Les documents qui font d4j4 I'objet dun drat d'auteur (articles de revue, examens publib, etc) ne sont pas mibofilm4s.

Transcription

1 ANADIAN T HE~S NOTIE The qulity of this microfiche is hevily dependmt upon the l qulit4 de Gene mero4ii grndement de l qullt4 qulity df the originl thesis subnlttted foc microfifming. Every de f th& soumtse u microfilmge Nws vons tout til pour effm hs been mde to ensure tre highest qmmy of reprcduc ssurer une qul~tb sup2neure de reproduction tion possible., If pges re missing, contct the universrty which pnted Pte degree. % S'il mnque des pqps, veudrer communiquer vec I'untversite qui conf4r6 le grde Some pges my hve indistinct prin+k$&illy if the origins! pges were typed with poor typewriter rbbm or if the univksity sent us n inferior photocopy. Previously copyrighted mterils (journi rt~cles, published tests, etc.) re not filmed. Reproducth in fult or in prt of this film is gcrvmed by the din opyright Act, R.S.. 197, c. 3. ' ~ u J i t 6 d'impression de certines pges peut lisser B &tw, surtocrt SI IBS Pm originles ont 618 dctylogrphieeg 8 l'ide d'un rubn u* r>u SI l'univemt6 nous fit pwenir une photocopie de lit& infbneure, Les documents qui font d4j4 I'objet dun drt d'uteur (rticles de revue, exmens publib, etc) ne sont ps mibofilm4s. L reproduction. mi%m prtielk, de ce rnidrofilrn est k i s e 8 l Loi cndicme sur le droit d'ut@uf,.sr.197, c. G3. J 3t5;, THIS DISSERTATlON HAS BEEN MIROFILMED EXATLY AS REEtVED h Prous LA TH~SE A MIROFIL~A~E TELlE QUE A M REqW

2 Two. " INTERPRETATIONS OF THE OMWNIATIVE ASP~T OF,.ART IN THE B.A.,'rtni.versit& du Qubbec Montrbl, 1978 B.P.A., ~oncordi~~niversity, 198 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FYLFILLMENT OF L 8 MASTER OF ARTS in the Deprtment 4 ommunict ion '. My rights reserved. This work my not be reproduced ir, whole or in prt, by photocopy or other mens, without permission of the uthor.

3 p Permission hs been to t h ~ Ntionl Librry of ~nd to microfilm this thesis nd to lend u sell copies of the. film. L' utorist ion GtS ccokd~e l Bibliotheque ntionle du nd de microfilmer cette these et de pr$ter ou de vendre des 2xempiires du film. +p The uti(;;r (copyright owner) LButeur (titbl~ire du droit t hs reserve^ otte d,'uteur) se _ reserve les = publiction rights, n utres droits de publiction; neither the thesis. IT'&^'^ ni l these ni de longs. >I extensive extrcts from. it extr3its. d'e celleci ne. my be pri&ted or otherwise imprimes ou *,reproduced without his/her utrement reproduits sns son written perrnis'sion. utoristion Bcrite. d i 4 ISSN

4 Degree : Title of 23lesis: d

5 I hereby grnt to Simon Frsrr Vnlversity the right to lend ry thesis or dfseertt ion (the title 1 which, is shown below) to rtsrrs Simon Frser ni~ersity Librry, nd to mke p2fil or single t only for sxh users or in response to% request Irorn the librry of ny other uffvercirj, cir ot3ifr exucrion3 instituffon, OK ~ t s okn or for one of its users. F furthrr gree tht permission for multiple copying of this thesis for scholrly purposes my be grnted by me or tfip~~oi?i~dure Studies. P ft Is understciod rht co?ymg *. or publiction of this thesie for finncil gin shll not be llowed5 9 with ut ny written permission. (Xmrmic+icm within the Sociofp of Art :,. Author :

6 ABSTRAT The thesis exsines the work of two sociologists of rt,, Jen Duvignud nd Arnold Huser, who spek of n imgintive Rower of nepoch s criticl elementsfis imgintive power, they Ggue, leds to cpcity of in9bidtkls to develop, self wreness: rt plys criticl rokdn s~ciql communic~ztion. For both Duvignud nd Huser t the study of rt nd of the socil reltions within n epoch re 'intrinsiclly relted nd their positions regrding the centr & role of the communictive spect of rt re ssessed. Duvignud's nd Huser's rguments re critiqued from the point of view tht both nd hist~ricffy conditione, interprettion re socilly contention is mde tht the communictive spects of rt, which tody re ofte~_neglected, should be' centil pr) of' the study of rt. If modern:& is to % sessed,ir:~~pproc?md not only in termsomt is produced s rt, nd,not only in terms of the socil reltions of the society of the wdernist rtists, but lso in terms of its culturl implict'ions nd its system of meningful referents.' ill be shown tht the pproch tken by Duvignud nd Hbuser goes t lest prt wy in correcting tendencies to interpret rt s n utonomous segment of culture. The thesis concludes tht neither Duvignqud nor Huser del with the full connottive spects of rt. 7 bfl,,? &, ' I L iii

7 I would like to cknowledge tbe prtikulr emotionl or intellectul (or both) contribution nd support of the 'mny.. in'dividuls who hve prticipted in mny wys in the writing of my thesis. Becuse of the inherent nd immnent chrcteristic 1 of text, I believe tht the only wy I cn fully express my grtitude to these people is by giving them the oppclrtunity t& pss into posterity by hving their nmes print.*d: hrlotte Bxter, Shron Blir, rmen, Ginette, Lise, nd Red hrbonneu, Peter ook, hris reightonkelly,, n. Jn Dviso~ Lyn& Drury, Oine Fort in, T w Wsym, Pul yeyer, Lynne Hissey, Sut Jhlly, Mrtin.Lbt Mrgot Lcroi.~, m Lndell, Willlim Leiss, Nichols Lewis, Jonne Lyle., Sheil McFdzkn, Dvid Mrshll, Robert Meister, hristine, Dominique nd Frnqois ~odli, Iren And Rcmn Onufrijchuk; Richrd Pinet, ' Jerry Zslove, I r

8 *.,TABLE OF ONTENTS, A 4 Approvl...L...ii 1 ABSTRAT..i 1 AKNOWLEWMENTS.... PREFAE...t...,...t...vii d 1. Int oduction: Lnguge, Imge nd the ~ociology~of Art.... I, The Sociology of Art: ~uvignud's Interprettion 14 / 1. Towp Sociology of rei is ti? Expression...;.: && Applittion of the Sociology of ~rt... ' I < iv 24' 3. The Role* OF Aesthetic Attitudes in the,imginry nd. ollective Experience..;...;...~ ommuniction: Menings nd ontexts Art Tody (1968) (\ @ 11. The Sociology of krt: Huser's Interprettion I 1. ~ und mentl Assumptions... k....:...; Interctio~ between rt nd society ". 3. Historicl Mterilism # 5..The Production nd Reception of Art Art nd ulturl Strtifiction ~ '7. Presentdy Art:,Assumptions nd Symptoms of risis..i28 \ 111. A Lst Slute to 'Art'?....I he Sociology of Art: Misunderstnding nd pndcrstnding The Sociology of Art: Lst Preserve of the Humnists.I47 3; onclusdpn: The 'How' nd 'Wht' of ommuniction Processes....l6lt

9

10 . > 'Art nd Society', term which refersto the production nd integrtion of rt in society, hs grown in populrity in the lst thirtyfysrs. In rt theory the sociology of rt is one of the mjor spects of the socil investigtion of rt, This thesis exmines the works of Jen Duvignud (French 'homme de historin, ). The works I hve chosen to discuss re the writings of these uthors tht pertin to the sociology of rt: Dwignud's Sociologie l\rt (1967) nd Huser's Soziologie der Kunst (1974). When I becme fmilir with their essys, I noticed tht between socil nd esthetic considertions, they both ddress the ccrreltion between rt. nd society in termsof the communiction processes. As student in communiction, I ws t ' interested in the issue, nd decided to investigte it further. ~ h c thesis unfolds from the premise tht, like ny other system of significtion which cn be studied in terms of its communictive spect, rt is key element in culture: A specil prt of culture is.the communiction system. Art provides specil kind of communiction nd the nlysis of how it works leds us to considertion of socil reltionship. It lso leds us to considertion of the mening in rt nd the wys influences h w n behvi6r. Art is propgnd nd dvertising. It my considertion of the deeper struct experience. (Foster, 1979:325) Of three sections 3f my thesis, two re reserved for the exmintion of ~uvignud' s nd Hlser's writings on the vii

11 rd ev&tttim c& their ue&sf *+i& lertgthy nd cumbersuse for some, pet it offers rther comprehensive expliction of their works. %is, I feelis work,, Pgior to my discussion of Duvignud nd Huser, I hve chosen to present s e r y of the historicl nd sccil context of the socil investigtion of 'rt: the setting ir, which the sociology of rt hs originted. I believe tht chis excursion.,. # into the pst nd present of the sociology of rt is necessry,. especilly since surveys which~discuss the subject in * comprehensive mnner re rre, In ddition, it gives us chnce to locte Duvignud nd Huser in their respective intellectu'l J trdition&. In this in&oducficn, I too m concerned with the significnce of considering the communictive spect of rt, n' issue which, formerly hs een relegted in the shdow of other, socil nd esthetic considertions. I hve lerned from Duvignud's nd.huserfs discussion on the communictive spect of rt tht t lest three disciplines hve influenced its formultion: structurlism, psychology nd medi studis. Structurlism, which is essentilly theory of communiction, hs contributedlr~ely to the conceptuliztiori of the comunictive spect of 2rt. A new perspective dn rt results from the estblish'ment of rt s lnguge. k significnt the structurlist pproch my hve been initilly ' viii

12 restricted to the French intellectul trdition (Jen Duvignud).' x Psychology is nother theoreticl smrce+which hs shped the concept of communiction in the sociology of rt. Following psychologicl rgument, Duvignud nd h use^ ssert tht the essence J of cretive ctivitiek resides in the need for p people to comunict~ with ech other, Both emphsize the intersubjective / nture of the process, nd clim tht sense of community I rises through this socil exchnge. 111 response to the,growing use of rdio, television, nd cinemi in the mking of rt, medi studies hve recently been 4 point of deprture in the interprettion of rt. Duvignud nd Huser refer to McLuhnls work in their interprettion of 1 contemporry rt. Nevertheless, it hs to be emphsi'zed tht in notn.ceis~tkmghi of in. t m s of inhrmdtion, but lwys s form of communiction, of expression. The lst prt of the thesis is crucil nd revels my contribution to different'r'eding I of the sociology of rt, nd the icommunictive spect of rt. Since secondry sovrces on the sociology of rt hrdly exist, I hve chosen to explore the field through n interdisciplinry pproch, which hs given me. 7 the possibility to pprehend the influence, impliction nd limittion of the sociology of rt. G8l This per?spective gve me the opportunity, not only to present Duvign&ud1s nd Huser's interprettion of the sociology

13 'k, p rp & F4 ** / 7 of rt, but to undetscore the ideologicl bis of the;;. A rgument, ThereTore, E clim tht the sociologists of rt hve consolidted the esthetic nd qocil vlues of the modern er. In'this fight, their "concept of communiction needed to be. f ssessed. c t

14 pppppp f'. i f + pp Y 7' 1. Introduction: Lnguge, Imge nd the Sociology of Art Subject to bombrdment by multiplicity of imges, our genertkn hs come to relize the importnce of visul experience in everydy lifg. ontrry to McLuhn's ssumption r 1 * Q the 'printing press during the fifteenth dentury hs yielded to coustic nd tctile phses, the invention of new technologies (especilly kilm nd television) hs ment tht visul imges V 7 re more thn ever t the centre of humn reltions. In 197, Pierre Frncstel reflected upon the subject:.i1 est frgrnt que notre &poque nemesure ps du tout l'mpleur de 1kvolution culturelle qui est en trin de se produire. Ik ne s'git plus, depuis une cinquntine d1nn6es, des d6veloppements ou des modifictions d'un 6quilibre 6tbli B l'intbrieur d'un syst&me de connissnces et de reprgserrserv6 J Lid. I1 sl \ de substi: le plus rbpndu entre les individus qui forment notre <soci&t6 et dns une mesure qui d'illeurs reste 3 dhterminer, l'imge u lngge: ce dernier terme 6tnt. ici employ6 dns son sens 6troit de lngge verbl, 6ventuellementfix6 pr 1'6criture. (Frncste1,197:13j 'McLuhn rgues tht t9printing press ws the strongest stimulus to t~ntechqnrmtim, rtiemlk&tl5cm depersonliztion of o u r F becuse of its imposed visul homogeneity nd linerity.,, 1. Y

15 .. m m ( UJ 8.A W J U J. rl 4J 2 J : cr h k J cr JJ k' m e:.r(. U) 4J d ri J 3 J 5 tn " +c cr JJ r( J ii i4 ( k d N ,.r( ri J k tl m JJ 2 4 JJ k m w m U 3 (. rl cr id U *ri W. r( br. r( w W W, U F ([I U + rl W r4 b'r.a VI J +J

16 communiction. L vloristion du lngge %etoxsfps ux rts du lngge verbl l primh6 et ' l puissnce motrice, qu'vit dtenues f musique dns l pkiode prbromntique et romntique vec l grnde th6orie de llrrmonie. c ne sont ps les rts du lngg'e'qui pssent u premier pln, mis le lngge comme tel, de sbrte qufil devient le prdigme de tous les rts. euxci se con oivent l'instr du lngge, come des f lngues prtie les et techniquement sp&cilis6es, peinture, musique etc. (Lefebvre,1962:176) The growing ineerestin comunictron, wkichfolrowsfrom the structurlist study of lngdge 4s not only the result of this pproch, but lso derives from interest in the commuirictfon proe~sses f how messge is given nd received, While the first interprettion emphsizes the correltion between constituent elements necessry for mening to occur, the second stresses the wy people imprt messges to e&4?1er. Thetter, which ws primrily introduced s n explntion of interpersonl reltions, rpidly extended to the field of medi studies. Since the' fifties, especilly in Frnce, there is n intellectul trend tht covers the communictive spect of rt: the soclled 'sociologie de l'rt'. At tht time for lck of n pproch tht could study rt from communictive nd esthetic perspective,it ws felt tht sociology should tke up the tsk, Or 'f tht~rie 5e f'informtion et de f communiction pprtient & l sociologie, puisqu'elle postule f'&&issement d e w enkre?esir81viifiis... Urrc nouvelle sociologie de l'rt est donc possible; mis il fut vouer qu'efbe n'est ps encore fite et que, pour fe moment, 1'esthtique de l'rtlngge se situe u niveu des lois cyberdtiques de l ccmwtiction plu n L 3

17 i While the French my h\5 been the inititors of this perspective, other intgllectul trditions hve.pproched the communictive spect of rt from different viewpoints. In rre survey tht covers the ensemble of ekforts to pproch rt from 4e socioloqic& point of vim, ArcoJd W. F'oster3 mentions tht one focus is communiction, This emphsis is illustrted in the. works of Mrshll McLuhn, Arnold Huser, Wilhem Wundt, George * Med, ~ ohn Dewey, Jne Hrrison, nd lude LeviStruss. + Intelleo45ul Roots nd Historicl ontexts J The intellectul bckgrqund of socio~ogicl perspective on rt is tooted in the Europen intellectul trdition of the. nineteenth century, The flrst ttempt to emphsize the 1 reltionship between rt nd society goes bck to the turn of. the century with the work of me de Stel (~rench writer, t 176o1817). In De 2 r;ltrture qonsbidrk dns ses rpports vec les instituti ms,e;ciles she discusses the * correltion betwee,? rce, c.'imte,, literry style, nd the implictions of uom?n nd religion in rt.. 'The other themes mentioned by ~oster re the following: 1) the biologicl Wpsgchologicl emplisis 2) hetocus on rt s prt of culture 3) the stress on the metphysicl qources of rt 4) the emphsis on the nonestnetic spect of rt. (Foster,1979:37332) B

18 Throughout the nineteenth century, her ttempt is echoed in other writings. Krl Hrx (Germn philosopher, economist, nd politi;in, ) drew together rt nd qociety s erly s 1845 (The Economic nd Philosophic Mnuscripts of 1844). He 'ws followed by Herbert Spencer (EngLish philosopher, ) who thought tht hid evolutionry theory could ccount for the rigin nd pefsi stencs of es~hetic emotions,srtthebegimimq of Art (1895), Ernst Gross (Englnd) pplied his mterilist interprettion of rt which emphsizes rt s reflection of 7? / the vrietis e c m stp ~ o society, ft& #hi& chnge in the function of rt f civiliztion. esthetics ws stresses HHZ m the erly stges to modern. /'/ w *c: Although no sociologicl book bout t$f subject of rt or in written during the nineteenth century, references to the soci1,ccmtext of rt re mde in the work of Mx Reber (Germn sociologist, t864192). Hippolyte Tine (French 'literry + critic nd historin, in his Histoire de l, litt rture nglise elbortes on the thesis tht the evelopcnt of mentl functions nd historicl fcts ought to be. expjined by surrounding circu&stnces such s rce, environment nd historicl movement, nd rt ws prt of his considertion. 'With L'rt u Ro,nt de vue sociologique (18891, 3enMrie Gttytt f French phi f osupher nd pet, t f f omuf ted,+or the iirst tie, e socie wd bf defended thesis tht socil integrtion is embodied in works of rt,

19 socil nture.uf rk during the nineteenth century, erly twentieth cengury rt theorists were more concerned with developing purely historicl viewpoints. Yet, during the first hlf of our century, some ttempts were mde to str2ss the suc~il chrcter of rt in the works of ~mericn, Europen, nd ~ov'iet intellectuls. rn Americ, the investigt ionof the reltinshipbetweerr rt nd society ws rre. The conc.ern with the socil nture of. rt ws fsr greter in Europe nd the Soviet Union where Mrxist thoqkt $5 tire c v gr~ttffd & wft theeeicl * Americnsociologis~ stnds out who is interested in the socil context of rt production: Pitirim Sorokin (Born in Russi, ) who wrote Socil nd ulturl Dynmics; volume I, Fluctutions 3 Form of Art (1937). First interested in the sociology of. behviour, he cme to study the specificity of socioculturl fscts through comprtive nd sttisticl investigtion. 1 In Europe, the most wellknown nd recognized tternpt'to del w.ith the issue of rt nd society ws mde by Gyorgy Lukks (Hungrin philosopher, critic, nd politicin, 1885A3_9711. who \, developed sociologicl nlpis in two mjor works: so;<nd X Form (1911) nd The Theory of the Novel ( ). In Germny, fch3 with Fhe&x his endevour is reffe=tcd in :fie erly works of the Frdbirt k3er~e (Germ phihsephwk ) nd Wlter Benjmin ;Germn philosopher, ). In Englnd,

20 + TI& during the Lq3'.s, hristopher f udwsll ( F w*,zencs& wi,* the sme ksue*menwhile, the need to define n esthetic which corresponds to 1 4; rising socilist stte. i < Approches: Americ vs Europe \ use of i sociologicl rtionle to explil rtistic ctivity cme td flourish during the 195.'~ nd 196's. It ws felt tht in order to speculte on present rtistic preoccuptions, suitble theoreticl frmework ws necessry. ' The emergence of such n interprettion, emphsizing tht rt is not produced in vcuum, corresponds to the iqtegrtion of dily life.intp works of rt initite %.by preworld Wr 11 mpvcments such s cubism, Ddism, nd syrrelism, nd followed during the fifties nd sixties by second genertion of rt ~ovements Pop rt nd its offshoots. Although there is consensus bout the signizirnce of ssessing the correltion between rt nd society, there is no sense of cohesiveness between the vrious sociologicl prctitioners (they re not ll sociologists or *sociologues') of different theoreticl bis positivism, mterilism, idel'srn hve produced studies in tht genre, While they shre! in common the need to elborte on the sociologicl nture of rt, they re not concerned with the definition ofmrticulr ', discipline of study nd their efforts often remin isolted. *

21 In Americ, the soi=iologicl interprettion 6fKfFisF reltionship between rt nd society. However precise nd objective these studies cn be, they fil to demonstrte the * specific chrctge of cretive ctivity. Fcts my provide ind of informtion but they do not explin the certin, \ emergence of culturl forms. The principl reson for the lck st in rtistic ctivity chrcteristic of the writings Of inte? I of. most Americn sociologists, resides in their reltive lck of expertise in rt history.' In Europe, the efforts to elborte on the correltion between the socil erpeiience nd the experience o rt reflects the influence of the Mrxist trdition upon intellectul discourses (riticl theory, Mrxist esthetics, Situ'tionists, B J. socil histo& of rt, the sociology of ft, nd reception _themy). The min.rontributions, mostly in Frnce nd GermnyYII re chrcterized by common concern "with the ideologicl significnc'e of rt, the nture of ides, vlues nd befiefs expressed in rt in terms of the sociohistoricl context nd in the mnner by which thy re expressed'by the rtist." /P (~ydie,1981:16) In Frnce, the ttempt to link society nd rt is found in the works oi Pierre ~ourdieu, Roger* Bstide, Jen Duvignud, Pierre ~rncstq, nd Lucien Goldmnn. Exmples of the Americn ttempts re: John H. Muller. Americn Sym@mnp Orrhestr, A Socil History &Musicl Tste ( Robert ilko on. The ~mzricn Poet: A ROE f (1952). Milton Albrecht; Jmes Brnett; nd Mson The Sociology of Art nd Literture (197). t I

22 The nmes of Alphons Silbermnn, Germn sociologist, nd % 7 of Arnold Huser, ~un~rin socil historin of rt, re, mentioned with respqct to.their efforts to discuss the socil production of rt. The extensive scope of HuserVs.work mkes him n irnp~rtnt~figure in the field. In ~nglnd', the specultion on the socil nture of rt is rther recent phenomenon. The concern 'for such n enterprise cme to I in the 1971s, while in other countries it hd tendency to decrese or even dispper. Recent ttempts to define sociologicl perspective bsed on pursued by the socil historins of Berger, T.J. lrk, Terry Egleton, recently Jnet Wolff." flourish ' Mrxist trdition re., rt nd 14terture: John Rymond ~ill.ims, nd The dissonnce between the Americn nd.europen sociologicl pproches6 to rt 'lies in vritions in the ' lnguges. In French nd G.ermn, bociology is more comprehensive (focusing on humn socil h&n. reltions nd representtionl systems); therefore the determintion of knowledge or of the + 5She hs published three books since 1975: Hermeneutic Sociolo of Art (1975), The Socil nd Aesthetics nd the Sociology 6The peculirities of this distinction re well illustrted in n where the two'intellectul trditions cohbit. While English nd is more or less preoccupied by socil interprettion of rt, French ndin 'sociologues' hve shown greter interest irr the suisf~ct. The in loer Europens is well represented in the writings of Fernnd Dumont ( l964), Murice Lemire ( 1969)~ Gilles Mrcotte (19641, nd Mrcel Rioux (1971). L

23 imginry is understood s prt of the formtion of spcil 4 relity. In Bnglish,' the sense of' sociology is nrrower (stressing orgniztions nd institutions); thus :t.nd rtists pre relegted to subsystem sttus expressive cf symbolisu. The 2 follc;ing definitions will help to illustrt* where the differences lie between the min intellectul trditions. I m n.f. (183; mot cr66 pr omte; de 'sociov et 1ogie)., Etude scientifique des fits sociux humins, consid6rs come pprtennt B un ordre prtlculier, et tudibs. dns leur ensemble ou 3 un huf degr de gnrlit. (Robert, 19?2: 14581, SO iology :' i n..(f soeiol*ogie, fr; socio + 1ogie logy) 1. The science of society, socil instctutions, nd socil reltionships; sp&if: the systemtic study of the development, structure, interction, nd collective behvior of. orgnized groups f humn beings. 2. the scientific nlysis of socil institution s functioning whole nd s it reltes to the rest of' society. (Webster,1979:195). t Soziologie: The science of society; i.e. of the, forms of pperqnce of phenomen initited nd trnsmitted by socil contct$. In nrrow sense sociology is understood s systemtic interprettion of the sequence nd the " effects of socil ctivities (Mx ~eber), s science of the socil reltions nd form (L. v. Wiese), or s systemtic nlysis of the generl order of socil life, its lws of movement, nd its reltionships to the nturl environment nd t~~culture (R. Konig).',,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,, 'The Germn text reds s follows: die Wiss. von der '. Gesellschft, 3,h. von den Erscheunungsformen durch '~ozilkontkte usfusten und vtrmittelten Phiinomene; i.c. S. verstrrden ls systemt. Deutunq d* Abluf s und der Wirkungen sozilen. Hhdelns (M. webcr ), ls Wiss. von den sozilen Beziehungen und Gebilden (L.v. Wiese) oder ls systemt. Behndlung dkr llg. Ordnungen des Gesellschftslebens ihrer Bewegungsgetze und Beziehungen zur nture. Umrelt und Zur ~ultur (R. Konig). (Der Grosse Brockhus,198:28)

24 Investigtions crried under the lbel 'the sociology of rt' re surprisingly few. ontrry to the ensemble of the sociologicl pproches concerned with the socil production of rt, the prctitioners working within the sociology of rt re concerned to define their objict of study. While there is debte over the existence of such field, sociologists of rt who hve elborted individully8 on its definition gree nd 1 insist on the pertinence of cretive ctivity to our existence. They re mostly concerned with the socil roots of knowledge, nd with the mnner in which the socil is mnifest in culturl forms. Europe is the crdle pr excellence for such sociology:... ce que l sociologie intless6e les institutions ns put voir? les m&morphoses de l sensibilitg collective: les rgves de l'imgbnire historique, les,vritions des systhies de clssifiction, les visions du monde enfin des divers groups sociux qui constituent l socit& globle et leurs hihrrchies, (Bstide,197:23) rl In.retrospect, it cn be ssumed tht the focus of the sociology of rt ws whether rt nd society re relted. Once. the reltionship between rt nd society ;s estblished the. question rises;of how the correltion tkes plce. The sociologists of rt who hve chosen to investigte the 'It &ers tht n 'imginry' impediment wlls off intellectul trditions from one nother. While similr efforts re crried on in different countries, exchnges re rre 4 occsions, I

25 t v communictive spect of rt 'hve stressed the need to better,dnderstnd the relt ionlhip. T5ef FEFhe focus on.' 4.. communiction processes becomes necessry in order to understnd the role of the imginry, disclosed explicitly or not, s centrl component of the sociology of rt.' The imginry is the point of convergence from which communiction emntes. In its centre, the producer nd the recipient of lnguge meet nd prticipte to.the constructionnd perpetution of this system I of significtion. An order to discuss conkunictidn within,the sdcioiogy of \.. rt the writings of Jen Duvignud nd Arnold Huser re respectively presented, They re both concerned with tht elbortion on the reltionship between rt nd society, nd the 6iscussion of the communictive spect of rt. When corn their writings show similrities nd distinctions. As proponents susc, the2 discms thz so&*ning of rt, wlilt stressing the importnce of seeing rt s system of I significtion. L. s "Rppelons que le sens cournt du terme imginire, qui pour l'instntno:s suffir: nous prlons dlimginireclorsque nous voulons prler de quefque chose drinvent6 qu'il s'gisse d'une invention bsolue (une histoire imde toutes ices), ou d' un glissement, d' un dplcement de sens,ohspbo Er es d6 j disponibles sont investis d'utres significtions qut leurs significtions rrommles ou cnoniqres iuqu'estce gue tuvts imginer l", d?t l femme d l'homme qui rkrimine sur un sourire 4~ j+~ eek wee wt &e~&. ~%YIIX BS, il est entendu que l'imginire se spre dure1, qu'il prtende se mettre s plce (un.rnensonge) ou qu'il ne le prtende ps (un romn)." (storidis,t975:177f

26 1.. In short essy entitled Soeioloqie & l'rt (19671, Jen Duvignud lys out the significnce of.the imginry s vitl to > hwn exidtence. He clims tht rt is positive ctivity initited by the rtist which brings indivi uls to prticipte / P in the mking of socil ;elity. By emphsizing the imginry, Duvignud is more concerned with the productive end of rt. In ddition, his interest resides ik socilogiclbbservfio~of 1 the phenomenon, nd puts side ny esthetic considertions.. Prom theoreticl viewpoint, his essy embodies elemegts of Mrxist philosophyi hiswork is informed by structurlism nd LU~SS' work. In Soziolo vehicle of expr dcr Kunst (19741, Huser clims tht rt is on, n 'ddress nd discussion'. He suggests +tht the dilecticl reltionship between production nd reception hve to be looked t in order to understnd the ongoing historicl process which chrcterizes the cretion.of mening in rt. Although his concern%lies in the correltion. between rt nd society, he goes' into gret detilb to emphsize, the esthetic qulity of rt. He tries to delimit tie field of / J the sociology of rt within the context of nonorthodox Mrxist perspective,

27

28 1. Towrd Sociology of ArtisticExpression I '%.. Under the.titl% Sociologie de ifrt, Duvignud deveops i sociology of rtistic expression, concise outline of lrger project clled 'sociologie de l'imginire'.. In this book he uses the tews sociology of rt nd sociology of rtistic expression,.interchngebly. This bsence of distinction does not necessrily confuse the issue of proper sociology of rt e 7 s Duvignud endevours to define it; rther, it shows one of the possible directions tht the sociology of rt cn tke. I \ will rgue tht th4s effort to understnd rt is fr from being comprehensive, becuse it looks t onlyone spect of rt its production. In'ddition, I contend tht his effort to describe < the notion of the imginry nd tti~tic~cretion is worth ~ ~ ~ r i o u s l y, sttement bout the tot s, The Im3ginry, * 'L Artistic cretion, cretive imginti.on,'st, nd the imginry re lmost synonymous terms in ~uvi~nud's Socioloqy of ~rt,"without doubt, mong these ides the **. * i t imginry is the centrl concept in Duvignud's notion of the ' 'The English trnsltion of Duvignud's Sociologie de l'rt hs been used ech time quottion is presented. w 4 The

29 xtciolw o x:he definition f it,& A fils, however, to offer somprehensive reder i s m to n i interprettion bsed on vrious clues found in the text, nd on I the connottions of this word in the French intellectul., trdition.' The imginry is chrcterized by princ'iple of, totlity (echoing Luk6cs's concept of totl'ity) ' which trnscends individuls, socil groups, nd clsses. It is communiction.' Artistic cretion 'is rooted in the thred of collective existence: through the imginry, mnkind finds its \ 4 / rison dtgtre. The imginry is more thn themcity to invent imges it is vitl substnc.e where humnity cretes socil 4 f relity. Thus, rt is perceived s dynmic phenomenon, the im.of which is to crry on socil energy. The work of rt is the* \. crrier of this socil substnce, which revels the potentil future; rt is form of nticiption of thesocil herefter, p '. 2fn the French infellectul trdition, the imginry hs been the focus of mny writers for some decdes. Its psychologicl connottion is rooted in Lcn's works, *but other intellectuls hve used it in different contexts; G. Bchelrd, L pohtique de I I i,' /' ' tht the French intelfectuls re concerned with the development J of 'sociologie de l'imginire'. 3"L totlit6 dont il est question chez h i n'est ps 1'Etre en ' & devenir de l totlit6 du monde,.is l totlit6 du processus de l1exp&rience socile et historique telle qu'elle _se constititue et se dgvoile dns ct pr l prxis socile et l lutte des clsses. semblge de tous les fits connus, et en. ouit pr nous qu7x ppelle totlitb. in et conscience de clsse. Pris, Les Editions de Minuit, 196Tp.'d. \ I

30 / \ ' * \ / J. ' PA wger on eventul relity: Z In tm, whisk incorporte i of society in which the socil substnce, the 'mn' which holds the secret of our future existence, is crystlllzed. Perhps he cn do this becuse we will never know bsolute joy. (Duvignud,1972:2) The specificity of rtistic cretion is found in rtistic drctice, which tkes plce within the socil context of dily l i fc, ~rtist ic expression is concerned withthe present nd does not represent eternl or dst forms. This tight reltionship \ between rt nd socil exi,ktence, however, is not ple, for / type of relism in rt. ob+& contrry, rtistic prctice is seen s utonomous nd free of ny tie to the politicl, economic or ideologicl; Moreover, the vlidity of work of rt is mesured'by its force of conviction, itself relted to the messge it expresses. Art is rrely the representtion of socil. ' order but is r6tleri ) permnent contesttionof it. Ech work is new dtum~~h~cch'is tken from the rtist's experience, but 15 suggests lndscpe unrelized until now. The imginry,, n intellectul* construction, reorders in its own mnner n ' intellectul representtion of socil events. The rtist cretes his own lndscpe, but from mentl structure rooted in coflectivity, For Duvignud three chrcteristics define the cretzve imgintion: first n unrelizble prticiption: second, * 'lep' from rel experience to possible e=riencs;nd third,, humn cpcity to invent new reltions nd emotions. The imginry competes with the essence of socil groups nd offers

31 .sense of totl communiction or tptl cohesion? "The work of rt cretes new behind us n order which brings together the seprted frgments of mnkind," (Duvignud,1972:19) /' Art trnscends socil divisions nd reunftes, through pproprite signs r; symbols, humnity which would remin otherwise divide3. As nticiption of rel experien~e, cretive imgintion is n existentil ttif~de cptures the r experience of mnkind in its'totlity / to foresee from present emotions to ;;rtur~, ones. TWe re s much wht we hve been s wht we re ble to imgine.".. (~uvignud,1972:149) To sy tht rt cnnot be seen s form of entertinment should occsion no surprise here, uvignud suggeststht rtistic cretion is fcrm of incitement tht encourges t prticiption within society. fie recogniz'es tht such 6' l prticiption is possible only if the groups unfmilir with, s u c r h f ~ ~ r r ~ ~ n t ~ & ~ ~ e ~ ~ t ~ pe u c gi h 1 e 1 y ~ t ~ n r u o ~'g ~ h T i ~ proper sociology of rt, to such n enlightened culture which would shke. them out of their 'entertinment sleep'. The work of6. rt is conceived of s stge where future existence unfolds, nd it m& be the only plce where such future cn exisf. In mny cses, it seems tht Duvignud understnds rt s being ble relese tension, especilly in times of rdicl chnges, ' when socil enexgy is chnnelled through the irhginry.? b I According to Duvignud, ll signif ihnt imgintive ctivity is "communiction from distnce" between two. subjects. Its ctulity is explined by the necessity to

32 communicte tht chrcterizes mnkind. Regrdless of time or spce, cretive imgintion trnscends groupsnd clsses in order,to rech &he individul. Here, it is importnt to stress the significnce of rooting the imginry in the thred of collective experience:... every ' sighif icnt imgined ction is communiction from distnce which is never reconciledto this nob hve to rech out to one nother, seprted by spce nd time, through the brriers creted by groups nd clsses, they would not need to rely on signs ny more thn on the imginry. (Duvignud,1972:52) " di stke. We sy 'f sot~= distnce ' becuse ~ rnrret5i& s spite of its psychologicl connottion, the intersubjectivity of the imginry is rooted in colletive exprience. In this gense the role of the rtist is to estblie3 dilogue, new communiction, nd to incite people to prticipte in the mking of socil relity.,. The Socislogy of Artistic Expression Duvignud suggests tht psychology of rt cnnot represent rt qdequtely becuse of the bised wy in which it distinguishes prticulrities from the totlity. Only the sociology of rt cn chieve comprehensive nlysis. Further, true sociology of rt is not ment to reduce the individul to collectivity, but rther to understnd them&% \ individul within the collectivity. A proper sociology of rt concerned with the totlity of 'socil experience', must keep

33 certin integrity nd see tht the dynmism of the imqinry is extended to the totlity of socil existence. Under such sociology, ny prtil nlysis is eliminted. Therefore, the sociology of rt must be concerned with rt s such nd not with the rts, rt institutions nd others.. Dltvignud presents certin esthetic, ideologies or. mystifictions tht 'musf be questioned by sociology of rt * ', concerned with cretion rooted in collective existence. He denounces ideologies becuse they crete beliefs which do not. ~rr==sp~.f# to mrt% mthentk existence. He isrrusmfour myths = 5 the essence of rt, the primitive origin of the rt, the submission of rt to relity or 'nture', nd the reltion of rt to religion which veil the rel purpose of living prctice of rt which is to continue socil dynmism. Therefore, rtistic expression, socil exwrience4, hs to be perceived in its totlity nd not through its possible pqticulrities s the different mystifictions would try to imply. The myth of the essence of rt ttributes cretive imgintion to n bsolute mentl function tht trnscends bodily conception rt s pure idel, spiritul ctivity.& Duvignud rgues tht to ttribute rt to spiritul fctors fils to 8$omprehend tht rt rises, from concrete sitution menings r bd ted in humn experience. Therefore, in i 'For e&le, in lter yers tke 8dt.m & te1ology, rdio, television, nd cinem results in the expnsion nd vulgriztion of rt. The ide of 'museum without wlls' reinforces the belief tht beuty cn be experienced by ever yune. w II e

34 'P.... is mre cmpkx thn simply scr to rt splr1tul functi~n outside humg experience. The specificity of rt resides. in its ffinity with the thred of collective 'experience. In hisettck on the myth of the wimitive origin f the rts, Duvignud questions the notion of continuity inhistory. He dismisses the 'evolut~onisf' nd 'historicist' tendencies in rt theory which originted in the thought of Spencer, dmte, Durkheim, nd Bergson. Duvignud does not reject history, but more specificlly its concept of perpetution. He believes tht history is mde up of breks becuse societies being dynmic do not progres~continuously. Further, he denies the possibility of mn, the universl nd unique subject, s the centrl focus of such tendencies: It is, finlly, doubtful whether one cn prove ny rel cont1'niitybetween different ~soietiesw~h seem foreign to us now on ccount of their very ntiquity. And it is highly unlikely tht we will ever succeed in projecting ourselves to the other end of history which, fter ll remins illdefined nd only n extensio of our present time. (Duvignud,1972:2728) Duvignud stresses the importnce of the present. History is n intellectul construction which is conceptulized from the 'oresent. Hrmony in history cn only be creted through such conceptuliztion. Duvignud's emphsis on the present chllenges our nostlgi for the pst: the pst hs to be recognized, but it is not somethl'ng we s Bo~l31ong~.Tne~ b experience of the present is more pertinent becuse it is the p I

35 source of our cretive nticiption. The pst ctsfl'ke veil proper sociology of rt should be concerned with the present (Duviqnud,l972:31) becuse it prolongs the.pth of the existing work of rt The submission of rt t,relity or 'nture', thehthir' myth under considertion, chrcterized by' the reduct ion of 9 rtistic cretion to mere function of the imittion of nture. This esthetic mystifiction does not tke into ccount tht the nture we experience is lredy trnsposed by socil nd intellectul representtion. The rtist inverts it second time. The rtist presents us with socilized nture; it is impossible to get pure rendition of nture without meditor: Wht i's this 'nture' or 'relity'. if not the 'system of imges which group or society constructs in order to mirror its mstery over the universe, if not sometimes the triumphnt vision of world completely'orgnized by mn's socil in~ti~cts, nd which the rtist then trnsforms strictly ccording to his own. individulity? Mentl structure, clssifiction, nd codifiction of nture or.relity re key notions in Duvignudfs ide of socility. Becuse mn lives in groups, he hs to pproprite the cosmos in the sme mnner in order to give n ppernce of hrmony. The rtist fuwtions within this system by enriching it with rtistic signs nd symbols tht re lso intellectul conceptuliztions. A lst interprettion of rt reltes cretion to religion; the scred is emphsized s opposed to mgic, nd this contributes, with the mystifictions exmined bove, to hinder '

36 >=+ &% the elbortion of proper iiving rt prctice. For exmple, in modern society, the belief in the scred hs tken.new dimension which hides the s;mptoms t I of divide3 humnity (lrger *public, multiplicity of milieux, communiction technologies). The rtist hs to find new justifictions in order to explin the.inconsistency nd reltivism of modern life,. Only n t;olute position is possib&. In mny cses, he cts like mn 'inspired',. representtive on erth of t religigus force who hs to express scrosint themes., According to Duvignud, therefore, it is importnt to cover I 1 these mystifictions bout rtistic prctice. These ideologies tend to split the t&lity of experience, ccentuting certin spects, nd thus'mutilting experience. A living rt ptctice, 4 implnted in socil experience, would not bse its essence on, such illusions, even if the individul needed to serch for * rtistic prctice. ~rtistic expression'is specific ctivity which cnnot be explined wy by concepts of scredness or primitiveness.,

37 / d I. &.,The Appliction of the Sociology of Art In this chpter,'the issue of defining theoreticl frme'work nd tool& nlysis, necessry to wht Duvignud believes to be suitble sociology of rt, will be considered. First, in serch of his theoreticl frmework, Duvignud looks I upon the works of. G ~uk6cs nd his follow~ers~_(benjrnin,~do_rno, pp nd Goldmn), nd of the Wrburg School (Pnofsky) s interpreted by P. Frncstel. But, notwithstnding their notble ttempts to root rt within socil existence, he believes tht they hve filed to eliminte certin philosophicl explntions. Second, in order to understnd fully the totlity 1 of cretive experiencewithin the totlity of collective experience, he proceeds to def i n ~ $ e owrt ive concepts. These I + serve s tools of neysis, nd re meningless unkess they re serproperiy within +socil context. TFey llow us to exmine the vrious situtions in which rt cn be identified s * component of different types of society. G. Luk6cs nd P. Frncstel I From LU~~S, Duvignud retins, the ide of estblishing correltions between the totlity of socil experience nd the vision of the individul who, through imginry representtion conceptulizes his period.' ~uklct hd recourse to the notion. of world vision tht. unites the work of rt, s system where

38 f eel'ings nd emotions re experienced, 1 ong with colective feelings & mnotiorsr is W~heing n vlid c ny otherpctivity of the community. Lucien Goldmnn, follower of, ~uk6cs, ws inspired by this concept when he juxtposed the ' literry world to world vision:,..the ide of 'vision of the world' becomes model of life nd existence by uniting disprte rtistic expressions in conrnon inspirtion. In contrst to populr mterilism, which~uper imposessrbit rry concepts on n lredz dogmtic nd rigid interprettion of relity, this ide,ensbles us to plce work of,rt in its existentil, every dy humn Nrspective. Similrly, we cn juxtpose d,ifferent 'visions of the 7 world', thereby including number of rtists within the ; ' frmework of single er. (Duvignud, ) Duvignud disgrees with the notion of world vision becuse, * of the internl cohesion needed in order to join the style of ' work of rt 'with world vision. In ddition, it is problemticl tht n individul be tken to represent n entire er. To ssert tht Leonrdo d Vinci is the sole representqtive t of the Renissnce isto limit the rnge of humn experience. He rep@ches Lukbcs for hving idelized the work of rt s form of knowledge of the world knowledge in the sense df the nineteehth century humnistic idel. According to Duvignud, rtistic knowledge is only one of the possible directions tht. cn be chosen by the humn psyche, The notion of rt s dominnt re'&sitory e + of knowledge is rejected. ~uviinud ccuses Luk6cs of hving conceled the _ctive prt of rt: the potentil to nticipte the future. Luk6cs,lleges tht the work of rt is trnsltion nd reconstitution \ of themes prior to its existence. Du~ignud clls this pure

39 'cdemism', nd refuses to cknowledge the priori in rt. The rtist 2s never n ci3ernict ormkerof imges, but cretor of nticiption originting from humn relity. Luk5csV ttempt. does not locte the wor'k of rt in the present. His endevour to correlte rt prcfice nd socil experience flls into4 the trps of philosophicl resoning. In other words, ~ukks's * effort might be perceived s nother kind of mystifiction where * rt is sort of universl nd spiritul force; the world vision. being model of life, r The next effort tht Duvignud undertkes is to study the Wrburg school, mostly the work of Erwin Pnofsky (Art ' historin, ) who hs recognized tht ny form of. intellectul representtion is rooted in collective existence. He cknowledges the rtistic cpcity to stimulte socil experience in groups or collectivities; in short, the potentil' followers hve underestimted this communictive For them 'the rtist s mere "cdemicin cnnot in communiction. Pnofsky nd Frncstel hve developed wht designtes s n 'rcheology' of the fundmentl spect of &rt. be interested Duv i gnud structures of imginry life. They hve concentrted their effort on the. genesis of the rt object, Frncstel hs nlysed t e +ormtion of mentl structures, especilly through his stby of spce in pinting. He hs shown tht spce is n intellectul representtion, fr from being n immedite response to dily P

40 life,which hs evolved through th F relity.is constructed nd not imrned I conceptulizes rs. In other words,. given. The pinter his view of nture. Accord, Fr?iRis.tel \. * '. believes tht proper sociology of rt must be concerbed with w rt s n intellectul specultion rooted in the rel nd simp14e elements of our living existence. Frncstel hs ende to show thtrtisticcretion is n individul nd collective ction cting upon humn experience. This ction helps mn to define himself in world ' A = tht he is trying to conquer; thus giwing rise to the nee6 for creting intellectul structures. Agin, Frncstel believes tht suitble nd dynmic sociology of rt must be concerned with the present. e rn cst el's ttempt to integrte rt nd society supports Duvignud's effort. Both re convinced of the totlity of rtistic nd living experience nd suggest sociology of rt tht will tke into ccount this totlity. Duvignud describes the work of Frncstel s being n! importnt contribution to 'Mrxist' conception of the sociology of rt. Frncstel hs illustrted Mrx's notion of mn's pproprition of nture (nture becomes socilized nt,ure under humn domintion) in studying spce. According.to Duvignud, Frncstef hs. extended Mrx's ide nd given it new mening:, I Spce becomes problem beeuse through it mn gins G, socil solidrity which is inde@6ndenii/oftm mysticl intuition of relity which mterilists clim exists. The origid nd growth of cretive ctivity re the sme s those of socil life, nd socil life rediscovers in the cretive individul the principles n$ driving force

41 . +J 4 k ) ((I I w m lu U z Y g & 3 ' ) +J,,. m Q, Q, V U rl J, m ((I U m k L m 5:, 'u Q, N *rl ti ((I k 3 li J JJ c. m, f ~ k k. 3 m Q, Erc U, c * 3 J * Q.ri rl c ti" k,+, o d ~ 3 X Q, 3 u n J J c,. ri, ((I.d k B m m. d d,.4, J J, +J ((I 3 U n o ri ti k,, c, '((1, ((1, m J id k JJ, 3 4J.G U ' I4 fi ul d Q,, m U m k Erc, * m Q, k m *d Q, U d ul k. JJ d d X Q,, 4 k U U O d d, O k O V),LTu.

42 > ' fter its cretion: i.e\khg communictive spect;open / ~uvi~n&ud discourse ifrt is to be locted within living,? existence. Definition of Ope rtive oncepts * within. the totlity of collective existence, ~uvignu' hs f designed five 'opert ve concepts: drm, the polemic sign,.structures of different.c~ssifictions, nomie,'nd the typic.' These concepts re tools of nlysis tht permit identifiction of the vr'ious situtions nd chrcteristics of humn experience. However, these forms re meningless unless they re grounded in the living society tht, is the cnvs of ll description. It is importnt to emphsize tht the perpetul trnsformtion of society is n underlying principle in Duvignud's discourse, It is only through the living presence of.... s ' society tht ll spects of humn existence tke the,ir mening., Moreover, it is impertive to.postulte n pproprim imge of ' B socil cretion in order to understnd rtistic cretion, Drm tkes from psychology1 the notion,of concrete. sitution. It proposes to divide humn experience in n'ensemble of behviours which might seem seprted, yet re integrl prts *Ouirign~ tkes the mening of drm from Gecrges Politzer's 'Pondements de l psychologie'. Revue de l pspchologie concrgte, no 1, I

43 L of totlity in progress. It suggests tht hhn experience is invofvkd in conff kt, srrugg*egnst n obstcle nd tht most of the 'ctorst prticipte to define their own plce in the collectivity, In the sociology of rt, drm is combintion of behviours, emotions, ttitudes, ideologies, ctions nd cretions which, for the cretive individul, crystllizes,the whole of soc.iety nd plces the genesis of work of rt within the complex of those contrdictory forms which mke up collective &ife, (Btwignud,t972:49) The work of rt becomes the expression of such conflict. Ech individul cretor gives shpe to collective experience by by > society. Drmtic experience is more perception thn comprehension of the stte of the collectivity. Thus, s in the cse of Shkespere, the,unusul nd individul fctors tht hve influenced his writings cn be explined:... the poet's position in society which ws ffected rel, iflh&ly perc~ptibl~, chnges P powerorientted ideologies of the bourgeois, the ltin ' nd Itlinizing eduction of rtist, s well s his.. personl singulrity s n rtist, the reltionship between psychologicl themes (which psychonlysis cn detect if it reintegrtes them into the working of the whole) nd the existing literry forms. (Duvignud,l972:49) The first dvntge of such concept is tht it voids reducing the work to biogrphy or vice vers, becuse the rtistic ctivity is perceived s n ttempt to exteriorise nd to objectify the ltent thems found in individul nd &i+l existence, Another dvntge &rives fim t h e ~ ~ r t n f rt in living socil constithncy where the rtist momentrily embodies society, It llows for the rejection of the ide of 1

44 subjective nd objective viewpoints becuse drm covers, nlyticlly, ll spects of cretion. Furthermore, the seprtion between form nd content is evicted; division creted by theorists unwre of the heterogeneity nd universlitg of cretive experience. Form is understood s prticulr ttempt of the imgintion to discover the common origin of certin elements to which everyone csn respond emotionlly ( 'the 9enetic structuresf of Frncstel), nd content s the imginry ttempt to. crete immedite menings which refine spontneous mentl response from n udience. (Duvignud,1972:5)' Another of Quvignud's conceptul tools is the polemic sign which embodiesspects of totl communiction. The work of rt, s prtil element designting thd totlity of experience is understood, more or less, s cohereht system of explicit ctivities directed. towrds rel communiction. The sign hs 7 double ctivity: on one hnd, the presupposition of n obstcle to overthrow, on the other, rei or imginry ttempt to overcome it. Theide of polemic, or intentions, suggests the nture of the obstcle confronted by the rtist in cretive ctivity. This obstcle vries ccording to different situtions. It cn be rection to physiologicl relity * I which hs more profound psychofogicl implictions (defness in the c=e of Goy) which results in n interruption of communiction, It cn lso tke the form of conscious effort from the rtist to use his mens of expression in ordes to A trnscend his clss fuse of poetry by Jen mcine), or to proclim the rise of individulity in divided society by the cretion of heroes (Julien Soref, Frederick Horeuf. In