The Purpose and Significance of Marx’s “Comments on Greek Art”

In the “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” Marx published his well-known comments on Greek art (hereinafter referred to as Marx’s “Comments on Greek Art”). In the past, scholarly interpretations of these comments have mainly been carried out in the fields of art studies and aesthetics, viewing them as Marx’s discourse on art, particularly Greek art. The author believes that the purpose and significance of Marx’s “Comments on Greek Art” go far beyond this; to a greater extent, they constitute a grand social theoretical construction concerning the future development trend of human society and the ideal mode of human existence and development. For, examining the textual structure and argumentative logic of this work as a whole, it can be found that Marx’s main purpose in commenting on Greek art lies not in Greek art itself or the general problem of artistic development, but rather in attempting, through his comments on Greek art, to reveal “the uneven relationship between the development of material production and the development of art.” Therefore, our interpretation and understanding of Marx’s “Comments on Greek Art” cannot be confined to Greek art itself; rather, we must ascend from the problem of artistic development to the level of general social development, starting from the several “difficult problems” Marx points out, to reveal its profound methodological significance.

马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中发表了其著名的关于希腊艺术的评论（以下简称马克思“希腊艺术评论”）。以往，学界对这一评论的阐释主要是在艺术学、美学领域展开的，把它看作马克思关于艺术特别是希腊艺术的论说。笔者认为，马克思“希腊艺术评论”的目的和意义远不止如此，它在更大程度上是一种关于人类社会未来发展趋向、人的理想存在和发展方式的宏大社会理论建构。因为通观这篇文献的文本结构和论证逻辑可以发现，马克思评论希腊艺术的主要目的不在于希腊艺术本身或一般艺术发展问题，而是试图通过对希腊艺术的评论，揭示“物质生产的发展同艺术发展的不平衡关系”。因此，我们对马克思“希腊艺术评论”的阐释和理解，不能局限于希腊艺术本身，而是要从艺术发展问题上升到一般社会发展问题的高度，从马克思指明的几个“困难问题”入手，揭示其深刻的方法论意义。

In Marx’s view, our understanding of the relationship between Greek art and the general development of Greek society cannot remain at the “abstract” level of the general principle of historical materialism that material production determines spiritual production; rather, we must “ascend from the abstract to the concrete,” delve into the specific socio-historical conditions under which Greek art emerged, and, through concrete research into the particularity of the internal contradictions of Greek society, reveal the specific laws of development of Greek art. It is precisely by following the methodological principle of “ascending from the abstract to the concrete” that Marx put forward a new understanding of the particularity of Greek art: Greek art is directly related to Greek mythology; Greek mythology is not only the arsenal of Greek art but also its soil, because it is precisely “that view of nature and that view of social relations” reflected in Greek mythology, formed by the Greeks under conditions of backward productive forces, that constituted “the basis of the Greeks’ fantasy and hence the basis of Greek [art]”; since “as soon as these natural forces are actually brought under control, mythology disappears,” the decline of Greek art, which is based on Greek mythology, in modern society is inevitable. This means that any attempt to interpret Greek art through some kind of analogical gloss using a modern worldview, or to imitate Greek art under modern conditions, is doomed to fail. For the development of modern society is precisely premised on “the exclusion of any mythological attitude toward nature, any mythologizing of nature.”

在马克思看来，我们对希腊艺术同希腊社会一般发展的关系的认识，不能停留于物质生产决定精神生产这个唯物史观的一般原理的“抽象”层面，而是必须“从抽象上升到具体”，深入希腊艺术得以产生的具体社会历史条件层面，通过对希腊社会内部矛盾的特殊性的具体研究，揭示希腊艺术的特殊发展规律。正是遵循“从抽象上升到具体”的方法论原则，马克思提出了对希腊艺术之特殊性的新理解：希腊艺术与希腊神话直接相关，希腊神话不仅是希腊艺术的武库，而且是它的土壤，因为正是希腊神话所反映的希腊人在落后生产力条件下形成的“那种对自然的观点和对社会关系的观点”，构成了“希腊人的幻想的基础、从而成为希腊［艺术］的基础”；既然“随着这些自然力实际上被支配，神话也就消失了”，那么以希腊神话为基础的希腊艺术在现代社会的衰落就是不可避免的了。这意味着任何以现代世界观对希腊艺术作某种比附性的阐释或在现代条件下模仿希腊艺术的企图，都注定不能成功。因为现代社会的发展正是以“排斥一切对自然的神话态度，一切把自然神话化的态度”为前提的。

Marx’s “Comments on Greek Art” belongs to an intrinsic part of his critique of capitalist production, with the purpose of revealing that the essence of capitalist artistic production is for “production” (exchange value) rather than for “art” (freedom), thereby exposing the vile nature of capitalist production as hostile to artistic production as “free spiritual production.” The reason Marx discusses the problem of “the uneven relationship between the development of material production and the development of art” is mainly to refute the belief in “progress” held by bourgeois thinkers: that the development of capitalist material production can promote the flourishing and progress of spiritual production, including artistic production; that the development of the “two kinds of production” is “balanced.” However, in Marx’s view, this “balanced” view of progress propagated by bourgeois thinkers is nothing but empty talk about “civilization,” because “capitalist production is hostile to certain branches of spiritual production, such as art and poetry.” It is precisely on the basis of this understanding that Marx made the judgment that “the concept of progress must never be understood in the usual abstract sense,” and, through a comparison of the Greeks with modern people, concretely elucidated the historical content of “the uneven relationship between the development of material production and the development of art”: “Once artistic production emerges as artistic production, it can no longer be created in the classical form that is epoch-making in world history; therefore, within the realm of art itself, certain significant art forms are possible only at an undeveloped stage of artistic development.” The reason for this is that the capitalist mode of production has a tendency toward universal penetration; it strives to incorporate all production, including artistic production, into the entire capitalist production system, doing everything possible to capitalize and materialize artistic production. Once artistic production becomes capitalist artistic production aimed at extracting surplus value for capitalists, it inevitably loses its own free nature and degenerates into a tool for producing material wealth, excluding artistic production as “free spiritual production”—which symbolizes human essential forces such as freedom, dignity, individuality, and value—from “production.” So much so that it can be said that, in the eyes of capitalists, artistic production is “useless,” aesthetic value does not exist, and artistic production is only recognized when it, like material production, can bring surplus value to capitalists. And this precisely demonstrates the vile nature of capitalist production, which suppresses and tramples upon art and is hostile to humanity’s free nature.

马克思“希腊艺术评论”属于其资本主义生产批判的一个内在部分，目的是揭示资本主义艺术生产的实质是为“生产”（交换价值）而不是为“艺术”（自由），从而揭露资本主义生产同作为“自由的精神生产”的艺术生产相敌对之恶劣本性。马克思之所以谈论“物质生产的发展同艺术发展的不平衡关系”问题，主要是为了批驳资产阶级思想家们持有的这样一种“进步论”信念：资本主义物质生产的发展能够促进包括艺术生产在内的精神生产的繁荣和进步；“两种生产”的发展是“均衡”的。然而，在马克思看来，资产阶级思想家们宣扬的这种“均衡论”的进步观，不过是一些关于“文明”的空话，因为“资本主义生产就同某些精神生产部门如艺术和诗歌相敌对”。正是基于这样的认识，马克思作出了关于“进步这个概念决不能在通常的抽象意义上去理解”的论断，并通过对希腊人同现代人的比较具体阐明了“物质生产的发展同艺术发展的不平衡关系”的历史内涵：“当艺术生产一旦作为艺术生产出现，它们就再不能以那种在世界史上划时代的、古典的形式创造出来；因此，在艺术本身的领域内，某些有重大意义的艺术形式只有在艺术发展的不发达阶段上才是可能的。”之所以如此，乃是因为资本主义生产方式具有普遍渗透的趋势，它力求把包括艺术生产在内的一切生产都纳入整个资本主义生产体系，尽一切可能把艺术生产资本主义化、物质生产化，而一旦艺术生产成为为资本家赚取超额剩余价值的资本主义艺术生产，它就不可避免地失去自身的自由性质而沦为生产物质财富的工具，将象征人的自由、尊严、个性、价值等人类本质力量的作为“自由的精神生产”的艺术生产排斥于“生产”之外，以至于可以说，在资本家眼中，艺术生产是“无用的”，审美价值是不存在的，只有当艺术生产同物质生产一样也可以为资本家带来剩余价值时，它才得到承认。而这正表明了资本主义生产压制、践踏艺术，与人类的自由本性相敌对之恶劣本质。

The purpose of Marx’s writing of *Capital* was, of course, to conduct “the anatomy of the human body,” i.e., “to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society,” thereby scientifically predicting the future development trend of modern society. However, in his view, using the key of “the anatomy of the human body” to conduct “the anatomy of the ape” of ancient society was also a task with independent significance, because such “investigation and inference… will equally yield points that foreshadow the sublation of the modern form of relations of production, and thus foreshadow future portents, the movement of becoming.” Precisely because the study of ancient society plays an important role in providing a “prototype” for scientifically predicting the development trend of modern society and constructing the principles for the development of future society, Marx turned to anthropological and historical research in his later years, exploring the internal mechanisms of human society’s evolution from antiquity to modernity, in order to gain some beneficial insights for understanding the development trend of modern society. The basic conclusion of his research was: “The ‘new system’ toward which modern society is tending will be ‘the revival of the ancient type of society in a higher form.’”

马克思写作《资本论》的目的当然是作“人体解剖”即“揭示现代社会的经济运动规律”，从而科学预测现代社会的未来发展趋势。不过在他看来，借助“人体解剖”这把钥匙对古代社会作“猴体解剖”，也是一项具有独立意义的工作，因为这样的“考察和推断……同样会得出预示着生产关系的现代形式被扬弃之点，从而预示着未来的先兆，变易的运动”。正因为对古代社会的研究具有为科学预测现代社会的发展趋势、建构未来社会的发展原则提供“原型”的重要作用，所以马克思晚年转向人类学、历史学研究，探究人类社会从古代发展演变到现代的内在机理，以图从中获得一些理解现代社会发展趋势的有益启示，而其研究的基本结论是：“现代社会所趋向的‘新制度’，将是‘古代类型社会在一种高级的形式下的复活’。”

Therefore, an important purpose of Marx’s “Comments on Greek Art” is to attempt, through answering the “difficult problem” of why Greek art possesses “eternal charm,” to provide beneficial insights for scientifically predicting the development trend of modern society and constructing the principles for the development of future society. It is for this reason that we see Marx’s answer to the “problem” did not stop at art itself but led it into the depths of history, elevating the problem of artistic development to the problem of social development, focusing on the history and reality of capitalism while casting his gaze toward the future. Through his unique “problematic” argumentation, he expressed his view on the development trend of modern society: if an adult should strive to reproduce the truth of the child on a higher plane, then the most perfectly developed aspects of humanity’s childhood (Greek society), namely Greek art, should also, as an irretrievable stage, demonstrate their significance as a “norm” and “model” for the development of modern society and art. Although the social conditions under which Greek society existed are irretrievable, and Greek art has historically declined, the simple, primordial relationship between humanity and nature and society that they reflected and embodied, the original rich “natural individuality” of humanity, and the subjective forces of vital “imagination” still hold important lessons and profound enlightening significance for modern people.

因此，马克思“希腊艺术评论”的一个重要目的，就是试图通过对希腊艺术何以具有“永久的魅力”这一“困难问题”的回答，为科学预测现代社会发展趋势、建构未来社会发展原则提供有益启示。正因为这样，所以我们看到，马克思对“问题”的回答并没有停滞于艺术本身，而是把它引向了历史深处，将艺术发展问题上升为社会发展问题，聚焦于资本主义的历史与现实并将目光投向未来，通过其独特的“问题式”论证，表达了他对现代社会发展趋势的看法：如果说成人应该努力在一个更高的阶梯上把儿童的真实再现出来，那么人类童年时代（希腊社会）发展得最完美的地方（希腊艺术），也应该作为永不复返的阶段而显示出其对现代社会和艺术的发展之“规范”和“范本”意义；虽然希腊社会得以存在的社会条件永不复返了，希腊艺术也已历史性地衰落了，但它们所反映和体现的人与自然、社会之间朴素的原初关系、人的原始丰富的“自然个性”以及富有生命力的“想象”等主体性力量，仍然对现代人具有重要的借鉴和深刻的启示意义。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗