The Birth of Socialist Realism
In the 1930s, the Russian Association of Proletarian Artists (RAPKh) and the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP) set the tone for artistic ideas.1 Both groups aggressively argued for 'proletarian' art (more or less art for educating the people) and attacked artists who refused to comply and continued to assert their own point of view in their artwork. The situation soon became really tense as artists from both sides of the debate flung accusations at each other; in discussions, art took second place to quarrelling over ideologies.2 The art world was divided into four basic camps; the Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR),a joined front of the Society of Easel Artists (OST) and the Leningrad Circle of Artists (from now on referred to as The Circle), artists influenced by the Society of Moscow Artists, and finally those who remained completely committed to the avant-garde.3 The AKhRR's style was that of a pronounced traditionalism and sharp perception which attempted to achieve “heroic realism.”4 Largely popular amongst the people and the party,Sergei Gerasimov, Mitrofan Grekov, Sergei Maliutin, and Konstantin Yuon. In the Thirties, AKhRR were viewed as the most progressive of the groups.5 Since their style was at a greater disposition with the dominant group (RAPKh and RAPP) in terms of their art, all other groups, whose style was “less realistic,” were expected to coalesce with them.6 The art of the Circle and OST was considered socially remote since it was more individualistic in nature (these artists tried to depict moments that marked them through painting) and experimentalist in form.7 The artists who were influenced by the Society of Moscow Artists were failed to gain favour with the dominant group since they regarded the fine arts as a resonator rather than a reflection of the age; thus they were the group most vulnerable to attack from RAPKh.8 Artists who remained faithful to the avant-garde were also attacked for the “foreign and exotic nature” of their art.9
By 1932, the groups would officially merge when the Central Committee of the Communist Party centralized control over the nation's artistic production by issuing a decree requiring artists to join the “Union of Soviet Artists.”10 This decree aimed not only to disband these four independent groups and bring them together under a single umbrella group and to sanction AKhRR's realism to the exclusion of other styles, but it was also intended “to confer orderliness and logic on Soviet art” at a particular moment when the system of state commissions was becoming more significant.11 Under the party, the accepted means of expression for painting and sculpture became limited; all artwork now had to be representational and realist in style as well as Socialist in content.12Thus, socialist realism was born. However, socialist realism would only 'officially' replace the avant-garde and modernism in 1934, when it would formally become state policy.13Supported by Stalin, the doctrine of Socialist Realism stated that all art must be optimistic, realistic, and heroic and depict some aspect of man’s struggle toward socialist progress for a better life.14Furthermore, it considered all forms of experimentalism and pre-revolutionary art as degenerate, pessimistic, and threatening to the newly rewritten post revolution history.15 Therefore, there was a shift away from modernism, individualism, and artistic liberty in paintings towards one single style of painting which encouraged increased optimism about specific events.16 Increasingly rigid exhibition policies accompanied this shift, as depictions of ceremonies, renowned leaders, labor achievements and military victories consistently began to occupy the centre stages of exhibitions.17Thus, as author and art historian Mikhail Guerman writes, by the mid-1930s art was “not an island unto itself [...] the authoritarianism of the political judgements then being made was paralleled of course in cultural life.” 18
In the 1930s, the Russian Association of Proletarian Artists (RAPKh) and the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers (RAPP) set the tone for artistic ideas.1 Both groups aggressively argued for 'proletarian' art (more or less art for educating the people) and attacked artists who refused to comply and continued to assert their own point of view in their artwork. The situation soon became really tense as artists from both sides of the debate flung accusations at each other; in discussions, art took second place to quarrelling over ideologies.2 The art world was divided into four basic camps; the Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR),a joined front of the Society of Easel Artists (OST) and the Leningrad Circle of Artists (from now on referred to as The Circle), artists influenced by the Society of Moscow Artists, and finally those who remained completely committed to the avant-garde.3 The AKhRR's style was that of a pronounced traditionalism and sharp perception which attempted to achieve “heroic realism.”4 Largely popular amongst the people and the party,Sergei Gerasimov, Mitrofan Grekov, Sergei Maliutin, and Konstantin Yuon. In the Thirties, AKhRR were viewed as the most progressive of the groups.5 Since their style was at a greater disposition with the dominant group (RAPKh and RAPP) in terms of their art, all other groups, whose style was “less realistic,” were expected to coalesce with them.6 The art of the Circle and OST was considered socially remote since it was more individualistic in nature (these artists tried to depict moments that marked them through painting) and experimentalist in form.7 The artists who were influenced by the Society of Moscow Artists were failed to gain favour with the dominant group since they regarded the fine arts as a resonator rather than a reflection of the age; thus they were the group most vulnerable to attack from RAPKh.8 Artists who remained faithful to the avant-garde were also attacked for the “foreign and exotic nature” of their art.9
By 1932, the groups would officially merge when the Central Committee of the Communist Party centralized control over the nation's artistic production by issuing a decree requiring artists to join the “Union of Soviet Artists.”10 This decree aimed not only to disband these four independent groups and bring them together under a single umbrella group and to sanction AKhRR's realism to the exclusion of other styles, but it was also intended “to confer orderliness and logic on Soviet art” at a particular moment when the system of state commissions was becoming more significant.11 Under the party, the accepted means of expression for painting and sculpture became limited; all artwork now had to be representational and realist in style as well as Socialist in content.12Thus, socialist realism was born. However, socialist realism would only 'officially' replace the avant-garde and modernism in 1934, when it would formally become state policy.13Supported by Stalin, the doctrine of Socialist Realism stated that all art must be optimistic, realistic, and heroic and depict some aspect of man’s struggle toward socialist progress for a better life.14Furthermore, it considered all forms of experimentalism and pre-revolutionary art as degenerate, pessimistic, and threatening to the newly rewritten post revolution history.15 Therefore, there was a shift away from modernism, individualism, and artistic liberty in paintings towards one single style of painting which encouraged increased optimism about specific events.16 Increasingly rigid exhibition policies accompanied this shift, as depictions of ceremonies, renowned leaders, labor achievements and military victories consistently began to occupy the centre stages of exhibitions.17Thus, as author and art historian Mikhail Guerman writes, by the mid-1930s art was “not an island unto itself [...] the authoritarianism of the political judgements then being made was paralleled of course in cultural life.” 18
"Socialist realism, being the basic method of Soviet literature and criticism requires from the artist truthful, historically concrete representation of reality in its evolutionary development. Moreover, truth and historical completeness of artistic representation must be combined with the task of ideological transformation and education of the working man in the spirit of socialism."- Andrei Zhdanov's [a Communist party spokesman and aide to Stalin] explanation of Socialist Realism in 1934.19
Stalin's Stamp of Approval:
There were only three acceptable themes in Socialist realism
1) The Great Leaders (Lenin, Stalin)
2) Happy and Heroic Workers
3) The Accomplishments of Socialism
There were only three acceptable themes in Socialist realism
1) The Great Leaders (Lenin, Stalin)
2) Happy and Heroic Workers
3) The Accomplishments of Socialism
The Great Leaders
In paintings of this theme, Stalin and Lenin are always the vocal points of the paintings. Lenin is oftentimes painted as a strong, wise, insightful, and caring figure whereas Stalin is painted more often as a protector (he's often painted wearing military clothing) or as a strong leader. In Brodsky's painting, Lenin is sitting at the Smolney Institute for Young Ladies of the Nobility (where he had directed the revolutionary uprising) therefore reinforcing the notion that he alone was behind the Revolution. The second empty chair in the painting alludes to the democratic nature of both Lenin and the revolution, its emptiness is meant to convey that notion that it is inviting the viewer to join the leader in his studio to discuss political and social matters. Usikova's painting is similar in that it positions the leader as a 'man of the people',as we see Lenin carefully listening to the complaints and suggestions of villagers. Stalin, in Vladimirsky's painting, is also painted as a 'man of the people', however in a different manner. Whereas Lenin is contemplative and humble, Stalin is painted as a strong paternalistic figure who is always depicted as being upright with broad shoulders. Most paintings of Stalin depict him either as a protector/leader or as a figure of adoration. For more on the theme of leaders see Towards the Cult of Personality and The Cult of Stalin.
ProletAriate
The content of paintings were meant to be read as texts, therefore, for viewers to easily understand each work of art, artists were told to avoid ambiguity and vagueness. Therefore, characters in paintings had to be polarized. In Gerasimov and Johanson's paintings, this polarization is evident in the portrayal of the protagonists (i.e. the proletariats) against antagonists (i.e. the bad guys). In Johnason's painting, the man and women accused of being communists are being interrogated by members of the Tzar's army whereas Gerasimov's painting depicts a proletariat woman standing her ground against a fascist. The protagonists in both paintings are presented "as assured people with a proud gaze and squared shoulders, standing firmly on earth."20 In contrast, according to Prokhorov, the antagonists are depicted as "restive and plaint, their fatal historical defeat is stressed through compositional devices."21 Other proletariat themed art, such as Kotlyarov's painting, accentuated and glorified the roles of the working class within society by focusing solely on the working class as subjects.
Johanson's painting depicts a man and woman (standing in the far left) being interrogated by officers of the tzarist army. Their upright posture and indifferent faces juxtaposed against the stern faces of the Tzar's militia men allude to their braveness. This painting illustrates the "heroic struggle" of the proletariat in socialist realist art.
The Accomplishments of Socialism
Art themed on the accomplishments of socialism was meant to reflect the progress and triumph of communism and Russia over the capitalist West. Through paintings such as Primenov's, modernity was depicted as being the norm within Russian society, even though the vast country side of Russia was no where near modern at the time. Other re-occurring themes were the emancipation of women and, later on, racial equality within Soviet art. These themes were more targeted to an audience outside of Russia than the themes of the great leaders and the heroic proletariate.
The composition was made like a frame captured by a camera. The viewer, who is positioned in the backseat of a luxury car driven by a woman with a modern short haircut, is invited to view a “modern” and “merry” renewed Moscow. Trough its use of colour and its subtle brush strokes, this painting conveys the notion of new life in Moscow. The intact buildings, wide street, and the emblem of the just opened metro further allude to Moscow's modernity. The State Tretyakov Gallery sums up this sentiment, writing that "the Impressionist painting technique creates a sense of lightness, of refinement throughout the entire artistic structure of the canvas."
Fiske Kimball on Socialist Realism in 1934.
On the origins of Socialist Realism.." A young generation possessing a radically different outlook was knocking at the door. Bred in the clarified (emphasis mine) atmosphere of post October they had a scant patience with an alien exotic importation [the avant-garde] (emphasis mine) that had no sort of basis for historical justification."
On its content: "The content that attracts the creative artist of the day is the "living content" of "normal existence" (emphasis mine) in the USSR [here Kimball is referencing how post-revolutionary period, paintings were heavily centred on revolutionary themes] [...] in a spirit of a free liberated initiative (emphasis mine) that the artist of the Soviet Union confronts his task of depicting the various phases and facts of the swift moving socialist complex in which he plays an active part."
On its direction: "the general drift [of socialist realism] is away from the abstract and the subjective and distinctly in the direction of a sound, normal, objectivity of vision and interpretation."
Source: Philadelphia Museum of Art. The Art of Soviet Russia. Forward by Fiske Kimball. Introduction by Christian Brinton. Created under the joint auspices of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art and the American Russian Institute. Philadelphia: Locust Press, 1934.
On the origins of Socialist Realism.." A young generation possessing a radically different outlook was knocking at the door. Bred in the clarified (emphasis mine) atmosphere of post October they had a scant patience with an alien exotic importation [the avant-garde] (emphasis mine) that had no sort of basis for historical justification."
On its content: "The content that attracts the creative artist of the day is the "living content" of "normal existence" (emphasis mine) in the USSR [here Kimball is referencing how post-revolutionary period, paintings were heavily centred on revolutionary themes] [...] in a spirit of a free liberated initiative (emphasis mine) that the artist of the Soviet Union confronts his task of depicting the various phases and facts of the swift moving socialist complex in which he plays an active part."
On its direction: "the general drift [of socialist realism] is away from the abstract and the subjective and distinctly in the direction of a sound, normal, objectivity of vision and interpretation."
Source: Philadelphia Museum of Art. The Art of Soviet Russia. Forward by Fiske Kimball. Introduction by Christian Brinton. Created under the joint auspices of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art and the American Russian Institute. Philadelphia: Locust Press, 1934.
The Reality of Socialist Realism
Ideologically, socialist realist art was meant to be socialist in theme and realistic (and therefore not abstract so that the masses could understand it). Its purpose was meant to be twofold, in that not only would it serve to enlist artists as agents for the party who would aide in the indoctrination of the people, but it would also serve the purpose in censoring artistic production. In practice this meant that artists were not allowed to depict Soviet life as they saw since they had to omit anything that reflected badly on the accomplishments of the new system and thus were forced to include whatever the Communist party wished to be 'true.'20 Furthermore, this also resulted in the polarization of people's personalities in art.21 People could only be depicted as good or bad, right or wrong. Since art had to portray life as it should be, rather than how it was, paintings therefore had to be optimistic in showing people enthusiastically building communism. 22Therefore, what was being produced was not really realism, but rather a distortion of realism into fantasy. This scripted fantasy eroded the will of many artists.
Kimball's claim that socialist realism was therefore 'familiar' since it was historically justifiable is ironic since it was not. Whatever historical justification socialist realism claimed was faulty since the history behind the movement, as well as the history it put forth, was largely fabricated and self-perpetuating. Furthermore, whatever 'free liberated initiative' that Kimball is talking about is a farce. By the mid 1930s artists who didn't comply to the standards of the party were shunned, discredited, and arrested and, by the end of the decade, they were subjected to Stalin's Purges.23 Twenty-five years later, in 1957, the Central Committee of the Communist Part expressed regret in its address to the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Artists that the "limitless potential inherent in the unfailing method had been insufficiently employed in art."24
Ideologically, socialist realist art was meant to be socialist in theme and realistic (and therefore not abstract so that the masses could understand it). Its purpose was meant to be twofold, in that not only would it serve to enlist artists as agents for the party who would aide in the indoctrination of the people, but it would also serve the purpose in censoring artistic production. In practice this meant that artists were not allowed to depict Soviet life as they saw since they had to omit anything that reflected badly on the accomplishments of the new system and thus were forced to include whatever the Communist party wished to be 'true.'20 Furthermore, this also resulted in the polarization of people's personalities in art.21 People could only be depicted as good or bad, right or wrong. Since art had to portray life as it should be, rather than how it was, paintings therefore had to be optimistic in showing people enthusiastically building communism. 22Therefore, what was being produced was not really realism, but rather a distortion of realism into fantasy. This scripted fantasy eroded the will of many artists.
Kimball's claim that socialist realism was therefore 'familiar' since it was historically justifiable is ironic since it was not. Whatever historical justification socialist realism claimed was faulty since the history behind the movement, as well as the history it put forth, was largely fabricated and self-perpetuating. Furthermore, whatever 'free liberated initiative' that Kimball is talking about is a farce. By the mid 1930s artists who didn't comply to the standards of the party were shunned, discredited, and arrested and, by the end of the decade, they were subjected to Stalin's Purges.23 Twenty-five years later, in 1957, the Central Committee of the Communist Part expressed regret in its address to the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Artists that the "limitless potential inherent in the unfailing method had been insufficiently employed in art."24
Footnotes:
The Birth of Socialist Realism:
1Mikhail Guerman, introduction to Soviet Art 1920s-1930s, by L. Vostretsova, N. Kozyreva, S. Liubimtsev, and O. Shikhireva, ed. Vladimir Leniashin (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988), 13.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid, 11.
5Ibid, 13.
6Ibid.
7Ibid.
8Ibid.
9Philadelphia Museum of Art. The Art of Soviet Russia. Forward by Fiske Kimball. Introduction by Christian Brinton. Created under the joint auspices of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art and the American Russian Institute. Philadelphia: Locust Press, 1934.
10Michael Leon,“20th Century History: Lecture 7. Socialist Realism, Culture in Stalin’s USSR,”Lecture presented at Dawson College, Quebec, February 2011.
11Mikhail Guerman, introduction to Soviet Art 1920s-1930s, by L. Vostretsova, N. Kozyreva, S. Liubimtsev, and O. Shikhireva, ed. Vladimir Leniashin (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988),13-14.
12Michael Leon,“20th Century History: Lecture 7. Socialist Realism, Culture in Stalin’s USSR,”Lecture presented at Dawson College, Quebec, February 2011.
13Vostretsova, et al. , Soviet Art 1920s-1930,13-14.
14Michael Leon,“20th Century History: Lecture 7. Socialist Realism, Culture in Stalin’s USSR,”Lecture presented at Dawson College, Quebec, February 2011.
15 Ibid.
16Mikhail Guerman, introduction to Soviet Art 1920s-1930s, by L. Vostretsova, N. Kozyreva, S. Liubimtsev, and O. Shikhireva, ed. Vladimir Leniashin (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988), 14.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Tobia Frankel, The Russian Artist:The Creative Person in Russian Culture, ed. Jules Koslow (New York:The MacMillan Company, 1972) 123-124.
20 Gleb Prokhorov, Art Under Socialist Realism: Soviet Painting 1930-1950 (Roseville East: Craftsman House, 1995),58-60.
21 Ibid
22 Tobia Frankel, The Russian Artist:The Creative Person in Russian Culture, ed. Jules Koslow (New York:The MacMillan Company, 1972) , 125.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid, 125-130.
26 Gleb Prokhorov, Art Under Socialist Realism: Soviet Painting 1930-1950 (Roseville East: Craftsman House, 1995), 18.
The Birth of Socialist Realism:
1Mikhail Guerman, introduction to Soviet Art 1920s-1930s, by L. Vostretsova, N. Kozyreva, S. Liubimtsev, and O. Shikhireva, ed. Vladimir Leniashin (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988), 13.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid, 11.
5Ibid, 13.
6Ibid.
7Ibid.
8Ibid.
9Philadelphia Museum of Art. The Art of Soviet Russia. Forward by Fiske Kimball. Introduction by Christian Brinton. Created under the joint auspices of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art and the American Russian Institute. Philadelphia: Locust Press, 1934.
10Michael Leon,“20th Century History: Lecture 7. Socialist Realism, Culture in Stalin’s USSR,”Lecture presented at Dawson College, Quebec, February 2011.
11Mikhail Guerman, introduction to Soviet Art 1920s-1930s, by L. Vostretsova, N. Kozyreva, S. Liubimtsev, and O. Shikhireva, ed. Vladimir Leniashin (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988),13-14.
12Michael Leon,“20th Century History: Lecture 7. Socialist Realism, Culture in Stalin’s USSR,”Lecture presented at Dawson College, Quebec, February 2011.
13Vostretsova, et al. , Soviet Art 1920s-1930,13-14.
14Michael Leon,“20th Century History: Lecture 7. Socialist Realism, Culture in Stalin’s USSR,”Lecture presented at Dawson College, Quebec, February 2011.
15 Ibid.
16Mikhail Guerman, introduction to Soviet Art 1920s-1930s, by L. Vostretsova, N. Kozyreva, S. Liubimtsev, and O. Shikhireva, ed. Vladimir Leniashin (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988), 14.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Tobia Frankel, The Russian Artist:The Creative Person in Russian Culture, ed. Jules Koslow (New York:The MacMillan Company, 1972) 123-124.
20 Gleb Prokhorov, Art Under Socialist Realism: Soviet Painting 1930-1950 (Roseville East: Craftsman House, 1995),58-60.
21 Ibid
22 Tobia Frankel, The Russian Artist:The Creative Person in Russian Culture, ed. Jules Koslow (New York:The MacMillan Company, 1972) , 125.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid, 125-130.
26 Gleb Prokhorov, Art Under Socialist Realism: Soviet Painting 1930-1950 (Roseville East: Craftsman House, 1995), 18.