Socreālisma klasiskā modeļa adaptācijas Latvijā pirmajā padomju varas gadā (1940–1941)
Adaptations the Classical Model of Socialist Realism during the First Soviet Year (1940–1941) in Latvia

Summary/Abstract: The article focuses on the short Soviet episode between the independence period and the subsequent German occupation, introducing Socialist Realism as a new paradigm for Latvian art theory and criticism. The doctrine had emerged in the USSR during the 1930s and was codified at the First Congress of Soviet Writers (1934) by Stalin’s propagandist Andrei Zhdanov in his famous speech. He proclaimed writers to be “engineers of human souls”. They were urged to represent reality in its “revolutionary development”, educate the working people in the spirit of socialism as well as to use the best achievements of all previous epochs for these purposes.Reflections of the regime’s officials as well as artists, art historians and critics on Socialist Realism appeared in Latvian periodicals by mid-1940. Thus art historian Alberts Prande (1893–1957) reiterated rebukes of formalism from the Soviet press, painter and critic Jēkabs Strazdiņš (1905–1958) extolled the “healthy realist trend” opposed to imitations of Western chaos and liberties; painter Augusts Dīriķis (1894–1941) called for rich ideas and technical skills instead of empty aestheticism, etc. Artists were pushed to depict the new life in “truthful”, content-based works with realist, easily understandable imagery. One of the most theoretical articles was published in the newly founded literature monthly Karogs by the renowned Russian-born art historian Boris Vipper (1888–1967) who came to Latvia in 1924 and returned to Moscow in 1941. He saw Socialist Realism in a quite Hegelian mode. The first phase of cultural evolution was deemed collective idealism, the second – individualism as its antithesis, while the third, present phase of Socialist Realism, described as collective materialism, was said to synthesise both previous extremes and eliminate their worst effects. In terms of form, this collective materialism blended Western traditions of representing spatial depth and chiaroscuro with decorative and rhythmical values, also reintegrating art with practical life and architecture. While this declaration was not really based on the doctrine’s actual sources, it allows us to spot original local modifications. Socialist Realism was popularised in articles praising Russian and Soviet art, for instance, on the Realist trend of the Peredvizhniki (Wanderers). Thus, applied artist and art critic Jūlijs Madernieks (1870–1955) described Ilya Repin as a great model for Latvian artists, modifying his earlier critical remarks about the 19th century Realism. Other Russian artists, such as Vasily Surikov, Aleksandr Deineka or Aleksandr Gerasimov, also featured in periodicals. More general surveys emerged too, mainly extolling the flourishing present in particular kinds of arts. They were authored by the leftist graphic artist Kārlis Bušs (1912–1987), art historian Jānis Dombrovskis (1885–1953), writer, painter and art critic Anšlavs Eglītis (1906–1993) (likely using the pseudonym I. Svarups), also painter and art critic Uga Skulme (1895–1963). Skulme had also sharply changed his opinion about Russian art, now claiming this nation of genius able to blend all foreign influences into a whole while in the inter-war period, he had deemed Russian art slavishly subservient to German Realism. Most of these surveys appeared soon after the occupation, likely aiming to quickly educate the public in the newly conquered territories. Some positive reviews on the USSR cultural scene even predated the occupation for example, in the magazine Atpūta whose editors had been involved with the Society for the Cultural Rapprochement with the USSR, functioning as a de facto recruiting agency for the future puppet government. A different tendency was to speculate on local precursors of Socialist Realism or at least some similar phenomena. Most of these pieces emerged in late 1940 and 1941, suggesting some time was needed in the attempt to inscribe the local heritage into the new paradigm. Self-evident models were members of the so-called Active Artists’ Group related to the inter-war Communist underground, practicing linocuts on social themes in a slightly modernised but rather naïvely realist manner. However, the scope of somewhat acceptable artists was much wider, encompassing the forefathers of Latvian national art, educated in late 19th century Russia and influenced by Realism, such as Ādams Alksnis (1864–1897) or Janis Rozentāls (1866–1916). Expressive draughtsman Teodors Ūders (1868–1915) probably received most attention. He was praised by Skulme, Dombrovskis and others as a simple and convincing interpreter of working people’s lives and thus a true precursor of Socialist Realism. Even artists influenced by modernism were interpreted accordingly; thus art historian Jānis Siliņš (1896–1991) appreciated stage designer and painter Oto Skulme (1889–1967), then the newly appointed rector of the Art Academy, as someone who had luckily abandoned abstract experiments in favour of realism, also being “honest” and “sincere” instead of practicing showy effects. Assessments of the artists’ latest output can be mostly found in reviews of the First Latvian SSR Art Exhibition, which opened in early 1941. For example, Madernieks largely continued his criticism of insufficient optimism, lack of precision in depicting faces, hands and the whole human body, that had been seen already in his articles from the late 1930s. Little was written about Western art during this period, an exception being the French Impressionist Claude Monet. He was described as a “revolutionary” of painting and a sensitive observer of nature in the article by art historian Kristaps Eliass (1886–1963) and painter Ģederts Eliass (1887–1975), who had co-authored a monograph on modern French painting published in 1940. The first Soviet year reveals both continuities and interruptions in regard to the previous period. On the one hand, authors still promoted the traditional neo-realist approach and critique of avant-garde extremes; on the other, they sometimes radically shifted their opinions in favour of Russian art. Most seemingly attempted to somehow “tame” the new doctrine, associating it with established artistic values; these, however, could be exonerated only after Stalin’s death (1953) that started the modernisation and actual disintegration of Socialist Realism.

• Details
• Contents