Soziologie der Kunst (1974, Sociology of Art), which he wrote racing against time and declining health, investigated the social and economic determinants of art. In this pessimistic work he distanced himself from Marxism and historical determinism. "The foreseeable future," he said, "lies in the shadow of the atom bomb, of political dictatorship, of unbridled violence and cynical nihilism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin left, as a permanent testament, a feeling of fear and apprehension which cannot be mastered." Hauser's suggestion that art does not merely reflect but interacts with society is a widely accepted premise. He also saw the art establishment and art reviewers as servers of commercial interests. As in his Social History of Art, Hauser's approach was Euro-centered and did not pay much attention to non-Western art.
Social History of Art was the result of thirty years of scholarly labour. It traced the production of art from Lascaux to the Film Age
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 4, 2022
A leading Marxist of his time, Hungarian art historian Arnold Hauser (1892-1978) reflected deeply and wrote extensively on how changes in society and social institutions and organizations influence art. The Philosophy of Art History is a collection of six detailed essays where the author addresses such topics as psychoanalysis and art, the concept of art history, folk art and popular art, and the sociology of art. As a way of providing a taste of what a reader will discover in these pages, I will include quotes along with my comments on this last topic, the sociology of art, specifically outlined in Hauser’s first essay, Introduction: The Scope and Limitations of a Sociology of Art.
“A work of art is a challenge; we do not explain it, we adjust ourselves to it.”
The author makes an excellent point, one fundamental requirement: we resist the urge on first viewing to “explain” the work of art in terms of our preconceived notions or categories; rather, we accept the challenge the work of art offers and permit ourselves to become vulnerable in our encounter and let the art speak to us and possibly even move us.
“In interpreting a work of art, we draw upon our own aims and endeavors, inform it with a meaning that has its origin in our own ways of life and thought. In a word, any art that really affects us becomes to that extent modern art.”
For example, if we read Crime and Punishment, we color the novel -- plot, characters, events, language-- with our own specific memories and experiences; in a way, Dostoyevsky’s work becomes our Crime and Punishment, and thus, a 21st century novel! Same applies to a cubist painting of Picasso or a Symphony of Mozart. Personally, I find this way of looking at art a particularly creative approach.
“We are now living in the day of the sociological interpretation of cultural achievements. This day will not last forever, and it will not have the last word.”
Very humble statement from a man who spent his entire professional life studying and writing on the sociological context of art and culture. And what the author says is true: thousands of articles, reviews and books have been written evaluating artists and writers in the context of her or his society, culture, epoch; true today as it was true back in 1958 when Arnold Hauser penned these words. However, like anything else, if it takes 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years, our current methods of evaluating art will change.
“But the exponents of the theory “art for art’s sake” maintain that any reference to actualities beyond the work of art must irretrievably destroy its aesthetic illusion. That may be correct, and yet this aesthetic illusion is not all, to produce it is not the exclusive or the most important aim of the artistic endeavor.”
Let’s take an obvious example: a war memorial where the intention of the organization funding the work is to commemorate and memorialize those who participated in the war. Certainly, the war memorial might have an aesthetic appeal, it might even be beautiful (I personally find the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington to be of high aesthetic quality), but this is not the war memorial’s primary reason for being. However, pertaining to claims of “art for art’s sake," I think it wise to evaluate such claims one work at a time.
“If we do not know or even want to know the aims that the artist was pursuing through his work – his aim to inform, to convince, to influence people – then we do not get much farther in understanding his art than the ignorant spectator who judges a football game simply by the beauty of the players’ movement.”
Such a statement can be tricky. Let’s take the World Cup – when a team fails to score and loses, that country’s players, coaches and fans are disappointed, no matter how beautiful the players' movements. But, if we look at a Cirque du Soleil performance, the dynamics are not at all the same - acrobats and dancers perform successfully when all their movements are beautiful; there are no ends beyond the beauty of perfectly executed movement. The point being, in some art and performance, we need not concern ourselves with the artist’s aim beyond the art or performance itself.
“Every honest attempt to discover the truth and depict things faithfully is a struggle against one’s own subjectivity and partiality, one’s individual and class interests; one can seek to become aware of these as a source of error, while realizing that they can never be finally excluded.”
Again, this can be tricky. For example: Karl Ove Knausgaard leans heavily on his own subjective experience, matter of fact, his experience is the juice of his writing – rather than attempting to exclude his feelings and individuality, he mines his feelings and individuality as the very subject of his novels.
“It is no more than an idle dream to suppose that social justice and artistic worth in any way coincide, that one can draw any conclusion with regard to the aesthetic success or failure of a work of art from the social conditions under which it has been produced.”
How true! A free, open society does not necessarily produce all great or even good artists and writers; a oppressive, unfree “bad” society does not necessarily produce all bad artists and writers. Case in point: One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
July 23, 2021
گذشته، وقتی معنا داره که با زمان حال، مربوط بشه.
همان طور که برای معنی کردن تاریخ، باید اون رو بازنویسی کرد، اثر هنری هم باید دوباره تفسیر بشه تا معنی متناسب با زمانهاش رو بشناسیم.
همان طور که برای معنی کردن تاریخ، باید اون رو بازنویسی کرد، اثر هنری هم باید دوباره تفسیر بشه تا معنی متناسب با زمانهاش رو بشناسیم.
January 4, 2020
kinda spicy not gonna lie
July 30, 2024
بعض الكتب تستحق منا الكثير، ليس فقط قراءتها وركنها على رف المكتبة بعد ذلك، ولكن تستحق منا البحث ،وإعادة قراءة فقرات منها ،والامتنان بالطبع، وكتاب فلسفة تاريخ الفن من ضمن تلك المجموعة.
في البداية ما استلفتني هو عبارة "فلسفة التاريخ" تلك الجملة التي تحمل وراءها الكثير والكثير، فهو منهج لا يقوم فقط على التأريخ للأحداث بالطريقة البدائية، ولكنها منهج علمي يحلل العوامل الثقافية والاجتماعية للظاهرة التي تُدرس، وهنا كان الفن، لذا يربط هنا هاوزر الفن بالأنساق الاجتماعية المختلفة من سياسية لاقتصادية لدينية...، كل ذلك له دور أصيل في الفن، وجاء هذا الكتاب ليبرهن هاوزر على وجهة نظره تلك، فهذا الكتاب يعتبر مقدمة لكتابه الآخر " الفن والمجتمع عبر التاريخ".
الكتاب غزير جداً بالمعلومات وبالنظريات، فهو عبارة عن مجموعة متفرقة من مقالات ومحاضرات ألقاها هاوزر ثم جاء ليعيد تجميعهم جميعاً في ذلك الكتاب،فهو لم يقدم تأريخاً مملاً للأعمال الفنية في الغربل، ولكنه يتعمق أكثر من ذلك، للأسف لجهلي بالفن كان من الصعب أن أتذوق بعض من فقرات الكتاب، ولكن الترجمة بالطبع لا غبار عليها، ولعل من أكثر فصول الكتاب متعة هو الفصل الذي يتناول الجانب السيكولوجي للفنان، ويجيب على العديد من الأسئلة مستعيناً بنظريات فرويد في التحليل النفسي، والتفرقة بين الفن الفولكلوري والفن الشعبي، والحديث عن الفن السينما وتطور المسرح وعقده للمقارنة الرائعة الموجزة بين مسرح اليونان القديم ومسرح شكسبير، ثم حديثه عن المشاهد وتقبله للتقنيات اللامنطقية التي كانت تستخدمها المسرح والسينما، وقدرته على تقبل البعد الرابع.
في البداية ما استلفتني هو عبارة "فلسفة التاريخ" تلك الجملة التي تحمل وراءها الكثير والكثير، فهو منهج لا يقوم فقط على التأريخ للأحداث بالطريقة البدائية، ولكنها منهج علمي يحلل العوامل الثقافية والاجتماعية للظاهرة التي تُدرس، وهنا كان الفن، لذا يربط هنا هاوزر الفن بالأنساق الاجتماعية المختلفة من سياسية لاقتصادية لدينية...، كل ذلك له دور أصيل في الفن، وجاء هذا الكتاب ليبرهن هاوزر على وجهة نظره تلك، فهذا الكتاب يعتبر مقدمة لكتابه الآخر " الفن والمجتمع عبر التاريخ".
الكتاب غزير جداً بالمعلومات وبالنظريات، فهو عبارة عن مجموعة متفرقة من مقالات ومحاضرات ألقاها هاوزر ثم جاء ليعيد تجميعهم جميعاً في ذلك الكتاب،فهو لم يقدم تأريخاً مملاً للأعمال الفنية في الغربل، ولكنه يتعمق أكثر من ذلك، للأسف لجهلي بالفن كان من الصعب أن أتذوق بعض من فقرات الكتاب، ولكن الترجمة بالطبع لا غبار عليها، ولعل من أكثر فصول الكتاب متعة هو الفصل الذي يتناول الجانب السيكولوجي للفنان، ويجيب على العديد من الأسئلة مستعيناً بنظريات فرويد في التحليل النفسي، والتفرقة بين الفن الفولكلوري والفن الشعبي، والحديث عن الفن السينما وتطور المسرح وعقده للمقارنة الرائعة الموجزة بين مسرح اليونان القديم ومسرح شكسبير، ثم حديثه عن المشاهد وتقبله للتقنيات اللامنطقية التي كانت تستخدمها المسرح والسينما، وقدرته على تقبل البعد الرابع.
May 17, 2024
Let's say 4.8. Although Hegel is back in fashion, one may be forgiven for getting a little weary with the long middle section on "Art History Without Names" and the general (I think correct, if belabored) attack on teleologies of Art Geist. Perhaps Hauser is himself the one who makes the arguments there seem obvious in retrospect. I liked the rest of the book almost as much as I liked Hauser's sublime book on "Mannerism" (which I believe follows this volume). I never really understood how anyone could feel anything other than distain for "Historical Materialism" until reading these. Really interesting closing sections on Folk and Popular Art.
I no longer think Hauser is >perfect< (he has the kind of chip on his shoulder for Romanticism which, in my opinion, both reveals and ignores in new ways aspects of that Moment and its Descendants), but his books have permanently enlarged the way that I think about art in history and there are tantalizing insights on even the (rare) ploddingest of pages.
I no longer think Hauser is >perfect< (he has the kind of chip on his shoulder for Romanticism which, in my opinion, both reveals and ignores in new ways aspects of that Moment and its Descendants), but his books have permanently enlarged the way that I think about art in history and there are tantalizing insights on even the (rare) ploddingest of pages.
Want to read
March 22, 2013arnold hauser
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews