Russian week in London

[Meister]

In my opinion, Olga is now summed up the whole debate ... neither add nor subtract ... it's so ...

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

Well, thank you, but I am suffering, suffering, force myself to "accurately determine, but not always get ...

better to play chess)

[SAH]

Сообщение от Samvel

but it is nothing of the sixties as an element of promotion and nothing more.

But I neponetno what's wrong with "promotion" is very often speak of this as of something not present and lipovom.no through her promotion took place many, many thin. and then the time had approved or rejected someone else from nih.koroche think that just the opposite work Marchand show (raskruchivt) beloved him thin. And then how much would guess your taste does not get the prize has left guessing at a loss (I am quoting now uriarta) Nonconformists longer now to sell it does not matter, it may take time, but not all the best of them make good money. They are real, they wrote that they thought, not for ration and this stoit.U us specifics love painting "beautiful" love "grass and twigs, and the picture of meaning is another.

[Сергеич]

But what is not Socialist Realism?

L. Shmutsler - Village girls returning from the fields

YP Yunghas - A shepherd with a black and white goat

YP Yunghas - plowing

Hyman - The Growing Family

Kampf - Staleleteyny Plant

Denzel - Plowing on the rocky field

[LCR]

Сообщение от OlgaV

Socialist realism - surely a historical fact, question its artistic value. Form - is impeccable. All Soviet academics studied the great (lucky) and the good of Russian artists. School is a school, passed from master to disciple, and it does not take away.

I have to Socialist Realism another claim, namely, formal - I have already talked about this. These people did not seem to have noticed that in the 19 th century was the idea of picture, as if they were living on another planet, where there was not Impressionism, but the experiments 10-20-ies. Because of what kind of form there to say? How was it possible after Larionov and Malevich, after Soutine and de Stael, after Pollock and Newman, to continue to paint this very blunt reality?
Of course, they nonrecognizability. But not because of the utterly false optimism of the paintings, but because of the lack of any kind was of interest to form, the lack of thought ...

[Сергеич]

We compared the art of the Third Reich and our Socialist Realism 30-50-x. I was surprised to find that in spite of the apparent similarity of the Germans somehow darker.

[Allena]

Сообщение от Sergeyitch

for all the obvious similarities between the Germans somehow darker

On the one hand, they did not have the party set to reflect the gains of socialism and a single movement of the masses on the road to communism. However, many of our artists (as well as many ordinary people in general) truly believed in what the writing (including in the gains of socialism), then that life becomes better, etc. And it is these heartfelt feelings in my view, are valuable in socialist realism. Posted to Dejneka "Future pilot" if he did not believe in their bright future? Never!

[SergeiSK]

Сообщение от Meister

summed up the whole debate

The outcome of this debate can not be, by definition
What surprises me the number of people speaking "thank you" ... Number of writing negatively about socialist realism is not surprising. All this gives a little hypocritical. Here, the majority were born in the days of socialism and all that is good to remember and compare with its future "democratic" life. Why must zealously watered his recent insipid? This same story of a great country - the USSR. And no, the word "great" can not hide, there is no argument. And now that - write me a dissident, my uncle from the KGB finger wagged in their time, and I lived under Communism Gauvin, and art was rotten? So Socialist Realism is also our history and is greater than all attempts at dissent in the Soviet arts. Nonconformism recognized in the West because he was one of the elements of the ideological struggle against the Soviets, because in every way and encouraged his artistic component here was in second place. Talented nonconformists can be counted on the fingers, for talented socialist realists do not have enough fingers for all participants in the discussion.
All arguments like "writing for a ration of" leave the conscience is speaking, not necessary now to discuss the "yellow" press. Where were you before? Kitchens Brezhnev were discussing? Now Rabin took over the icon and carried to the masses? I'm glad this obstruction of social realism, because the time a great healer and in a few years, let him become a taboo Socialist Realism art, so it becomes more interesting, though nonconformist they rule, removing the last of the Russian art.
This is my point of view, but sooner or later, socialism will rule the world, this is the only correct policy, respectively, again revived and Socialist Realism. So the dispute is not over, the struggle continues!

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от SergeiSK

Nonconformism recognized in the West because he was one of the elements of the ideological struggle against the Soviets, because in every way and encouraged him

Today you play jazz, tomorrow you sell the Motherland. I know, I've heard ...

[Allena]

Сообщение от SergeiSK

The outcome of this debate can not be, by definition

Of course not! When I Look closely, all the arguments for or against all isms has not once expressed. A typical dispute about tastes, personal habits, about which, as you know, do not argue. None of the parties, by definition, does not convince in anything else. But I honestly do not see any reason to oppose, in a dispute about tastes. All are competent, knowledgeable, it would be far more interesting and useful for all to discuss the pros and cons of something or someone in particular (the work of the artist), but not to shake the air pointless dispute.

Yes, some struggle, Sergei, what you are! But imagine that now the forum will be someone who believes that high art over, say, the Fayum portraits - and everything after them - nothing. Let us argue with him, but this situation of personal preference. And they - different!

[SergeiSK]

Here, for some reason no one compares with the Socialist Realism of the Russian classical painting of the 19 th century. Although the first studied with the latter. So why do we have to compare the Socialist Realism and non-conformism? Perhaps it should be compared with the Russian avant-garde an interesting discussion to achieve. Who is on whose side would stand up?