The Many Faces of Soviet Monumental Art: Supranational, Ideological, and National Perspective
In the USSR, monumental art was designed as a potent tool of propaganda, but it eventually became one of the freest genres of Soviet art. Monumental painting became an essential element of urban and social space, giving rise to the idea of "synthesis of painting and architecture". Artists sometimes played as vital a role in urban planning as architects: notable examples include the sgraffito in Mozyr, the outlook of the Vostok-1 microdistrict in Minsk, and the 6th microdistrict in Novopolotsk. How did monumental art evolve in Soviet cities and what implications did the principle of "National in form, socialist in content" have for the Soviet republics?
The National, the Center and the Periphery: Main Stages
Within the Soviet system, the attitude of the "nominal" center (Moscow) to the national and folk aspects in the "nominal" periphery manifested itself in various ways and changed significantly over time. The format depended on the government policy, set goals, and internal processes.
The korenization policy (part of which was the policy of Belarusization implemented in 1921-1929/30s) contributed to fostering loyalty, strengthening the horizontal and vertical power structures locally, as well as to creation of local institutions and national narratives (if such terminology can be applied to the realia of the 1920s). From the late 1920s onwards, anything national was seen as anti-revolutionary [1].
In the 1930s, "attitude" to the national was manifested through repressive actions. The korenization policy came to an end. In 1930, investigation of a falsified case over creation of a counter-revolutionary national democratic organization, the Union for the Liberation of Belarus [2], was launched. Then came the years of Great Terror. At the same time, a cultural product that is socialist in content and acceptably national in form was being created in line with the canons of socialist realism. In 1925, the young Secretary General Joseph Stalin gave a speech on proletarian culture, where he determined exactly what Soviet art should look like. The full version of the expression goes as follows: "Proletarian in its content, national in form, - this is the universal culture to which socialism is heading. Proletarian culture does not abolish national culture but gives it content. Conversely, national culture does not abolish proletarian culture, but gives it a form" [3]. Its shorter version is the well-known phrase that goes as follows: "National in form, socialist in content." This shorter wording was actively used after the XX Congress of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). The Soviet authority thus took on a more representative nature, which was manifested in architecture, painting, literature, and music. The canons of socialist realism affected all forms of creativity. The state became the main customer for artists and writers.
The turn of the 1940s and 1950s was a time of struggle against formalism in music, architecture, and painting. However, there was no precise definition of formalism as such (in the mid-1950s, the concept of "formalism" to define the architecture of the Stalinist Empire style in a negative sence). On the nominal periphery, this struggle had its own reactionary features: resolutions sent down by central authorities could be implemented in a radical and senseless way by officials, which could be local or appointed externally. At the same time, Belarus received a directive from the "center", which for a long time determined the main cultural and national theme of the country: the Second World War and the heroic struggle of the Belarusian people.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, as decorative and applied art developed and a new way of life emerged for the Soviet people, the national, or rather the folk, also acquired an economic dimension.
In the 1960s and 1970s, exploration and attempts to outline what the national is became a way out of an artistic, aesthetic, and ethical impasse. Artists and critics tried to connect contemporary artistic practices and local art history with the global historical and artistic developments.
Along with the complex processes associated with national and artistic identity, the Soviet Union developed its own unique supranational, ideological, and artistic constructs, such as "people's friendship" and the "cosmic" theme.
The concept of "national" does not necessarily have to be considered equivalent to folk or traditional. It encompasses multiple parameters. Benedict Anderson's universal concept of the nation as an "imagined community", which, however, is sovereign, can be rendered as follows: "the national is a construct". The latter, in turn, originates from a certain cultural and historical base. Art, literature, and architecture changed faster than in the official policy of the party. Monumental, as well as decorative and applied art are illustrative examples of how evolution of the national idea happened, and how central influences and regional subjectivity manifested themselves.
From Revolutionary to Reactionary: A Short Period of Belarusization
The origins of monumental painting in the BSSR are linked to Lenin's plan of monumental propaganda, mass revolutionary parades, painted walls of the city of Vitebsk, supremacist trams, and propaganda trains. Painted Gomel and a collective monument to a Red Army soldier erected in Minsk in 1919 can also be added to this list. Revolutionary avant-garde ideas had a supranational character. The new monumental art represented by painting and sculpture reflected the requirements of the new era, in which the public dominated the individual, and where the collective came to the fore. Painting, and then mosaics were perfectly suited for collective work. It was implied that the artist as an individual creator had become obsolete [4]. In the new world, art, including monumental art, had to play a transformative role [5]. The process of transformation could be split into two parts: collective creative action and a model to be replicated, or propaganda. According to Lenin's plan of monumental propaganda, monumental art was to become a powerful tool for ideological and educational agitation. On April 12, 1918, the corresponding decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On the Republic's Monuments" was signed.
Photo of a campaign train. Vitebsk, 1919
Photo of the October demonstration in Vitebsk, 1918
The 1919-1920s were a time of relative equality between the republics. At least today, from a historical perspective, I would like to approach the processes that took place then from this perspective. These include the above-mentioned policies of korenization, Belarusization, and the role of "personalities in history". The young republic was not blessed with a beneficial geographical location, but it got lucky with the first leadership, which created the Institute of Belarusian Culture (Inbelkult) in 1922. In 1926, the Academy of Sciences was established on the basis of Inbelkult. In 1927, the All-Belarusian Association of Artists with branches in various towns came into existence [6]. Other creative art associations included the Revolutionary Organization of Artists of Belarus (RAMB) and the "Luch'' creative group [7]. A lot of work was done for the new national culture over several years, albeit with some ideological compromises. Polemics over what was "ours" and "not ours", what could be seen as "revival" or "Marxist positions” went on and on.
In 1923, the Vitebsk Art and Practical Institute was reorganized into the Vitebsk College of Arts and Pedagogy. The sculptor Mikhail Kerzin was appointed its new director. Most of the teachers of the reorganized educational institution were graduates of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. Among the teachers were Peter and Christopher Dvorkevich, Vladimir Khrustalev, Fyodor Vogt, Vyacheslav Rutsai and Maria Lebedeva. Before moving to Vitebsk, Kerzin taught at an art school in Velizh (currently a town in the Smolensk oblast, which used to be located on the territory of the Vitebsk province that belonged to the RSFSR from 1919 to 1924), since it was easier to survive in the province than in the capital.
According to Kerzin, activities of the Vitebsk Institute were not in line with the academic traditions. Some processes that influenced Belarusian art were not directly related to the centralized policy. Belarusian sculptors, who authored the most significant monuments in the republic, namely, Zair Azgur, Andrey Bembel, Alexey Glebov, Abram Zhorov, Alexander Orlov, were Kerzin's students. The academic shift in Vitebsk occurred even before the classical style and orientation towards the finest, preferably Russian, examples from history became the official artistic policy and the sole option for socialist realism.
In 1948, Kerzin was accused of formalism (the accusation was supported by former students as well) and excessive enthusiasm for academic classics. Thus, he went back to Leningrad.
Promotion of academic traditions went alongside with the study of folk and national aspects. It was planned to develop a new Belarusian national style based on the gathered folk ornaments. Nikolai Kasperovich, appointed in 1924 to the post of inspector of the Vitebsk District Department of Public Education, introduced the study of Belarusian art into the curriculum of the college. An attempt was made at the college to revive the production of Belarusian ceramic tiles, which were popular in the 16th and 17th centuries. Ceramics was taught by Nikolai Mikhalap. Later, in 1939-1941 he headed the State Art Gallery. In 1929, due to economic challenges, the ceramics department was closed.
In 1924, teachers of the Ende College, namely, Volkov, Lebedeva and Kerzin, and its students Puzynkevich and Volkhonsky painted the foyer and halls of the "Maststski" cinema. On the side walls of the foyer, groups of peasants and workers were depicted against the background of an industrial landscape. The front wall featured a group of vacationers. The compositions were complemented with stylized Belarusian ornament with symbols of Soviet heraldry. The main hall featured people and Prometheus.
In the mid-1920s, fresco painting was admired by various artists. The brothers Timofey and Mikhail Baichukov in Ukraine, and the Hungarian artist-political exile Bell Witz, deserve a mention. In 1928, the "October" association appeared in Moscow, which included Diego Rivera and Jose Siqueiras, who came to the USSR. The artist Robert Genin, who came from the Belarusian town of Klimovichi and whose artistic career suffered after he returned to the USSR, had a dream of painting the Palace of Soviets that was never constructed. Khristofor Darkevich dreamed of creating a Belarusian fresco school under the Vitebsk College of Art. In 1930-1931, Darkevich made a painting in the building of the Sirotin railway station (now Shumilino). From 1930 to 1936, the artist worked on a painting in one of the college's study rooms.
Photo of Pyotr Darkevich, 1897-1937 Photo of Christopher Darkevich, 1900 - 1937. Source
The popularity of frescoes (paintings) stemmed from several factors: collaborative work, widespread appreciation of this technique, including by artists from the AMR (Association of Artists of the Revolution), prevalence of raw plaster as a building material and a base for frescoes, and continuity of traditions.
It is known that the teachers of the Vitebsk College went to Polotsk to study frescoes. Maria Lebedeva, as part of the commission for the protection of monuments, cleaned the wall frescoes in the Pyatnitskaya and Borisoglebskaya churches, photographed them, and made sketches.
In 1929, Stalin made a speech titled "On the Right Deviation in the Party". In 1930, the case of the "Union for the Liberation of Belarus" was fabricated, after which the years of Great Terror came. Brothers Peter and Christopher Darkevich were shot in 1937, as well as Nikolai Kasperovich. Writers, artists, and public figures from Inbelkult faced repressions. Vsevolod Ignatovsky could not stand the pressure and committed suicide; Nikolai Shchekotikhin died in custody. The korenization policy made way for the policy of centralization. The relatively free 1920s ended along with sympathies for the national and the folk. An illustrative example is the themes for the third Belarusian exhibition in 1929: the signing of the manifesto, the reading of the manifesto, the theme of the awakening of the People's Will – "we slept from time immemorial", the occupation of Western Belarus.
Along with the change in the political vector, the pictorial means changed, too. The 1930s began with a sharp criticism of formalism, schematization, and all kinds of "-isms". The only method considered appropriate was the method of socialist realism, based on the best classical traditions, for example, of the Russian artists-wanderers (the artist Ivan Repin was recalled most often). At the First All–Union Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, the basic principles of the socialist artistic method were finally approved: "True reflection of reality in its revolutionary development."
Monumental painting was supposed to reflect the best achievements of the Soviet Union. The works were created in important places for the state. In 1934, Valentin Volkov created two monumental panels at the Negoreloe station. Dneprobud was depicted on one panel, collectivization was depicted on the other. For this purpose, the artist intentionally paid a visit to the all-union construction. There was a customs terminal between Western and Eastern Belarus at the Negoreloe station, and guests from Europe arriving by train could immediately appreciate the power of industrial construction and collectivization in the Soviet Union.
On April 23, 1932, the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party's Belarusian branch passed a resolution "On Restructuring of Artistic and Literary Organizations". The resolution envisaged establishing branches of the Artists' Union. Artistic and structural changes were happening throughout the Soviet Union.
The 1930s saw the first instances of artists being assigned to ideologically significant artistic projects. Most often, such assignments involved artists from Moscow. Belarusian artists worked under their full or partial supervision. The sculptural adornment of the House of Government (1930-1934, architect Joseph Langbard) was delivered by Matvey Manizer, who had been responsible for the main monuments of Soviet Union leaders. Manizer invited Andrey Bembel to work on the bas-reliefs. Creation of the mosaics was orchestrated by Vladimir Frolov. Both under the tsars and the Soviets, Frolov's workshop was renowned for its mosaics. He made mosaics for the Lenin Mausoleum, among others.
Maria Lebedeva and I. Frenk painted the ceiling lamps of the House of Government. By that time, Lebedeva had already moved from the BSSR to Leningrad and was working on propaganda porcelain. The ceiling painting resembled the classical scheme used by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo and Eugene Lancere. The medallion's center contained illustrations depicting industrialisation. Belarusian ornament was chosen as the framing decoration. The painting's blue hue resembles the old frescoes in Polotsk's cathedrals. Perhaps the artist drew inspiration from their color schemes.
Alexander Deineko oversaw the decoration of the House of the Red Army (now the Central House of Officers), built from 1934 to 1939 by architect Joseph Langbard. The walls of its gym were decorated with panels titled "Cross" and "Sports Parade". The theater adjacent to the building was painted in 1939 by Georgy Rublev, at that time the main artist of the Moscow sports parades, and Andrei Goncharov. It is believed that painted panels of the House of the Soviet Army, as well as the painting by Volkov, disappeared during the Second World War. However, another version has it that the murals were removed in the late 1950s.
The pavilion of the International Organization for Assistance to the Fighters of the Revolution (MADRA, 1922-1947) at the Belarusian agricultural exhibition in 1930 stood out from all other pavilions. The pavilion was decorated by the Finnish artist Aleksanteri Ahola-Valo together with V. Volkov and I. Ende. Ahola-Valo was a former student of Yudel Pan and Kazimir Malevich. He also worked with Inbelkult. The pavilion's design was a real manifestation of independent artistic will. The panels' expressive and naturalistic style elicited dissatisfaction from the exhibition management. After the exhibition ended, the artist left the Soviet Union following friendly advice.
The "Friendship of Peoples" Construct
From June 5 to June 15, 1940, a decade of Belarusian art was held in Moscow. It featured a field presentation of achievements of the Soviet National Art. Most often these were performances by choreographic ensembles, theater plays, etc. It also included exhibitions of painting and sculpture. Alongside with theatrical and choreographic collectives, a large panel painted by Evgeny Tikhanovich and Isaac Davidovich "Friendship of Peoples" was sent to Moscow. This monumental painting was meant to signify allegiance to the government's policy and the direction chosen by the party.
The theme of "Friendship of Peoples" is an ideological concept that emerged in the early 1930s as opposed to the korenization policy. Numerous painted panels, pieces of music (for example, the opera titled "Big Friendship" [8]), films, literary works - all this was supposed to emphasize the special relations between the fraternal republics of the Soviet Union. The dictionary of scientific communism says the following: "The friendship of peoples develops in the process of socialist construction [ ...] Its true embodiment was the voluntary unification of peoples into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. With the victory of socialism, a similar class structure was created for all the peoples of the USSR, centuries-old national and ethnic remnants, alienation and enmity between nations were overcome... " [9].
In 1955, the artists Ivan Akhremchik and Isaac Davidovich created the "Friendship of Peoples" painting on the lamps of the Young Spectator Theater at the Palace of Pioneers in Kirov Street in Minsk (later the paintings were painted over). The painting consisted of two compositions: "Parade of the Peoples of the World" and "Parade of the Peoples of the USSR". The theme of friendship among peoples was later expressed in different ways, such as international youth and student festivals.
In 1956, a new building for cultural communication between peoples, or the House of Friendship, was opened. The artists Ivan Akhremchik and Isak Davidovich painted a large panel called "Folk Talents" in its assembly hall. The panel had a wallpaper-like texture and featured various symbols of the country: the bison, Slutsk belts and their weavers, and Belovezhskaya Pushcha. Most likely, the artists were guided by the poem by Maxim Bogdanovich "Slutsk Women-Weavers". However, it is a well-known historical fact that the Slutsk belts were woven exclusively by men. The panel matched the socialist realism's view of how the national theme should appear to foreign visitors.
Examples of how painting developed the theme of friendship are the monumental panels about childhood: the mosaic "Happy Childhood" in the Pioneer cinema (by artists Evgeny Zaitsev and Ivan Tikhonov); and the fantastical pictures of the future viewed from the 1970s and 1980s, which depicted the time when the so-called communism would be established and all nations would finally be equal. Such plots usually featured children (for example, a tapestry in the Brest Youth Creativity Centre) or the collective involvement of people from different backgrounds in heroic battles and labor achievements.
The Post-War Period and the Great Style
I would very much like to describe the brief period after the war as a bridge between the oppressive 1930s and the Khrushchev Thaw. But that would be only half the truth. On the one hand, those who had survived the war felt a sense of inner freedom. On the other hand, the late 1940s and early 1950s witnessed the apotheosis of the great style, socialist realism, and Soviet patterns.
The post-war version of the great style became even more hypertrophied and pattern-driven. The ceremonial architectural ensembles of the cities that were renovated, or rather rebuilt after the war, were quite similar. Their layout was most often radial-circular: the city was cut through by the central avenue with squares and a compulsory ceremonial "gateway to the city". This kind of city structure, as well as the Stalinist Empire architecture were supposed to evoke associations with the recent victory.
"It appeared that only by using classical methods of architectural and artistic expression, one could immortalize the triumph of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War" [10"[1]. The adjusted Empire decor, consisting of wreaths, flags, and state symbols, was to remind of the recent victory. New buildings followed the "Moscow" or classicist patterns. Small architectural forms were borrowed from Leningrad. However, studies on the post-war reconstruction of Belarusian cities stated that the classicist "order system" was combined with the customary local decoration. "Belarusian architecture should be national in form and socialist in content," architect Alexander Voinov argued, echoing Joseph Stalin. Thus, the universal formula applied to architecture as well.
National folk patterns can still be seen in the decoration of the panels of light masts (that's what streetlights used to be called). The pattern was developed by Nikolai Mikholap, who drew inspiration from the patterns of the Slutsk belts. In the pre-war period, Mikholap worked with the collection of Slutsk belts that once belonged to the noble family of Radziwills However, almost complete reproduction like that was rather an exception.
The first post-war monumental paintings emerged in places of strategic importance, namely, in railway stations. Railway reconstruction, besides the transport need, also had a symbolic meaning: the Soviet Union had to be seen as a united entity. In 1949 Boris Pokrovsky, a monumental painter, illustrator and graphic artist, decorated the ceiling lamp and the officer's hall of the restaurant of the main railway station in Minsk (tempera; about 300 sq.m.) on the theme "The Thirtieth Anniversary of the BSSR". He also made four frescoes in the restaurant's lobby. In the shadow of the recent war, the decade of reunification of Western and Eastern Belarus had almost been overlooked. The artist was invited for a reason: prior to that assignment, he had decorated the Kiev, Kursk, Yaroslavl, and Leningrad railway stations in Moscow.
Plaster medalion-shaped panels by the sculptor Andrey Bembel, made in 1955 in the cafeteria on the first floor of the "Tsentralny" store represent a more prosaic version of the great style. These medallions display lavish wealth and pastoral scenes. Medallions with fruits resemble illustrations from "The Book on Delicious and Healthy Food". It was planned that every image would have a corresponding department on the second floor. After they were painted, the medallions began to look more like products of the numerous art cooperatives of that time, and not the work of a distinguished sculptor.
The National and the New Era
In 1955, Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, gave a speech on the overabundance of architecture. Significantly, this happened a year before the Twentieth Party Congress. Changes in architecture, but not only, that took place in the following years can be described as a mild de-Stalinization.
Along with the new architecture, new monumental design came into existence. Not suddenly though, but gradually a concise graphic style with a slight poster twist was emerging. Traditional techniques and compositions were returning to monumental painting as a universal way of working with large spaces. The iconographic structure, which gained popularity in the late 1960s, proved to be a convenient way to bring together various chronological events and their participants in one piece. The earlier socialist realism, demonstrative and easel in nature, did not suit the new architecture. One of the reasons for this was that from afar, people's faces would blend into one.
Monumental paintings of the 1960s from various Soviet regions looked similar, regional differences would appear later. However, even then, the BSSR had its own symbolic element -a stork in flight. For comparison, examples of other elements that were often used in monumental compositions included a theatrical mask, an atom sign, or a seagull.
The turn of decades was a time of change. A new generation of artists came, many of whom had been through the war. What was happening in art in the late 1950s was called the "austere style" - a true, even slightly heightened reflection of reality, with simple, informative characters (workers, military, Komsomol members), bright coloristic and sharp strokes. The works of artists from different republics of that time seem similar, as do characters in the paintings.
Photo by Tofik Javadov, "The Oilmen", 1956 Canvas, oil. 250x300. Museum of Modern Art. Baku. Azerbaijan.
New heroes and harsh reality migrated from painting to monumental art. Participants of the war were shown to be just as austere (just to remind, war was one of the topics sent down by central authorities).
In 1957, monumental art received a new supranational plot: on October 4, the first satellite was launched into outer space, and on April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin carried out his flight. For the Soviet Union, space was not only a sphere of scientific achievements, but also an ideological construct, a metaphor, a kind of ideal space in which there are no wars, everyone is equal, and "communism" can be built.
Photo by M. Gugel, A. Krol, G. Krasnevsky, Sgraffito "Science and Space", 1964, RTI
"Folk" motifs began to return to art and the public discourse again. This process was difficult, not always amiable, because of the resistance of the party leadership and local authorities. The search for the "folk" also had an economic motivation. Following the decision to abolish the cooperatives, the most interesting artels were incorporated into the Art Fund, for example, the groups involved in weaving and pottery.
Nikita Khrushchev did not only advocate the new architecture, but also spoke about the new Soviet lifestyle. The example of Baltic states had shown that ceramic and woven products, jewelry and so on can enjoy demand. But then a problem emerged: in the Baltic States and Transcarpathia, not enough time had passed for the "folk" to be labeled "national bourgeois", since these regions joined the Soviet Union much later. In the Soviet "periphery", the struggle against the "folk" had been much tougher than in the center. The BSSR's Academy of Sciences was to find skilled artisans and references for production of decorative and applied art pieces. The issue of setting up production efficiently at the new art factories was raised frequently. The best way to interact with folk artisans was uncertain. How should their work be assessed? Should they be guided all along or given creative freedom? What kind of social and legal status should they have?
Historical past was addressed when there was a need to support something from the present. For example, the so-called retrospectivism, a return to paintings and frescoes, gained popularity throughout the Soviet Union. However, instead of the 18th century, artists resorted to the early Renaissance. The ceramic artist Taras Porozhnyak put works by the Belarusian artisan Stepan Ivanov, nicknamed Palubes, and works by Italian ceramist of the early Renaissance Luca Della Robio in the same value range.
S. I. Palubes and his workshop. Tiled (glazed) frieze of the Church of Gregory of Neocaesarea in Moscow. 1660-70, photo by A. I. Nagaev
Local differences in monumental painting arose in the early 1970s: new times required different visual representation. It became clear that the laconic style of the 1960s was out of touch with the demands of the epoch. The national in painting was supposed to become a way out of the artistic impasse, an alternative to "faceless boys and girls with atoms in their hands," as the Belarusian art critic Boris Krepak put it at one of the plenums. The development of national styles in monumental painting was almost openly debated, but still adhering to the common principle of "National in form, socialist in content." Although by that point this formula had become a binding, but empty formality.
Z. Litvinova, S. Katkova, Encaustic in the former Vilnius cinema "Old City. Young city", demolished
Therefore, monumental art varied across each Soviet republic, major region, and economically significant city. At the level of republics, it was possible to talk about the formation of national schools with their own characteristics and distinctive features. This process lasted until the collapse of the USSR. At the same time, the appearance of regions and single-industry towns depended on local artisans and monumental artists invited from other places. Often the same team worked on several pieces.
A common trend that characterized monumental painting since the mid-1970s was a broad variety of techniques, plots, and compositions. For that reason, categorization thereof poses a significant challenge. The political center only maintained its sway over late Soviet art in the regions and republics in terms of distribution of the most important orders. At the same time, the ideology had almost completely disappeared from monumental art. Monumental painting became an integral part of the social space. Using the dialectical terms that were so much favored in the USSR, we can say that matter defeated form both literally and figuratively.
References:
The History of Belarusian Art. Volumes 1-4. Minsk: Science and Technology, 1987.
The Tribune of Art: The Body of the Central Board of the Union of Art Workers of Belarus and Belgoskino. Minsk: State Administration for Cinematography and Photography, 1925.
Belarusian Art, Minsk: Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 1957.
Bazzyants S. Spatial exploration of Belarusian monumentalists / / Moscow: Decorative Art of the USSR-1974 - No. 1.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: The National Question. Moscow: AST, 2023.
Friendship of Peoples / / Scientific Communism: Dictionary / Alexandrov V. V., Amvrosov A. A., Anufriev E. A. et al . Ed. A. M. Rumyantsev. - 4th ed., supplement - M.: Politizdat, 1983. — 352 p.
The Art of the Commune. Collection of the Department of Fine Arts of the Commissariat of Public Education. Petrograd, 1918-1919.
Art. Moscow, Petrograd: OGIZ, IZOGIZ-1934, No. 4.
Lebedeva V., Soviet Monumental Art of the Sixties, Moscow, 1973
Zhadova L. A., Monumental Paintings of Mexico. Moscow, 1965.
Osmolovsky M. S. Minsk/ - Moscow: State Publishing House of Architecture and Urban Planning, 1950.
Stalin I. V. On the Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East. Speech at a meeting of students of KUTV. May 18, 1925 // Stalin I. V. Essays. Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1952. Vol. 7. P. 138.
Shatskyh A. S. Kazimir Malevich and the Supremus Society. - M.: Three Squares, 2009.
Shatskyh A. S. Vitebsk. The life of art. 1917-1922-Moscow: LitRes, 2022
Шатских А. С.Витебск. Жизнь искусства. 1917–1922 — М.: ЛитРес, 2022
Links:
Developing Lenin's idea formulated in the article "The Right of a Nation to Delf-Determination", it can be argued that formation of an independent national state is a way of fighting an oppressive state. Thus, in this case the USSR as a formation turned out to be an oppressive state. At the same time, the concept of "natsdem" - an abbreviated version of the "national democrat" - began to be actively used. The correct version of the Soviet project had to become supranational, or the Soviet people had to become a new nation. The "Russian human" was meant to be the unifying element due to their plasticity and numbers, or it could be the Russian proletariat.
The case of the "Union for Liberation of Ukraine" was investigated in the territory of the Ukrainian SSR.
Stalin I. V. On the Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East. Speech at a meeting of students of KUTV. May 18, 1925 // Stalin I. V. Essays. Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1952. Vol. 7. P. 138.
A similar "brigade approach" was used by Mexican artists, according to the "Social, political and aesthetic declaration" adopted in 1922.
A similar statement was included in the program of UNOVIS.
Composition in Minsk, artists: G. Vier, A. Tychina, A. Grube, Mic.Duchits, J. Kruger, M. Stanyuta, A. Astapovich; Vitebsk, artists: V. Volkov, Vlad.Khrustalev, M. Ende; Gomel: B. Zvinogorodsky, Nikolay Tarasikov, S. Kovrovsky; Moscow:I.Akhremchik, M. Axelrod, V. Rutsai, R. Semashkevich, M. Filippovich, A. Shevchenko; Leningrad: Z. Miringof, M. Slepyan, G. Shultz, A. Bulychev.
Composition: A. Ahola-Valo, V. Tikhanovich, V.Kuznetsov, I.Ryazanov, Elena Puk (married – Elena Aladova, future director of the National Art Museum of the BSSR), V.Bohan, A. Karpenko, V. Murashov, Yu. Shustar, V. Khmelevskaya, S. Goldin, O. Marix.
With the devastating criticism of the opera, the second, post-war wave of persecution for formalism began. The second reason was that Stalin was dissatisfied with the plot of the opera, in which the main character was Sergo Ordzhonikidze, and the action took place in the Caucasus.
Friendship of Peoples / / Scientific Communism: Dictionary / Alexandrov V. V., Amvrosov A. A., Anufriev E. A. et al . Ed. A. M. Rumyantsev. - 4th ed., supplement - M.: Politizdat, 1983. — 352 p.
Osmolovsky M. S. Minsk. M.: State Publishing House of Architecture and Urban Planning, 1950.
