A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Lucien Febvre Book

------Sep. 13th 2019 update-----
No I'm not done with this shit because Hauser could have achieved so much more and better.

I literally can't understand why Hauser abandoned the stunning approach in the first volume and went all the way gradually, till the forth one totally, into this bizarrely shallow artificiality of philistine level social approach, saying, blaming everything on class and money down to a vulgarly crooked Marxism mutation.

First of everything all, what Hauser impressed me most is in his first volume, he illustrated the dynamic of that the naturalistic outlook of art in a less strata established society verses a geometrical aestheticism of abstract and simplifying, frontal image of power, under the condition of a stable tradition-ed civilization. The more I re-read that part, and connecting it with the later volumes (especially the forth) the more I got pissed off. He has already pointed out, that, the naturalistic outlook will transformed into the abstract, careless, and simplified strokes and images (which are in fact, mental images), as the focus and condition of social life alters! Dude! Do you even know what you are touching here? Those mental images manifested themselves in abstracted and remote and un-life way along side the strict hold of power and civilization, which in turn served somewhat as the language that defined the shape of power and society. Then those manifested mental images or archetypes, once rigescent into real life as a code, it lost its charm and light, then people turned away from the inner attention to a world outside where now seems to be a brighter and lovelier aspect. Then the lost of charm of its language, signifies the waning of the correlating power (e.g. Gothic art impregnates a naturalism being an unstable equilibrium of world-affirming and world-denying impulses ; and think about German Romanticism, all the pros and cons it gets all along the way, etc. ). The outside world then will be exploited, as this time the social condition alters to a less strict-hold power and society, and the less repressed life experience paralyzing with more individual human activities in life. The more real life they get, the more realness they want; yet the more realness they want, the closer they approached the unreal, the inner, the psyche, the mental images. As within the naturalistic trend of art, to find the bizzare figures and wish fulfillment elements in idyll painting are not uncommon, and some more blatant betrayal of such can be seen in 19'c-20'c naturalist novels that in the end take the turn towards psychology. Now here we go, those inner mental images rise, pave the way to a new strict-hold of power (we all know what happened to German Romanticism), ect., things like that.

This so-called magnum opus could have been a decent magnum opus if Hauser sticks to what he has started! It's so promising and could have been a legendary Jungian enantiodromia live action masterpiece in real intelligent history study! Geez, Arnold, what have you missed out when denying blindly l'art pour l'art!! In first volume, when he still have such notion in him functioning somewhere in his mind, he is Hauser, then later, finally in the last volume, he is no one but putting together materiel for some big purpose like he's a screw on machine!

This is probably the most dislikable proposition of most Marxism critics: railing and hurling, they pour their resentment towards that cold mechanical mundane system of money economy and class oppression, then in return, they surrender, if not can't wait to shove, everything they analysis to the feet of this bloody system; They hate the mechanical economy and class system made them slaves and screws while can't wait to coerce everything, with or without their reach fundamentally, to that condition. This is exactly what Hauser is doing in the forth volume.

Analogically, it's like, just imagine if Jung when analyzing archetypes, just encouraged everybody let their lives lived by myth bcs it's how things go. Or, later how precisely Jungian criticism abusing everything by a gaudy mutated version of original archetype approach.

It's gross, and I feel sorry for him.

-------Sep 13, 2019 update finish--------


"It will never be possible for everyone to enjoy and appreciate it in equal measure, but the share of the broader masses in it can be increased and deepened. The preconditions of a slackening of the cultural monopoly are above all economic and social. We can do no other than fight for the creation of these preconditions."
This is the last three sentences of the whole series, if Hauser meant every word he said, then the whole dynamic of art history he's elaborated for so long is dismantled by himself right here. He countlessly stressed the point that the art resembles a long stream of dynamic forces in historical conditions, and the time, the chronic sequence is not how experiences being weaved into life, right? There's always no guarantee that when understanding of certain part of it deepens, the trend of art is not shifting to another level or new frontier with another triumphant of nostalgia already. Then if cultural monopoly means the unfriendly attitude towards the increased and deepened understanding of broader masses, the "precondition" is to fight to slake it, then what's the point of dynamics of art anyway? It always changes, it itself as a whole never pleases to some understanding of certain place and certain time and certain broader mass. Then if such thing hold as granted without knowing the whole context of ambiguity, then a natural slide to the point of broader mass against the dynamics of art is on the way. Then who's the culture monopoly? Sounds familiar? Hello? How about those narrower masses being pleased by it or whatever masses not touched by it? Hello again?

I have to say the fourth book is torturous to read, every time when Hauser uses the term "nothing but merely" I want to roll my eyes. Art for art's sake is much nobler than art for socialism's sake. He really thinks the wet dream of socialism utopia can sneak through without notice? Honestly, he did a crappy job on such smuggling.
I mean, Arnold, dude, are you even honest to yourself? He's doing a marvelous job when talking about art of more remote times, but as the timeline processes, his contemporary reality kicks more and more in, I dare to say he for real, when writing the whole series of art history, is gradually sinking into the trap of psyche type problems for real - those who live, think, behave below their standard, likely live, think, behave, inside out - Why Hauser shunned away from the logic that if Romanticism or other intellectualism is, as he stated, an escape from the banal and crude reality, then the naturalism or realism or socialism whatever, also can also be regarded as an attempt of turning away from the gripping gaze of abyss? From the tormenting, inescapable insight of mental world? From the knowledge that too painful and compelling and burning to ignore? It's a likely explanation of his intelligence avalanche in the forth book, he was not so sure about/comfortable with what he preached (read: propagated) as he thought he was, but he wanted to believe it, so he shunned away from vital points while hiding fuse that threatens to dismantle his whole effort, without too much consciousness.

How about we start at being honest to yourself then hate Germans second, Arnold? But it's hard, I know (sigh