Has there ever been a dictatorship that hasn't ****ed up the arts?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Yeah, it's about censorship not outright opposition to all art.

Plato would censor all art that does not foster what he considers positive human traits. Hitler would censor art that does not glorify germany and his social order, and Stalin would censor art that does not follow social realism and glorify industry.

Well, yeah, Hitler and Stalin wanted to keep the artists painting, and all that. And they used architects for major buildings, etc. But I think what the OP was getting at was that most of what they produced was pretty bad. Socialist realism, aryan youth kitsch, etc. Esp in the plastic arts. In music, they tended to give problems even to composers who were on "their side" eg Shostakovich. Theres something about 20th c totalitarianism at least, the tendency to politicize everything, that makes them diff wrt the arts than "traditional monarchies". Or than Bonapartism. I cant think of great work coming out of "traditional authoritarians" in the 20th c (like Franco spain), though that may have something to do with the small size and difficult material position most such have been in. Or it may be something else. Also not sure about "communism lite" - Solzenytisn was published under Kruschev, but im not aware of a flowering of the plastic arts then.

Film of course is totally different - Eisenstein, Wertmuller (sp?) A medium that just matched totalitarian propaganda needs so well, that totalitarian regiimes actually advanced the art.

[Whaleboy]

Tzarina Catherine the Great

I understand your argument however, I think that the correct term would be totalitarianism, since while dictatorship and totalitarianism are usually bedfellows, they aren't necessarily so.

Totalitarianism on the other hand must deny freedom of expression and the potential for artistic subversion in order to survive. You can measure the freedom and pluralism of any given society by how it treats those who live by Aesthetic principles.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Well, yeah, Hitler and Stalin wanted to keep the artists painting, and all that. And they used architects for major buildings, etc. But I think what the OP was getting at was that most of what they produced was pretty bad. Socialist realism, aryan youth kitsch, etc. Esp in the plastic arts. In music, they tended to give problems even to composers who were on "their side" eg Shostakovich. Theres something about 20th c totalitarianism at least, the tendency to politicize everything, that makes them diff wrt the arts than "traditional monarchies". Or than Bonapartism. I cant think of great work coming out of "traditional authoritarians" in the 20th c (like Franco spain), though that may have something to do with the small size and difficult material position most such have been in. Or it may be something else. Also not sure about "communism lite" - Solzenytisn was published under Kruschev, but im not aware of a flowering of the plastic arts then.

Film of course is totally different - Eisenstein, Wertmuller (sp?) A medium that just matched totalitarian propaganda needs so well, that totalitarian regiimes actually advanced the art.

Yeah, I generally agree. Censorship of any sort will generally tend to have an overall negative impact on the arts, if only because it limits the options and vairety available both to the artists and as to the public's selection of art. Although I would certainly say that in terms of quality alot of soviet social realism is on par or better than it's american contemporaries like pollok and andy warhol (although that's entirely subjective).

[Barnabas]

I like those realistic sovit paintings that look almost like photographs, it must take a lot of talent

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I like those realistic sovit paintings that look almost like photographs, it must take a lot of talent

That is not art, that is craftsmanship. Those Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist and Whateveryouhave "artists" sure knew how to use their tools but what they didn't do is make you wonder, make you question wtf you are looking at or listening to, make you think.

That's why it is "bad" art.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Hueij

That is not art, that is craftsmanship. Those Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist and Whateveryouhave "artists" sure knew how to use their tools but what they didn't do is make you wonder, make you question wtf you are looking at or listening to, make you think.

That's why it is "bad" art.

There's alot of bad art on the other extreme aswell, where art is aproached without any craftsmanship.

Having said that, though, soviet realism is not neccisarily devoid of artistic content.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Hueij

That is not art, that is craftsmanship. Those Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist and Whateveryouhave "artists" sure knew how to use their tools but what they didn't do is make you wonder, make you question wtf you are looking at or listening to, make you think.

That's why it is "bad" art.

[Blaupanzer]

Is Mao's era in China without art? A genuine question.
What about Pinochet's Argentina?
I don't know enough about 20th C art in general to know the answers. With the exception of a few well publicized artists, writers, and musicians, I don't recall much of artistry in the first half of the century -- a deficiency in my curiousity as much as an absence of teaching. Seems there were DaDaists, impressionists, and surrealists all over the place in that era. Did none come from Germany or Russia?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Hueij

That is not art, that is craftsmanship. Those Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist and Whateveryouhave "artists" sure knew how to use their tools but what they didn't do is make you wonder, make you question wtf you are looking at or listening to, make you think.

That's why it is "bad" art.

That's not a good definition, IMO. It's far too subjective. There's plenty of Nazi and Soviet art that makes you think. Maybe it doesn't inspire the same thoughts & evoke the same feelings as modern art, the same thoughts and emotions that the "aesthetes" think art shold invoke, but their art does inspire some thought and inspire some emotions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


That's not a good definition, IMO. It's far too subjective. There's plenty of Nazi and Soviet art that makes you think. Maybe it doesn't inspire the same thoughts & evoke the same feelings as modern art, the same thoughts and emotions that the "aesthetes" think art shold invoke, but their art does inspire some thought and inspire some emotions.

I dunno, not only doesnt it not inspire the thoughts and emotions that modern art does, I dont think much of it inspires the thoughts and emotions that traditional art did either. Stalin era socialist realism is pretty cliched, no? I mean no more art than a coca cola ad of the same era? If theres some really good art from those eras, i would take a look at any links you provide (and yeah, i already know about early soviet stuff - ie pre-Stalinist constructivism, etc) How much of that is cause non-modernist art was played out in that era, and how much is regime specific im not sure, though i suspect its more the latter, as Ive seen some pretty decent art from the west in that period thats not so modernist (im thinking Wyeth, Hopper, etc)

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Is Mao's era in China without art? A genuine question.
What about Pinochet's Argentina?
I don't know enough about 20th C art in general to know the answers. With the exception of a few well publicized artists, writers, and musicians, I don't recall much of artistry in the first half of the century -- a deficiency in my curiousity as much as an absence of teaching. Seems there were DaDaists, impressionists, and surrealists all over the place in that era. Did none come from Germany or Russia?

Pinochet was dictator of Chile, not Argentina

[joncha]

Same thing.

[Barnabas]

Not really, well, I guess the argentines who live on the moutains near chile are similar to chileans, otherwise, argentina is similar to uruguay, south brazil, and to a lesser degree paraguay, while chile is similar to bolivia and peru, or used to be, before they got relatively wealthy

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Hueij
That is not art, that is craftsmanship. Those Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist and Whateveryouhave "artists" sure knew how to use their tools but what they didn't do is make you wonder, make you question wtf you are looking at or listening to, make you think.

That's why it is "bad" art.

the more it makes you think and the more it changes the way humanity looks at itself, the better art it is, eh?

in that case, the nazis clearly made the best artpiece of the 20th century -- the holocaust

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by VJ

in that case, the nazis clearly made the best artpiece of the 20th century -- the holocaust

That's a good one. I'll have to remember it when I'm taking an art history class. Writing an essay on the holocaust as early performance art.