Art in a socialist state

[IzmSchism]

Yeah, I was wondering what people's thoughts and opinions were on how a socialist/communist regime allows freedom of expression through artistic means? Picasso was a commie, but here I am reading when night falls by Reinaldo Arenas, who was living in cuba with other writers, artists, ..... all forced into exile for their creative differences??? whats the deal?

[PunkRawker677]

there are lots of poets and artists in Cuba.. my father was a poet in cuba, and my cousin, still in cuba is a painter.. they both never had problems

[Guest]

"socialist" or stalinist staes like the USSR put heavy restrictions on freedom of expression. Northing could be anti-government. During the Stalin years everything had to praise the government. This was the "socialist realist" style of art. The remaining communist states have relaxed once inforced restrictions, apart from perhaps North Korea.

[sabre]

guest thank you for putting quotes around socialist as we all well know stalinism isn't socialism contrary to many right wingers' beliefs on this board.

Leftist governments have gotten a bad name with the arts because of Mao's cultural revolution where he wiped out alot of Artists who went against his beliefs - the Arts are just starting to resurface in china.

[Jurhael]

In a Socialist society, people wouldn't have to worry about going hungry, surrendering half their paychecks for rent/utilities or working long hours for low pay, so it would give people more time to work on their arts or writing. They also wouldn't have to worry as much about having to compromise their arts to market forces.

It's hardly perfect, I know, but it's better than people wasting their time by working 12 hours a day.

[Guest]

Art in a socialist state is in its purest form, because no longer are artists forced to work for money or the means to support themselves and their profession. They have free reign and can produce without worry of where their next meal comes from. This makes their work more satisfying and pure as it isn't under any economic constraints as it is in capitalism.
Also they don't need to sell off their artwork to the few and rich, instead everybody gets to embrace their work, regardless of their social status or position. Art is an incredible and wonderful tool for representing and symbolising. It is not appreciated in capitalism, where the goal is to make money from it.

[PunkRawker677]

Guest, It could not have possibly be put any better!

[IzmSchism]

last time i checked you didn't have to be rich to enjoy the brilliance of a painting, or to be enriched by a book, I went to the museum and I went to the library. Take a crack at some of the most revered work in the world and you will find that it was produced in capitalist countries. Grant my naivite on such matters, I am interested by ideas of socialism, but nonetheless, in your statement, "idea socialism is the most fertile land for producing the best art?" Come again, What, does the artist sit in his house and produce 'art' or write 'books' at will, while his fellow man will pick up the slack for him, what if he or she has an artistic block? what shall they do then, pick up a cane knife? and hand over the brush or pen to someone else? I believe that art or writing, or any other type of artistic presentation stems from conveying life, living it thru and thru, how can an artist get any juice from being just an artist, or a writer, do things just pop up in their heads and present themselves, maybe, but my guess is that alot of unique inspiration comes from experience, My thoughts would be that art has an equal chance to flourish in any setting, because no setting is more ideal than any other in my opinion, To say that socialism is better off to produce 'art' because it gives the 'artist' more time to specialize is without merit. Why were artists persecuted and forced to stand trial in Cuba when Fidel took over, maybe some of them were homosexual, but most of them posed a threat, via through their artistic expression, you do not see anyone in a capitalist country get exiled for writing about topics that might offend its leaders, or cause a schism in thought, as far as I know, basically what I am saying is that it is bull shit to say that one system is better suited for art over another, when art is not bounded by laws.

[Jurhael]

The problem in Cuba is not socialism or even capitalism in and of itself, the problem is that the government is AUTHORITARIAN.

"you do not see anyone in a capitalist country get exiled for writing about topics that might offend its leaders, or cause a schism in thought"

You'd be surprised. There's a list of books that have been BANNED in the USA and other Captialistic countries. Same thing has happened to songs like "Cop Killer" and Albums like "As dirty as they want to be." Also, if something doesn't sell, or if bookstores refuse to sell a book, it's not seen. Firefly, by Piers Anthony is a good example of the latter. Not to mention, other author have been told to edit out or change parts of their stories because, otherwise, they wouldn't "sell".

They don't exile because there's no need to. They can either try to trivialize it, claim it to something it's not (like they did with George Orwell, they tried to make him into a right winger, which he wasn't) or censor it subtly.

This isn't to say that there's no art in a capitalist country. It is, however, saying that many artists often have to compromise what they do to try to make a living, which could easily make them candidates for mediocrity.

No one is saying that socialism=better art automatically. It means, however, that since artists wouldn't have to worry about basic needs, so they won't as likely HAVE to worry about compromising their art.


As for the other issues, like I said,

"It's hardly perfect, I know, but it's better than people wasting their time by working 12 hours a day. "

[Guest]

I tihnk what the other guest was trying to say was that artists work much better under less pressure. When an artist knows that if he doesnt produce something, they doesnt eat, than they will just make what people will buy, completly starving their true potential.

But Izm, you are right, I paint, and draw, and true art comes from experience, although your assumtion "Take a crack at some of the most revered work in the world and you will find that it was produced in capitalist countries" is wrong. Under Soviet rule, the best Realism was produced, nothing has come close to what came out of the USSR in that period of time. In China, the most amazing Surrealism comes out. The only VERY amazing modern artist that came from a capitalist country is jackson pollock, and if you know anythnig about him, he starved half his life before he got noticed.
Although in the past, some very good art has come out of capitalist countries in the past, such as Jan Van Eyck.

Art has nothing to do with socialism, communism, or capitalism. It can be argued both ways. Some artists need the pressure, some dont. It depends on the artist.

[IzmSchism]

Cool!
Thanks, I just think art (in the broadest terminolgy) is so important, and I read and heard a couple of things and I just wanted to get some feedback, so thanks for the replies.

[IzmSchism]

and yes Jackson Pollock, he didn't starve as much as he digested his liquid lunches

[I Will Deny You]

An interesting thing to do is not only to look at art produced in socialist countries, but art produced in socialist microcosms in capitalist countries. I grew up around a bunch of artists who lived in America but pursued socialist ideals. Some great art has come out of the true countercultural revolution during the 1960's (and I'm not talking about Hair). John Lennon was friends with Jerry Rubin and he was one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century--and perhaps one of the greatest songwriters of all time.

[Nateddi]

Cuba has the most art instructors per capita