> For example, it is curious that the
> > Russians were at
> > the very apex of international modernity pre-WWI
> and
> > the very early
> > Twenties and completely abandoned these
> > international modernist styles
> > by the end of the decade. The usual explaination
> in
> > the west is the
> > authoritarian regime under Stalin and the
> > politically correct
> > oppression of socialist realism for the masses.
> But
> > that doesn't
> > explain why these modern works had become suddenly
> > decadent,
> > bourgeois and capitalist, when just a few years
> > before they were
> > revolutionary and anti-bourgeois. Certainly Soviet
> > film making
> > persisted with its modernity a few more years.
> Well,
> > yet another
> > chapter that needs a re-write. (Chris?)
I'm actually doing a bit of work in this area, so I'll try and answer. This is off the top of my head, so it might be a bit rambling ...
Basically, I think it is the iconoclasticism of the modernist works that was problematic for Stalin. After the Soviet leadership proclaimed that Socialism had been built in 1934, works which demanded a radical overturning of social norms were no longer what was needed. In fact, by saying that society needed to be transformed, they carried a subversive and problematic message that all was not right.
In the 1930s the SU danced to two, somewhat contradictory, tunes: (1)The SU is the best of all possible worlds; (2)The SU will be the best of all possible worlds. In a way, then, what we call 'socialist realism' was simply a reflection of that: the images we associate with this show an idealised vision of the SU, but also exhort it to go further towards building Communism. This is something that the international modernist style could not do as well as the realist style.
You also have to wonder how far the Soviet leadership had _ever_ held to the iconoclastic views with which we usually associate them. For example, in terms of policy on the family, we usually assume that the Bolsheviks were against it, or even for its abolition. In reality, many in the party were actually rather more reserved about the matter. They worried that destroying the family would bring about about licentiousness and destroy the moral fabric of society. Both Lenin and Stalin - more or less - were in this group. And it was this (majority?) which won out. Even those, like Anton Makarenko, who had claimed in the 1920s that children would be better educated (inculated) away from their families, claimed in the 1930s that families were vital for children's moral education. A 1936 reform followed the European pro-natalist trend.
The point of this being: did the majority of the Bolsheviks ever really subscribe to the iconoclasm of the Modernists?
Chris is certainly correct that high modernism was somewhat irrelevant to the masses (in fact, probably largely unseen by the masses). More in tune with their hopes was the more modest idea of 'culturedness', which aimed to incluate moral values to a 'backward' population. A more 'populist' kind of art could be understood by everybody, and had significantly better mobilising potential, which was the key to governing the SU.
The idea of culturedness actually contains a significant element of 'high' culture. The ideal Soviet citizen would know the 'Short Course' on Bolshevik History, have read all the significant works of Pushkin, and have an opinion on 'How The Steel Was Tempered'. The whole thing was sort of a mish-mash of manners, hygiene and high culture. Although the 'appreciation' of this culture seems to be limited to a trivia-like knowledge of 'great works', looking at diaries of the time actually shows that individuals used what they had read as ideal types, or to understand their own problems. (By the way, Khrushchev tried a similar idea in the 1950s, but it was far less successful. I think enthusiasm for the system was starting to disappear at that point.)
Another key point is that 'culturedness' was used to create a Soviet national identity, based around these works (and Pushkin - so much Pushkin!). Surprisingly enough, in the mid-1930s, Stalin actually encouraged the nations that made up the SU to let their own national identities flower. This was usually quite a kitsch celebration of primordial national characteristics and traditions, along with 'great' writers from these countries, which had to be celebrated and learned.
Simon
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com