Got it, I see what you're getting at. I don't know that I'd agree that Marxism says people can't enjoy things inherently, but often Marxist analysis does focus on being critical of how power and wealth shape societal developments so I take your point that it can end up being the primary focus in a way people might find annoying if they're looking for something else.
I don't necessarily agree that in a vacuum you can really classify that as the best period ever in an objective way unless you have specific metrics, but also you don't really have to. Certainly it would've been an interesting time to be alive. I am actually intrigued in learning more about that period now I will say.
But I think the reason that Berger focuses on the critical class analysis of art is in the title. He's mainly focused on unpacking the way "fine art" gets valued and how/who those ideas of what is desirable, beautiful, etc were shaped. Then he ties that to the way the modern ruling class of his time used art to shape what is valued and desired with the tech/economic advancements at the time.
So focusing on the beauty of specific pieces wasn't really the focus of his work, as I imagine plenty of other contemporaries were already covering that.
As an artist I also don't think that it necessarily takes away from the art to acknowledge that what I make is shaped by my need to also make money and the markets they exist in affect that. I think it can be equally true that the impressionists were capturing nostalgic scenes of everyday life in a novel way that that people would want to buy, but that also was a product of people similarly working within what would sell in a market (which would be an advancement on previous conditions where people could even choose to pursue that kind of life which is revolutionary for the time).
He even acknowledges how his book is only the start of an analysis and it would be neat to see someone pick up this work not just from the perspective of the ruling class that commissioned the art but also the artists who made it and their stories. Obviously a lot of that gets lost with history though so that's probably harder to do.
I don't necessarily agree that in a vacuum you can really classify that as the best period ever in an objective way unless you have specific metrics, but also you don't really have to. Certainly it would've been an interesting time to be alive. I am actually intrigued in learning more about that period now I will say.
But I think the reason that Berger focuses on the critical class analysis of art is in the title. He's mainly focused on unpacking the way "fine art" gets valued and how/who those ideas of what is desirable, beautiful, etc were shaped. Then he ties that to the way the modern ruling class of his time used art to shape what is valued and desired with the tech/economic advancements at the time.
So focusing on the beauty of specific pieces wasn't really the focus of his work, as I imagine plenty of other contemporaries were already covering that.
As an artist I also don't think that it necessarily takes away from the art to acknowledge that what I make is shaped by my need to also make money and the markets they exist in affect that. I think it can be equally true that the impressionists were capturing nostalgic scenes of everyday life in a novel way that that people would want to buy, but that also was a product of people similarly working within what would sell in a market (which would be an advancement on previous conditions where people could even choose to pursue that kind of life which is revolutionary for the time).
He even acknowledges how his book is only the start of an analysis and it would be neat to see someone pick up this work not just from the perspective of the ruling class that commissioned the art but also the artists who made it and their stories. Obviously a lot of that gets lost with history though so that's probably harder to do.