Marcuse's Aesthetic Dimension

Marcuse revises Marx's theories about aesthetics by pointing toward art's transcendental essence. For Marcuse, art possesses an essential quality that is inherently revolutionary; when content and form become united, he says, art can transform society. Marcuse wants to remove the social and historical class positioning from discussions of art, as art's essence transcends class.

Marcuse expects that his audience is familiar with, and sympathetic to, Marxist theory. He seems to be critiquing Marx not to dismiss the value of his work, but to enhance or supplement it. Marcuse also assumes familiarity with the works of literature he presents and discusses -- enough familiarity that he does not require many quotations or discussions of plot, characters, etc. Further, Marcuse rightly assumes that his audience is academics, and a particular kind of academics at that. Not only are these academics concerned with Marxism (and presumably how Marxism is taken up), but they are also concerned with aesthetics, literature, and social/political critique.

Related to these expectations, it seems that Marcuse wants to bring Marxist aesthetic theory back into relevance. That is, he sees the relevance it possesses for thinking about literature and politics at the time his book was written. I see a great deal of hope in Marcuse's writing, which leads me to think that he truly believes in art's revolutionary power -- though not in exactly the same way that Marx does. For Marcuse, since art possesses universal, essential qualities and characteristics, it can embody and inspire the hope necessary for social change.

My questions are pretty local; at times I found Marcuse's writing clear and at others, I was totally lost in translation (pun intended to amuse myself only- ba dum bum). I'm wondering about when content turns into form and about the position of the observer. What kind of expertise is required? Is expertise required? How might this expertise be reconciled with the kind of political values Marcuse seems to purport?

Additionally, I'm interested in this question of hope, since I admit I was seduced by its allure in the text. Why art (literature) and not, say, photos or paintings? And why classical literature? The question of hope for social change seems particularly relevant for today's composition classes, since it's often used as a justification for what we do, or why we came to teaching in the first place. Where, then, is the place of hope in composition, and how can we use Marcuse's thinking about it to inform our own teaching? Why has hope gone out of vogue?