John Berger and Marxist Criticism

A good definition of Marxist criticism:

"Marxist criticism is a type of criticism in which literary works are viewed as the product of work and whose practitioners emphasize the role of class and ideology as they reflect, propagate, and even challenge the prevailing social order. Rather than viewing texts as repositories for hidden meanings, Marxist critics view texts as material products to be understood in broadly historical terms. In short, literary works are viewed as a product of work (and hence of the realm of production and consumption we call economics)." -- (http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/poetry/critical_define/crit_marx.html). You can find more about Marxist criticism by clicking on the link. 

While this definition speaks of "literary works," the same holds true for visual works/art. As we discussed, Berger's essay speaks of the "mystification" of certain artworks. Mystification happens, according to Berger, when critics obscure the social class roles of those involved in the production of the work. In the case of Hals, there were really only 2 actors: Hals and the people he painted, which represented the institution of the pauper's house, which engaged in public charity. By arguing that Hals was painting the "human condition" rather than actual people who he has a relationship with, Berger claims that the leading author on Hals ignores certain key aspects to understand the painting. 


Berger claims that the reason we can "know the people portrayed" is not, as the one critic argues, that the painter "seduces" us into it, but because:

We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still live in a society of comparable social relations and moral values. And it is precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological and social urgency. (Berger 146)

Berger thus claims that it is not the painter's skill that allows us to somehow understand their relationship, but because we live in a world where the same sorts of relationships between the poor and rich exist. What is this relationship?

It is interesting that Berger does not offer an interpretation of the relationship between Hals and those who commissioned the painting. I would argue, due to Berger's Marxist background, that it is one of indifference and maybe even contempt. Instead of putting it into words himself, Berger says "Study this evidence and judge for yourself" --we are meant now to look at the pictures.

Compare the pictures of the Regents and Regentesses with this self-portrait of Hals:

Hals is not a rich man--his hat is side-cocked and he looks, in general, a bit disheveled. Even the painterly strokes gives him a "rough" look. Maybe he's drunk. . .


Which brings me to another point in Berger's analysis. Compare the above self-portrait with this extracted image of one of the Regents: 

Turn to page 146 to see in detail the expression of the dude with the cocked hat. Berger comments on the critic's opinion that many critics have argued this guy is drunk. The critic with which Berger is arguing with denies this: "He argues that it i was a fashion at that time to wear hates on the side of the head. He cites medical opinion to prove that the Regent's expression coudl well be the result of facial paralysis" (146). 


But Berger thinks this is all protesting too much. Maybe Hals painted the sumbitch drunk because that is how he "saw" the regents. Maybe he was suggesting that the Regent's are "human" too, but not in the context of showing our "common humanity" but in the sense that Hals saw them as ridiculous or pompous or even undeserving of their good fortune? Who knows? But the critic seems to want to explain away any suggestion that Hals could have been poking fun at the Regents or had a hostile attitude toward them. For the critic Berger is criticizing, Hals represented these men in the best of ways--it was a testament to his skill. 


I'm not saying Berger is right, but he is attempting, valiently, to overturn a majority opinion of what these pieces are "about." Berger's arguments are hard to discern sometimes, but this is why these pieces (almost all of them in Ways of Reading) calls for active reading. 


More on the "reproduction" section later. . .