History and theory: artists and writers

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've never found the answer for this question: how were artists and writers payed in the USSR? Were only the best commissioned by the state?

Is there a particular theory that addresses compensation for artisans in a non-market economy?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would also like to know about the effect of copyright legislation on literature: were more writers popping up afterwards?

[Sprinkles]

I've never found the answer for this question: how were artists and writers payed in the USSR? Were only the best commissioned by the state?


I'll preface this by saying I picked most of this stuff up indirectly by reading about a different field than writing, so there's a chance I might be wrong somewhere.
But as far as I know all sanctioned artists including the mediocre were paid through the creative unions by the state.

In the beginning the "People's commissariat for education" Narkompros was in charge of public education which included everything related with culture including publishing (and by extent censorship) and was the state institution responsible for issuing public commissions for agitprop among other things.

Later on Narkompros was dissolved and the Ministry of Culture took it's place which worked together with the creative unions, of which there were several for each field. Like the USSR Union of Writers, USSR Union of Designers, USSR Union of Architects and so on.

Membership of a creative union was needed for professional artists since the opportunity for an exhibition or publication (legally) was almost non-existent for non-members. The creative unions themselves consisted of both state-sanctioned artists and art-critics with the governing body consisting of those with a party-membership, the creative unions were similar to the trade unions in this way.

Each exhibition or publication needed to be reviewed and approved by the relevant creative union. The Ministry of Culture controlled the finances and funded the artists when the unions had approved the (ideological) quality of their work. The level of exposure and amount of compensation was probably dependent on the evaluation of both these parties.

It's likely that there were academic grants and sponsorships as well, but I don't remember reading anything about this specifically. There's a book called "Inside the Soviet Writers Union" by John Garrard that deals with this subject, perhaps you could also try Sovlit.com for more info.



Is there a particular theory that addresses compensation for artisans in a non-market economy?


Not that I know of, in general the debate was focused on what kind of form the new proletarian culture would take, not really on how artists would get paid.

But the question is probably tied in to how art was perceived, especially since most of the art movements that were involved in this new proletarian culture thought the idea of "l'art pour l'art" was undesirable and didn't consider themselves as traditional artists. Which is why the Constructivists thought of graphic design as visual engineering and why it's succesors in Productivism abandoned "art" altogether in favor of industrial production.

This fixation on engineering even continued under the vulgar Socialist realism and translated into the cultural concept known as "engineers of the human soul" quoted by Stalin as: "The production of souls is more important than the production of tanks. Therefore I raise my glass to you, writers, the engineers of the human soul..."

So it would probably be fair to say most artists expected to be compensated in the same way as any other profession, like engineers for example. :D



I would also like to know about the effect of copyright legislation on literature: were more writers popping up afterwards?


There were several iterations of copyright legislation so I guess it depends on which period you're interested in. But in general Samizdat or the illegal copying and distributing of banned literature existed in some form or another during the entire span of the USSR.

The main problem for writers was printing their work and getting published, regardless of what copyright legislation was instated. But since the development of technology (small scale printing press etc) made independent publishing increasingly easier, it would make sense more writers popped up.

[Led Zeppelin]

Here's a work on Literature and Art in the Soviet Union which might be of help to you: Literature and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/index.htm)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thank you both. :)

[Sprinkles]

Here's a work on Literature and Art in the Soviet Union which might be of help to you: Literature and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/index.htm)

Literature and Revolution does deal with the party's attitude to censorship and the freedom of art to some extent, but it's more of an art review from Trotsky and you'd need to have some existing knowledge on the various art movements he criticizes. Especially since Trotsky under-appreciates both non-objective art and any kind of formalism, while he overemphasizes the value and need of functional / utilitarian art.

The Manifesto Towards a Free Revolutionary Art written by Trotsky and Andre Breton is a shorter read, so it might be a useful introduction to Literature and Revolution. Having said that, reading Literature and Revolution is definitely worth it, especially since it has a particulary awesome ending about the new Soviet man:



Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.

It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government which the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Social construction and psycho-physical self-education will become two aspects of one and the same process. All the arts – literature, drama, painting, music and architecture will lend this process beautiful form. More correctly, the shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.

[malice_iw]

I've never found the answer for this question: how were artists and writers payed in the USSR? Were only the best commissioned by the state?



I'm not quite sure what you mean by "best".

In the Soviet Union, artists, in particular playwrights, writers, composers, who were favored by the state, and also their heirs (for 15 years after the artist's death) received significant amounts of royalties so even state officials were disgruntled and suggested changing the practice which they viewed as "unjust enrichment". There was, of course, significant competition to become an artist - in most cases, using one's connections, bribes, etc. The result was that although art thrived in the Soviet Union for a decade or so after the 1917 revolution, as regards the post-WW2 period, I'm aware of only a handful of writers who were officially recognized in the USSR and are still widely read nowadays (although many films made during that time are still popular). I believe this is not much different from the current system where many mediocre artists are desperately vying to get into the entertainment business.

[Rascolnikova]

Any system that only required people to work 20 hours a week to obtain a basic standard of living would be doing more to support the arts than any direct compensation system I can think of.