Lunacharsky and the formation of Marxist criticism

Conclusion

Marxist criticism of the pre-October years is the direct predecessor of Soviet literary criticism and all of our literary criticism. In fact, this is one fundamental phenomenon that exists in different historical conditions and eras and is in the process of dialectical development. If we consider this phenomenon in a historical perspective from the moment of its inception to the present day; it is easy to see that it is characterized by an ever deeper and more versatile application of the Marxist method to comprehend and evaluate works of literature, art, and the entire process of artistic creation.

Lunacharsky himself did much after 1917 to show the continuity of the ideas of Marxist and Soviet criticism. He writes works that summarize the experience and historical significance of his predecessors and associates, publishes their works under his editorship with his introductory articles, and does a lot of work, especially in the early 30s, to educate a young literary-critical succession. For the same purpose, he publishes his pre-revolutionary works. It is important to take revenge that the critic chose from them those that seemed to him timeless, useful for the further development of Marxist aesthetics, for creative discussions. He republished old works with appropriate comments, prefaces, sometimes with cuts and alterations of the text. And although much of the value of pre-revolutionary articles was forgotten and lost by Lunacharsky, the very principle of selection testified to the increased! the maturity of the critic, and the immutability of his basic ideas.

There are well-known discussions of the 1920s and the first half of the 1930s about proletarian culture, about traditions and innovation, about the attitude to the literary classics, about the perception of modernism, about the creative method of Soviet literature, about the nature of literary criticism, etc. Soviet literary criticism in recent years has done a lot to reveal in its entirety the process of formation of our literary criticism in the first years of Soviet power, although, of course, more needs to be done in this area than has already been done. However, comprehension of the vast material of the history of Soviet literary criticism can be successful and promising when we remember that many knots of literary-critical contradictions of the Soviet era began in the pre-October years. Consequently, Lunacharsky, entering after 1917 into a new and most fruitful period of his activity, was internally prepared to solve the grandiose tasks of the cultural construction of the young Soviet state. “I am happy to state,” he wrote in 1919, reprinting the Dialogue on Art, “how little of what I had to write in my lifetime would be subject to any radical alteration when published again. We are now doing exactly what we dreamed about and what we planned.” 1

The joint path with Lenin and under his leadership, all the experience of socialist construction in our country, intense independent work on understanding world artistic creativity, world social thought made Lunacharsky in the Soviet years the most prominent figure in the field of aesthetics, literary criticism, literary and artistic criticism, and his influence on literature and art is very significant. True, as already mentioned in the preface, the scale and significance of everything that Lunacharsky did was discovered relatively recently, in the 60s.

“Anatoly Vasilyevich,” wrote N. K. Krupskaya, “had not just talent - it was talent put at the service of Bolshevism.” 2 In this definition, everything is correct, except for the unfortunate word "service", for Lunacharsky saw in Bolshevism and communism the great ideal of mankind and tirelessly fought for its realization.

Lunacharsky the critic is equally strong in an objective socio-aesthetic analysis of various phenomena of the spiritual life of society, and in exposing bourgeois art, bourgeois aesthetics, and in establishing a new proletarian art. This combination, this triune fusion of sober analysis, passionate exposure and pathos of assertion, is necessary for Lunacharsky to solve practical problems. Here literary criticism passes directly into organizational activity. It is clear that this feature of a businesslike economic approach to literature and art was most fully revealed in the Soviet years, but it manifested itself almost in the first works of Lunacharsky.

Lunacharsky called "positive aesthetics" the "science of evaluations" (vol. 7 , p. 51). This definition is fully applicable to the entire literary-critical activity of Lunacharsky. Moreover, it can be extended to Soviet literary criticism in general in its best manifestations, having been cleansed of the biological, Machian tinge (which is very easy to do).

Lunacharsky's definition - "the science of evaluations" - with the addition and clarification of "modern literature" is valuable, because it takes into account two sides of the literary-critical act: scientific analysis and evaluative character. No matter how important the principle of evaluation was for Lunacharsky, it is always conditioned and supported by scientific analysis. And, on the other hand, analysis, analysis of works of art is always permeated with evaluation and is accompanied by practical conclusions and recommendations.

The scientific character of Soviet literary and artistic criticism lies in the Marxist-Leninist methodology. Ultimately, only Marxist-Leninist criticism is scientific, capable of correctly understanding, comprehending and evaluating a literary work, a writer's work, and literature in general. Having mastered the Marxist methodology, progressive criticism received all the necessary data in order to provide correct, practically substantiated and logically demonstrative knowledge about the modern literary process. The methodology of literary-critical analysis is constantly being improved, enriched by the best achievements of Soviet and advanced Western aesthetic thought, the historical experience of our people, its military vanguard of the CPSU.

V. G. Belinsky wrote that criticism and art emerged “from one common spirit of the times. Both are equal to the consciousness of the epoch, but criticism is philosophical consciousness, and art is direct consciousness. 3 The "spirit of the times", about which Belinsky wrote, demanded from critics precise and at the same time quite flexible criteria for evaluation, not dogmatic prescriptions, but clear principles excluding subjective arbitrariness. Marxist critics filled the concept of the "spirit of the times" with concrete social and revolutionary content and raised literary criticism to a new, higher level.

Instructing the writer and the reader, the literary critic himself learns from them and advances public self-awareness. The literary critic is thus entrusted with a great responsibility. Becoming a Marxist critic is an extremely difficult task; aesthetic taste and education alone, as you can see from the example of Plekhanov, Vorovsky and Lunacharsky, are not enough here, although these qualities are the necessary conditions for successful work in this area. Marxist criticism is a science because it opposes subjectivism, aestheticism, individualism, irrationalism and other vices of bourgeois aesthetics.

Advanced criticism, by its nature, cannot be only negative, aimed at exposing some vicious concept. Even in denial, the Marxist critic pursues positive goals, offers constructive solutions, affirms the ideals of revolutionary art. The Marxist critic "removes" the wrong conception in order to form his own - an advanced one that meets the interests of the proletariat and thus the "spirit of the times".

Being a science, Marxist criticism builds its conclusions in the form of concepts and logical conclusions, that is, it uses scientific tools, literary terminology. The foregoing does not mean that the artistic, figurative beginning is completely contraindicated for literary criticism (as well as for the theory and history of literature). - Critical work.

“Marxist criticism,” Lunacharsky wrote in 1928, “is both a scientific and peculiarly artistic work” (vol. 8 , p. 18, highlighted by us. - I.K.). Artistry for Lunacharsky meant the reconstruction in literary-critical work of the images of Cervantes and Shakespeare, Pushkin and Dostoevsky, Gorky and Mayakovsky, Wagner and Mussorgsky, Titian and Kustodiev, Shevchenko and Yanka Kupala. The critic often discovered new features and details in the heroes of world culture, gave them a new interpretation, taking into account the changed reality of the 20th century. However, no matter how strong the artistic element in "artistic nature" 4Lunacharsky, no matter how widely he was represented in his works, the critic almost never sacrificed scientific truth to him. "Poet and philosopher of the revolution", he made Marxist criticism artistic, democratic, accessible to the general readership. These aspects of his activity, the features of his portrait are extremely instructive, they are the subject of current worries, disputes, and reflections.

Lunacharsky's work as People's Commissar for Education is a wonderful example of what relations should be between party leaders, government and artists. “The Party approach to questions of literature and art,” says the Report to the 25th Congress of the CPSU, “combines a sensitive attitude towards the artistic intelligentsia, assistance in their creative quest with integrity.” 5

These ideas were close to Lunacharsky; he tirelessly worked on their approval throughout his conscious life. The Leninist principle of party membership received from Lunacharsky practical implementation and further development in relation to the specific conditions of Soviet reality.

Lunacharsky was a passionate fighter in the great battle of the early 20th century for the hearts and minds of people. This battle continues, and all new peoples and countries are embarking on the path of socialism, creating their own socialist culture. In the deeds and works of A. V. Lunacharsky, the liberated and struggling humanity finds fertile material for study and implementation.

Lunacharsky A.V. Dialogue about art. M., 1919, p. 4,
"Komsomolskaya Pravda", 1933, No. 300.
Belinsky V. G. Full. coll. soch., vol. 6. M., 1955, p. 271.
So called V. I. Lenin Lunacharsky (see: Lunacharsky A. V. Memoirs and impressions, p. 34).
Materials of the XXV Congress of the CPSU. M., 1976, p. 80.