Inadequacy of Aestheticism to Comprehend Art Works after a ‘Certain Moment’ of the Human Civilization: From the Eyes of the Movie ‘Amadeus’

Inadequacy of Aestheticism to Comprehend Art Works after a ‘Certain Moment’ of the Human Civilization: From the Eyes of the Movie ‘Amadeus’
Mahesh Hapugoda
Hiniduma Sunil Senevi
Abstract
Art is all about human experience whether simple or complex. The content of an art work, especially its surface spectrum, is generally understood by everyone but to dig out what is beyond the surface has been considered as the duty of the art criticism until the end of bourgeois literature in the second-modernity . Therefore, from the Aristotelian or Barathamuni to Barthes, the art criticism had a great role to play as the mediatory. In the art criticism, the aestheticism was what has been the most over-determined principle due to its long existence as the sole tool to understand the human experience in art.
The basic preconditions that determined the modern society underwent significant structural changes and, accordingly, the contours of the new era revolutionized the thinking of the ‘new world’ which ideologically depends on either postmodern nihilism or historical mutation. If the paradigm shift in the mode of production and the tools of the production changed the modern humanity, according to Marx, to an extent that not only aestheticism but any other conventional literary principles could never accurately be able to grasp, ‘the new world order’ that resulted from the failures of the modern projects and from the higher stage of capitalism completely denied to accept the fact that art can exist, in its earlier form and outlook, in the new pluralistic and less serious world. It was a new world and heaps of new experiences that the new civilizational rules created. Given the present dissidents and negation of the modernity overwhelmingly dominate the future and continue to erode the standards of the classical literature, a new form of literature and criticism would be required by us.
It is assumed that the structural psychoanalysts and structural Marxists historically produced theories that could understand the new consciousness, identities and pluralistic values of the new post-industrial world order. The present form of art in this new world stands far away from the orthodox art criticism i.e. aestheticism as new tools were required by this new phenomenon. Those new tools were fairly able to understand what has not been understood previously. This thesis will elaborate how those new principles would be used in literary criticism through the eyes of the movie ‘Amadeus’ (1986) by Milos Forman.

1. Introduction
Both Western and Oriental aesthetic literary criticism focused on capitalizing on ‘flavour’ or ‘taste’ (rasa) in all forms of art in their textual analysis. In that process, they addressed and glorified the majesty of nature which was larger than them in reverence. There has always been a gap or a void between the author and the audience since the general audience is, as so believed, incapable of going through the subtleties and the multi-layers of a text and, the compulsory mediation of the critic appeared very important to interpret a particular work. The critic’s interference fills the gap between the ‘incomprehensibility’ of the audience’s ‘unfinished knowledge’ and the complete and absolute vision of the work. This has been the role of the critic from Aristotelian Athens, Barathamuni’s India to many other territories where art is understood in the light of the aesthetic perspective.
The main theoretical feature in aesthetics is based on the perceptual appearance in objects which determines the beauty of the respective art work. The beauty is determined by the sensual perception of the individual and the objects or scenes in the natural phenomenon to which individuals selectively respond. As any art work may produce beauty and taste with any degree of attraction to its audience, aestheticism may never loose its validity as a measurement of art and a criticism and, thereby remain universal and unique for many centuries or perhaps as long as art exists, but it will need massive changes in its content and shape since the changes in the societies have undergone much greater complexities than those of the previously known ones.
To be an art work the aestheticism recommends certain characteristics such as content, structure, nature, limitations, craftsmanship and so on and so forth to make the work perfect, sublime, universal and most of all to be unique (unheard and unseen before). Simultaneously, the literary criticism too metamorphosed in line with the above recommendations to judge what is good and bad or what is to be written and what not. The criticism grew into schools of thoughts and established a hegemonic ability in its interference specially deciding the good and bad, serious and superficial or high and low art with certain ideological justifications. However, the aestheticism had been the most influential way in literary criticism for more than centuries in which humanity evolved through slavery and feudalism until modernity to post-industrial. During the previous two modes of productions the humanity never experienced such a complexity as in case of capitalism; it does not mean that the experiences and the human tragedy in suppression in previous times were simple but the suppression and the rules of the suppressor were not hard to comprehend, and the social divisions and the inequalities and the disparities in the caste based societies were similar, for example, in feudalism wherever it functioned as a social structure.
But modernity and the industrial capital started its function differently to that of all the other previously operated modes. The alienation that capitalism created in migration, transplantation of the individuals in different entities, uprooting humans from their original territories and the distance between what he or she produces and its ownership were completely a new dimension to those that were previously experienced by him. The transcending globalized nature of capital over its original territory (not globalization) and colonialism had never been experienced by humanity before capitalism. The tension and anxiety, alienation and commoditization, new social changes and new order with new morality (or no morality) and the secularism and atheist applications were the driving forces of the new era. This new phenomenon, Marx describes as the nakedness of capitalism (Marx and Engels 2002 p. 222). Similarly, with reference to the forms of literature and Georg Lukas, Terry Eagleton describes the changes in the capitalistic era;
‘In a society where the general and the particular, the conceptual and the sensuous, the social and the individual are increasingly torn apart by the ‘alienation’ of capitalism, the great writer draws these dialectically together into a complex totality’ (Eagleton 2002 p. 24).
The art that the modern earth generated was far away from that of the nature loving, religious, spiritual, obedient and simple world of the previous generations. Further, the era followed by Weberian and Marxian modernity (Best and Kellner 1991 p.2), i.e. ‘the post- industrial society’ (Bell 1973 p. 35) or ‘the higher stage of capitalism ( Lyotard 1984 p.14) constituted a novel stage of history which depended on technologies such as computer and media, new forms of knowledge, and changes in the socio-economic system which can be termed as the post-modern age (Ibid., p.3). Hence, to capture the complexities of the new world, a new form of art was required.
1.1 Hypothesis and Methodology
In this paper, we hypothesis that the movie ‘Amadeus’ (1986) by Milos Forman, though simply appears as an aesthetically constructed modernistic art work which can be understood in the light of aesthetics, in the cause of the study we are deeply convinced that the tools of aestheticism become insufficient and new theories should be articulated for a comparatively ‘sufficient’ understanding of its textual totality.
Throughout this paper we measure the inadequacy of the aestheticism to comprehend contemporary art works by comparing the characters and events in the movie ‘Amadeus’ with the theories of post-structuralism and Lacanian psychonalysm and sometimes with the general principles of classical Marxism to show that these theories will grasp the movie with a higher degree of clarity and depth. In doing so, on the other hand, we would often refer to the original screenplay for precise dialogues and scene descriptions and, for the theoretical part, reference would always be cited with the relevant page number for those who would like to refer for further information. The script that we refer in this paper is only available online (www. filmscripts.net) and, therefore, cannot refer to the page numbers as we do in other cases. The script also differs from the original subtitles of the movie but we mostly depend on the written script rather than constantly referring to the subtitles.

2. What is Aestheticism?
The term aesthetic derives from the Greek word for perception (aesthesis) and was introduced to the modern world of literary theory in its contemporary context by the 18th century German Philosopher Alexander Baumgarten ( ) to denote what he conceived as the realm of poetry, a realm of concrete knowledge in which contents is communicated in sensory form (The New Encyclopedia Britannica 2005., p. 123).
According to the Oxford Advance Learners’ Dictionary, ‘aesthetic is concerned with beauty and the appreciation of beauty’(1994 p.19).
I.A. Richards, a modern advocate of aesthetic, explains the ‘aesthetic mode’ as ‘is generally supposed to be a peculiar way of regarding things which can be exercised, whether the resulting experiences are valuable, disvaluable or indifferent. It is intended to cover the experience as well as that of beauty, which both do not share with innumberable other experiences no one would dream of calling aesthetic’ (Richards 1996 p. 10).
Aestheticism, in its historical sense of definition, focuses on ‘beauty’, appreciation of beauty, experiencing beauty and its attribution (Ibid., pp.10-13). The artists and writers of the aesthetic movement tended to hold that the Arts should provide refined sensuous pleasure, rather than conveying moral or sentimental messages. According to Encyclopedia Americana; ‘Aesthetics has traditionally been conceived of as the branch of philosophy concerned with beauty and the beautiful in nature and art’( 1996 p.234). Aestheticism as a movement in the latter part of the 19th Century centered on the doctrine that art exists for the sake of beauty alone, which was born to combat the Philistine ugliness of the Industrial Age. Necessarily, the aestheticism, as it appears today, goes hand in hand with morality and moral as an instrument.
According to Plato as sited in The Literary Criticism: A Short History, ‘as for the beautiful things, they are indeed beautiful “by reason of beauty”-that is, by participating in the beautiful-but beauty is named only as one among other kinds of perfection’ ( Mimsatt Jr. and Brooks, 1957 p.13).
Immanuel Kant understands aesthetic in the way that beauty is not an objective quality of objects, but that an object is called beautiful when its form causes a harmonious interplay between the imagination and the understanding (Encyclopedia Americana, 1996 p.237).
Encyclopedia Britannica again mentions that ‘aesthetic is a study of beauty and taste constituting a branch of philosophy and is concerned with understanding beauty, particularly as it is manifested in art, and with its evolution’ (2005 p. 123 ).
The Aesthetics developed the cult of beauty, which they considered the basic factor in art. Life should copy art, they asserted. They considered nature as crude and lacking in design when compared to art. The main characteristics of the movement were: suggestion rather than statement, sensuality, massive use of symbols, and synaesthetic effects—that is, correspondence between words, colours and music.

2.1 Evolution of Aesthetics
The basic question of the aestheticism, ’what is beauty?’ has earned many answers and those answers have created the basic divisions in aestheticism as follows,
I. Understanding beauty
II. Understanding the mind in the aesthetic experience
III. Understanding aesthetic objects
Understanding beauty is about the theoretical analysis of what beauty is and its manifestation in art. There has been lot of philosophical arguments about the most effective way of dealing with this problem. To understand what beauty is depends on the mind which attempts to distinguish the beauty from what it is not. The mind consists of attitudes and emotions as states of mind, which determine the aesthetic experience. Finally, the beauty depends on the object that we think beautiful. Aesthetic value should be asserted to those objects for them to be meaningful (or beautiful).
The historical evolution of western aestheticism is divided into four major categories as follows;
1. Greek-Rome Classism
2. Medieval Neo-classism
3. Romanticism
4. Modernism
In the scope of this paper, we do not intend to discuss the above segments in details since they have been extendedly discussed in various encyclopedic and other literary sources.
In addition to the Western Aesthetics that we have been elaborating so far, the Oriental aesthetics too had its own way of evaluating literature and the main theory behind the oriental aesthetic is the ‘flavor’(rasas) which has a similar denotation to that of the ‘aesthetic experience’ in the Western aestheticism. This has been theoretically discussed by Barathamuni’s Natyashastra.There are nine principal rasas which are called the navarasas. Those are Śriṛngāram (Love or Erotic), Hāsyam (Comic) ,Karunam (Pathetic or Kindly) ,Raudram(Furious), Vīram (Heroic) ,Bhayānakam (Terrible) ,Bībhatsam (Odious) ,Adbhutam (Wonderful or Marvelous) and Śāntam (Tranquility). The Natyasastra identifies the first eight rasas with eight corresponding bhava: Rati (Love), Hasya (Mirth) ,Soka (Sorrow) ,Krodha(Anger) ,Utsaha (Energy) ,Bhaya (Terror) ,Jugupsa (Disgust) ,Vismaya (Astonishment) and Santam is a collective experience of all the flavors.
The Dhvanyaloka by Anandavardana revolutionized Sanskrit literary theory by proposing that the main goal of good poetry is the evocation of a mood or "flavour" (rasa) and that this process can be explained only by recognizing a semantic power beyond denotation and metaphor, namely, the power of suggestion. The main oriental aesthetic approaches in literature are briefly mentioned here; they are alankaravada, rasavada, dhavaniwada, wakrokthiwada, guna-rithiwada and owchithyawada and what they say in common is the reason for the beauty and majesty of an art work depend on the specific use of language in according to the methods mentioned above.
2.1.1 Classical Aesthetics
The aesthetics as appeared today is evolved from the Classical aesthetics that mainly mentioned in Plato’s (428/427 BC-348/347BC) dialogues in which he regards art products as imitations of the unreal, the sensible world. They are twice removed from reality and his theory is used even today by critics who believe the Platonic saying that, ‘art is expression’ and ‘art is wish fulfillment’. Plato’s greatest concern was the accurate organization of the state and, according to him; art has a role to play in life of the citizens in the state. He believed in beauty as an unanalyzable an undefinable entity (Plato ) .
The Poetics by Aristotle (384BC-322BC) which contributed more to literary theory mentions that poetry is more philosophical than history. History chronicles events whereas philosophy studies forms and Aristotle attributes a cognitive value to poetry.
2.1.2 Medieval Aesthetics
In the medieval aesthetics the religious ideology was articulated in art to pronounce that beauty exists in the mind of God. Beauty is one of the forms and the beautiful in art and nature were thus related to religion. St. Augustine ( ) discussed the issues in Platonic structure of the aesthetics which, according to him, has to distinguish the ‘lie’ of the literary works which are deceitful and the real ones that are not.
2.1.3 Renaissance Aesthetic
With the great innovations of the 15th and the 16th Centuries and the great revival of classical literature, the greatest debate of this period was the body and soul debate. In painting, music and literature the revivalist portrayals were apparent, the art stopped to believe what the eyes see and the aesthetic was restricted to the empirical experience and sensory perception.
2.1.4 Early Modern Aesthetic
The major division in Aesthetics is that the moral sense and the sense of beauty are envisioned to the development of the harmonious relationship of the human beings. In this era, a prominent philosopher called David Hume (1711-1776) sites that beauty is not an objective quality of objects but exists in the mind. This strand extends to mention that the beauty also depends on the personal interests of the subject and therefore ‘what people think is beautiful is determined by the primary constitution of human nature’ (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 1, p237).
This is further developed by a distinguished philosopher of the ear, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who says that an object is called beautiful when its form causes a harmonious interplay between the imagination and the understanding. Therefore, the concept of ‘taste’ becomes subjective and the judgment of the beauty is concept less since such judgments are dependent on cognitive faculties such as imagination and understanding (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 1, p 237).
2.1.5 Contemporary Aesthetics
One important development of this era is the discovery of the ‘intuition’ against the rational, scientific knowledge. In this we can see a clear relationship between the intuitive aspect of art and the Sanskrit literary concept of prathiba which also advocates the importance and decisiveness of the inborn talents of an artist above the ordinary man. However, Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) idealistically believed in imagination and ‘pure imagination’ that is the sole inheritance of the artist. There is a clear influence on art and literary theory by the development of Gestalt psychologist who coined behaviorism. With the empirical experiments of I. A. Richards (1893-1979) the foundation for the modern literary criticism was laid.
2.1.5.1. Practical Criticism
I. A. Richards and his theories such as practical criticism on aesthetics had a great impact on the literary theories in the 20th Century, especially in the new definitions in poetry which changed the mode and content of literary criticism to an entirely different manifestation. Richards wrote few important books to introduce his ideas which have been highly influenced by empirical experiments.
He invented a theory which focused on a closer interpretation of the text and re-interpretation of the relationship between the object and the subject in a text, especially in a poem. He was interested in exploring on the individual psychological perspective on the literary work.
He believed in the importance of the teacher in understanding literature and, his literary theory actually had a blend of aesthetics and the theoretical language of psychology. He believed that rhetoric is more powerful than persuasion and revealed the mechanism of how we use language and language uses us.

3. Theoretical Explanation of the ‘Certain Moment’ of the Civilization.
3.1 Why Marxism?
We intend to explain the ‘certain moment’ in the light of Marxism that elaborates the transformation and the development of the capital in its most complex form in the industrial age since Marxism has been the most critical and effective methodology which captured its true motion. Even though there have been Romantic socialists and Utopians who brought certain explanations in analyzing the function of capital to an acceptable extent, the Classical Marxism was the only mechanism which dialectically and scientifically produced a comprehensive meta- narration about the universalization of capital and the fossilization of human relationships.
The Classical Marxism explained that in any society, the social relationships are determined by the mode of production that is characterized by the forces of production. In this case, the foundation of any community in any historical stage such as slavery, feudal or capitalistic is the production that the members of those communities perform in order to survive. Marx further explained this as once humans enter into definite relationships in exchanging production, then understanding the foundation and historical development of humanity depends on the relation of production (or production relation). He says that production does not get carried out in abstract, or by entering into arbitrary or random relationships chosen at will. Human beings collectively work on nature but do not do the same work, there is division of labor in which people not only do different jobs but some people live from the work of others by owning the means of production. He also described the main modes of productions or the stages of production as follows: tribal (pre-history), ancient, feudal and capitalistic. The capitalistic mode of production makes, according to Marx, a significant change in its form which is considerably different from all the other preceding stages since capitalism and its bourgeoisies enhanced the production forces into such a colossal and a dominant extend that it finally created the most complex production relations in humanity ever since its beginning. The capitalist market expanded beyond the boarders of the ‘nation-state’ in its accumulation of more and more capital (Marx and Engels 2002 pp.223-4)
Further, according to Marx,
“The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?” (Ibid., pp. 224-5)
Accordingly, the moment of the accumulation of capital and the re-structuration of the humanity can be termed as the certain moment in the human civilization as referred in the hypothesis. With the industrial capital, as we saw a little while ago, the conditions in humanity underwent a significant change and, with that ‘paradigm shift’ the cultural superstructure which consists of art too needed more diversed type of knowledge to understand the complexities that it generated.
After industrial capital, what followed next was commercial capitalism in which capitalism expanded its territories in search of more resources and, simultaneously trading became the key function of the society. This can also be termed as colonization in which trading industrial goods and services from master countries were sold to subordinate countries across the boarders with which industrialization upgraded transportation, trade and multi-national corporations. This was another phenomenal example that the complexity and the diversity that the societies were experiencing.
The most important and sophisticated form of capitalism is seen today in the form of post-industrial capital in which service economy has an upper hand in the society which relies on the computer based technology and communication. Daniel Bell, in his significant books The Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism (1979) and Coming of the Post-industrial Society (1974), emphasized the changes from the modern society to post-industrial society are not merely socially structural and economic; the values and norms within the post-industrial society are changed as well. Rationality and efficiency become the paramount values within the post-industrial society. Eventually, according to Bell, these values cause a disconnect between social structures and culture. Most of today's unique modern problems can be generally attributed to the effects of the post-industrial society. These problems are particularly pronounced where the free market dominates (Bell, 1974 p.).
The consumer capitalism makes a drastic change in the social relations in individuals and this is described by Buadrillard as follows, ‘what is consumed "is not the object itself, but the system of objects, 'the idea of a relation' that is actually 'no longer lived, but abolished, abstracted, consumed' by the signifying system itself ... As we 'consume' the code, in effect, we 'reproduce' the system," Levin, in intro to CPES (5).
"Art" disappears as society thrashes in reproducible "culture": "The logic of the disappearance of art is, precisely, inversely proportional to that of the production of culture (Baudrillard, 1987) So, in this age of consumer capital, art faces a significant threat that it can be entirely eliminated from the society since the validity of standards and serious literary forms such as novels and poetry are no longer compatible with the technically formulated, less serious mass forms of entertainments such as films, teledramas or musical shows ( Best and Kellner 1991 p. 12).

4. What else do we need to understand the art works in the new era?
With the complex politico-economical and socio-cultural changes in the post-industrial era as depicted above which have transformed the humanity to such as extend that conventional literature and its criticism leave no space to understand the art in this atmosphere, we require certain other mechanisms to produce art works and to criticize them. These new tools are not directly derived from literary criticisms but truly the results of in depth studies in other fields such as psychology, linguistics, anthropology, political science and sociology. As these fields of studies are not directly relevant to art and criticism, there rises a question as to why we should borrow theories from such disciplines. The reason is that those areas of study have comphrenesively absorbed the contemporary nature of humanity and its complexities which the art works in this era wholly represent. Hence, the articulation of the new knowledge that is produced by those disciplines is a necessity as long as they help us to understand the nature of art work better and in an effective way in a new world context. It is also believed that the new mechanisms in literary criticism exceed the conventional boundaries of aestheticism from this point onwards. So, the new techniques to understand literature and art will be discussed from now on, applying them to the movie ‘Amadeus’.
4.1 Psychoanalytical Perspective:
Psychoanalysis is considered as the science of unconsciousness which studies the human’s mental conditions which include dreams, fantasies and disorders. The behavioral studies and clinical deductions through some patience, Sigmand Freud (1856-1939) coined the theoretical base for the psychoanalysis and later improved by Karl Jung, Anna Freud, Jacques Lacan and some semiotics, feminist and structural critics such as Julia Kristiva, Slavoj Zizek and Luce Irigaray who articulated the classical theories in psychoanalsm with feminism, semiology and cultural criticism.
In introducing the movies ‘Amadues’ and its analysis in this thesis, the theoretical bases in psychoanalysis will be discussed in line with the portrayal of characteristic development in the movie.
4.1.1. The Application of the ‘Symbolic Father’
Lacanian psychoanalysis identifies three major stages in the formation of the name-of-the father such as symbolic, imaginary and real and in that the symbolic father is not a real being but a position that imposes laws and regulates the desires of the subject. The role of the symbolic father, according to Lacan, is decided by the very act of playing the role of the one who has the, ‘master trump and who knows it’ (Wilden 1991 p. 271). ‘He is ultimately capable of saying “I am who I am” can only be imperfectly incarnated real father. The real father takes over from the Symbolic father. This is why the real father has a decisive function in castration, which is always deeply marked by his intervention or thrown off balance by his absence’ (Ibid., p 271). The real father is also the one who interferes into the natural relationship between mother and child, and introduces the necessary symbolic distance between them but, the interference of the symbolic father takes place in his use of language to castrate the child which would not be described lengthily in this paper given the scope of study that can distract the reader to an unnecessary extend.
The role of the symbolic father has remarkably impacted upon the formation of the childhood characteristics of both the musicians in the movie, Mozart and Salieri who became the world most prolific musicians of all time. When the most crucial and significant character in the movie, Mozart is considered first, his childhood has clearly been formatted by his father, Leopold Mozart who was a reputed court composer by himself who was also aware of the rules of the advanced eliticism; the highest of the social stratification. With the language of the elite and their civilized exposition of consciousness of the civilizational rules, Mozart’s father was able to castrate him to such a symbolic extend that not only Mozart became a musician who wrote an opera at the age of twelve and who entertained even the Pope, but came to know the language of the advanced society and their civil values to become a member of them. On the other hand, he had a huge father figure to overcome and by overcoming it he could become larger than himself in the forsaken shadow of his father. Then he evolved himself to become Mozart, the unbeatable and immortal. That is how the character Mozart stands tall and colossal in the entire history of European classical music.
4.1.2. Symbolic Order:
Symbolic order is a linguistic dimension which is structured around the name-of the father and the patriarchal injunction. This primarily relates to the Language and family rather than to intragroup communication and society, or to semiology, he employs it to buttress his concept of the unconscious as the ‘discourse of the other’ (Wilden 1991 p. 262). The name of the father is a fundamental signifier which positions the Symbolic Order. In the movie, it is Leopold Mozart who brings the symbolic order, the big other or, in other words, the Law of the eliticism, to his family and introduces that to his son. He wants his son to perform for the kings and the queens and become recognized in the socially accepted structures. At the same time, when Mozart marries Constanze in Vienna, Leopold wants him to come back to his native place, since he believes that Mozart’s way of life and his playfulness bring a black mark to his family. It is the family structure that depends on the patronage of the royal grace and without its good name and reputation, as his father is aware, that the entire system will collapse. Therefore, father represents a structure that formulates subject and its destiny. Since Leopold fails to bring him back to his original foundation, he abandons Mozart and, in the movie, his death is presented more symbolically than materially since it greatly impacts upon Mozart’s real life. It is with his father’s death that Mozart produces more complicated and advanced form of music in his career to mark the trauma that was caused by the loss of the symbolic.
On the other hand, Salieri is also absorbed to the contemporary symbolic order of the law of the eliticism as he migrates to Vienna to become a musician after his father’s death. But he acquires the symbolic from his father to a certain extend but was never able to succeed to the level that of Mozart since his father was a trader and knew nothing about Classical music. Not only was he negligence about music, he also, out of his unawareness, used to mock the musicians as ‘monkeys’ which Salieri never tolerated.
“My father did not care for music. He wanted me only to be a merchant, like himself. As anonymous as he was. When I told how I wished I could be like Mozart, he would say, Ò Why? Do you want to be a trained monkey? Would you like me to drag you around Europe doing tricks like a circus freak? How could I tell him what music meant to me?”(Shaffer 1984).

To become a classical music fan it takes a lot of time and training to taste it and, by being a petit- trader, with his financial background and the leisure time factor, his father obviously did not have the necessary training to taste such an intrigue music genre. In this regard, Marxism too advocates that it is the relation of production and the surplus capital that determine the material existence to art. If an individual has to labor the whole day for the fulfillment of his primary needs, he will not have the time for art and literature in their real form. Given his own material conditions to identify himself with high art, Salieri had his own childhood drawbacks, despite his chance to become the court composer and his hard work in the field, not to become another Mozart.
‘I admit I was jealous when I heard the tales they told about him. Not of the brilliant little prodigy himself, but of his father, who had taught him everything’ (Ibid).
Salieri replaces his less symbolic father with Jesus whom he despises later due to his unfaithfulness in him as he could not produce good for himself but, according to his rational query, did better always for Mozart who disrespected God and shown quite great amount of indecency towards religion and socially accepted people and institutes. He could deductively not make out why God gave him the desire but denied the skill to become the greatest composer in Vienna since he was the man of virtue.
“All I ever wanted was to sing to God. He gave me that longing and then made me mute. Why? Tell me that. If he did not want me to praise Him with music, why implant the desire like a lust in my body and then deny me the talent? (Ibid)
On the other hand, Salieri finds out that Mozart falls in love with Catherine, a student of Salieri in whom he had desired. Her symbolic attachment to Mozart also creates a traumatic experience in him and replaces that to a killer instinct which he materializes in the end. Salieri’s childhood implantation of the narcissist desire is shown by the following statement he makes in the movie;
“Whilst my father prayed earnestly to God to protect commerce, I would offer up secretly the proudest prayer a boy could think of. Ò Lord, make me a great composer! Let me celebrate your glory through music - and be celebrated myself! Make me famous through the world, dear God! Make me immortal! After I die let people speak my name forever with love for what I wrote! In re-turn I vow I will give you my chastity - my industry, my deepest humility, every hour of my life. And I will help my fellow man all I can” ( Ibid).
The mutually different symbolic structures and order in the contemporary Vienna influenced both the musicians to make themselves comprehensively different from each other and ultimately produced two psychologically antagonistic but interdependent subjects.

4.1.3. Symbolic Lack
When the killer instinct of Saleiri enunciates Mozart in the last scene, the film retrospectively depicts that Salieri becomes a lunatic, a completely mentally imbalance subject. Once his real other is dead, the mirror to reflect himself is also lost subsequently. In the Lacanian psychoanalysis, the lack is the ‘lack of the signifier’ (Wilden p.114). The symbolic dimension of language is that of the signifier, in which elements have no positive existence but are constituted by virtue of their mutual differences. The unconscious is the discourse of the Other and thus belongs to the symbolic order. It is also the realm of the Law that regulates desire in the Oedipus complex. The symbolic is both the "pleasure principle" that regulates the distance from das Ding, and the "death drive" which goes beyond the pleasure principle by means of repetition: "the death drive is only the mask of the symbolic order.
It is important to note that Salieri makes his best Operas during the mutually competitive and antagonistic relationship with Mozart which make an obligatory interdependence. Salieri was in love Mozart from his very childhood since he has heard of his excessive talents in music and implanted a desire in him as a symbolic other. There was an unconscious love in Saleiri for Mozart as the Master signifier that drives him to become a renowned musician which he materially achieved by being the court composer of the Archbishop of Salzburg (The Master-Slave relationship will be discussed in detail in 4.1.4). The real death of Mozart not only marks the symbolic death of Salieri as a professional musician but psychologically causes a trauma by the physical loss of body which carried the ‘jouissance of the other’.

4.1.3.1 Jouissance of the other

Diagram 01
According to Lacan, Jouissance is ‘the lack of which make the other insubstantial’ (Ecrits 2003 p.351) For Lacan, on the other hand, jouissance seems to imply a desire to abolish the condition of lack (la manque) to which we are condemned by our acceptance of the signs of the symbolic order in place of the Real. In the movie, Saleiri believes that he cannot succeed as a perfect (equally talented) musician, stay lagging behind and always secondary to Mozart, due to the reason of the obstacle that resists the musical perfection of him, is the physical existence of Mozart and, if Mozart dies (physically or symbolically) he can perfect himself. But this never materialized since the death of Mozart marks the death of Salieri too. When there is no Mozart, Salieri losses master’s approval and the reason of existence. He wants the approval of the Master to make his life meaningful and worth living, because there is a ‘dialectic’ nature in the desire (Ibid. 353). At the same time, Salieri is absorbed in the jouissance of the other in the way that he loves Mozart and, out of his love, he wanted to know what Mozart exactly looked like in the scene where he is about to perform in Vienna. He was not impressed by his appearance;
“So, that was he! That giggling, dirty-minded I’d just seen crawling on the flow. Mozart” (Shaffer 1984)
but still symbolically attracted in terms that ‘what is in him?’ and ‘what is not in me that is in him?’. He wanted to know what was inside him. How can he be so talented to be so famous that he cannot reach him?
“As I went through the salon, I played a game with myself. This man had written his first concerto at the age of four; his first symphony at seven; a full scale opera at twelve. Did it show? Is talents like that written on the face?” (Ibid)
However, with the death of the Mozart, the manifestation of the code of the other emancipates and constitution of the subject ceases to exist.

4.1.4. Master-Slave Dialectic





Diagram 02
The Lacanian psychoanalysis clearly describes the master-slave relationship in terms with the desire of the other. It is man’s desire that, ‘finds its meaning in the desire of the other, not so much because the other holds the key to the object desired, as because the first object of desire is to be recognized by the other’(Wilden and Lacan 1991 p.30). So, the ‘desire of a man’ seems to have a clear relationship with the master-slave psyche of a subject and obviously depends on ‘the desire of the other’.
‘The very desire of man, [Hegel] tells us, is constituted under the sign of mediation; it is desire to make its desire recognized. It has for its object a desire, that of the other, in the sense that there is no object for man’s desire which is constituted without some sort of mediation- which appears in his most primitive needs: for example, even his blood has to be prepared – and which is found again throughout the development of satisfaction from the moment of the master-slave conflict throughout the dialectice of labour’ (Lacan 1950 p.45 as cited in Wilden and Lacan 1991 p114).
“He was my idol! I can’t remember a time when didn’t know his name! When I was only fourteen he was already famous…….. I was still playing childish games when he was playing music for kings and emperors. Even the Pope in Rome!.... I admit I was jealous when I heard the tales they told about him” (Ibid).
The above words uttered by Saleiri show how he depends on the Master and how much the Master signifier has enlarged in his mind from the childhood. It is Salieri who facilitates the jouissance of the Master through his work in producing objects for the master. When he did his own opera, Saleiri does not listen to the king or any other prestigious invitees who appreciate his masterpiece (especially the king says, ‘it the best opera yet written and you are the brightest star in the musical firmament. You do honor to Vienna and to me’) but when Mozart answers to his eagerly waiting question, “Did my work please you?”, as, “I never knew that music like that was possible.. One hears such sound and what can one say but… Salieri”( Ibid), it seems that he received the approval of the Master and realized that he actually exists. Mozart, in this way, becomes the symbolic other of Saleiri. It is also true to mention here that Saleiri believes that it is Mozart who forbids his complete jouissance.
“What does the obsessed wait for? For the death of the master. What purpose does the waiting serve? The waiting is interposed between the obsessed and the death. When the Master dies, everything will begin” ( Zizek 2006 p. 74).
But the day Mozart dies, though Salieri imagined that he could perfect himself and reach the sublimation, what actually happens is that he reaches the symbolic death without the approval of the other. In the Lacanian psychoanalysis, the death of the subject is marked with the following statement;
“He is in the anticipated moment of the master’s death, from which moment he will begin to live, but in the mean time, he identifies himself with the master as dead, and as a result of this, he is himself already dead” ( Wilden 1999).
Mozart too calls upon his Master signifier by the imaginary relationship with his own father once he is dead. His father’s dead too caused a traumatic experienced in him.
“As death… is the true goal of our existence, I have formed during the last few year such close relations with this best and truest friend of mankind that his image is not only no longer terrifying to me but is indeed very soothing and consoling”( Friedrich 1991 p. 46).
The trauma created the basement for Mozart to create the most complex music like 27th Piano Concerto (Ibid., P.46 ) and operas that many Viennese could not understand at that time but only Saleiri who was a talented musician. The psychic void that is resulted by the loss of the father figure is filled by the production of well crafted music that a human being even produced ( reference). However, it is obvious that both musicians face the Master- Slave dialectic at two different moments in their lives.
4.1.5. Carnivalesque:
The origin of the Bakthinian carnivalesque comes from the term ‘carnival’ and is used to mean the collectivity. Mikhail Bakthin (1895-1975) did not merely mean to constitute a crowd but everybody in the carnival must be considered equally free and familiar contact, free from the barrios and division of caste, class, profession and age. It must also hold that the lower strata of the social life is more important and must feel that they are part of social collectivity. In a carnival like this, the individuals hide their true identity by holding a mask or applying costumes to cover the face, and exchange their feelings and ultimately be aware of the timelessness that is a result of the bodily exchange of the community members. This is also connected to the Bakthinian concept of grotesque i.e. the bodily exchange through eating, evacuation and sex. This phenomenon can be used to release the libidinal energy of the individuals, which can be called as catharsis.
The Greeks origin of the word ‘ kathairein’ means ‘purification’, ‘cleansing’ or ‘clarification’ . The libidinal energy, the creative psychic energy that an individual has to release to the outer world in order to materialize his personal development finds its best cathartic moment in the carnivalesque. The libidinal energy is hidden in individuals as they obey the symbolic order of the society or follow the law of the big Other. However, if the catharsis is considered to release the phallic energy in human subjects, the carnival would be an ideal place to do so since the individuals can surpass the barricade of the big Other. In the movie, Mozart visits one of the masked carnivals in Vienna with his father to entertain himself and others. His father does not tolerate this since he represents the values of another generation and another class. Nevertheless, Mozart releases his phallic energy perhaps against the laws and ethics of the macro-society but an individual who breaks free in this context and obviously releases the energies that he may not be able to do in the wider society and return to normal after a certain time. Besides he could also enjoy his symptomatic disorder of coprophelia that could not be entertained in public.
4.1.6. Paradigm Shift:
The structural background which facilitated both musicians to uplift their musicality in such symbolically constituted entities that were resulted by the accumulation of capital, is meant by the reference term ‘paradigm shift’ which generally means, ‘ sudden change in the perception of reality which depends on the knowledge that someone already has’(http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej17/a1.html) or ‘the shift in paradigms means that new cultural values and assumptions in fact determine what are considered valid for the new phenomenon’ ( Tannenbaum and Schultz 1998 p. 274) . Though the concept was initially used by Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) in science to describe, ‘one conceptual world view to be replaced by another view", this term is used in this paper to mean, ‘a significant change happens usually from one fundamental view to a different view’. In such instances where the change is immense, some type of major discontinuity occurs as well. The shift in paradigms means that new cultural values and assumptions in fact determine what are considered valid
In the movie, Vienna is called as ‘city of musicians’ where the surplus capital (Marx ) made the way for individuals of a certain social class to enjoy the ‘leisure time’ that facilitates to create complex masterpieces. Not many cities, at that time, entertained the capacity and possibility to maintain a bourgeois class (commercial middle class) who can spend extra-money and time for entertainment. This structural revolution was only made possible in the class based societies by capitalism and the emergence of a class who dominated over the other stratums of the social stratification. The existence of a bourgeois made the not only the heavy art possible in Vienna but could attract all the talented musicians to the major city in terms of the marketability of the products and by facilitating and encouraging the competition among them to produce more prolific work which actually remained in tact for many decades to come. In the movie, both Salieri and Mozart decided to remain in Vienna simply for this reason of recognition i.e. only the urban bourgeois crowd could taste this kind of works and be praised by them and be sublimed by the immortality of the ingenuous masterpieces.

5. Conclusion:
Once the structural changes in the economic and political phenomenon undergo a ‘paradigm shift’ i.e. interpolation from the previous structure to a completely new situation, the tools that were used in the previous system no longer suffice to comprehend the new standards. The newness that was made possible by the emergence of the capitalistic world with new modes and means of production with a social class whose leisure time and surplus capital were the main cause to produce advanced art, required new theories to be produced to understand such art. The relations of production in the feudalistic structure or any other could not do this simply because of the lack of the surplus capital that only capitalistic mode of production could do. So, ‘the certain moment’ in the human civilization was the moment of the emergence of the capitalistic economy and the surplus capital. This created new complexities which none other previously dominant structures could never think of and, in that sense, the art which reflected the complexities of the new world could not be understood through the tools of the previous system and required news ones.
The film ‘Amadues’ thereby requires to be understood not by apparently possible tools of the previous critical schools in art such as aestheticism, realism or perhaps hyper-realism but needs to be analyzed with the tools of the new doctrines of the post- industrial world. The tools that the paper suggests to be used by new critics, go beyond the inadequacies of the aestheticism in understanding the characters and their personal relationships depending on certain psychological phenomena, power relationships, economic relationships, structural changes and subjectivity that may not be defined by the theoretical base of aestheticism.













List of References
Primary
Forman, Milos (2005) Amadeus, Warner Brothers Picture Industries
Shaffer, Peter, (1998) Amadues (http://sfy.ru/sfy.html?script=amadeus)

Secondary
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias:
Oxford Advance Learners’ Dictionary (1994, Fourth Edition), Ed. A.P. Cowie, Oxford University Press, Calcutta
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, (2005 Vol. 1, 15th Edition.), Ed. Jacob E. Safra, Chicago
The Encyclopedia Americana (1996 Vol. 1 Reprint) Ed. Grolier Incorporated International Edition, USA
Other Sources:
Althusser, Louis (2006) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Aakar Books, India

Aristotle (1996) Poetics, Penguin Books, India
Adorno, Theodor (2003) The Culture Industry, Routhledge, London & New York
Barthes, Roland (1982) Empire of Signs, (trans. Richard Howard), Hill and Wang, New York

Barthes, Roland (1983) The Fashion System (trans. Matthew Ward and Richard Howard), Hill and Wang, New York

Barthes, Roland (1984) Writing Degree Zero (trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith) Jonathan Cape, London

Barthes, Roland (1987) Criticism and Truth (trans. Kathrin Pilcher Keuneman) The Athlone Press, London

Baudrillard, Jean (1994) Simulacra and Simulation (trans. Shiela Faria Glaser, Ann Arbor) University of Michigan Press, US

Baudrillard, Jean (2000) The Consumer Society: Myth and Structures,
Sage Publishers, New Delhi.

Baudrillard, Jean (2005), System of Objects, Verso Books, New York

Baudrillard, Jean (1981) For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (trans. by Charles Levin), Telos Press, USA

Bauman, Zigmunt (2004) Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcastes, Polity Press, United Kingdom

Bell, Daniel (1974) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Harper Colophon Books, New York
Zizek , Slavoj (2006) The Silent Partner, Verso, London
Zizek, Slavoj (1991) For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor, Verso, New York
Zizek, Slavoj (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, New York
Zizek, Slavoj (1997) The Plague of Fantasies, Verso, New York
Fromm, Erich (1982) Greatness and the Limitations of Freud’s Thoughts: A Revolutionary Study of Genius in Conflict, Abacus Publishers, United Kingdom
Lacan, Jacques (2003) Ecrits: A Selection (trans. Alan Sheridan) Routledge, London & New York
Lacan, Jacques (1991) Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (trans. Anthony Wilden), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London
Friedrich, Otto (1991 July) When Angles Play, Time International ( Mozart 250 Anniversary Special Edition)
Hume, David (2000) A Threatise of Human Nature (ed. David Fake Norton & Mary Norton) Oxford University Press, UK
Tannenbaum, Donald and Schultz, David (1998) Inventers of Ideas: An Introduction to Western Political Philosophy, St. Maria Press, New York
Nue, Jerome (1998) The Cambridge Companion to Freud, Cambridge University Press, USA
Richards I.A. (1996) Principles of Literary Criticism, Universal Book Stall, New Delhi