Talk:Socialist realism/Archive 1

Ref.Stalin
May be used somewhere. mikka (t) 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Письмо И.В.Сталина Л.М.Кагановичу
 * 15 августа 1934
 * "Замечания на статью Горького считаю правильными. Нельзя печатать статьи без необходимых изменений. Надо разъяснить всем литераторам-коммунистам, что хозяином в литературе, как и в других областях, является только ЦК и что они обязаны подчинятся последнему беспрекословно"
 * РГАСПИ. Ф.558. Оп.11. Д.83. Л. 67-69. Кат.70

Gallery
The Gallery of Socialist Realism was deleted AfD because of several editors were concern that it failed WP:NOT an image gallery. (After a discusion here that policy has been modified). Since one cannot understand an art movement without seeing many examples, I have added the gallery to the main article. Dsmdgold 15:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Why the tag
?radek 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images
This article uses dozens of non-free images, many in galleries and without comment. As another user commented elsewhere, "Articles about moderns schools of art are expected to contain a high number of non-free images, as many non-free works of art are discussed/used as examples. But none image should be included if not discussed." I agree. This should be fixed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mexican muralists
Wouldn't the art of the Mexican muralists of the first half of the 20th century qualify also as socialist realism? I think so. Those guys were at an individual level communists or at the very least socialists; the likes of Diego Rivera (one of his murals -at the Rockefeller center- was destroyed before being completed for being overtly socialist or something), David Alfaro Siqueiros, and José Clemente Orozco among others. If yes, perhaps they should be included; otherwise the article may give the impression that this art took place only the in soviet block. Anagnorisis 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the main difference is not the political leanings of the artists, but the governments. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany prohibited modernist and avant-garde art and Socialist Realism became the state art (I forget what term is used for Nazi Germany, perhaps Heroic Realism). The Mexican Muralists were often communists and used socialist themes, but they weren't part of a government bureaucracy that limited how the art could look. But you're right, Rivera's Rockefeller center mural was taken down for political imagry, including an image of Lenin. Plus, the Mexican Muralists would often use modernist techniques, even though the work was representational. It wasn't "realist" in the same way as artists working under totalitarian regimes. Perhaps a small section could be devoted to other overtly political and Marxist art in other countries, but I wouldn't call it Socialist Realism as this is generally understood to refer to specifically Societ Bloc artists (and other Communist countries like China).Freshacconci 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not merely the relation to the government. The techniques, intention and overall aesthetic are very different. It's not quite right to imply that there is an opposition realism vs. modernism, as Brecht, for example developed a form of realism (that definitely isn't socialist realism - he was persecuted for it failing to live up to the standard) which is also very modernist. If you were to include every communist or socialist artist in the category, a vast chunk of twentieth-century theatre, literature, painting, etc. would suddenly qualify. The use of 'realist' in 'socialist realism' is idiosyncratic (they're not very realistic, often). Perhaps it makes more sense to talk about an institutional field - Zhdanov's speeches at the First Soviet Writer's conference, for example. DionysosProteus 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stalin as an Organizer of the October Revolution.jpg
Image:Stalin as an Organizer of the October Revolution.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias
This article has a strong anti-communist bias, to put it mildly, which is unfair, because much socialist realism is good art, and not crap, as the article's author suggests. A far more differentiated discussion of socialist realism is necessary. Also, the selection of images is terribly lopsided and shows minor works. As an expert on Soviet and post-Soviet art, I must say that this article is truly awful. One of the worst I've ever encountered on Wikipedia...Sorry...
 * Obviously you'll have biases in english wiki. Who do you think writes the articles? People brought up in U.S. dogma. Do your best to combat it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.248 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Walter Womacka
I've recently started an article on Walter Womacka. He did a lot of art for East Germany. Here is some of his work =. His work is socialist but I don't think it's realist. So what does his work qualify as? --Tocino 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But what about the style of art?
Most this article seems devoted to the ramifications imposed on art by the USSR's authoritarian government. Half the artists referenced seem to have been picked purely due to the fact that had political opinions which differed from the governments or were known outside of the USSR. There were many more prominent artists involved in Socialist Realism which are not even mentioned, apparently it seems because they were not famous outside of the USSR (notoriety outside of the USSR seems have much more to do with the artist's opposition to communist rule than any artistic ability or insight).

Can we have a bit more information on the artist style please, the later images in the gallery are the only ones showing much of a socialist realism style and only the odd paragraph puts down the politics for a moment to focus on the artistic style - which after all is meant to be what the article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.98.104 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Other versions of the phrase
Occasionally, one sees this movement called "Soviet realism" instead of "socialist realism." I recall this particularly in Gerald Abraham's book Eight Soviet Composers. Is it worth mentioning this somewhere?

I have also fixed up the paragraph that mentions Prokofiev so that (I believe) it no longer needs the citation-needed tag. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 14:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How the Steel Was Tempered and the Writer's Congress
I added How the Steel Was Tempered to the paragraph on important works. Also, I think this article needs more information on the Soviet writer's Congress. I will work on that.

Additionally, I don't think a quote from Tertz on socialist realism works on its own. Tertz was a dissident writer; perhaps this quote can be balanced with a quote from Gorky defining socialist realism? Heresybythought (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bertold Brecht
A discussion of Brecht should be added to the article. --Eleassar my talk 20:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Leningradartist
Contributor Leningradartist is Russian art historian with main subject - Leningrad artists. The gallery is absolutely non typical for main subject and really marginal. We have our own problems with him in ru-wiki.--Shakko (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The myth of the 'dreadful' socialist realism
To present the era of Socialist realism, many factors ought to be examined. In a first place should be taken into account the educational system and with it the 'birth' of an artist. Being in person involved in the Arts on both sides of the spectrum - Eastern block country until 1968 and in the Western world since 1968 on, I think I am qualified enough.

The principle of the birth of an artist in the East was in the educational system, centrally tied to the general economic plan with emphasis of placement of the exiting artists on all levels into the guaranteed system of employment. The education was paid by the state. The selection process started at the entry level for Art Collages in fair number of students, descending into a small number of students, or candidates for the University or Academy of Arts. The number of final graduates was large in the painting, graphic, design etc. and very small in sculpture (in Czechoslovakia 2-3). Contrary, in Western sphere the entry level was more relaxed and the exit level also opened, with artist to fend for himself in the open market, the selection by the fittest. Artist pays for his education himself.

The educational process on both sides was rather excellent, though I may favor the East on the principle of a wider platform of knowledge granted and required. The exiting level, on the professional consideration, in both systems was very compatible, if you consider a small area of monuments and portrayal of statesmen, since this was in the East the only form of public Art. Placed side to side they would match each other ounce for ounce, except the statesmen portrayal would be on the East side marked by ideological difference and if flags present in portrayal on a monument, they also will be different. Of course, this was the official public Art. But as Art, it was not alone, there was the 'underground' of unofficial artists. Rasto Hlavina 74.210.37.164 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Rasto Hlavina74.210.37.164 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The avant-garde and the Bolsheviks
I edited out the comment in the section "roots" that read:

the charge that art be understandable to the whole people negated the Western notion of the avant garde (despite the Bolsheviks casting themselves as a political "vanguard")

This is because I believe the sentence clearly misunderstands or misrepresents what the Bolsheviks meant by "vanguard" (i.e. they were never claiming to be an artistic vanguard, simply that they aspired to be the organisation of the most progressive workers) and it is also historically problematic since they *were* associated with avant-garde art movements like futurism. It was only after the party had been completely transformed into the bureaucratic party of an authoritarian state (and all the 1917 Bolshevik leaders other than Stalin had been marginalised) that "socialist realism" emerged as a state-back cultural ideology.

For an introduction to the relationship between the Bolsheviks and the Russian avant-garde, see John Willett (1978) "The New Sobriety", chapter 5. For an appraisal of literature (including positive reactions to avant-garde work) by a key Bolshevik leader, see Trotsky's "Literature and Revolution". Cliff (1993) "The Darker the Night, the Brighter the Star", chapter 14 gives an account of the elimination of the leadership of the 1917 Bolsheviks, which was finalised at the same time that socialist realism was introduced. These historical details are available in *many* other places, however.

I also believe the "Western" to be misleading, or at best superfluous, in this sentence. Russian had its own substantial and influential avant-garde. What could the point of Western be in this sentence other than to suggest that avant-garde is somehow not Russian?

I changed the section to read:

the charge that art be understandable to the whole people negated the notion of the avant-garde

which I believe is both more neutral and more accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmiller6 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
Citations: The notes posted at the end of this article could be helpful to researchers, but this article could benefit greatly from a more detailed list of references (containing more bibliographic information about each source than is provided in the notes) to aid future researchers. Although there are certain areas of this article that are well documented with citations in the notes section, there are other large sections of information that go completely un-cited in this article. The information seems important to the article as a whole and contributes significantly to the overall work, so removing it would not help this article greatly, but instead putting in additional citations would clear up the problem and the article would be much more complete as a result. Examples include the introduction to the article and the first few paragraphs in the Soviet Union section.

Information Thoroughness: This article as a whole seems very thorough; however, there are a few sections that could benefit from an increase in information. It would be helpful to know more about how the rules for socialist realism were devised, who was involved in the process, and why there was a need to lay them down in the first place. The information here could also benefit from a citation. Also, there could be more information in the notable works section, as the focus seems to be on written works and music and not on any other forms of art. There is not much information about painting and no information about sculpture or architecture, and the addition of this information would better complete the notable works section. One other thing in the notable works section, in the part about Louis Aragon, it is written that he wrote two books, but only one is listed.

Completeness of Information: In the article, it is stated that “Artists who strayed from the official line were severely punished,” but it doesn’t include how. I feel that this article could use a separate section listing what happened to those artists who didn’t follow socialist realism in their art, and also a clearer sentence or two that states what the “official line” was.

Graphics: The graphics provided greatly improve the quality of the article as they provide visual examples of the types of works that are being described in the article. The captions that go with the images are great as they provide not only the title of the work, but also the name of the artist. There is also great variety with the graphics.

Layout: The organization of the article is clear and assists in the readability of the article. However, the information in the history section about how socialist realism “remained an ambiguous term” may be better suited in the introduction than the history section. Neutrality: This article expresses a neutral viewpoint, however in areas like the Other Socialist States section where the purposes of imposed socialist realism are being explained, a citation could be beneficial to keep the viewpoint neutral.

Appropriateness of language and grammar: The terminology used in the article is appropriate and pertains to the topic. The article is easy to read, yet the language used is sophisticated enough that it describes the topic elegantly. One grammar issue that I came across is that the comma between the words architecture and considered in the other socialist states section could be replaced with a semicolon to make the sentence flow better. In the Soviet Union section about the Union of soviet writers, there are missing brackets around the words “See the league of American writers.”Ddabell (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

208 Peer Review
All in all, this is a very informative article with lots of pertinent information. The couple issues that I do see are mostly format ones. The first thing I notice is that the characteristics of the style of art are at the bottom of the page. Because the article is first an article on a style of art, this would benefit readers more if it were at the top of the page. The second thing I noticed was under the history heading. Where the article says, ‘social realism was customary until the mid-1980s,’ I understand what is trying to be said, but it may benefit from different wording. The last thing that I noticed is the history heading seems to be shadowing the Soviet Union heading. They could be fused together for greater ease of access, and so the article does not include repeats or possible accidental contradictions. (Nanner888 (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC))

Architecture
I am not sure how a particular building can be said to be "Realist" or even "Socialist Realist". Could you have a building that isn't real ?Streona (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * good point Cramyourspam (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My review

 * What this article is about? The first paragraph is mostly about arts in the SU, the second is a mixture of accidental events, it doesn't link articles about specific countries (if such articles exist).Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Russian Association of Proletarian Writers isn't linked here.Xx236 (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Artists who strayed from the official line were severely punished" - hundreds (or thousands) writers and artists were murdered or imprisoned or had to emigrate.Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Globalize
It's great that this article has a section on "other socialist states," but the section is quite small. Entire books have been written on Socialist realism / propaganda paintings in Maoist China, and in North Korea. More can be said here too. Personally, I think it would be fine to just put a link to a separate article dedicated to the topic of Socialist realism in China or Maoist propaganda painting, if such an article existed. But, in any case, it's a pretty extensive and major topic, and should be discussed, if someone has the time and resources to do the writing. [ http://www.amazon.com/Art-Chinas-Revolution-Asia-Society/dp/0300140649 Art and China's Revolution] might be a good source to work from. Cheers, LordAmeth (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Potential bibliography

 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551721/Socialist-Realism
 * OK for general information, but would avoid, since writing a tertiary source from a tertiary source is not recommended Aolivex (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.russianartdealer.com/socialist-realism/#sthash.uZGjPqWP.dpbs
 * Commercial website; not acceptable as a source Aolivex (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/education/sackler-center/sackler-exhibitions/past-exhibitions/230
 * Exceedingly short; was there a catalogue that accompanied this exhibition that could provide more details? Aolivex (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * http://artinrussia.org/socialist-realism/
 * Weak source - could you find a similar source that is more scholarly? (Who is the author of this text?) Aolivex (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kozlova, Nataliia, and Christine Ruane. "Socialist Realism." Sept. 1998
 * This citation is incomplete. Aolivex (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialist realism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_4_58/ai_59552693
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316192211/http://www.ldm.lt/Dailininkai/Tapyba_19401990_Z.htm to http://www.ldm.lt/dailininkai/Tapyba_19401990_Z.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No mentions of architecture
I noticed that this article almost completely skips over the architecture, even though architecture is definitely a significant element (and the most noticeable one for people living in post-soviet countries). For example the Polish article has mostly pictures of buildings, and there's even a separate article for socialist realist architecture in Poland on the Polish version of wiki. Unless the Polish article talks about something different (but then they should not be linked), I think more mentions of architecture should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.143.225 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)