جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "stalin" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

Experimental and avant-garde art did a lot of service to the Russian Revolution, and the artists of that time were mostly considered revolutionaries, but after the revolution, strange things happened and many artists were considered traitors.As we all know, Marx's intellectual foundations were influenced by Hegel's philosophy, and for this reason he sided with Hegel's committed art in the face of the famous dichotomy of independent art and committed art (Kant-Hegel). Theoretically, this bias means rejecting the autonomy and independence of the artist and rejecting the individual subject's individuality in the field of creating the work, but in practice we will see that due to the humanistic nature of communist utopian claims (such as equality - classless society) Inevitably, humanist aspects are also found in Marx's earlier views. This article seeks to trace the roots of the success and growth of avant-garde art in Marx's earlier views and to show as much as possible how the decline of these teachings and the rigidity of the ideological system caused the decline of modernist art in the post-Marx period to the height of Stalinist ideology. They provided the sphere of leftist thought.

The beginning of the 20th century coincided with the emergence of deep-rooted crises in social, political, and economic life in Russia. The scope of these crises was so wide that it led to the overthrow of the Tsarist government in 1917 after fundamental changes. The Provisional Government also lacked the necessary efficiency, and finally, after the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October 1917, the government fell to the Bolsheviks and a new history page was turned. In the early years of the revolution, Lenin in his speeches paid close attention to the cinema and after Lenin's death, Stalin also paid close attention to this branch of art. Stalin's cultural management had components and features that required a special kind of media management.

In this study, we seek to answer the question of how was Stalin's cultural management in Soviet political cinema. Then, using the descriptive-analytical approach and library method, we will answer this question. In this article, it is assumed that Stalin's management of Soviet cinema showed that even under conditions of control and censorship, directors were able to create different and glorious works. The various cultural policies and decisions adopted by the Communist Party influenced cinema. It can be said that approaches such as national Bolshevism and socialist realism had noticeable effects in cinema. The reason for the influence of cinema was, firstly, as a very powerful and important cultural tool, and secondly, its increasing acceptance by the people and citizens of the Soviet Union. These factors made cinema the center of attention and cultural policies had a direct and undeniable impact on it. In this study, we are trying to answer this question: How Stalin's cultural management was in Soviet political cinema? By using a descriptive-analytical approach and the library method, we will answer this question.

 The general conclusion of the article is that control and censorship necessarily do not reduce the quality of art in cinema, and the artist can turn custom work into a magnificent work in cinema in a process of artistic exaltation.

Research on Soviet cinema in Iran and the world cannot be considered new and innovative, because it has been discussed for years by cultural scholars, filmmakers, media managers, and even researchers in the field of history and politics. But when this is accompanied by time constraints and issues such as Stalin's management, new parties can be expected. Various researches on Soviet cinema have been done in Iran and the world, but looking at these researches, none of them covers the subject of the present study, because most of these researches are in the level of journalistic articles. The small number of scientific articles and treatises have not addressed the issue of political cinema in the period 1924-1945 despite its importance.

Cinema were more influenced by Stalinist views and ideas because Lenin had a short time to implement his ideas, but Stalin's leadership was long. Under Stalin, cultural approaches and policies were adopted that influenced cinema. These approaches include socialist realism, national Bolshevism, and the cult of personality of Stalin. Zhdanov, an influential figure in Soviet culture, also applied his doctrine to art as Stalin's agent. Apart from negative moral features, Stalin had a significant impact on the development of cinema. He paid special attention to this field. For this purpose, he formulated instructions and policies, and the directors had no choice but to follow them. In this study, Stalin's management model is not defended and the ultimate goal is not to confirm Stalin's management style, but this article confirms that even in conditions of censorship, directors can create excellent works. The Soviet look at the cinema was more than just a hobby. In general, cinema enters as entertainment coverage and then exerts its ideological and educational influences. Joseph Stalin, the first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, like Lenin, saw cinema as an important propaganda tool. In general, art has had great importance to the Soviet Communist Party from its earliest years, and this aroused Stalin's interest in cinema. During his leadership, Stalin adopted and implemented policies that had a profound effect on the body of Soviet cinema. These effects were both positive and negative, but in any case, the important managerial role of Stalin in the Soviet cinema cannot be ignored. In the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, art became the greatest factor in socialist culture. Art was a powerful tool for educating the mass. Lenin and Stalin paid great attention to the art of cinema. "Of all the arts, cinema is the most important to us," says Lenin. "Cinema is the greatest tool of mass propaganda," Stalin said. Elsewhere: "Cinema in the hands of the Soviet government is a very large and valuable power." These sentences determined the way for the development of Soviet cinema.In Stalin's management model in cinema, the ideological interests of the party prevailed over the rights of the creator and the audience, and the power determined the path of the artists. This management style with all its negative aspects has points. Directorscan create excellent works with supervision and control following the culture of the society and supervision and control do not necessarily reduce the quality of cinematic works, and it can be considered in this article. This article can be an introduction to future research on the autopsy of Eisenstein's political-revolutionary works. With the method of discourse analysis, it is possible to examine cinematic works such as Potemkin, October, and the Strike, and from that, the exact model of Stalin's management of Eisenstein's works can be extracted.

To strengthen the legitimacy of the communist system, Stalin formulated detailed policies and programs for artists. These policies involved many branches of art, one of which was cinema. Using Russian national heroes in the politics of national Bolshevism was also one of these strategies, which gave the necessary tool for the legitimacy of the communist system.As we mentioned above, the general conclusion of the article is that control and censorship do not necessarily reduce the quality of works of art in cinema, and the artist can turn custom work into a magnificent work in cinema in a process of artistic excellence.

In 1932, Stalin dissolved the Soviet cultural organizations based on instructions. As a result of this instruction, the school of socialist realism was introduced as a new aesthetic method. The importance of this school in the structure of politics and art was such that from early 1930 until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, the only official way to express creativity and publish works in all fields of art and literature was under the same title. The principle of the new guide, based on what was stated in the Communist Party’s ideology, calls for art and all cultural objects to be faithful to socialist ideals and the principle of class struggle. From this historical moment, a unique period in the political and cultural life of the former Soviet Union began, known as the “Age of Socialist Realism”. The link to this article aims to critically examine the relationship between art and politics in the Soviet communist system by focusing on the Stalin period. Since the study of this link requires an acquaintance with the ideology of Stalinism in the field of action theory, this doctrine is briefly described in terms of political and cultural aspirations. Given the spatial and temporal focus of the main question of this article, how can the reflection of the interests of power and politics in the field of art and literature of this period be analyzed? In answer to this question, it has been hypothesized that the aesthetic method of socialist realism has been emphasized as a link between the demands of those in power in Stalin’s communist era in the artistic and literary fields, from painting to music and film. As the research has shown, Stalinism is the nature and practice of a regime that, from the late 1920s, with Stalin’s domination of power until his death, has been violently and relentlessly pursued in the political, economic, and cultural spheres. Being aware of the importance of the work of intellectuals and artists, Stalin concluded that his great chauvinism, called “socialism in one country”, depended solely on the creation of the original aesthetics, which could be achieved by mobilizing the people of art and literature. The ideal would come true. In this sense, the importance of people like Zhdanov and some important artistic figures such as Maxim Gorky in shaping this school should not be overlooked. With the practical plan of 1932, all independent artistic and cultural institutions and other forces of civil society were suppressed, and with the imposition of social realism, only one criterion remained in the cultural sphere. To this end, after a reference to the meaning contained in the ideology of Stalinism, the historical and social contexts of the emergence of socialist realism (social realism) in Russia are described in detail. To prove the hypothesis, attention has been paid to explaining and analyzing the basic principles of the mentioned school. A study of the available sources and works in this field shows that the three principles that formed socialist realism represented a strong link between ideological interests in the cultural and artistic spheres. These include: 1. People’s populism in art: since the Soviet system claimed that genuine cultural achievement belonged to the people and served their needs, the people of art and literature were asked to produce works that emphasized the political components of populism instead of formalist meanings and artistic techniques. In this regard, by studying and referring to some works in this field, the important principle of art for peoples has been introduced. 2. Partyism in Art: Lenin, in his treatise Party Literature, predetermined the coordination of works of art in the Soviet communist system. Although the treatise emphasizes the principle of “free art in the service of the proletariat”, it was a line of distinction between original and committed art and harmful and useless works. 3. According to the aesthetic positions presented in socialist realism, each production work had a “basic design’ and a foundation that committed itself to ideological originality. The center of gravity of this project was based on the aesthetic principles of Marxism-Leninism. In this regard, the study of various works during this period shows that the people of art, along with the workers, are seeking to produce and shape what was called the “modern man of the council”. This means that the writers are at the forefront of the proletariat’s manual activity on the path to the realization of the communist utopia. In other words, the ideological commitment involved proving that politics and genuine art are acknowledging loyalty to the truth of just living in a council country. An examination of Stalin’s artistic and literary works reveals that socialist realism has always served class ideals by seeking positions such as optimism, Bolshevik humanism, and artist activism while eliminating the aesthetic gap between form and content. The consequences of this link between politics and art soon became apparent: totalitarian art, because all three central concepts in the aesthetics of socialist realism, namely populism, party commitment, and ideological attitudes, were deeply indebted to the politicized principle of “closed borders”. Under these circumstances, the desired form or artistic and literary style was not only independent, but the fluid nature of the ideological tendencies was prevalent throughout communist cultural works on the black or white side according to political circumstances. As many of the works that symbolized the commitment to the party and the revolution during Lenin’s time were destroyed and censored during Stalin’s rule. Similarly the post-Stalinist years, many works were not popular because of their mere political inclinations.

One of Stalin's policies in the Cultural Revolution was to censor art and literature. After the October Revolution there were major changes in Russian art and culture. By censorship, the political rulers tried to replace the old culture with the proletarian culture and give a justified face to the revolution and its achievements. One of the most important organizations created to accomplish the goals of the revolution was Proletcult. One of the main theorists of this organization was Bagdanov He oversaw the writers' activities and, after rigorous scrutiny and censorship, permitted the publication of literary works. Literature and art have become tools for the realization of the purposes of the revolution. In the Soviet era, art and work were in the same category of importance In this article will be examined the content of the Proletcult directives. The role and impact of the Proletcult on Russian literary of the 20th century will also be examined.