Upload
volodeatis
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
1/24
Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Slavic Review.
http://www.jstor.org
The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era: Artists' Cooperatives in the Grip ofIdeology and the PlanAuthor(s): Galina Yankovskaya and Rebecca MitchellSource: Slavic Review, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Winter, 2006), pp. 769-791Published by: Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148454Accessed: 14-08-2015 05:28 UTC
F R N S
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148454?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aseeeshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4148454http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148454?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4148454?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4148454http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aseeeshttp://www.jstor.org/7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
2/24
The
Economic Dimensions of Art
in
the Stalinist
Era:
Artists'
Cooperatives
in
the
Grip
of
Ideology
and
the Plan
Galina Yankovskaya
"Oh,
this
eternal,
'accursed'
question:
What,
finally,
are
we
to do
with
these
artists? There are no customers Such is the
tragic path
of our
paint-
ing."1
At
approximately
the same
time that the
painter
Solomon Nikritin
wrote this
entry
in his
diary
(1937-1938),
the western observer Kurt Lon-
don,
troubled
by
the tone
surrounding
the discussion of
Nikritin's
works
and
by government
authorities' interference
in
art,
nevertheless noticed
the following achievement of Stalinist socialism: "Not a single creative per-
sonality
in the
Soviet
Union
suffers from a lack of financial means ...
they
do
not need to think
of
money
because their lives are
perfectly regulated
from
the economic
point
of
view."2
These
two
dramatically contradictory
opinions
demonstrate neither the
poorly
informed
view
of a
foreigner
nor
the
grievance
of an unsuccessful Soviet artist.
Rather,
they
delineate a
little-researched and
problematic
field of
inquiry-the
economics of So-
viet art.
Studying
the economic relations
within
the
institutional
system
of
Sta-
linist art can
help
us to better understand how the entire
system
func-
tioned.3
In
the model of
Soviet
culture
proposed by
Leonid Geller and
Antuan Boden, material relations are mentioned, but not
specifically
ex-
amined.4
Only
Vitalii
Manin,
Mariia
Zezina,
and
Andrew
Jenks
give
no-
ticeable attention
in
their research to the
everyday
economic realities of
art from the 1930s to the mid-1950s.5 But economic mechanisms affected
the
production,
distribution,
and
reception
of
art,
influencing
thematic
I
greatly appreciate
the
valuable comments and
suggestions
made
by
the
anonymous
re-
viewers,
the editorial board of Slavic
Review,
and,
especially,
Diane Koenker.
In
addition
I
wish
to thank the librarians and the
community
at the
Russian,
East
European,
and
Eurasian Center at the
University
of Illinois for the
friendly
and creative
atmosphere
that
aided
my
research
during my stay
there.
1. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhivliteratury i iskusstva(RGALI),f. 2717, op. 1, d. 32,
11.177-78.
2.
Kurt
London,
The Seven SovietArts
(London, 1937),
363.
3. For an
explanation
of the institutional
approach,
see
J.
Guldberg,
"Artist
Well Or-
ganized:
The
Organizational
Structure of the Soviet Art Scene from the
Liquidation
of
Artistic
Organizations
(1932)
to the First
Congress
of Soviet Artists
(1957),"
Slavica
Oth-
iniensia 8
(1986):
3-23;
J.
Guldberg,
"Socialist Realism as Institutional Practice: Observa-
tions
on the
Interpretation
of Works of Art of the Stalin
Period,"
in
Hans
Guinther,
ed.,
The
Culture
of
the Stalin Period
(London, 1990),
149-77.
4. L. Geller and A.
Boden,
"Institutsional'nyi kompleks
sotsrealizma,"
in
Hans
Giunter
[Giinther]
and
Evgenii
Dobrenko, eds.,
Sotsrealisticheskiianon
(St.
Petersburg,
2000),
290-319.
5. M. R. Zezina, Sovetskaiakhudozhestvennaiantelligentsiiai vlast' v 1950-e-60-e gg.
(Moscow, 1999); V.
S.
Manin,
Iskusstvov rezervatsii:Khudozhestvennaia hizn'
Rossii,
1917-
1941
(Moscow, 1999);
AndrewJenks,
"From
Periphery
to Center: Palekh and
Indigeniza-
tion in the Russian
Heartland,"
Kritika:
Explorations
n Russian
and
Eurasian
History
3,
no. 3
Slavic Review
65,
no. 4
(Winter 2006)
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
3/24
770
Slavic Review
and aesthetic
characteristics,
as
well
as the
scale of dissemination of a
par-
ticular work.
Principles
of
production,
of
planning
and
price-setting,
norms of authorial
rights-in
other
words,
economic
imperatives-
created an
exceptionally
conflict-ridden environment and had no less of
an
impact
on
artists than
patronage
connections
and
political
motives.
During
the
years
of
Stalinism,
a transformation of
the artistic market
occurred
according
to the laws of the
Plan-the laws of
socialist
distribu-
tion.
By
the "artistic
market,"
I
mean the
entire
complex
of activities
in-
volved
in
the
exchange
of
symbolic products.
The art
market involves
more
than
merely
buying
and
selling.
Following
Michael
Baxandall,
I
ar-
gue
that the
skills of
visual
perception
serve as
"currency"
n the relation-
ship
between the artist and
society,
as
well
as in
the articulation
of
ideas,
intellectual
support,
and
public recognition.
The art market
depends
on
the evaluation of artworks (by independent dealers, private buyers, the
press,
censors,
or the
artistic
bureaucracy)
and on
multifaceted
forms of
their
display
(in
independent public
exhibitions
or closed
private
show-
ings,
in
the
pages
of
specialized catalogs,
or
in
school
textbooks).6
In
a more
global
context,
the Stalinist
transformation
of art into
planned
artistic
production
was
part
of the
universal
process
of modern-
ization,
in
which creative activities became
professions
(providing
a basic
source
of
income)
and the
artist became an
independent figure,
free from
the
obligations
of craft
responsibilities.
Mass-produced
art
penetrated
all
spheres
of
life and became an
industry.
Finally,
a
mass audience
for art
ap-
peared,
mastering
new social
practices:
visiting
artistic
exhibitions,
lec-
tures, museum;
collecting
objects
of art;and so on.
A
potential
audience of
consumers also
appeared
in
the Soviet
artistic
market.
In
the
Stalinist variant this
process
was
hastened
by
the
policy
of
kul'turnost',
he
social
meaning
of which has
received notable attention
in
the
last decade.
In
the works
of
Vera
Dunham,
Sheila
Fitzpatrick,
Catriona
Kelly,
Vadim
Volkov,
and
other
authors,
the
change
in
the value
system
and
cultural
politics
that
began
in
1933-1934 has
been described
as an
element
of Soviet
identity
formation.7 This
was
a
program
of
populariza-
tion
of
behavioral,
corporeal,
and other
practices
among
social
groups
who
had the
opportunity
for social
advancement,
such as
Stakhanovites,
new Soviet managers, shockworkers, outstanding collective farm mem-
bers,
and
the
intelligentsia.
And,
in
this
context,
art
provided,
not
only
a
space
for the visualization of
ideas,
but also a marker of
belonging
to a so-
cially
successful
group.
(Summer
2002):
427-58;
AndrewJenks,
Russia in a Box:
Art and
Identity
n an
Age
of
Revo-
lution
(DeKalb, 2005).
6. M. Baksendoll
[Michael Baxandall],
Uzory
ntentsii:
Ob
storicheskom
olkovanii
kartin
(Moscow, 2003),
60-61
(translation
of Michael
Baxandall,
Patterns
of
Intention
[New
Haven,
1985]).
7. Vera
Dunham,
In
Stalin's Time:MiddleclassValues n SovietFiction
(Durham, 1990),
19-23;
Sheila
Fitzpatrick,
The Cultural Front:Power and Culture in
Revolutionary
Russia
(Ithaca, 1992); Catriona
Kelly
and VadimVolkov, "DirectedDesires: Kulturnost'and Con-
sumption,"
in
Catriona
Kelly
and David
Shepherd,
eds.,
Constructing
Russian Culture
n the
Age of
Revolution,
1881-1940
(Oxford,
1998),
312-13.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
4/24
The Economic
Dimensions
of
Art in the Stalinist
Era
771
Painting, graphic
arts,
and
sculpture
were
transformed
into consumer
goods
accessible
to the
population.
Innovative
research
by
Elena
Osokina,
Jukka
Gronow,
and
Julie
Hessler
has
given
us an idea of
everyday
domes-
tic
practices,
the
peculiarities
of the consumer
goods
market and its
sym-
bolic
dimension
in the
years
of
Stalinism.8
The
organizations
that oversaw
art shared
many
of the
defining
features
of the Stalinist
economy
as a
whole,
including
minute and
detailed
planning,
a
complete
shortage
of
everything,
the need to
produce
works
from
nothing,
the existence
of
a "black
market,"
and a centralized
decision-making process
and
system
of distribution.
The
enlightening
mission
of
educating
a
"new"
person
through
the
power
of art
was
entrusted
to artistic
production
organized
"in
a socialist
manner."
At the
same
time,
art
fulfilled the
same imitative
functions
as other
objects
of Soviet
comfort and
luxury-it
established
an
aura surrounding the lifestyle of socially successful groups.
The cultural
dynamics
of
the
period
from the 1930s
to the
1950s
pre-
sent
historians with
the
problem
of
differentiating
between
situational
and
typological
processes-in
other
words,
distinguishing
between
"Stal-
inization"
and "sovietization."
It is not
easy
to make this
delineation,
as
these
processes
are intertwined
from both
developmental
and
conceptual
points
of view.
"Sovietization"
nvolves
a
long
historical
perspective
con-
nected
to the
acceptance
of Soviet
institutions,
practices,
and
values,
whereas
"Stalinization"
s a
short-term,
specific
development.
Such
a situ-
ational
quality
is notable
in
the
symbolism
and
style
of
the cult of
losif Sta-
lin,
the institutional
system,
the forms
of
control,
the
hierarchy
of
genres
in art, and much more. Meanwhile, the economic mechanisms of art de-
veloped
during
the
years
of Stalinism
turned out
to be more
amenable
to
sociopolitical
changes
and
thus endured
until the
end
of the 1980s.
Therefore
it
was
this
economic
relationship
that led to
the
question
of the
essence
of the
social
compromise
reached
by
Soviet
artists, authorities,
and
the state -a
compromise
lying
at
the heart
of the mass
loyalty
of artis-
tic
figures
in
the
years
of Stalinism.
This
compromise
created
elements
of
continuity
(institutional,
conceptual,
ethical,
and
aesthetic)
between
the
1930s and
1940s and
the artistic
life of the
post-Stalinist
era.
The
All-Russian Union
of Artists'
Cooperatives,
Vsekokhudozhnik,
was the first organizational embodiment of the compromise involving ide-
ology,
creativity,
and
money.
Created
in the
late
1920s
during
a
period
of
"institutional
improvization,"'
it was
not
only
the first
organization
to
unify
conflicting
groups
(several
years
before the idea
of a
single
union
of
artists was
voiced
in
1932),
but
also the
first
organization
to
promote
mass
8. E.
A.
Osokina,
"Predprinimatel'stvo
rynok
v
povsednevnoi
zhizni
pervykh
piatile-
tok:
Na
primere
rynka
potrebitel'skikh
tovarov,"
Sotsial'naia
storiia.
Ezhegodnik,
1998-1999
(Moscow,
1999);
E. A.
Osokina,
"Predprinimatel'stvo
rynok
v
period
'svobodnoi
torgovli':
1936-1941,"
Sotsial'naia storiia.
Ezhegodnik,
2000
(Moscow,
2000);
Jukka
Gronow,
Caviar
with
Champagne:
Common
Luxury
and
the Ideals
of
the Good
Life
in Stalin's
Russia
(Oxford,
2003);
Julie
Hessler,
A Social
History of
Soviet Trade: Trade
Policy,
Retail Practicesand
Con-
sumption,
1917-1953 (Princeton, 2004).
9. Sheila
Fitzpatrick,
"The
Emergence
of Glaviskusstvo:
lassWar
on the Cultural
Front,
Moscow, 1928-1929,"
SovietStudies
23,
no.
2
(October
1971):
253.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
5/24
772
Slavic
Review
artistic
production.
The
economic
mechanisms of
art,
many
of
which
were
preserved
until
the
break-up
of the
Soviet
system,
were first
worked
out in
Vsekokhudozhnik.
For a
quarter
century
(from
1929
to
1953),
coopera-
tives were the main
producers
of standard socialist realist visual media:
street
sculptures,
designs
for
parks
of culture
and
rest,
the All-Union
Agri-
cultural
Exhibition,
visual
propaganda,
objects
of
daily
life,
and other
artistic
"assortments."For
various
reasons,
this
element of the
institutional
system
of
Soviet art
has
been
undeservedly
forgotten;
its
place
in
the
artis-
tic
market
disparaged.
In
this
article
I
will
examine the
structure,
orga-
nizing
principles,
and
economic
practices
of
Vsekokhudozhnik,
placing
these
within
the
everyday
realities of
the
period.
Second,
I
will
attempt
to
put
artists'
cooperatives
in
their
institutional
context.
Finally,
concentrat-
ing
on the
economic
aspects
of life in
the
artistic
professions,
I
will
try
to
determine the underlying economic reason behind several formally artis-
tic and
genre-thematic
peculiarities
of
socialist realism
intended
for "mass
consumption."
The
first
artists'
cooperatives
appeared
in
Russia
prior
to the revolu-
tion;
the most
famous of
these
was the
Partnership
for
Circulating
Art
Ex-
hibitions,
more
commonly
known as
Itinerants.'o
Cooperatives
also
ap-
peared
in
traditional folk
crafts.
After
the
revolution,
when the artistic
market
had
fundamentally
changed,
cooperatives
played
an
important
role in
the
years
of
the
New
Economic
Policy
(NEP).
They gave
themselves
the task of
reconstructing,
at least in
small
measure and
with modifica-
tions for the
new
socioeconomic
situation,
a
market for
works of art and
for artistic
production."
In these
years,
cooperatives
worked with
public
organizations,
Soviet
institutions,
and
private
individuals.
They attempted
to honor the
demands of
trade
unions
not to use
hired
workers or to
pur-
sue
excess
profits.
Exhibition
auctions,
private
production
facilities,
and
private
commissions
corresponded
to
the
mixture of
styles
and
the
orga-
nizational
variety
of
artistic
life
in
the
1920s.
But
assessments
of
artworks
according
to
ideological,
political,
and
productive
criteria had
become
common
by
this
time.
The idea of ne-
glecting
the
individualistic
character of
creativity,
with its
bohemian
lifestyle,
and
engaging
in
the
"workerization"
orabochivanie)
f
art
began
to be heard among artists.The same general logic can be reflected in the
new
professional
jargon:
"visual
arts
worker"
(izorabotnik),
"service
to
the
people"
(obsluzhivanie
naseleniia),
"visual
arts
brigade"
(izobrigada),
and
"production
art"
(proizvodstvennoe
isskustvo).
Clearly
more than
the
Euro-
pean
avant-garde
were
involved in
experiments
with
"industrializing"
he
creative
process.'2
Professional
artistic
activity
had
never
enjoyed
a
high
social status
in
Russia,
remaining
the lot of
serfs,
the
unprivileged
strata of
the
population,
and
foreigners,."
Some
changes
began
to
appear
in the
10. The Itinerants'
economic
interests
are discussed in S.
A.
Ekshtut,
"Imperatorskaia
akademiia
khudozhestv
i
'bunt
14-ti,'
"
Dialog
so
vremenem:
l'manakh
ntellektual'noi
storii
10
(2003):
164-84.
11.
Manin,
Iskusstvo
v
rezervatsii,
102-3.
12.
Igor
Golomshtok,
Totalitarnoeskusstvo
(Moscow,
1994).
13.
O.
Krivtsun,
"Khudozhnik v
istorii russkoi
kul'tury:
Evoliutsiia
statusa,"
Chelovek,
no.
1
(1995):
119-38;
no.
3
(1995):
105-20.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
6/24
The
Economic
Dimensions
of
Art in the
Stalinist
Era
773
second half of the nineteenth
century,
but even
in
postreform
Russia
there
was
little demand
for
the
work
of artists
who
remained,
for
the most
part,
poorly
paid.14
Therefore,
the
ideas of social
guarantees
and
regular
fees
implemented
by
Soviet authorities in the 1920s were familiar and un-
derstandable
to
artists.
In
any
case,
artists became accustomed to a
single
tariff established
by
their trade
union.'5
Moreover,
ideas like
universal
employment,
fair
(understood
as
equal)
distribution
of
commissions,
and
set fees
were
quite
popular
in
artistic circles.
By accepting
the
social cate-
gory
of
proletariat,
artists were
able to
position
themselves
as
fully
fledged
builders
of the
new
proletarian
state and
to declare their
right
to
various
social
guarantees,
which
were
of
great importance
in
the conditions of the
Soviet
distribution
system.
Nevertheless,
the
egalitarian
artistic
utopia
remained an
unrealized
dream in the years of NEP. Social stratification and unemployment per-
sisted.
It
was difficult to receive
an
interesting
commission,
especially
in
the
provinces.
Commissions from soviets
and from
party
and state
organi-
zations
put
a
meager
amount of food
on the
table,
but
accommodating
such customers'
propagandistic
demands
negatively
affected the life and
morale of the
artistic
community,
a fact
that
was
already
clear
by
the
mid-
1920s.
On
18January
1925,
Nikolai
Punin,
a brilliant art historian and for-
mer enthusiast
of
revolutionary
iconoclastic
actions,
made
a
characteris-
tic
entry
in his
diary
on the influence of
ideological
commissions
on the
routinization
of
occupational cynicism:
"The most
profitable
is
to mold a
bust of Vladimir Lenin or to draw
him in his coffin.
But here
you
also need
connections and
contacts."16
Other sources reveal such curious incidents
as
sculptors bidding
for the death mask
of
Lenin,
and artists
lining up
for
models
who
resembled the "leader of the world
proletariat.""
This mar-
ket attitude
towards
ideology
increased
in the
years
of Stalinism
and
be-
came a
typical aspect
of the
professional
strategy
of
many
artistic
figures.
Considered members of the "free
professions,"
artists did not have
guaranteed
social
benefits,
and
questions
regarding
their
copyright
re-
mained
unsettled.
If
we
add to this the
shortage
of
quality
materials for
creative work
(brushes,
paint,
canvas,
and
so
on)
and the
shortage
of stu-
dios,
it becomes
apparent
that the
situation was
hardly
stable or
orderly
for artists, particularly as increased ideological interference and the re-
moval
of
private
craftsmen exacerbated
the
problems
of
the artistic mar-
ket. For their
part,
the authorities also
felt burdened
by
the
ideological
and
financial
indeterminacy
in
the realm
of
visual
art.
Together
with and
equal
to
political
factors,
economic factors-the
catastrophic discrepancy
between
supply
and demand
in
the cultural
sphere
after
private
craftsmen were removed
from
the
artistic market-
14.
V.
R.
Leikina-Svirskaia,
Russkaia
intelligentsiia
v 1900-1917
godakh
(Moscow,
1981),
147-77.
15. It was
specifically
n these conditionsthat
Ostap
Bender
and
Kisa
Vorob'ianinov,
the heroes of
the
cult novel of
the
Soviet
intelligentsia
The Twelve
Chairs,
found work as
artists.
16. N.
Punin,
Mir svetel iubov'iu.
Dnevniki,
Pis'ma
(Moscow, 2000),
232.
17.
G. V
Andreevskii,
Povsednevnaia
hizn'
Moskvy
v
stalinskuiu
epokhu:
1920-1930-e
gg.
(Moscow,
2003),
42-44.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
7/24
774
Slavic
Review
played
a
crucial role
in
the formation in
1928
of
a new
institution,
Glaviskusstvo. The
policy
of
involving
the creative
intelligentsia
in the
cul-
tural
revolution
and
creating
art for the masses had
no financial
backing.
The idea of
transforming
a
person
and the lived environment
by
means of
art
impressed
artists of both the older and the
younger generations,
but
the
unanswered
question
remained: with
what
money?
The number
of in-
dividuals
engaged
in
artistic
occupations grew constantly
in the
1920s,
to-
gether
with
the
growth
of
unemployment,
because consumer demand was
not
in
a
position
to
absorb
such
a
rapidly growing supply.
As the head
of
Glaviskusstvo,
A.
Sviderskii,
noted,
the
new
potential
consumer and cus-
tomer
(worker
or
peasant)
"somewhat
coldly
and
suspiciously regarded
the
chamber
[kamernoe]
rt that our
artists
throw
on the nonexistent 'mar-
ket' in
excessive abundance
every year."
18
Because of
this,
authorities con-
sidered their most important task to be pursuing new routes for financing
and
marketing
artistic
products.
The
regime
took
measures to
resolve this critical situation.
In
1927,
in-
termediary
bureaus for
hiring
artistic
workers
appeared,
a
law on the
prin-
ciples
of
copyright
was
passed
in
1928,
and on 30 March
1930,
the
gov-
ernment issued a
resolution,
"On measures for
creating
favorable
working
conditions for artists."
In
actuality
this resolution
heralded
the
post-NEP
policy
of state
financing
of art. The
document states that the union re-
publics'
budgets
must
assign
funds
of not less
than
200,000
rubles annu-
ally
for
acquiring
works
by
Soviet artists.
Budgets
of
regional departments
of
education
(Narkompros),
social
insurance
funds,
and trade unions
planned
similar amounts to be used for these
purposes.'9
These amounts
cannot be
called
significant,
but
what is
important
is the
idea
itself.
In
fact,
this
policy
of
budgetary
financing
of art
became the basis for a
strategic
al-
liance between
the
Stalinist
leadership
and the
artistic
community.
The
scope
of state
purchases
increased over time
(not
considering
other forms
of direct
or
hidden
financing).
Thus
in
the third
Five-Year
Plan
(inter-
rupted by
the
war),
almost 11.5 million
rubles
were
allocated to
purchase
works
by
Soviet
artists.2"
A
state allowance also meant
official
support
for the
idea
of
trans-
forming
life
by
means of
art,
which was
popular among
artists. Social
claims turned out to be no less seductive an attraction than commissions
guaranteed
by
the state. As for
Soviet
authorities,
they
perceived
the
world
of art as
both
an end and
a means.
Unquestionably,
their
goal
was to
"mold" a
new
Soviet
type
of
artist,
a
new artistic
environment,
and a
new
audience. At the
same
time,
art
was
considered
in
exceptionally
functional
terms-as a
means
of
politically
mobilizing
the
population, inculcating
good
taste,
and
finally,
earning money.
The
authorities
preferred
to
deal
not with
separate
individuals or
groups
but with a more or less
uniform
18.
Quoted
in I.
Khvoinik,
"Izobrazitelnye
iskusstva:
Itogi
vsesoiuznoi konferentsii
khudozhnikov,"
Iskusstvo
no. 3-4
(1929):
166.
19.
"O
merakh k sozdaniiu
blagopriiatnikh
uslovii zhizni khudozhnikov," Sobranie a-
konov
rasporiazhenii ravitel'stva
SSSR,
no.
21
(1930):
397.
20.
RGALI,
f.
962,
op.
2,
d.
73,
1. 33.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
8/24
The
Economic
Dimensions
of
Art in
the Stalinist
Era
775
structure that was much
more
amenable to
control. Artists'
cooperatives
could reconcile the
artists'
economic interests
and artistic ambitions with
the
regime's
intention of
transforming
art into a social
factory.
Vsekokhudozhnik was established in this environment. On the one
hand,
cooperatives
were
in
accord with the
general
political
line of
ex-
cluding private enterprise
from all
spheres
of life. On
the other
hand,
the
authorities and
artists
considered
cooperatives
an economic
mechanism
that
would
merge
the
profitability
of art
with the
principles
of
state
financ-
ing. Finally,
cooperatives
seemed an
alternative
to
independent
artistic
as-
sociations
and
to
splinter
groups
based on
particular styles.
The
Cooperative
of
Artists
was founded
in
1929
by
fifty-seven
private
and
legal
entities and
thirty-nine
cooperatives
from
Moscow
and Lenin-
grad.
In
the course
of
two
years,
this
initiative undertaken
by
artists
in
the
capital cities was transformed into a national organization. The same fi-
nancial
laws
and
regulations
applied
to all
cooperatives.
The
basic
financ-
ing
was
a
combination of
15,000
rubles of
loans,
voluntary
dues,
and taxes
allocated from works
sold and from
property
redistribution.
Vsekokhu-
dozhnik received the
production
facilities and
studios of both
private
in-
dividuals
and various
organizations.
In
time it
acquired
an
artistic
pro-
duction
center
and
publishers
that issued
informational
bulletins.21
This
organization
changed
its full
name
several
times,
but
it retained the
acro-
nym
Vsekokhudozhnik
(from
Vserossiiskoe
kooperativnoe
tovarishch-
estvo "Khudozhnik"
[All-Russian
Union of
Artists'
Cooperatives,
"Art-
ist"]),
which functioned
as a
type
of
brand name.
Cooperatives
were
given
the task of
providing
for the
political
social-
ization
of artists
(the
struggle
with
"ideological
neutrality").
22They
had to
create the
appropriate
conditions
in
which artists
could unite as
voluntary
and
motivated
participants
in
the
building
of
socialism.
Artists were will-
ing
to
accept
this
policy
if
normal
conditions for
creativity
were
estab-
lished,
and,
especially,
if
unemployment
were reduced. For
this
reason,
the
cooperatives'
charter
was based on
personal
productive
capacities.
Economic
independence,
rather than
particular
styles
or
strategies
for ex-
hibitions,
became the
key
idea
unifying
artists
in
cooperatives.23
The eco-
nomic
scheme was
notably simple:
"high"
art
was
supported
at
the
ex-
pense of the art of "massconsumption." In other words, the unprofitable
work of
those
who
did
paintings
on an
easel
was
paid
for
with
money
earned from
the sale of
shawls,
ceramics,
or
toys.24
Cooperatives
also
pro-
duced
frames, linen,
brushes,
paint,
and
other
artistic
implements.
In
Vsekokhudozhnik's
system,
the
relationship
between
individual
and
"mass"
work
was
extremely
unequal.
In
1940
only
10
percent
of the
coop-
21.
For a list of the
cooperatives
and
property
belonging
to
Vsekokhudozhnik
n
1953,
see
RGALI,
f.
2907,
op.
1,
d.
85,
11.4-6.
22.
Iu.
Slavinskii,
"K
pervomu
s"ezdu
Vserossiiskogo
kooperativnogo
soiuza khudozh-
nikov,"
Biulleten'
vserossiiskogo
ooperativnogooiuza
"Vsekokhudozhnik"
June
1932):
5.
23.
In
the Stalinist
era,
Vsekokhudozhnik became
the first artistic
organization
pos-
sessing
economic
independence
(in
selecting
production
and exhibition
halls,
in
gaining
accessto
foreign currency,
tc.)
24.
V
I.
Kostin,
"Ktotam
shagaet pravoi?"
Panorama
skusstv
9
(1986):
133.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
9/24
776
SlavicReview
erative's income
came
from
selling
original
artistic
work;
in 1950
it was
even less-8
percent.25
Vsekokhudozhnik
incorporated
masters
of traditional
crafts;
artists at
factories
producing
everyday
commodities, toys, and cloth; and those who
produced designs
for
political
demonstrations.
Some
cooperatives
were
created for
representatives
of
"high"
art-painters,
graphic
artists,
and
sculptors.
The
principles
of
organization
were
similar
everywhere-
government-controlled
prices,
planned
production,
and
centrally
distrib-
uted
supply.
For
this
reason,
such varied
artists
as,
for
example,
a
sculptor
from the Gzhel'
factory,
an academic
painter,
and a
designer
of
slogans
in
a small
town
all met with
similar
economic
problems.
Over
time,
all
artists'
cooperatives
turned
into standard
Soviet
enterprises
with
production
plans,
a Stakhanovite
movement,
and socialist
competition.
Nevertheless,
each of these forms of artisticactivityhad its own particularities, which de-
serve
independent
research.
AndrewJenks
has
scrupulously
analyzed
how
traditional Palekh
artists
adapted
to the
Stalinist
artistic
market
as well
as
how former icon
painters
became involved
in
inventing
Soviet cultural
traditions.
In his
work,
the artists'
everyday
economic
life and the
eco-
nomic motives
involved
in their
creative
strategies
occupy
a
special place,
revealing
several
common
tendencies
in
the
production
and distribution
of
artistic
objects.
I
focus
on
representatives
of the
classical artistic
profes-
sions-painters,
graphic
artists,
and
sculptors.
How
could these
artists,
who
were
inclined
toward
a
more
individualistic,
bohemian
lifestyle,
be at-
tracted
to
cooperatives
and
planned
production?
Cooperatives
offered artists advance contracts (kontraktatziia) nd the-
matic
plans
for their creative
work.26
The artist would
sign
a contract with
an
enterprise,
institution,
or the
cooperative
itself and would then
deliver
the
work,
which was
based
on an
assigned
theme,
within
a
predefined pe-
riod of time.
The work was
paid
for in
advance,
but
if
the conditions
of the
contract
were
broken,
the
pre-payment
had to be
returned.
If
Vsekokhu-
dozhnik was itself
the
customer,
the
work
entered
into the
holdings
of the
cooperative
and
was then
sold
to individuals
or to
other
organizations.
The
asymmetry
between
the
responsibilities
of each
side
in
the contrac-
tual
system
of the
time is
striking.
The artist
might
not
finish
the work
on
time or might considerably diverge from the agreed-upon theme. The
themes
ranged
from the collective
farm movement
to
physical
culture
days
to
flowers, fruits,
and
images
of nature.27
Generally
in the
years
of
Stalinism,
nature
scenes and
still
lifes
provided
nonconformist artists with
a
protective
niche
in
which
it was
possible
to evade
commissions for ideo-
logical
and socialist
themes,
while
at
the same time
receiving
modest,
but
guaranteed
fees.28
As
for
customers,
they
usually bought
what
they
had
commissioned
even
when
the works did
not at
all
correspond
to their
expectations.
25.
Jack
Chen,
Soviet
Art and Artists
(London,
1944),
46;
RGALI,
.
2907,
op.
1,
d.
7,1.5.
26.
For a
description
of the
contracting process,
see
London,
SevenSoviet
Arts,
49-53.
27.
Tvorchestvo,
o.
7
(1936):
15.
28.
Fora discussion
of the
escapism
of Soviet
andscapepainters,
ee
Vern
Grosvenor
Swanson,
Soviet
mpressionism
Woodbridge,
Suffolk,
2001).
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
10/24
The
EconomicDimensions
of
Art in the Stalinist
Era
777
But a contract was seldom
easy
to
receive.
From 1931
to
1935,
only
397
people
received
contracts,
which
is incommensurate with
the number of
cooperative
artists.
Eight
out of
ten
painters
in
Moscow
and
twenty-four
out of
fifty
in the
provinces
did not
participate
in this
system.29
Since
a
contract offered
a
prepayment
in
cash,
at times
it
was
specifically
con-
tracts with Vsekokhudozhnik
that enabled artists to
survive-even
those
caught diverging
from the
official
aesthetic.
For
example,
in
the
years
of
the Great Terror the artist Artur
Fonvizin-accused of
formalism
and
thus
deprived
of
customers-was
able to survive thanks
exclusively
to
contracts.30
Vsekokhudozhnik was
supposed
to
organize
a
system
of
exhibitions-
thematic,
traveling,
and
permanent.
The
purpose
of
thematic exhibitions
was
to
demonstrate
the artists'
loyalty
to the
needs
of
the state and the
"So-
viet public."3 For this reason the subject of an exhibition often originated
in
the artistic division
of
the Commissariat
of
Education
(Narkompros).
Traveling
exhibitions,
often
comprised
of
reproductions,
continued the
prerevolutionary
tradition of the creative
intelligentsia's
"going
to the
people"
and
were
intended for
display
in
remote
provinces,
factories,
and
collective farms.
Finally,
the
purpose
of
Vsekokhudozhnik's
permanent
exhibitions
was
to
sell works
of art. The
organizers
of the
cooperative
be-
lieved that
foreign
tourists would become
acquainted
with
and
buy
new
Soviet art
at these
exhibitions.32
Acquiring
foreign
currency through
the
sale
of
art was
generally
a
very popular
idea
in
the late
1920s
and
early
1930s,
be it the scandalous
selling
of items
from the
Hermitage
collec-
tions, the
production
of souvenirs for
export
by
craftsmen, or the
selling
of
Soviet
art to
foreign
tourists.33
This
dualism of
political
and economic
interests,
the
very
essence
of
Vsekokhudozhnik,
was
apparent
in
its exhi-
bition
strategy:
offering
the
public
ideologically
sound
art,
but
thereby
solving problems
of
an
exclusively
economic
nature.
In
addition to
cooperatives
and state
agencies,
newly
constructed
in-
dustrial
enterprises
became
some of
Vsekokhudozhnik's
main customers.
Under the
conditions of forced
industrialization,
artists were
sent to
"serve
construction"
by
capturing
the
changing appearance
of
the
coun-
try
in
artistic
form
and
designing
workers
clubs,
houses of
culture,
and
parks. This achieved two goals: artists were given work, and the authori-
ties were
provided
with
a visual means
of
influencing
the
Soviet
people.
Despite
the
prevalence
of
impersonal
commissions
from
enterprises
and
organizations,
the
regime
counted
on the
appearance
of
new,
indi-
vidual
customers.
The
policy
of
promoting
art
among
the masses
and the
policy
of mass artistic
production
joined
with
the
policy
of
kul'turnost',
which,
like
Vsekokhudozhnik,
bore the dual
stamp
of
high
ideals and
the
material interests of
the
consumers.
29.
Manin,
Iskusstvov
rezervatsii,
172.
30.
Sovetskoe
skusstvo,
17
April
1937.
31. Biulleten'
vserossiiskogoooperativnogo
ovarishchestva"Khudozhnik"
April 1931):
43.
32.
Ibid.,
15.
33.
AndrewJenks
analyzes
Palekh's
foreign currency operations.
Additional research
will
be
required
o
determinewhetherthe idea
of
exporting
the works
of
Soviet
artistswas
successful.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
11/24
778
Slavic Review
Newly
promoted
workers
(vydvizhentsy),
new
urban
dwellers,
collec-
tive farm
workers,
and
Stakhanovites
had to
become
consumers
of works
of
art,
to
abandon
the
conventional
metaphorical
language
of
folklore,
icons, and lubki for the
language
of caricatures, documentary photo-
graphs,
and
contemporary
art. For an
inexperienced
audience
that was
only
beginning
to
become familiar with
new
practices,
fine
art
was
of
in-
terest for its
ability
to
illustrate
information,
with
the
depiction
being
taken
not
symbolically,
but
literally.
The
expectations
this
naive audience
had
of a
work
of art
can be
formulated
in the
following
way:
"What
con-
cretely
is
represented
here and
why?"
Characteristic
of this
attitude
is a letter
written
in
the
name
of a
woman
collective
farm
shockworker,
entitled
"To live
prosperously
is
to
live
in
a cultured
way,"
published
in the
newspaper,
Krest'ianskaiia
azeta.34
We do not know who actuallywrote this letter, but it demonstrates the lan-
guage
the author
used to
express
the ascribed
demands
of their
social
class.
Besides
symbols
of cultured
life
like bentwood
chairs,
tablecloths,
curtains,
and
dishes,
this article
promotes
ideas
about
painting
"for the
people."
"Good"
pictures,
in the letter-writer's
opinion,
should
be
painted
in
oil,
mounted
in
a
good
frame,
and
depict
travel and
pictures
of
every-
day
life
in different
countries
and
among
different
peoples,
factories,
plants,
and
electrical
stations.
Moreover,
they
should
correspond
to the
chief
requirement
"that there
be an
inscription
on the
picture
explaining
what
such
a
factory
produces,
how
much
it
produces,
what
kind
of ma-
chines
it
utilizes,
and
how
this
factory helps
to
improve
life."
Many
similar
examples
of
expecting
information from a work of art can be found in
comment
books
from
traveling
exhibitions.
In these
books,
audiences
gave
advice
to artists
in the
imperative,
telling
them what
to
call a
picture
or how
this or that
object
should be
rendered
more
accurately.35
The
illustrative,
descriptive,
and narrative
style
of Soviet art
that was
gradually
established
during
the
1930s under
the
amorphous
term
social-
ist realismwas
in accord with
the
policy
of
drawing
the
new
mass
consumer
into the
artistic
market.36
Christine
Lindey,
Nataliia
Kozlova,
Igor'
34.
Republished
in Sovetskoe
skusstvo,
14 October 1933.
35.
RGALI,f. 2458, op. 2,
d.
3791,
1.
5;
d.
442,
1.
29.
36. The
list of
publications
dealing
with
socialist realism
is extensive.
The
following
works
and exhibition
catalogs
have
elicited
great
interest
among
the
professional
audience
and
public.
Vladimir
Papernyi,
Kultura
"Dva"
(Ann
Arbor, Mich.,
1984);
Hans
Gfinther,
ed.,
The
Culture
of
the
Stalin Period
(New
York,
1990);
Matthew Cullerne
Bown, ed.,
SovietSo-
cialist Realist
Painting
(Oxford,
1992);
Miranda
Banks, ed.,
TheAesthetic
Arsenal:Socialist
Re-
alism
underStalin
(New
York,
1993);
Matthew
Cullerne Bown
and Brandon
Taylor,
eds.,
Art
of
the Soviets:
Painting,
Sculpture,
and Architecture
n a
One-Party
State,
1917-1992
(Manches-
ter,
Eng.,
1993);
Thomas
Lahusen
and
Evgeny
Dobrenko,
eds.,
Socialist
Realism without
Shores
Durham,
1997);
Susan
Reid,
"Destalinization
and Remodernization
of Soviet
Art:
The Search
for a
Contemporary
Realism,
1953-1963"
(PhD
diss.,
University
of
Pennsylva-
nia,
1996);
Matthew
Cullerne
Bown,
Socialist
Realist
Painting
(New
Haven,
1998)
;Jan Plam-
per,
"The Stalin
Cult in the
Visual
Arts,
1929-1953"
(PhD
diss.,
University
of
California,
Berkeley, 2001); Boris Groysand Max Hollein, eds., TraumfabrikKommunismus: ie Visuelle
Kultur der Stalinzeit
Dream
Factory
Communism:
The Visual
Culture
of
the Stalin Era
(Frank-
furt am
Main,
2003);
E.
V.
Nadtochii,
"Drug,
tovarishch
i Bart: Neskol'ko
predvaritel'nykh
zamechanii
k
voprosu
o meste
sotsialisticheskogo
ealizma
v iskusstve
XX
veka,"
Daugava,
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
12/24
TheEconomic
Dimensions
of
Art
in
the Stalinist
Era
779
Smirnov,
and
other scholars
argue
that socialist realism
is
impossible
to
interpret
without
knowing
the character
of
the intended
audience,
a
claim that seems to
me both
convincing
and correct.
For the
unsophisti-
cated new
spectator,
the illusions of Soviet formal
display
art seemed to
be
refined and urbane.37
The
cooperative
artist
had to cater to such an
audience.
In
addition to
providing
a
symbol
of
"being
cultured,"
mass artistic
production performed
an imitative
function,
about which Gronow has
written
in
examining
the
phenomenon
of Soviet
"luxury."38Painting,
graphic
arts,
and
sculpture
are meant to
be
consumed
through display,
and familiarization with
art
through
visiting
exhibitions
or
by collecting
art albums or
framed
pictures
served as a distinctive social
filter.
The
pol-
icy
of
promoting
art
for the masses
actually
implied importing
into the
sphere of workers and peasants the kind of everyday practices that had
been
typical
for
the
privileged
strata
of
prerevolutionary society:
the
gen-
try, entrepreneurial patrons
of
art,
and
aristocrats.
This,
in
turn,
would
lead
to the
symbolic
realization of the
revolutionary
slogan,
"Those that
were
nothing
shall become
everything."
Nevertheless,
transforming
art into a consumer item accessible to the
population
was
a
challenging
undertaking.
First of
all,
the
number
of
artistic
specialists
did not
correspond
to
the scale
of the
task
at
hand.
Ac-
cording
to
incomplete
data
from
the
Imperial
Chamber
of Art in Nazi
Germany,
whose cultural
policies
are often
compared
to those of Stalinist
Russia,
in
1936 there
were
15,000
architects,
14,300
painters,
and
2,900
sculptors-in
all, with
graphic
artists and decorators,
approximately
42,000
"soldiers
of national
art.""39
n the United
States,
a
country
whose
territory
and
population
was
comparable
to the
USSR,
there were
ap-
proximately
62,000
artists and art teachers
with
professional
training
in
1940.40
In contrast,
according
to
the most
optimistic
estimates of the cen-
sus
of
1939,
about
24,000
people
earned
a
living
as artists
in the
Soviet
Union.41
Another serious
problem
was the
shortage
of
artistic
supplies.
As in
other
segments
of
the
Soviet consumer
market,
production
of these ma-
terials had
to
begin
anew.
In
the
mid-1930s,
the
problem
of
oil
paints
pro-
duced the greatest public outcry. Traditionally Russia had imported qual-
ity paint
from abroad. In
the
years
of
industrialization,
there was not
enough money
for such
purposes,
so Vsekokhudozhnik
was
instructed to
no.
8
(1989):
114-20;
Giunter
and
Dobrenko, eds.,
Sotsrealisticheskii
anon;
Ekaterina
De-
got',
ed.,
Sovetskii dealism:
Zhivopis'
kino 1925-1939
(Liege,
2005).
37. Christine
Lindey,
Art
in the Cold
War:From
Vladivostok
o
Kalamazoo,
1945-1962
(London, 1990),
62.
38.
Gronow,
Caviar with
Champagne,
3.
39.
Iu.
Markin,
"Iskusstvo
tret'ego
reikha,"
Dekorativnoe skusstvo
SSSR,
no. 3
(1989):
35.
40.
Occupation
of
persons
in the
experience
labor force and of
employed persons.
See www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1950-03.pdf, no. 223 (last accessed
6
September
2006).
41.
Vsesoiuznaia
erepis'
naseleniia 1939.
Osnovnye
togi.
Russia
(St.
Petersburg,
1999),
177-79.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
13/24
780
Slavic
Review
produce
its
own.
During
a
heated discussion in
1935,
it
became
obvious
that the
distribution
mechanism
was
collapsing.
Factories
producing
artis-
tic
oil
paints
could not
release them
directly
to the
market but
had to sell
them
through
intermediaries like
ordinary
dry goods.
As a result, there
was
a
shortage
of oil
paint
in
Moscow,
while
in
the
provinces
artists' fine
art-quality
white
paint
was used for
window frames.42
Moreover,
the
paints
were
of
abominable
quality.43
In
1935,
all artistic
organizations
began
preparing
for a
planned
the-
matic
exhibition
on
a
genuinely
all-Union scale.
Entitled the
"Industry
of
Socialism,"
this
was intended to
be the first
public
display
of
socialist real-
ism.44
The
deficit
of
high-quality
artistic materials
disrupted
the schedule
for
this
widely
advertised
event.
The
problem
was not
only
that
artists
could not
independently
obtain
the
required
materials
and had
to collect
them through Vsekokhudozhnik but that works of art created with these
new materials
quickly
lost
their
visual
quality.
The
storerooms
of
the
Tret'iakov
Gallery
became the
repository
of
piles
of
paintings
by
Soviet
artists that had
darkened,
cracked,
and
lost their
original
appearance.45
The
discussion about
artistic
materials
highlighted
the
ineffective-
ness of
the new
planned-distribution
model of
economic
relations in art
and
coincided
chronologically
with the
beginning
of
radical
reforms
in
the
entire
institutional
system
of the
visual arts. At
first
the
formation of
artists'
cooperatives
proceeded
with
difficulty,
experiencing,
in
the words
of one
eyewitness,
the
"sharp
kick" of
harsh criticism.46
After
literary-
artistic
organizations
were
dissolved
in
1932, however,
Vsekokhudozhnik
became one of the
primary
players
in a
complex game
of maneuvers be-
tween artists and
Soviet
power.
Since the
cooperatives
could,
with
the
help
of their economic
power,
consolidate all
artistic
organizations
and inter-
est
groups, they
bore
the
responsibility
for
establishing
horizontal ties
between
the
provinces
and the center. The
first
regional
sections
of
Vse-
kokhudozhnik
appeared
in
Rostov-on-Don,
Nizhnii
Novgorod,
Samara,
and
Sverdlovsk. With
time,
cooperative organizations
typically bearing
the
name
Khudozhnik
(artist)
emerged
in
almost
all oblast
capitals,
au-
tonomous
republics,
and
large
cities.
When Vsekokhudozhnik
was
liqui-
dated in
1953,
its structure
included
sixty-seven
societies from
Leningrad
to
Khabarovsk.47
The
events
of
1936-1938
were
a
watershed
moment that
divided
the
history
of
Vsekokhudozhnik
into "before" and "after." In
1936,
a
new
player appeared
in
the realm of
organizational
and
censorship
control-
the All-Union
Committee on Artistic
Affairs of the
Government
of the
USSR
(1936-1953)-that
quickly
became dominant and
concentrated
42.
Sovetskoe
skusstvo,
23June
1935.
43.
Sovetskoe
skusstvo,
23
and
29
October 1935.
44.
Susan E.
Reid,
"Socialist Realism
in
the Stalinist Terror:
The
Industry
of Socialism
Art
Exhibition,
1935-1941," Russian Review
60,
no.
2
(April
2001):
153-84.
45. Sovetskoeskusstvo,17 December 1935.
46. N.
Semashko,
"Obschestvennost' na
izofronte,"
Biulleten'
vserossiiskogooopera-
tivnogo
soiuza khudozhnikov
"Vsekokhudozhnik"
June
1932):
11.
47.
RGALI,
f.
2907,
op.
1,
d.
85,
11.4-6.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
14/24
The
EconomicDimensions
of
Art in the
StalinistEra
781
control
in the
field
of art.
The committee included the Main Adminis-
tration for Visual Arts
Institutions and
the
Main Administration for Su-
pervision
of Performances
and
Repertoires-Glavrepertkom
(1923-1952),
which directed
censorship
over museums, art
galleries,
exhibitions, and
all
artistic activities.
This
structure
of administrative
authority
was
strictly
centralized,
and
it turned the
institutional world
of
art
into a
bureaucratic
machine,
particularly
since
no
powerful
corporatist
organization
existed
to
provide
a
counterweight.
Although
the decision
to create
a
Union
of
Soviet
Artists was an-
nounced
as
early
as
1932,
the
process
went
very
slowly,
and
initially
there
was
no
particular
insistence
that artists
join
the union. Neither was
there
any
regulation
of the situation
in
the
provinces.
In
practice,
the
role
of
the
union
center
was
performed
by
the
Moscow Union
of
Artists,
while local
cooperatives worked in parallel. In the mid-1930s, the idea circulated of
transforming
the
cooperatives
themselves
into
the
basic
organizational
element.
It was
suggested
that their own economic
base would allow
them
to unite their isolated artistic
forces.
Events
developed
according
to
a different
scenario,
however.
First,
Vsekokhudozhnik's excessive
self-sufficiency
and financial
independence
did not
correspond
to the
new
vision
of
the Committee
on Artistic
Affairs,
which aimed for
regimentation
and
uniformity
in
culture.
Second,
the
founders
of the
cooperatives
were involved
in
the 1936
-1938
political
tri-
als.
Iuvenalii
Mitrofanovich
Slavinskii,
the
chairman
of
Vsekokhudozhnik,
was a friend of the trade
union leader Mikhail
Tomskii. After Tomskii's
suicide, Slavinskiiwas left without a defender, which affected both his
per-
sonal fate
and
the entire
organization
in
the most
dramatic
way.
In
Febru-
ary
1936
enemies
of
the
people
began
to be unmasked
in the Moscow
and
Leningrad
Unions
of Artists
as well
as in
central
and
provincial coopera-
tives.48
The
newspaper
Sovetskoe
skusstvo
reported
the
convictions
of
ene-
mies of
the
people
in
Azov-Black
Sea,
Udmurt,
and
Taganrog
branches.
The
basic
accusations leveled
against
Vsekokhudozhnik
were economic:
wasting
materials,
problems
with
sales,
and clannishness
(klanovost')
n
the
distribution
of
commissions.
Platon
Kerzhentsev,
the chairman of
the
Committee
on Artistic Af-
fairs, played an active personal role in the case against Vsekokhudozhnik,
singling
out for criticism the
cooperative's policy
of
contracting,
particu-
larly
the
artists' failure to
repay
advances and
the
increasing
value of con-
tracts.49
Slavinskii was blamed for the fact that
provincial
cooperatives
had
no
studios,
working capital,
or financial
accountability.
He
was also
blamed
for
artists who
engaged
in
freelance work
on
the
side,
"knocking
off"
large
portraits
of
party
leaders
in
just
two or three
days.50
Slavinskii,
together
with other members of the
board,
was arrested and soon exe-
cuted.
As for
Vsekokhudozhnik,
it was
increasingly
referred to as a "false
48. V S. Manin, "Istoriia z istorii," Tvorchestvo,o. 7 (1989): 12-14.
49.
See
Sovetskoe
skusstvo,
29
March and
23
September
1937,
and
Tvorchestvo,
o.
7
(1936):
6-19.
50.
Sovetskoe
skusstvo,
March,
5
August,
and
11
August
1937.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
15/24
782
SlavicReview
cooperative" (lzhekooperativ)
hat
used
hired
labor and as a
private
enter-
prise, charges
that
required
a
criminal
investigation
according
to the
gov-
ernment
decree
of
28
December
1928.51
The
underlying
cause for the
persecution
of Vsekokhudozhnik re-
volved
around
the
question
of
whether it would be a
relatively indepen-
dent
organization,
or
whether
it
should be turned into a
state institution.
In
the
end,
the
activities
of
Vsekokhudozhnik's
enterprises
and branches
were
subjected
to detailed
regulation
and minute
planning.
There is
no
question
that
the
purge
of Vsekokhudoznik
was
pursued
less to address
the
tactical
problem
of
shaking
up
the
leading
cadres of
one
of
the
artis-
tic
organizations,
and more
to
achieve
the
strategic
goal
of
reducing
its
level
of
self-reliance and
independence.52
In
1936,
two
phantoms appeared
in
Soviet art criticism
in
the area
of
artisticreception-"formalism" and "naturalism"-terms that would pro-
vide the criteria
for
assessing
the
"Sovietness"
in art
until
the 1960s.
Henceforth,
the
public
evaluation of a work of art was
determined
by
its
accessibility
to
an uncultivated audience
who
expected
art to illustrate
real
life.53
The
crusade
against
formalism
began
in
1933,
at
the
same
time
as the
policy
of
kul'turnost'
appeared,
but
only
after the
campaign
of
1936
did this
theoretically
imprecise
term
begin
to
be
used
to divide
groups
and
settle
personal
accounts.54
The
reconstruction
of the
institutional
system
did not
end with
the at-
tack on Vsekokhudozhnik.
In
1938 the
Committee
on
Artistic Affairs was
established under
the
government
of
the
Russian Federation. On
the
one
hand, this was a
sign
of the
rising
status of Soviet Russian culture; on the
other
hand,
it lowered the status
of artistic
cooperatives,
which were
handed over to
republic-level
committees and lost
the
possibility
of be-
coming part
of
an
all-union
organization.
Up
to
the
beginning
of
World
War
II,
new
characters
appeared
in the
organizational sphere
of art.
Within a short
period
of
time the
Organizational
Committee
(Orgko-
mitet)
of the Union of
Soviet
Artists
(1939),
the Stalin
Prize
in
the field of
literature
and art
(1939),
and the
Artistic Fund
(1940)
were
all
estab-
lished.
In
1940 the
organizing
committee
for
the exhibition
"Industry
of
Socialism" was
reorganized
into the Directorate of Exhibitions
and
Panoramas, with the right to purchase works of art. Although egalitarian
organizational principles
had
prevailed
in
Vsekokhudozhnik,
the essence
of the
institutional
reorganization
of 1936-1940
consisted
in
legitimizing
hierarchical relations.
51.
"O
merakh bor'bi
s
lzhekooperativami,"
Sobraniezakonov
i
rasporiazhenii ravi-
tel'stva
SSSR,
no. 3
(1929):
70-72.
52.
V.
S.
Manin
and Susan Reid also
argue
that the criticism of Vsekokhudozhnik
was
caused
by
the
organization's
excessive
economic
independence.
See
Manin,
Iskusstvo
rez-
ervatsii, 167-69, Reid,
"Destalinization and Remodernization of Soviet
Art,"
84.
53. On the
role
of
the discussion
of
formalism and the Committee on Artistic Affairs
in the 1936-1938 "cultural
revolution,"
see L.
V.
Maksimenkov,
Sumburvmesto
muzyki:
tal-
inskaia kul'turnaiarevoliutsiia,1936-1938 (Moscow, 1997).
54.
A
collection
of
attacks on formalists was
published
in
O.
Beskin's
book
O
Formal-
isme
v
zhivopisi
(Moscow,
1933).
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:28:36 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 The Economic Dimensions of Art in the Stalinist Era
16/24
The Economic Dimensions
of
Art in
the
Stalinist Era 783
Only
after the
Organizational
Committee
(under
pressure
from
above)
was formed did
a
second wave
of local
artists' unions come
into
be-
ing.
These differed from the
existing
unions
mainly
in
having
different re-
quirements
for
membership.
The
Organizational
Committee
stipulated
that the
following
artists could be members of the union: those
with
spe-
cialized education
who
produced independent original
works
of
high
quality
and
who
regularly participated
in
exhibitions
or
whose works were
hung
in
state
galleries
and
museums;
those
independently staging pro-
ductions
in
state
theaters;
critics and art
scholars
publishing
in
the Soviet
press;
masters
of
folk
art
creating independent,
unique
works of
high
quality.55
These
relatively
harsh
and,
at
the same
time,
subjective
requirements
immediately
eliminated
a
significant percentage
of
artists
from
the union.
The new rules of membership reinforced the hierarchical nature of the
union
and limited the
number
of
artists who would have access
to
the
more
interesting
and
profitable
commissions.
Out
of
approximately
5,000
artists
working
in
Moscow
in
1939,
only
800
met
the
requirements
of
the
charter
of
the Union of Soviet Artists.
A
similar situation
developed
in
the
provinces.
For
example,
in
the Perm
(Molotov)
oblast,
only
sixteen out of
twenty-eight registered
artists
joined
the
oblast
union.56
An
approximate
idea of the
number
of
artists
remaining
outside the
union can be
gleaned
from
the all-Union census and the Committee on
Artistic Affairs data.
The
committee
membership
lists for
1
June
1941,
which
generally correspond
to the
data
from
the
Union of
Artists,
include
1,916
painters,
779
graphic
artists,447
sculptors,
527
designers,
and 55 art
scholars,
for a total
of
3,724
representatives
of
the artistic
professions.57
According
to
the
census data
of
1939,
almost
24,000
people
considered
themselves to be artists.
Established
in
1939,
the
Stalin
Prize
decisively positioned hierarchy
and status as
the
dominant
qualities
of Stalinist
culture. The
appearance
of this
prize
finalized
the formation
of
this
system
of
rank
and
privilege.
In
1947
only
the
title Member
of
the USSR
Academy
of Arts
was added to
the titles Honored and
People's
Artists of the
USSR,
Stalin Prize
laureate,
Supreme
Soviet
deputy,
and
recipients
of
honorary
orders. Possession of
any one of these titles provided symbolic capital, giving an artist substan-
tial material
and
social
privileges, although
it
did not
provide
defense
against
ideological
disgrace
and
political repression.
In
regard
to the
sta-
tus
of
cooperative
artists,
membership
in
Vsekokhudozhnik did not offer
any particular
advantages,
apart
from such small
pleasures
as
paid
busi-
ness
trips
or
advanced
training programs.
In
1940,
a
structure
appeared
that
paralleled
the
institutional func-
tions of
Vsekokhudozhnik:
a
government
decree established the Artistic
Fund
to
provide
creative and material assistance to artists. A tradition of
suppor