NOTES AND REFERENCES CHAPTER 1 1 Volkova and Novikova 1975, pp. 3-4. Aesthetics is a science: (1) about the essence of art and creativity, (2) about taste and the laws of beauty, (3) about the aesthetic appro­ priation of the world and about art as a specific form of social consciousness, (4) about aesthetic properties and their reflection in art, (5) about the laws of the formation of aesthetic culture, (6) about man's aesthetic relation to reality. Unfortunately, the authors fail to identify the proponents of these positions. 2 Further details about the contributions of the 'classics' to soViet aesthetics are given below in Chapter 2, especially Sections 1 and 2. 3 RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers), VOAPP (AU-Union Union of Associations of Proletarian Writers), Proletkult and other literary-artistic organizations of the period are discussed in detail in Ermolaev 1963. 4 The expression 'class equivalent' was fust used by Plekhanov and became the slogan of those who were fQr a 'Plekhanovite orthodoxy'. For fuither details see below, Chapter 2, Section 4, and Ermolaev 1963. 5 N. Iezuitov: 'Konec krasote', in Proletarskaja literatura 1931, 4, p. 148; cited by Stolovic 1972, p. 12. 6 1. Ja.Zivel'cinskaja: Opyt 1TUlrksistskogo analiza istorii estetiki, M., 1928, p. 312; cited by Baskin 1964, p. 144. 7 Cf. '0 novom proekte programmy po estetike', 1948, p. 337. 8 On the renewal of Soviet philosophy in 1947 cf. Wetter 1958, Chapter 9; further details can be found in Fizer 1962. 9 Cf. 'Proekt programmy kursa Osnovy 1TUlrksistsko-leninskoj estetiki' 1948. 10 Osnovy 1TUlrksistsko-leninskoj estetiki 1960. 11 Morawski 1964, p. 10. Aesthetics is (1) a general theory of art, (2) about aesthetic properties, (3) a science about taste and about the beautiful. 12 E.g. two widely separated authors, Suvorov 1958, p. 47, and Zis' 1975, p. 4, write that aesthetics has been considered (1) a theory of art, (2) a theory of beauty, (3) a mechanical union of (1) and (2). 13 StoloviC 1961, pp. 6-9: (1) a theory of art, (2) a theory of beauty, (3) a theory of beauty and art, (4) a theory of aesthetic consciousness, (5) a theory of aesthetic properties. 14 Eremeev 1969, pp. 5-7: (1) a science of sensible cognition, (2) of beauty, (3) of evaluation, (4) a mechanical unification of the psychological (creativity) with the ontolo­ gical (natural beauty, etc.), (5) aesthetic appropriation of the world. 15 Cf. note 1 above. 16 Cf. 'Diskussija 0 predmete marksistsko-Ieninskoj estetiki', 1956, pp. 173-187 where Puzis' views are contained among those of many other aestheticians. 17 Pospelov 1965, pp. 356-358. 190 NOTES AND REFERENCES 191 18 Eremeev 1969, p. 5. 19 Burov 1956, p. 15. 20 Kagan 1971, p. 24. 21 Zis' 1975, p. 12. 22 'Proekt programmy kursa Osnovy marksistsko-leninskoj estetiki', p_ 338. 23 K. Krivickij: ao takoe estetika?, M., 1960, cited by Morawski 1964, no page number given. 24 Cf., e.g., '0 zadaeax marksistsko-Ieninskoj estetiki' 1955. 25 Astaxov's, Razumnyj's, Vercman's and Apresjan's views are put forward in'Diskussija o predmete marksistsko-Ieninskoj estetiki' 1956. 26 Kratkij slovar' po estetike 1963, cf. the entry 'Estetika' p. 443ff. 27 Burov 1956~ 28 "Art is expected to reflect reality not aesthetically, but truthfully, from the stand­ point of a determinate aesthetic ideal." '0 zadaeax marksistsko-Ieninskoj estetiki' 1955, p.70. 29 Trof'lmov 1956, p. 24. 30 Ibid., p. 30. 31 Trof'lmov 1964, pp. 168-169. 32 StoloviC 1961; p. 6. 33 This text is from an English translation of a section of the Osnovy; NedoSivin 1972, p.131. 34 Borev 1965, p. 11. 35 Loc. cit. 36 The Russian is diff'lcult to translate. We have chosen 'naturists' for prirodniki because 'naturalists' would be misleading. In the same way obseestvenniki is translated as 'socie­ talists' rather than as 'socialists'. 37 Chapter 5 is devoted to the assimilation of the work of the early Marx by some Soviet aestheticians. 38 Subjectivism and objectivism have been regarded as the classical opposition on the question of the nature and existence of aesthetic values. 39 This was more or less the position advocated by the societalist school. 40. T.'J.""o'IlL'TUner~CosCQmon-6t'tn"que'shonscomi:'ltuimg'tne stOCk ot prOi'>lems'(!eiilt wftn by the aestheticians see below, Chapter 3, Section 3.21. 41 E. g. Borev 1961 and Kagan 1971. 42 StoloviC 1972. 43 It seems that the honor of introducing the concept of aesthetic value goes to Kagan 1963, 44 Cf., e.g., 'Esteticeskaja dejatel'nost' i esteticeskoe soznanie', in Marksistskaja-lenin­ sksja estetika 1973. Another example is a translation of Novikova's work: 'Aktywnoic estetyczna w systemie praktiki spolecznej', inSztuka i spoleczenstwo 1976. 4S The best statement of Morawski's view on this matter is his 'The Criteria of Aesthetic Evaluation', in Morawski 1974, pp. 1-87. Further details as well as passing criticisms of the Soviet position are found in Morawski 1973. 46 Borev 1975, p. 25. 47 After surveying the claims made in this area, Eremeev arrives at the following con­ clusions: "Aesthetics is a science thanks to its typological character, the capacity to con­ centrate attention on the essence, on the defmition, hence it investigates 'general laws' 192 NOTES AND REFERENCES and not the entire aesthetic appropriation with its limitless shadings and nuances". Eremeev 1969, p. 12. 48 Cf., e.g., Borev 1975, Sections 2.2ff. and Kagan 1971, p. 58ff. The subject will be more amply treated in later sections of this chapter. 49 Trorunov 1964, p. 189. 50 Stolovic 1961, Chapter 3; Stolovic 1969, p. 3. 51 Kagan 1971, p. 45. 52 E.g. Volkova and Novikova 1975 and Novikova in Marksistskaja·leninskaja estetika 1973, op. cit. 53 An example of the nature and quality of the research being carried on is the collec­ tive volume edited by B. S. Mejlax, the leading spokesman for the systems approach. Xudolestvennoe vosprijatie 1971. 54 Barabas 1974. 55 Stolovil': 1969, p. 4. 56 Cf., e.g., Tasalov 1971, pp. 189-190. According to Stolovic, one takes the general philosophical position about class, peopleness and partymindedness ... and one illus­ trates them with examples from art ...", Stolovic 1961, p. 31. 57 Astaxov 1962, p. 3;Eremeev 1969, p. 14. 58 This is one of the central theses of the doctrine of Socialist Realism; for a fuller dis­ cussion see James 1973. S9 See below, Section 1.323 of this Chapter. 60 For a criticism of this bias by a Marxist aesthetician see the. review of Kagan's Lekcii by Dziemidok 1968. 61 For an example of the kind of analysis carried out in this regard see Ju. B. Borev, 1960; also below Chapter 4, Section 4.2. 62 Kagan 1972. 63 On the history of this problematic in Soviet aesthetics see below Chapter 3, Section 3.21. 64 Stolovil': 1967. 6S . Stolovil': 1968. He has also published a book on these subjects; Stolovic 1969. 66 Osnovy marksistsko-leninskoj filosofii 1971, pp. 398-99. 67 Mejlax 1948. 68 Astaxov 1962, p. 13. 69 Egorov 1963, p. 17. 70 Zis' 1975, p. 10. 71 Volkova and Novikova 1975, p. 14f. 72 The following holds mutatis mutandis for aesthetics too: "Marxist philosophy syn­ thesizes the achievements of the particular sciences. It depends on them in the sense that without them, without the material which they [provide], it could not exist at all. On the other hand, however, it reacts on these sciences. It constitutes the methodological and world-view basis for these sciences. None of the natural sciences nor any of the social sciences are fully autonomous in the methodological, conceptual and ideological senses, i.e. they are not free from ideological as sumptions. General ideological assump­ tions as well as methodological principles condition the content and value of scientific results to a IaIge extent." Osnovy marksistsko-leninskoj filosofii 1971, p. 23. 73 Eremeev 1969, p. 11. 74 Kagan 1971, p. 20ff. NOTES AND REFERENCES 193 75 Astaxov 1962, p. 13. 76 Trofimov 1964, p. 191. 77 See the entry 'Metodologija' in FE 3. A succinct statement of the relation of aes­ thetics to philosophy is found in Kmita 1976. 78 FE 3, p. 410. 79 "Aesthetics possesses a relative independence, because its methods are not simply deduced from philosophy but are also determined by the material of the specific object of aesthetics and depend on the methods of other sciences." Stolovic 1961, p. 87. "The connection between the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism and aesthetics must be organic, founded on a thorough investigation of the specificity of the investigated material." Trofwov 1964, p. 191. 80 Kagan 1971, p. 5Hf. 81 According to Marksistska;a·leninska;a estetika 1973, pp. 6-7, the problems are, among others, the interrelation of subject and object, material and ideal in aesthetic activity, and aesthetic perception: questions about the class, popular and partisan char­ acter of art, the interrelationship of art with other forms of social consciousness, about the historical laws of development of art, about the adequateness of their reflection of reality, artistic method, etc. 82 Cf. Morawski 1975, p. 6lff. 83 Ibid., p. 62. 84 Ibid., p. 63. 85 The most complete view of the history of aesthetics, especially that of the twenties, is the collection of studies edited together under the title Iz istorii sovetskoj esteticeskoj mysli 1967. Another-detailed look at the aesthetics of the twenties is Novozilova, 1968. Details are also given in Kagan 1971, p. 46ff.; Davydov 1968. An interesting article is Bicuk 1969. 86 For the acceptance by Soviet philosophy see Blakeley 1976.