Han Xiao: Marx's Theory of Artistic Production and Its Contemporary Value
Marx first used the concept of "artistic production" in his Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy (hereafter referred to as the Introduction). Subsequently, building upon this concept, he treated artistic production as a specific type of social production, systematically elucidating it through propositions such as art’s "mode of grasping the world" and the "uneven relationship" between the development of the two types of production. He developed his "Theory of Artistic Production" by addressing specific questions such as "what kind of production is artistic production?", "what is the relationship between artistic production and social production?", and "what are the laws governing artistic production?" Tracing its origins reveals that theoretical inquiries centered on "artistic production" began as early as his youth, formally took shape during his critique of political economy in the 1850s, and were further enriched and developed in his later works. Examining its evolutionary trajectory, we see that the process by which Marx’s theory of artistic production moved from inception to maturity was also the process by which historical materialism was continuously enriched and perfected. In this sense, Marx’s theory of artistic production is closely linked to the emergence and development of historical materialism, demonstrating from one dimension the profound theoretical richness of historical materialism. It can be said that Marx’s theory of artistic production reveals the relationship between artistic production and social production, explicates the laws of artistic development, and provides a broad vision and important insights for us to meet the new challenges facing the construction of culture with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, to flourish and develop cultural undertakings and industries, to promote the prosperity of socialist culture, and to construct a path for the development of culture with Chinese characteristics.
I. Two Types of Social Production: Material Production and Intellectual Production
Art is a creative practical activity of humanity. Within the context of historical materialism, art—as a high-level social consciousness (i.e., a form of social consciousness)—originates from the material life of society and reflects the development and evolution of that material life. Specifically, "art is a form of consciousness that reflects social life by molding concrete and vivid images; it includes many specific forms such as music, dance, painting, sculpture, theater, poetry, literature, architecture, decorative arts, film, and television. The greatest characteristic distinguishing art from other forms of consciousness is its reliance on the beauty of images (static and dynamic images of color, sound, form, emotion, etc.) to express people's understanding, emotions, desires, and will regarding social life. It grasps and reproduces vivid social life according to aesthetic rules and influences social life through the infectious power of beauty." From this, it is evident that to grasp the essence of art and clarify its developmental path, one cannot separate it from an understanding of the material activities of human society. Art is closely related to social production. In Marx’s theory of social production, the system of social production is divided into two types: material production and intellectual production. Artistic production is a special form of intellectual production; it is restricted by the general laws of material production while possessing specificities that distinguish it from material production. The division of social production into these two types was finalized alongside the founding of historical materialism.
In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx regarded labor—the free and conscious practical activity of man—as the essence of man, and tentatively proposed the concept of intellectual production, stating that "religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law." Clearly, he had already linked art to production, viewing it as a specific form of "production." The formal establishment of the theory of artistic production began in The German Ideology (hereafter referred to as Ideology). In this text, during their confrontation with German Idealism, Marx and Engels completed their philosophical revolution and founded historical materialism, providing a scientific theory for understanding human history and social development. Essentially, the core tenet of historical materialism lies in situating the driving forces of human historical production and development within the society’s mode of material production. Utilizing a "matter-spirit" [1] dichotomy, it divides human society into the realms of social being and social consciousness, revealing their dialectical unity. Social being determines social consciousness; social consciousness is a reflection of social being. Social being constitutes the material conditions of social life, representing the material aspect of social life and the objective source of the content of social consciousness. Social consciousness, composed of individual and collective consciousness, is the subjective reflection of the process and conditions of social material life. The momentum of human historical evolution resides in social being. Social progress is driven by the contradictory movement of the mode of production of material goods (i.e., the contradictory movements between "productive forces and relations of production" and the "economic base and superstructure"). Fundamentally, the two propositions—"productive forces determine relations of production" and "the economic base determines the superstructure"—encompass the entire significance of historical materialism. In contrast, Marx and Engels applied the "matter-spirit" dichotomy to the concept of labor and, on this basis, explained the phenomenon of the division of labor. They noted that "division of labor only becomes truly such from the moment when a division of material and mental labor appears." Based on this distinction between material and mental labor, social production was divided into two types: material production and intellectual production. Material production reflects the relationship between man and nature, referring to man’s appropriation of nature and the creation of material wealth. Besides material production, "men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc."—that is, humans also engage in intellectual production. "Artistic production" belongs to intellectual production; it was precisely with the prerequisite of this distinction between the two types of social production that Marx embarked on the path of establishing his theory of artistic production.
So, what is the relationship between intellectual production and material production? Marx and Engels noted: "Intellectual production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people." It can be seen that intellectual production possesses a duality: on the one hand, a spirituality represented by consciousness and ideas; on the other, a materiality represented by language. Language, as the material result of intellectual production, can be concretely manifested in categories such as politics, law, morality, and religion, including art. Essentially, when dealing with intellectual and material production, they consistently maintained the priority of material production, emphasizing that the prerequisite for humans to create history is the ability to survive—that is, to master the means of subsistence. Therefore, the first historical act is the production of the means of subsistence. After examining this activity, they found that humans also possess consciousness, as well as intellectual productive activities where consciousness is expressed in the language of a certain nation. Simultaneously, in reality, as a concrete activity, material production determines intellectual production to a certain extent: "intellectual production transforms along with the transformation of material production." Social structures and the relationship between man and nature are generated within the forms of material production, and these determine the state system and the spiritual modes of human beings, thereby determining the nature of people's intellectual production.
It is evident that in Ideology, Marx and Engels utilized the "matter-spirit" dichotomy to bisect social production into material and intellectual production. At the same time, through the dialectical relationship between the two, they revealed the primacy of material production and the subordinate status of intellectual production. Intellectual production refers to the production of forms of consciousness such as religion, morality, philosophy, and art within language, which possess specific characteristics at different historical stages. This explains the various artistic forms appearing in different historical periods. In this sense, artistic production became an independent object of study, while the decisive role played by material production over artistic production became an essential tenet of historical materialism.
II. The Laws of Artistic Development: The Uneven Relationship Between the Development of Material Production and Artistic Production
Although social being determines social consciousness, phenomena also exist in human history where countries or regions with higher levels of socio-economic development do not necessarily possess high levels of social consciousness. Conversely, in some aspects, the social consciousness of economically backward countries or regions may lead that of economically developed ones. Based on such historical facts, the principles of historical materialism state: "While reflecting social being, social consciousness also possesses its own agency and unique laws of development; its development does not always maintain consistency and balance with the development of social being." That is to say, social consciousness both depends on social being and possesses relative independence. The lack of complete synchronicity and the imbalance between the development of social consciousness and social being is a prominent manifestation of the "relative independence of social consciousness." This principle was proposed by Marx in his 1857 Introduction. Building on this principle, Marx derived the "uneven relationship between the development of material production and artistic production," revealing the general laws of artistic development.
In the Introduction, while discussing general theoretical problems of production, Marx elucidated the dialectical relationship between material production, intellectual production, and artistic production. In his view, artistic production, as a specific form of intellectual production, stands in opposition to material production, yet a profound dialectical relationship exists between them. In his discussion, while contrasting the artistic development of the Greeks and Shakespeare with that of modern people, Marx pointed out: "As regards art, it is well known that certain periods of highest development of the same stand in no direct relation to the general development of society, nor to the material basis and the skeleton structure of its organization." This is the proposition of the "uneven relationship between the development of material production and artistic production," used to explain the specific laws of artistic production.
The core of this proposition lies in the fact that the level of material production in the ages of Greece and Shakespeare cannot be compared to that of the capitalist era, yet artistic forms such as Greek epics and sculpture "still afford us artistic pleasure and that in a certain respect they count as a norm and as an unattainable model." Shakespeare's plays hold a monumental position in dramatic history, yet the capitalist era cannot give birth to works of the same kind. Regarding this, Marx noted: "In the case of certain forms of art, e.g., the epic, it is even allowed that they can never be produced in the world-epoch-making, classical stature once the production of art as such has begun; in other words, that certain important forms of it are possible only at an undeveloped stage of artistic development." That is to say, the development of material production is disproportionate to artistic production; this is a specific law of artistic development. Why does this uneven relationship between the two types of production form?
Take the Greek era in comparison with the capitalist era. With the development of productive forces, a social division of labor represented by agriculture and industry emerged in Greece. This gave rise to the separation of material and intellectual production. It became a reality that material production, intellectual production, and consumption were handled by different people, which promoted the development of individual personality and talent. Simultaneously, the separation of an object's utility from its form began to shape a non-utilitarian aesthetic attitude toward the form of objects—that is, the human ability to process objects using artistic forms. One could say that the division of labor allowed human aesthetic capacity to develop, creating favorable conditions for the development of art. In contrast, the purpose of production in Greek society was use-value, not value; the social spirit regarded man, not the object, as the subject. Thus, Greek society, despite its low level of material production, contained favorable conditions for artistic development, manifested in the aesthetic talents and free individuality developed by the early division of labor, as well as social conditions that nurtured spiritual freedom. On this basis, the high development of artistic production was catalyzed.
The prerequisite for the formation of Greek art was Greek mythology. Mythology is a spiritual activity generated when humans are dominated and controlled by natural forces; it is a manifestation of humans conquering and dominating natural forces through imagination and fantasy. Greek mythology is—
“Nature and the social forms themselves already reworked in an unconscious artistic way” are products of human fantasy. Marx believed that “Greek mythology is not only the arsenal of Greek art but also its foundation [soil],” providing the raw materials for Greek art and reflecting the relationship between the Greeks and nature and society. As the human capacity to dominate and control nature grew, mythology lost its soil; the development of society excluded the attitude of mythologizing nature. “Can the view of nature and of social relations which shaped the Greek imagination, and thus Greek [art], coexist with spinning jennies, railways, locomotives, and electric telegraphs? Where does Vulcan stay in the face of Roberts and Co., Jupiter in the face of the lightning rod, and Hermes in the face of the Crédit Mobilier? All mythology overcomes and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in the imagination and by the power of imagination; it therefore vanishes with the arrival of real mastery over them. What becomes of Fama next to Printing House Square?” [2] Therefore, mythology disappears in a modern society characterized by advanced industry. Modern society can no longer create Greek mythology, and thus Greek art has lost the soil that nurtured it. The emergence of the relationship of imbalance is precisely the best proof of this.
In the capitalist era, material production is highly developed, yet it has not achieved an artistic standard that surpasses Greek art. Investigating the reasons, one finds that the rapid development of social production has made the division of labor increasingly refined. While the division of labor brings about an increase in social productive forces, it also fragments the integrity of the human being and suppresses the development of human aesthetic talent and individuality. At the same time, the purpose of production has shifted from the acquisition of use-value to the acquisition of value; it is no longer centered on the human being, but on capital. Artistic production must submit to the laws of capital to obtain the possibility of development. Consequently, the favorable conditions for artistic development vanish, presenting a state of imbalance with highly developed material production.
Through the above discussion, it can be seen that, unlike the understanding in The German Ideology that material production determines spiritual production, Marx argues in the Introduction [to the Grundrisse] that the flourishing of art is not proportional to social development or the development of the material base. Artistic production and material production do not develop in parallel; the two diverge. Artistic production has its own special laws and possesses relative independence. From this, we can see that compared to his emphasis in The German Ideology on the fundamental determining role of the economic base over the superstructure, in the Introduction—while affirming the primary status of the economic base and material production for social development—he also advocates for the independent development of artistic production. This is undoubtedly a caution against the "economic determinism" [3] that can easily result from exaggerating the influence of the economic base and material production.
III. "Artistic Production" as a Sector of Spiritual Production
As is well known, historical materialism regards the development of human history as a process of successive evolution through different social formations. Artistic production is closely related to social formations; in different social formations, artistic production possesses different characteristics. Marx pointed out that the social division of labor emerging at different historical stages divides social production into different production sectors, such as industry, agriculture, and handicrafts. That is, bounded by the division of labor, social production manifests as "particular production," which "is always a certain social body, a social subject, active in a greater or smaller totality of branches of production." In capitalist society, artistic production takes on a tendency toward industrialization, becoming one of the "production sectors," which Marx called a "sector of spiritual production." Artistic production as a sector of spiritual production has the following characteristics:
First, capitalist artistic production is produced for profit, not for human spiritual needs or aesthetic enjoyment. Marx pointed out that, historically, capitalist production is the "point of passage necessary for the relentless creation of the social productive forces of labor, which alone can form the material basis of a free human society," achieved through the "sacrifice of the majority." Under the capitalist system, "even the highest forms of spiritual production are recognized, and become pardonable in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, only because they are portrayed as—and incorrectly interpreted as—direct producers of material wealth." [4] That is to say, artistic production must submit to the process of capital accumulation to continue. But while capitalist society creates a prosperity of material wealth, it causes a great emptiness in the spiritual world. Artistic production diverges from the principles of aesthetic creation and becomes a tool for capitalists to seek profit. The free individuality of the artist is suppressed, and artistic character is distorted. "Outside this sphere of social production and exchange, nothing appears as higher in-itself, as rational for-itself." Artistic production is reduced to a type of capitalist production.
Second, the capitalist law of commodity value dominates artistic production. The essence of a work of art is to manifest the author's individuality and form an aesthetic empathy between the author and the appreciator. However, in capitalist society, because "all relations are in fact subsumed under an abstract relation of monetary exploitation," "everything—not only land, but even human labor, the human being himself, as well as conscience, love, and science, necessarily become things that can be sold." The standard for measuring the value of a work of art is no longer its artistic sensibility, but the amount of profit it obtains. Artworks become commodities, objects of competition, and exchange value determines the fate of the artwork.
Third, the artist loses their free individuality and is reduced to a producer of artistic commodities. In capitalist society, the artist, who should possess a free spirit, becomes a laborer like a wage worker. Artistic activity becomes an activity of producing artistic commodities dominated by the principles of capitalist production. Marx believed that in capitalist production, "labor with the same content can be either productive or unproductive." For example, "Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost, was an unproductive laborer. On the other hand, the writer who turns out factory-style work for his bookseller is a productive laborer... because his production is subordinated to capital and takes place only to increase the value of capital." In Marx's view, whether labor constitutes an element of the process of capital valorization and whether it produces capital is the important standard for distinguishing between productive and unproductive labor. His understanding of productive and unproductive labor as two aspects of the social determination of labor is profound. Based on this distinction, Marx revealed the plight of the artist in capitalist society.
Finally, capitalist material production is "hostile" to artistic production. In the process of capitalist production aimed at valorization, "the characteristics that capitalists and workers possess as the two poles of a production relation—along with the fact that labor increasingly loses all character of skill"—dictate that artistic activity must conform to the logic of capital movement to survive. Yet artistic activity is, after all, an activity of human free consciousness with its own independence. The nature of art opposes the reified [5] rule of capital. Moreover, "here, the capitalist mode of production is carried out only to a very small extent and, according to the nature of things, can only occur in certain sectors." It can be seen that artistic production in capitalist society can still operate according to its own laws within a certain range. This creates a fundamental opposition between the demands of capital—which force artistic activity to abandon its aesthetic value and become subordinate—and the nature of art itself. Therefore, capitalist material production and artistic production are, to a certain extent, in opposition, which also proves the principle of the relative independence of social consciousness within historical materialism.
Historical materialism points out that social consciousness has an active counter-reaction to social existence. Any social consciousness arises to meet the needs of the development of the material life of a certain society, possessing the function and value of satisfying these needs; under certain conditions, it will transform into a material force and act upon social existence, influencing historical development and social progress. As Marx pointed out: "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons; material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." Therefore, social consciousness also plays an important role in social development. Advanced social consciousness reflects the trends and requirements of social development and plays a positive role in promoting social development; backward social consciousness does not conform to the trends and requirements of social development and plays a negative role in hindering social development. Capitalist ideology played a positive role in the process of opposing feudalism and pushed forward social historical development. However, capitalist social production is aimed at exploiting laborers and obtaining surplus value. Capitalist ideology maintains capitalist social production and hinders the realization of human freedom and liberation; this is profoundly expressed in artistic production. In capitalist society, artistic production is reduced to a sector of spiritual production within the system of social division of labor. Artworks are highly commodified and artistic activities undergo alienation. This leads to a general decline of art in capitalist society, where artistic freedom becomes empty talk and art becomes dependent on capital. This is the essential characteristic of capitalist artistic production.
IV. The Contemporary Significance of Marx’s Theory of Artistic Production
As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered the New Era, the principal contradiction in our society has been transformed into the contradiction between the people’s ever-growing need for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development. The imbalance between material production and artistic production is a profound reflection of this principal social contradiction. Standing at the height of human history, Marx revealed the dialectical relationship between material production and artistic production, providing a reference for us to grasp the principal social contradiction in China’s New Era, to flourish and develop socialist cultural undertakings, and to construct a path for the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
First, artistic production in socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era must correctly handle its relationship with material production. Artistic production, as a special kind of spiritual production, is constrained by the level of material production. Artistic development must be based on economic development. Historical materialism is the basic methodological principle of Marx’s theory of artistic production. Marx pointed out that in considering social transformations, one cannot use social consciousness as a basis, because this consciousness "must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production." The decisive factor in historical development is the real economic relations; this is where the historical materialist implication contained within the connotation of the theory of artistic production lies. Therefore, the prosperity and development of socialist artistic undertakings stem from the great achievements of socialist construction and from the practice of the people. To develop socialist artistic undertakings in the New Era, we must continuously deepen the material foundation of modernization and solidify the material conditions for the people’s happy life. We must correctly handle the relationship between material civilization and spiritual civilization with a dialectical view, adhering to the coordination of material and spiritual civilizations to promote comprehensive material abundance and the well-rounded development of the person.
Second, artistic production in socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era must adhere to the pursuit of value that unifies social value and market value. Under the conditions of a market economy, artistic production has a dual attribute: the creative attribute of free spirit and the economic attribute of producing capital. This dual attribute still exists under the conditions of the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics, manifesting as the problem of the relationship between the social value and market value of art. Xi Jinping pointed out that "literature and art must not lose their direction in the Great Tide of the market economy," and "under the conditions of developing a socialist market economy, we must also handle the relationship between righteousness and profit (义利), seriously and earnestly considering the social effect of works." Therefore, cultural products of socialism with Chinese characteristics must put social benefit first, achieving the unification of social and economic benefits. "When the two benefits and two types of value conflict, economic benefit must submit to social benefit, and market value must submit to social value. Literature and art must not be slaves to the market, and must not be tainted with the stench of copper (铜臭气) [6]." This is the inspiration Marx’s theory of artistic production has left for us.
Third, artistic production in socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era must persist in...
The developmental theory of "art for the people." The production of excellent artworks requires liberating art from the control of capital, returning it to its essence of freedom, linking artistic activity with human beings, and following a developmental path where art serves the people. Marx pointed out that Greek art was able to achieve high artistic accomplishments in human history because the artworks of that period always took the human being as their core [7]. In contrast, capitalist society suppresses human aesthetic talent and free individuality, lacking the social conditions necessary to cultivate human spiritual freedom. Under these conditions, art is subordinated to capital, and the sectors of artistic production are reduced to mere branches of spiritual production [8]. Therefore, high-level artworks are undoubtedly linked to human destiny and aspirations. This suggests that socialist literature and art are the literature and art of the people. Adhering to a people-centered creative orientation, rooting artistic creation in the people, and using literary and artistic works that reflect the great achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era to enrich the people’s cultural life and elevate their spiritual realm—these are the guiding principles of artistic creation that all artistic producers should always follow. They constitute the fundamental goal and purpose of socialist artistic production.
Author Introduction: Han Xiao, Lecturer at the school of Marxism, Central Academy of Fine Arts. Source: Theoretical Horizon (Lǐlùn Shìyě), No. 11, 2025. Editor: Huihui