Arnold Hauser (art historian)

2.1. Birthplace and Early Life

Arnold Hauser was born on May 8, 1892, in Timișoara, which was then part of the Kingdom of Hungary within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and is now located in Romania. His formative years were spent in this culturally rich and diverse region.

2.2. Emigration and Later Life

Following the rise of Nazism and the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, Hauser, being of Jewish descent, emigrated from Hungary after 1938 to escape persecution. He sought refuge in Britain, where he spent a significant portion of his professional life. From 1951 to 1957, he served as a professor at Leeds University. He later returned to his native Hungary and passed away in Budapest on January 28, 1978.

3.1. Academic Mentors

Hauser received his academic training in Budapest, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. In Vienna, he studied under the esteemed art historian Max Dvořák. In Berlin, his mentor was the sociologist and philosopher Georg Simmel. His studies in Paris brought him under the tutelage of the philosopher Henri Bergson and the literary historian Gustave Lanson. Another crucial influence on Hauser was the Hungarian philosopher Bernhard Alexander, who cultivated Hauser's interest in both William Shakespeare and Immanuel Kant, leading to Hauser's systematic exploration of theater and, later, cinema as integral parts of the broader art world.

4.1. Key Thinkers and Schools of Thought

Beyond his direct academic mentors, Hauser was deeply influenced by other prominent intellectuals. These included Ernst Troeltsch, a German theologian and sociologist, and Karl Mannheim, another Hungarian sociologist who developed the sociology of knowledge. A particularly crucial figure in his intellectual journey was the Hungarian philosopher and literary critic György Lukács. Hauser's approach to art history aimed to synthesize it with sociology, history, and philosophy, reflecting his comprehensive view of cultural phenomena.

4.2. Marxism and Art Sociology

Hauser's embrace of Marxism was a pivotal aspect of his intellectual development. He first engaged with Marxist ideas through reading the writings of György Lukács. Subsequently, he met Lukács and became an active member of the Sunday Circle (Sonntagskreis^German), an influential intellectual group in Budapest. It was in Budapest that Hauser published his earliest works between 1911 and 1918, including his doctoral dissertation on the problem of creating a systematic aesthetics, which appeared in the journal Athenaeum in 1918. Despite these early publications, he published very little over the next 33 years, dedicating his time primarily to extensive research and travel. During this period, he concluded that "the problems of art and literature, in the solution of which our time is most eagerly engaged, are fundamentally sociological problems," signaling his commitment to developing a sociology of art rooted in a Marxist perspective, analyzing art as a social phenomenon.

5.1. The Social History of Art

Hauser's most monumental work is the four-volume The Social History of Art (published in 1951 as Sozialgeschichte der Kunst und Literatur). In this work, he meticulously argued that art's evolution is deeply intertwined with changes in social structures. He proposed that after an initial Paleolithic period of naturalism, art transitioned to being "flat, symbolic, formalized, abstract and concerned with spiritual beings." As societies progressively became less hierarchical and authoritarian and more mercantile and bourgeois, art became increasingly realistic and naturalistic. This work extensively analyzed the socio-historical context of artistic production, demonstrating how societal shifts directly influenced artistic forms and movements.

5.2. Multifaceted Approach to Art

Hauser adopted a multifaceted approach to understanding art, viewing it simultaneously as an autonomous domain with its inherent values and as a direct reflection of social phenomena. This dual perspective was informed by his broad interests, which extended beyond conventional art history to include psychoanalysis, art theory, aesthetics, social history, cultural history, and art psychology. His extensive activities in the film industry also contributed to his comprehensive theories on art, allowing him to observe artistic expression in a dynamic and evolving medium. During the Cold War, Hauser sought a middle ground in the debates over art, which often polarized into a Western emphasis on inherent forms and an Eastern focus on art's social limitations.

5.3. Other Major Works

In addition to his landmark social history of art, Hauser authored several other significant publications that further elaborated on his theories and methodologies:

• Philosophy of Art History (Philosophie der Kunstgeschichte^German), published in 1958, delved into the theoretical underpinnings of art historical inquiry.
• Mannerism: The Crisis of the Renaissance and the Origin of Modern Art (Der Manierismus. Die Krise der Renaissance und der Ursprung der modernen Kunst^German), released in 1964, provided a detailed analysis of Mannerism as a pivotal artistic movement reflecting the cultural crises of its time and foreshadowing modern art.
• Sociology of Art (Soziologie der Kunst^German), published in 1974, offered a focused examination of the sociological aspects of art, reinforcing his core argument that art is a social construct.
• Im Gespräch mit Georg Lukács (1978) is a collection comprising three interviews with Georg Lukács and an essay titled "Variationen über das tertium datur bei Georg Lukács," highlighting his continued intellectual engagement with Lukács's ideas.

6.1. Critical Perspectives

One of the most prominent criticisms of Hauser's Marxist approach came from the art historian Ernst Gombrich, who labeled it as "social determinism" that went too far. In his review of The Social History of Art, Gombrich contended that Hauser's "theoretical prejudices may have thwarted his sympathies." Gombrich further argued that if all human beings, including contemporary observers, are entirely conditioned by their economic and social circumstances, then the very essence of the "humanities" is denied, making it impossible to genuinely understand the past through ordinary empathy. This critique highlighted a fundamental disagreement over the extent to which social factors dictate artistic creation and human expression.

6.2. Academic Debates

Despite Gombrich's sharp critique, subsequent academic discussions have offered counterarguments and nuanced interpretations of Hauser's work. Some scholars argue that Gombrich may have viewed Hauser as a typical exponent of a rigid Marxist ideology, thereby failing to appreciate Hauser's own subtleties and his implicit critique of the most extreme forms of social determinism. Hauser himself attempted to navigate a middle ground in the ideological debates surrounding art during the Cold War. He sought to bridge the Western perspective, which often emphasized the inherent and formal aspects of art, with the Eastern view, which focused more on art's social limitations and functions. This stance reflected his lifelong commitment to understanding art through a comprehensive, yet balanced, socio-historical lens.