Art and revolution

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at
Sat Nov 4 11:29:04 MST 2000

En relación a Re: Art and revolution,
el 4 Nov 00, a las 8:39, Doyle Saylor dijo:

> Greetings Comrades,
>     Art and revolution in the Marxist sense have been a lengthy debate
>     about
> realism.  Most Marxist have staunchly wanted realist art as opposed to
> the large element of abstraction we see in modernism (where modernism
> represents U.S. and their allied camp culture, but not the whole of
> capitalist culture).
>     Nestor's comment about Balzac falls into the classic arguments
> concerning realism in art.  I want to make a few points here about
> realism and some implications for the coming period.

I am amazed to see my comments are so close to the pro-realist
postion depicted by Doyle. Though the Balzac example was related to
realism, since, in the end, Balzac was realist, I believe that the
general idea I exposed (a structure of coherent meaning, not
necessarily a realist structure, and its relations with the meaning
of our relationship with nature and other human beings and groups)
does not imply that "realist" art is "better" art.

In fact, I admire the paintings by Dalí or by Miró, and some of my
country's artists I like best are non-figurative. What I mean is that
whatever it is in their paintings that moves me, I am of the idea
that it has to do with the expression of feelings that exist in
society, feelings to which I can be sympathetic or not, but which I
can relate to. Perhaps I should have used a different example.

Nothing furthest away from the undersigned than the idea that good
art is realist art. Good art is truthful art, honest art, faithful
art. Realism can be as unfaithful as abstraction, and vice versa.

Now, this clear, I want to say that I am a humble pupil on these
matters, and that I learn a lot from Doyle's postings on art.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list