Talk:Repressive Desublimation of One-Dimensional Man

When we discussed Marcuse and the desublimation of art, I couldn't help but think of Marx and his concept of the proletariat's alienation of his "own nature and species' being". The two theorists, in their respective concepts, seem to both have a common theme of an individual being robbed of their creativity for the sake of commercial and productional needs. Just as the proletariat is denied his access to creativity when standing in an assembly line and screwing caps to toothpaste bottles, so are the artists with their inherent talent and artistry commodified to fit the advertising campaigns of Nike. Both are oppressed, as Marx would put it, by higher forms of power, that is, the capitalists and the commercial world. Marx wrote in the 19th century and Marcuse came along around a century later. Do you think that Marcuse's "desublimation" can sufficiently attest to Marx's idea of individuals' alienation from what is intrinsic to their being: creativity? Where might this assumption fall short?

I do think that yes, Marcuse's idea of "desublimation" sufficiently attests to Marx's notion of individual alienation from their instrinsic creativity. It does so especially by its defining trait of being "repressive", contributing to Marcuse's depiction of advanced industrial civilization as a state of democratic unfreedom for humans. This reminded me closely of what we talked about in class at the beginning of term in order to contextualize Marxist theory as stemming and departing from Hegelian dialectics. If you remember, we used the example of the master-slave relationship, where change in the balance of power arises, for Marx, thanks to the slave's conquest of awareness of his inherent creativity. The implication for our current question is that, stripped of (or 'alienated' from) creativity, human beings are doomed to unfreedom, under what Marcuse considers "totalitarianism" which manipulates needs to prevent opposition to vested interests. In this sense, the idea of desublimation almost equates that of alienation, in my opinion, as they both produce a state of deception (Marcuse's "euphoria of unhappiness") which aims at keeping them subjugated and controlled.

There is, however, a respect in which this equation may fall short, and which lays in a fascinating nuance of Marcuse's arguments in One Dimensional Man. Together with a critique of technology, Marcuse indeed sets also forward the acknowledgment of the political power of machinery in contemporary society. If on the one hand they are, as we find in Marx's theory as well, the embodiment and vehicle for perpetuation of oppressive structures of power, the technological means of production are also, in Marcuse's view, the potential basis of a new freedom for man. In fact, machines' power is the stored-up and projected power of man, as the use of technology should theoretically imply less human labour to be needed to satisfy the vital needs of society. However, empirically, the opposite happens, with a paradoxical expansion of labor time and of control over material and intellectual culture.

Do you think that this reality, which is counter-intuitive to the theory, is a result of how Marx's explains power in capitalism? Is it a consequence or the cause of modern man's desublimation, or alienation from creativity? Would Marx agree with Marcuse on the potential of machinery for human freedom? Do you think that in our society that goal is reachable, or are the interests and the means of those in control too strong to fight?

I do believe that Marcuse's repressive desublimation and Marx's argument of alienation can be paralleled. Referring to Marcuse's argument, we look at art today and understand how it is desublimated in the sense that art is now turned into objects of everyday life that appeal to everybody, while in the past art represented a form of opposition to this "higher power". Art has been commodified as a commercial product giving individuals the illusion that it is a form of social cohesion, but rather it exerts control over our lives and takes away freedom. This domination of the commercial world can also be compared to Marx's alienation in which capitalism takes control of the individual. The oppression of the proletariat comes into play when the worker has to engage in work that is meaningless in order to survive. The proletariat cannot exercise creativity and fulfill his species being due to the demands of capitalistic production just as art has been given more attention as a product of capitalism.

I agree. Both Marx and Marcuse, as far as I understand, certainly argue about losing creativity and valuable human criteria within the social system designed by power figures. Through repetitive works for surviving, workers (those who do not have controls) tend to lose their identity and creativity; according to Marx, it could be explained as commodification/objectification of workers and according to Marcuse, moving from two-dimensional vision to one-dimensional. Capitalism, which those who have power control over those who don't in terms of material and mental status, creates and maintains the hegemonic position of a certain group i.e. the capitalist, at the same time, the other population without power/capital "who are preconditioned to accept of the conditions offered to them" (Marcuse 330) naturally adapt to the capitalist society, take their position as 'workers', get used to being exploited and remain in one-dimensional states while losing abilities to think in two-dimensional ways.

I think what Marx and Marcus have in common concerning losing creativity can apply to the contemporary society. In the contemporary society, people focus on efficiency and by focusing on efficiency, the creativity part must be given up as creativity will decrease efficiency.

Although it is said that life imitates art, I find it hard to imagine that art is also not a reflection of life itself, and its circumstances. Given the highly materialistic conditions in which we live, it is inevitable that art would not incorporate commercialized images into its essence. After all, art is a form of expression. Rather, it is the intention with which art interacts with commercialism that truly defines the kinds of normative judgements that are being suggested.

For instance, those who were artists and instead became designers for the Campbell's soup can became what we referred to in lecture as "sell-outs". However, other artists like Warhol also interacted with items like the Campbell's soup can, but in this case used his art to not only mock the commercialist nature of the circumstances of his era, but also used what he created to generate discourse regarding the material focus – in fact, it is evident that to some degree it must have been effective, as we are still discussing it to this day.

It cannot be so simply said that interaction with social reality cheapens and lessens the value of art. Rather, in respect to art and its ability for freedom in expression, it must be used to create commentary on circumstance, much as literature does, without conforming to the commercial environment with which is must interact.

I agree. I think that while today's art is largely a product of desublimation as discussed in lecture, art is also more than just merely an acceptable outlet for advertisements to extend themselves to the general public. People see art in different ways as art is not an evidence- based statement but rather is an outlet for the mind of people viewing the art to see what they want in it. For this reason, art does play a part in commercial society in order to appeal goods to a variety of audiences but the art itself means more than what it is being depicted to promote in my opinion. As well, art can bring communities together through commercial or non- commercial outlets such as painting classes at community centres, or the giant decorative orca statues with sponsors that Vancouver placed around the city several years ago.

1) I agree with you both that art cannot be so readily dismissed as a product of desublimation. This leads me to believe that Marcuse's concept of repressive desublimation may be be an overly simple diagnosis of the role of art in society. Take technology as an example. Designs and artistic ideas are transformed into everyday objects that are gratifying and instantaneous. Marcuse would say that this is repressive for art and very much so, for us, because it is dominating us. However, we do not feel that it is repressive. Instead, we are completely trapped in illusion of feeling like we are liberated, the world is our oyster, we can have control of time....etc. We don't feel repressed. We actually feel quite content and comfortable. I think that this can be brought back to Evelyn's point of how art is not all repressive and can provide more to people like bringing communities together.

2) I have a question (on a slightly different note). Is it possible for non-commercial outlets of art like fostering community to counterbalance those repressive commercial outlets like commercialism of art?

Jaden, I complete agree to it when you say that art is a reflection of life and its circumstances. If you walk down main mall on UBC, you will see a museum with the quote, "A museum is a school: The artist learns to communicate. The public learns to make connections." I feel that this quote highly resembles the thought process for Marcuse as art is allowing for individuals to have experiences. Although I believe that individuals are still learning to communicate and make connections through art, there is a difference in where this social interaction takes place. It no longer takes place in the museums but now on social media through technology. On social media, individuals are able to take pictures of their art, and put it up for the public to look at. On a very superficial level, the artists are in fact learning to communicate, and the public is making connections. But, what Marcuse says is missing is the aspect of experience, in which the public is in a position to interact with the art through their sense. However, what Marcuse does not pay enough attention to, is the experience the public is able to have as they can be directly in contact with artist. Due to social media, the public is able to instantly comment on the art with their feelings, and opinion, thus making a connection with the artists. Although, there are pros and cons (and I prefer the real life interaction with art), seeing new ability given to us of expression back to the arts, gives the public a say in a discipline they felt they could never be a part of.

Jaden, I like your point on the commercialization of art. This is something that really moved the pop art movement through the 50s (when warhol would have been making art). If you dig a little deeper into his works, this process of commercialization actually is brought into the actual process of art production, which warhol had called 'the factory'. This is an idea where the artist hires low wage workers to make art in their stead and begs the question of where we draw the line of art belonging to whom. Warhol is clearly exploiting the labour of the low wage worker, sometimes physically or emotionally abusing them, but he knows that in order for these low-end artists to develop their careers, or to survive in the world of artists, the workers have to be exploited. Following that, Barbara, when thinking of commercial art I think it's really interesting in thinking about the distinction between commercial art and commercialized art. Perhaps we can discuss a certain threshold of snobbery that needs to be achieved in order to be able to profit on the surplus value of the name or the branding of the artist in itself rather than simply the object that is being sold. If you think about it, nobody would care about the art piece itself if it were a graphic print of a campbell soup can, but knowing that it is a warhol piece or any other pop or contemporary artist really changes the scope of the market of these pieces.