Escapism and Patriotism in Soviet Rock

Rock music in America was associated with escapism and rebellion. It shared many of these associations in the Soviet underground musical sphere, where Western rock filled a void left by the state-sanctioned bands and allowed for the envisioning of what Yurchak calls the “Imaginary West”. Despite the ideological controls the state exercised over what was considered acceptable Western songs, Yurchak notes that “young Soviet audiences ignored this information. What mattered was the song’s dancing rhythm, non-Soviet sound, and American English.” (189). The songs presented an alternative vision to the pedestrian and melodious bands, and “allowed Soviet fans to imagine worlds that did not have to be linked to any “real” place or circumstances, neither Soviet nor Western.” (189). Western forms (which were characterized by a “a break with realism and the predictable, circular, and immutable aesthetic of light “melodious” music….[a] break that made Western rock seem so perfectly appropriate for the work of constructing vibrant imaginary worlds.” (236)) and genres, filtered through the lens of “cultural translation” (189), provided opportunities for fantasy and the generation of an “imaginary “elsewhere” that was not necessarily about any real place” (159). Rock was just another form of zagranitsa.

But at the same time, as Yurchak recounts in his detailed description of the Komsomol secretary Alexey, Soviet youth would later conflate “performative ritualized forms of authoritative discourse” (221) with a deep love for black market music. Patriotism and devotion to communism was not subsumed by ‘bourgeois’ music, rather, Western music helped Alexey and others examine their own communist ideals in relation to the avant-garde sounds of rock and punk. The systems which criticized and denounced the bourgeois sensibilities of Western music and the systems that distributed and listened to Pink Floyd were not incompatible; Yurchak notes that for many Soviet teens “formulaic structures of authoritative discourse and engaging in critical reflection on the meaning of communist ideas were two distinct activities that were not in contradiction because the former enabled the latter. A moral and thinking person had to be able to do both.” (226). As equally progressive, status-challenging genres “Communist values and…Western art rock were aesthetically and even “psycho-aesthetically” connected to the same future of humanity.” (233). Interestingly enough, this philosophy seems to resolve the “fatal split” that characterized Soviet novels, and helps bridge the gap between the proletarian and abstract art. The dialogue between the “total liberation of culture [and] the means of achieving it through subjecting culture to total control by the party” (165) was reconciled by painting each side as future-oriented and progressive. Critical examination of Marxist-Leninist thought and critical listenings of rock, Western or Soviet, fused the futurist and progressive strands of the respective traditions into a compatible whole.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Paradox of Soviet Realism

In her analysis of the Soviet novel and the meaning of Soviet realism, Katerina Clark argues that the canon of works that served as models for Soviet realism and the notion of their significance were created after the fact, a constructed literary tradition. She goes on to explore the paradox of Soviet realism, the “fatal split” that makes many critics uncomfortable due to the tensions between realist style and myth building simultaneously being championed in these canonized texts. Clark explains, “One can reduce most of these oppositions to a single dichotomy and characterize the novel’s “fatal split” in terms of mode: the novel depicts “what is” (i.e., it uses the realist mode)/ the novel depicts “what ought to be” (i.e., it idealizes reality, the utopian or mythic mode). This particular dichotomy is not some misguided trend that emerged in the course of literary practice; it was actually built into the definition of what was to be distinctive in Soviet Socialist Realism. It is especially apparent in the instructions Zhdanov gave writers in 1934 (to show “a combination of the most matter-of-fact, everyday reality, and the most heroic prospects”)” (Clark, 37).
In addition to being forced to closely adhere to Party ideology and serve as a utopian model for what society was and should be like in a glorious future, Soviet realism was repeatedly referred to as the greatest and most advanced literature of all time in Zhdanov’s speech. What does it mean, artistically and politically, for the best art, the most utopian and influential art, to fit inside a formula that encourages replication and the awkward bridging of what currently is and what ought to be?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Zhiznetvorchestvo and Soviet Realism

Soviet Realism appears to be the derived product of the “proletarian art” previously described by Boris Arvatov. (Arvatov, 238)  Focusing on industry, production, and the lives of everyday workers, Soviet Realism sought to root itself entirely in the life of the proletariat. While many have criticized it for being forced and artificial, the authors of Soviet Realism sought to present it as a purely organic development, rooted in a rich history. Portraying cultural movements as naturally developed has so far seemed incredibly important in making them appear legitimate.

The perspective of Soviet Realism appears to draw immensely from the concept of Zhiznetvorchestvo, in the way that it is described as simultaneously expressing and shaping reality. The speeches of Maksim Gorky and Andrei Zhdanov reflect this idea, and place an immense responsibility on writers. Gorky explains that writers are given “the right to participate directly in the construction of a new life, in the process of ‘changing the world.’ The possession of this right should impress every writer with a sense of his duty and responsibility for all literature.” (Gorky, Web) Similarly, Andrei Zhdanov says, “Comrade Stalin has called our writers engineers of human souls. What does this mean? What duties does the title confer upon you? In the first place, it means knowing life so as to be able to depict it truthfully in works of art…the truthfulness and historical concreteness of the artistic portrayal should be combined with the ideological remolding and education of the toiling people in the spirit of socialism.” (Zhdanov, Web) Both of these quotes display the belief that one must simultaneously portray life as it really is, and shape real life into what it should be.

Katerina Clark highlights this dichotomy as “modal schizophrenia, its proclivity for making sudden, unmotivated transitions from realistic discourse to the mythic or utopian.” (Clark, 37) While Clark presents the argument that Soviet Realism was forced, and therefore disjointed and unnatural, she argues that the adoption of Soviet Realism was not an entirely inorganic process. (Clark, 251) While it arguably flourished through massive propaganda and censorship, it in many ways successfully shaped the reality that it was seeking to express, leading to a symbiotic relationship between “what was” and “what should be,” and blurring the lines between both.  

Many of our readings have addressed the topic of “organic” versus “inorganic” cultural development, and it seems to be an important topic in whether or not a movement could be considered legitimate. My question is: if those in power successfully shape reality by portraying an idealized image of it, can this cycle of simultaneous creation and expression be defended as organic development? Does a movement need to develop organically in order to be legitimate? Was Soviet Realism an accurate rendering of the proletarian art envisioned by Arvatov?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Industrial Art vs. Community Rituals

In “The Proletariat and Leftist Art,” B. Arvatov describes a vision of revolutionary art that is practical, industrial, and grounded in everyday life. Meanwhile, he criticizes bourgeois art as bearing little relationship to real life, being ridden with fetishism, and remaining stagnant and irrelevant in the face of revolutionary times. Aratov prioritizes the way the art comes into existence more than its content, and affirms that only the proletariat is capable of pushing the frontier of industrial art forms:

“And only the proletariat can overcome this-the proletariat destined by history to take the second step forward: to fuse the manager and the producer together, and in this way to subordinate the industrial process-and also the process of artistic design-to the social consciousness and free will of the collective, a will that is not chaotic and blindly anarchistic, and that consequently can assure society against the vagaries of the individual… From the organizational engineer to the organizational worker-this is the path of social development in general, and of art in particular” (Arvatov, 240).

The art envisioned by Aratov seems to ground itself in mechanics, production, and collective thought and creation. Does this redefinition of what great, influential art should be also oppose qualities of traditional religious rites? How does industrial, collective art interact with the reconstruction of rituals that have been separated from religious context and meaning, especially in the realm of production versus performance? How is the sharing of originality and creativity in production similar or different than ritualistic community performances?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ritualism and Irrationality

I’m very interested in the comparisons that Stites has drawn between Bolshevik ritualism and religious symbolism. Although communist rituals were intended to be explicitly anti-religious and grounded in the “real” historical revolutionary moments and utopianism of the future, in many aspects, emerging Soviet ideals and practices appear to mimic religion.

A large component of communist ideology is dependent upon anti-individualism and collectivism. The purpose of the large “carnivalesque” street parade the Stites describes in “Festivals of the People” was essentially to integrate the individual into the communist totality by creating a sort of collective effervescence. A problem that Lenin seemed to face in his ritual-building was towing the line between uniting the people and appealing to an excitement and irrationality that challenges the solemnity and practicality of communist ideals. This makes me wonder if ritualism is inseparable from religious elements, and if then ritualism is thus always at odds with the communist project. Ritualism seems to be an inherently irrational practice, in that it has no real use other than to worship – whether that be God or Marx or a Soviet utopia. Ritualism is necessary because people need something tangible to believe in and to hope for that extends beyond their immediate lives. What ritualism appeals to is something beyond what is already there in front of you, and maybe even something beyond what can actually exist in a material world – and communism is explicitly ground in the material. Perhaps this is what the Mao quote gets at: “‘Marxism-Leninism has no beauty nor has it any mystical value. It is only extremely useful.'” (Stites, p. 306)

This leads me to several questions. Would ritualism be necessary in a utopian society? Ritualism was employed by communist leaders in order to get the masses to believe in the Soviet utopian future… not only that this future is good, but that it is possible.  Also, as mentioned, is ritualism inherently contradictory to the communist ideology? Or, is communism inherently contradicting itself? Any sort of all-encompassing unity of the people seems to appeal to something very spiritual and transcending of the material world.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Some sad news :(

Just stumbled across this article in the New York Times — apparently Evgenii Evtushenko (author of Stalin’s Heirs and Mourners Crushed at Stalin’s Funeral) just passed away this Saturday at age 83. The article discusses his life, his political activism, and the influence of his poetry. It’s an interesting read, but also very sad news to hear.

Here’s the link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/world/europe/yevgeny-yevtushenko-dead-dissident-soviet-poet.html?_r=0

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Symbolism, Russo Centrism, Utopianism and Stalin’s Reign

Unlike the artistic shift that took place during Peter’s Cultural Revolution, in which artists moved away from traditional Muscovite art styles to adopt a style that was wholly European, the Symbolist movement was an attempt by Russian artists to look inward, not only to themselves as individuals, but once again within Russian culture, rooting themselves in their own history, yet attempting to reconcile traditional Russian imagery with the established European style. This trend can be seen in the performance of Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring” in which costumes and choreography are influenced by traditional Muscovite styles, yet with a contemporary twist that incorporates elements of both Western European and Russian culture. It is also seen in Ilya Repin’s painting: Ivan the Terrible and his Son, in which an important event in Russian history is depicted using elements that are more characteristically European. Similarly, Viktor Vasnetsov’s Three Princesses uses Western Realism to portray three women in traditional Muscovite dresses. Irina Paperno explains that “western cultural paradigms were…rearranged to fit into a new context; they were alloyed with ideas and images specifically Russian.” (Paperno, 5)

While Symbolism emphasized Russia’s history and Muscovite roots, it was not a backwards-looking cultural movement. It was inherently modernistic, and the artists and poets attempted to break new ground by looking ahead to a Utopian ‘new world’. Paperno describes their perspective: “the accepted model of reality, or the world itself, is up for rearrangement. This mentality drew its strength from a characteristic feeling: the apocalyptic sense that humankind was living at the “breaking point” of history, destined for totally novel times and a new world.” (Paperno, 3) Therefore, the Symbolist movement appears to be simultaneously looking inward, to Russia’s own history and culture, and looking ahead to a new future: a reform of society in uncharted ways.

Paperno suggests that the Symbolist movement helped to advance a culture which facilitated Stalin’s rise to power, when she writes: “it is no accident that commentators as diverse as the emigre Symbolist Fedor Stepun, the repentant revolutionary Nikolai Valentinov, and Nadezhda Mandelshtam came to see Symbolist “life-creation” as contributing to an atmosphere that allowed the totalitarian control imposed by Stalin.” (Paperno, 9) Is this opinion valid? Did the Symbolist movement, in its adoption of a more Russian-centered aesthetic, along with its Utopian, “new world” ideals contribute to a culture that was more receptive to Stalin’s Russocentric, Socialist rule?

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Interesting article about Lenin and literature

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/25/lenin-love-literature-russian-revolution-soviet-union-goethe

Seems relevant! The article mentions Belinskii’s letter to Gogol, among other topics we’ve covered. A piece that Lenin wrote on Tolstoy is also cited, which I found particularly interesting:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/sep/11.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Wrong Way to Start a Revolution

The revolutionaries described in this chapter are, by and large, not very impressive. They never seem to have much understanding of the political situation in Russia and what it would actually take to accomplish real change or build a revolutionary movement. They come across as so obsessed with overthrowing the Tsar as soon as they can that they fail to envision any realistic means of doing so, or what would come after. One gets the sense that some of these revolutionaries began to care more about eliminating (or, failing that, merely hurting) the Tsarist state rather than helping people.

The failure of “going to the people” strikes me as emblematic of some of the worst tendencies of these movements. The idea of taking to the countryside and attempting to spread revolution amongst the populace sounds promising; it is easy to see why so many were taken with it. However, when the peasants did not react as expected, one gets the sense from reading Saunders that most revolutionaries gave up on the idea altogether. Some, most notably Lavrov,  did attempt to learn from these failures, but many so-called populists seemed remarkably unconcerned by the fact that they could not sell their ideas to the people. They simply wanted revolution now.

Vera Figner’s memoirs demonstrate this delusional mindset perfectly. As she describes it, The Will of the People had a focus on killing the Tsar that was almost like tunnel vision. For them, killing the Tsar was unquestionably a good thing that could only result in the further advancement of their goals. After the assassination, she is blind to the fact that all she and her comrades have done is replace the old Tsar with an even worse new one. The Will of the People even seem to have thought that the new Tsar might have been open to some of their new ideas after they had killed his father. The Will of the People, in the end, were far more concerned with bringing the Tsar down than with raising the people up. This leads me to wonder; were The Will of the People and their fellow travelers genuinely revolutionaries who lacked patience, or were they simply terrorists with a grudge against the state?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Bakunin, Lavrov and Individualism

I’m very interested in the role that individualism plays in securing the foundations of a revolutionary movement. Saunders identifies two broad movements within the revolutionary faction of Russian society: the Lavrovists and the Bakuninists. Lavrov argued that the development of the individual conscience was necessary for the revolutionizing of the peasantry, and that this shift would have to take place gradually and over time. Bakunin, however, claimed that at his time of writing, revolutionary conditions were already present, and that revolution could occur without individual enlightenment. Bakunin seemed more interested in the power of the community, rather than the individual. Furthermore, he argued that “‘in order to alter thought […] one must first of all change life.'” (Saunders, 320). Rather than ideology sowing the seeds of revolution, he saw the movement of the people itself as instilling revolutionary ideology.

Saunders argues that Bakunin was incorrect in his belief that revolution could occur without gradualism, and that if the revolutionaries made more of an effort to “put down roots” within the peasantry, they would have been more successful. But is there not a middle ground? While Lavrov raises the important point that an individual commitment to the movement is important for creating a strong revolutionary basis, Bakunin’s perspective seems equally valuable in that it emphasizes the power of communal action and social cohesion. Furthermore, as we saw with Lenin’s approach in “What Is To Be Done?”, it seems as though the concept of individual “conscience-raising” often strays into the territory of elitism, and works concentrates the power within a class of educated elites. My question, then, is how does a revolutionary movement secure a balance between social unity and individual agency? Given what we’ve read up to this point, I feel that in order for a revolution to be successful, there needs to be some sort of transfer of power from the revolutionaries to mass society, but how that is to be done seems more complicated…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment