In the debate, Lukacs and Bloch had different perception on the expressionist art’s political implications. The two agreed on social and political responsibility of making art but disagreed on the means used to achieve. The expression of Lukacs was subjective, formalist, and solipsistic and cut from the society’s mainstream. Lukacs concentrated on the tradition realist that was able to influence the law governing objective reality to bring into light the hidden, deeper relationship which makes up the society. On the other hand, Bloch argued against Lukacs and claimed that his objective reality claims is just like neo-classical ideal. Bloch also claimed that Lukacs simplified expression basing on the movement theories rather than the expression art. According to Bloch, expression was not progressive but conservative. Judging from Noldes art account, Bloch arguments were correct as art was not based on culture because over 300 art works belonging to Noldes were removed from the museum (Lloyd 91).
Noldes defence of exotic art and permittivity was brought about by his efforts to renew Germany art. In his work, Noldes wanted to represent the tribal artefacts of different community’s tradition both western and non western. Noldes also created work of art which represented spiritual painting which served as spiritual counter images to modern urban change fragmentations and fractures. Primitive art had some values which he considered important and wanted German artists to emulate. The primitive art showed or served as the light to the modern society. Individuals could see the primitive art and focus on the current life in the society (Lloyd 107).
Lloyd Jill. Emily Nolde’s Ethnographic’ Still Lifes: Primitivism, Tradition, and Modernity. Viewed June 15, 1991, from http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?q=record_ID:siris_sil_493127