ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт
5th October 2014, 21:27
To RevLeft,
I'll be discussing socialist realism as a visual art form for the most part, but I will be addressing socialist realism as a literary form, too. I'll attempt to keep the discussion focused on the visual arts for the purpose of fitting comfortably into this subforum.
Note this poster:
http://i.imgur.com/fm6kAnP.jpg
This is a Soviet poster done in the style of socialist realism as a part of an anti-alcoholism campaign. It was meant to alert the Russian worker to be aware of his consumption of alcohol.
In the days of the Revolution and just after it, the prominent art movement in the new socialist order was Constructivism. The Constructivist conception of art rejected autonomous art, that is art that is to be experienced as a piece in and of itself rather than as a wholly integrated element of the space. The Mona Lisa, if you'll pardon the tired example, is a good illustration of ars gratia artis. Commissioned by nobility, the piece was meant to decorate the home of an aristocrat, to bring the patron into an enhanced awareness of his space.
In the Louvre, however, the painting sits upon the wall to be viewed and thought about in a vacuum in which only this work of art exists.
The Constructivists experimented with all kinds of ways to uncover a proletarian art, rather than one that imitated bourgeois art and replaced its subject matter with "communist" themes.
It may be that the socialist realist arts rejected ars gratia artis in the endeavor to create didetic works that explicitly conveyed communist messages, but they still created pieces that were meant to be viewed much in the same way as bourgeois art was viewed: as pieces with no real connection to their space. Constructivists developed a vocabulary of icons and a method of integrated art into the space that would go on to influence a lot of what we see in our daily lives. The little people on the bathroom doors, for example, draw inspiration of socialist art and demonstrate art integrated with the space, art that affects how people experience their space.
The socialist realist poster I showed you could have influenced how workers interacted with their space to some degree, if, say, posted in a place that serves alcohol. But Constructivists did a lot of work in creating art that directed flow of movement, that informed workers of the different functions of things and spaces, etc. This is why the movement's best pieces have been sculptural, although many Constructivists found themselves adopting the sanctioned socialist realist style down the line.
I mention socialist realist literature, too, because, like ars gratia artis literature, however didetic and realist, it is still an escape from the actual space in which it is experienced. As much as I admire Gorky, a novel brings my attention out of my world by drawing it into the world of Mother. It does not engage my awareness into my space, although it may help me subconsciously articulate certain lofty socialist principles.
And that's really the difference between autonomous and non-autonomous art: the latter is meant to increase your mind's presence in the space through which you move or in which you sit. Functional installations, for example, encourage the worker to engage his space, to affect the world through action. Constructivist rejection of autonomous art, then, empowers the worker through having a sense of presence and power in his space without necessarily being didetic or having a "message" to impart.
Non-autonomous art is a pure expression of the notion of putting practice before theory. It grows and learns and teaches through materiality. Posters illustrating certain socialist principles and novels containing class struggle themes are all well and good, but their weakness is in attempting to build so much theoretical understanding on a foundation that has not been properly reinforced with practical experience. This is just as much a problem for me and my fellow Leninists as it is for other leftists; we can give all the "right answers" on who was socialist and which guy was a revisionist, but that does all the good of looking at the answers at the back of a textbook without getting a firm grasp of the methodology used to get to those answers.
That is why I think Constructivism and related and similar movements in art are most worthy of our consideration. Stories and characters have lost their communal power in the monopolization of narrative by one sanctioned story-teller, and art has suffered the same consequence because of the autocracy of the artist.
We need more art that gets people involved in their world directly, not art that imparts morals to them.
I'll be discussing socialist realism as a visual art form for the most part, but I will be addressing socialist realism as a literary form, too. I'll attempt to keep the discussion focused on the visual arts for the purpose of fitting comfortably into this subforum.
Note this poster:
http://i.imgur.com/fm6kAnP.jpg
This is a Soviet poster done in the style of socialist realism as a part of an anti-alcoholism campaign. It was meant to alert the Russian worker to be aware of his consumption of alcohol.
In the days of the Revolution and just after it, the prominent art movement in the new socialist order was Constructivism. The Constructivist conception of art rejected autonomous art, that is art that is to be experienced as a piece in and of itself rather than as a wholly integrated element of the space. The Mona Lisa, if you'll pardon the tired example, is a good illustration of ars gratia artis. Commissioned by nobility, the piece was meant to decorate the home of an aristocrat, to bring the patron into an enhanced awareness of his space.
In the Louvre, however, the painting sits upon the wall to be viewed and thought about in a vacuum in which only this work of art exists.
The Constructivists experimented with all kinds of ways to uncover a proletarian art, rather than one that imitated bourgeois art and replaced its subject matter with "communist" themes.
It may be that the socialist realist arts rejected ars gratia artis in the endeavor to create didetic works that explicitly conveyed communist messages, but they still created pieces that were meant to be viewed much in the same way as bourgeois art was viewed: as pieces with no real connection to their space. Constructivists developed a vocabulary of icons and a method of integrated art into the space that would go on to influence a lot of what we see in our daily lives. The little people on the bathroom doors, for example, draw inspiration of socialist art and demonstrate art integrated with the space, art that affects how people experience their space.
The socialist realist poster I showed you could have influenced how workers interacted with their space to some degree, if, say, posted in a place that serves alcohol. But Constructivists did a lot of work in creating art that directed flow of movement, that informed workers of the different functions of things and spaces, etc. This is why the movement's best pieces have been sculptural, although many Constructivists found themselves adopting the sanctioned socialist realist style down the line.
I mention socialist realist literature, too, because, like ars gratia artis literature, however didetic and realist, it is still an escape from the actual space in which it is experienced. As much as I admire Gorky, a novel brings my attention out of my world by drawing it into the world of Mother. It does not engage my awareness into my space, although it may help me subconsciously articulate certain lofty socialist principles.
And that's really the difference between autonomous and non-autonomous art: the latter is meant to increase your mind's presence in the space through which you move or in which you sit. Functional installations, for example, encourage the worker to engage his space, to affect the world through action. Constructivist rejection of autonomous art, then, empowers the worker through having a sense of presence and power in his space without necessarily being didetic or having a "message" to impart.
Non-autonomous art is a pure expression of the notion of putting practice before theory. It grows and learns and teaches through materiality. Posters illustrating certain socialist principles and novels containing class struggle themes are all well and good, but their weakness is in attempting to build so much theoretical understanding on a foundation that has not been properly reinforced with practical experience. This is just as much a problem for me and my fellow Leninists as it is for other leftists; we can give all the "right answers" on who was socialist and which guy was a revisionist, but that does all the good of looking at the answers at the back of a textbook without getting a firm grasp of the methodology used to get to those answers.
That is why I think Constructivism and related and similar movements in art are most worthy of our consideration. Stories and characters have lost their communal power in the monopolization of narrative by one sanctioned story-teller, and art has suffered the same consequence because of the autocracy of the artist.
We need more art that gets people involved in their world directly, not art that imparts morals to them.