10    NEW LEFT ART HISTORY’S INTERNATIONAL

My thanks to Steve Edwards and Stephen Eisenman for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this chapter.

1.	Published as Martin Warnke (ed.), Das Kunstwerk zwischen Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Kunstverlag, 1970). O.K. Werckmeister discusses the event in ‘Radical Art History’, Art Journal, vol. 42, no. 4 (Winter 1982), pp. 284–91.
2.	One of these, Berthold Hinz’s Die Malerei in deutschen Faschismus: Kunst und Konterrevoultion (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1974), appeared in revised form as Art in the Third Reich, tr. Robert and Rita Kimbert (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980).
3.	O.K. Werckmeister, ‘The Ulmer Verein’, CAA Marxism and Art Caucus, Newsletter, no. 1 (Fall 1977), pp. 5–6.
4.	In English as Reinhardt Bentmann and Michael Müller, The Villa as Hegemonic Architecture, tr. Tim Spence and David Craven (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1992).
5.	For a more recent assessment of the Frankfurt School’s value for art history, see Andreas Berndt et al. (eds), Frankfurter Schule und Kunst-Geschichte (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1992).
6.	O.K. Werckmeister, Ideologie und Kunst bei Marx und andere Essays (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 1974), pp. 7–35; and in English as ‘Marx on Ideology and Art’, New Literary History, no. 4 (1973), pp. 500–19.
7.	Werckmeister, ‘Marx on Ideology and Art’, pp. 508–10, 518–19. Cf. Werckmeister, ‘Radical Art History’, pp. 284–6.
8.	Adorno had precisely rejected such a position. See, for instance, ‘Baby with the bath-water’, in Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life, tr. E.F.N. Jephcott (London: Verso 1978), pp. 43–5. For Werckmeister’s critique of Adorno’s aesthetic, see his ‘Das Kunstwerk als Negation: Zur geschichtlichen Bestimmung der Kunsttheorie Theodor W. Adornos’, in O.K. Werckmeister, Ende der Ästhetik: Essays über Adorno, Bloch, das gelbe Unterseeboot und der eindimensionale Mensch (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer 1971), pp. 7–32. For a bibliography of Werckmeister’s writings, see Wolfgang Kersten (ed.), Radical Art History: Internationale Anthologie: Subject: O.K. Werckmeister (Zurich: ZIP, 1997), pp. 482–7.
9.	For example, see Paul Paolucci, ‘The Scientific Method and the Dialectical Method’, Historical Materialism, vol. 11, no. 1 (2003), pp. 75–106.
10.	Although see notes 2 and 4 above, and also Klaus Herding, Courbet: To Venture Independence (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991).
11.	See also the special issue ‘Zwanzige Jahre danach: Kritische Kunstwissenschaft heute’, Kritische Berichte, vol. 18, no. 3 (1990).
12.	Gabi Dolff and Andreas Haus, ‘Zur Situation der marxistischen Kunstwissenschaft in der BRD, Grossbritannien und den USA’, Kritische Berichte, vol. 8, nos 1/2 (1980), pp. 71–5.
13.	Grace Glueck, ‘New Art Group Makes Resolve to Push for Reforms’, New York Times, 2 November 1970. Glueck was quoting from the New Art Association Newsletter 3 (September 1970), reprinted in T[homas] B. H[ess], ‘Editorial: Arise You Prisoners of Art History’, Art News, vol. 69, no. 7 (November 1970), p. 35.
14.	Grace Glueck, ‘College Art Group Dissidents Are Gaining Ground’, New York Times, 2 February 1971. See also Edward F. Fry, ‘The NAA revision of the CAA’, Art in America (March–April 1971), pp. 31–2.
15.	See New Art Association Newsletter, vol. 2, no. 4 (December 1971).
16.	Gregory Battcock (ed.), New Ideas in Art Education: A Critical Anthology (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1973) is representative of the moment.
17.	‘On Art and Society’, Supplement to Women and Art (Summer/Fall 1972), compiled by Irene Peslikis.
18.	Catalog Committee of Artists Meeting for Cultural Change, an anti-catalog (New York, 1977). The committee included Rudolf Baranik, Sarina Bromberg, Sarah Charlesworth, Susanne Cohn, Carol Duncan, Shawn Gargagliano, Eunice Golden, Janet Koenig, Joseph Kosuth, Anthony McCall, Paul Pechter, Elaine Bendock Pelosini, Aaron Roseman, Larry Rosing, Ann Marie Rousseau, Alan Wallach and Walter Weissman. The format probably owed something to John Berger’s Ways of Seeing.
19.	The New York Art and Language journal The Fox (1975–6) should also be noted as a forum in which radical artists and art historians came together.
20.	See Mary D. Garrard, ‘Feminist Politics: Networks and Organizations’, and Carrie Rickey, ‘Writing (and Righting) Wrongs: Feminist Art Publications’, in Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (eds), The Power of Feminist Art: Emergence, Impact and Triumph of the American Feminist Art Movement (New York: Abrams, 1994), pp. 88–103, 120–9. For the Marxist Caucus at the 1980 CAA conference, see Janet Koenig, ‘Why You’re Not Smiling’ and ‘Social Studies’, in Judy Seigel (ed.), Mutiny and the Mainstream: Talk That Changed Art, 1975–1990 (New York: Midmarch, 1992), pp. 141–2.
21.	Art Journal, vol. 35, no. 4 (Summer 1976); Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard, Feminism and Art History: Questioning the Litany (New York: Harper & Row, 1982).
22.	For example, the ‘Art and Ideology’ issue of Radical History Review, no. 38 (1987).
23.	Frederick Antal, ‘Remarks on the Method of Art History’, parts 1 and 2, Burlington Magazine, vol. 91 (February–March 1949), pp. 49–52, 73–75; Arnold Hauser, ‘The New Outlook’, Art News, vol. 51, no. 4 (Summer 1952), pp. 43–6.
24.	CAA Marxism and Art Caucus, Newsletter, no. 1 (Fall 1977), p. 1; T.J. Cark, ‘Preliminary Arguments: Work of Art and Ideology’, in Papers Presented to the Marxism and Art History Session of the College Art Association Meeting in Chicago, February 1976 (mimeograph), pp. 5–6. The ambiguities surrounding what constituted a Marxist approach at this time are exemplified by the papers from two colloquia sessions held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1972 and 1974, published as Henry A. Millon and Linda Nochlin (eds), Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics (Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 1978).
25.	O.K. Werckmeister, ‘From Marxist to Critical Art History’, Papers Presented to the Marxism and Art History Session of the College Art Association Meeting in Chicago, February 1976, pp. 29–30.
26.	Peter Klein, ‘Marxism and Arnold Hauser’s Concept of the Social History of Art’, in Caucus for Marxism and Art, Papers Delivered in the Marxism and Art History Session of the College Art Association Meeting in Los Angeles, February 1977 (mimeograph), pp. 49–57. For Werckmeister’s very different appraisal, see ‘The Depoliticized Attenuated Version’, in Art History, vol. 7, no. 3 (September 1984), pp. 345–8.
27.	Nicos Hadjinicolaou, ‘Art History and the Appreciation of Works of Art’, Caucus for Marxism and Art, Proceedings of the Caucus for Marxism and Art at the College Art Association Convention, January 1978, pp. 9–12.
28.	Donald Kuspit, ‘Meyer Schapiro’s Marxism’, Caucus for Marxism and Art, Proceedings of the Caucus for Marxism and Art at the College Art Association Convention, January 1978, pp. 28–9; also in Arts Magazine, vol. 53, no. 3 (November 1978), pp. 142–4.
29.	Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach, ‘The Museum of Modern Art as Late Capitalist Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis’, Marxist Perspectives, vol. 1, no. 4 (Winter 1978), pp. 28–51; Eunice Lipton, ‘The Laundress in Late Nineteenth-Century French Culture’, Art History, vol. 3, no. 3 (September 1980), pp. 295–313; Serge Guilbaut, ‘Greenberg, Pollock, or from Trotskyism to the New Liberalism of the “Vital Center”’, October, no. 15 (Winter 1980), pp. 61–78; David Kunzle, ‘Bruegel’s Proverb Painting and the World Turned Upside Down’, Art Bulletin, vol. 59, no. 2 (June 1977), pp. 197–202.
30.	Respectively, ‘Daumier in the History of Art’ and ‘The Paris Commune of 1871 and the Political Print’, in Caucus for Marxism and Art, Proceedings of the Caucus for Marxism and Art at the College Art Association Convention, January 1979, pp. 24–31, 32–36.
31.	Titled ‘“The Olympia Scandal”: The Language of the Critics in 1865 and the Problems of Olympia’s Meaning for its Public’.
32.	For example, the session ‘Post-war Theory and Art Practice’, organised by Jon Bird at the 1983 conference, where Hadjinicolaou was given a double slot; and ‘The Effectiveness of Images’, organised by Alex Potts, for the 1985 event.
33.	Amongst the important work that appeared in its pages, not already listed, were the following: Thomas Crow, ‘The Oath of the Horatii in 1785’, Art History, vol. 1, no. 4 (December 1978), pp. 424–71; Adrian Rifkin, ‘Cultural Movement and the Paris Commune’, ibid., vol. 2, no. 2 (June 1979), pp. 201–20; Fred Orton and Griselda Pollock: ‘Les donnés bretonnantes: la prairie de représentation’, ibid., vol. 3, no. 3 (September 1980), pp. 314- 44, and ‘Avant-Gardes and Partisans Reviewed’, ibid., vol. 4, no. 3 (September 1981), pp. 305–27; Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach, ‘The Universal Survey Museum’, ibid., vol. 3, no. 4 (December 1980), pp. 448–69; Michael Baldwin, Charles Harrison and Mel Ramsden, ‘Art History, Art Criticism and Explanation’, ibid., vol. 4, no. 4 (December 1981), pp. 432–56. The role of Art History’s first two reviews editors, Alex Potts and Fred Orton, should also be noted.
34.	The initial editors were Jon Bird, Barry Curtis, Frances Hannah, Lisa Tickner and John A. Walker, later joined by Michael Evans and Tim Putnam. See ‘Introduction’, in George Robertson (ed.), The Block Reader in Visual Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. xi-xiv; and Jon Bird, ‘On Newness and Art History: Reviewing Block, 1979–85’, in A.L. Rees and Frances Borzello (eds), The New Art History (London: Camden, 1986), pp. 32–40.
35.	It was to be ‘a journal devoted to the theory, analysis and criticism of art, design and the mass media’, according to its first editorial.
36.	Tony Rickaby, ‘The Artists’ International’, Block, no. 1 (1979), pp. 5–14; Jo Spence, ‘The Sign as a Site of Class Struggle: Reflections on Works by John Heartfield’, ibid., no. 5 (1981), pp. 2–13.
37.	For a history, analysis and defence, see Anthony Easthope, ‘The Trajectory of Screen’, in Francis Barker et al. (eds), The Politics of Theory: Proceedings of the Essex Conference on the Sociology of Literature, July 1982 (University of Essex, 1983), pp. 121–33.
38.	John Tagg, ‘The Method of Criticism and its Objects in Max Raphael’s Theory of Art’, Block, no. 2 (1980), pp. 2–14.
39.	Alan Wallach, ‘In Search of a Marxist Theory of Art History’, ibid., no. 4 (1981), p. 17; Adrian Rifkin, ‘ Can Gramsci Save Art History?’, ibid., no. 3 (1980), pp. 37–9.
40.	The key Marxist reflection on the topic remains Meyer Schapiro, ‘Style’, in Theory and Philosophy of Art: Style, Artist, and Society (Selected Papers, vol. 4) (New York: Braziller, 1994), p. 51–101. On which, see Alan Wallach, ‘Meyer Schapiro’s Essay on Style: Falling into the Void’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 55, no. 1 (Winter 1997), pp. 11–15.
41.	My quotations are from Jon Bird, ‘The Politics of Representation’, Block, No. 2 (1980), pp. 40–4.
42.	Rifkin, ‘Can Gramsci Save Art History?’, p. 40, n.15.
43.	Notably John Heskett, ‘Modernism and Archaism in Design in the Third Reich’, Block, no. 3 (1980), pp. 13–24; T.J. Clark, ‘Courbet the Communist and the Temple Bar Magazine’, ibid., no. 4 (1981), pp. 32–8; Nicos Hadjinicolaou, ‘The Debate at the Salon of 1831’, ibid., no. 9 (1983), pp. 62–7.
44.	Griselda Pollock, ‘Vision, Voice, and Power: Feminist Art History and Marxism’, ibid., no. 6 (1982), pp. 2–21.
45.	‘Editorial’, ibid., No. 10 (1985), p. 4.
46.	John Tagg, ‘Art History and Difference’, ibid., pp. 45–7. Cf. Jon Bird, ‘Art History and Hegemony’, ibid., No. 12 (Winter 1986/7), pp. 27–40. For a different perspective on the perceived crisis, see Adrian Rifkin, ‘Humming and Hegemony’, ibid., pp. 45–8.
47.	Louis James, ‘Cruikshank and Early Victorian Caricature’; Eric Hobsbawm, ‘Men and Women in Socialist Iconography’; John Heskett, ‘Art and Design in Nazi Germany’; Tony Rickaby, ‘The Artists’ International’, in History Workshop Journal, issue 6 (Autumn 1978), pp. 107–20, 121–38, 139, 53, 154–68. Hobsbawm’s essay sparked a fierce debate in issues 7 (Spring 1979) and 8 (Autumn 1979).
48.	Among the most important are Jutta Held, ‘Between Bourgeois Enlightenment and Popular Culture: Goya’s Festivals, Old Women, Monsters and Blind Men’, History Workshop Journal, issue 23 (Spring 1987), pp. 39–58; John Hutton, ‘Camille Pissarro’s Turpitudes Sociales and Late Nineteenth-Century French Anarchist Anti-Feminism’, ibid., issue 24 (Autumn 1987), pp. 32–61; Alex Potts, ‘Picturing the Modern Metropolis: Images of London in the Nineteenth Century’, ibid., issue 26 (Autumn 1988), pp. 28–56.
49.	Donald Preziosi, Rethinking Art History: Meditations on a Coy Science (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 161.
50.	In Britain, notable examples of the genre included Pollock and Orton, ‘Les données bretonnantes’; Deborah Cherry and Griselda Pollock, ‘Patriarchal Power and the Pre-Raphaelites’, Art History, vol. 7, no. 4 (December 1984), pp. 480–95; Fred Orton, ‘Reactions to Renoir Keep Changing’, Oxford Art Journal, vol. 8, no. 2 (1985), pp. 28–35.
51.	This conjunction provided the occasion for the ‘Reading Landscape’ session at the AAH Conference of 1989, organised by Simon Pugh.
52.	Namely, Constable: The Art of Nature (1971), Landscape in Britain, 1750–1850 (1974) and Constable (1976).
53.	John Barrell, The Dark Side of the Landscape: The Rural Poor in English Painting, 1730–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 1. Contemporaneously, Alan Wallach was developing a rather different Marxist approach to landscape painting in the United States. See Alan Wallach, ‘Thomas Cole and the Aristocracy’, Arts Magazine, vol. 56, no. 3 (November 1981), pp. 94–106.
54.	Michael Rosenthal, Constable: The Painter and his Landscape (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983); Ann Bermingham Landscape and Ideology: The English Rustic Tradition, 1740–1860 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).
55.	David Solkin, Richard Wilson: The Landscape of Reaction (London: Tate Gallery, 1982), pp. 22, 136, n.4.
56.	For an account of this reception, see Neil McWilliam and Alex Potts, ‘The Landscape of Reaction: Richard Wilson (1713?-1782) and his Critics’, in Rees and Borzello, The New Art History, pp. 106–19
57.	My own book Landscape Imagery and Urban Culture in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) was a late product of this tendency.
58.	‘Editorial’, Histoire et critique des arts, no. 1 (1977), pp. 1–2 (n.p.), my translation. The ‘manque de ligne politique’ is again emphasised in ‘Editorial’, ibid., no. 2 (June 1977), p. 1. Those involved included, among others, Maria Estrella, Virginia Garretta, Nicos Hadjinicolaou, Hélène Hourmat, Maria Ivens, Patrick Le Nouëne, Laura Malvano, Michel Melot and Michèle Witwer.
59.	‘Les réalismes et l’histoire de l’art’, Histoire et critique des arts, nos. 4–5 (May 1978); ‘Daumier et le dessin de presse’, Histoire et critique des arts, nos. 13–14 (1980).
60.	‘Les avant-gardes’, ibid., no. 6 (July 1978); ‘Les musées’, ibid., nos. 7–8 (December 1978); ‘Que faire de l’histoire de l’art ?’, ibid., nos. 9–10 (1979); ‘Expositions’, ibid., nos. 11–12 (1979).
61.	Major contributions included Klaus Herding, ‘Les Lutteurs “détestable”: critique de style, critique sociale’, ibid., nos. 4–5 (May 1978), pp. 95–123; T.J. Clark, ‘Un réalisme du corps: Olympia et ses critiques en 1865’, ibid., pp. 139–55.
62.	Max Kozloff, ‘La peinture américaine pendant la guerre froide’; Eva Cockroft, ‘L’Expressionisme Abstrait, arme de la guerre froide’; Serge Guilbaut, ‘Création et développement d’une avant-garde: New York, 1946–1951’, Nicos Hadjinicolaou, ‘Sur l’idéologie de l’avant-gardisme’, ibid., no. 6 (July 1978), pp. 3–19, 20–28, 29–48, 49–76. Hadjinicolaou’s article also appeared as ‘On the Ideology of Avant-Gardism’, Praxis, no. 6 (1982), pp. 39–70.
63.	T.J. Clark, ‘Questions préliminaires: l’oeuvre d’art et idéologie’; John Tagg, ‘Marxism et histoire de l’art’ (in English as ‘Marxism and Art History’, Marxism Today, vol. 21, no. 6 (June 1977), pp. 183–92); Klaus Herding, ‘La responsabilité de l’historien de l’art dans la société’; Jean-Pierre Sanchez, ‘Que faire de l’idéologie en l’histoire de l’art?’; Tom Cummings, Deborah Weiner and Joan Weinstein, ‘Le rôle de l’historien d’art marxiste dans une société capitaliste’, ibid., no. 9–10 (1979), pp. 9–11, 13–29, 30–48, 49–87, 88–108.
64.	For example, Michel Melot: ‘La pratique d’un artiste: Pissarro Graveur en 1880’, ibid., no. 2 (June 1977), pp. 14–38 (tr. by Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach as ‘Camille Pissarro in 1880: An Anarchistic Artist in Bourgeois Society’, Marxist Perspectives, no. 8 (Winter 1979/80), pp. 22–54), ‘Daumier devant l’histoire de l’art: Jugement esthétique/Jugement politique’, ibid., nos. 13–14 (1980), pp. 159–95. Maurice Domino, ‘Les discours du réalisme’; Nicos Hadjinicolaou, ‘L’exigence de “réalisme” au Salon de 1831’; Patrick Le Nouëne, ‘Les soldats de l’industrie de François Bonhommé: l’idéologie d’un projet’; ibid., nos. 4–5 (May 1978), pp. 5–20; 21–34, 35–61.
65.	Albert Boime, ‘L’exposition Second Empire et la célébration du pouvoir dans le monde de l’art’; Marc Rosenblum and Bertrand Gautier, ‘L’exposition Second Empire: Histoire d’un oubli, histoire d’un refus’; Michel Melot, ‘L’exposition “l’art en France sous le Second Empire”: une impasse’, ibid., nos. 11–12 (1979), pp. 7–24, 25–46, 47–62.
66.	Lee Baxandall (ed.), Radical Perspectives on the Arts (New York: Penguin, 1972); David Craig (ed.), Marxists on Literature: An Anthology (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975). Maynard Solomon’s important anthology Marxism and Art: Essays Classic and Contemporary was published in two editions in the United States (Knopf, 1973; Vintage, 1974), and was reprinted by Harvester Press in the United Kingdom in 1979.
67.	Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971); Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory (1976) (London: Verso, 1998); Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).
68.	John Berger, Ways of Seeing (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972). The inadequacies of the work were laboriously analysed in ‘Ways of Seeing’, Art-Language, vol. 4, no. 3 (October 1978).
69.	Nicos Hadjinicolaou, Art History and Class Struggle, tr. Louise Asmal (London: Pluto Press, 1978) – originally published as Histoire de l’art et lutte des classes (Paris: Maspero, 1973).
70.	Ibid., pp. 1, 79.
71.	Pierre Macherey, Pour une théorie de la production littéraire (Paris: Maspero, 1966); in English as A Theory of Literary Production, tr. Geoffrey Wall (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).
72.	Hadjinicolaou, Art History and Class Struggle, ch. 15. On ‘self-recognition’, cf. Louis Althusser, For Marx, tr. Ben Brewster (London: Verso, 1979), p. 149. Althusser’s own view on the relationship between art and knowledge was more complex than this – see ‘A Letter on Art in Reply to André Daspre’ and ‘Cremonini, Painter of the Abstract’, in Louis Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, tr. Ben Brewster (London: New Left Books, 1971), pp. 203–20.
73.	Ibid., p. 6.
74.	Ibid., p. 19, n.1. Arnold Hauser, The Philosophy of Art History (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1963).
75.	For critical responses, see Alan Wallach, ‘In Search of a Marxist Theory of Art History’; John Tagg, Red Letters, no. 8 (1978), pp. 77–8; John Berger, ‘In Defense of Art’, New Society, vol. 45, no. 834 (28 September 1978), pp. 702–4.
76.	Louis Althusser and Étienne Balibar, Reading Capital, tr. Ben Brewster (London: New Left Books, 1970); Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy. In 1977, NLB reprinted Brewster’s translation of Althusser’s For Marx, originally published by Allen Lane in 1969. Critical assessments from New Left Review included Norman Geras’s ‘Althusser’s Marxism: An Assessment’ and André Glucksmann’s ‘A Ventriloquist Structuralism’, both reprinted in Gareth Stedman Jones et al., Western Marxism: A Critical Reader (London: New Left Books, 1977), pp. 232–314.
77.	Sebastian Timpanaro, On Materialism, tr. Lawrence Garner (London: New Left Books, 1975), pp. 64–5.
78.	Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology, pp. 44, 82–6, 162. For Eagleton’s retrospect on Althusserianism, see his Against the Grain: Essays, 1975–1985 (London: Verso, 1986), pp. 1–4.
79.	Jonathan Rée, ‘Marxist Modes’, in Roy Edgley and Richard Osborne (eds), Radical Philosophy Reader (London: Verso, 1985), pp. 337–60.
80.	Althusser, ‘Freud and Lacan’, in Lenin and Philosophy, pp. 181–202. Timpanaro was equally hostile to Lacan – see On Materialism, pp. 171, 177, 188.
81.	Timpanaro, On Materialism, pp. 103, 192–3.
82.	E.P. Thompson, The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin, 1978), pp. 374–9. On the unfairness of the ‘Stalinist’ jibe, see Perry Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism (London: Verso, 1980), pp. 103–16.
83.	Kevin McDonnell and Kevin Robins, ‘Marxist Cultural Theory: The Althusserian Smokescreen’, in Simon Clarke et al., One-Dimensional Marxism: Althusser and the Politics of Culture (London and New York: Allison & Busby, 1980), pp. 202, 196, 221–3. Cf. Althusser’s attack on the concepts of alienation and reification in For Marx, pp. 230, n.239. For useful assessments of the Althusserian legacy, see Peter Dews, ‘Althusser, Structuralism and the French Epistemological Tradition’, and Francis Muhlern, ‘Message in a Bottle: Althusser in Literary Studies’, in Gregory Elliott (ed.), Althusser: A Critical Reader (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1994), pp. 104–41, 159–76.
84.	The former is reprinted in Thompson, The Poverty of Theory, pp. 35–91.
85.	Most notably in John Barrell, The Political Theory of Painting from Reynolds to Hazlitt: ‘The Body of the Public’ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986). I take issue with this interpretation in my review ‘The Political Theory of Painting Without the Politics’, Art History, vol. 10, no. 3 (September 1987), pp. 381–95.
86.	Art history’s links with the Screen nexus are exemplified by Griselda Pollock, ‘Artists Mythologies and Media Genius, Madness and Art History’, Screen, vol. 21, no. 3 (1980), pp. 57–96; and the essays by John Tagg published in Screen Education, reprinted in his The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988), chs 3, 4, and 6.
87.	Hadjinicolaou, ‘The Debate at the Salon of 1831’; Nicos Hadjinicolaou, ‘“La Liberté guidant le people” de Delacroix devant son premier public’, Actes de la recherche en sciences socials, vol. 28 (1979), pp. 3–26.
88.	For a German response to the first volume, see the review by Klaus Herding in Kritische Berichte, vol. 4, nos 2–3 (1976), pp. 39–50.
89.	T.J. Clark, Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution (London: Thames & Hudson, 1973), p. 10. Those writers one or more of whose works Clark listed were Antal, Klingender, Larkin and Schapiro.
90.	For Lacan, see Clark, Images of the People, p. 171, n.8; for Macherey, see ibid., pp. 120; 183, n.105. On the importance of Macherey’s consideration on the relationship between the artwork and ideology in Pour une théorie de la production littéraire for his own thinking, see Clark, ‘Questions préliminaire: l’oeuvre d’art et l’idéologie’, p. 11.
91.	T.J. Clark, ‘The Conditions of Artistic Creation’, Times Literary Supplement (24 May 1974), p. 561. For Clark and Hegel, see Gail Day, ‘Persisting and Mediating: T.J. Clark and “the Pain of the Unattainable Beyond”’, Art History, vol. 23, no. 1 (March 2000), pp. 1–18.
92.	Peter Wollen, ‘Manet: Modernism and Avant-Garde’, Screen, vol. 21, no. 2 (Summer 1980), pp. 18–20.
93.	T.J. Clark, ‘Preliminaries to a Possible Treatment of “Olympia” in 1865’, Screen, vol. 21, no. 1 (Spring 1980), p. 22. Clark is quoting Colin McCabe. The Lacanian term ‘the Imaginary’ plays a significant role in the article (p. 39), and in the earlier French version there was some reference to Barthes’ semiology – see Clark, ‘Un réalisme du corps: “Olympia” et ses critiques en 1865’, p. 140.
94.	T.J. Clark, ‘A Note in Reply to Peter Wollen’, Screen, vol. 21, no. 3 (1980), p. 100. Both were corrected on the matter of contradiction by Charles Harrison, Michael Baldwin and Mel Ramsden, in ‘Manet’s “Olympia” and Contradiction’, Block, no. 5 (1981), pp. 34–43.
95.	T.J. Clark, ‘Clement Greenberg’s Theory of Art’, in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed.), The Politics of Interpretation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 205, n.2; 217–19.
96.	The take-up of this model is exemplified by Benjamin H.D. Buchloh, Serge Guilbaut and David Solkin (eds), Modernism and Modernity: The Vancouver Conference Papers (Halifax, Nova Scotia: Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1983). The Marxist element in the OU’s art history programme is most evident in the materials for the first course (A315): Open University, A Third Level Course, Modern Art and Modernism: Manet to Pollock (Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1983, printed in 28 units) and Francis Frascina and Charles Harrison (eds), Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology (London: Harper & Row in association with the Open University, 1982).
97.	Hadjinicolaou, ‘On the ideology of avant-gardism’, pp. 56, 62. Werckmeister’s position is different, but no more sympathetic to avant-garde claims. See his ‘A Critique of T.J. Clark’s Farewell to an Idea’, Critical Inquiry, vol. 28 (Summer 2002), pp. 857–8. Probably the most influential instance of this scepticism towards avant-garde art to appear at the time was Serge Guilbaut’s How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War, tr. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1983) – sharply contested from the left by David Craven in ‘The Disappropriation of Abstract Expressionism’, Art History, vol. 8, no. 4 (December 1985), pp. 499–515.
98.	Clark, ‘Clement Greenberg’s Theory of Art’, p. 213, n.6; T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers (London: Thames & Hudson, 1985), p. 13.
99.	Adrian Rifkin, ‘Marx’s Clarkism’, Art History, vol. 8, no. 4 (December 1985), pp. 488, 489.
100.	‘Preface to the Revised Edition’, T.J. Clark, The Painter of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, 2nd edn (London: Thames & Hudson, 1996), p. xxv.
101.	Especially in Clark, ‘The Conditions of Artistic Creation’. Cf. Nicos Hadjinicolaou, ‘The Social History of Art – An Alibi?’, Ideas and Production, no. 5 (1986) pp. 8–9.
102.	For a comparative assessment of their recent work, see Andrew Hemingway and Paul Jaskot, review of T.J. Clark, Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), and O.K. Werckmeister, Icons of the Left: Benjamin and Eisenstein, Picasso and Kafka after the Fall of Communism (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1999), in Historical Materialism, no. 7 (Winter 2000), pp. 257–80. For their current political positions, see Retort, Afflicted Powers: Capital and Spectacle in a New Age of War (London: Verso, 2005); Otto Karl Werckmeister, Der Medusa Effekt: Politische Bildstrategien seit dem 11. September 2001 (Berlin: Form & Zweck, 2005).
103.	Clark, ‘The Conditions of Artistic Creation’, p. 562.
104.	Adrian Rifkin, ‘Art’s Histories’, in Rees and Borzello, The New Art History, pp. 158, 162.
105.	Rifkin, ‘Art’s Histories’, pp. 158, 161–2. Cf. Tom Gretton, ‘New Lamps for Old’, in Rees and Borzello, The New Art History, pp. 63–74.
106.	Hadjinicolaou, ‘The Social History of Art – An Alibi?’, p. 13.
107.	Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, tr. Rodney Livingstone (London: Merlin Press, 1971), p. 123.

11    NEW LEFT ART HISTORY AND FASCISM IN GERMANY

This chapter was translated by Kerstin Stakemeier.

1.	Frederick Antal’s great survey Florentine Painting and its Social Background (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1948), for example, was well known during the post-war period, but its theoretical as well as methodological standing within historical science was not discussed. See also Max Raphael, Arbeiter, Kunst und Künstler. Beiträge zu einer marxistischen Kunstwissenschaft (Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 1975) as well as Max Raphael, Für eine demokratische Architektur (Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 1976).
2.	Discriminations of the problem of realism and of a critical artistic practice in West Germany were debated almost exclusively by the magazine Tendenzen, which was published in Munich from 1960 on. The early editions especially were remarkably versatile, theoretically agile and international in perspective.
3.	Max Horkheimer, ‘Die Juden und Europa’, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, vol. 7 (1939). German version in Helmut Dubiel and Alfons Söllner (eds), Wirtschaft, Recht und Staat im Nationalsozialismus: Analysen des Instituts für Sozialforschung 1939–1942 von Max Horkheimer et al. (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1981), pp. 33–53, here p. 33. See also Theodor W. Adorno, ‘Was Bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit’, in Eingriffe. Neuen Kritische Modelle (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1964), pp. 125–46.
4.	See the early research reports of Anson G. Rabinbach, ‘Marxistische Faschismustheorien: Ein Überblick’, Ästhetik und Kommunikation, vol. 7, no. 26 (December 1976), pp. 5–19 and vol. 8, no. 27 (April 1977), pp. 89–103.
5.	See Wolfgang Abendroth et al. (eds), Faschismus und Kapitalismus. Theorien über die sozialien Ursprunge und die Funktion des Faschismus (Frankfurt: Europäisische Verlagsanstalt, and Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1967), p. 5, where a ‘general sociological concept’ of fascism is called for.
6.	See the article on fascism in Georg Klaus and Manfred Buhr (eds), Philosophisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1 (West Berlin, 1975), pp. 403 ff.
7.	See the discussion in Das Argument, no. 41 (December 1966), especially the centrepiece essay by Tim Mason: ‘Der Primat der Politik – Politik und Wirtschaft im Nationalsozialismus’, pp. 473–94; see also the following articles in Das Argument, no. 47 (July 1968): Eberhard Czichon, Berlin/DDR, ‘Der Primat der Industrie im Kartell der nationalsozialistischen Macht’, pp. 168–92; Tim Mason, ‘Primat der Industrie? – Eine Erwiderung’, pp. 193–209; Dietrich Eichholtz, Kurt Gossweiler, Berlin/DDR, ‘Noch einmal: Politik und Wirtschaft 1933–1945’, pp. 210–27.
8.	See Friedrich Pollock, ‘State Capitalism: Its Possibilities and Limitations’, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, vol. 9 (1941), reprinted in German as ‘Staatskapitalismus’, in Dubiel and Söllner, Wirtschaft, Recht und Staat im Nationalsozialismus, pp. 81–109.
9.	‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’, in Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, tr. John Cumming (London: Verso, 1979), pp. 120–67. See also Theodor W. Adorno, ‘Culture Industry Reconsidered’, in Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, ed. J.M. Bernstein (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), pp. 98–106.
10.	See Mason, ‘Primat der Industrie?’, pp. 199 ff., and Czichon, ‘Der Primat der Industrie im Kartell’, pp. 166 ff.
11.	Alfred Sohn-Rethel: Ökonomie und Klassenstruktur des deutschen Faschismus (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973). In English as Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism, tr. Martin Sohn-Rethel (London: Free Association, 1987). Re-edited version published as Industrie und Nationalsozialismus. Aufzeichnungen aus dem ‘Mitteleuropäischen Wirtschaftstag’ (Berlin, 1992).
12.	Thalheimer, amongst others, set out from the thesis of the strength of capital. This was in contrast to the KPD, which argued that National Socialism was capitalism’s last chance to hold off revolution. See August Thalheimer, ‘Über den Faschismus’, in Abendroth, Faschismus und Kapitalismus, pp. 19–38, pp. 36 ff.
13.	Mason, ‘Primat der Politik’, pp. 473–94.
14.	Manfred Clemenz, Gesellschaftliche Ursprünge des Faschismus (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1972).
15.	Heinrich August Winkler, Mittelstand, Demokratie und Nationalsozialismus. Die politische Entwicklung von Handwerk und Kleinhandel in der Weimarer Republik (Cologne: Keipenheur & Witsch, 1972).
16.	Barrington Moore, Soziale Ursprünge von Diktatur und Demokratie. Die Rolle der Grundbesitzer und der Bauern bei der Entstehung der modernen Welt (Frankfurt, 1969), p. 513. Originally in English as Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in Making the Modern World (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967).
17.	See especially the following publications by Reinhard Kühnl: Deutschland zwischen Demokratie und Faschismus (Munich: Hanser 1971); Formen bürgerlicher Herrschaft. Liberalismus – Faschismus (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1971).
18.	Gustave Le Bon, Psychologie des foules (Paris, 1895) – the 38th edition of this text was published in 1934. Sigmund Freud, Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse (Leipzig and Zurich: Internationaler Pyschoanaltischer Verlag, 1921) – in English as Sigmund Freud, Mass Psychology (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2004). Wilhelm Reich, Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus. Zur Sexualökonomie der politischen Reaktion und zur proletarischer Sexualpolitik (1933) (Köln, 1971). In English as Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1970).
19.	Siegfried Kracauer, Das Ornament der Masse (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1963). The essays were written between 1921 and 1931. In English as Siegfried Kracauer, The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays, tr.and ed. Thomas Y. Levin (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1995). Walter Benjamin, ‘Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit’, first published in French 1936. In English as ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, tr. Harry Zohn (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1973), pp. 219–53.
20.	See Martin Warnke (ed.), Das Kunstwerk zwischen Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Kunstverlag, 1970); Berthold Hinz, Die Malerei im deutschen Faschismus. Kunst und Konterrevolution (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1974).
21.	Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Der hilflose Antifaschismus: Zur Kritik der Vorlesungschreiben über Wissenschaft und NS an deutschen Universitäten (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1970).
22.	That was chiefly owing to the internationalisation of discussions around art in the 1930s. See the exhibition catalogue Realismus zwischen Revolution und Reaktion 1919–1939 (Munich: Prestel, 1981) and the exhibition catalogue Die Dreissiger Jahre – Schauplatz Deutschland (Munich: Haus der Kunst, 1977); the latter was correctly criticised for speaking only of art and of ‘ideological un-art’, p. 8. See Berthold Hinz, Hans-Ernst Mittig, et al (eds), Die Dekoration der Gewalt. Kunst und Medien im Faschismus (Gießen: Anabas, 1979), Introduction. For a critique, see also Jutta Held, ‘Exilforschung in der DDR und der alten Bundesrepublik’, Kunst und Politik, vol. 1 (1999), pp. 77–90, here pp. 85ff.
23.	As in the exhibition catalogue Skulptur und Macht. Figurative Plastik im Deutschland der 30er und 40er Jahre (Berlin: Frölich & Kaufmann, 1983), in which Arno Breker is described as a ‘non-artist’, and his works were not displayed but shown only in photographs.
24.	Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Öffentlichkeit und Erfahrung – Zur Organisationsanalyse von bürgerlicher und proletarischer Öffentlichkeit (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1972). In English as Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Public Sphere and Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993).
25.	For this heavily discussed exhibition, see Detlef Hoffmann, Almut Junker and Peter Schirmbeck (eds), Geschichte als öffentliches Ärgernis oder: ein Museum für die demokratische Gesellschaft (Giessen: Anabas, 1974).
26.	Kunst im 3. Reich. Dokumente der Unterwerfung (Frankfurt: Frankfurter Kunstverein, 1974). [Ed.: for an important English-language appraisal of this exhibition, see John Heskett, ‘Art and Design in Nazi Germany’, History Workshop Journal, no. 6 (Autumn 1978), pp. 139–53.]
27.	On this, see the documentation in Kunst im 3. Reich.
28.	See Hinz, Malerei im deutschen Faschismus, pp. 11ff.
29.	Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics (1923), tr. Rodney Livingstone (London: Merlin Press, 1971). See also Georg Lukács, Die Eigenart des Ästhetischen I (Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1963).
30.	Berthold Hinz, ‘Das Denkmal und sein “Prinzip”’, in Kunst im 3. Reich, pp. 104–109; Hinz, Mittig, et al., Die Dekoration der Gewalt, pp. 104–9.
31.	According to Hinz this is true also for the materialist as well as extremely precise analysis of Speer’s street lamps in Berlin. See Klaus Herding and Hans-Ernst Mittig, Kunst und Alltag im NS-System. Albert Speers Berliner Straßenlaternen (Gießen: Anabas, 1975); Hinz, Mittig, et al., Die Dekoration der Gewalt, pp. 6ff.
32.	Dieter Kimpel and Robert Suckale, Die gotische Architektur in Frankreich 1130–1270 (Munich: Hirmer, 1985), pp. 74ff.
33.	Hinz, Die Malerei im deutschen Faschismus, pp. 120ff.
34.	Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Kritik der Warenästhetik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971). In English as Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Critique of Commodity Aesthetics: Appearance, Sexuality and Advertising in Capitalist Society, tr. Robert Bock (Cambridge: Polity, 1986).
35.	Hinz, ‘Malerei des Faschismus’, in Kunst im 3. Reich, pp. 122–8. See also Hinz, Die Malerei im deutschen Faschismus.
36.	Martin Heidegger, ‘Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes’, in Holzwege (Frankfurt, 1950). In English as ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’, in Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed. David F. Krell (New York: Harper & Row, 1977). Heidegger presented a first version of this text as a lecture in 1935.
37.	On the realism debate, especially on the different conceptions of Lukács and Brecht, see Werner Mittenzwei, Der Realismus-Streit um Brecht. Grundris der Brecht-Rezeption in der DR 1945–1975 (Berlin: Auftau Verlag, 1978).
38.	Berthold Hinz, in Kunst im 3. Reich, p. 122; Berthold Hinz, ‘1933/45: Ein Kapitel kunstgeschichtlicher Forschung seit 1945’, Kritische Berichte, vol. 14, (1986), pp. 18–33, here p. 18.
39.	Eberhard Knödler-Bunte, ‘Zur Frage der Rekonstruktion proletarisch-revolutionärer Kunst und Literatur’, Ästhetik und Kommunikation, year 2, vol. 4 (October 1971), pp. 72–9. More articles on this topic were published in this and the following volumes – for examples, see Ästhetik und Kommunikation, year 4, vol. 12 (September 1972).
40.	One could also show aesthetic continuities between National Socialist art and the photo-realist pictures of the post-war period (and also significant deviations). See the compelling comparative analysis by Berthold Hinz, ‘Bilder zweier Ausstellungen’, Kritische Berichte, vol. 6, nos. 1/2 (1978), pp. 64ff.
41.	See Norbert Schneider, ‘Kunst und Gesellschaft: Der sozialgeschichtliche Ansatz’, in Hans Belting, et al. (eds), Kunstgeschichte. Eine Einführung (Berlin: Reimer, 2003), pp. 267–95.
42.	Most importantly, see Berthold Hinz, ‘Bild und Lichtbild im Medienverbund’, in Hinz, Mittig, et.al., Die Dekoration der Gewalt, pp. 137–48; Berthold Hinz, ‘Disparität und Diffusion – Kriterien einer “Ästhetik” des NS’, in Berthold Hinz (ed.) NS-Kunst – 50 Jahre danach. neue Beitrage (Marburg: Jonas Verlag, 1989); Hinz, ‘1933/45: Ein Kapitel kunstgeschichtlicher Forschung’, pp. 24ff.
43.	Jutta Held, ‘Minimal Art: eine amerikanische Ideologie’, Neue Rundschau, vol. 81, no. 4 (1972), pp. 660–77; Jutta Held, ‘Pop Art und Werbung in den USA. Über das dialektische Verhältnis zwischen freier und angewandter Kunst’, Kritische Berichte, vol. 4, nos. 5/6 (1976), pp. 27–44.
44.	See Wulf D. Hund, ‘Kommunikation – Manipulation’, Ästhetik und Kommunikation, year 2, vol. 4 (October 1971), pp. 100ff.
45.	Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, pp. 120–67.
46.	See Ästhetik und Kommunikation, year 4, vol. 14 (April 1974). Hans Magnus Enzensberger, ‘Baukasten zu einer Theorie der Medien’, Kursbuch, vol. 20 (1970), pp. 159–86. See Hans–Joachim Piechotta, Ästhetik und Kommunikation, year 1, vol. 2 (December 1970), pp. 31–4.
47.	Whereas the minefield of fascism research was initially left to the leftist art historians, and thus to the fringes of art history, the exhibition, Die Dreissiger Jahre – Schauplatz Deutschland (Munich, 1977), made an attempt to win back the power of definition over this most loaded period. The method was an internalisation of the art-historical frame within which Nationalist Socialist art was perceived and the goal was to reject questions of possible fascist continuities. The publication Inszenierung der Macht (see below, n.60) was a reaction to this, internationalising the topic of fascism and remaining committed to the thesis that fascism has to be understood as an inherent possibility of late capitalist society.
48.	For this new approach, see the schematic outline of the problematic by Eike Hennig, ‘Faschistische Öffentlichkeit und Faschismustheorien’, Ästhetik und Kommunikation, year 6, vol. 20 (June 1975), pp. 107–17.
49.	See the magazines Das Argument, Ästhetik und Kommunikation, Kritische Berichte.
50.	Argument contributions, for example, inveigh against the fascism theory of the GDR historians. See the important volume Theorien über Ideologie, Argument special issue AS 40, (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1979), pp. 82ff.
51.	See the works by Reinhard Kühnl listed in n.17 above.
52.	See Jutta Held, Avantgarde und Politik in Frankreich. Revolution, Faschismus und Krieg im Blickfeld der Künste (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 2005).
53.	See Theorien über Ideologie, Argument special issue AS 40 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1979).
54.	See especially Louis Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’, in Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, tr. Ben Brewster (London: New Left Books, 1971), pp. 121–73.
55.	Roland Barthes Mythologies, tr. Annette Lavers (London: Jonathan Cape, 1972).
56.	That economic theory was rejected at this moment was criticised as a refusal of a Marxist analysis, for example by Reinhard Opitz, ‘Über vermeidbare Irrtümer. Zum Themenschwerpunkt “Faschismus und Ideologie” in Argument 117’, Das Argument, Vol. 121 (1980), pp. 357–77.
57.	This theory of the workings of ideology within fascism was developed by Wolfgang Fritz Haug and his working group in several stages. See, most importantly, the following publications: Faschismus und Ideologie 1, Argument special issue AS 60 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1980); Faschismus und Ideologie 2, Argument special issue AS 62 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1980); Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Die Faschisierung des bürgerlichen Subjekts. Die Ideologie der gesunden Normalität und die Ausrottungspolitiken im deutschen Faschismus. Materialanalysen. Argument special issue AS 80 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1986).
58.	Adorno and Horkheimer had presumed that the ‘classical’ ideology had vanished in fascism (as in late capitalism as such) and had been replaced by the culture industry. The reason for this disappearance of the ideological was said to lie in the replacement of the capitalist principle of competition by monopoly capitalism. That is why the ideological constitution supposedly needed no specific analysis. See Argument special issue 60, pp. 44ff.
59.	See Haug, Faschisierung des bürgerlichen Subjekts, pp. 152ff.
60.	Neuen Gesellschaft für bildende Kunst (NGBK), Inszenierung der Macht. Ästhetische Faszination im Faschismus (Berlin, 1987).
61.	See, most importantly, Massen/Kultur/Politik. Argument special issue AS 23 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1978). Wolfgang Fritz Haug and Kaspar Maase (eds), Materialistische Kulturtheorie und Alltagskultur, Argument special issue AS 47 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1980). Throughout the 1980s numerous texts on culture theory and a new culture history appeared. Here I will name but a few selected publications from the Argument circle: Heiko Haumann (ed.), Arbeiteralltag in Stadt und Land. Neue Wege der Geschichtsschreibung, Argument special issue AS 94 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1982); Jutta Held (ed.), Kultur zwischen Bürgertum und Volk. Argument special issue AS 103 (Berlin: Argument-Verlag, 1983); Jutta Held and Norbert Schneider (eds), Kunst und Alltagskultur (Cologne: Pahl-Rugenstein, 1981).
62.	NGBK, Inszenierung der Macht, p. 7.
63.	See the documentation of this exhibition as well as Klaus Staeck (ed.), Nazi-Kunst ins Museum?Mit Beitragen von Hans Mommsen et al. (Göttingen: Steidl, 1988).
64.	For a critique of the exhibition, see Berthold Hinz, ‘Disparität und Diffusion – Kriterien einer “Ästhetik” des NS’, in Hinz, NS-Kunst: 50 Jahre danach.
65.	See the conclusion which Wieland Elfferding draws in ‘Politik der Sinne oder Legoland der Gefühle. Was ich aus unserer Ausstellung Inszenierung der Macht, ästhetische Faszination im Faschismus zu lernen vorschlage’, in Erbeutete Sinne. Nachträge zur Berliner Ausstellung ‘Inszenierung der Macht, Ästhetische Faszination im Faschismus’ (Berlin: Nishen, 1988), pp. 33–42.

12    THE TURN FROM MARX TO WARBURG IN WEST GERMAN ART HISTORY, 1968–90

1.	See Martin Warnke (ed.), Das Kunstwerk zwischen Wissenschaft und Weltanschaung (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Kunstverlag, 1970); and the journal Kritische Berichte, vols. 1–8 (1973–1980).
2.	Rolf Wiggershaus, Die Frankfurter Schule: Geschichte, theoretische Entwicklung, politische Bedeutung (Munich: Hanser, 1987), pp. 676ff.
3.	Warnke, Das Kunstwerk; cf. O. K. Werckmeister, ‘Radical Art History’, Art Journal, vol. 42, no. 4 (1982), pp. 284–91, esp. p. 284.
4.	Martin Warnke, Bau und Überbau: Soziologie der mittelalterlichen Architektur nach den Schriftquellen (Frankfurt: Syndikat, 1976, 2nd edn 1979); Horst Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte: Bilderkämpfe von der Spätantike bis zur Hussitenrevolution (Frankfurt am Main, 1975).
5.	Mikhail Lifshitz, The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx, tr. Ralph B. Winn (New York: Marxist Critics Group, 1938), p. 27; cf. O. K. Werckmeister, ‘Marx on Ideology and Art’, New Literary History, no. 4 (1973), pp. 500–19, cf. pp. 510f.
6.	Otto Karl Werckmeister, Citadel Culture (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press), 1991.
7.	Horst Bredekamp, Michael Diers and Charlotte Schoell-Glass (eds), Aby Warburg: Akten des internationalen Symposions, Hamburg 1990 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1991).
8.	Horst Bredekamp, ‘“Du lebst und thust mir nichts”: Anmerkungen zur Aktualität Aby Warburgs’, in Bredekamp et al., Aby Warburg, pp. 1–7.
9.	Aby Warburg, Schlangenritual: Ein Reisebericht (Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach, 1996).
10.	Aby Warburg, Gesammelte Schriften: Studienausgabe, ed. Horst Bredekamp, section 2, Der Bilderatlas Mnemosyne, ed. Martin Warnke, assisted by Claudia Brink, part 1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000).
11.	Kurt W. Forster, ‘Die Hamburg-Amerika-Linie, oder: Warburgs Kulturwissenschaft zwischen den Kontinenten’, in Bredekamp et al., Aby Warburg, pp. 11–37.
12.	Steven E. Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890–1990 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992).
13.	http://www.warburg-haus.hamburg.de/
14.	http://www2.hu-berlin.de/kulturtechnik/zentrum.php