The Sociology of Art

There are two ways to look at the Sociology of Art: on the Macro level and the Micro Level. 

On the Macro level, of the major philosophers that thought about aesthetics, the one that I feel has had the most influence is G.F. Hegel. Working in the early 1800s in Germany, Hegel had an underlying philosophy on society that would later become known as the Hegelian Dialectic, also called the Historical Dialectic. The idea was that humanity would engage in a certain social structure, there would be a counter-structure, or discontentment, and then society would reach a synthesis. This would become known as the thesis->antithesis->synthesis model of dialectic. Hegel believed that in his time, society had already reached the synthesis. As such, Hegel believed that art had reached its apex, and no longer applied to humanity.

Hegel identified three stages in the history of art: Eastern (symbolic) art, which Hegel thought was representative of primitive society, classical art, and romantic art. For Hegel, man expresses what he is, and what he may become. The problem for Hegel was that he believed that man had already become all that he could be. Hegel believed that it was through romantic art, that man had reached the climax of his species-being. Because of this, Hegel believed that art did not have to represent anything other than what an individual wanted to express.

It is not just because of Hegel’s ideas that makes him the most influencial, but also because of Hegel’s influence on one of his most famous students: Karl Marx, who had a differing view of art, from a Hegelian perspective.

Marx modified Hegalian ideas. While the Hegalian philosophy was that society had evolved through a process of dialectic consisting of a series of theses, antitheses, and synthesis to the point where synthesis had been achieved, Marx said that social life wasn’t as simple as that. Marx’s idea was that society evolved in stages, each stage bringing a new evolution through the Hegalian dialectic. This lead to Marx’s ideas of Dailectic Materialism; that through historical materialism, changes in human society are caused by the history of how humans produce the necessities of life, including art. Marx believed that art was a necessity for human happiness and fulfillment, as much as shelter and clothing.

For Marx, using the Hegelian principles, art would become a cultural pursuit that people should be free to chase. People would only be “free” to be creative through art in “advanced” societies as represented in communism, socialism, and advanced communism, all of which were evolutionary stages in social life. Marx posed that in capitalism, which was a necessary stage of societal evolution, because of the labor theory of value that Capitalism imposed, people were not free to pursue cultural interests, including being creative as artisans (Das Kapital). Marx believed that alienation in labor was not just about workers being angry at the boss, but also that the very souls (Marx called this “species-being”) of people were being sucked out by capitalism. It was only creativity, art, and “culture” that could fortify people’s species-being for Marx.

In this sense, the principle ideas of Hegel were most influential in art, especially in expressionism. Without Hegel, ideas of art as a “culture,” and something that all people should pursue would not have come to fruition. Marx would not have posed that idea that people’s labor should be creative, and that creativity and art were spiritual pursuits unto themselves. We know that without Hegel's influence on Karl Marx, the history of the world would be very different.

Micro Level Sociology, Neuropsychology, and art:

As Karl Marx argued against Hegel that people have the innate desire to be creative, areas of neuroscience attempt to ask “why.” This suggests that other areas of science also believe that people have the innate desire to be creative.

From the CNN and neuroscience presentations, there is a clear anthropological history in art. What is more interesting however, is the history of communication in art.
Sociologist George Herbert Mead’s “Mind, Self, and Society” poses the idea that while there is a psychological process that happens in all animals, what distinguishes humans from other animals is language. According to Mead, humans use language to establish social patterns – to connect themselves to others, and develop a sense of self based on how others communicate ourselves to us. Mead also posed that it is through language that we are able to place ourselves in other people’s shoes; what he termed the “Generalized Other.” We can only take the role of the other through language.

Within the realm of neuroscience and art shows how Mead was incomplete. It is not just through language that we can take the role of the other, and develop a sense of self, but also through non-verbal communication, such as that presented in art.

In the 1950s, after Mead’s passing, sociologist Herbert Blumer coined the term “Symbolic Interaction.” He expanded on Mead to include the use of symbolism in the interactions of people between each other. He posed that Mead’s concept of the Generalized other was actually a symbolic gesture to help people understand the world around them. Blumer would suggest other “symbolisms” in everyday life that aided in the interaction of people within the social world.

Humans are social animals. We know from neuropsychology that there is an active process in the brain that deals with socialization.

Art is also “symbolic interaction.” Art does not just communicate the message of the artist to the person viewing the art, but also people “interact” with the art. People gain insights into the world around them. People contemplate their social position and the position of the painting in the social world. People contemplate, think about history, and sometimes place themselves into the role of the subject in order to gain insight into themselves. With art, people take the role of the other. This is “symbolic interaction” at its very core. The art is presenting the symbolic gesture that interacts with the people looking at it.

One of the presenters in the neuroscience presentation stated that art creates “Symbolic descriptions and transforms” – This is symbolic interaction.