Myths about Malraux's Theory of Art

Myth 2. Malraux wanted to isolate art from its historical and cultural context.

This myth (oddly out of keeping with Myth 1) is common amongst art historians. In reality, there are very few, if any, art theorists who place as much emphasis on the historical and cultural context of works of art as Malraux, and one only has to glance through a work such as The Voices of Silence to realize this. (Try comparing The Voices of Silence with a textbook in analytic aesthetics, for example.) Malraux certainly didn't regard art as completely explicable in terms of historical and cultural context, but the importance he places on it is, nonetheless, quite obvious. This myth has been repeated over and over again, often by quite eminent art historians (Gombrich is one, Hans Belting another. A recent book on aesthetics even suggests that Malraux has a 'contextless' approach and adheres to the doctrine of 'art for art's sake' - which is a world away from his thinking.) Needless to say, this myth is never supported by appropriate evidence from Malraux's texts.

A variant of this idea is that Malraux believed that, as one writer puts is, 'the very placement of the object within the museum creates its importance and validity'. Malraux certainly believed - and said clearly in Les Voix du Silence - that the placement of an object such as a Romanesque crucifix in an art museum changes its significance. He never suggests that placing such objects in museums creates 'their importance and validity'. Any such claim would place Malraux in the camp of 'instituionalist' art theorists (Dickie et al), which would be quite bizarre.

Myth 3. Malraux was not a systematic thinker and only gives us an "emotional reaction" to art.

This myth is a huge underestimation of the nature and value of Malraux's theory of art. Malraux does not write in the dry, clinical mode of most textbooks on aesthetics – he often writes very evocative prose – but it would be an elementary error to conclude from that that he doesn’t think clearly and profoundly. In reality, Malraux gives us a carefully thought out, thoroughly coherent theory of art – and a revolutionary one to boot, which escapes from the narrow, eighteenth century view that art exists simply to provide so-called "aesthetic pleasure".

Myth 4. Malraux simply borrowed the ideas of other thinkers.

Various sources are cited - Focillon, Elie Faure, Spengler, and so on. The claim doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny. In fact Malraux was a highly original thinker. Even a daring one. That is perhaps partly why he has met with so much resistance...

Myth 5.  When it comes to matters of art history, Malraux either gets his facts wrong or resorts to outright falsification. He is not a "responsible scholar". (Gombrich's phrase)  

I have examined this allegation in this article which is extracted from a chapter of my book. In fact, the boot is very much on the other foot: those who make these claims have manifestly not bothered to read Malraux carefully. Their credibility as "responsible scholars" turns out to be seriously in question. (Gombrich doesn't even produce evidence; he simply makes his accusation.) In fact, Malraux was very careful about these matters. No-one can claim infallibility where historical facts are concerned, and Malraux didn't; but he was extremely well read in art history and always strove to be as accurate as possible. There is ample evidence for this. 

Myth 6. Malraux despised art history and art historians.

Gombrich seems largely responsible for this furphy. (He seems to have felt somewhat threatened by Malraux.) In fact Malraux read extensively in art history, had a large personal library, and at times collaborated with art historians (see for example his "Universe of Forms" series). He himself was doing something fundamentally different from art history as he made clear more than once (see above), and art historians who understood this and realized there was no need to feel threatened often admired his work.

There is a sad irony in all this. The basic aim of his writings on art, Malraux said on several occasions, was to increase people's love of art - not just their knowledge, their love. One might have hoped that art historians would have welcomed this. Instead, many have heaped invective on him. 

Myth 7. Malraux was a "late Romantic".

This silly myth also seems to owe its origin to Gombrich. Not surprisingly it is never supported by relevant evidence. Malraux has some interesting things to say about Romanticism; but to confuse his own thinking with Romanticism is to make an elementary mistake.

Myth 8. Malraux understood the idea of the musée imaginaire as a vast collection of photographic reproductions.

This is a widespread misinterpretation of Malraux's thinking. The idea of the musée imaginaire is probably the aspect of Malraux's thinking with which his name is most frequently connected, but unfortunately, those who discuss it rarely seem to have read what he wrote. Typical comments by critics are:

• The “rich display of reproduced images, open to us on page and screen, [is what] Malraux called ‘the imaginary museum’” (Alberto Manguel, 2000)
• "In a way we are already within Malraux’s imaginary museum. There is no end of beautifully produced art works in monographs on particular artists, movements or epochs”. (Matthew Kieran, 2005.)

These comments, and many like them, are trivializations of Malraux's ideas.

Myth 9. Malraux wanted to eliminate art museums and replace them with reproductions.

This claim is also quite common, but anyone remotely familiar with Malraux's work as France's Minister for Cultural Affairs, where he showed such strong interest in the conservation of art and of art sites generally, would know that it is absurd. Malraux believed photographic reproductions play an important role in familiarizing us with visual art, but nowhere does he suggest that they could or should replace the original. The suggestion that he wanted to eliminate art museums is simply bizarre. (Though he did not subscribe to Benjamin's notion about the "aura" of the original. I suspect he would have regarded the proposition as somewhat superstitious.)

Myth 10. Malraux was a "formalist" or (alternatively) a "subjectivist".

These (very imprecise) terms are often thrown around. Merleau-Ponty, for example called Malraux a "subjectivist". He was neither that nor a "formalist".

Myth 11. Malraux is a “modernist”...

This hardly qualifies as a myth because, unlike the others, it’s so vague as to be almost meaningless. (The term “modernist” has about twenty different definitions, at a conservative estimate.) Vague though it is, the claim seems intended to imply that Malraux is somehow passé - a very odd idea indeed since in all kinds of ways Malraux's thinking is way ahead of many contemporary thinkers. He is the only one, for example, who has addressed the pressing question of the relationship between art and time. He is the only one who has established a substantive link between the theory (philosophy) of art and art history. (Compare "analytic" aesthetics, for example.) He is the only one who deals squarely and convincingly with the fact that past cultures had no concept of art. And, above all, he is the only one who offers a persuasive alternative to the worn-out, eighteenth century notion that art equals beauty, and exists as a source of "aesthetic pleasure" etc. It is very hard to believe that those who dismiss Malraux as a "modernist" (whatever that means) have ever actually read him.

Myths about Malraux's life.

While on the subject of myths, it is worth mentioning the mythology that has grown up around Malraux's life. I have discussed this issue briefly in my Letter to Quadrant on this site. The extracts below from my book (which is principally about Malraux's thought, not his life) are also relevant. In general, the mythology surrounding Malraux's life has had the unfortunate effect of distracting attention from his thought, which is far more important.

Extracts from: Art and the Human Adventure: André Malraux’s Theory of Art:

… Although he seems to have seen himself first and foremost as a writer, Malraux’s biography bears little resemblance to the stereotype of the French intellectual whose life is confined mainly to his or her study, or to a Left Bank café. His remarkably eventful life included an ill-starred expedition to Indochina in his early twenties in search of bas-reliefs from lost Khmer temples, active involvement in the anti-Fascist Popular Front in the 1930s and then in the Spanish Civil War, service in the French army at the outbreak of World War II, participation in the French Resistance ending in arrest by the Gestapo, action in a French armoured brigade in the latter stages of the war, and minis­terial posts in de Gaulle’s governments, most importantly as a very active Minister for Cultural Affairs.

    As one might expect, this varied and colourful career has attracted the attention of some writers whose interest in Malraux lies more in what he did than in what he wrote, and biog­raphies have become something of a minor industry... Involved as he was in some of the major historical events of his times, Malraux acquired both strong supporters and determined adversaries, and the resultant polarisation of opinion has inevitably coloured much of what has been written about his political commitments and his life generally. As one writer pithily puts it, Malraux can appear, depend­ing on what one reads, as “a Communist, an Existentialist, a neo-Fascist at heart, an aesthete who has turned his back on reality, [or] an unofficial Catholic”[1] – and this list by no means exhausts the des­criptions that have been applied to him. Predictably enough, it has now become quite difficult in many instances to separate fact from speculation – and sometimes from sheer invention – and much of what purports to be accurate biographical information about Malraux is of very doubtful reliability. The principal events of his life, such as those mentioned above, are not in doubt, but there is much that is uncertain and debat­able, and possibly likely to remain so...