What do you think?
The Social History of Art #3-4
Historia social de la literatura y el arte II
Influido por los cánones y preceptos de la rama más teórica del marxismo, Arnold Hauser concibió su Historia social de la literatura y el arte como un ejercicio omnímodo, capaz de dar cuenta, mediante las sinergias de la historia y sus coyunturas sociales, de las producciones artísticas y culturales que han perdurado hasta nuestros días. Este segundo volumen de su obra magna recorre los dos siglos que van desde el siglo XVIII y la gestación del movimiento rococó hasta los albores y el desarrollo de la cinematografía. Son años de cambios constantes que, nos enseña Hauser, no deben disociarse en ningún caso de las expresiones artísticas que los visten: la parte no puede entenderse sin el todo.
- GenresArtNonfiction
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1951
About the author
Arnold Hauser
148 books75 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 22, 2023
El formato de este segundo libro es prácticamente el mismo que el primero, todo el contenido del libro está narrado en forma de línea del tiempo, en esta ocasión se inicia desde el Rococo y se termina hasta un inmaduro análisis sobre el cine como arte nuevo, como arte joven y popular. Hauser vuelve a hacer un trabajo extraordinario en cuanto la investigación necesaria para realizar estos dos grandes volúmenes sobre la historia del arte desde una perspectiva social. A lo largo de la obra podemos recalcar ciertos hitos históricos que son analizados profundamente por el autor con la intención de dar una sensación de separación de corrientes artísticas entre el tiempo, porque al final de cuentas como uno puede uno ser exacto al asociar una época con una obra artística ? A lo mucho podemos aproximarnos a una fecha ya que en estos casos clasificar algo como una cosa y no otra a veces parece un trabajo sin fin y sin sentido. A diferencia del primer volumen, este segundo resulta mucho más familiar, no quiero decir más sencillo de entender porque probablemente no sea el caso, naturalmente al hablarse de épocas más recientes uno puede sentirse más identificado con estas ideas que con las estudiadas en la edad media. Por otra parte en este volumen podemos ver el surgimiento del capitalismo "Laissez-Faire" desde sus orígenes en la sociedad feudal, como también se explica el funcionamiento de la nueva sociedad burguesa como catalizador de lo que ahora es la gran e imparable máquina del capitalismo moderno. Me parece curioso como a lo largo de su libro el autor notablemente expresa sus tendencias a la ideología de izquierda, nunca llegando a los extremos, ni condenando las ideologías conservadoras. Sin embargo al hablar sobre el surgimiento del socialismo, este no hace el mínimo esfuerzo en maquillar lo que a leguas se sabe, jamás se ha tenido la intención de implementarse, en ningún tiempo y región se ha efectuado esta alternativa al sistema actual, siempre son variantes aparentemente más justas del modelo vigente. Todo esto que he escrito es narrado enfocado en evidenciar la relación de los aspectos sociales/económicos/psicológicos con la obra artística a lo largo de la historia humana moderna. Por mi parte me gustaría seguir mi investigación sobre la historia del arte partiendo del punto donde Hauser dejó su obra para enfocarme en el análisis de las nuevas vanguardias (Expresionismo, Futurismo, Surrealismo) en el viejo y nuevo mundo así como también tratar de dar un pronostico sobre el posible futuro del arte en el ciberespacio y metaverso. Creo que debería haberme más investigación sobre las nuevas corrientes artísticas ya que desde el impresionismo la tendencia ha sido que el arte sea cada vez más cambiante en cuánto su fondo y forma adoptando cualquier medio posible expresión. Otras incertidumbres que quedan por resolver es saber si es posible considerar que el pop-art sea el principio del fin del arte moderno? O al menos como lo hemos percibido desde el Renacimiento, o sencillamente cuestionarnos si la visión del nuevo arte va a tener una orientación estética o utilitaria. Finalmente quiero recomendar el libro a todos aquellos que gusten del arte y estén interesados en crear una voz artística, ya que creo que es fundamental conocer todo el espectro existente de tendencias y estilos artísticos en la historia humana antes de pretender iniciar una aceptable carrera creativa en cualquiera de las bellas artes, aún también en la danza la cual ha sido fuertemente ligada al teatro pero no ha sido abordada en absoluto en las mil hojas que confirman el ensayo de Arnold Hauser.
June 11, 2019
What else????
E’ cosa comunemente risaputa che l’arte aulica, dopo uno sviluppo quasi continuo ….
Inoltre Ruskin fu il primo in Inghilterra a sostenere fermamente che l’arte è di pubblico interesse e che il favorirla è uno dei compiti più importanti dello Stato.
Lo Shakespeare del dottor Johnson, di Coleridge, di Hazlitt e di Bradley non esiste più: le opere del poeta non sono più quelle che erano un tempo. Se le parole possono essere le stesse, un’opera non è soltanto fatta di parole, ma anche del loro significato, e questo varia da una generazione all’altra.
La maggioranza è consciamente o inconsciamente reazionaria e affascinata dalle idee di Bergson, Barres, Charles Maurras, Ortega y Gasset, Chesterton, Spengler, Keyserling, Klages e così via apre la strada al fascismo. Il “nuovo Medio Evo”, la “Nuova Cristianità”, la “Nuova Europa” sono il vecchio mondo romantico della reazione, e la “rivoluzione della scienza”, la mobilitazione dello “spirito” contro il meccanicismo e il determinismo scientifico non sono che “l’inizio della grande reazione mondiale contro l’indirizzo democratico e sociale” dell’Illuminismo.
Ma lo stile di Kafka e di Joyce [è quello] in cui una prosa assai sobria e spesso addirittura comune va insieme alla più delicata trasparenza dell’idea […] in cui il vero soggetto è l’assurdità della vita.
La via che conduce a una vera comprensione dell’arte passa per la cultura. Non la forzata semplificazione dell’arte, ma l’educazione del giudizio estetico è il mezzo per evitare che essa sia continuamente monopolizzata da un’infima minoranza.
E’ cosa comunemente risaputa che l’arte aulica, dopo uno sviluppo quasi continuo ….
Inoltre Ruskin fu il primo in Inghilterra a sostenere fermamente che l’arte è di pubblico interesse e che il favorirla è uno dei compiti più importanti dello Stato.
Lo Shakespeare del dottor Johnson, di Coleridge, di Hazlitt e di Bradley non esiste più: le opere del poeta non sono più quelle che erano un tempo. Se le parole possono essere le stesse, un’opera non è soltanto fatta di parole, ma anche del loro significato, e questo varia da una generazione all’altra.
La maggioranza è consciamente o inconsciamente reazionaria e affascinata dalle idee di Bergson, Barres, Charles Maurras, Ortega y Gasset, Chesterton, Spengler, Keyserling, Klages e così via apre la strada al fascismo. Il “nuovo Medio Evo”, la “Nuova Cristianità”, la “Nuova Europa” sono il vecchio mondo romantico della reazione, e la “rivoluzione della scienza”, la mobilitazione dello “spirito” contro il meccanicismo e il determinismo scientifico non sono che “l’inizio della grande reazione mondiale contro l’indirizzo democratico e sociale” dell’Illuminismo.
Ma lo stile di Kafka e di Joyce [è quello] in cui una prosa assai sobria e spesso addirittura comune va insieme alla più delicata trasparenza dell’idea […] in cui il vero soggetto è l’assurdità della vita.
La via che conduce a una vera comprensione dell’arte passa per la cultura. Non la forzata semplificazione dell’arte, ma l’educazione del giudizio estetico è il mezzo per evitare che essa sia continuamente monopolizzata da un’infima minoranza.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews