Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Why do you prefer Socialist Realism?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 07 Jul 2012, 04:17
Why do you prefer it, if you do, over other art styles?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 07 Jul 2012, 22:35
Why would anyone "prefer" Socialist Realism in 2012?
It's an art style of a particular period in Soviet history.
Who would find paintings such as "The first tractor", novels such as "How the steel was tempered" or "Stalinist architecture" interesting, novel and relevant today?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 08 Jul 2012, 03:16
I don't either.

Socialist realism produced some interesting works, but I'm not altogether fond of the idea of the state dictating what sort of artistic style is acceptable and what styles aren't.

It's incredibly stifling and counter-productive. Just because there might be a need to monitor art for outright subversive political messages, shouldn't entail smothering all creativity and artistic freedom.

Art works that have a constructive political message can still be encouraged, but telling artists that they have to work within very narrow parameters is really only going to hurt artistic and cultural development.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Jul 2012, 06:46
Art should be free. That being said, abstract art has failed to interest me since I was a kid.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 18 Jul 2012, 22:00
Most abstract art isn't art at all. A painting is not art by definition, as the construction of a house is not intrinsically art, it's the intent (ie social character) that transforms near-on anything into art. Liberal views on art are muddy just like everything else that spills from their lips.

Personally I feel like trying to restrain art is like trying to cut off your arm. It's hard to do, extremely painful, and in the end it only screws you over more than you arm [subversive art] ever could.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 18 Jul 2012, 23:49
Abstract art is art of late capitalism where the bourgeoisie have too much money to spend and too little sense, so they buy 'art' such as Hirst's Shark in Formaldehyde, whereas they used to spend on art that contains actual hard work and talent such as Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Image


Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 00:55
Art isn't a product of hard work. Many simple drawings have been far more profound than the truckloads of portrait "art". It's the purpose and the skill in illuminating that purpose.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 19 Jul 2012, 01:40
I agree with Dagoth, although I do wish most of the pretentiousness that comes along with abstract art would go away. Unfortunately, art in the bourgeois world is also a measure of status, its sale and collection driving up the price of crap tremendously.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 01:58
Yeah but they can spend all the money they want on that shit. It's not avant-garde or even interesting so why not let the stupid rich piss away money on asinine works? It's not like they're getting ahold of the really good new stuff.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 06:27
Sorry but that shark is fragging awesome, unlike 99% of contemporary art.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 06:55
Yeah it's totally awesome. Just not art.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 09:06
That's true.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 19 Jul 2012, 15:41
What is art then to you, Dagoth?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 17:14
As I said, creation with social meaning. Specific information conveyed by form. The shark isn't art because it's just a shark in a box. It's not supposed to mean anything outside that it's a shark in a box that looks cool. Just like a house isn't supposed to mean anything except that someone can live there. Both could be art but aren't because of this lack of meaning.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 19 Jul 2012, 19:16
Dagoth Ur wrote:
As I said, creation with social meaning. Specific information conveyed by form.


In order to properly debate you on this issue (which I'm really keen to do), I am going to have to press you for a better definition of "art." A house has social meaning. Houses are used every day as advertisements for their owner's level of wealth. Newspapers convey specific information that is incapsulated within the form of their letters, articles, and pictures. Are they art? What social meaning does the Mona Lisa have that the shark does not?

Once we arrive at a working definition of art, we'll be able to move forward and I can tell you why you're wrong.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Jul 2012, 19:28
Please do.

You're correct about social meaning. Making your house convey the wealth within is an art, a philistine art but art nonetheless. And a newspaper could be art if they tried to press the boundaries of converion. They refuse, much like how most houses only serve funtion. Common forms are not art otherwise a simple cardboard box is art.

As for the Mona Lisa, I wasn't saying its not art but that it shouldn't be upheld as some kind of high art. The Shark isn't art because it was a commodity made to be sold. Selling has only a social meaning, I'll agree, but isn't isn't a creative force.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 19 Jul 2012, 20:39
Hmmm...To me, art is what society considers art.

Everything has an aesthetic dimension, regardless of the use something has (or doesn't have), we project aesthetic values into it.

Art is that where the aesthetic value is emphasized over other functions, usually artistic production follows conventions on what objects are considered "art" and follow disciplines, or historic, social rules on how we are to "read" these works.

What this aesthetic value is, is harder to answer. It's undeniable that it is a constituitive dimension of reality; that is, everything we make and everything we see as such, can be viewed through this aesthetic dimension. We might say that it is the recognition of the object as such, as a formation existing in itself, while at the same time, as our own creation and molded with the rules we see fit.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 19 Jul 2012, 23:04
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Art isn't a product of hard work. Many simple drawings have been far more profound than the truckloads of portrait "art". It's the purpose and the skill in illuminating that purpose.

I believe good art consists of hard work and skills, components which most postmodern 'artists' lack.
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 23 Jul 2012, 05:45
Truth be told I do not understand art. When I have been to art galleries none of it makes sense to me. There is no description so how can I understand it?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Jul 2012, 06:22
Some things are just meant to be pretty.

Also I agree with Prax.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.