# State art in the Soviet Union: good contrast study?



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Even in totalitarian regimes the state is a promoter of the arts. Socialism made short work of *cultural capitalists* alike. The strict rejection of a more formal and aestheticising conception of art should probably be understood as a fight against the claims of special 'judgment competence' in higher educated circles. The Soviet wanted realism back in music, melody... how could the symphonies of Shostakovich be appreciated by the common people? Formalism, something we associate with some sort of bourgeoise aesthetic disposition, was an anathema.

Think of how modern music in the West was subsidized by the state, so it could flourish...It would sink, Schoenberg thought, it just takes time (think Beethoven #9). Audiences diminished. Concert management still programmed modern works, while a lot of people just wanted their Tchaikovsky.

My point is: currently the state in say my country claims to moderate no judgment of art - democratically everybody has an equal 'judgment competence' right? But still it gives the elite more autonomy, because the state relies on their 'taste specialism'. And they have power because of their cultural capital, which is a class thing, perhaps. Quality = class.

A better understanding of the cultural uses and the artistic practice in the Soviet Union would by way of contrast study offer much insight in the cultural household of the West. 
Discuss


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Without state support of the arts, in a free society the arts are reduced to whatever the public is willing to pay for, OR whatever corporations are willing to support with grants/funding. I am grateful that in my state, our Arts Council will award 478 grants this year totaling $9,287,064 to support arts organizations, arts programs and artists. The funding is initiated by an application and determined by advisory panels which are open to public nomination.

I know this may not quite be the discussion you are looking for, Joris, but even in a non-totalitarian regime, worthy art (art that initiates reflection, discussion, and challenge) may not get the support it deserves.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lunasong said:


> ...but even in a non-totalitarian regime, worthy art (art that initiates reflection, discussion, and challenge) may not get the support it deserves.


........... (deleted comment on "worthy art" and "support it deserves." No need to go there!)


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

^^I don't and I don't trust the market to know either. We only know what we like, which may not fit what I presented as my definition of worthy art.

I think it is fair that the funding system for grants is open to any artist and anyone is eligible to apply to the board that determines the funding.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Lunasong said:


> I know this may not quite be the discussion you are looking for, Joris, but even in a non-totalitarian regime, worthy art (art that initiates reflection, discussion, and challenge) may not get the support it deserves.


Thanks for your post  I wasn't looking for any discussion in particular i think, and i did my best to leave opinions out, but maybe I come over more 'anti-elitist' than I am


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Lunasong said:


> Without state support of the arts, in a free society the arts are reduced to whatever the public is willing to pay for, OR whatever corporations are willing to support with grants/funding.


And with state support of the arts we have things like operatic stage directors totally disregarding the feelings of the public and twisting the great and beloved operas beyond recognition, because they are confident they will get their slice of the state-sponsored pie, even if nobody buys the tickets. I think the arts _should_ cater to the taste of the public that pays for the tickets at least to some extent.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Schoenberg's music is more often played and better appreciated now than it was during his lifetime. Its style has fully permeated Hollywood film score as well as subsequent generations of classical composers. Why are we jumping to conclusions about its supposed utter lack of public acceptance?

Shostakovich, who admired Schoenberg's music, would disagree that a state-sponsored aesthetic produces better art. His own worst compositions are pretty much unanimously considered to be those that hewed closest to the party line on these matters (the patriotic cantatas, some of the film scores, etc.).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Can everyone get their heads around the fact that experts, from any field, _are, de facto, "elitists?"_

Call me cynical, but if the American public were left to determine which composers got funding, they would choose the next Ferde Grofé over the next John Adams, etc.

Get down to that group of the 3% who regularly listen to and consume classical music and the result might be damn near the same. i.e. popular taste for the hummable, already recognizable, in a language with which they are already familiar, etc. That is a formula for 0 growth, little or no real challenging and viable works would come from that, and one that would kill the vitality of music now.

If it isn't growing, developing, it is dying or static, becoming irrelevant.

No, you do not leave the immediate choice of funding, to whom, to the public, any more than you'd want to give that control to political bureaucrats who know zip-nada about art music


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Can everyone get their heads around the fact that experts, from any field, _are, de facto, "elitists?"_


the fact that there is a generalised fear of elitism is most obvious in the sorry state of education.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

deggial said:


> the fact that there is a generalised fear of elitism is most obvious in the sorry state of education.


Sorry, it is the sorry state of the United States of America in general. 
Founded by 
1.) Puritans 
2.) eager entrepreneurs

both of which, for very different reasons, think of art as 
1.) sinful 
2.) costly and not practical, being so pragmatic and money oriented that they can see no other value than the practical, and what that costs.

This, from the get go, set up a society more than distrustful of anything smacking of "intellectual" -- in any area, and / or "abstract" in the way of art.

So, look at those American Elite who are generally adored, those who do get the attention:
Entertainers in the film industry, pop music industry, and professional sports players, and even better if they have had a huge financial success ("Financial success. That's everything, right?


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

deggial said:


> the fact that there is a generalised fear of elitism is most obvious in the sorry state of education.


You mean that the curriculum aims at the wrong type of intelligence? Sorry I don't get it


----------

