subject: The Criteria For Literary Criticism [print this page] Can the idea that art is art, not a "deliberate" and a prescribed political propaganda, in itself an obstacle formation of certain cultural trends that would have been a reflection of his era and helped to strengthen certain political currents? I think not. On the contrary, this idea leads to a more radical statement of the problem, makes the criticism more active and effective.
The principle that a work of art should reveal only its artistic quality, does not preclude the identification of what feelings, what attitude to life is permeated with the product. The fact that this situation is recognized by modern aesthetic currents, can be seen from the works of De Sanctis and Croce himself. If something is excluded, then this point of view according to which the product very well only because of its moral and political content, rather than through the form in which the abstract content of the commitment has found an organic embodiment.
It is also necessary to identify, was not a work of art is unfortunate because the author had been led astray by practical considerations of an external nature, that is, considerations of false, insincere. This is obviously a key issue that arises in the course of debate: one "wanted" purely artificial embody certain content in his work and artistic work is not created. The failure of the product of the author (for other works, really heartfelt, and his experiences, he has shown himself an artist) indicates that the content is a matter for the alien and unruly that his enthusiasm is false and "prescribed from outside, which in this case it is not an artist, a servant who tries to please his master. We are dealing here with two kinds of facts. One - an aesthetic nature, when it comes to pure art, the other - cultural and political (ie, simply a political nature). The fact that negated a work of art can be used strictly political criticism to prove that someone like an artist does not belong to this political world, and that because of his personality, his secret life dominated by the artist, this world does not have it exposure does not exist for him, so someone - a political comedian, he wants to be mistaken for another, not because of who he actually is, etc. etc. Thus, a political critic denounced him not as an artist, but as a "political opportunists".
That figure provides pressure to force the art of their time to be a carrier of a certain type of culture - it is a political act, not an art critic. If the type of culture, for which there is a struggle, is already a fact real, necessary, then its further development will be unstoppable and it will generate its artists. If, despite the pressure, this process does not happen, it means that this was a fictitious, phony type of culture, of korpeny over the papers people mediocre, mediocre, that hurt that person more than they are, the scale does not agree with them . The very manner in which raises the question may be a sign of how stable this type of morality and culture, and, indeed, the so-called "kalligrafizm" is none other than the protection of imaginary artists who opportunistically defend certain principles, but they feel impotent to make them artistic expression, that is, to put them in their own activities, and therefore raved abstract form, which though is the actual content, etc., etc. The formal principle defining the categories of spiritual distinction and their unity in circulation, with all its abstract nature makes it possible, however, know the true state of affairs and to criticize the arbitrary decisions and imaginary vitality protected by those who do not want to play in the open, or is just a mediocre person, by accident found themselves at the command post.
