Russian plekhanov, published between 19 12 and 19 13. In this book, he discusses the position of art in class society, the relationship between art and liberation movement, and the relationship between realism and romanticism.

First of all, he pointed out that in class society, although the direct connection between art and material production has been lost, the social role of art has not been weakened at all, but has been greatly strengthened. No matter in the past or now, there are two different views on the relationship between art and society. One is that artists exist for society, and art should promote the development of human consciousness and the perfection of social system; The other is that art itself is an end, and making art play a certain social benefit is equivalent to reducing its value. The representative slogan of this view is "Art for Art's sake". Plekhanov fully affirmed the first viewpoint in his works, pointing out that "this is obvious in China's advanced literature in 1960s". At the same time, it quotes the comments of Russian progressive thinkers and aesthetes such as Chernyshevski, belinsky and Dobro Lyubov, and criticizes the grotesque idea of "Art for Art's sake". He analyzed the subjective and objective reasons of this art supremacy theory, which was based on "the irresolvable disharmony between those writers and the surrounding social environment". Pushkin once had a tendency to be artistic for the sake of art, because the cruel suppression of revolutionaries in Nicholas I's era cast a pessimistic color on his thoughts; French poets Gautier and panas saw the corruption of the surrounding bourgeoisie, but they couldn't find a way to change this environment, so they tried to seek vulgar and boring shelter in art. In fact, it was impossible to realize the idea of art for art's sake, no matter in the past or now. "As long as any regime pays attention to art, it will naturally focus on adopting a utilitarian view of art ... It is understandable that it makes all ideologies serve its own cause for its own benefit." He further added that the utilitarian view of art cannot be regarded as unique to revolutionaries or people with advanced ideas, and the defenders of Russian imperial power also have this view. In other words, the utilitarian view of art is universal, but the utilitarian content is different between different classes. This generally expresses the basic law of the social function of art. If we go deep into the field of art, we should not only pay attention to the formal factors such as syllables and rhythms of poetry like Gautier, but also pay attention to its narrative and expressiveness, that is, pay attention to the ideological content of poetry at the same time. He quoted Ruskin, a British bourgeois art historian and social activist, as saying: A young girl can sing about her lost love, but a miser can't sing about her lost money. In other words, not all ideas have artistic value, and the value of a work of art depends on the height of the emotion it expresses. But art has its own unique narrative and expression. "Artists use images to express their ideas, while political commentators use logical reasoning to prove their ideas." This highly summarizes the unique aesthetic way of art, and plekhanov, like other revolutionary democrats, advocates that art must serve the national liberation movement.

Secondly, in the book, the author makes a detailed historical discussion on the aesthetic creation principles of romantic realism as two major ideological trends. However, his definition of romanticism is not strict. He overemphasized the negativity of negative romanticism to replace all romanticism, thus denying the historical role of positive romanticism. However, plekhanov's exposition of realism is profound and accurate. Taking Flaubert and other outstanding writers as examples, he pointed out that the aesthetic characteristics of realism lie in the authenticity of the description object and the objectivity of the attitude of the creative subject. He pointed out that the object of realism is also the bourgeoisie, but it is "trying to take the bourgeois ordinary people as the real object of artistic description", so there is no affectation in the characters. Because realistic writers treat the social environment they describe objectively, the characters in their works are "of great significance to all those who are engaged in the scientific research of social psychological phenomena." Objectivity is the most powerful aspect of these writers' creative methods. He also analyzed the disadvantages of early realism-naturalism, and pointed out that their key is to explain social relations from the perspective of biology and pathology, so they "can turn everything-including syphilis-into their own objects", which limited their horizons and avoided the richest and most interesting life specimen-the Great Liberation Movement could not create a social picture reflecting the real relationship.

Thirdly, plekhanov also pointed out in Art and Social Life that the writer's activities are restricted by his class. In the early stage of capitalist development, bourgeois writers had a strong anti-feudal consciousness and were progressive. But when capitalism declined, they had lost their former spirit, but generally opposed bourgeois morality. Some people walked into a dead end of mysticism and decadence because they could not find a way to change the status quo. The art based on this fallacy can't understand and perfect the great ideological emancipation movement, and it also greatly damages the aesthetic value of the works, and finally even becomes an art to defend the social relations of five francs gold coins.