Marxism and art

glevy at glevy at
Fri Jul 7 14:21:55 MDT 1995

James Garrett wrote:

> We consider a work great not because of its "atemporality," but because it
> represents the struggles of the events it depicts.


>From this perspective, wouldn't the greatest works of literature be
non-fiction and the greatest films documentaries?  Surely, there must be
other factors besides the representation of struggles that determine
whether a work or art is "great." In addition to content, isn't the form
and technique used by artists important in differentiating mediocre art
from "great" art?

Let's talk some more about art and Marxism.  Perhaps some of the
"lurkers" are interested in this subject.

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list