|تعداد مشاهده مقاله||103,312,432|
|تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله||81,359,059|
پیوند سیاست و هنر در شوروی (مطالعۀ موردی: واقعگرایی سوسیالیستی در عصر استالین)
|مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی|
|دوره 13، شماره 2، مهر 1399، صفحه 543-568 اصل مقاله (637.3 K)|
|نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی|
|شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2020.295319.449887|
|دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران|
|در این نوشتار میخواهیم رابطۀ هنر و سیاست با تمرکز بر نظریۀ هنری در شوروی دوران استالین را واکاوی و نقد کنیم. پس از آنکه استالین در آییننامهای سازمانهای مستقل فرهنگی اتحاد شوروی را منحل کرد، کنگرۀ نویسندگان این کشور، مهمترین هدف خود را تحقق واقعگرایی سوسیالیستی معرفی کرد. بنابر آن همۀ تولیدات فرهنگی به لزوم وفاداری از آرمانهای انقلاب فراخوانده شدند. واقعگرایی سوسیالیستی از ابتدای دهۀ 1930 تا زمان سقوط اتحاد شوروی یگانه روش رسمی خلاقیت و تعهد برای اهالی فرهنگ و هنر بود. چنانکه ساختار قدرت تخطی از آن را برنمیتافت. با توجه به حضور سیاست در ساحت فرهنگ و هنر، این پرسش مطرح است که چگونه واقعگرایی سوسیالیستی و نوع عملکرد آن بازتابدهندۀ علائق قدرت و سیاست در شوروی عصر استالین بوده است؟ در پاسخ سه اصل زیربنایی، زیباییشناسی و واقعگرایی سوسیالیستی را بررسی میکنیم تا فرضیۀ نوشتار را به آزمون بگذاریم: 1. هنر برای خلقها یا اصل مردمگرایی در هنر؛ 2. تعهد به حزب؛ 3. اصالت ایدئولوژیک. برای ارائۀ نشانههایی از اصول گفتهشده برخی آثار هنری و ادبی این دوره به همراه دیدگاه ساخت قدرت را بررسی کردیم. یافتهها نشان میدهد این مکتب در برابر نظام سیاسی برخوردی فعالانه داشته و با توجه به پیوند با امر سیاسی اصل آزادی در هنر به مصلحت قدرت تسلیم شده است. این نوشتار به روش توصیفی-تحلیلی نوشته شده و رویکرد نظریۀ انتقادی را مورد توجه قرار داده است.|
|ادبیات؛ استالین؛ ایدئولوژی؛ شوروی؛ واقعگرایی سوسیالیستی؛ هنر|
|عنوان مقاله [English]|
|The Relationship between Art and Politics in the Soviet Union: A Case Study of Socialist Realism in Stalin Age|
|Mohammad Taghi Ghezel Sofla|
|Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Mazandaran|
|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.
|Art and Literature, Ideology, Realism Socialist, Soviet Union, Stalin|
Ashtari, Bidjan (2011), Dictators and Cinema, Tehran: Donyayeh Tasvir [in Persian].
Berlin, Isaiah (2011), “Art under Stalin Era”, Translated by Reza Rezaee, Mehrnameh, Vol. 2, pp. 50-56 [in Persian].
Bregman, Rutger (2017), Utopia for Realists, Uk: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Cazeaux, Clive (2000), The Continental Aesthetics Reader, London: Routledge.
Clark, Katerina (2000), The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Conrad, Peter (1999), Modern Times and Modern Places: Life and Art in The 20th Century, London: Thames and Hudson Press.
Cullern Bown, Mattew (1991), Art under Statlin, Oxford: Phaidon Press.
Deyhimi, Khashayar (2000), Russian Writers, Tehran: Ney [in Persian].
Drakulic, Slavenka (2014), How we Survived Communism and Even Laughed, Translated by Roya Rezvani, Tehran: Goman [in Persian].
Farhang, Bahram (2010), “Two Resolutions and One Congress: a Picture of the Soviet Literary Situation, Zendeh Rood, No. 52, pp. 31-77 [in Persian].
Finn, Peter (2018), The Zhivago Affair: the Kremlin, the CIA, and the Battle over a Forbidden Book, Translated by Bidjan Ashtari, Tehran: Sales [in Persian].
Fitzpatrick, Sheila (2015), Every Day Stalinism, Translated by Mohammad Taghi Ghezelsofla and Negin Nooryan, Tehran: Omid Saba [in Persian].
Groves, Boris (2017), The Power of Art, Translated by Ashkan Salehi, Tehran: Akhtaran [in Persian].
Gutkin, Irina (1999), Cultural Origins of the Socialist Realist Aesthetics, Illinion: Northwe Stern, University Press.
Kagarlitsky, Boris (1999), New Realism and New Barbarism, London: Pluto Press.
Kheraichenkov, Michael (1985), Authors Creative Individaulity, Translated by Nazi Azima, Tehran: Bita [in Persian].
Kolakowski, Lezek (2008), Main Currents of Marxism, Translated by Abbas Milani, Tehran: Akhtaran [in Persian].
Lahusen, Thomas (1997), Socialist Realism without Shores, London: Duke University Press.
Lenin, Olyanov (2000), “What is Party Literature?”, in: Art in Theory, Translated by Mina Navaee, Tehran: Kavosh, pp. 31-37 [in Persian].
Lizov, Nikolai (1974), New Aesthetics, Translated by Mehdi Partovi, Tehran: Simorgh [in Persian].
Lukac, George and Teodor Adorno (1977), Aesthetics and Politics, London: New Left Book.
Medvedev, Roy (1986), In the Court of History, Translated by Manouchehr Hezarkhani, Tehran: Kharazmi [in Persian].
Muchnic, Helen (1979), From Gorky to Pasternak: Six Writers in Soviet Russia, New York: Palgrave.
Naghed, Khosro (2017), Intellectuals and Soviet Union Revolution, Tehran: Ney [in Persian].
Navai, A. (1982), Dialectic and Art, Tehran: Bita [in Persian].
Razinsky, Edward (2014), Stalin, Translated by Bijan Ashtari, Tehran: Mahi [in Persian].
Ruhle, Jugen (2012), Literature and Revolution, Translated by Ali Asghar Haddad, Tehran: Ney [in Persian].
Russell, Berterand (2016), Bolshevism Theory and Practice, Translated by Amir Soltanzadeh, Tehran: Nashr-e Elm [in Persian].
Schitze, Lev (2002), Philosophy of Art in Marx, Translated by Madjid Madadi, Tehran: Agah [in Persian].
Selden, Raman (1998), A Reader Guide to Contemporary Library, Translated by Abbas Mokhber, Tehran: Tarhe Now [in Persian].
Siegelbaum, Lewis and Andrei Sokolov (2000), Stalinism as a Way of Life, Yale University Press.
Sim, Stewart (1999), “Marxism and Aesthetics”, in: Fundamentals of Sociology of Art, Translated by Ali Ramin, Tehran: Ney [in Persian].
Suchkov, Boris (1983), The History of Realism, Translated by Mohammad Taghi Faramarzi, Tehran: Tondar [in Persian].
Svetlana, Aleksievich (2018), La Fin de L’home Rouge, Translated by Mahshid Moayeri and Moosa Ghani Nejad, Tehran: Minooye Kherad [in Persian].
Todorov, Tzvetan (2003), Hope and Memory: Reflections on the Twentieth Century, London: Princeton University Press.
Welk, Rene (2000), The History of New Critique, Translated by Saeed Arbab Shirani, Tehran: Niloofar [in Persian].
Wexberg, Arkady (2000) Froam Gorky to Gorky, Translated by Seyed Davood Tabaee, Tehran: Goftar [in Persian].
Zhdanov, Andre (1996),”What is Realism Socialist?”, Kelk, Vol. 76-79, pp. 48-56 [in Persian].
Zhdanov, Andre (2010), “Responsibility of Soviet Writers”, Translated by Davood Norouzi, Zenderood, No. 52, pp. 77-93 [in Persian].
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 586
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 250