عنوان مقاله [English]
In 1932, Stalin dissolved the Soviet cultural organizations based on instructions. As a result of this instruction, the school of socialist realism was introduced as a new aesthetic method. The importance of this school in the structure of politics and art was such that from early 1930 until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, the only official way to express creativity and publish works in all fields of art and literature was under the same title. The principle of the new guide, based on what was stated in the Communist Party’s ideology, calls for art and all cultural objects to be faithful to socialist ideals and the principle of class struggle. From this historical moment, a unique period in the political and cultural life of the former Soviet Union began, known as the “Age of Socialist Realism”. The link to this article aims to critically examine the relationship between art and politics in the Soviet communist system by focusing on the Stalin period. Since the study of this link requires an acquaintance with the ideology of Stalinism in the field of action theory, this doctrine is briefly described in terms of political and cultural aspirations. Given the spatial and temporal focus of the main question of this article, how can the reflection of the interests of power and politics in the field of art and literature of this period be analyzed? In answer to this question, it has been hypothesized that the aesthetic method of socialist realism has been emphasized as a link between the demands of those in power in Stalin’s communist era in the artistic and literary fields, from painting to music and film.
As the research has shown, Stalinism is the nature and practice of a regime that, from the late 1920s, with Stalin’s domination of power until his death, has been violently and relentlessly pursued in the political, economic, and cultural spheres. Being aware of the importance of the work of intellectuals and artists, Stalin concluded that his great chauvinism, called “socialism in one country”, depended solely on the creation of the original aesthetics, which could be achieved by mobilizing the people of art and literature. The ideal would come true. In this sense, the importance of people like Zhdanov and some important artistic figures such as Maxim Gorky in shaping this school should not be overlooked. With the practical plan of 1932, all independent artistic and cultural institutions and other forces of civil society were suppressed, and with the imposition of social realism, only one criterion remained in the cultural sphere. To this end, after a reference to the meaning contained in the ideology of Stalinism, the historical and social contexts of the emergence of socialist realism (social realism) in Russia are described in detail. To prove the hypothesis, attention has been paid to explaining and analyzing the basic principles of the mentioned school. A study of the available sources and works in this field shows that the three principles that formed socialist realism represented a strong link between ideological interests in the cultural and artistic spheres. These include: 1. People’s populism in art: since the Soviet system claimed that genuine cultural achievement belonged to the people and served their needs, the people of art and literature were asked to produce works that emphasized the political components of populism instead of formalist meanings and artistic techniques. In this regard, by studying and referring to some works in this field, the important principle of art for peoples has been introduced. 2. Partyism in Art: Lenin, in his treatise Party Literature, predetermined the coordination of works of art in the Soviet communist system. Although the treatise emphasizes the principle of “free art in the service of the proletariat”, it was a line of distinction between original and committed art and harmful and useless works. 3. According to the aesthetic positions presented in socialist realism, each production work had a “basic design’ and a foundation that committed itself to ideological originality. The center of gravity of this project was based on the aesthetic principles of Marxism-Leninism.
In this regard, the study of various works during this period shows that the people of art, along with the workers, are seeking to produce and shape what was called the “modern man of the council”. This means that the writers are at the forefront of the proletariat’s manual activity on the path to the realization of the communist utopia. In other words, the ideological commitment involved proving that politics and genuine art are acknowledging loyalty to the truth of just living in a council country. An examination of Stalin’s artistic and literary works reveals that socialist realism has always served class ideals by seeking positions such as optimism, Bolshevik humanism, and artist activism while eliminating the aesthetic gap between form and content. The consequences of this link between politics and art soon became apparent: totalitarian art, because all three central concepts in the aesthetics of socialist realism, namely populism, party commitment, and ideological attitudes, were deeply indebted to the politicized principle of “closed borders”. Under these circumstances, the desired form or artistic and literary style was not only independent, but the fluid nature of the ideological tendencies was prevalent throughout communist cultural works on the black or white side according to political circumstances. As many of the works that symbolized the commitment to the party and the revolution during Lenin’s time were destroyed and censored during Stalin’s rule. Similarly the post-Stalinist years, many works were not popular because of their mere political inclinations.