What do you think?
Rate this book
فلسفه هنر از دیدگاه مارکس
English, Russian (translation)
- GenresPhilosophyArtNonfiction
247 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1935
15 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Mikhail Lifshitz
5 books4 followersMikhail Aleksandrovich Lifshitz (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Ли́фшиц; July 23, 1905, in Melitopol, Tavria (Crimea) – September 28, 1983, in Moscow) was a Soviet Marxian literary critic and philosopher of art who had a long and controversial career in the former Soviet Union. In the 1930s, he strongly influenced Marxist views on aesthetics while being a close associate of György Lukács. He also published important compilations of early Marxist literature on the role of art. In 1975, he was elected as a full member of the USSR Academy of Arts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 9, 2021
Lifshitz convincingly shows that Marx’s comments on aesthetics are anything but anecdotal. Instead, one gets the sense that Marx’s attention to art and art history helped to shape the development of his theories over the whole course of his life. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, this rewarding little book benefits from an all-too-rare attention to what Marx actually said and, no less importantly, an attention to the context in which it was said. This attention—the product of Lifshitz’ access to the Moscow archives of Marx’s collected works while writing in the early 1930s—distinguishes it from virtually all other Marxist and ‘Marxist’ art theory and criticism that I’ve encountered.
His basic findings and conclusions:
(1.) that Marx never endorsed an inevitable decay of art in relation to the development of the forces of production, but nonetheless saw modern art as lacking the substance or gravity of ancient art;
(2.) that Marx understood the division of labor, and more specifically the division of labor under capitalism, as being the cause of art’s increasing superficiality;
(3.) that Marx saw excessive individualism and abstraction as flights from the real conditions which deserve artistic consideration;
(4.) that Marx identified a relationship between artistic production and production in general which was not linear, derivative, or “abstract,” but rather “uneven”;
(5.) that Marx saw the reproduction of the Greek Epic’s (ex.) substance “on a higher plane” as being inseparable from proletarian revolution (where the former is made possible by the latter);
(6.) that he nevertheless developed a sharp disdain for pseudo-classicism, as evidenced by his critique of those who would attempt the reproduce an ancient polis under modern economic conditions (see The Holy Family or the Eighteenth Brumaire);
(7.) that art’s ‘nihilism’ under capitalism could be “progressive from the point of view of art itself” (Lifshitz), since it paved the way for a genuinely internationalist and proletarian aesthetics even as it failed to inspire (in precisely the same manner as orthodox Marxists saw capitalism to be progressive in relation to feudalism, as a groundwork for what would come—but this point is probably the least convincing among them.);
To varying degrees, all points are fairly well-supported, although as he himself admits in his introduction, there is almost always room for interpretation. Together, they constitute a compelling groundwork for the movement that would come to be known as socialist realism.
Personally— I would want to complicate point 3. I think Marx’s understanding of the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete is more complex than a simple privileging of one over the other—even if this privileging is for Marx an important point in the whole movement, which runs from the concrete, to the simplest abstractions, to concrete as complex totality of moments. (See intro to Grundrisse) Even so, Lifshitz/Marx’s critique of *excessive* abstraction (let’s say: art for art’s sake) strikes an important note of truth. I think Lifshitz simplifies this relation between the abstract and the concrete because he is primarily drawing on Marx’s dissertation era writings in order to make the point.
As for the other arguments— I think that a reevaluation of point 3 would force an equally essential reevaluation of point 4 and point 7, which strike this reader as insufficient or one-sided. Neither of the latter arguments would be invalidated per se, but rather: the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete can deepen our understanding of “unevenness”, while also providing a stronger basis on which to critique (and recuperate parts of) modern art’s ‘nihilism’. Of course, a reevaluation of Lifshitz’ simplistic conception of historical stages would have to occur at the same time. All for another day.
His basic findings and conclusions:
(1.) that Marx never endorsed an inevitable decay of art in relation to the development of the forces of production, but nonetheless saw modern art as lacking the substance or gravity of ancient art;
(2.) that Marx understood the division of labor, and more specifically the division of labor under capitalism, as being the cause of art’s increasing superficiality;
(3.) that Marx saw excessive individualism and abstraction as flights from the real conditions which deserve artistic consideration;
(4.) that Marx identified a relationship between artistic production and production in general which was not linear, derivative, or “abstract,” but rather “uneven”;
(5.) that Marx saw the reproduction of the Greek Epic’s (ex.) substance “on a higher plane” as being inseparable from proletarian revolution (where the former is made possible by the latter);
(6.) that he nevertheless developed a sharp disdain for pseudo-classicism, as evidenced by his critique of those who would attempt the reproduce an ancient polis under modern economic conditions (see The Holy Family or the Eighteenth Brumaire);
(7.) that art’s ‘nihilism’ under capitalism could be “progressive from the point of view of art itself” (Lifshitz), since it paved the way for a genuinely internationalist and proletarian aesthetics even as it failed to inspire (in precisely the same manner as orthodox Marxists saw capitalism to be progressive in relation to feudalism, as a groundwork for what would come—but this point is probably the least convincing among them.);
To varying degrees, all points are fairly well-supported, although as he himself admits in his introduction, there is almost always room for interpretation. Together, they constitute a compelling groundwork for the movement that would come to be known as socialist realism.
Personally— I would want to complicate point 3. I think Marx’s understanding of the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete is more complex than a simple privileging of one over the other—even if this privileging is for Marx an important point in the whole movement, which runs from the concrete, to the simplest abstractions, to concrete as complex totality of moments. (See intro to Grundrisse) Even so, Lifshitz/Marx’s critique of *excessive* abstraction (let’s say: art for art’s sake) strikes an important note of truth. I think Lifshitz simplifies this relation between the abstract and the concrete because he is primarily drawing on Marx’s dissertation era writings in order to make the point.
As for the other arguments— I think that a reevaluation of point 3 would force an equally essential reevaluation of point 4 and point 7, which strike this reader as insufficient or one-sided. Neither of the latter arguments would be invalidated per se, but rather: the dialectics of the abstract and the concrete can deepen our understanding of “unevenness”, while also providing a stronger basis on which to critique (and recuperate parts of) modern art’s ‘nihilism’. Of course, a reevaluation of Lifshitz’ simplistic conception of historical stages would have to occur at the same time. All for another day.
February 25, 2015
reasonably informative, and is an interesting and quick read if you are curious about Marx's dissertation, his thoughts on greek sculpture, and his early poetry and prose. Cute history of his life and academic development. It is also is an attack on literary formalism, if you're looking for that. but Lots of Hegel......
Did you know Marx was a poet? That he also had an unfinished play? That he wanted to make his lifework a long critical piece on Balzac but felt compelled to write Capital for the sake of the movement?
"As he himself confessed, Marx made determined efforts to suppress his inclination to write poetry; the temptation remained with him, however, for many years. As late as 1841 he published two of his early poems in Atheniium. The conflict between the urge to write poetry and the stern necessity of finding an answer in the field of science to the problems of life constituted the first crisis in Marx's intellectual development. The outcome of this inner battle was a complete renunciation of poetry and a conversion to the philosophy of Hegel, with its doctrine of the inevitable decadence of art in modern times."
Later, after Hegel, Marx ridicules him in one of his poems:
Forgive us our epigrams
As we sing unpleasant tunes
For by rote we have studied Hegel,
And we are not yet purged of his Aesthetik
Did you know Marx was a poet? That he also had an unfinished play? That he wanted to make his lifework a long critical piece on Balzac but felt compelled to write Capital for the sake of the movement?
"As he himself confessed, Marx made determined efforts to suppress his inclination to write poetry; the temptation remained with him, however, for many years. As late as 1841 he published two of his early poems in Atheniium. The conflict between the urge to write poetry and the stern necessity of finding an answer in the field of science to the problems of life constituted the first crisis in Marx's intellectual development. The outcome of this inner battle was a complete renunciation of poetry and a conversion to the philosophy of Hegel, with its doctrine of the inevitable decadence of art in modern times."
Later, after Hegel, Marx ridicules him in one of his poems:
Forgive us our epigrams
As we sing unpleasant tunes
For by rote we have studied Hegel,
And we are not yet purged of his Aesthetik
May 25, 2020
Στα θετικά η γραμμική σειρά από τα πρώτα έργα ως την ωριμότητα. Μικρά κεφάλαια, χωρίς όμως τίτλο που δε βοηθά αν θέλεις να εστιάσεις σε κάποιο σημείο. Η μετάφραση δεν ξέρω κατά πόσο βοηθά ή μειώνει το έργο, καθώς σε πολλά σημεία μπερδεύτηκα. Το επίμετρο του Γιάννη Ιόλαου Μανιάτη εξαιρετικά διαφωτιστικό. Στα ελληνικά δεν ξέρω πάντως να υπάρχει αντίπαλο δέος για την μαρξική αισθητική, πέραν των Κειμένων για την Τέχνη και της Αισθητικής της σοβιετικής Ακαδημίας Επιστημών.
July 31, 2022
خیلی ها مارکس را محدود به اقتصاد و جامعه شناسی میکنند ولی این کتاب از دید دیگری به مارکس نگاه میکند و به تعریف زیبایی و هنر از دید مارکس میپردازد، مارکس خود را علاقه مند به ادبیات نشان میدهد و این علاقه مندی در کتای سرمایه و استفاده زیرکانه او از دانته بالزاک شکسپیر دیده میشود و این کتاب نقطه دیگری از آن است
July 15, 2023
I read this book so you don’t have to.
Setelah buku ini berdebu di TBR, akhirnya baru kali ini bisa mengumpulkan niat untuk membaca buku ini. Secara garis besar, buku ini mengulas tentang filsafat seni menurut Marx. Penulis memulai pembahasan dengan memaparkan puisi-puisi yang pernah ditulis oleh Marx pada tahap pre-Hegelian dalam hidupnya; bahkan Marx pernah menjadi anti-Hegel pada saat itu. Pada akhirnya, beliau mengikuti Hegel dan membuang ide-ide romantisismenya. Salah satu referensi yang digunakan mereka dalam memandang kehidupan adalah filsafat Epicurus. Hegel memandang filsafat Epicurus sebagai ego empiris (egoisme pribadi). Namun, Marx menginterpretasikan filsafat Epicurus dalam ranah egoisme masyarakat manusia (egoisme kolektif). Maka dari itu, Hegel memandang seni sebagai sebuah agama yang mampu mewujudkan penyembahan manusia terhadap dirinya sendiri (di sinilah Hegel menyatakan bahwa satu-satunya agama yang ia percaya adalah Hellenistic yang dia anggap sebagai ‘agama seni’). Sementara itu, Marx memandang seni sebagai sesuatu yang berorientasi pada demokrasi manusia. Di sinilah kita dapat melihat ada perbedaan antara pandangan Hegel dan Marx.
Kritik Marx terhadap filsafat seni adalah seni pada masa modern dieksploitasi menjadi sebuah komoditas. Ia membandingkan seniman pada era Antiquity dengan era modern. Pada era Antiquity, seniman menjadikan seni sebagai tujuan dalam dirinya sendiri, sehingga seniman pada masa itu rela mengorbankan eksistensi dirinya bagi seninya sendiri. Menurut beliau, produksi objek seni seharusnya bukan saja sebagai suatu objek bagi individu yang bersangkutan, tapi juga harus menghasilkan individu bagi objek tersebut. Pada era Antiquity (atau masa-masa kuno lainnya), unsur kualitatif relatif sepadan dengan unsur kuantitatif. Namun, pada era modern segala aktivitas manusia menjadi tersubordinasikan di bawah prinsip akumulasi kapital yang bersifat kuantitatif-abstrak. Beliau juga mengambil contoh seniman pada Abad Pertengahan yang lebih melibatkan diri dengan aktivitasnya, mengalami ketertarikan, dan mengabdi pada apa yang ia kerjakan daripada pekerja modern. Sementara itu, pada era modern seni telah menjadi komoditas karena dihargai dengan upah, sehingga minat seniman pada aktivitas seninya tidaklah sebanding dengan minat seniman pada era Abad Pertengahan. Menurut beliau, masyarakat modern tidak kompeten dalam mengelola sarana-sarana budaya dan kesenian karena terbatasnya perkembangan budaya dalam masyarakat yang hidup berdasarkan eksploitasi manusia oleh manusia lain.
Sejujurnya, saya tidak setuju dengan pandangan-pandangan yang ditulis di dalam buku ini karena prinsip-prinsip ini rasanya sangat bertolak belakang dengan apa yang saya yakini dan pegang pada saat ini. Setelah membaca buku ini, saya pun melihat banyak kelemahan (holes) dan inkonsistensi dalam prinsip-prinsip dasar Marx maupun Hegel. Perwujudan tertinggi pandangan Marx hanya bisa diwujudkan dalam level ide saja, namun kenyataannya pandangan beliau tidak akan efektif bila dimanifestasikan dalam kehidupan nyata. Walaupun demikian, saya menghargai cara penulis menyampaikan kritik filsafat seni secara sistematis dan runut. Saya jadi mengerti bagaimana orang-orang dengan latar belakang pemahaman politis yang berbeda-beda dapat menginterpretasikan seni secara berbeda-beda juga. Bagi saya pribadi, tulisan ini tidak memiliki daya persuasif yang cukup kuat. Malah tulisan ini semakin mengafirmasi dan menguatkan kepercayaan saya terhadap prinsip yang telah saya pegang sekarang meskipun prinsip saya sangat berseberangan dengan apa yang disampaikan di buku ini 😅
📝 4.25 // 5
Setelah buku ini berdebu di TBR, akhirnya baru kali ini bisa mengumpulkan niat untuk membaca buku ini. Secara garis besar, buku ini mengulas tentang filsafat seni menurut Marx. Penulis memulai pembahasan dengan memaparkan puisi-puisi yang pernah ditulis oleh Marx pada tahap pre-Hegelian dalam hidupnya; bahkan Marx pernah menjadi anti-Hegel pada saat itu. Pada akhirnya, beliau mengikuti Hegel dan membuang ide-ide romantisismenya. Salah satu referensi yang digunakan mereka dalam memandang kehidupan adalah filsafat Epicurus. Hegel memandang filsafat Epicurus sebagai ego empiris (egoisme pribadi). Namun, Marx menginterpretasikan filsafat Epicurus dalam ranah egoisme masyarakat manusia (egoisme kolektif). Maka dari itu, Hegel memandang seni sebagai sebuah agama yang mampu mewujudkan penyembahan manusia terhadap dirinya sendiri (di sinilah Hegel menyatakan bahwa satu-satunya agama yang ia percaya adalah Hellenistic yang dia anggap sebagai ‘agama seni’). Sementara itu, Marx memandang seni sebagai sesuatu yang berorientasi pada demokrasi manusia. Di sinilah kita dapat melihat ada perbedaan antara pandangan Hegel dan Marx.
Kritik Marx terhadap filsafat seni adalah seni pada masa modern dieksploitasi menjadi sebuah komoditas. Ia membandingkan seniman pada era Antiquity dengan era modern. Pada era Antiquity, seniman menjadikan seni sebagai tujuan dalam dirinya sendiri, sehingga seniman pada masa itu rela mengorbankan eksistensi dirinya bagi seninya sendiri. Menurut beliau, produksi objek seni seharusnya bukan saja sebagai suatu objek bagi individu yang bersangkutan, tapi juga harus menghasilkan individu bagi objek tersebut. Pada era Antiquity (atau masa-masa kuno lainnya), unsur kualitatif relatif sepadan dengan unsur kuantitatif. Namun, pada era modern segala aktivitas manusia menjadi tersubordinasikan di bawah prinsip akumulasi kapital yang bersifat kuantitatif-abstrak. Beliau juga mengambil contoh seniman pada Abad Pertengahan yang lebih melibatkan diri dengan aktivitasnya, mengalami ketertarikan, dan mengabdi pada apa yang ia kerjakan daripada pekerja modern. Sementara itu, pada era modern seni telah menjadi komoditas karena dihargai dengan upah, sehingga minat seniman pada aktivitas seninya tidaklah sebanding dengan minat seniman pada era Abad Pertengahan. Menurut beliau, masyarakat modern tidak kompeten dalam mengelola sarana-sarana budaya dan kesenian karena terbatasnya perkembangan budaya dalam masyarakat yang hidup berdasarkan eksploitasi manusia oleh manusia lain.
Sejujurnya, saya tidak setuju dengan pandangan-pandangan yang ditulis di dalam buku ini karena prinsip-prinsip ini rasanya sangat bertolak belakang dengan apa yang saya yakini dan pegang pada saat ini. Setelah membaca buku ini, saya pun melihat banyak kelemahan (holes) dan inkonsistensi dalam prinsip-prinsip dasar Marx maupun Hegel. Perwujudan tertinggi pandangan Marx hanya bisa diwujudkan dalam level ide saja, namun kenyataannya pandangan beliau tidak akan efektif bila dimanifestasikan dalam kehidupan nyata. Walaupun demikian, saya menghargai cara penulis menyampaikan kritik filsafat seni secara sistematis dan runut. Saya jadi mengerti bagaimana orang-orang dengan latar belakang pemahaman politis yang berbeda-beda dapat menginterpretasikan seni secara berbeda-beda juga. Bagi saya pribadi, tulisan ini tidak memiliki daya persuasif yang cukup kuat. Malah tulisan ini semakin mengafirmasi dan menguatkan kepercayaan saya terhadap prinsip yang telah saya pegang sekarang meskipun prinsip saya sangat berseberangan dengan apa yang disampaikan di buku ini 😅
📝 4.25 // 5
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 28, 2024
“Whereas ancient society was concerned with the specific quality of a thing, its use-value, the capitalist world is dominated by quantity, exchange value. Qualitative differences are reduced to simple quantitative relations. The ‘degradation of nature’ to which Marx referred in working on his Dissertation, he had explained rationally.” (p. 95)
“By means of the class struggle it shows the way to a classless culture; by means of the development of an art inspired by the broad and profound worldview of the proletariat, it leads to the abolition of the disparity between social and artistic development, and hence to an unprecedented growth of art upon a wide mass basis. This is the ultimate meaning of all of Marx's comments upon literature and art; this is his historical bequest." (p. 106)
This is an enjoyable little book that seeks to trace the development of Marx's thought pertaining to aesthetics and their unity with the rest of his project. Lifshitz does not however, seek to outline an abstract “theory of art" from Marx. The book’s analysis stretches from the young Romantic poet Marx to the mature scientific socialist Marx and identifies several crucial themes throughout his intellectual development.
“By means of the class struggle it shows the way to a classless culture; by means of the development of an art inspired by the broad and profound worldview of the proletariat, it leads to the abolition of the disparity between social and artistic development, and hence to an unprecedented growth of art upon a wide mass basis. This is the ultimate meaning of all of Marx's comments upon literature and art; this is his historical bequest." (p. 106)
This is an enjoyable little book that seeks to trace the development of Marx's thought pertaining to aesthetics and their unity with the rest of his project. Lifshitz does not however, seek to outline an abstract “theory of art" from Marx. The book’s analysis stretches from the young Romantic poet Marx to the mature scientific socialist Marx and identifies several crucial themes throughout his intellectual development.
June 25, 2025
Ο ίδιος ο Μαρξ περιέγραφε την ποίηση του ως "ιδεαλιστική" σ.22
...ο Μαρξ αποκηρύτει τον ρομαντισμό του Φίχτε. σ. 25
....το δόγμα του αντι-αισθητικού πνεύματος της πραγματικότητας μπορούσε εύκολα να αποκτήσει επαναστατικό χαρακτήρα. σ.27-28
Στην κλασική τέχνη, η μορφή και η καλλιτεχνία είναι ουσιώδες, ενώ η θρησκευτική οπτική επιδιώκει την απλή ποσότητα, την άμορφη ύλη. σ.54
Η φανταστική απεικόνιση των συγκινλησεων μπορεί να διαφθείρει κάθε άνθρωπο που δεν είναι επαρκώς φωτισμένος. Έχει τις ίδιες συνέπειες με τον μυστικισμό και τη θρησκοληψία (ο ρομαντισμός ) Οτιδήποτε απλό και ανθρώπινο το αντικαθιστά με το υπερβολικό, οτιδήποτε αρμονικό και οργανωμένο με το αυθαίρετο.
(Rheinische Zeitung, τεύχ. 254, 1842 - Μ.Λ.) σ 61
Ο ρομαντισμός του 19ου αιώνα, αντιθέτως, ήταν μια συνέχιση της επιπόλαιης διάθεσης των προνομιούχων ��άξεων. σ.62
Ας αναλογιστούμε... τη ρομαντική πίστη τους (της αστικής τάξης) στην προσωπική αρετή των αφεντικών -ειδικά όταν διακυβεύονται τα συμφέροντα των εργατών. σ.68
Στην τέχνη, είναι γνωστό πως ορισμένες εποχές καλλιτεχνικής άνθησης δεν αντιστοιχούν καθόλου στη γενική εξέλιξη της κοινωνίας, άρα και της υλικής της βάσης, του σκελετού- της κοινωνικής οργάνωσης. σ.133
...ο Μαρξ αποκηρύτει τον ρομαντισμό του Φίχτε. σ. 25
....το δόγμα του αντι-αισθητικού πνεύματος της πραγματικότητας μπορούσε εύκολα να αποκτήσει επαναστατικό χαρακτήρα. σ.27-28
Στην κλασική τέχνη, η μορφή και η καλλιτεχνία είναι ουσιώδες, ενώ η θρησκευτική οπτική επιδιώκει την απλή ποσότητα, την άμορφη ύλη. σ.54
Η φανταστική απεικόνιση των συγκινλησεων μπορεί να διαφθείρει κάθε άνθρωπο που δεν είναι επαρκώς φωτισμένος. Έχει τις ίδιες συνέπειες με τον μυστικισμό και τη θρησκοληψία (ο ρομαντισμός ) Οτιδήποτε απλό και ανθρώπινο το αντικαθιστά με το υπερβολικό, οτιδήποτε αρμονικό και οργανωμένο με το αυθαίρετο.
(Rheinische Zeitung, τεύχ. 254, 1842 - Μ.Λ.) σ 61
Ο ρομαντισμός του 19ου αιώνα, αντιθέτως, ήταν μια συνέχιση της επιπόλαιης διάθεσης των προνομιούχων ��άξεων. σ.62
Ας αναλογιστούμε... τη ρομαντική πίστη τους (της αστικής τάξης) στην προσωπική αρετή των αφεντικών -ειδικά όταν διακυβεύονται τα συμφέροντα των εργατών. σ.68
Στην τέχνη, είναι γνωστό πως ορισμένες εποχές καλλιτεχνικής άνθησης δεν αντιστοιχούν καθόλου στη γενική εξέλιξη της κοινωνίας, άρα και της υλικής της βάσης, του σκελετού- της κοινωνικής οργάνωσης. σ.133
August 14, 2024
Here we get a close-up examination of the general stances Marx took over his life regarding art and its connection to his other stances.
We also see lots of quotes, poems, and bits of art, alongside excerpts from Marx's notes in book margins, in notebooks, and in letters to friends and family.
the book is a short read. i would recommend it if you would only like to see some parts of Marx's works cut up and shaped to the analysis of dialectics, through art and the likes.
tldr; art in communism works because people aren't weighed down to waste time and sell their art (therefore themselves) in order to stay alive, something that would then limit freedom. By working useful work, and living in real freedom, expression becomes almost impossible to resist.
in an additional note, the author makes some outdated references to "Asiatic barbarism." -I wasn't expecting a 1930s writer to be good about racism, but it was a little jarring.
We also see lots of quotes, poems, and bits of art, alongside excerpts from Marx's notes in book margins, in notebooks, and in letters to friends and family.
the book is a short read. i would recommend it if you would only like to see some parts of Marx's works cut up and shaped to the analysis of dialectics, through art and the likes.
tldr; art in communism works because people aren't weighed down to waste time and sell their art (therefore themselves) in order to stay alive, something that would then limit freedom. By working useful work, and living in real freedom, expression becomes almost impossible to resist.
in an additional note, the author makes some outdated references to "Asiatic barbarism." -I wasn't expecting a 1930s writer to be good about racism, but it was a little jarring.
August 14, 2023
“By means of the class struggle it shows the way to a classless culture; by means of the development of an art inspired by the broad and profound worldview of the proletariat, it leads to the abolition of the disparity between social and artistic development, and hence to an unprecedented growth of art upon a wide mass basis.”
Read
November 13, 2024If not polemic, at the least an interesting book that collects Marx's developing writing on art to illustrate his changing politics-- most notably his departure from Hegel. Helpful as an art historian, but I don't know enough to say that Mikhail is correct or not in his centering of aesthetics to Marx's philosophy.
September 21, 2018
Lupa kapan mulai dan beres baca buku ini.
Terjemahannya kurang bagus.
Terjemahannya kurang bagus.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 6, 2020
Too much for me too handle. Maybe if I reread this I'll get it better. Rating might change.
March 17, 2023
Art is dead! LONG LIVE ART!
Read
October 1, 2025Lifshitz, M. (1973) The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx. London: Pluto Press.
Currently reading
March 20, 2013Thus far I am in disagreement; I have yet to read his more notable thoughts on democracy; I can appreciate his feud with Hegal.
Read
August 22, 2016I liked the short chapter format.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews