The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality by Nikolai Chernyshevsky

Soviet propaganda poster: Knowledge Breaks the Chains of Slavery

I so much enjoyed studying Russian philosophy back in college. I was especially taken by the nineteenth century Russian thinkers. I recall reading this essay on art as part of Russian Philosophy Volume II: The Nihilists, The Populists, Critics of Religion and Culture. Not that I agreed with the philosophers but the intensity of their thinking was magnificent, even inspiring. Since I developed a fondness for aesthetics and philosophy of art, this Nikolai Chernyshevsky essay I read over and over again.

Quick word on Nikolai Chernyshevsky: he proved to be one of the most influential thinkers in the history of his country. His essay What Is To Be Done? became a cornerstone for revolutionaries within Russia during the first quarter of the 20th century and also impacted such literary figures as, believe it or not, Ayn Rand (I've included a link to an essay on this topic below).

Turning to this Chernyshevsky essay on art, here are five key direct quotes along with my observations. (I've also included a link to the actual essay).

“Let art be content with its fine and lofty mission of being a substitute for reality in the event of its absence, and of being a manual of life for man.” --------- The first section of the essay drives home the point that art is a substitute for reality, not an exact substitute but a substitute nonetheless - a person enjoys looking at the sea but since they live miles inland, they must settle for enjoying a painting of the sea. In his second section, the Russian philosopher outlines how art instructs people on different phases of life. By way of example, Nikolai Chernyshevsky alludes to the novels of James Fenimore Cooper acquainting the reading public with the life of the North American Indians.

“Artistic form does not save a work of art from contempt or from a pitying smile if, by the importance of its idea, the work cannot answer the question: Was it worth the trouble? A useless thing has no right to respect. ‘Man is an end in himself’; but the things man makes must have their end in the satisfaction of man’s needs and not in themselves. ------------- Chernyshevsky wrote his essay in 1853 in direct opposition to those writers and critics like Théophile Gautier who held to “art for art sake.” In other words, art for Cherynshevsky is not an end unto itself; rather, for art to have any value, it must be a vehicle to satisfy specific human needs.

“Usually it is said that the content of art is the beautiful; but this restricts the sphere of art too much. Even if we grant that the sublime and the comic are moments of. the beautiful, the content of many works of art will not come under the three headings of the beautiful, the sublime, and the comic.” ----------Curiously, Nikolai Chernyshevsky anticipates such 20th century art movements as Dada where artists like Marcel Duchamp created art that was anything but beautiful. But Cherynshevsky is taking his line of thought in another direction: for him, artists need not be shackled by the past’s linking art with beauty when they create art that instructs the public. With our own historical perspective, we can see when a society adheres to this philosophy of art, it is a short step to such artistic expressions as Soviet propaganda posters.



“Reality stands higher than dreams, and essential purpose stands higher than fantastic claims.” ---------- This might appear to be sound logic but, as readers, we can step back and ask: Who determines what constitutes the nature of reality and the substance of dreams? Recall Joseph Stalin described writers as “the engineers of the human soul.” And went on to say: “The production of souls is more important than the production of tanks.” The Soviet leader clearly believed art, especially literature, was a powerful political tool—and he ordered the execution of writers whose works he judged not in keeping with the ideals (thus branded as traitors) of the Soviet Union.

“Defense of reality as against fantasy, the attempt to prove that works of art cannot possibly stand comparison with living reality – such is the essence of this essay.” --------- My response to this essay of Nikolai: Sheer poppycock! I understand a viewer can't swim or catch fish in a painting of the sea, but a Winslow Homer masterpiece contains its own power and magnificence.


Winslow Homer's Northeaster

Regarding fantasy, novels of imagined worlds created by the likes of George Orwell, J.R.R. Tolkien, Jorges Luis Borges, and Italo Calvino most certainly stand comparison with living reality. And if that "living reality" is the tawdry, claptrap of everyday mass culture, then the comparison isn't even close. Such comparison also extends to the visual arts. Case in point, Richard Dadd's The Fairy Feller’s Master-Stroke.

I purposely kept my review short. And I will say no more. What do you think?


Detail of Richard Dadd's The Fairy Feller’s Master-Stroke

The complete essay The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality can be read online: https://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...

A contemporary analysis of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's most influential political essay: What Is To Be Done?: https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...


Russian philosopher Nikolai Chernyshevsky, 1828-1889