On The Methodology Of Arnold Hauser, Sociology Of Art

This paper aims at through analysis on two criticizes of Methodology which written by Arnold Hauser in his Social History of Art in western art history, to show Chinese readers that Western Marxism made great contributions and faced difficulties in the middle of the century's art history, the dream and obfuscation that all Marxist intellectuals represented by Arnold Hauser had held in the middle of the last century. Arnold Hauser's critical way of historical materialism seems rough and arbitrary, even lack of evidence of value judgments and in the micro-empirical method of empirical history full of loopholes. Then what's the value of this method in the end? In the Philosophy of Art History 5 years later, Hauser reclaim the boundary of the social history of art, and what can be solved by the combination of sociology and art and not. In addition, Hauser still persist that it made sense to keep the cultural value judgments in art analysis.During the years Marxist thought in the new renaissance in 80s last century, Hauser's posture once again be concerned as the pioneers, however, some of his perspectives had been questioned, holders who had new art history point of Marxism believe that Hauser's posture can not concerns about the analysis of women, race, homosexuality because of his mechanical understanding and old conservative intellectuals, at the same time, he can not keep a new attitude without elitist and man-centered arrogance. In the view of neo-Marxist represent by T. J. Clark, Hauser have not use Marxism properly and effectively in his social history of art. On the contrary, after long time development and repeatedly revise, method of the Marxism social history of art even became a cultural weapon which push forward the social revolution, like what Gustave Courbet did. However, there is no doubt that the reflection of Clark is base on the defect of Hauser's methods and the constant discussion about it in the academic world in the last 30 years.