ALLIANCE 53 August 2004
AESTHETICS AND REVOLUTION - ESSAYS AND TALKS
WAS STALIN’S VIEW ON ART DIFFERENT
FROM THAT OF MARX AND ENGELS?
A talk given to commemorate Bill Bland at Conway Hall, London, September 2001
For Other Parts of This issue of Alliance 53
Go to http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/A2004/ALLIANCE53.htm
This is not the occasion to dwell on Bill's enormous contributions to the Marxist-Leninist movement in both theory and practice. That will be history to do.
This evening, is to celebrate Bill as a man.
It is well known that he was passionate about the arts, and that he took very seriously, Stalin's dictum that "art was the engineer of the human soul". I thought it fitting therefore, to emulate Bill's approach when answering difficult questions surrounding Stalin.
It is even more fitting to attempt this upon a subject he was passionate about.I regret that this was not done by Bill himself, for several reasons.
But one of these is that to answer the question posed, will be impossible for me to do as well as Bill would have done.
Critics and pundits continue to teach incessantly how ‘bad’ art was in Stalin's lifetime in the Soviet Union. It is commonly asserted that Stalin's view of art was only for self-glorification or for propaganda.
For example, the popular art historian, Robert Hughes writes this in "Time" in 1994: [Italics-Editor’s emphasis] :
"Throughout his rule, Stalin had sponsored a form of state art officially known as Socialist Realism. Geared to a naive, not to say brutish, mass public barely literate in artistic matters, Soviet Socialist Realism was the most coarsely idealistic kind of art ever foisted on a modern audience – though Capitalist Realism, the never-never land of desire created by American advertising, runs it a close second…… As a young man Stalin had been snubbed by the Russian intellectual elite. His revenge was to grind their faces in the ice of miracle, mystery and authority, to make culture into a form of ventriloquism from on high. Socialist Realism was a religious art celebrating the transcendent power of communist ideology, the impending heaven of world socialism and the godlike benignity of its father, Lenin's successor, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, the man of steel. And like the traditional icons of Christ and the saints it replaced, the stuff was omnipresent. No square or schoolroom in Russia lacked its image of Stalin pointing to the future………………
What strikes a modern non-Russian viewer most is Socialist Realism's unabashed fantasy. Realism in Stalinist terms did not mean painting things as they were or even as they might be: the inevitability of Socialist progress erased that conditional "might," along with the gap between present and future.
That which will be already is, under the world-sustaining gaze of Comrade Stalin. Ideology ascribed to Stalin the actual role of God, the creation of reality itself…………
One sees how Socialist Realism transcends history, with Stalin (who in 1917 was the editor of Pravda but had no role in planning the October Revolution) being painted into the very heart of the first Bolshevik conclaves cheek by jowl with Lenin. One sees Stalin protecting the motherland from the Kremlin ramparts, towering over generals or members of the Politburo who in biological life were considerably taller than he. There he is conducting the defense of Stalingrad (though in fact he prudently avoided going anywhere near a battle), encouraging collective farmers and listening to Maxim Gorky read.
But most of all he is busy being himself: God. Fyodor Shurpin's Morning of Our Motherland, 1946-48, is a portrait of Stalin in the literal form of the Pantocrator, contemplating a new world he has brought into being. He wears a white coat of radiant purity and is bathed in the light of an early spring morning. Behind him stretch the green pastures of a transfigured Russia, Poussin (as it were) with tractors and electricity pylons, and shy plumes of smoke rising to greet the socialist dawn from far-off factories."
"Icons Of Stalinism Soviet Socialist Realism Portrayed A Godlike Maximum Leader Reigning Over A Communist Heaven" By Robert Hughes. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/940124/940124.art.html
But Stalin saw Art as being: "the engineer of the human soul". But then could Stalin not distinguish between propaganda and art? Was Stalin only interested in Art for the purpose of his own glorification?
This would be quite inconsistent with what we know of Stalin's own views, which were first highlighted by Bill Bland. Stalin detested the Cult of Personality and recognised that it was being used by enemies to attack him (See for example, "Stalin Myths & Realities"; at http://www.allianceML.com/STALIN-TXT/WBBSTALINMYTHSPARIS1999.html).
Nonetheless, the prevalent view is that Stalin was a vain-glorious dictator – in the arts as well as all other spheres of life. It is no wonder that any hint of alternative viewpoint is suppressed. So for example the influential New York Review of Books (NYRB), published Isiah Berlin’s article, that was originally written in the 1930’s for the British secret service on the state of arts under Stalin.
Berlin's article is very convenient for conventional wisdom in that it is generally vituperative of the USSR. But the article applauded in general, the results of the state policies on art. This was most inconvenient for the NYRB. To retain even a tiny fragment that did support the USSR arts policy was anathema. Which fragment was correspondingly cut. This read:
"On the other side it must be said that the childlike eagerness and enthusiasm of Soviet readers and Soviet theatrical audiences is probably without parallel in the world. The existence of State-subsidised theatres and opera, as well as of regional publishing houses, throughout the Soviet Union is not merely a part of a bureaucratic plan, but responds to a very genuine and insufficiently satisfied popular demand. "Despite the epithet “childlike” – this perspective of a Soviet arts policy that stemmed from and spoke to the masses – was too uncomfortable for the NYRB.
Isiah Berlin: ‘The Arts in Russia under Stalin’ ; [Passage Omitted From the New York Review of Books, 19 October 2000, p. 60] at: http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/berlin/vl/published_works/artscut.htm
Thus the general view is propagated, that in contrast to Marx and Engels, Stalin was a ‘boor’ – too uncivilized and uninterested to see beyond a propagandist art that glorified him. It is generally argued even by bourgeois critics, that Marx and Engels were men of taste who would not have inflicted "Socialist Realism" on the world. Of course it is well known how erudite Marx and Engels were, and this has been extensively catalogued (See SS Prawer: "Karl marx and World Literature"; Oxford 1978).
Even the bourgeoisie now acknowledge this.
But Marx and Engels did not live in an era when it was possible to build a Socialist state. For that reason, and for the reason that they are now long dead, they are ‘spared’ too much abuse, while more recent enemies of the bourgeoisie like Stalin who could build socialism, are vituperated.
In general the views of Stalin on the arts have been represented well by Zhdanov in his lectures and writings on art. [See Bland’s own article on “Stalin and the Arts” in this issue of Alliance 53 [Athttp://harikumar.brinkster.net/AllianceIssues/A2004/STALINART.html http://harikumar.brinkster.net/AllianceIssues/A2004/STALINART.html http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/A2004/STALINART.html].We will ask tonight:“How far apart were Marx and Engels from Stalin, concerning their views on the arts?”
This is not here, an examination of the Ultra-leftist deviations in the arts such as Proletkult [See Bland cited before & Alliance 7 at http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE7COMMUNISTACADEMY.html] and AKhRR (The Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia)
Instead, I propose here to examine primarily, whether Stalin's views substantially varied from those of Marx and Engels.
We will examine FIVE specific questions:
1) How did Marx and Engels view the inter-relationship of the mode of production & society to art ?
2) What did Marx and Engels view as making for ‘good art’?
3) How did Marx and Engels view art that frankly proclaimed the workers cause?
4) What were the favourite pictures of Marx, Engels and Stalin?
5) Was there good art produced in the USSR up to 1953?
But first we should define certain recurrent artistic terms.STATE ART, PROPAGANDA AND CARICATURE
When one sees pictures like this one by Freidin and entitled "Glory To Stalin"; it does appear to be celebrating a state event in the USSR. This could be thought of as being propaganda because it depicts Stalin favourably.
Or at the very least, it may be doubted whether this is ‘great art’.
But it is in fact a form of art well recognised in every society. It is what we will here call, an ‘Art of State’; one that helps to form the ‘myths’ and ‘self-images’ of a state.
Such imagery and icons are necessary to each and every state, and indeed ubiquitous in every state.
It would be quite wrong to even suggest that the USSR was unique in having such art.
For instance, this painting, by Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze, American, (1816-1868) is entitled "George Washington Crossing the Delaware", 1851 (378.5 x 647.7 cm , is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
It is a central iconic image that depicts George Washington’s heroic victories over the English colonists in the American War of Independence.
Whether Washington in these battles actually struck such poses or was quite as well dressed and clean is immaterial to the purpose of the artist.
It is meant to focus a nation's gaze on one of its formers and heroes.
Similarly, the painting in the Tate Gallery Of “The Death of Major Peirson, 6 January 1781” by John Singleton Copley (1783) was iconic for its time, in England.
It showed a battle between English and French troop in Jersy (the Channel Islands) in a conflict sparked by the American Revoutioanry Wars. Peirson’s death for the British flag was revenged by his personal manservant – whose name is not honoured in the title fo the painting.
Or even more well known, is the statue of Boadicea on the banks of the Thames just below the Houses of Parliament.
Propaganda art is at a different level from "State Art" in our view, and is more clearly designed for a day to day persuasion. Propaganda art, in general, carries a negative overtone. However, such art may be both very well done and may serve an extremely useful function. Such is the case for the posters seen here, from the USSR.
Much of the poster art from the USSR, is nowadays recognised as being both technically, but artistically as well, very fine, and is collected for huge amounts of money.
The Caption is "Save Books"; by Kupreyanov
The Caption is Anti-bureaucracy; by Mayakovsky
The Caption is "Help!" (During the imperislist blockade); by Dimitri Moor.
Caricature should be distinguished from propaganda, and perhaps its’ hallmark is that of an extreme exaggeration of features.
A master of this was Honore Daumier, who here, lampooned the King of France as never-endingly recieving into his vast mouth the people's wealth:
It is quite true that some posters may be less useful, and sub-serve a true ‘propagandist’ purpose. Such for example are the numerous images of J.V.Stalin, and of V.I.Lenin in these:
Bizukhov's "Stalin and the Railway"
"Lenin and Stalin"; Anonymous, 1948
But, it should be again reiterated that Stalin is clearly on record as abhorring and trying to prevent the Cult of Personality.Summary:
I strongly doubt postes such as these were produced at the behest of Stalin, and his stated preferences in art (See below) are a strong indication of this.
But stronger evidence, comes from the history of the USSR where Stalin at many points attempted to obstruct a Cult of the Personality arising.
I have argued that all States have an ‘official’ art that serves as a vehicle to reinforce national images.
This was not unique to the USSR.
I have also argued that propaganda and caricature can both be valuable media for different progressive purposes.
(1) THE VIEWS OF MARX AND ENGELS ON ART IN RELATION TO SOCIETY
The Inter-relation of Art and the Society in which it is produced
As all who are interested in art will know, the origins of art lie very early on in man’s history:
"Anatomically modern humans had existed for at least the previous 50,000 years, but 50,000 years ago there appear the first signs of art, of versified tools for specific functions, and other clues to enhanced culture.";
Johnson D & Edgar B: "From Lucy to Language"; New York; 1996; p. 52; .
"If art is an attempt to imitate nature, our Upper Paleolithic ancestors were master artists. It is impossible to visit a cave like Lascaux in south western France or Altamira in Northern Spain and not be moved by the images of horses, bison, deer, and other prehistoric animals. Art painted on the ancient cave walls. Reaching across eons of time, these lifelike yet hauntingly impressionistic paintings immediately connect us with the artists who rendered their world on cave walls nearly 20,000 years ago. When the painted cave of Altamira first came to the attention of researchers, in 1880, the immediate reaction was that such sophisticated and well-executed paintings could not have been made by prehistoric people. "
Johnson D & Edgar B: "From Lucy to Language"; New York; 1996; p. 53.
What more can connect ancient cave art than the common themes of food animals and hunting?
Early discoveries of such cave paintings were initially controversial. Pundits instantly dismissed them as ‘too sophisticated’ to have been drawn by primitive men and women. But it is interesting that Engels did not share the general skepticism of his age, and he also accurately located the first pieces of art as being a very early part of mankind’s history."By the combined functioning of hand, speech organs and brain, not only in each individual but also in society, men became capable of executing more and more complicated operations, and were able to set themselves, and achieve, higher and higher aims. The work of each generation itself became different, more perfect and more diversified. Agriculture was added to hunting and cattle raising; then came spinning, weaving, metalworking, pottery and navigation. Along with trade and industry, art and science finally appeared. Tribes developed into nations and states. Law and politics arose, and with them that fantastic reflection of human things in the human mind -- religion."Elsewhere Engels relates that the essential development needed to enable the advent of Art, was that the hand became free of a need for locomotion:
'The Part Played By Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man' By Frederick Engels;
"At first, therefore, the operations for which our ancestors gradually learned to adapt their hands during the many thousands of years of transition from ape to man can only have been very simple ones. The lowest savages, even those in whom presumably a regression to a more animal-like condition with a simultaneous physical degeneration occurred, are nevertheless far superior to these transitional beings. Before the first flint was fashioned into a knife by the human hand, a period of time must have elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant. But the decisive step was taken: the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever newer skills, and the greater flexibility thus acquired was transmitted and increased from generation to generation.
Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only through labour, through constant adaptation to new operations, through inheritance of the special development thus acquired of muscles, ligaments and, over longer periods of time, bones as well, and by the ever renewed use of this inherited refinement in new, increasingly complicated operations, has the human hand attained that high degree of perfection that has enabled it to conjure into being the paintings of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini. "
Frederick Engels: "The Part Played By Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man";
in "Dialectics of Nature": ; http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/PPL76.html
Yet, if the physical anatomy of hands that produce art have not substantially changed over historical time, art certainly has.
What explains the emergence of paintings of a Raphael from the anatomically similar hands that created the art of the Lascaux Paleolithic hand?
What makes the art of one historical period different from that of another period? Marx and Engels recognised that it was the "relations of production".
These will form the "economic structure of society"; which in turn explains all social life – "the social, political and intellectual life-process in general." When the underlying economic conditions changes, the whole of society undergoes changes. But Marx nonetheless points out that in "the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic, in short, ideological, forms" – the relation is not as exact as in the "material transformation of the economic conditions of production". This early and central passage from Marx’s writings is as follows:"In the social production of their existence, men enter into definite, necessary relations, which are independent of their will, namely, relations of production corresponding to a determinate stage of development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which there arises a legal and political superstructure and to which there correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary it is their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or -- what is merely a legal expression for the same thing -- with the property relations within the framework of which they have hitherto operated. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. At that point an era of social revolution begins. With the change in the economic foundation the whole immense superstructure is more slowly or more rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic, in short, ideological, forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such an epoch of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production."
Karl Marx: "Preface And Introduction To A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy"; 1844;
In so far as the artistic object itself goes (object d’art) Marx identifies this product as resulting from a specific form of production, centred on "beauty" and its’ appreciation. But this form of production cannot be analysed separately from analyses of a more general production. In early [‘original’] production, the overall state of the finished product is ‘primitively crude’. However, artistic production is part of the overall production in a society.
And its production itself creates a “public with artistic taste” :
"So production creates the consumer.
3) Production not only provides the material for a need, but it also provides a need for the material. When consumption emerges from its initial natural crudity and immediacy -- and its remaining in that state would itself be the result of production being stuck in a state of natural crudity -- it itself is mediated as an urge by the object. The need it feels for the object is created by perception of the latter. Like every other product an objet d'art creates a public with artistic taste and a capacity to enjoy beauty. Production accordingly produces not only an object for the subject, but also a subject for the object."
Karl Marx: "A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy"; Appendix I ; I. Production, Consumption, Distribution, Exchange (Circulation). http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/PI.html (pages 20, 21).
Moreover, Marx points out that in the era of capital, even art takes place within a production work place in cooperation between a small group of workers who have divided up their labour:
“Sancho … thinks that "no one can compose your music for you, complete the sketches for your paintings. No one can do Raphael's works for him". Sancho could surely have known, however, that it was not Mozart himself, but someone else who composed the greater part of Mozart's Requiem and finished it,"' and that Raphael himself completed" only an insignificant part of his own frescoes.
[Sancho].. imagines that the so-called “organisers of labour" wanted to organise the entire activity of each individual, and yet it is precisely they who distinguish between directly productive labour, which has to be organised, and labour which is not directly productive. In regard to the latter, however, it was not their view, as Sancho imagines, that each should do the work of Raphael, but that anyone in whom there is a potential Raphael should be able to develop without hindrance. Sancho imagines that Raphael produced his pictures independently of the division of labour that existed in Rome at the time. If he were to compare Raphael with Leonardo da Vinci and Titian, he would see how greatly Raphael's works of art depended on the flourishing of Rome at that time, which occurred under Florentine influence, while the works of Leonardo depended on the state of things in Florence, and the works of Titian, at a later period, depended on the totally different development of Venice. Raphael as much as any other artist was determined by the technical advances in art made before him, by the organisation of society and the division of labour in his locality, and, finally, by the division of labour in all the countries with which his locality had intercourse. Whether an individual like Raphael succeeds in developing his talent depends wholly on demand, which in turn depends on the division of labour and the conditions of human culture resulting from it.”
The German Ideology. The Leipzig Council. III. Saint Max 393
Two related matters are often raised as a general criticism of these notions as they are applied to art:
Firstly is the relationship between the economic times and the art produced an absolute relationship?Engels made clear that anyone who insisted that “the economic factor is the only determining” factor for any particular aspect of life, was not a Marxist. The subtleties of many other factors would often intervene in an “endless host of accidents”, to make a mechanical and simple equation linking economics to each manifestation of real life – silly. Nonetheless, Engels reiterates that economics is the “ultimately determining factor”:
“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining factor in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Neither Marx nor I have ever asserted more than this. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic factor is the only determining one, he transforms that expression into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure-political forms of the class struggle and its results, such as constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc, juridical forms, and especially the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political legal, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas-also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases determine their form in particular. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent and neglect it) the economic movement is finally bound to assert itself. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier that the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.”
Engels to Joseph Bloch; September 21-22, 1980. Marx and Engels; in Collected Works;
In addition to this, Marx points out that there is an “unequal development “ in both material production and in art. Marx however points out that even in spite of this “unevenness”, there are material and rational explanations - provided the subject is explored in enough detail. He takes as an example the case of ancient Greek art – that could only arise upon the basis of a Greek mythology. Yet the level of production in Greece a that time was not as high as the “peak” of Greek art might otherwise suggest:
“6. The unequal development of material production and, eg that of art. The concept of progress is on the whole not to be understood in an abstract form. Modern art etc. This disproportion is not as important and difficult to grasp as within concrete social relations e.g. in education. Relations of the United Sates to Europe. However , the really difficult point to be discussed here is how the relations of production as legal relations take part in this uneven development. For example the relation of Roman civil law (this applies in smaller measure to criminal and constitutional law) to modern production. …..
As regards art it is well known that some of its peaks by no means correspond to the general development of society; nor do they therefore to the material substructure, the skeleton as it were of the its organisation. For example, the Greeks compared with modern [nations], or else Shakespeare. It is even acknowledged that certain branches of art, e.g. the epos, can no longer be produced in other epoch making classic form after artistic production as such has begun; in other words that certain important creations within the compass of art are only possible at an early stage in the development of art. If this is the case with regard to certain branches of art within the sphere of art itself, it is not so remarkable that this should also be the case with regard to the entire sphere of art and its relation to the general development of society. The difficulty lies only in the general formulation of these contradiction. As soon as they are reduced to specific questions, they are already explained.
Let us take for example the relation of Greek art, and that of Shakespeare, to the present time. We know that Greek mythology is not only the arsenal of Greek art but also its basis. Is the conception of nature and of socials relations, which underlies Greek imagination and therefore Greek [art] possible when there are self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs? What is a Vulcan compared with Roberts & Co; Jupiter compared with the lightning conductor, and Hermes compared with the Credit Mobilier? All mythology subdues, controls and fashions the forces of nature in the imagination and through imagination; it disappears therefore when real control over those forces is established… Greek art presupposes Greek mythology, in other words that natural and socials phenomenon are already assimilated in an unintentionally artistic manner by the imagination of the people… Egyptian mythology could never become the basis of or give rise to Greek art... Is Achilles possible when powder and shot have been invented? And is the Iliad possible at all when the printing press and even printing machines exist?”
Marx “Introduction” to Economic Manuscripts of 1857-58; in “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” ["The Grundrisse"]; in Collected Works; Volume 28; Moscow; 1986 p.46-47
Secondly, why does art of an earlier era resonate with us?
After all, if art is “of its’ time” – of what consequence should it be to humans many generations later? Marx also addresses this problem, in the same Introduction to Political Economy cited above, where he so memorably compares Hermes with the Credit Mobilier:
“But the difficulty we are confronted with is not, however, that of understanding how Greek art and epic poetry are associated with certain forms of social development. The difficulty is that still five us aesthetic pleasure and are in certain respects regarded as a standard and unattainable ideal. An adult cannot become a child again, or he becomes childish. But does the naiveté of the child not give him pleasure, and does he not himself endeavour to reproduce the child’s veracity on a higher level? Does not the child in every epoch represent the character of the period in its natural veracity? Why should not the historical childhood of humanity, where it attained its most beautiful form, exert an eternal charm because it is stage that will never recur? There are rude children and precious children. Many of the ancient peoples belong to this category. The Greeks were normal children. The charm their art has for us does not conflict with the immature stage of the society in which it originated. On the contrary it charm is a consequence of this and is inseparably linked with the fact that the immature socials conditions which gave rise, and which alone could give rise, to this art cannot recur”.Neither Stalin nor Lenin devoted too much time to a fully integrated view of art and art history. They had to build socialism. Lenin confessed to Anatol Lunarchasky that art was fascinating but that it would take a lifetime to sort out the innumerable problems posed in its history, but that he would have liked to do so.
Marx “Introduction” to Economic Manuscripts of 1857-58; in “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”; ["The Grundrisse"] in Collected Works. volume28; Ibid; p. 47-48.
Even so, it is very easy to demonstrate that Stalin agrees with these fundamental elements of the Marxist world view.
These views expressed summarise the general analysis known as Historical Materialism. Stalin wrote "Dialectical and Historical Materialism", that forms a chapter in the famous "History of the CPSU(B). This piece continues to be excoriated by many who see it as ‘reductionism’ and an ‘over-simplification’ of Marx and Engels. Marxist-Leninists however accept that it is a very cogent and clear explanation of Marx’s views:
"Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection. Hence, if in different periods of the history of society different social ideas, theories, views and political institutions are to be observed; if under the slave system we encounter certain social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, under feudalism others, and under capitalism others still, this is not to be explained by the "nature," the "properties" of the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves but by the different conditions of the material life of society at different periods of social development.
Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political views and political institutions of that society. In this connection, Marx says:
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 269.)"If this general postulate of a link between modes of societal production and thought is true, are there at least some examples in art, that they specified? Fortunately as already pointed out in the fragments of Marx and Engels, there are, and we will point out some further examples.
J. V. Stalin: "Dialectical And Historical Materialism": September 1938; In "History of the CPSU(B)"; Moscow 1939; p.115; Or in "Problems of Leninism"; Moscow; 1954; p.725. OR at: http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/DHM38.html
SUMMARY: Marx, Engels and Stalin believed that the mode of production determined human consciousness. This final determinant was qualified by a complex interaction with society, but nonetheless was the starting point for an evaluation of changes in society. This determinant even determined human appreciation of ‘beauty’.
2. DID MARX AND ENGELS GIVE US CLUES AS TO WHAT MAKES FOR ‘GOOD ART’?
Fortunately for us, despite the lack of any single unifying statement, both Marx and Engels were so interested in art that they left many useful analyses on art. At least some of their views are abel to be condensed into the statements below.
(i) Art must be “true” to life: The depiction artistically, of truth must be a complete one – Tomorrow’s world as well as today’s.Art should express not only what is an apparent and obvious truth now, but also what is a latent and developing truth. This may then take a stance that projects from the world of today into the world of tomorrow.
Not only should the truth be given in all its’ aspects, but in addition true events should be presented so that it can be clear why they have become a reality. These aspects can be seen in the letter (extant only in a draft form now) that Engels sent to Margaret Harkness whose novel “City Girl” had been sent to me:
“[Draft] [London, beginning of April 1888]Engels thought that itwas important to depict not only a generic 'type' in a character, but that the 'type' should at the same time be sufficently realistic as to be recognisable as a true single 'personality'.
Dear Miss Harkness,
I thank you very much for sending me your City Girl. through Messrs. Vizetelly. I have read it with the greatest pleasure and avidity. It is indeed, as my friend Eichhoff your translator calls it, ein k1eines Kunstwerk [Original Footnote A small work of art]; to which he adds, what will be satisfactory to you, that consequently his translation must be all but literal, as any omission or attempted manipulation could only destroy part of the original's value.
What strikes me most in your tale besides its realistic truth is that it exhibits the courage of the true artist. Not only in the way you treat the Salvation Army, in the teeth of supercilious respectability, which respectability will perhaps learn from your tale, for the first time, why the Salvation Army has such a hold on the popular masses. But chiefly in the plain unvarnished manner in which you make the old, old story, the proletarian girl seduced by a middle-class man, the pivot of the whole book. Mediocrity would have felt bound to hide the, to it, commonplace character of the plot under heaps of artificial complications and adornments, and yet would not have got rid of the fate of being found out. You felt you could afford to tell an old story, because you could make it a new one by simply telling it truly.
Your Mr. Arthur Grant is a masterpiece.
If I have anything to criticise, it would be that perhaps, after all, the tale is not quite realistic enough. Realism, to my mind, implies, besides truth of detail, the truth in reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances. Now your characters are typical enough, as far as they go; but the circumstances which surround them and make them act, are not perhaps equally so. In the City Girl the working class figures as a passive mass, unable to help itself and not even showing (making) any attempt at striving to help itself.
All attempts to drag it out of its torpid misery come from without, from above. Now if this was a correct description about 1800 or 1810, in the days of Saint-Simon and Robert Owen, it cannot appear so in 1887 to a man who for nearly fifty years has had the honour of sharing in most of the fights of the militant proletariat. The rebellious reaction of the working class against the oppressive medium which surrounds them, their attempts - convulsive, half conscious or conscious-at recovering their status as human beings, belong to history and must therefore lay claim to a place in the domain of realism.”
Letter to Margaret Harkness; Engels April 1888; Marx and Engels Selected Correspondence, Moscow; 1975; p.379-81.
at:http://www.allianceML.com/SocialistArt/Final-ME_LASSALLE.htm(ii) Characterisation must be accurate and represent both an individual and the background of that person – becoming a ‘type’:
“I have now also read Die Alten und die Neuen [The Old Ones and the New], [Original Footnote: A novel by Minna Kautsky] for which I sincerely thank you. The life of the salt-mine workers is described with as masterly a pen as were the portraits of the peasants in Stefan.[Original Footnote: Stefan von Grillenhof was the first novel written by Minna Kautsky……. the characters exhibit the sharp individualisation. so customary in your work. Each of them is a type but at the same time also a definite individual, a "Dieser",[Original Footnote "This one"] as old Hegel would say, and that is how it should be.”It should also reflect the future reality. See earlier quote from Engels.
Engels To Minna Kautsky, November 2th 1885; From "Marx & Engels: On Literature & Art"; Moscow; 1976; p.87-89; London, November 26, 1885;
But to do this in art, is very different from having a simple "cut-out" propagandist "formula".
iii) The stylistic presentation of the art must be at the highest level in order to allow the content to come out the clearest.
Numerous citations can be given of Marx and Engels insistence on achieving the highest level of professional stylistic ‘presentation of art. It should not be forgotten that both Marx and Engels had at an early stage considered literature and poetry as a career and had both rejected this path – at least in part because they recognised their own limitations.
A good illustration of Marx’s view that it is necessary to strike the right balance between form and content is in a letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, where Marx critiques Lassalle’s play “Franz von Sickingen”:
“London, April 19, 1859.
Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle, on his drama Franz von Sickingen
I am now coming to Franz von Sickingen. [Original Footnote: A Drama by Lassalle-Ed ]
First of all, I must praise the composition and action, and that is more than can be said of any other modern German drama. In the second instance, leaving aside the purely critical attitude to this work, it greatly excited me on first reading and it will therefore produce this effect in a still higher degree on readers who are governed more by their feelings. And this is a second and very important aspect.
Now the other side of the medal: First -this is a purely formal matter - since you have written it in verse, you might have polished up your iambs with a bit more artistry.
But however much professional poets may be shocked by such carelessness, I consider it on the whole as an advantage, since our brood of epigonous poets have nothing left but formal polish”.
Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle; Problems Of Revolutionary Tragedy: Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle On His Drama Franz Von Sickingen Transcribed By Alliance From: "Marx And Engels On Literature And Art"; Moscow; 1976.
Those creative geniuses Marx and Engels therefore recognised a core of aesthetic principles. As can be readily appreciated by a comparison against either Zhdanov’s writings, or of the “Theses of Art”, from the Marxist Leninist Organisation Britain, drafted by Bland [see ], the views of Marx and Engels are very similar to those enunciated by the proponents of what came to be called Socialist Realism.
(3) SHOULD ART BE “COMMITTED?”
Whether art should be committed or not – is at the centre of the debate between pure aesthetes (“Art for Art’s Sake”) and those who argue that art has a purpose. But committed art might not art that “wears its’ heart on its sleeve”. Committed art, might be better if it does not fire the viewer’s eye with a blunderbuss. This might be another distinction between high art and propaganda art. In general, we will argue that Marx and Engels both took this line of thought.
Thus Engels argues to Mina Kautsky, that while art “with a purpose” can well be great art (Such as that of Aeschylus, Schiller, Dante, Cervantes etc), it is not necessary to “serve the reader on a platter the future historical resolution”.
“The novel itself reveals the origins of this shortcoming. You obviously felt a desire to take a public stand in your book, to testify to your convictions before the entire world. This has now been done; it is a stage you have passed through and need not repeat in this form. I am by no means opposed to partisan poetry as such. Both Aeschylus, the father of tragedy, and Aristophanes, the father of comedy, were highly partisan poets, Dante and Cervantes were so no less, and the best thing that can be said about Schiller's Kabale und Liebe is that it represents the first German political problem drama. The modern Russians and Norwegians, who produce excellent novels, all write with a purpose. I think however that the purpose must become manifest from the situation and the action themselves, without being expressly pointed out and that the author does not have to serve the reader on a platter the future historical resolution of the social conflicts which he describes. To this must be added that under our conditions novels are mostly addressed to readers from bourgeois circles, i.e., circles which are not directly ours. Thus the socialist problem novel in my opinion fully carries out its mission if by a faithful portrayal of the real conditions, it dispels the dominant conventional illusions concerning them, shakes .the optimism of the bourgeois world, and inevitably instils doubt as to the eternal validity of that which exists, without itself offering a direct solution of the problem involved, even without at times ostensibly taking sides. Here your exact knowledge and admirably fresh and lifelike presentation of both the Austrian peasants and Vienna "society" find ample material, and in Stefan you have demonstrated that you are capable of treating your characters with the fine irony which attests to the author's dominion over the beings he has created.”
Engels To Engels To Minna Kautsky, November 2th 1885; From "Marx & Engels: On Literature & Art"; Moscow; 1976; pp.87-89.
He also points out to Margaret Harkness, that it is often better for the authors true opinions to remain hidden:
“I am far from finding fault with your note having written a point-blank socialist novel, a “tendezroman”, as we Germans call it, to glorify the social and political vies of the authors. That is not at all what I mean. The more the opinions of the author remain hidden, the better for the world of art. The realism I allude to may crop out even in spite of the author’s opinions. Balzac whom I consider a far greater master of realism than all the Zolas, passes, presents et a venire [past present and to come], in La Comedie Humaine gives us a most wonderfully realistic history of French “society”, especially of “le monde parisien”, describing.. almost year by year from 1816-1848 the progressive inroads of the rising bourgeois upon the society of nobles that reconstituted itself after 1815 and that set up again, as far as it could the standard of la veille politesse francaise [Old French Refinement]…. Even in economic details.. I have learned more from [Balzac] than from all the professed historians, economists and statisticians of the period together. Well, Balzac was politically a Legitimist [adherents of the Bourbons overthrown in France in 1792, who represented the interests of the landed aristocracy]; his great work is a constant elegy on the irretrievable decay of good society, his sympathies are all with the class doomed to extinction. … That Balzac was compelled to go against his own class sympathies and political prejudices, that he saw the necessity of the downfall of his favourite nobles, and described them as people deserving no better fate; and that he saw the real men of the future where, for the time being they alone were to be found – that I consider one of the greatest triumphs of Realism, and one of the grandest features in old Balzac”.
Letter to Margaret Harkness; Engels April 1888; Marx and Engels Selected Correspondence, Moscow; 1975; p.379-81;
Similarly, Marx points out to Lassalle that while the content of an art work needs to be historically accurate, it is not necessary – indeed it is often counter-productive - (“Your gravest shortcoming”) - to allow characters to be “transform(ed) [from] individuals into mere mouthpieces of the spirit of the time”.
Art therefore is not a series of speeches, it is a different article from propaganda:
"London, November 26, 1885; Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle, on his drama Franz von Sickingen ;
Hence, if you did not want to reduce the collision to that presented in Gotz von Berlichingen - and that was not your plan - then Sickingen and Hutten had to succumb because they imagined they were revolutionaries (the latter cannot be said of Gotz) and, just like the educated Polish nobility of 1830, on the one hand, made themselves exponents of modern ideas, while, on the other, they actually represented the interests of a reactionary class. The aristocratic representatives of the revolution --behind whose watchwords of unity and liberty there still lurked the dream of the old empire and of club-law -- should, in that case, not have absorbed all interest, as they do in your play, but the representatives of the peasants (particularly these) and of the revolutionary elements in the cities ought to have formed a quite significant active background. In that case you could to a much greater extent have allowed them to voice the most modern ideas in their most naive form, whereas now, besides religious freedom, civil unity actually remains the main idea. You would then have been automatically compelled to write more in Shakespeare's manner whereas I regard as your gravest shortcoming the fact that a la Schiller you transform individuals into mere mouthpieces of the spirit of the time. Did you not yourself to a certain extent fall into the diplomatic error, like your Franz von Sickingen, of placing the, Lutheran-knightly opposition above the plebeian Munzer opposition? Further, the characters are lacking in character. I exclude Charles V, Balthasar and Richard of Trier. Was there ever a time of more impressive characters than the 16th century? Hutten, I think, is too much just a representative of "inspiration" and this is boring. Was he not at the same time an ingenious person of devilish wit, and have you not therefore done him a great injustice?,
“Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle; Problems Of Revolutionary Tragedy: Marx And Engels To Ferdinand Lassalle On His Drama Franz Von Sickingen Transcribed By Alliance From: "Marx And Engels On Literature And Art"; Moscow; 1976
Both Marx and Engels thought that the best art was distinct from propaganda. The latter depicts people acting as ‘mouthpieces’. But the best art while being very realistic and true to life, did not need to “itself offer a direct solution of the problem involved” or “even without at times ostensibly taking sides.”
(4) What Paintings did Engels, Lenin and Stalin Admire?
Some indication has been given of this from the references of Marx and Engels in literature already cited, but there is far less regarding the visual arts.
I have not dealt with Stalin's literary preferences as Bill has already dealt with this in his article Stalin and the Arts [http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/A2004/STALINART.html].
But since this talk is more about the visual arts, and a picture is worth a thousand words, I would like to show the favourite paintings as far as we know, of Engels and Stalin. We have some indication of their preferences in this regard, but none of either Lenin or Marx.
(i) Frederick Engels: Karl Hubner: “The Silesian Weavers”
The example that we know of for Engels, is vividly described by him in an article.
Engels clearly has absolutely no compunction about highlighting a picture that is both partisan and highly emotional.
These are two of the very elements that bourgeois ideologues find most repugnant about socialist realism:
“Let me on this occasion mention a painting by one of the best German painters, Karl Hubner, which has made a more effectual Socialist agitation than a hundred pamphlets might have done. It represents some Silesian weavers bringing linen cloth to the manufacturer, and contrasts very strikingly cold-hearted wealth on one side, and despairing poverty on the other. The well-fed manufacturer is represented with a face as red and unfeeling as brass, rejecting a piece of cloth which belongs to a woman; the woman, seeing no chance of selling the cloth, is sinking down and fainting, surrounded by her two little children, and hardly kept up by an old Man; a clerk is looking over a piece, the owners of which are with painful anxiety waiting for the result; a young man shows to his desponding mother the scanty wages he has received for his labour; an old man, a girl, and a boy, are sifting on a stone bench, and waiting for their turn; and two men, each with a piece of rejected cloth on his back, are just leaving the room, one of whom is clenching his fist in rage, whilst the other, putting his hand on his neighbour's arm, points up towards heaven, as if saying: be quiet, there is a judge to punish him. This whole scene is going on in a cold and un-homely-looking lobby, with a stone floor: only the manufacturer stands upon a piece of carpeting; whilst on the other side of the painting, behind a bar, a view is opened into a luxuriously furnished counting-house, with splendid curtains and looking-glasses, where some clerks are writing, undisturbed by what is passing behind them,. and where the manufacturer's son, a young, dandy-like gentleman, is leaning over the bar, with a horsewhip in his hand, smoking a cigar, and coolly looking at the distressed weavers. The painting has been exhibited in several towns of Germany, and, of course, prepared a good many minds for Social ideas. At the same time, we have had the triumph of seeing the first historical painter of this country, Charles Lessing, become a convert to Socialism.” Frederick Engels: “Rapid Progress of Communism in Germany”; First Printed In: The New Moral World No. 25, December 13, 1844; In Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; pp. 229-233
It is not known what Lenin's favourite painting was. But it is known that he detested "Futurism", and "incomprehensible art".
Here is Vladmir Tatlin's "Model of the Monument to the Third International 1920":Everything we do know about Lenin's views on art, are quite consistent with those of Stalin:
"All Lenin's recorded utterances on art at this time suggest he approved the traditional and deplored the formally innovative. In February 1921, on a midnight visit toVarya Armand (the daughter of the revolutionary Inessa Armand), who was studying art in Moscow, Lenin became involved in a discussion with a group of art students in their hostel.These students recognised'nothing to the right of constructivism" in art; but among their number was one student (a Siberian whose name, for one reason or another, has not come down to us) who made realistic works:'It was very soon after this time, that Lenin began a counter-attack on the ultra-leftism of the Proletkult (See http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE7COMMUNISTACADEMY.html ).
"This," says Lenin,"I understand.This is comprehensible to me, and comprehensible to you, and comprehensible to a worker and to everyone else"'.
Similarly, in his most extended reported discourse on art, a conversation with Klara Tsetkin, he reportedly called for an art that was 'comprehensible to the masses'.
This comprehensibility appears to have signified, in Lenin's mind, a kind of party-oriented reportage; discussing the Soviet cinema, which he regarded as the most important art form (this was, in fact, a prescient and not at all conventional view circa 1920), Lenin emphasised the importance of documentary films, stating that 'the production of new films, imbued with Communist ideas, reflecting Soviet actuality, should begin with the newsreel'."
Matthew Cullerne Bown; “Socialist Realist Painting”; New Haven 1998; p. 62.
(iii) J.V.Stalin: Ilya Repin: “Zaporozhe Cossacks Write a letter to Tartar King”
As described by Brown, Stalin was impressed by Repin, but espeically this picture:“Picture depicts Cossacks writing a rude and rebellious letter to the Turkish Sultan in reply to his demands for their capitulation. The Cossacks are collectively splitting their sides in anticipation of the Sultan's reaction…. Stalin wrote modestly leaving the exhibition in the visitor's book: ”Was at the exhibition. Generally in my opinion good”; Matthew Culhearne Brown; “Art Under Stalin”; New York; 1991; p. 56.
(iii) W.B.Bland: Diego Rodriguez De Silva y Velazquez: “Pope Innocennzo X”.
While not in any way attempting to elevate Bland to the levels of the Marxist-Leninists discussed in this article, it is nonetheless appropriate in a memorial on Bill, to ask what were some of his favourite paintings? Bland’s relation to his leaders, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha, is a matter for history and deeper analysis.
However - In Bill’s house in Ilford, the walls were hung with a variety of impressionist painting, including Van Gogh’s “Chair and boots”; “Sunflowers”. There was also a small reproduction of Degas’s statuette of the Dancer. He lived by himself, and these articles certainly reflected his own taste.
Diego Rodriguez De Silva y Velazquez: “Pope Innocennzo X”.
On the back of a postcard sent to me, of this painting Bland wrote: “I think this portrait (on loan here at present) is one of the finest I have ever seen”;
(5) WAS GOOD ART MADE IN THE USSR?
In this format, it is impossible to give a full and comprehensive history of USSR painting.
However we cna give some some indication, that all range of contents dealing with human life was depicted with vivid realism and accuracy. A range of paintings will be presented as examples.
Even Anatol Lunacharskii, who at times wavered in his views, as the Commissar for enlightenment, declared himself in favour of realism; despite his pull towards the futurist leftist tendency.
In 1919 Lunarchaskii appealed in “The Artistic Task of Soviet Power’ that:
‘The central content … is the struggle for socialism and the socialist ideal itself”;
Cited Matthew Cullerne Bown; “Socialist Realist Painting”; New Haven 1998; p. 54.
How well did the artists respond? Flipping through the excellent publiction by Matthew Cullerne Bown, "Socialist Realist Painting" published by Yale in 1998, we can readily see some extremely wonderful works. The illustrations below are all drawn from that work.
In terms of the 'Iconic State Art' that was discussed earlier, perhaps the first memorable piece was that of Isaak Brodski – who was introduced to Lenin by Lunacharskii as follows:
“From an ethical and political point of view the artist Brodskii merits complete trust’;
Cited Bown M.C. Ibid; p. 57.
Thereafter an immense painting “The Ceremonial Opening of the Second Congress of the Third International” [350x550 cm] was shown in 1924.Of the 218 delegates from 67 parties, Brodski made 125 portraits, combining these into the picutre. Each individual delegate - including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin - are recognisable.
In the meantime, while he was working away on this massive scale, he painted Lenin and Trotsky.
It is not recorded as far as I can find, that Trotsky modestly declined to have his picture painted. Indeed Trotsky urged that Lenin be depicted, as did Krasin (Bown Ibid p. 56).
In a later march of the Ultra-leftists of the AKhR, Brodski was driven out:
"AKhR began a purge of its own ranks in 1928. The bete-noir of the young activists was the arch-traditionalist Brodksi. In a declaration issued at the time of the May 1928 Congress, they called for a struggle with 'photo-naturalism - Broskiism'. Brodskii was driven out fo the AKhR; soon afterwards he was followed buy the painter of Russian hisotricla scences Gavriil Gorelov - hounded out becassue in 1927 he had aprticiated in the decoration of a church - and by Leningrad apinter Mikhail Avilov." Cullerne Bown Ibid; p. 115.
An early example of an artistically exaggerated perspective, one that enhanced an overall realism is that of Kustodiev B.M. “A Bolshevik’; 1920 [101x141 cm].
In my view, tihs illustrates nicely the distinction between "Realism" and "Naturalism".
Kustodiev was previous to this picture, better known for nudes and portraits. He became a respected member of the arts communnity, and exhibited both with ultra-leftists from the Protekult and other groups. He remaiend unaligned.
The difficulties of daily life were portrayed with unflinching realisms as in Savitski’s G,K. “The year 1919’; 63x43 cm].
An example of a "realism" that was quite novel - and "anti-naturalism" - in its depiction of stark cold plain background was Alexander A Deineka’s “The Defence of Petrograd”; 1927 (218x354 cm);
Although not a member of the AKhRR, Deineka was invited to show at the 10th exhibiton of AKh RR, and this painting was "consdiered the star of the
exhibition" Cullerne Bown Ibid; p. 77.
He studied workers' movements in the factory for hours at times before a picture, and he was fascinated by 'rhythm'.
This can be seen above.
As well can seen sharp contrasts - "the struggle of white and black elements in graphics" - as expounded by Vladimir Favorski.
Deineka was a bridge between the graphics of the socialist poster and the canvas art of Socialist Realism.
Later commentators would remark on the multi-spatial dimension (Two lines of soldiers - before and after the revolution) - as a "paradigm of the 'dialectical-materialist' approach to painintg."; Cited Culleren Bown Ibid; p. 95.
The new life under sociailism was depicted as being a wide open avenue along which a young lady could drive a car towards the city, by Yuri I Pimenov “New Moscow”; in 1937 [140x170 cm].
The image of “A Partisan” by Sergei V Malyutin 1936 [100x150 cm] is deceptively simple. With intense focus on the man, the rutted snow behind shows how this man will travel on guard for danger.
While George C Nisski’s “Sebastopol – The Meeting”;(1935 77x101 cm) shows with luminescent colouring, an age-old scene of boy meets girl. With the kicker of a bunch of mates in the background no doubt good humouredly - but perhaps slightly jealously? - watching their comrade’s good fortune.
The natural beauty of the world, was not lost on artists in the USSR of socialist realism, as a famous impressionist artist, Aleksandr M Gerasimov shows in “An Orchard in Blossom”; (1935; 124x133 cm).
With the War years of course, the emphasis changed, and the war reality and bravery of the USSR people was shown clearly. Despite the privations of the war, painting went on. Exhibitions were once more held from 1942, and one, “Leningrad in the Days of the Patriotic War”, held ins the still besieged city, drew :
“weak, scarcely moving people .. to our cold exhibition hall .. carrying their most recent works”;To be singled out are perhaps Sergei V. Gerasimov’s “The Mother of a Partisan” (1943 184x232 cm);
Bown M.C. Cited Ibid; p.216.
And once more the work of Alexsandr A Deineka, whose rapid movement in “The Defence of Sebastopol” (1942 200x400 cm) makes the canvas appear cinematic. This is helped by the unusual horizontal canvas shape, a "wide angle" frame. The naked figure on the far left hurling a grenade swirls into the dressed sailor brandishing a piece of fencing as defence, who in turn is thrown into the distant sailor wielding a rifle in hand-to-hand combat.
Naturally again the emphasis would shift after the war, to once more depict the life of the people. “Galya of the Birds” by Pavel F Globa [1950 137x201 cm] is very far from the image that is presented by the bourgeoisie of socialist Realism. As for A.M.Gerasimov, it would not be very far-fetched to think of this in an exhibition of the Impressionists.
Contrary to received wisdom, Stalin's views, and personal preferences in art were not at all dissimilar to those of Marx and Engels and Lenin.
He was not the moving force behind the plethora of bad propagandist art that was seen in the late period of the USSR. Undoubted distortions occurred, and need further exploration. However, Ultra-leftist trends were supported by a combination of misguided honest elements, and hidden revisionists.
Nonetheless, the era of Socialist art covered a number of trends over the period 1917-1953, and undoubtedly has left future progressive artists and peoples a lasting legacy of extraordinary art.
Whether it is to everyone's taste is another matter. But then - not everyone is a supporter of socialism. I submit, that the art of that era is more consistent with people's views than the modern art collected by the Saatchi's of this world.