Socialist realism - artistic method of Soviet literature.
Socialist realism, being the main method of Soviet fiction And literary criticism, requires from the artist a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. The method of socialist realism helps the writer to promote the further rise of creative forces Soviet people, overcoming all difficulties on the path to communism.
“Socialist realism requires the writer to truthfully depict reality in its revolutionary development and provides him with comprehensive opportunities for the manifestation of individual abilities of talent and creative initiative, presupposes richness and diversity artistic means and styles, supporting innovation in all areas of creativity,” says the Charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR.
The main features of this artistic method were outlined back in 1905 by V.I. Lenin in his historical work “Party Organization and Party Literature,” in which he foresaw the creation and flourishing of free, socialist literature under the conditions of victorious socialism.
This method was first embodied in the artistic work of A. M. Gorky - in his novel “Mother” and other works. In poetry, the most striking expression of socialist realism is the work of V.V. Mayakovsky (poem “Vladimir Ilyich Lenin”, “Good!”, lyrics of the 20s).
Continuing the best creative traditions of the literature of the past, socialist realism at the same time represents a qualitatively new and highest artistic method, since it is defined in its main features by completely new public relations in a socialist society.
Socialist realism reflects life realistically, deeply, truthfully; it is socialist because it reflects life in its revolutionary development, that is, in the process of creating a socialist society on the path to communism. It differs from the methods that preceded it in the history of literature in that the basis of the ideal to which the Soviet writer calls in his work is the movement towards communism under the leadership of the Communist Party. In the greeting of the CPSU Central Committee to the Second Congress of Soviet Writers, it was emphasized that “in, modern conditions the method of socialist realism requires writers to understand the tasks of completing the construction of socialism in our country and the gradual transition from socialism to communism.” The socialist ideal is embodied in a new type of positive hero, which was created by Soviet literature. Its features are determined primarily by the unity of the individual and society, impossible in previous periods of social development; the pathos of collective, free, creative, creative work; high feeling Soviet patriotism - love for one's socialist Motherland; partisanship, a communist attitude to life, brought up in Soviet people by the Communist Party.
This image of a positive hero, distinguished by bright character traits and high spiritual qualities, becomes a worthy example and subject of imitation for people, participates in the creation of the moral code of the builder of communism.
Qualitatively new in socialist realism is the nature of the depiction of the life process, based on the fact that the difficulties of the development of Soviet society are difficulties of growth, carrying within themselves the possibility of overcoming these difficulties, the victory of the new over the old, the emerging over the dying. Thus, the Soviet artist gets the opportunity to paint today in the light tomorrow, that is, to depict life in its revolutionary development, the victory of the new over the old, to show the revolutionary romance of socialist reality (see Romanticism).
Socialist realism fully embodies the principle of communist partyism in art, since it reflects the life of the liberated people in its development, in the light of advanced ideas expressing the true interests of the people, in the light of the ideals of communism.
The communist ideal new type a positive hero, a depiction of life in its revolutionary development based on the victory of the new over the old, nationality - these main features of socialist realism are manifested in infinitely diverse artistic forms, in the variety of styles of writers.
At the same time, socialist realism also develops traditions critical realism, exposing everything that interferes with the development of something new in life, creating negative images that typify everything that is backward, dying, and hostile to the new, socialist reality.
Socialist realism allows the writer to give a vitally truthful, deeply artistic reflection of not only the present, but also the past. Historical novels, poems, etc., became widespread in Soviet literature. By truthfully depicting the past, a writer - a socialist, a realist - strives to educate his readers by example heroic life people and their best sons in the past, illuminates our life today with the experience of the past.
Depending on the scope revolutionary movement and the maturity of revolutionary ideology, socialist realism as an artistic method can and does become the property of advanced revolutionary artists in foreign countries, at the same time enriching the experience of Soviet writers.
It is clear that the embodiment of the principles of socialist realism depends on the individuality of the writer, his worldview, talent, culture, experience, and skill of the writer, which determine the height of the artistic level he has achieved.
The film “Circus” directed by Grigory Alexandrov ends like this: a demonstration, people in white clothes with shining faces march to the song “Wide is my native country.” This frame a year after the film’s release, in 1937, will be literally repeated in Alexander Deyneka’s monumental panel “Stakhanovites” - except that instead of a black child sitting on the shoulder of one of the demonstrators, here a white child will be placed on the shoulder of a Stakhanovite. And then the same composition will be used in the giant canvas “Noble People of the Land of the Soviets,” written by a team of artists under the leadership of Vasily Efanov: this is a collective portrait, where heroes of labor, polar explorers, pilots, akyns and artists are presented together. This is the genre of apotheosis - and it most of all gives a visual idea of the style that almost exclusively dominated Soviet art for more than two decades. Socialist realism, or, as the critic Boris Groys called it, “Stalin style.”
Still from Grigory Alexandrov’s film “Circus”. 1936 Film studio "Mosfilm"Socialist realism became an official term in 1934, after Gorky used this phrase at the First Congress of Soviet Writers (before that there were random uses). Then it was included in the statutes of the Writers' Union, but it was explained in a completely unclear and very garish way: about the ideological education of a person in the spirit of socialism, about the depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. This vector - focus on the future, revolutionary development - could somehow be applied to literature, because literature is a temporary art, it has a plot sequence and the evolution of heroes is possible. But how to apply this to fine art is unclear. Nevertheless, the term has spread to the entire spectrum of culture and has become mandatory for everything.
The main customer, addressee and consumer of socialist realism art was the state. It viewed culture as a means of agitation and propaganda. Accordingly, the canon of socialist realism required the Soviet artist and writer to depict exactly what the state wants to see. This concerned not only the subject matter, but also the form and method of depiction. Of course, there might not have been a direct order, the artists created as if at the call of their hearts, but there was a certain receiving authority above them, and it decided whether, for example, a painting should be at an exhibition and whether the author deserves encouragement or quite the opposite. Such a power vertical in the matter of purchases, orders and other methods of encouragement creative activity. The role of this receiving authority was often played by critics. Despite the fact that there were no normative poetics or sets of rules in socialist realist art, criticism was good at catching and transmitting the supreme ideological fluids. The tone of this criticism could be mocking, destructive, repressive. She held court and confirmed the verdict.
The state order system took shape back in the twenties, and then the main hired artists were members of the AHRR - the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia. The need to fulfill the social order was written down in their declaration, and the customers were government bodies: the Revolutionary Military Council, the Red Army, and so on. But then this commissioned art existed in a diverse field, among many completely different initiatives. There were communities of a completely different kind - avant-garde and not quite avant-garde: they all competed for the right to be the main art of our time. AHRR won this fight because its aesthetics met both the tastes of the authorities and the mass taste. Painting that simply illustrates and records the subjects of reality is understandable to everyone. And naturally, after the forced dissolution of all artistic groups in 1932, it was this aesthetics that became the basis of socialist realism - mandatory.
In socialist realism, a hierarchy of painting genres is strictly built. At its top is the so-called thematic picture. This is a graphic story with correctly placed accents. The plot has to do with modernity - and if not with modernity, then with those situations of the past that promise us this beautiful modernity. As was said in the definition of socialist realism: reality in its revolutionary development.
In such a picture there is often a conflict of forces - but which force is right is demonstrated unambiguously. For example, in Boris Ioganson’s painting “At the Old Ural Factory” the figure of the worker is in the light, and the figure of the exploiter-manufacturer is immersed in shadow; Moreover, the artist gave him a repulsive appearance. In his painting “Interrogation of Communists” we see only the back of the head of the white officer conducting the interrogation - the back of the head is fat and folded.
Boris Ioganson. At the old Ural plant. 1937
Boris Ioganson. Interrogation of communists. 1933Photo by RIA Novosti,
Thematic paintings with historical and revolutionary content were combined with battle paintings and historical ones. The historical ones came out mainly after the war, and their genre is close to the apotheosis paintings already described - such an operatic aesthetic. For example, in Alexander Bubnov’s painting “Morning on the Kulikovo Field”, where Russian army waiting for the start of the battle with the Tatar-Mongols. Apotheoses were also created on conditionally modern material - such are the two “Collective Farm Holidays” of 1937, by Sergei Gerasimov and Arkady Plastov: triumphant abundance in the spirit of the later film “Kuban Cossacks”. In general, the art of socialist realism loves abundance - there should be a lot of everything, because abundance is joy, completeness and the fulfillment of aspirations.
Alexander Bubnov. Morning on the Kulikovo field. 1943–1947State Tretyakov Gallery
Sergey Gerasimov. Collective farm holiday. 1937Photo by E. Kogan / RIA Novosti; State Tretyakov Gallery
In socialist realist landscapes, scale is also important. Very often this is a panorama of the “Russian expanse” - like an image of the entire country in a specific landscape. Fyodor Shurpin’s painting “Morning of our Motherland” is a vivid example of such a landscape. True, here the landscape is only a background for the figure of Stalin, but in other similar panoramas Stalin seems to be invisibly present. And it is important that landscape compositions are horizontally oriented - not a directed vertical, not a dynamically active diagonal, but horizontal statics. This is an unchanging world, already accomplished.
Fedor Shurpin. Morning of our homeland. 1946-1948 State Tretyakov Gallery On the other hand, hyperbolic industrial landscapes are very popular - giant construction sites, for example. Rodina is building Magnitka, Dneproges, plants, factories, power plants and so on. Gigantism and the pathos of quantity are also a very important feature of socialist realism. It is not formulated directly, but manifests itself not only at the level of theme, but also in the way everything is drawn: the pictorial fabric becomes noticeably heavier and denser.
By the way, former “jacks of diamonds”, for example Lentulov, are very successful in depicting industrial giants. The materiality characteristic of their painting turned out to be very useful in the new situation.
And in portraits this material pressure is very noticeable, especially in women’s portraits. Not only at the level of pictorial texture, but even in the surroundings. Such fabric heaviness - velvet, plush, fur, and everything feels slightly worn, with an antique touch. Such, for example, is Joganson’s portrait of the actress Zerkalova; Ilya Mashkov has such portraits - quite salon-like.
Boris Ioganson. Portrait of Honored Artist of the RSFSR Daria Zerkalova. 1947 Photo by Abram Shterenberg / RIA Novosti; State Tretyakov Gallery But in general, portraits, almost in an educational spirit, are seen as a way to glorify outstanding people who, through their work, have earned the right to be portrayed. Sometimes these works are presented directly in the text of the portrait: here academician Pavlov is thinking intensely in his laboratory against the backdrop of biological stations, here is the surgeon Yudin performing an operation, here is the sculptor Vera Mukhina sculpting a figurine of Boreas. All these are portraits created by Mikhail Nesterov. In the 80-90s of the 19th century, he was the creator of his own genre of monastic idylls, then he fell silent for a long time, and in the 1930s he suddenly found himself the main Soviet portrait painter. And the teacher was Pavel Korin, whose portraits of Gorky, actor Leonidov or Marshal Zhukov already resemble monuments in their monumental structure.
Mikhail Nesterov. Portrait of sculptor Vera Mukhina. 1940Photo by Alexey Bushkin / RIA Novosti; State Tretyakov Gallery
Mikhail Nesterov. Portrait of surgeon Sergei Yudin. 1935Photo by Oleg Ignatovich / RIA Novosti; State Tretyakov Gallery
Monumentality extends even to still lifes. And they are called, for example by the same Mashkov, epically - “Moscow food” or “Soviet bread” . The former “Jacks of Diamonds” are generally the first in terms of subject wealth. For example, in 1941, Pyotr Konchalovsky painted the painting “Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy visiting the artist” - and in front of the writer is a ham, slices of red fish, baked poultry, cucumbers, tomatoes, lemon, glasses for various drinks... But the tendency towards monumentalization is general . Everything heavy and solid is welcome. At Deineka's athletic bodies his characters become overweight and gain weight. By Alexander Samokhvalov in the “Metroconstruction” series and by other masters from the former association"Circle of Artists"the motif of a “large figure” appears - such female deities personifying earthly power and the power of creation. And the painting itself becomes heavy and dense. But thick - in moderation.
Pyotr Konchalovsky. Alexey Tolstoy visiting the artist. 1941 Photo by RIA Novosti, State Tretyakov Gallery Because moderation is also an important sign of style. On the one hand, a brush stroke should be noticeable - a sign that the artist worked. If the texture is smoothed out, then the author’s work is not visible - but it should be visible. And, say, the same Deineka, who previously operated with solid color planes, now makes the surface of the painting more prominent. On the other hand, excess maestry is also not encouraged - it is immodest, it is sticking oneself out. The word “protrusion” sounds very menacing in the 1930s, when a campaign was being waged against formalism - in painting, and in children's books, and in music, and generally everywhere. It’s like a fight against wrong influences, but in fact it’s a fight in general with any manner, with any techniques. After all, the technique calls into question the artist’s sincerity, and sincerity is an absolute fusion with the subject of the image. Sincerity does not imply any mediation, but reception, influence - this is mediation.
Nevertheless, for different tasks there are different methods. For example, a kind of colorless, “rainy” impressionism is quite suitable for lyrical subjects. It appeared not only in the genres of Yuri Pimenov - in his film “New Moscow”, where a girl rides in an open car in the center of the capital, transformed by new construction sites, or in the later “New Quarters” - a series about the construction of outlying microdistricts. But also, say, in the huge canvas by Alexander Gerasimov “Joseph Stalin and Kliment Voroshilov in the Kremlin” (popular name - “Two Leaders after the Rain”). The atmosphere of rain signifies human warmth and openness to each other. Of course, such impressionistic language cannot be used in the depiction of parades and celebrations - everything there is still extremely strict and academic.
Yuri Pimenov. New Moscow. 1937Photo by A. Saikov / RIA Novosti; State Tretyakov Gallery
Alexander Gerasimov. Joseph Stalin and Kliment Voroshilov in the Kremlin. 1938Photo by Viktor Velikzhanin / TASS Photo Chronicle; State Tretyakov Gallery
It has already been said that socialist realism has a futuristic vector - a focus on the future, towards the outcome of revolutionary development. And since the victory of socialism is inevitable, signs of the accomplished future are present in the present. It turns out that in socialist realism time collapses. The present is already the future, and one beyond which there will be no next future. History reached its highest peak and stopped. Deinekov’s white-robed Stakhanovites are no longer people—they are celestial beings. And they don’t even look at us, but somewhere into eternity - which is already here, already with us.
Somewhere around 1936-1938 this gets its final form. Here is the highest point of socialist realism - and Stalin becomes the obligatory hero. His appearance in the paintings of Efanov, or Svarog, or anyone else looks like a miracle - and this is the biblical motif of a miraculous phenomenon, traditionally associated, naturally, with completely different heroes. But this is how genre memory works. At this moment, socialist realism really becomes a great style, the style of a totalitarian utopia - only this is a utopia that has come true. And once this utopia has come true, then the style freezes - monumental academization.
And any other art, which was based on a different understanding of plastic values, turns out to be a forgotten, “closet”, invisible art. Of course, artists had some kind of space in which they could exist, where cultural skills were preserved and reproduced. For example, in 1935, the Workshop was founded at the Academy of Architecture monumental painting, which is led by artists of old training - Vladimir Favorsky, Lev Bruni, Konstantin Istomin, Sergei Romanovich, Nikolai Chernyshev. But all such oases do not exist for long.
There is a paradox here. Totalitarian art in its verbal declarations is addressed specifically to man - the words “man” and “humanity” are present in all manifestos of socialist realism of this time. But in fact, socialist realism partly continues this messianic pathos of the avant-garde with its myth-making pathos, with its apology for the result, with the desire to remake the whole world - and among such pathos there is no place for the individual. And “quiet” painters who do not write declarations, but in reality stand in defense of the individual, small, human, are doomed to an invisible existence. And it is in this “closet” art that humanity continues to live.
Late socialist realism of the 1950s will try to appropriate it. Stalin, the cementing figure of the style, is no longer alive; his former subordinates are at a loss - in a word, an era has ended. And in the 1950s and 60s, socialist realism wants to be socialist realism with a human face. There were some harbingers a little earlier - for example, Arkady Plastov’s paintings on rural themes, and especially his painting “The Fascist Flew Over” about a senselessly killed shepherd boy.
Arkady Plastov. The fascist flew by. 1942 Photo by RIA Novosti, State Tretyakov Gallery But the most revealing are the paintings by Fyodor Reshetnikov “Arrived on Vacation,” where a young Suvorov student salutes his grandfather at the New Year’s tree, and “Deuce Again,” about a careless schoolboy (by the way, on the wall of the room in the painting “Deuce Again” hangs a reproduction of the painting “Arrived on vacation” is a very touching detail). This is still socialist realism, this is a clear and detailed story - but the thought of state, which was the basis of all the stories before, is reincarnated into a family thought, and the intonation changes. Socialist realism is becoming more intimate, now it’s about life ordinary people. This also includes the later genres of Pimenov, and the work of Alexander Laktionov. His most famous painting, “Letter from the Front,” which was sold in many postcards, is one of the main Soviet paintings. Here there is edification, didacticism, and sentimentality - this is such a socialist realist bourgeois style.
Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Socialist realism- an artistic method of literature and art, built on the socialist concept of the world and man. According to this concept, the artist was supposed to serve with his works the construction of a socialist society. Consequently, socialist realism was supposed to reflect life in the light of the ideals of socialism. The concept of “realism” is literary, and the concept of “socialist” is ideological. In themselves they contradict each other, but in this theory of art they merge. As a result, norms and criteria were formed, dictated by the Communist Party, and the artist, be he a writer, sculptor or painter, was obliged to create in accordance with them.
The literature of socialist realism was an instrument of party ideology. The writer was interpreted as an “engineer of human souls.” With his talent he was supposed to influence the reader as a propagandist. He educated the reader in the spirit of the Party and at the same time supported it in the struggle for the victory of communism. The subjective actions and aspirations of the personalities of the heroes of works of socialist realism had to be brought into line with the objective course of history.
There had to be a positive character at the center of the work:
- He is an ideal communist and an example for a socialist society.
- He is a progressive person, to whom the doubts of the soul are alien.
Lenin expressed the idea that art should stand on the side of the proletariat in the following way: “Art belongs to the people. The deepest springs of art can be found among the broad class of working people... Art must be based on their feelings, thoughts and demands and must grow with them.” In addition, he clarified: “Literature must become party literature... Down with non-party writers. Down with the superhuman writers! Literary work must become part of the general proletarian cause, the cogs and wheels of one single great social-democratic mechanism, set in motion by the entire conscious vanguard of the entire working class.”
The founder of socialist realism in literature, Maxim Gorky (1868-1936), wrote the following about socialist realism: “It is vitally and creatively necessary for our writers to take a point of view from the height of which - and only from its height - all the dirty crimes of capitalism, all the meanness of his bloody intentions and all the greatness is visible heroic work proletariat-dictator." He argued: “... a writer must have a good knowledge of the history of the past and knowledge of the social phenomena of our time, in which he is called upon to simultaneously play two roles: the role of a midwife and a gravedigger.”
A.M. Gorky believed that the main task of socialist realism is to cultivate a socialist, revolutionary view of the world, a corresponding sense of the world.
To follow the method of socialist realism, writing poetry and novels, creating paintings etc. it must be subordinated to the goals of exposing the crimes of capitalism and praising socialism in order to inspire readers and viewers to revolution, inflaming their minds with righteous anger. The method of socialist realism was formulated by Soviet cultural figures under the leadership of Stalin in 1932. It covered all areas artistic activity(literature, drama, cinema, painting, sculpture, music and architecture). The method of socialist realism affirmed the following principles:
1) describe reality accurately, in accordance with specific historical revolutionary developments; 2) coordinate their artistic expression with the themes of ideological reforms and the education of workers in the socialist spirit.
Principles of socialist realism
- Nationality. The heroes of the works must come from the people, and the people are, first of all, workers and peasants.
- Party affiliation. Show heroic deeds, building a new life, revolutionary struggle for a bright future.
- Specificity. In depicting reality, show the process of historical development, which in turn must correspond to the doctrine of historical materialism (matter is primary, consciousness is secondary).
The Soviet era is usually called the period national history XX century, covering 1917-1991. At this time, the Soviet Union took shape and experienced the peak of its development. artistic culture. An important milestone on the path to the establishment of the main artistic movement of art Soviet era, which later began to be called “socialist realism”, were works that affirmed the understanding of history as a tireless class struggle in the name of the ultimate goal - the elimination of private property and the establishment of the power of the people (M. Gorky’s story “Mother”, his play “Enemies”). In the development of art in the 1920s, two trends clearly emerged, which can be traced through the example of literature. On the one hand, a number of major writers did not accept the proletarian revolution and emigrated from Russia. On the other hand, some creators poeticized reality and believed in the height of the goals that the communists set for Russia. Hero of literature of the 20s. - a Bolshevik with a superhuman iron will. The works of V.V. Mayakovsky (“Left March”) and A.A. Blok (“The Twelve”) were created in this vein. A rather motley picture was also fine arts 20s. Several groups emerged within it. The most significant group was the Association of Artists of the Revolution. They depicted today: the life of the Red Army, the life of workers, peasants, revolutionaries and labor.” They considered themselves the heirs of the Wanderers. They went to factories, factories, and Red Army barracks to directly observe the lives of their characters, to “sketch” it. Another creative community - OST (Society of Easel Painters) united young people who graduated from the first Soviet art university. OST's motto is development in easel painting themes reflecting the signs of the 20th century: industrial city, industrial production, sports, etc. Unlike the masters of the Academy of Arts, the “Ostovites” saw their aesthetic ideal not in the work of their predecessors - the “Itinerant” artists, but in the latest European movements.
Some works of socialist realism
- Maxim Gorky, novel "Mother"
- group of authors, painting “Speech by V.I. Lenin at the Third Komsomol Congress”
- Arkady Plastov, painting “The Fascist Flew Over” (Tretyakov Gallery)
- A. Gladkov, novel “Cement”
- film "The Pig Farmer and the Shepherd"
- film "Tractor Drivers"
- Boris Ioganson, painting “Interrogation of Communists” (Tretyakov Gallery)
- Sergei Gerasimov, painting “Partisan” (Tretyakov Gallery)
- Fyodor Reshetnikov, painting “Deuce Again” (Tretyakov Gallery)
- Yuri Neprintsev, painting “After the Battle” (Vasily Terkin)
- Vera Mukhina, sculpture “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” (at VDNKh)
- Mikhail Sholokhov, novel “Quiet Don”
- Alexander Laktionov, painting “Letter from the Front” (Tretyakov Gallery)
1. Prerequisites. If in the field of natural science cultural revolution was reduced primarily to a “revision” of the scientific picture of the world “in the light of the ideas of dialectical materialism”, then in the field of humanities the program of the party leadership came to the forefront artistic creativity, the creation of new communist art.
The aesthetic equivalent of this art was the theory of socialist realism.
Its premises were formulated by the classics of Marxism. For example, Engels, discussing the purpose of a “tendentious” or “socialist” novel, noted that a proletarian writer achieves his goal “when, truthfully depicting real relations, he breaks the prevailing conventional illusions about the nature of these relations, and undermines the optimism of the bourgeois world , raises doubts about the immutability of the foundations of the existing..." At the same time, it was not at all necessary to "present the reader in a ready-made form with the future historical resolution of the social conflicts he depicts." Such attempts seemed to Engels to be a deviation into utopia, which was resolutely rejected." scientific theory"Marxism.
Lenin emphasized more organizational moment: "Literature must be party." This meant that it “cannot be an individual matter at all, independent of the general proletarian cause.” “Down with non-party writers! - Lenin declared categorically. - Down with the superhuman writers! The literary cause must become part of the general proletarian cause, the “wheel and cog” of one single, great social-democratic mechanism, set in motion by the entire conscious vanguard of the entire working class. Literary work must become an integral part of organized, systematic, united Social Democratic party work.” Literature was assigned the role of “propagandist and agitator”, embodying artistic images tasks and ideals of the class struggle of the proletariat.
2. The theory of socialist realism. The aesthetic platform of socialist realism was developed by A. M. Gorky (1868-1936), the main “petrel” of the revolution.
According to this platform, the worldview of a proletarian writer should be permeated with the pathos of militant anti-philistinism. Philistinism has many faces, but its essence is the thirst for “satiety”, material well-being, on which the entire bourgeois culture is based. The petty-bourgeois passion for the “meaningless accumulation of things” and personal property is instilled in the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Hence the duality of his consciousness: emotionally the proletariat gravitates towards the past, intellectually towards the future.
Consequently, a proletarian writer needs, on the one hand, to persistently pursue “a line of critical attitude towards the past,” and on the other, “to develop the ability to look at it from the height of the achievements of the present, from the height of the great goals of the future.” According to Gorky, this will give socialist literature a new tone, will help it develop new forms, “a new direction - socialist realism, which - it goes without saying - can only be created on the facts of socialist experience.”
Thus, the method of socialist realism consisted in decomposing everyday reality into “old” and “new”, i.e., in fact, bourgeois and communist, and in showing the bearers of this new in real life. They should become positive heroes Soviet literature. At the same time, Gorky allowed the possibility of “speculation”, exaggeration of elements of the new in reality, considering this as a leading reflection of the communist ideal.
Accordingly, the writer categorically spoke out against criticism of the socialist system. Critics, in his opinion, only “clog a bright working day with the rubbish of critical words. They suppress the will and creative energy of the people.” After reading the manuscript of A.P. Platonov’s novel “Chevengur,” Gorky wrote to the author with barely concealed irritation: “With all the undeniable merits of your work, I don’t think it will be printed or published. Your anarchic mentality, apparently characteristic of the nature of your “spirit,” will prevent this.
Whether you wanted it or not, you gave the coverage of reality a lyrical-satirical character; this, of course, is unacceptable for our censorship. With all the tenderness of your attitude towards people, they are colored ironically, they appear to the reader not so much as revolutionaries, but as “eccentrics” and “crazy”... I will add: among modern editors I don’t see anyone who could evaluate your novel based on its merits... That’s all I can tell you, and I’m very sorry that I can’t say anything else.” And these are the words of a man whose influence was worth the influence of all Soviet editors combined!
For the sake of glorifying “socialist achievements,” Gorky allowed the creation of a legend about Lenin and exalted the personality of Stalin.
3. Novel "Mother". Articles and speeches of Gorky in the 20-30s. summed up his own artistic experience, the pinnacle of which was the novel “Mother” (1906). Lenin called it a “great work of art” that contributed to the strengthening of the labor movement in Russia. This assessment was the reason for the party canonization of Gorky’s novel.
The plot core of the novel is the awakening of revolutionary consciousness in a proletariat suppressed by need and lack of rights.
Here is a familiar and joyless picture of suburban life. Every morning, with a long factory whistle, “gloomy people who had not had time to refresh their muscles with sleep ran out of small gray houses into the street, like frightened cockroaches.” They were workers from a nearby factory. The non-stop “hard labor” varied in the evenings with drunken, bloody fights, often ending in serious injuries, even murders.
There was no kindness or responsiveness in people. The bourgeois world, drop by drop, squeezed out of them a sense of human dignity and self-respect. “In people’s relationships,” Gorky made the situation even more gloomy, “there was most of all a feeling of lurking anger, it was as old as incurable muscle fatigue. People were born with this disease of the soul, inheriting it from their fathers, and it accompanied them like a black shadow to the grave, prompting throughout life a series of actions disgusting in their aimless cruelty.”
And people were so accustomed to this constant pressure of life that they did not expect any changes for the better; moreover, they “considered all changes could only increase oppression.”
This is how Gorky imagined the “poisonous, convict abomination” of the capitalist world. He was not at all concerned with how the picture he depicted corresponded to real life. He drew his understanding of the latter from Marxist literature, from Lenin’s assessments of Russian reality. And this meant only one thing: the situation of the working masses under capitalism is hopeless, and it cannot be changed without a revolution. Gorky and wanted to show one of possible ways awakening the social “bottom”, acquiring revolutionary consciousness.
The images he created of the young worker Pavel Vlasov and his mother Pelageya Nilovna served to solve this problem.
Pavel Vlasov could completely repeat the path of his father, in which the tragedy of the situation of the Russian proletariat seemed to be personified. But a meeting with “forbidden people” (Gorky remembered Lenin’s words that socialism is being introduced to the masses “from the outside”!) opened up his life perspective and led him onto the path of the “liberation” struggle. He creates an underground revolutionary circle in the settlement, rallies the most energetic workers around him, and they initiate political education.
Taking advantage of the story with the “swamp penny,” Pavel Vlasov openly made a pathetic speech, calling on the workers to unite, to feel like “comrades, a family of friends, tightly bound by one desire - the desire to fight for our rights.”
From this moment on, Pelageya Nilovna accepts her son’s work with all her heart. After the arrest of Pavel and his comrades at the May Day demonstration, she picks up a red flag dropped by someone and addresses the frightened crowd with fiery words: “Listen, for Christ’s sake! All of you are relatives... all of you are warm-hearted... look without fear, - what happened? Children, our blood, are walking in the world, following the truth... for all of you, for your babies, they have doomed themselves to the way of the cross... They want a different life in truth, in justice.. . want good for everyone! "
Nilovna's speech reflects her former way of life - a downtrodden, religious woman. She believes in Christ and the necessity of suffering for the sake of " Christ's resurrection" - a bright future: “Our Lord Jesus Christ would not have existed if people had not died for his glory..." Nilovna is not yet a Bolshevik, but she is already a Christian socialist. By the time Gorky wrote the novel “Mother,” the movement of Christian socialism in Russia was in full force, and it was supported by the Bolsheviks.
But Pavel Vlasov is an undisputed Bolshevik. His consciousness from beginning to end is permeated with the slogans and calls of the Leninist party. This is fully revealed at the trial, where two irreconcilable camps come face to face. The depiction of the court is based on the principle of multifaceted contrast. Everything that relates to the old world is presented in depressingly gloomy tones. This is a sick world in every way.
“All the judges seemed to my mother to be unhealthy people. Painful fatigue was evident in their poses and voices, it lay on their faces - painful fatigue and boring, gray boredom.” In some ways they are similar to the workers of the settlement before their awakening to a new life, and it is not surprising, because both of them are the product of the same “dead” and “indifferent” bourgeois society.
The depiction of revolutionary workers has a completely different character. Their mere presence at the trial makes the hall more spacious and brighter; one can feel that they are not criminals here, but prisoners, and the truth is on their side. This is what Paul demonstrates when the judge gives him the floor. “A man of the party,” he declares, “I recognize only the court of my party and will not speak in my own defense, but - at the request of my comrades, who also refused to defend themselves - I will try to explain to you what you did not understand.”
But the judges did not understand that before them were not just “rebels against the Tsar,” but “enemies of private property,” enemies of a society that “considers a person only as a tool for its enrichment.” “We want,” Pavel declares in phrases from socialist leaflets, “now to have so much freedom that it will give us the opportunity to conquer all power over time. Our slogans are simple - down with private property, all means of production - to the people, all power - to the people, labor - obligatory for everyone. You see - we are not rebels! Paul’s words “in orderly rows” were engraved in the memories of those present, filling them with strength and faith in a bright future.
Gorky's novel is inherently hagiographic; For the writer, partisanship is the same category of holiness that constituted the affiliation of hagiographic literature. He assessed partisanship as a kind of participation in the highest ideological sacraments, ideological shrines: the image of a person without partisanship is the image of an enemy. We can say that for Gorky, partisanship is a kind of symbolic distinction between polar cultural categories: “us” and “alien.” It ensures the unity of ideology, endowing it with the features of a new religion, a new Bolshevik revelation.
Thus, a kind of hagiography of Soviet literature was accomplished, which Gorky himself imagined as a fusion of romanticism with realism. It is no coincidence that he called for learning the art of writing from his medieval fellow Nizhny Novgorod resident, Avvakum Petrov.
4. Literature of socialist realism. The novel “Mother” caused an endless stream of “party books” dedicated to the sacralization of “Soviet everyday life.” Particularly noteworthy are the works of D. A. Furmanov (“Chapaev”, 1923), A. S. Serafimovich (“Iron Stream”, 1924), M. A. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”, 1928-1940; “Virgin Soil Upturned” , 1932-1960), N. A. Ostrovsky (“How the Steel Was Tempered”, 1932-1934), F. I. Panferov (“Whetstones”, 1928-1937), A. N. Tolstoy (“Walking in Torment”, 1922-1941), etc.
Perhaps the largest, perhaps even larger than Gorky himself, apologist of the Soviet era was V.V. Mayakovsky (1893-1930).
Glorifying Lenin and the party in every possible way, he himself openly admitted:
I wouldn’t be a poet if
that's not what he sang -
in the five-pointed stars the sky of the immeasurable vault of the RKP.
The literature of socialist realism was tightly protected from reality by the wall of party myth-making. She could only exist under “high patronage”: she had little strength of her own. Like hagiography with the church, it merged with the party, sharing the ups and downs of communist ideology.
5. Cinema. Along with literature, the party considered cinema to be “the most important of the arts.” The importance of cinema especially increased after it became sound in 1931. One after another, film adaptations of Gorky’s works appeared: “Mother” (1934), “Gorky’s Childhood” (1938), “In People” (1939), “My Universities” (1940), created by director M. S. Donskoy. He also owned films dedicated to Lenin’s mother - “A Mother’s Heart” (1966) and “Loyalty to a Mother” (1967), which reflected the influence of Gorky’s stencil.
There is a wide stream of films on historical and revolutionary themes: the trilogy about Maxim directed by G. M. Kozintsev and L. Z. Trauberg - “The Youth of Maxim” (1935), “The Return of Maxim” (1937), “ Vyborg side"(1939); “We are from Kronstadt” (directed by E. L. Dzigan, 1936), “Baltic Deputy” (directed by A. G. Zarkhi and I. E. Kheifits, 1937), “Shchors” (directed by A. P. Dovzhenko, 1939) , “Yakov Sverdlov” (director S.I. Yutkevich, 1940), etc.
The exemplary film of this series was “Chapaev” (1934), filmed by directors G. N. and S. D. Vasilyev based on Furmanov’s novel.
Films in which the image of the “leader of the proletariat” was embodied did not leave the screens: “Lenin in October” (1937) and “Lenin in 1918” (1939) directed by M. I. Romm, “Man with a Gun” (1938) directed S. I. Yutkevich.
6. Secretary General and artist. Soviet cinema has always been a product of official commission. This was considered the norm and was supported in every possible way by both the “tops” and the “bottoms.”
Even such an outstanding master of cinema as S. M. Eisenstein (1898-1948) recognized the “most successful” films in his work that he made on “the instructions of the government,” namely “Battleship Potemkin” (1925), “October "(1927) and "Alexander Nevsky" (1938).
By government order, he also shot the film “Ivan the Terrible.” The first episode of the film was released in 1945 and was awarded the Stalin Prize. Soon the director completed the editing of the second episode, and it was immediately shown in the Kremlin. Stalin was disappointed by the film: he did not like that Ivan the Terrible was shown as some kind of “neurasthenic”, repentant and worried about his atrocities.
For Eisenstein, such a reaction from the Secretary General was quite expected: he knew that Stalin followed the example of Ivan the Terrible in everything. And Eisenstein himself filled his previous films with scenes of cruelty, conditioning them on the “selection of themes, methods and credo” of his directorial work. It seemed quite normal to him that in his films “crowds of people are shot, children are crushed on the Odessa stairs and thrown from the roof (Strike), they are allowed to be killed by their own parents (Bezhin Meadow), thrown into blazing fires (Alexander Nevsky "), etc." When he began work on "Ivan the Terrible", he first of all wanted to recreate " cruel age"The Tsar of Moscow, who, according to the director, for a long time remained the "ruler" of his soul and his "favorite hero."
So the sympathies of the general secretary and the artist coincided completely, and Stalin had the right to count on the appropriate completion of the film. But it turned out differently, and this could only be perceived as an expression of doubt about the appropriateness of the “bloody” policy. Probably, something similar was really experienced by the ideologized director, tired of eternally pleasing the authorities. Stalin never forgave this: Eisenstein was saved only by his premature death.
The second series of “Ivan the Terrible” was banned and saw the light only after Stalin’s death, in 1958, when the political climate in the country leaned towards the “thaw” and the ferment of intellectual dissidence began.
7. "Red Wheel" of socialist realism. However, nothing changed the essence of socialist realism. It was and remains a method of art designed to capture the “cruelty of the oppressors” and the “madness of the brave.” His slogans were communist ideology and party spirit. Any deviation from them was considered capable of “damaging the creativity of even gifted people.”
One of the last resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee on issues of literature and art (1981) strictly warned: “Our critics, literary magazines, creative unions and first of all, their party organizations must be able to correct those who are drifting in one direction or another. And, of course, actively and fundamentally speak out in cases where works appear that discredit our Soviet reality. Here we must be irreconcilable. The party was not and cannot be indifferent to the ideological orientation of art."
And how many of them, genuine talents, literary innovators, fell under the “red wheel” of Bolshevism - B. L. Pasternak, V. P. Nekrasov, I. A. Brodsky, A. I. Solzhenitsyn, D. L. Andreev, V. . T. Shalamov and many others. etc.
“Socialist realism is a late avant-garde movement in Russian art of the 30s and 40s, combining the method of appropriating artistic styles of the past with avant-garde strategies.” Boris Groys, thinker
When I hear the words “socialist realism,” my hand goes somewhere. Or for something. And my cheekbones are aching with melancholy. Lord, how much they tormented me with them*. At school, at art school, at university... But you need to write about him. For this is the most extensive direction in art on Earth and within it the largest number of works for one direction was created. It practically had a monopoly on a territory whose area had never been dreamed of by any other movement - what was called the camp of socialism, something like that from Berlin to Hanoi. His powerful remains are still visible at every turn in his homeland - which we share with him - in the form of monuments, mosaics, frescoes and other monumental products. It was consumed with varying degrees of intensity by several generations of varying numbers of billions of individuals. In general, socialist realism was a majestic and creepy structure. And his relationship with avant-garde art, which I am actively talking about here, is extremely difficult. In a word, socialist realism has gone.
Boris Iofan, Vera Mukhina. USSR Pavilion at the World Exhibition in Paris
Apparently, Stalin gave him the name after all, in May 1932, in a conversation with the ideological functionary Gronsky. And a few days later Gronsky, in his article in “ Literary newspaper" announced this name to the world. And shortly before this, in April, by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, all artistic groups were dissolved, and their members were gathered into a single union of Soviet artists** - the material carrier and implementer of a complex of ideas, which received its very name a month later. And two years later, on the First All-Union Congress Soviet writers, he received the same definition, practically a symbol of faith, with the creative application of which responsible cultural workers tortured several generations of Soviet creators and lovers of beauty: “Socialist realism, being the main method of Soviet fiction and literary criticism, requires from the artist a truthful, historically specific images of reality in its revolutionary development. At the same time, truthfulness and historical specificity artistic image reality must be combined with the task of ideological transformation and education of the working people in the spirit of socialism.” There is no need to pay attention to the fact that we are talking about literature. It was a writers' congress, and they talked about their own things. Then this fruitful method covered almost all areas Soviet creativity, including ballet, cinema and Georgian coinage.
Vladimir Serov. Lenin proclaims Soviet power at the 2nd Congress of Soviets
First of all, in this formula one sees a strict imperative - how to do it - and the presence of a task that traditionally did not belong to the field of art itself - the creation of a new person. These are, of course, worthy and useful things. They were invented - or, better, brought to such limits and affects - by avant-gardeism, thereby, the fight against which for socialist realism all the way was a sacred, honorable and obligatory occupation. It’s normal and somehow understandable to be human - to fight with a predecessor from whom he took a lot, especially when it comes to religious*** or almost religious practices, which, in many ways, were both socialist realism and avant-gardeism, especially Russian avant-gardeism .
Boris Ioganson. Interrogation of communists
After all, what did he, Russian avant-garde, do? He did not draw black squares of indefinite color for aesthetic pampering, but created serious projects for a radical remaking of the world and humanity towards utopia. And socialist realism was also developed for this purpose. Only if in avant-gardeism there were several projects-sects irreconcilably competing with each other: Tatlinism, spiritual Kandinism, Filonovism, Khlebnikovism, Suprematism of several sects, etc., then socialist realism united the insane energy of all these now ambiguously interpreted types of pathos of radical utopianism under one brand .
In general, socialist realism happily realized many avant-garde pink dreams of a black square color. The same totalitarianism - the fact that socialist realism was declared not the only one, but the main one - this is the usual Bolshevik slyness, in in this case It is better to look at practice rather than words. So here it is. After all, everything avant-garde movement claimed to possess the final truth and fought terribly with its neighbors who had their own Truth. Each movement dreamed of being the only one - there can never be too many truths.
Vasily Efanov. An unforgettable meeting
And now socialist realism becomes the only accessible direction in art, which is supported by the existence of serious institutions in all areas related to creativity - in the education system, in the system of government orders and procurement, in exhibition practice, in the incentive system (prizes, titles, awards), in the media , and even in the system of household/professional provision of art front workers with art materials, apartments, workshops and vouchers to the house of creativity in Gurzuf. Creative unions, the Academy of Arts, committees for various awards, the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, the Ministry of Culture, a bunch of different educational institutions from the art school to the Surikov and Repin Institutes, the critical press and literature **** - all this ensured the downright monotheistically harsh exclusivity of socialist realism. There were no artists outside these institutions. Those. they were, of course, various modernists and nonconformists, but their existence was extremely marginal and even doubtful from the point of view of the laws of physics. Therefore, we can say that there were none at all. In any case, during the times of classical socialist realism, i.e. under Stalin. All this husk, not only to exhibit itself, in difficult times could not provide for itself with a brush without a membership card. Socialist realism was one and everywhere - from the main exhibition sites of the country to the work barracks with a reproduction from Ogonyok on the wall above the bed.
Sergey Gerasimov. Collective farm holiday
The uniqueness of socialist realism was also manifested in its expansion into adjacent areas of creativity. Every avant-garde ism sought to capture them, but only socialist realism managed to do this so consistently and unconditionally. Music, cinema, theater, pop music, architecture, literature, applied arts, design, fine arts - in all these territories only his laws were in effect. It became a single project.
Palekh. Meeting of Heroes of Socialist Labor
Boris Iofan, Vladimir Gelfreich, Vladimir Shchuko. Competition project for the Palace of Soviets in Moscow. Perspective
Could any Suprematism dream of such total domination? Of course he could. But who will give him...
Avant-garde dreamed of religious art - not traditional Christian art, of course - the level of its utopianism, i.e. the depth and nature of the transformation of the world, the remoteness of the limits beyond which the new Universe was supposed to go and new person, the qualities that they were supposed to acquire were at a completely sacred height. The masters of avant-gardeism reproduced the behavior patterns of the messiahs - they themselves were the creators and bearers of the Law, followed by apostolic communities of disciples who disseminated and interpreted knowledge, surrounded by decreasing groups of adepts and neophytes. Any deviation from the canon was interpreted as heresy, its bearer was expelled or left on his own, unable to stand near untrue knowledge. All this was later reproduced by socialist realism with much greater energy. There were tablets with a basic law that was not subject to, let alone revision, friendly criticism. Under his umbrella, private discussions took place: about the typical, about traditions and innovation, about artistic truth and fiction, about nationality, ideology, etc. In their course, concepts, categories and definitions were honed, subsequently cast in bronze and included in the canon. These discussions were completely religious - every thought had to be confirmed by compliance with the Law and be based on the statements of authoritative bearers of knowledge. And the stakes in these discussions, as in creative practice itself, were high. The bearer of something alien became a heretic or even an apostate and was subjected to ostracism, the limit of which was sometimes death.
Alexey Solodovnikov. In a Soviet court
Avant-garde works for the most part sought to become new icons. Old icons are windows and doors into the world of sacred history, into the divine Christian world, and ultimately into heaven. New icons are evidence of avant-garde utopia. But the circle of those who worshiped them was narrow. And without mass ***** ritual there is no religious legitimacy.
Socialist realism also realized this dream of the avant-garde - after all, it was everywhere. As for the works themselves, the socialist realist icons - and all his works were, to one degree or another, icons connecting this created world with the communist utopia, with the exception of some completely worthless bouquets of lilacs - were created practically according to proven Christian canons. Even in terms of iconography.
Pavel Filonov. Portrait of Stalin
This is a completely normal Savior Not Made by Hands. It is characteristic that this picture was made by an avant-garde artist who tried to be a socialist realist here - this was in 1936. So let's say, a new icon painter in the square.
Ilya Mashkov. Greetings to the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b)
But the main dream of the avant-garde, realized, however, not by socialist realism itself, but by its creator, the Soviet government, is to create history according to the laws of artistic creativity. This is when there is an artistic plan, a creator-demiurge, practically equal to God, who alone, in accordance with his will, embodies this plan, and art material, subjected to violence on the way to the result******. The Soviet government truly acted like an artist, uncompromisingly fashioning from raw human material what it saw as consistent with its design. Ruthlessly cutting off what is superfluous, adding what is missing, burning, cutting out and performing all the other cruel manipulations necessary when working with rough matter, which the creator resorts to on the way to creating a masterpiece.
Tatiana Yablonskaya. Bread
This is where the avant-garde artists really had a bad break. They thought that they would be the demiurges, and the demiurges became communist ideologists and bureaucrats, who used cultural masters only as carriers of their artistic will*******.
Fedor Shurpin. Morning of our Motherland
Here the question may arise: why did socialist realism, if it was so cool, use such an archaic language compared to avant-gardeism? The answer is simple - socialist realism was so cool that its language did not float at all. He, of course, could speak something similar to Suprematism. But there the barrier to entry is high, the religious and ideological message will take a long time to reach the addressee, who is the broad masses. Well, you would simply have to make unnecessary efforts to teach them this language, but it is not necessary. Therefore, we decided to focus on the generally familiar eclecticism of academism/peredvizhniki, especially since it has already shown itself well within the framework of the Academy of Religious Works. In principle, socialist realism needed some sufficient resemblance to life in order to make credible the messages that the government sent to the people. So that they get into the head without hindrance. At the same time, the pictorial quality, when it comes to pictures, was completely unimportant - recognizable, approximately as in life, and that’s enough. Therefore, the best works of socialist realism - and the quality criteria here, as in avant-gardeism, were established by the expert community, the main figures in which were, again, ideologists and functionaries, and not artists - i.e. those works that were awarded in any way, from the point of view of the same academicism, realism and other classical styles, are nothing. They are rather poor in painting.
Leonid Shmatko. Lenin at the GOELRO map
Mikhail Khmelko. “For the great Russian people!”
And the fact that socialist realism called for learning from the masters of the past was from him in order to gain some legitimacy in the tradition - like, they took the best from world art, they didn’t come from the trash heap. So, for example, surrealism compiled entire lists of its predecessors. It could also be private initiatives of specific figures who have not completely simplified their means of expression to socialist realism. Therefore, inside it there are works that are of high quality by the standards of traditional painting. But this is so, shortcomings of the method. Those. it turns out that those ideologically correct hacks that many artists sculpted solely for the sake of a career and income are truly good socialist realist pictures.
Socialist realism, if it is good anywhere, is not in these program structures,
Alexander Deineka. Defense of Sevastopol
Alexander Deineka. Parisian
Like this. Again, things didn’t turn out like people did.
******* It can be compared with avant-garde practice, when an artist orders the production of his work from other people.
******** Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia. 20th 30s
