But as the proletarians imitate the Bourgeoiskult with their Proletkult, it is precisely they who support this corrupt civilization of the bourgeoisie, without being conscious of it to the detriment of art and to the loss of culture. The proletariat is a condition which must be overcome, the bourgeoisie is a condition which must be overcome.

The art as we want it is neither proletarian nor bourgeois, for it develops forces that are strong enough to influence the whole culture, rather than to be influenced by social conditions. The artist, however, renounces the special field of social organization. Only small talents can make something of proletarian art (that is, politics in a painted state) because of the lack of culture, since they do not overlook greatness. The one thing, like the other, is, from the point of view of art, a fraud.Īrt should only awaken the creative powers in man with its own resources, its goal is the mature man, not the proletarian or the citizen. For the value of the image as a work of art, it is irrelevant whether proletarian instincts or patriotic feelings are to be aroused. As banal as it sounds in itself, it is basically the same whether someone paints a Red Army with Trotsky at the head or an Imperial Army with Napoleon at the head. If, then, art should tend to call up proletarian instincts, it basically uses the same means as ecclesiastical or nationalist art. Such an art would not be universal, would not grow out of the sense of global nationality, but from individual, social, temporally and spatially limited views. If, however, the art should serve exclusively the proletariat, apart from the fact that the proletariat is interested in bourgeois taste, this art would be limited, and as limited as, specifically, bourgeois art. Art is free in the use of its means, but bound to its own laws, and only to its own laws, and as soon as the work is a work of art, it is far superior to the class differences of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Art is an intellectual function of man with the purpose of delivering him from the chaos of life (tragedy). The artist is neither proletarian nor bourgeois, and what he creates belongs neither to the proletariat nor the bourgeoisie, but to all. To those who wish to create proletarian art, we ask: 'What is proletarian art?' Is it art made by proletarians themselves? Or art which serves only the proletariat? Or art to arouse proletarian (revolutionary) instincts? Art, made by proletarians, does not exist because the proletarian, when he creates art, no longer remains a proletarian, but becomes an artist. An art that refers to a certain class of people does not exist, and if it were to exist, it would not be important to life.

Das Proletariat by Peter Decker