An analysis of the Soviet Union’s art policy and a discussion about what is art
This is a stream-of-consciousness essay and as such it should be noted that references or any kind of confirmation regarding the words written in this story will not be supplied. Additionally, to any interested reader, disbeliever, I urge you to investigate some of the claims I may have made within this document and reach your own conclusion. This piece mainly serves to pose a question or two and to start a discussion, or at the very least, an introspective look within ourselves, in our belief systems.
The painting of a black square was made by Kazimir Malevich, a Russian painter who painted during Stalin’s lifetime. It should be noted that the white lines found within the black square were not intended and that they are actually a result of the painting not being well kept, meaning that, those white lines are actually the painting cracking.
Malevich was an abstract artist. He was curious to discover what meant for a painting to be boring. Which is a very non-boring, and actually, a very interesting question to ask.
Malevich has made a lot of paintings containing very basic shapes, such as the ones displayed in this article. The image below leads to one of the main topics discussed in this article.
Yes, those paintings are all made from Malevich, and as you can tell, indeed his most famous painting, the black square is positioned in the corner of the room, and the room here, is the biggest room, i.e. the main room of the floor of the building.
What is interesting is that during Stalin’s lifetime, of course, whilst Stalin was the most discussed and adorned member of the communist political party in the Soviet Union, it was a custom to have an image of Stalin or Lenin in the corner of the main room, which would usually mean the living room, of course, that is, when it comes to the average citizen living in the Soviet Union.
Many Russians adorn Stalin now as they did back then, during his lifetime, and still, many speak very highly of him and miss the days when he was the head of the communist party.
Thus, as you might have guessed, Malevich did something counter-revolutionary by displaying his black square painting in the same position that a portrait of Stalin or Lenin should go. Of course, a painting of Stalin for example, should go up in the corner, as to be seen by all, and not only to see, but to be reminded of what is happening, what socialism is, and what should be done further to achieve communism. Thus, Malevich’s corner display symbolizes that he deems his art more than the socialist cause, and I believe, that this was the reason he was imprisoned for 2 months and banned by the state from producing any more art.
Socialism is believed to be a “higher stage” of capitalism, and some think that Stalin envisioned that art would also have a “higher stage” and thus he gathered artists from across the land, some were painters, some sculptures, some wood-workers, and other craftsmen, and he spoke to them. He said that art should exist to empower the common man, the worker, the proletarian. Their art should showcase the will and passion of the workers and that it should do it honestly and realistically.
A year or two later, this art movement was commonly known as “socialist realism” and today, those art works made during the life of Stalin are very much sought out for by collectors which are willing to pay top dollar for a such a piece, which isn’t the case for Russian paintings after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Socialist realism was an art movement imposed and encouraged by the state of the Soviet Union.
Thus, you, the reader, are posed a question, Stalin is the most notable figure of the state, a leader of the people, a bolshevik. It is interesting that the word Bolshevik derives from the Russian word bol’she, meaning “bigger, more.” as opposed to men’she which means “less, smaller.” The question is, what is art and when should a piece of work be deemed to be art?
Please read and consider the following passages.
“There is no art for art’s sake. There are no, and cannot be “free” artists, writers, poets, dramatists, directors or journalists, standing above the society. Nobody needs them.” — Joseph Stalin
Lenin even wanted not merely to use art for his own purposes but to insist theoretically that art could not even be art unless it served those purposes.
Officially-sanctioned art was also the art consumed privately by leading officials, including Stalin himself…
I don’t know if the passages here are true. I don’t know if Stalin truly had a collection of Western sanctioned art. Even if a photograph is found, it might be fake and misleading. I know that they had the technology to do that even back then. It might be that all of this is anti-Stalinist propaganda, then again it might be true, or it might not. I don’t know.
What I understand, is that Stalin, which means “man of steel” by the way, had to make incredibly difficult decisions at a very frequent interval. The Soviet Union was fighting multiple wars simultaneously on various opposing fronts, on different locations, at different borders.
I understand Stalin as a paternal figure who wanted to present a clear goal of socialism to the masses, which is very important during a time of war. But different types of wars exist and not all of them are related to physical violence, tanks and ak-47 rifles, and I would even go as far to say, that the cultural war is even more important then the physical one, although of course, both are, but not many think of the cultural aspects of things.
The West, i.e. the countries of Europe and North America, according to Stalin, carry and nurture a bourgeois culture, a culture which consists of many portraits of popes, kings, industrialists and other types of rich and powerful men. The art found in the West was capitalistic in essence and represented a threat to socialism, thus Stalin wanted to protect his comrades from the notions that come with such a bourgeois culture. Stalin wanted his comrades to be free, as did Lenin of course.
My point was that even in the West art served a purpose to make the famous and powerful appear even more powerful and grandiose, and with that, even more famous, it essentially immortalized the rich. If an artist like Michelangelo did not comply with the wishes of the papacy he would not be remembered as he is today. Thus an artist in the West must comply with the demands of his patron, which is usually a bourgeois rich man, and rarely a lady, or he would be potentially murdered or have his character completely injured in the eyes of the public. No patron would mean no monetary compensation, and no money, means no food, and if this goes for a bit too long… well, I don’t believe I need to elaborate further.
The post-modernists posed many questions, and elaborated on the notion that many concepts are relative and that art is one of them.
This urinal was displayed in an art gallery and is very important as it poses a very important question about art. What is the criterion for a piece to be deemed art and is there even such a criterion?
Some say that art is not art if it is not an expression of the free will of the artist, untainted by external events.
For example, a thought experiment, a scenario with two characters, a gunman and a painter. The event is the following: A gunman and a painter are alone in a simple room, the gunman points his gun at the painter and exclaims nothing more than “Paint a tree!”. Of course, the painter is supplied with the appropriate instruments in which he can conduct his work.
Now, the painter has many choices, he can test his luck and rebel, he can comply to the gunman’s very simple exclamation, he can either paint a tree or river, or a self-portrait, it doesn’t matter, but let’s say he indeed does paint a tree. Would you deem that painting of a tree as art?
Personally, I would. I would because it is still the expression of the artist and what is even further interesting to me regarding this thought experiment is that it poses a question to me — “Is the gunman an artist?”
The gunman is the reason that the painting is created, and of course we can examine the painter simply as an instrument controlled in a declarative manner.
The painter can feel a wide range of emotions which might influence the painting in various ways. Perhaps he feels that because his life hangs on the line (at least he thinks so, after all, the gunman might be holding a fake gun), that he, as a painter, should try something “more”, something he deems more impressive, perhaps some unique method of painting. The painter might also dip into a very primal and subconscious place within himself, and paint in a manner he hasn’t painted in before.
Free will must be defined first if the definition of art is to be based upon it.
I understand that perhaps Stalin wanted to protect the Soviet Union from the bourgeois hegemony and instead he wanted to impose the Soviet Union’s, e.g. art from the people, for the people, and not some other people, but our own people. That’s why I deem him as a paternal caring figure, it is because he wants to protect and guide his people as best he could.
People, I think, will always want to express themselves. I think that that is a very natural and intrinsic human need, the need for self-expression, thus if I was in Stalin’s place, I guess I wouldn’t impose such restrictions or demands upon artists because I think that there will always be a rebel out there which won’t comply with my bans or policies.
Nowadays, what countries do is that they don’t technically ban any form of art, but they increase the frequency of one type of art, e.g. logos and advertisements, so much that it essentially discourages other types of art and even discourages the artists making them.
I read that the CIA made Pollock famous as to impose on the world and the Soviet Union that their art is superior. Pollock had so many exhibitions at so many locations around the globe that it is truly remarkable, because it doesn’t usually happen. I believe he had around 37 grand exhibitions, and allegedly, that’s a lot.
Anyhow, we are blasted with advertisements frequently and ferociously. Why be a niche painter when you can be a logo designer and earn a higher wage? I guess that’s one of the questions an artist might ask themselves. Thus perhaps Stalin shouldn’t have imposed any bans or punishments, he perhaps only needed to stimulate his movement much more and wait whilst the other art movements get discouraged and wither away.
There is no conclusion. I don’t know if the narrative I’ve presented here is completely true. It might be the case that history was written with a set goal to defame Stalin, or then, on the other hand, it might be true and even more horrific than previously thought. Please, if you’re curious, do your own research and remain skeptical because it is the victor which writes history… and no, USA was not the one who defeated the Nazis and saved the world… I hope such people don’t read this… which reminds me of a passage I read in which Stalin was quoted in saying something along the lines of “if they want bourgeois culture so bad let them have it, leave the Soviet Union, we don’t need you” which reminded me of Fidel Castro’s speech which was at the time a lot of Cubans were living the country to get to the shores of the USA.
These Cubans had very low chances of surviving the long and perilous journey, and many of them indeed died. They wanted a better life. The USA imposed an embargo on Cuba that still exists today which crippled Cuba to a point where this happens... raft shenanigans.
When Cubans left the Cuban shores, Castro said something like “they didn’t truly believe in the cause, they were not real socialists, and thus we don’t need them and we are better off without them.” This is very similar to what Stalin said, so I just wanted to mention it here.
Perhaps it is better to be true and few, than to be many and polluted with falsehood.
