The relationship between Soviet and post-Soviet culture. Development of culture in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods

After the Russian Federation became an independent power, its culture began to develop under new conditions. It is characterized by broad pluralism, but lacks spiritual tension, creative productivity, and humanistic fervor. Today, such different layers coexist in it, such as multi-level examples of Western culture, newly acquired values of the Russian diaspora, a newly rethought classical heritage, many values of the former Soviet culture, original innovations and undemanding epigone local kitsch, glamour, relativizing public morality to the limit and destroying traditional aesthetics .

In the projective system of culture, a certain “exemplary” picture of socio-cultural life “for growth” is modeled in the format of postmodernism, which is widespread in the world at present. This is a special type of worldview, aimed at rejecting the dominance of any monological truths and concepts, focused on recognizing any cultural manifestations as equivalent. Postmodernism in its Western version, peculiarly adopted by Russian humanities scholars of the new generation, does not aim to reconcile, much less bring to unity, different values, segments of a heterogeneous culture, but only combines contrasts, combines its various parts and elements based on the principles of pluralism, aesthetic relativism and polystyle “mosaic”.

The prerequisites for the emergence of a postmodern sociocultural situation arose in the West several decades ago. The widespread introduction of the achievements of science and technology into the sphere of production and everyday life has significantly changed the forms of functioning of culture. The spread of multimedia and household radio equipment has entailed fundamental changes in the mechanisms of production, distribution and consumption of artistic values. “Cassette” culture has become uncensored, because selection, replication and consumption are carried out through the apparently free expression of its users. Accordingly, a special type of so-called “home” culture arose, the constituent elements of which, in addition to books, were a video recorder, radio, television, personal computer, and the Internet. Along with the positive features of this phenomenon, there is also a tendency towards increasing spiritual isolation of the individual.

The state of a person of post-Soviet culture, who for the first time in a long time found himself left to himself, can be characterized as a sociocultural and psychological crisis. Many Russians were not prepared for the destruction of their usual picture of the world and the loss of a stable social status. Within civil society, this crisis was expressed in the value disorientation of social strata and the displacement of moral norms. It turned out that the “communal” psychology of people, formed by the Soviet system, is incompatible with Western values and hasty market reforms.

The “omnivorous” kitsch culture has become more active. A deep crisis of former ideals and moral stereotypes, lost spiritual comfort forced the average person to seek solace in common values that seemed simple and understandable. The entertaining and informational functions of banal culture turned out to be more in demand and familiar than the aesthetic delights and problems of the intellectual elite, than the value guidelines and aesthetic desires of high culture. In the 90s Not only was there a break between the catastrophically impoverished social strata and the “highbrow” culture and its “authorized representatives”, but also there was a certain devaluation of the unifying values and attitudes of the traditional “average” culture, the influence of which on the social strata began to weaken. “Westernized pop music” and liberal ideology, having concluded an unspoken alliance, cleared the way for predatory adventurous oligarchic capitalism.

Market relations have made mass culture the main barometer by which changes in the state of society can be observed. The simplification of social relations and the collapse of the hierarchy of values in general have significantly worsened aesthetic tastes. At the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st century. vulgarized kitsch associated with primitive advertising (template crafts, aesthetic ersatz), expanded its sphere of influence, became more active, took on new forms, adapting a considerable part of multimedia. The articulation of homegrown templates of “mass” screen culture inevitably led to a new wave of expansion of similar Western, primarily American, models. Having become a monopolist on the art market, the Western film and video entertainment industry began to dictate artistic tastes, especially among young people. Under the current conditions, counteracting the processes of cultural Western globalization and profane kitsch is becoming more flexible and effective. It is increasingly carried out primarily in the form of kemta.

Kamt, as one of the varieties of synthesized elite-mass culture, is popular in form, accessible to wide social strata, and in content, conceptual, semantic art, often resorting to caustic irony and caustic parody (of pseudo-creativity) - a kind of cushioned, neutralized " kitsch". Foreign Russian literature close to camp has been worthily represented in recent decades by the recently deceased emigrant writer Vasily Aksenov. It is also necessary to more actively master and disseminate innovative examples of artistic creativity through improved multimedia technologies, to give way to non-academic genres of art, including trash - a related artistic movement that is a parody of modern forms of pop art and glamor.

Today, the painful transition to the market is accompanied by a reduction in state funding for culture and a decline in the living standards of a significant part of the intelligentsia. The material base of Russian culture was undermined in the 90s; in the last decade there has been a slow recovery, slowed down by the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. One of the important and complex modern problems is the interaction between culture and the market. In many cases, the creation of cultural works is approached as a profit-generating business, as an ordinary ordinary product, or more precisely, as its exaggerated monetary equivalent. Often the desire to obtain the maximum benefit “at any cost” wins, without caring about the quality of the artistic product being created. The uncontrolled commercialization of culture is focused not on the creative individual, but on the “hyper-economic super-marketeer,” playing along with his narrow utilitarian interests.

The consequence of this circumstance was the loss of a number of advanced positions by literature, which played a leading role in Russian (and Soviet) culture in the 19th–20th centuries; the art of literary expression degraded and acquired an unusual diversity and eclecticism of smaller genres and styles. The shelves of bookstores are dominated by empty “pink” and “yellow” fiction, which is characterized by a rejection of spirituality, humanity and stable moral positions.

Postmodernist literature has partly gone into the sphere of formal experimentation or has become a reflection of the momentarily happening, “scattered” consciousness of a person in the post-Soviet era, as evidenced, for example, by the works of some authors of the “new wave”.

And yet the development of artistic culture did not stop. Talented musicians, singers, creative groups are still making themselves known in Russia today, performing on the best stages in Europe and America; some of them use the opportunity to enter into long-term work contracts abroad. Significant representatives of Russian culture include singers D. Hvorostovsky and L. Kazarnovskaya, the Moscow Virtuosi ensemble under the direction of Vl. Spivakov, State Academic Folk Dance Ensemble named after. Igor Moiseev. Innovative searches in dramatic art are still carried out by a galaxy of talented directors: Yu. Lyubimov, M. Zakharov, P. Fomenko, V. Fokin, K. Raikin, R. Viktyuk, V. Gergiev. Leading Russian film directors continue to actively participate in international film festivals, sometimes achieving notable success, as evidenced, for example, by N. Mikhalkov receiving the highest Academy Award “Oscar” in the category “For Best Foreign Language Film” in 1995, for the same the film won the Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 1994; awarding an honorary prize at the Venice festival to A. Zvyagintsev’s film “The Return”. “Women’s” prose is in demand among readers (T. Tolstaya, M. Arbatova, L. Ulitskaya).

Determining the paths for further cultural progress has become the subject of heated debate in Russian society. The Russian state has stopped dictating its demands to culture. Its management system is far from what it used to be. However, in the changed conditions, it must still set strategic goals for cultural construction and fulfill sacred responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, providing the necessary financial support for creatively promising areas of development of a multifaceted culture. Government officials cannot help but realize that culture cannot be completely left to business, but it can cooperate fruitfully with it. Support for education, science, concern for the preservation and enhancement of humanistic cultural heritage contribute to the successful solution of pressing economic and social problems, the growth of well-being and national potential, and are of great importance for strengthening the moral and mental health of the peoples living in Russia. Russian culture will have to turn into an organic whole thanks to the formation of a national mentality. This will prevent the growth of separatist tendencies and will contribute to the development of creativity and the successful solution of economic, political and ideological problems.

At the beginning of the third millennium, Russia and its culture again faced a choice of path. The enormous potential and rich heritage it has accumulated in the past constitute an important prerequisite for its revival in the future. However, so far only isolated signs of spiritual and creative uplift have been detected. Solving pressing problems requires time and new priorities, which will be determined by society itself. The Russian intelligentsia must have its say in the humanistic revaluation of values.

Increasing creative exchange and density of communications between the historically interconnected cultures of Russia and Belarus will require new steps on the path of intellectual integration from humanities scholars of the allied countries. It is also necessary to bring closer approaches to solving interstate problems and determining the prospects for the development of two neighboring civilizations. The solution to this problem will be facilitated by consistent steps by the leadership of the Russian Federation, headed by President D.A. Medvedev and Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers V.V. Putin, aimed at further social humanization of Russian society.

Culture of Russia of the Soviet and post-Soviet period

1. CULTURE OF RUSSIA IN THE SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PERIODS

1 Soviet culture 1917-1929

2 Soviet culture 1929-1956

3 Soviet culture 1956-1991

4 Russian culture of the post-Soviet period

1. CULTURE OF RUSSIA SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET

PERIODS

Three main stages can be distinguished in the development of Soviet culture. The first of them covers 1917-1929. and is marked by the struggle between the tendency towards ideological and cultural pluralism and the desire of the party state to suppress diversity and create a totalitarian culture. The second stage falls on 1929-1956. and is characterized by the dominance of an ideologically monopolistic culture, the dominance of the method of socialist realism in the sphere of artistic activity.

1.1 Soviet culture 1917-1929

By October 1917, Russia was in a state of deep crisis. The First World War and the losses and hardships associated with it caused economic devastation and an extreme aggravation of socio-political contradictions. The Bolsheviks seized power, and economic chaos grew in the country, aggravated by the brutal Civil War.

At first, the new Russian government did not have the opportunity to deal with cultural issues in full. However, soon after October, measures were taken to centralize the management of literature and art. Slogans were proclaimed that reflected the political and ideological position of the new government and were designed to strengthen its position among broad sections of the Russian population. The main goal for the future was a radical restructuring of people's consciousness, the education of a new type of person, a builder of a socialist society.

Among the first events in the field of culture were the creation of the People's Commissariat of Education (Narkompros), designed to implement the decisions of the Soviet government, the nationalization of theaters, museums, libraries and other cultural objects. In January 1918, a decree was issued, according to which the school was separated from the church, and the church from the state. The scope of church rituals narrowed, and the population’s negative attitude toward them and toward religion in general intensified. Thus, the wedding ceremony was abolished and replaced by civil registration of marriage.

Repressions against church ministers and anti-religious propaganda became one of the important points in the policy of the Soviet government. The magazine “Revolution and the Church” and the newspaper “Bezbozhnik” began to be published, and in 1925 the “Union of Atheists” was created. The main tasks of the ruling party were the organization of educational and cultural activities in the new conditions, as well as the propaganda of communist ideas among broad social strata. In 1917, three-quarters of the country's adult population was illiterate, and the primary task became raising the educational level of the bulk of the country's residents. For this purpose, a large-scale program to eliminate illiteracy (educational program) was developed. In December 1919, the government adopted a decree “On the elimination of illiteracy among the population of the RSFSR,” according to which the entire population from 8 to 50 years old had to learn to read and write in their native and Russian languages. The program provided for the creation of a network of primary schools, educational clubs, as well as the opening of workers' faculties (working faculties) to train young people who did not have a secondary education for universities.

In 1923, the “Down with Illiteracy” society was organized in the USSR. By 1932 it united over 5 million people. According to the 1926 census, the literacy rate of the population was already 51.5%, including 55% in the RSFSR. Mass form of training of workers in 1921-1925. became FZU (factory apprenticeship) schools. Lower management and middle technical personnel (foremen, foremen, mechanics) were trained in technical schools, specialized schools, and short-term courses. The main type of vocational educational institution at this level was technical schools with a 3-year term of study.

The attitude of the authorities towards the old intelligentsia remained contradictory: from attempts to attract the cooperation of some of its representatives to persecution and repression of those who were suspected of lack of loyalty to the new government. Lenin argued that most of the intelligentsia were "inevitably imbued with a bourgeois worldview." During the years of the Civil War and devastation, the Russian intelligentsia suffered heavy losses. Some prominent figures of humanitarian culture died, many lost the conditions necessary for normal work. A. Blok died of illness and exhaustion, N. Gumilyov was shot allegedly for participating in a White Guard conspiracy. The Bolsheviks were more tolerant of representatives of the scientific and technical intelligentsia, trying to attract experienced specialists to solve pressing problems of economic construction. One of the tasks set by the Soviet government was the formation of a new intelligentsia, in solidarity with the policies of the Bolsheviks.

During the Civil War, the support of the new government was supported by Proletkult, formed in October 1917, a community of cultural figures that proclaimed the class approach as the basis of its creativity. Its leaders (A.A. Bogdanov, V.F. Pletnev and others) called on the proletariat to abandon the artistic heritage of the past and create “completely new” socialist forms of art. The network of Proletkult organizations covered the entire Soviet Russia, absorbing almost 400 thousand people. This association introduced a lot of vulgar, primitive, pseudo-artistic samples into new literature and other forms of art, being subjected to impartial criticism by M.A. Bulgakov in the novel “The Master and Margarita”. In the 20s Proletkult was abandoned by his temporary fellow travelers, the most talented prose writers and poets.

In the field of higher education, the government also pursued a class policy, creating favorable conditions for workers and peasants to enter universities. The number of universities increased rapidly, in the early 20s. reaching 224 (in 1914 there were 105). At the same time, ideological control over the activities of higher educational institutions intensified: their autonomy was eliminated, academic degrees were abolished, and compulsory study of Marxist disciplines was introduced.

During the Civil War, there was widespread emigration. More than 2 million people left the country, including hundreds of thousands of highly qualified specialists, some of whom subsequently became world famous abroad. Outstanding figures of artistic culture also found themselves outside of Russia, including F.I. Shalyapin, S.V. Rachmaninov, I.A. Bunin, A.I. Kuprin, I.S. Shmelev, V.F. Khodasevich, V.V. Nabokov, K.A. Korovin, M.Z. Chagall. The “philosophical ship” became notorious, on which a large group of famous thinkers were expelled from Russia in 1922 (N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, N.O. Lossky, I.A. Ilyin, P.A. Sorokin, etc.).

And although the majority of the intelligentsia remained in their homeland, the resulting brain drain led to a noticeable decrease in the spiritual and intellectual potential of society. The level of its (potential) as a whole has noticeably dropped not only due to material and human losses, but also due to the strict control over the sphere of culture by the ruling Bolshevik party, whose policy included an ideological monopoly and restriction of freedom of creativity.

In the early 1920s. A centralized state system of cultural management was created. Narkompros was actually subordinate to the department of agitation and propaganda of the Central Committee of the party (Agitprop). Under the People's Commissariat of Education in 1922, the Main Directorate for Literature and Publishing (Glavlit) was established, which issued permits for the publication of works, and also, being endowed with the right of censorship, compiled lists of works prohibited for sale and distribution.

The Soviet political leadership considered it necessary to carry out a cultural revolution, to create a new type of culture based on the class approach and proletarian ideology. However, even if this attitude was maintained throughout the entire existence of Soviet culture, individual periods of its development were different from one another.

The 1920s were the most unique, when disagreements emerged in the party and society on the issue of the path to transition to socialism. The Bolshevik government was forced to somewhat liberalize its policies, primarily economic and partly cultural. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was proclaimed, which lasted until the end of the 20s. This time became at the same time the most striking period in the development of Russian Soviet culture, characterized by relative spiritual freedom. The creative activity of writers and artists revived, various ideological and artistic movements and groups emerged. The rivalry between them was accompanied by heated polemics and bold experimentation. In general, cultural and artistic pluralism (even if limited by the Bolshevik regime) turned out to be very fruitful.

An indicative sign of the vibrant cultural and social life of the 20s. - creative discussions. Thus, in 1924, the subject of discussion became the formal method in art. New magazines were a means of mass dissemination of ideas and opinions, and subsequently played a prominent role in the socio-political and artistic life of the country (New World, Young Guard, October, Zvezda, etc.).

The formation of a new culture took place in an atmosphere of increased artistic activity and intense creative and aesthetic quest. Literature developed most intensively, still preserving the diversity of schools, movements, and groups that inherited the creative potential of the art of the Silver Age. Among the large number of works created at this time, there were many masterpieces that made the glory of Russian Soviet literature. Their authors are E.I. Zamyatin, M.A. Bulgakov, M. Gorky, M.M. Zoshchenko, A.P. Platonov, M.A. Sholokhov, S.A. Yesenin, N.A. Klyuev, B.L. Pasternak, O.E. Mandelstam, A.A. Akhmatova, V.V. Mayakovsky, M.I. Tsvetaeva and other wordsmiths were looking for new ways and forms of creative expression, while continuing to develop the best traditions of high Russian culture.

Literature of the 20s characterized by great genre diversity and thematic richness. In prose, the genres of novella, short story, and essay have reached their greatest flourishing. They clearly showed themselves in small genres I.E. Babel (“Cavalry”), M.A. Sholokhov (“Don Stories”), P. Platonov and others. M. Gorky (“The Life of Klim Samgin”), M.A. worked on epic novels. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”), A.N. Tolstoy (“Walking through Torment”), M.A. Bulgakov (The White Guard). Poetry was especially popular during this period; There was an intense struggle between innovative associations and their leaders.

In the 20s Numerous literary associations and groups operated: “Serapion Brothers”, “Forge”, “Pereval”, LEF, RAPP, etc. Old and new modernist movements made themselves known: constructivists, acmeists, futurists, cubo-futurists, imagists, oberiuts.

By the end of the second decade, talented young writers L.M. moved to the forefront of the literary process. Leonov, M.M. Zoshchenko, E.G. Bagritsky, B.L. Pasternak, I.E. Babel, Yu.K. Olesha, V.P. Kataev, N.A. Zabolotsky, A.A. Fadeev. M.A. created their famous works. Bulgakov (“Heart of a Dog”, “Fatal Eggs”, “Days of the Turbins”, “Running”) and A.P. Platonov (“The pit”, “Chevengur”).

Dramaturgy experienced a rise. Theater as a democratic form of artistic creativity did not so much serve the purposes of political agitation and class struggle, but rather, with its special means, highlighted the vital and socio-psychological problems of the era, dissected complex human relationships and, most importantly, boldly experimented in the field of advanced art, finding new forms of confidential communication between actors with the audience.

In the first post-revolutionary decade, despite the regulation of the activities of this type of art by cultural authorities (primarily in relation to the repertoire), theatrical life remained dynamic and diverse. The most striking phenomenon of Russian theatrical life continued to be the Moscow Art Theater (Moscow Art Academic Theatre), headed by the founders of Russian theater directing K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. This theater, especially beloved by the public, even after the revolution (with a slightly changed name) remained faithful to realistic traditions, humanistic ideas, and the requirements of high professional skill.

Outstanding theater director E.B. emerged from the Moscow Art Theater studio. Vakhtangov, whose work was characterized by the idea of serving the theater to high and aesthetic ideals, a keen sense of modernity, and an original stage form. The name of Vakhtangov is associated with the brightest event in the theatrical life of that time - the production of the play “Princess Turandot” by C. Gozzi in February 1922.

Academic, traditional theaters (Moscow Art Theater and BDT) were opposed by the so-called “left” theaters, which demanded a “theatrical October”, the destruction of old art and the creation of a new, revolutionary one. The political and aesthetic manifesto of “left” art was Mayakovsky’s play “Mystery-bouffe”, staged by V.E. Meyerhold in November 1918. According to a number of theater experts, this play marked the beginning of Soviet drama.

It should be noted that both during the period of “war communism” and during the NEP period, all theaters were ordered from above to stage plays on revolutionary themes.

In the fine arts of the 20s, just as in literature, a variety of movements and groups coexisted with their own platforms, manifestos, and systems of expressive means. Many currents interacted with each other, united and diverged again, divided, disintegrated. In 1922, as if continuing the ideological and aesthetic traditions of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions that had remained in the past, the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AHRR) was created. In 1928, it transformed into the Association of Artists of the Revolution (AHR) and took a dominant position in artistic life.

In 1925, a group appeared, the Society of Easel Artists (OST), whose members opposed non-objective art, opposing it with updated realistic painting. Artists with different artistic ideas and methods were united by the alternative societies “Moscow Painters” and “Four Arts”. Among the famous masters of new creative unions one can name A.V. Lentulova, I.I. Mashkova, I.E. Grabar, A.V. Kuprina, P.P. Konchalovsky, M.S. Saryan, R.R. Falka.

This period was a time of competition between two main directions in the development of art: realism and modernism. In general, there was a noticeable influence of the Russian avant-garde on the cultural life of the country. In painting, various modernist attitudes were characteristic of the work of K.S. Malevich, M.Z. Chagala, V.V. Kandinsky. In music, S.S. emerged as bright experimenters. Prokofiev, D.D. Shostakovich. In the theater, new methods of dramatic art were created by E.B. Vakhtangov, V.E. Meyerhold; in cinema, S.M. is rightfully considered the creator of innovations. Eisenstein, V.I. Pudovkin. Style diversity is a sign of that time.

1.2 Soviet culture 1929-1956

Since the late 20s. There have been radical changes in the life of Soviet society. The market option for the economic development of the country was rejected, which was explained by the strengthening of the power of the Communist Party, which set the task of mobilizing all resources for accelerated socialist construction. A totalitarian political system was taking shape, there was a sharp restriction of artistic freedom, a curtailment of forms of ideological pluralism, and the establishment of strict party-state control over all areas of social life. This had a negative impact on the development of culture. A sharp change in cultural policy in 1929-1934. was accompanied by the elimination of the remnants of artistic pluralism and literary factionalism.

In the 1930s There have been fundamental changes in the organization of artistic life, in the management of cultural processes, the functioning of literature and other types of art. In 1932, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted a resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” according to which, instead of the previous associations and groups, creative unions were to be created in each art form in order to, with their help, put the activities of the artistic intelligentsia under party-ideological control. In 1932, the Union of Soviet Architects and the Union of Composers of the USSR were created. In 1934, the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers was held, declaring the only correct new method of art - socialist realism. In fact, this method began to be used as a tool to limit creative pursuits.

The concept of socialist realism required a reflection of reality in its revolutionary development. Cultural figures were expected to glorify the leaders and the Soviet way of life, glorify the labor enthusiasm and selfless struggle of the people for a “bright future,” and the voluntary self-denial of individuals from personal interests in favor of public ones. Dogmatic canons were created (not inferior in “degree of holiness” to religious ones) regarding the content, form and social purpose of works of art. The method of socialist realism was strictly prescribed to artists in all spheres of culture; it set a strict ideological framework for all types of artistic creativity. Those who disagreed with the established requirements faced persecution and disgrace. Nevertheless, during this unfavorable period, some cultural figures managed to create bright and original works that affirmed universal human values and captured epoch-making images and events.

Literature. They completed (started in the previous period) work on major works by M. Gorky (“The Life of Klim Samgin”), M.A. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”, “Virgin Soil Upturned”), A.N. Tolstoy (“Walking through Torment”), N.A. Ostrovsky (“How the steel was tempered”). A number of talented works were written by V.P. Kataev, Yu.N. Tynyanov, E.L. Schwartz.

For fiction 30s. were especially difficult. Most of the former creative groups were dissolved, and many writers were subjected to repression. The victims of the Stalinist regime were D.I. Kharms, N.A. Klyuev, O.E. Mandelstam and many other creative personalities. Works that did not meet the strict requirements of party censorship were not published and did not reach the reader.

The regulations of socialist realism caused serious harm to the literary process. Writers were forced to impose far-fetched criteria for assessing a person and reality. The official literature was dominated by stilted themes and techniques, simplified images, hypertrophied optimism, aimed at glorifying the heroism of labor achievements at numerous Stalinist construction sites. Fulfilling a social order biased by the Pharisaic authorities, M. Gorky publicly praised the work of the builders of the White Sea-Baltic Canal - a large-scale socialist “correction” of the camp masses.

Genuine art was partly forced to go underground - “catacombs”. Some talented creators began to “write on the table.” Among the unpublished, rejected in these cruel years are the masterpieces of Bulgakov, Zamyatin, Platonov, the autobiographical cycle “Requiem” by Akhmatova, the diaries of Prishvin, the poems of the repressed Mandelstam, Klyuev and Klychkov, the works of Kharms and Pilnyak, which were subsequently published several decades later. But socialist realism did not stop the development of Russian literature, but, paradoxical as it may sound, served as a kind of “dam” that somewhere raised its level and forced it to flow along complex channels.

Constrained by narrow boundaries, artists tried to move into areas and genres that were less subject to party control. Partly thanks to this circumstance, Soviet children's literature flourished. Excellent works for children, for example, were created by S.Ya. Marshak, K.I. Chukovsky, S.V. Mikhalkov, A.P. Gaidar, A.L. Barto, L.A. Kassil, Y.K. Olesha.

Interest in the historical genre has increased, as evidenced, in particular, by the unfinished novel by A.N. Tolstoy “Peter the Great” (1929-1945), historical epic by A.S. Novikov-Priboy "Tsushima" (1932-1935).

Relatively few lyric poems were published, but the genre of mass song became very popular. National fame came to the songwriters M. Isakovsky (“Katyusha”, “And Who Knows Him”), V. Lebedev-Kumach (“Song of the Motherland”, “Merry Wind”); the whole country sang the “Song of Kakhovka” to the verses of M. Svetlov. Many songs written in the spirit of social optimism and revolutionary romanticism, oddly enough, lost the features of routine officialdom.

Mass forms of art - theater and cinema - developed rapidly. If in 1914 there were 152 theaters in Russia, then by January 1, 1938 there were 702. The art of cinema enjoyed increased attention from the ruling party and the state, since it was distinguished by a quick and lasting impact on people’s consciousness; 30-40s became the time of formation of the Soviet cinematographic school. Her achievements are associated with the names of directors S.M. Eisenstein, G.V. Alexandrova, S.A. Gerasimova, M.I. Romm, Vasilyev brothers. The comedies “Volga-Volga”, “Jolly Fellows”, “Circus”, historical films “Chapaev”, “Alexander Nevsky”, “Peter the Great”, “Suvorov” were very popular.

Musical culture was also on the rise. The State Symphony Orchestra of the USSR (1936), the Folk Dance Ensemble of the USSR (1937) were formed, and the Russian Folk Choir continued its creative activities. M. Pyatnitsky, Song and Dance Ensemble of the Red Army. Songs by composers I.O. were especially popular. Dunaevsky, M.I. Blantera, V.P. Solovyov-Sedoy. Famous singers L.O. won national recognition. Utesov, S.Ya. Lemeshev, I.S. Kozlovsky, K.I. Shulzhenko, L.P. Orlova, L.A. Ruslanova. Composers D.D. reached high peaks in the field of operatic, symphonic, and instrumental music. Shostakovich, S.S. Prokofiev, D.B. Kabalevsky, A.I. Khachaturian.

In painting and sculpture of the 30s. Socialist realism reigned. B.V. worked in this vein and received official recognition. Ioganson, A.A. Deineka, S.V. Gerasimov. However, their contemporaries, the talented artists K.S., were not appreciated. Petrov-Vodkin, P.D. Korin, V.A. Favorsky, P.P. Konchalovsky. The leading position was occupied by the portrait genre, in which the objects of depiction were, first of all, party and government figures (primarily Stalin), as well as officially recognized figures of science and art, simple workers - leaders of production. In 1937, at the height of Stalin’s terror, a talentedly executed sublime image of the Soviet era appeared - the monumental statue “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” by V.I. Mukhina, who became a symbol of idealized statehood.

In 1935-1937 On the initiative of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, a discussion was held on the issue of overcoming formalism and “lack of ideas” in literature and art. Shostakovich, Eisenstein, Meyerhold, Babel, Pasternak and others were subjected to harsh criticism and persecution. The works of creative figures who did not fit into the Procrustean bed of socialist realism were not published or performed or were subject to censorship “correction”, all kinds of restrictions and semi-bans. In fact, the work of representatives of the Russian avant-garde was banned.

In the 30s There was a noticeable growth in education and science - at that time the priority areas of Soviet culture. In education, the most important achievement was the elimination of illiteracy. The 1939 census showed that adult literacy had risen to 81.2%. Primary and incomplete secondary education predominated. A unified educational system was formed (primary school - 4 grades, junior high - 7 grades and secondary - 10 grades), new schools were built and opened at a rapid pace. More than 30 million children studied in general education schools - three times more than before the revolution.

The country's leadership set the task of creating a modern industrial society and boosting the economy using the achievements of science. In the development of the higher education system, traditionally, emphasis was placed on training specialists in the natural sciences, technology, and engineering. The number of university graduates has increased sharply. Before the war, the total number of specialists with higher education exceeded a million.

According to the census, by that time the ranks of the intelligentsia as a whole had grown significantly. Compared to 1926, its size and the number of people engaged in mental work increased approximately 5 times. The change in its status was recorded in the 1936 USSR Constitution, which stated that “the socialist intelligentsia constitutes an integral part of the working population of the country.”

Over the two decades of Soviet power, noticeable progress was achieved in the field of science: the number of scientific workers approached 100 thousand, which exceeded the pre-revolutionary level by almost 10 times. There were about 1,800 research institutes in the USSR (289 in 1914). In science in the 30-40s. such great scientists as V.I. Vernadsky, I.P. Pavlov, I.V. Kurchatov, P.L. Kapitsa, S. V. Lebedev.

But obvious disproportions have emerged in the structure of Soviet science. The development of the humanities was constrained by narrow ideological frameworks. An obstacle to the development and enrichment of the social and human sciences was the dominance of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the resulting dogmatism and oblivion of the pluralism of approaches and opinions. Increased pressure on these sciences and the corresponding academic disciplines, the establishment of a complete ideological monopoly occurred after the publication in 1938 of Stalin’s “Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, in which guiding primitive assessments were given to issues of modern history identified from a class perspective. The same negative purpose was served by those published already in the early 50s. “directive works” of “indisputable authority” “Marxism and issues of linguistics”, “Economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, containing simplistic dogmas.

Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). Many problems and contradictions of Soviet society were exposed by the war. It was a time of moral upsurge and spiritual unity of the people. In order to achieve victory over the external enemy, the authorities were forced to postpone the “witch hunt” and introduce a temporary moratorium on mass repressions for dissent and “unauthorized initiative.” For thinking people, these years, despite all the hardships, seemed like a “breath of freedom.” The activity of the creative intelligentsia has increased.

In the art of the war years, the leading theme was patriotism, the heroic struggle of the people against the German invaders, which sounded invitingly already in the first years of the war, marked by tragedy and the bitterness of defeat. It was then that A.T.’s poem was born. Tvardovsky “Vasily Terkin”, military prose by A.P. Platonov, patriotic lyrics by A.A. Akhmatova and B.L. Pasternak.

In wartime literature, the "level of truth" was generally much higher than in the pre- and post-war years. This can be said about the prose of K.M. Simonova, V.S. Grossman, A.A. Beck, and about the poetry of M.V. Isakovsky, P.G. Antokolsky, M.I. Aliger, and about the journalism of I.G. Erenburg, A.N. Tolstoy, L.M. Leonova, A.P. Gaidar. Significant works on military themes were created by A.A. Fadeev, B.N. Polev, M.A. Sholokhov, O.F. Berggolts, N.S. Tikhonov.

A major role in mobilizing the people to fight fascism was played by the Sovinformburo, whose team of authors included famous writers, including M. Sholokhov, I. Ehrenburg, K. Simonov, A. Fadeev. The forms of his work were characterized by mobility and accessibility, as evidenced, for example, by the TASS Windows posters. Agitation points, radio reports, and front-line concert brigades made their contribution to the fight against fascism.

A striking event in Soviet musical art was the 7th (Leningrad) symphony of D.D. Shostakovich, dedicated to the defenders of the city on the Neva. The patriotic songs of composers V.P. became widely popular. Solovyov-Sedogo, I.O. Dunaevsky, A.V. Alexandrova, B.A. Mokrousova, M.I. Blanter.

Second half of the 40s - early 50s. The deterioration of the socio-political atmosphere in the country affected the state of culture. People's hopes for a renewed life after the end of the war were not justified. Fearing the spiritual awakening of the people, the government resumed its attack on creative freedom. The functions of ubiquitous regulation and ensuring vigilant all-pervasive control in the field of culture were assigned to the created Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR. The party leadership itself openly interfered in the work of writers, composers, and directors, which led to a decrease in the artistic level of works, the dominance of mediocre examples that embellished reality, and the rise of the so-called “gray classics.”

A grim phenomenon in the post-war years was the renewed trials of “enemies of the people” and the so-called development campaigns. The denunciation campaigns began with a number of party resolutions of 1946-1948. on issues of literature and art: “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad””, “On the repertoire of drama theaters and measures to improve it”, “On the opera “The Great Friendship” by V.I. Muradeli”, “About the film “Big Life”. Party criticism of A.A. Zhdanov and his henchmen, “dissent” resulted in a stream of insults addressed to apostates from the “general line” - A.A. Akhmatova, M.M. Zoshchenko, D.D. Shostakovich, S.S. Prokofiev and even officially recognized film directors A.P. Dovzhenko and S.A. Gerasimova. Some were accused of lack of ideas in creativity, formalism, distortion of Soviet reality, currying favor with the West, others - denigration, subjective depiction of history, incorrect placement of accents in the depiction of new life, tendentious assessment of significant events, etc.

The fight against “sycophancy” and “cosmopolitanism” had a sharply negative impact on the development of science. Sociology, cybernetics and genetics, which had moved to the forefront of scientific progress, were declared “the fruits of pseudoscience” hostile to materialism. As a result of the recognition of genetics as a “pseudoscience” at the notorious session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. IN AND. Lenin (VASKhNIL) in 1948, a promising scientific direction was actually destroyed. The social sciences and humanities became the field of fierce struggle; orthodox dogmas were introduced into linguistics, philosophy, political economy, and history. They strongly encouraged simplistic dogmatic concepts of an apologetic nature.

1.3 Soviet culture 1956-1991

Soviet culture realism artistic postmodernism

Years of the "thaw". Death of I.V. Stalin served as a signal for a gradual softening of the regime and a palliative change in the state-political system. Second half of the 50s - early 60s. marked by Khrushchev's economic reforms (not fully thought out) and the acceleration of the pace of scientific and technological progress. The formalization of the new policy occurred after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, held in February 1956. At it, the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev delivered a report that shocked the delegates, “On Stalin’s personality cult and its consequences.” The report marked the beginning of fateful changes in the life of Soviet society, an adjustment of the political course, and served as an impetus for the overdue cultural shifts.

A “warming” has begun in the public sphere; It is no coincidence that the Khrushchev era is called the “thaw” (a successful metaphor comes from the title of the story by I. Ehrenburg). Party-ideological control decreased somewhat, the shoots of free-thinking emerged, and symptoms of spiritual revival appeared. The publication did not go unnoticed in 1966-1967. novel by M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". These changes led to a rapid increase in the creative activity of the intelligentsia.

The Khrushchev period is assessed ambiguously due to serious economic miscalculations and organizational mistakes made by the then party and state leader. And yet, this period became a time of remarkable achievements of Soviet society, the creation of significant works in various fields of culture.

Great success has been achieved in the field of education, which has become an important factor in cultural progress and changes in social life. The continuity of secondary and higher school programs and a unified educational standard were combined with the high prestige of education and intellectual work. By the mid-50s. In the USSR, about 40 million people studied, about 900 universities operated, the total number of students reached 1.5 million people. According to the 1959 population census, 43% of the population had higher, secondary and incomplete secondary education; Thus, over 20 years this figure increased by 76.1%, despite the objective difficulties of the war years. In the mid-60s. Every third resident studied in the USSR in one way or another.

A notable event in the field of education was the school reform, which was carried out in 1958-1964. Its main goal was to turn the school into a reserve for recruiting the working class and the technical intelligentsia. In 1958, the Law “On strengthening the connection between school and life and the further development of the public education system” was adopted. In accordance with this law, compulsory 8-year incomplete secondary education was introduced and the duration of complete secondary education was increased to 11 years. The school had to acquire a polytechnic profile, which was facilitated by compulsory industrial training for high school students. Applicants who had work experience enjoyed advantages when entering universities.

In the 50-60s. There was a leap in the development of Russian science. In a number of main areas, Soviet science occupied leading positions and stimulated technical progress; great discoveries of talented scientists received practical implementation. Outstanding successes have been achieved in space exploration, rocket science and the use of atomic energy. In 1957, the first launch of the Earth satellite was carried out, and in 1961, the first manned flight into space took place. The Soviet Union was the first to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes: the first nuclear power plant began operating in 1954, and the nuclear icebreaker Lenin set sail in 1957.

Never has so much money been invested in science as in these years. Over two decades, costs have increased almost 12 times. It was in the 50-60s. The bulk of the discoveries and inventions were made, for which Soviet scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in the field of exact and natural sciences. Thus, in the field of physics, 9 Soviet scientists became laureates, including Academician L.D. Landau, who created the theories of superfluidity and superconductivity, academicians A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov, who designed the world's first laser. During this period, there was a significant quantitative and territorial expansion of the network of research institutes, experimental stations and laboratories. In 1957, construction began on the Novosibirsk academic campus, which became one of the country's leading scientific centers in the field of applied mathematics and physics.

The processes that took place in the spiritual life of society were reflected in the literature of those years. The main historical merit of the creative intelligentsia of the second half of the 50s - early 60s. before culture consists in the spiritual and moral elevation of the reader. For the first time in Soviet history, the value of internal personal freedom, the right to sincerity and affirmation of one’s true self was openly declared. The life of people with all the difficulties and troubles, without pompous labor heroism and deliberate pathos, formed the main theme of the best examples of literature, theater, cinema, and painting .

During the “thaw” there was a real “boom” of literary and artistic magazines, among which “New World”, “Youth”, “Our Contemporary”, “Young Guard”, “Foreign Literature” were especially popular. The center of attraction for the democratic intelligentsia was the magazine “New World,” whose editor-in-chief was A.T. Tvardovsky. This magazine is associated with a powerful truth-seeking movement in Soviet literature, its discovery of true humanity.

Certain milestones in the rise of literary life were the stories of V.M. Shukshin, novel by V.D. Dudintsev “Not by Bread Alone”, the stories “Colleagues” and “Star Ticket” by V.P. Aksenova. An event that went beyond the literary framework and deeply influenced the spiritual life of society was the publication in 1962 of a story by A.I. in the magazine “New World”. Solzhenitsyn’s “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” written in the genre of an autobiographical description of the life of a political prisoner in Stalin’s camps.

The years of the “thaw” were the heyday of Soviet poetry. A wealth of genres, a variety of creative individuals, and a high artistic level distinguish the poetic creativity of this period. New names appeared in poetry: A. Voznesensky, E. Yevtushenko, B. Akhmadulina, N. Rubtsov, B. Okudzhava. N.N., who had been silent for a long time, spoke up. Aseev, M.A. Svetlov, N.A. Zabolotsky. As one of the poetic movements, the author's (bardic) song became widespread. Distinguished by its simplicity and natural intonation, it was most often performed to one's own accompaniment (usually a guitar). The topical songs of A. Galich, B. Okudzhava, N. Matveeva, V. Vysotsky, Yu. Vizbor and others were extremely popular, captivating listeners with their genuine author’s sincerity.

Starting from the late 50s, the topic of the Great Patriotic War received a new understanding. It marked a turn towards a moral assessment of events. This approach was manifested in the story of M.A. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man”, in the first part of the trilogy by K.M. Simonov “The Living and the Dead”, in the films of G.N. Chukhrai “Ballad of a Soldier” and M.K. Kalatozov "The Cranes Are Flying" A direction called “trench” literature (or “lieutenant’s prose”) began to take hold, represented by the famous works of Yu.V. Bondareva, G.Ya. Baklanova, V.O. Bogomolov and other talented writers.

The post-Stalin period saw a creative growth in theatrical art. Theaters were actively looking for their own path of development, acquiring their own style and aesthetic position.

In 1956, the Studio of Young Actors was organized in Moscow, which soon grew into the Sovremennik theater studio. Under the leadership of director O.N. Efremov formed a troupe, the core of which was the popular Soviet actors G. Volchek, E. Evstigneev, I. Kvasha, O. Tabakov. The talented writer V.S. constantly wrote plays for Sovremennik. Rozov.

In the same year, G.A. became the chief director of the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater. Tovstonogov. The repertoire searches of the new head of the BDT went along two channels - modern drama and world classics. The theater was close to the psychological dramas of A.M. Volodin and V.S. Rozova. On its stage, L. Makarova, E. Kopelyan, V. Strzhelchik, K. Lavrov, P. Luspekayev, S. Yursky, E. Lebedev, O. Basilashvili played their best roles.

Since 1964, the Moscow Taganka Drama and Comedy Theater has become a place of attraction for theatergoers. The young team under the leadership of Yu.P. Lyubimova declared herself the heir to the traditions of Stanislavsky, Vakhtangov, Meyerhold and in a new way, with amazing temperament, played the plays of W. Shakespeare and B. Brecht, staged the works of J. Reed, D. Samoilov and others. A. Demidova, A. Demidova, and others shone in the “star” company. V. Vysotsky, N. Gubenko, V. Zolotukhin, Z. Slavina, L. Filatov.

However, the “thaw” in the spiritual life of society was not without contradictions. Party ideological control was somewhat weakened, but continued to operate. Relapses of “Zhdanovism” manifested themselves in the public condemnation of V.D.’s novel in 1957. Dudintsev “Not by bread alone” and in the so-called “Pasternak case”. Boris Pasternak, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1958 for his novel Doctor Zhivago, was expelled from the USSR Writers' Union that same year for publishing this novel abroad. Personally N.S. Khrushchev scolded the poet A.A. Voznesensky, prose writer D.A. Granin, sculptor E.I. To the unknown, film director M.M. Khutsiev. The apogee of intolerance was the scandal at the exhibition in the Manege in 1962, when Khrushchev rudely criticized avant-garde artists for repeatedly incriminating formalism and departure from the canons of realistic art.

At the end of the 50s. writers, poets, and publicists of the democratic trend decided to independently publish typewritten journals, including their works in them. This is how Samizdat arose and, in particular, the most interesting of the illegal publications, the magazine “Syntax”, edited by A. Ginzburg. It featured uncensored works by V.P. Nekrasova, V.T. Shalamova, B.Sh. Okudzhava, B.A. Akhmadulina. The arrest of A. Ginzburg in 1960 interrupted the publication of the magazine, but the formation of an opposition movement, which became known as the “dissident” movement, had already taken place.

Period of "stagnation". The end of the 60s - the first half of the 80s. entered the history of the USSR as a time of “stagnation”. During this period, timid attempts were made and then practically nullified to reform the economy of Soviet society, giving it the appearance of a market character (A.N. Kosygin’s reforms). The refusal to carry out even palliative reforms was accompanied by economic stagnation, growing corruption and bureaucracy. The foundations of party-state monopoly remained unshakable. Signs of a protracted general crisis appeared.

The regulation of public forms of social life has increased, control over the media, the sphere of education, the development and teaching of social sciences and the humanities has been tightened. Any attempts to go beyond generally accepted dogmas in history, philosophy, sociology, and political economy were criticized.

The conductor of the strict course of prohibitions and regulation was the ideological apparatus of the CPSU Central Committee, headed by M.A. Suslov. Clashes on the literary and cultural fronts unfolded before the eyes of the entire country and excited public opinion. A.T. Tvardovsky, in his poem “By Right of Memory” (not accepted for publication), bitterly spoke about the authorities’ immoderate desire to “put an end to” the democratic gains of the “thaw”: Which, not put into order, was decided for us by a special congress: In this sleepless memory, Should I put an end to it?

In the first Brezhnev years, the struggle between the legacy of the “thaw” and conservative, reactionary tendencies still continued. A regressive turn in cultural policy came after the Czechoslovak events of 1968. Censorship became tougher and the persecution of intellectual independence intensified. Show trials were held against dissidents: I.A. Brodsky, A.D. Sinyavsky, Yu.M. Daniel, A. Ginzburg. In 1969, A.I. was expelled from the Writers' Union. Solzhenitsyn; later, in 1974, for publishing “The Gulag Archipelago” abroad, he was deprived of Soviet citizenship and deported abroad. In 1970, A.T. was forced to leave the “New World”. Tvardovsky.

However, in general, stagnation still affected culture to a lesser extent than the economy and political sphere. The powerful humanistic-renovationist impulse she received during the years of Khrushchev’s “thaw” continued to nourish bright, extraordinary personalities in literature, theater, cinema, and painting. In the 70-80s. artistic life in the country continued to be very rich.

The concept of “stagnation” is least applicable to literature. In terms of the richness of creative individuals, breadth of themes, and variety of artistic techniques, the literature of this time is comparable to the literature of the 20s. The winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature were M.A. Sholokhov (1965), A.I. Solzhenitsyn (1970), I.A. Brodsky (1987). In general, literature of the 70-80s. developed under the influence of ideas and attitudes that arose during the “thaw”. “Rural”, “military”, “urban” prose has reached a new creative level.

A sign of the times was the rethinking and new coverage of military topics. Epic films about the Patriotic War, memories and memoirs of World War II commanders, famous heroes and veterans, and statesmen acquired an epic scope. “Trench Truth” was presented in the prose of Yu.V. Bondareva, B.L. Vasilyeva, G.Ya. Baklanov, films “The Ascension” by L.E. Shepitko and “Road Check” by A.Yu. Herman. These authors revived the reliability and authenticity of the description of events and characters in the military theme. The “military” novel put its heroes in a heightened situation of moral choice, and in essence turned to contemporaries, encouraging them to solve “inconvenient” questions about conscience, honor, loyalty, human dignity, about responsible actions in “borderline” situations.

Important socio-historical and universal problems were raised by village prose, revealing the role of tradition and continuity, the connection of generations, the originality and specificity of folk life and national character. In most cases, the village served the writers not as a theme, but as a life background against which important events unfolded and difficult human destinies took shape. The works of the “villagers” spoke of the pride and dignity of a man from the people, who, in troubles and humiliations, retained a high order of soul. The tone for this direction was set by F.A. Abramov, V.M. Shukshin, V.G. Rasputin, V.P. Astafiev, B.A. Mozhaev.

Many prose writers tried to understand the reasons for the spiritual crisis that coincided with the time of “stagnation.” Thus, Shukshin more than once addressed the problems of the search for truth by a “simple person” who seems to live a normal life, “like everyone else,” but at the same time is deprived of inner peace, and therefore “wonders.”

Urban prose also reflected acute social and psychological problems. Human dramas here played out against the backdrop of a deformed structure of life, in conditions when an extraordinary person experiences a feeling of internal discord and inexplicable alienation from the people around him (relatives, friends) and public institutions. This theme sounded especially poignant in the deeply sincere prose of Yu.V. Trifonov, as well as in the works of A.G. Bitova, V.S. Makanina, D.A. Granina, L.S. Petrushevskaya, V.A. Pietsukha, V.I. Tokareva.

Drama of the 70s was enriched with acutely conflicting moral and psychological plays by the Siberian writer A.V. Vampilov. His dramas “The Eldest Son”, “Duck Hunt”, “Last Summer in Chulimsk” were included in the repertoire of capital and peripheral theaters, films were made based on them, the main roles in which were played by cinema “stars” O. Dal, E. Leonov, N. Karachentsov and others.

Soviet cinema, closely connected with reflective literature, despite the control, prohibitions and “guiding hand” of the dominant state order, in the 70-80s. reached its peak. E.A. made his best films. Ryazanov, M.A. Zakharov, T.M. Lioznova, G.N. Danelia, N.S. Mikhalkov. Children's cinema and animation developed, embodying the ideas of goodness and philanthropy at a high artistic level. It was difficult for Soviet elite cinema to navigate its way, overcoming bureaucratic indifference and misunderstanding of colleagues. “His central figure is A. A. Tarkovsky, who declared himself as a philosopher and experimental director. His films “Ivan’s Childhood”, “Andrei Rublev”, “Solaris”, “Mirror”, “Stalker”, “Nostalgia”, “ Sacrifice” opened up the possibility of an unconventional philosophical reading of time and man and, in essence, revealed a new film language.

Various trends and phenomena were intertwined in the fine arts of this period. One of the most noticeable was the “severe style”. Its representatives (N.I. Andronov, T.T. Salakhov, P.F. Nikonov and others) were looking for new means of expression, trying to achieve dynamism, laconicism, simplicity, and generalization of images while maintaining their vivid emotionality and poignancy. The paintings they created are characterized by uncompromisingness, severe impartiality, emphasized drama in the depiction of life's ups and downs, as well as a (somewhat exaggerated) romantic glorification of people in “difficult professions.”

An original view of the world, a rejection of templates, and a deep understanding of Russian history distinguish the work of I.S. Glazunov. The basis of his moral and aesthetic ideals is the understanding of art as a feat in the name of the highest spiritual values. The artist’s talent was most fully revealed in the multi-figure large-scale canvases of the 70-80s: “Mystery of the 20th Century”, “Eternal Russia”, “Hymn to the Heroes”. At the suggestion of UNESCO, Glazunov created a picturesque panel “The Contribution of the Peoples of the USSR to World Culture and Civilization.” It adorns the headquarters of this prestigious organization, along with paintings by Picasso and other world-class artists.

A characteristic feature of the cultural process of this period was the formation of two opposing types of culture - official and unofficial. Of course, this opposition is to some extent arbitrary and generated by that time. Taking into account this reservation, one can correctly judge the main contradiction of the heterogeneous Soviet culture: the official type of culture had largely exhausted the possibilities for development, while the unofficial one needed institutional support to expand its impact on public consciousness and the social mental field. This contradiction itself was reflected in all forms of creativity during the period of late Soviet society and consisted, briefly, in the following. The more persistently official culture strove for ideological dominance, the more clearly its creative sterility was revealed and the more openly the progressive intelligentsia and the critically thinking public showed cultural dissent and a desire to become more familiar with artistically minted examples of civil and individual freedom of the individual.

The “stagnant” policy of prohibitions and restrictions gave rise to such a form of spiritual protest as dissidence (from the Latin dissidens - disagreement, contradictory), which can be regarded as a radical manifestation of an unofficial type of culture. The beginning of the dissident movement is associated with the demonstration on December 5, 1965 on Pushkin Square and a collective appeal to the authorities to review the decision of the trial of writers Sinyavsky and Daniel, who were arrested in the same year for publishing their literary works in the West and accused of anti-Soviet activities. The dissident movement was not homogeneous. Writers, scientists, artists, sculptors, declared dissidents by the authorities, agreed, perhaps, on only one thing - the desire to defend their right to dissent, to freedom of creative expression. The main reason that forced many of them to openly protest, and some to go abroad, was an internal disagreement with official doctrinaireism, which denied freedom of creativity. Dissent merged with freethinking. Despite campaigns of condemnation, slander, silence, public and secret restrictions, both publicly demonstrated examples of the individual’s vital and creative independence. Man is doomed to freedom and creativity. This conclusion follows from the personal civic courage of A. Solzhenitsyn and V. Aksenov, from the actions of the heroes of their works, their steadfast citizenship, independence of thinking, and independence of intellect.

The emergence of dissidence was met with hostility by party bodies. In the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On measures to further increase the political vigilance of Soviet people” (1977), dissidence was defined as a harmful trend that discredited the Soviet political system, therefore its participants were subject to criminal liability. In the 60-70s. Over 7 thousand people were convicted for dissent. Director Yu.P. ended up in exile. Lyubimov, artist M.M. Shemyakin, sculptor E.I. Unknown, musician M.L. Rostropovich, poets I.A. Brodsky and A.A. Galich, writers V.P. Nekrasov, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and other prominent cultural figures. These were representatives of the intellectual elite, whose creativity and civic position were classified by the authorities as “discrediting the Soviet state system.”

In the person of the most radical critics of the ossified party-state system, the dissident movement went beyond the boundaries of cultural dissent and became a form of political opposition, which included “signatories”, “informals”, “human rights activists”, etc. The most prominent figure in the human rights movement was academician A.D. Sakharov.

A characteristic phenomenon of the period of “stagnation” was the underground, or “catacomb culture,” which existed illegally and semi-legally as a counterculture and served as a kind of island of spiritual freedom. In spirit it was somewhat close to dissidence, but had a wider social audience. The advanced groups of the intelligentsia “drifted” to the underground, unable to stand the suffocating atmosphere of the oppressive officialdom, but avoiding a “head-on” collision with the authorities. It was a way of life and thinking of creative individuals, a way of their self-expression. The underground united different people who did not want to be dictated from above what to write about, what kind of painting and music to create. Sometimes works that deviated from the usual aesthetic rules appeared in the underground. The audience was shocked, for example, by the shocking painting of “Mitki”, the marginal prose and dramaturgy of Venedikt Erofeev (“Moscow - Petushki”, “Walpurgis Night, or the Steps of the Commander”),

Adjacent to the underground was a concept of art called “socio art.” It was a kind of artistic dystopia, composed of the fragments of myths of public consciousness generated by the dominant officialdom. Socialist art, clearly represented later by the shocking prose of Viktor Pelevin (“Chapaev and Emptiness”, “Life of Insects”, “Omon-Ra”), is characterized by parodying the stylistics and images of socialist realism.

Rock and roll became a kind of musical accompaniment to underground culture. In the mid-60s. a number of amateur and professional youth groups in Moscow and Leningrad, and then in other cities, began to play rock music. Its main feature was its withdrawal into its own world, which had nothing in common with the myth of developed socialism and the appearance of its historical superiority. Hence the social pointedness of some texts and the shocking performance. The deliberate carelessness of the costumes and the extravagant appearance of the musicians seemed to further emphasize their denial of the “yoke of collectivity” and their reluctance to be “like everyone else.” Encountering opposition from official bodies, rock groups either switched to a semi-legal existence, or, combining the style of early rock music with pop songs, created vocal and instrumental ensembles (VIA) and continued their concert activities. In the 70-80s. genre and style features of Russian rock music have emerged. The emphasis in it was on words, “cocky” texts that excite the minds and feelings of avant-garde youth, and “groovy” improvisations. Its countercultural, socially progressive position was powerfully “voiced” by the group “Alice” (leader - Konstantin Kinchev).

It should be recognized that the main direction (“main stream”) of cultural development of this period was determined not by the “Catacombs,” but by the transformed mass culture. Its most striking expression was the stage, which clearly expressed the personal charm of the Soviet “stars”: Alla Pugacheva, Sofia Rotaru, Joseph Kobzon, Lev Leshchenko, etc. In many ways, the stage took on the mission of shaping aesthetic tastes and partly the educational function of culture. However, irony, mockery, and satirical mockery penetrated the stage, which did not escape the influence of unofficial culture. It was during the years of “stagnation” that the rise of pop satire occurred. Speeches by A.I. Raikina, M.M. Zhvanetsky, G.V. Khazanov and others enjoyed enormous popularity.

Thus, the period of “stagnation” turned out to be a contradictory, transitional time that determined some of the features of the subsequent perestroika. The situation of the split in Soviet culture was becoming more and more obvious, but the depth of the process of delimiting it into ideologically opposed subsystems was not yet fully realized and revealed.

Perestroika and glasnost. In 1985-1991 Attempts were made to radically reform society, which, however, getting out of all control, accelerated the collapse of the USSR, due to the collapse of the party-state monopoly and planned regulation of the economy. The collapse of socialist society was accompanied by the aggravation of social and national conflicts, the loss of influence on the social strata of the dominant type of regulated culture, the decomposition of the ideological system, and the loss of attractiveness of distorted communist values and ideals.

Perestroika, which began in 1985 in the USSR, was conceived by the democratically minded wing of the CPSU Central Committee as a course towards the renewal of society, the “improvement” of socialism, and the purification of it from deformations. Universal human values were declared by the initiator of this process M.S. Gorbachev priority, standing above class and national.

The political, social, and economic processes that began in the country in 1985, however, changed the institutional conditions for the functioning of culture. The policy of glasnost is considered to be the beginning of perestroika in the field of culture. The experience of the real embodiment of freedom of speech in mass socio-political movements, at seething rallies, in emboldened literature and journalism, and an unprecedented newspaper and magazine boom was reflected in the introduction on August 1, 1990 of the new Law “On the Press”, which declared freedom of the media and preventing their censorship.

At the forefront of glasnost were the media, whose role was rapidly increasing. Second half of the 90s. became the time of the highest popularity of newspapers and magazines, especially such as “Moscow News”, “Ogonyok”, “Arguments and Facts” (the newspaper's circulation in 1989 amounted to 30 million copies, which is recorded in the Guinness Book of Records). Journalism came to the fore in the press and on television, playing the role of an indicator of the state of public consciousness. The rulers of the thoughts were the authors of incendiary articles, supporters of democratic reforms: G. Popov, V. Selyunin, I. Klyamkin, V. Tsipko, N. Shmelev and others. Journalism in general can be considered the main distinguishing feature of cultural life during perestroika.

Glasnost, along with the lifting of restrictions on the media, was expressed in the abolition of many prohibitions, as well as decisions to deprive a number of cultural figures who left the country in the 70s of Soviet citizenship. The banned works of A.I. were published. Solzhenitsyn, V.N. Voinovich, V.P. Aksenova, A.A. Zinoviev. The work of emigrant writers I.A. has become the property of Russian literature. Bunina, A.T. Averchenko, M.A. Aldanov, unpublished works of A.P. were published. Platonova, B.L. Pasternak, A.A. Akhmatova, V.S. Grossman, D.A. Granina. Catharsis (spiritual cleansing), which society sought, occurred through discoveries and shocks, in which the publication of “The Gulag Archipelago” by A.I. played a significant role. Solzhenitsyn, “Kolyma Tales” by B.T. Shalamov, “Pit” by A.P. Platonov, the dystopian novel “We” by E.I. Zamyatina.

Against the background of the developing process of glasnost, interest in the events of the Soviet past increased. During the years of perestroika, newspapers and magazines published many publications on historical topics: articles by historians, materials from round tables, previously unknown documents, etc. This time was in many ways a turning point in terms of changing historical self-awareness.

As you know, culture has its own internal development trends. In the second half of the 80s - early 90s. There have been some positive changes in it. In general, cultural life during the period of perestroika and glasnost became much more diverse, complex and at the same time contradictory. The rapidity of ill-conceived changes, inconsistent reforms and distortions in politics predetermined a bizarre combination of creative processes and destructive ones.

Thus, the policy of glasnost had serious costs, first of all, the desire of a number of emotional journalists and political figures from the radical liberal camp to subject to a total denial of everything that happened in the pre-perestroika period, starting from 1917. The real achievements of the USSR were falsified; Insulting metaphors such as “scoop”, “commies”, “red-browns”, etc. came into use. Criminal-like vocabulary was also used in the opposite camp.

Having lost ideological and political levers, the state has lost the ability to keep the situation under control. There was also not enough general civil culture to carry out systemic evolutionary transformations of society, a step-by-step restructuring from the inside, similar to that which was accomplished (with the “light hand” of Deng-Xiaoping) by Chinese society and the state after the liquidation of the Maoist regime, the entire artificial structure of barracks communism.

Over time, the seemingly manageable process of glasnost got out of control and gave rise to information anarchy. The movement itself for glasnost, openness, and freedom of the media increased cultural achievements, but was exaggerated and distorted as a result of the emergence of destructive attitudes towards extra-moral permissiveness, total criticism of Soviet history, apologetics of liberalism, etc. Destructive glasnost acted recklessly with a “revolutionary” quasi-Bolshevik scope (“we will destroy the whole world to its foundations...”).

The underlying negative trends include excessive commercialization and creative exhaustion, and the profanation of a significant array of culture. In conditions of market monopolization, banal foreign cultural products noticeably displaced and modified Russian mass culture, which entailed a sharp decline in the quality of the latter. Soviet film production and film distribution entered a period of protracted crisis, unable to compete with the zombifying American film production that filled cinemas and video centers. Attendance at traditional cultural institutions: theaters, concert halls, and art exhibitions has dropped noticeably. There were signs of a spiritual crisis.

In general, the project of the declared perestroika was a fiasco, turning out to be not only unviable, but also destructive. It was doomed to fail from the start due to at least three major flaws:

This project did not contain a realistic, constructive program for transferring the socialist economy to a market economy during the transition period.

Its ideological basis eclectically combined incompatible doctrinaire-communist, social-democratic, neoliberal values and ideas.

He did not have clear prospects for a systemic evolutionary transformation of the economy, culture, ideology, social structure, or state-political system of a crisis society.

The deepening crisis in the socio-economic life of society had a negative impact on the development of a destabilized culture. The production and economic mechanism, deprived of its former centralization, fell apart. People's daily lives became increasingly deteriorating, and ideological and political contradictions grew. One after another, the Union republics declared their sovereignty.

Economic, financial, legal, organizational and management systems by the beginning of the 90s. were effectively decentralized. The process of “democratization” acquired a spontaneous, uncontrollable character. The idea of “improving” socialism, put forward by the initiators of perestroika, was replaced by ultra-radicals with a demand for a total rejection of socialism, even in its social democratic version in combination with social-partner capitalism. Subsequently, they imposed on Russia and other newly formed states the Western model of liberal-oligarchic capitalism, which in reality turned out to be adventurous-oligarchic.

All these and similar circumstances led to the collapse of the perestroika policy and a widespread crisis, which the August 1991 coup tried unsuccessfully to overcome. In December 1991, the USSR ceased to exist. A number of former Soviet republics formed a new political and economic association - the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

1.4 Culture of Russia in the post-Soviet period

Market relations have made mass culture the main barometer by which changes in the state of society can be observed. The simplification of social relations and the collapse of the hierarchy of values in general have significantly worsened aesthetic tastes. At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. vulgarized kitsch associated with primitive advertising (template crafts, aesthetic ersatz), expanded its sphere of influence, became more active, took on new forms, adapting a considerable part of multimedia. The articulation of homegrown templates of “mass” screen culture inevitably led to a new wave of expansion of similar Western, primarily American, models. Having become a monopolist on the art market, the Western film and video entertainment industry began to dictate artistic tastes, especially among young people. Under the current conditions, counteracting the processes of cultural Western globalization and profane kitsch is becoming more flexible and effective. It is increasingly carried out primarily in the form of kemta.

Camt, as one of the varieties of synthesized elite-mass culture, is popular in form, accessible to wide social strata, and in content, conceptual, semantic art, often resorting to caustic irony and caustic parody (of pseudo-creativity) - a kind of cushioned, neutralized " kitsch". Foreign Russian literature close to camp has been worthily represented in recent decades by the recently deceased emigrant writer Vasily Aksenov. It is also necessary to more actively master and disseminate innovative examples of artistic creativity through improved multimedia technologies, to give way to non-academic genres of art, including trash - a related artistic movement that is a parody of modern forms of pop art and glamor.

Today, the painful transition to the market is accompanied by a reduction in state funding for culture and a decline in the living standards of a significant part of the intelligentsia. The material base of Russian culture was undermined in the 90s; in the last decade there has been a slow recovery, slowed down by the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. One of the important and complex modern problems is the interaction of culture and market. In many cases, the creation of cultural works is approached as a profit-generating business, as an ordinary ordinary product, or more precisely, as its exaggerated monetary equivalent. Often the desire to obtain the maximum benefit “at any cost” wins, without caring about the quality of the artistic product being created. The uncontrolled commercialization of culture is focused not on the creative individual, but on the “hyper-economic super-marketeer,” playing along with his narrow utilitarian interests.

The consequence of this circumstance was the loss of a number of advanced positions by literature, which played a leading role in Russian (and Soviet) culture in the 19th-20th centuries; the art of literary expression degraded and acquired an unusual diversity and eclecticism of smaller genres and styles. The shelves of bookstores are dominated by empty “pink” and “yellow” fiction, which is characterized by a rejection of spirituality, humanity and stable moral positions.

List of sources used

1. Drach G.V., Matyash T.P. Culturology. Brief thematic dictionary. - M.: Phoenix, 2001.

Shirshov I.E. Culturology - theory and history of culture: textbook / Shirshov I.E. - Mn.: Ecoperspective, 2010.

Ehrengross B.A. Culturology. Textbook for universities / B.A. Ehrengross, R.G. Apresyan, E. Botvinnik - M.: Onyx, 2007.

Culturology. Textbook / Edited by A.A. Radugina - M., 2001.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

88. Cultural and spiritual life in post-Soviet Russia.

Introduction

On December 26, 1991, the USSR collapsed. He led to the independence of 15 republics of the USSR and their emergence on the world political stage as independent states. Of course, this event was reflected not only in Russian foreign policy, but also in domestic policy. In this work, I would like to show how the era of Perestroika and the collapse of the USSR influenced the cultural and spiritual life of Russia. What are its differences from the culture that was in the Soviet Union and what are positive and negative about it?

Briefly, we can say that the Era of Perestroika (1985-1991) refers to those periods of national history for which the significance of the processes taking place in culture is especially great. M.S. Gorbachev began his reforms precisely in the sphere of social and cultural life. According to the French historian Nicolas Werth, the foundation of Perestroika was “the liberation of historical memory, the printed word, and living thought.”

One of the first slogans of the new era was “Glasnost”, i.e. the aim of expanding the awareness of the masses about the activities of the party and government, openness, publicity of decisions made,

setting up a free discussion of the accumulated shortcomings and negative phenomena in the life of Soviet society. Glasnost was conceived as a revival and modernization of state ideology, and although from the very beginning it was emphasized that it had nothing to do with “bourgeois freedom of speech,” it was not possible to keep the process under state and party control. An open discussion of issues that previously, in the era of total control, were discussed only secretly “in kitchens” began everywhere. The facts of abuse by the party nomenklatura, revealed by Glasnost, sharply undermined the authority of the party, depriving it of a monopoly on truth.

Glasnost, which revealed to the Soviet people the full depth of the crisis,

which the country fell into, and which raised before society the question of ways

further development, aroused great interest in history. There was a rapid process of restoring those pages that were suppressed during Soviet times. In them people looked for answers to questions posed by life.

"Thick" literary magazines published previously unknown to the wider public.

to the Soviet reader literary works, memoirs of eyewitnesses and

a memoir presenting a new perspective on historical truth. Thanks to

Because of this, their circulation has increased sharply, and subscriptions to the most popular of them

(“Neva”, “New World”, “Youth”) fell into the category of acute shortage and

distributed “according to the limit,” i.e., in a limited number.

Over the course of several years, novels were published in magazines and separate publications

A. I. Solzhenitsyn (“In the First Circle”, “Cancer Ward”, “GULAG Archipelago”),

Y. Dombrovsky (“Keeper of Antiquities”), E. I. Zamyatin (“We”),

M. A. Aldanova (“St. Helena, Little Island”), B. L. Pasternak

(“Doctor Zhivago”), M. A. Bulgakova (“The Master and Margarita”), V. V. Nabokova

(“Lolita”), B. Pilnyak (“The Naked Year”, “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon”),

A. Platonov (“Chevengur”, “Pit”), poetic works

G. V. Ivanova, A. A. Akhmatova, N. S. Gumilyov, O. E. Mandelstam. On

on the theatrical stage, journalistic

drama. The most prominent representative of this trend was M. F. Shatrov

(Marshak) (“Dictatorship of Conscience”). There was a particular public outcry

works that touched upon the theme of Stalinism and Stalin's

repression. Not all of them were literary masterpieces, but they

enjoyed the constant interest of readers of the perestroika era, because

“opened their eyes”, talked about what they had talked about before

A similar situation was observed in other forms of art. Shel

intensive process of “returning” the creative heritage of artists,

previously under ideological ban. Spectators were able to again

see the works of artists P. Filonov, K. Malevich, V. Kandinsky. IN

musical culture was returned to the work of A. Schnittke, M. Rostropovich,

Representatives of the musical “underground” appeared on the wide stage: groups

"Nautilus", "Aquarium", "Cinema", etc.

Artistic analysis of the phenomenon of Stalinism became decisive

direction and in the work of writers, musicians and artists who worked directly during the years of Perestroika. As one of the most significant

works of Soviet literature were appreciated by contemporaries

Ch. Aitmatov “The Scaffold” (1986), for whom, as for most

Aitmatov's works are characterized by a combination of deep psychologism with

traditions of folklore, mythological imagery and metaphor.

A noticeable phenomenon in the literature of the Perestroika era, a peculiar

A bestseller was the novel by A. N. Rybakov “Children of Arbat” (1987), in which

the era of the cult of personality is recreated through the prism of the fate of the generation of the 30s. ABOUT

the fate of genetic scientists, about science under a totalitarian regime

narrated in the novels by V. D. Dudintsev “White Clothes” (1987) and

D. A. Granin “Bison” (1987). Post-war “orphanage” children who became

random victims of events related to forced eviction from their native

the lands of the Chechens in 1944, is dedicated to the novel by A. I. Pristavkin “A Cloud Spent the Night

golden" (1987). All these works caused great public

resonance and played a significant role in the development of Russian culture, although

often the journalistic component in them prevailed over

artistic.

Little of what was created in that critical era has stood the test of time.

In the fine arts, the “spirit of the times” was reflected in very mediocre

and schematic paintings by I. S. Glazunov (“Eternal Russia” 1988). Again

popular genre, as has always happened at critical moments in history,

becomes a poster.

In feature and documentary cinema of the perestroika years

a number of wonderful films appear, in tune with the era: “Repentance”

T. Abuladze, “Is it easy to be young” by J. Podnieks, “You can’t live like that”

S. Govorukhina, “Tomorrow there was a war” by Y. Kara, “Cold summer fifty

third"). At the same time, in addition to serious, deep films filled with

thinking about the fate of the country, about its history, many very weak

a deliberately gloomy depiction of social reality. Such films

were designed for scandalous popularity, their figurative system was built

in contrast to traditional Soviet cinema, in which it is customary

was to avoid excessive naturalism, sex scenes and other vulgar

techniques. Such films are colloquially called “chernukhas” (“Little

Vera" dir. V. Pichul).

Acquired a huge role in cultural and social life

journalism. Articles were published in the magazines “Znamya”, “New World”, “Ogonyok”,

in the Literary Gazette. Especially with great love from readers in those days

used the weekly “Arguments and Facts”. Circulation of "AiF" perestroika

pores blocked all conceivable limits and ended up in the Guinness Book of Records.

However, television journalistic programs had the widest audience

programs such as “Vzglyad”, “The Twelfth Floor”, “Before and After Midnight”,

"600 seconds." Despite the fact that these programs were broadcast at an inconvenient time for

most of the spectators time (late evening), they enjoyed very great

popularity, and the stories shown in them became the subject of general

discussions. Journalists addressed the most burning and exciting topics

modern times: youth problems, the war in Afghanistan, environmental

disasters, etc. The presenters of the programs were not like traditional Soviet ones

announcers: relaxed, modern, smart (V. Listyev, V. Lyubimov, V. Molchanov

The results of Perestroika in the field of education are ambiguous. With one

On the other hand, glasnost revealed serious shortcomings in secondary and higher schools:

the material and technical base was weak, school and

university programs and textbooks, clearly outdated and therefore ineffective

there were traditional principles of educational work (subbotniks, pioneer

rallies, Timurov’s detachments). Thus, the need for

immediate reforms.

On the other hand, attempts to correct the current situation are often

only led to a deterioration in the quality of the educational process. Refusing

using old educational literature, schools found themselves either completely without

textbooks, or were forced to use very dubious quality

new. Introduction of new subjects into school courses (such as

“Ethics and psychology of family life”, “Informatics”) turned out to be

unprepared: there were no qualified teachers ready

teach new disciplines, no technical capabilities, no educational and methodological

literature. The pioneer and Komsomol organizations that had become obsolete were

were finally abolished, but nothing new was created in their place -

the younger generation dropped out of the educational process. In the majority

cases of “reform” came down to changing names: on a massive scale

ordinary secondary schools, vocational schools and technical schools began to call themselves

gymnasiums, lyceums, colleges and even academies. The essence with change

The signage has not changed. Attempts to create a flexible education system that meets

needs of the time, encountered the inertia of a significant part

teaching staff and lack of funds.

The field of higher education, in addition to problems common to the entire system

public education, faced the problem of a shortage of teachers,

many of whom left universities for commercial firms or left

abroad.

To an even greater extent, the problem of “brain drain” has become relevant for

Sciences. If research in applied fields during the years of Perestroika is noticeable

are revived, then fundamental science, which for decades has been

a subject of national pride, inevitably tends to decline, due to

which became difficult with financing, loss of prestige and loss

understanding the social significance of a scientist’s work in society.

In general, the cultural consequences of Perestroika are still awaiting assessment.

It is quite obvious that along with the undoubted positive effect that

brought democratization (the acquisition of the heritage of writers, artists and

musicians whose work had been suppressed, the general revival of cultural

life), one cannot help but notice the negative consequences of not fully thought out

reforms (deepening crisis in the education system, decline in fundamental

Culture of the last decade of the twentieth century.

A distinctive feature of the culture of modern Russia – e-0 in its

diversity, variety of manifestations of creativity in all areas

public life. Being “inside” the present time, it is very difficult

it is almost impossible to determine which facts of modern cultural life

are important, determining the main direction of development

culture, and which will be swept away by the course of history in the near future.

The diversity of modern cultural life is most clearly manifested in

literature. Among the most significant currents in it it should be noted

postmodernism. The classics of European postmodernism are Jorge-Luis

Borges, Umberto Eco, John Fowles. A characteristic feature of the concept

postmodernism is considered “quotational”. Material for creative

comprehension in a postmodern work becomes less real

life events, how many impressions from books previously read by the author,

movies seen, music heard. From these impressions, as from

multi-colored smalts, a mosaic of a new work is compiled. Perception

works often turn into solutions for the thoughtful reader

a kind of rebus - where did what come from? This is a kind of game. Developing

a well-known literary or cinematic image or cliche.

For example, the novel by the popular modern writer V. Pelevin “Chapaev and

Emptiness" is largely built on allusions to popular in Soviet times

anecdotes about Chapaev and the film of the Vasilyev brothers, although the book talks about

about something completely different. Pelevin's Chapaev has nothing in common with the real hero

there is no civil war, but hints and references to the image are discernible in it,

created on screen by actor Babochkin. Quotability is also characteristic of others

Pelevin’s popular works “Generation P”, “Amon Ra”, “Life

insects" etc.

The change in artistic tastes was also reflected in the fact that

“returned” (i.e. written back in Soviet times, but not published

then, for censorship reasons, into the light) of the literature of the modern reader

they are no longer interested in civic-journalistic novels about the era

Stalinism, as it was ten years ago, but postmodern in spirit

works with elements of a “quote” game: “Moscow - Cockerels” by Venedikt

Erofeev (1969), “Pushkin House” by Andrei Bitov (1971).

With the penetration of market relations into book publishing, the shelves

bookstores throughout the post-Soviet space were filled with

fiction and entertainment literature of various quality:

detective stories, science fiction, so-called women's novels. Among the masters

The most famous detective genre is V. Dotsenko (“Mad”), F. Neznansky

(“Turetsky March”), A. Marinin (series of novels about investigator Anastasia

Kamenskaya). To replace science fiction, popular in the 60s–80s. comes

science fiction in the "fantasy" style, the ancestor of which in world literature

there was an English writer and scientist J. Tolkien. Russian fantasy presented

works by M. Semenova (“Wolfhound”) and N. Perumov (“Diamond Sword,

wooden sword”, etc.) Fantasy is characterized by the use of mythological

images, appeal to traditional consciousness, through the prism of which they look

heroes of fantasy novels on the world. If in science fiction fiction has,

time machine, that interstellar travel is possible, etc.), then fantasy

comes from the assumption of the reality of essentially fairy-tale phenomena (the heroes use

magic, fight evil magicians, communicate with dragons, elves, gnomes

and so on.). The closest analogy to fantasy is a literary fairy tale, but

"fairy tale for adults."

Postmodernism is a phenomenon that goes beyond literature. His

manifestations can be found in cinema, theater, painting and music.

Nikas Sofronov, painting his paintings on old icon boards, on which

in some places the remains of a pictorial layer have been preserved (also a kind of “quotations”),

In monumental sculpture the greatest, although somewhat scandalous

The works of the Moscow sculptor Zurab Tsereteli are popular,

townspeople and the definitely negative attitude of art critics.

In the new Russian cinema, the most noticeable thing is creativity

actor and film director Nikita Sergeevich Mikhalkov. Film "Burnt"

the sun" was awarded an "Oscar" - an American Film Academy award.

The film takes place in the 30s. The main character is division commander Kotov, in

whose image embodies the type of man-symbol of the Stalin era: he

famous military leader of the Civil War, named after him

pioneer detachments, his portrait is known to everyone. Love line unexpectedly

turns out to be related to the theme of repression - an apparently prosperous life

the all-powerful division commander, who has a direct telephone connection with Stalin himself,

crumbles to dust. Nostalgia for the greatness, nobility and beauty of the past

imperial Russia permeates the painting “The Barber of Siberia,” filmed in

1998 (starring Oleg Menshikov and Julia Ormond).

The films of Alexey Balabanov gained enormous popularity among young people:

"Brother" (1997) and "Brother-2" (2000). The central character of both films

Danila Bagrov, a young man who went through the Chechen war, is

a strange combination of naivety and life wisdom, limited,

True, his military experience; kindness, nobility and

terrible cruelty, which allows him, in his search for “truth,” to completely

thinking about using weapons. The films feature music from popular bands

and performers, taken “straight from life”: “Nautilus”, Zemfira, etc.

Plays by new authors appear in theater repertoires: N. Kolyada,

M. Ugarova, M. Arbatova, A. Shipenko.

Television has changed noticeably in the last decade. New ones have appeared

channels independent from the state (NTV, TV-6 1993) From the front podium

of social thought it has turned into a powerful weapon of political struggle,

on which huge amounts of money are spent, which predetermined the growth

professional level of programs, and at the same time led to a decrease

trust in television as a source of information. Acute social

political issues no longer arouse the interest they once had. Spectators give

preference for programs that cover issues of private, family,

personal life. Problems of big politics and the country's historical choice in

television journalism gave way to problems of human relationships.

Many new television programs of a similar focus have emerged:

“My family”, “While everyone is at home”, “I myself”, “About this”. Lots of airtime

occupy entertainment programs with no journalistic component at all:

“Field of Miracles”, “Guess the Melody”.

In the 90s the sphere of education and science continues to remain

mostly depressed. The crisis that began in the 80s continues

deepen. School teachers and university professors from respected and even

privileged group of the population, as they were in Soviet times,

They become the category of impoverished “state employees” who can barely make ends meet.

The process of “brain drain” that began during the years of Perestroika is becoming truly

catastrophic proportions. Most teachers and scientists located

at an active age, are forced to leave their previous place of work in

school, university or academic institute and look for income from

side. At best, they continue to engage in intellectual work

abroad at the invitation of foreign scientific institutions, at worst -

become small traders, taxi drivers, cleaners.

However, recently there have been some signs

correct the situation. A market for educational services has emerged. More flexible

the connection between education and life has become: new educational institutions are opening,

Specialties that are in demand among employers are rapidly developing

(law, management, political science, etc.) System of market relations

made it possible to improve the financial situation of those educational institutions that

turned out to be able to provide education in demand by society. This,

however, it does not solve the problem in principle. Still continue to languish

fundamental science is a miserable existence, but without it one is lost

prospects for further development. However, despite the difficulties Russian

scientists continue to occupy leading positions in the world. Confirmation of this

became the Nobel Prize received by the Russian physicist Zh. Alferov in 2000.

The role of

churches. We can say that religion is gradually filling the place of the sunk

non-existence of communist ideology. Largely level up

religiosity today is explained by socio-economic

problems that give rise to a feeling of uncertainty about the future, mental

depression, feeling of disconnection.

Today, the majority of believers belong to denominations

has long existed on the territory of the country: Orthodox, Muslim,

Jewish. Conversion to traditional religions may be considered

a positive phenomenon, because the church is the guardian of many

historical traditions and can provide spiritual guidelines, the lack of which

is one of the main problems of modern society. At the same time

An alarming fact is the rapid expansion of influence of various kinds

totalitarian sects and Western preachers, whose activities most often

has a pronounced destructive orientation. Disastrousness

the influence of sects on the souls of people was clearly manifested in the activities of the “White

Brotherhood" (1993), the organizers of which managed to involve in their networks

a huge number of young people.

Despite all the political cataclysms, Russian culture,

dating back more than 1000 years, continues to evolve. Modern her

the situation gives no reason for pessimism. How will further development proceed?

Time will tell. In the meantime, we can say that preserving and increasing

cultural heritage is one of the indispensable conditions for a decent future

Russia in the XXI century.

Period 1985-1991 entered the modern history of Russia as the period of “perestroika and glasnost.” During the reign of the last General Secretary of the CPSU and the first President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev, important events took place in the country and in the world: the Soviet Union and the socialist camp collapsed, the monopoly of the Communist Party was undermined, the economy was liberalized and censorship was softened, and signs of freedom of speech appeared. At the same time, the financial situation of the people worsened, and the planned economy collapsed. The formation of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of which was approved by a popular referendum in 1993, and the coming to power of B.N. Yeltsin seriously influenced the cultural situation in the country. Many celebrities returned to the country from emigration and exile, temporarily or permanently: musicians M.L. Rostropovich, G. Vishnevskaya, writers A. Solzhenitsyn and T. Voinovich, artist E. Neizvestny... At the same time, tens of thousands of scientists and specialists emigrated from Russia, mainly in the technical sciences.

Between 1991 and 1994, the volume of federal contributions to science in Russia decreased by 80%. The outflow of scientists aged 31-45 years abroad annually amounted to 70-90 thousand. On the contrary, the influx of young personnel has sharply decreased. In 1994, the United States sold 444 thousand patents and licenses, and only 4 thousand to Russia. The scientific potential of Russia decreased by 3 times: in 1980 there were over 3 million specialists engaged in science, in 1996 - less than 1 million.

Brain drain is possible only from those countries that have high scientific and cultural potential. If in Europe and America Russian scientists and specialists were accepted into the best scientific laboratories, this means that Soviet science in previous years had reached the most advanced levels.

(Conclusion) It turned out that Russia, even being in an economic crisis, is able to offer the world dozens, hundreds of unique discoveries from various fields of science and technology: treatment of tumors; discoveries in the field of genetic engineering; ultraviolet sterilizers for medical instruments; lithium batteries; steel casting process; magnetic welding; artificial kidney; fabric that reflects radiation; cold cathodes for producing ions, etc.

Despite the reduction in cultural funding, more than 10 thousand private publishing houses appeared in the country in the 90s, which in a short time published thousands of previously banned books, starting with Freud and Simmel and ending with Berdyaev. Hundreds of new, including literary, journals have appeared, publishing excellent analytical works. Formed into an independent sphere

religious culture. It consists not only of a several-fold increase in the number of believers, the restoration and construction of new churches and monasteries, the publication of monographs, yearbooks and religious magazines in many cities of Russia, but also the opening of universities, which they did not even dare to dream of under Soviet rule. For example, Orthodox University named after. John the Theologian, which has six faculties (legal, economic, historical, theological, journalistic, historical). At the same time, in the 90s, no outstanding talents appeared in painting, architecture and literature that could be attributed to the new, post-Soviet generation.

Today it is still difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the results of the development of national culture in the 90s. Her creative output has not yet become clear. Apparently, only our descendants can draw final conclusions.

The October Revolution of 1917 turned out to be a great turning point in the fate of Russian culture. A turning point in the literal sense of the word: domestic culture, which was developing along an ascending line, reaching its highest point and worldwide recognition during the “Silver Age”, was stopped and its movement went sharply downward.

As it was thought, proletarian culture was supposed to replace noble and bourgeois cultures.

Simultaneously with the liquidation of the old intelligentsia, the creation of a Soviet intelligentsia was underway, and at an accelerated rate - through “promotion” (yesterday’s workers were nominated by the party bodies to become directors), workers’ faculties (preparatory faculties for accelerated education and preparation of worker-peasant youth for entering universities).

i The most effective means was considered to be general nationalization - not only of factories and factories, but also of theaters and art galleries.

i More actively than others, Proletkult (Proletarian Culture) - a cultural, educational and literary and artistic organization (1917-1932) of proletarian amateur activity under the People's Commissariat of Proletarian Affairs - fought against the old culture, denying cultural heritage.

i The country launched a massive campaign to eliminate illiteracy among adults and children.

[given 14.1)<ыр шина! Исш

Reeds of Ilipom "haddock 1|di|m

The forced preparation of schoolchildren and students at first led to a noticeable decrease in the quality of education.

In the 30s, a new and no less radical turn took place in the activities of the Bolsheviks than in 1917 - a transition from revolutionary asceticism to the well-being of private life and more civilized forms of behavior.

i The poetic symbol of the revolutionary era, with its creative upsurges, persecution of dissidents, throwing and despair of the Russian intelligentsia, seems to be

the activities of three great poets - V. Mayakovsky, A. Blok and S. Yesenin.

i The state of external agreement with the course pursued by the party and internal disagreement with it, for universal and universal reasons, is called “internal emigration.”

i An extremely important place in the development of abstract painting belongs to the brilliant Russian artist, poet and art theorist V.V. Kandinsky

i Another creator of modern art was K.S. Malevich (1878-1935). With him begins the era of Suprematism (from the Latin supremus - highest, last), or the art of geometric abstraction.

i One of the central figures of the Russian avant-garde was V.E. Tatlin (1885-1953), considered the founder of constructivism, a movement that until 1921 was officially recognized by the authorities as the leading direction of revolutionary art.

One of the key figures in the art of the 20th century was the brilliant Russian painter, graphic artist, book illustrator, art theorist P. N. Filonov (1883-1941), the creator of an independent direction of the Russian avant-garde - the so-called analytical art.

One of the largest representatives of surrealism was the brilliant painter, graphic artist, theater artist, illustrator, master of monumental and applied arts M.Z. Chagall (1887-1985). The visionary (dreamlike) essence of his works, coupled with a figurative beginning, with a deep “human dimension,” made Chagall the forerunner of such movements as expressionism and surrealism.

After the Great October Revolution, Russian literature was divided into three camps. The first was made up of writers who refused to accept the revolution and continued to work abroad. The second consisted of those who accepted socialism and glorified the revolution, thus acting as “singers” of the new government. The third included those who were wavering: they either emigrated or returned to their homeland, convinced that a true artist could not create in isolation from his people.

The theoretical result of the stay of Russian thinkers in the West was an original doctrine - Eurasianism.

After the expulsion of leading non-Marxist philosophers from Soviet Russia in 1922, the “Silver Age” of Russian culture actually ended and the beginning of the party’s administrative intervention in the sphere of spiritual culture began. Writers who remained in Russia and accepted the new government were forced to accept a new ideological doctrine, which became the cornerstone of the artistic concept for many decades. It was called socialist realism. Its founder was M. Gorky (1868-1936).

When analyzing the culture of Russia during the Soviet period, it is difficult to maintain an objective, impartial position. Her story is still so close. The life of the older generation of modern Russia is inextricably linked with Soviet culture. Some modern scientists, brought up in the Soviet country and keeping good memories of its achievements, act as apologists for Soviet culture and evaluate it as the pinnacle of “world civilization.” On the other hand, liberal-minded scholars are prone to the other extreme: very gloomy value judgments about the culture of the Soviet period, described in terms of “totalitarianism” and repressiveness towards the individual. The truth, apparently, lies in the middle of these two extreme opinions, so we will try to recreate an objective picture of Soviet culture, in which we will find both major flaws and the highest cultural ups and downs.

The history of the Soviet state is usually divided into stages corresponding to changes in the country's supreme leadership and associated changes in the government's internal political course. Since culture is a conservative phenomenon and much less changeable than the political sphere, the history of Soviet culture can be divided into larger stages that clearly demarcate the main points of its development:

1. Early Soviet culture or the culture of Soviet Russia and the first years of the Soviet Union (from the October Revolution of 1917 to the first half of the 1920s);

2. “Imperial” period of culture of the Soviet Union (second half of the 1920s - 1985) – full-scale construction of a new type of social and cultural model (“Soviet system”), an alternative to the bourgeois model of the capitalist West and claiming universality and universal coverage. During this period, the USSR turned into a superpower that entered into global competition with the countries of the capitalist camp. The political, ideological and cultural influence of Soviet Russia spread across the globe, from Cuba in the west to Southeast Asia in the east. Politically, this historical period consists of several eras, each of which contributed to the formation of the unique appearance of Soviet culture: the period of Stalinist totalitarianism (1930s - mid-1950s), the period of Khrushchev’s “thaw” (mid-1950s to mid-60s), the Brezhnev era of “stagnation”, which ended with the short stay of L.I.’s closest associates. Brezhneva Yu.A. Andropov and K.U. Chernenko as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (1960s - 1985).

3. 1985–1991 - an attempt at political modernization, reforming the cultural foundations of the social system (“Perestroika” by M.S. Gorbachev), which ended with the collapse of the USSR.

The historical and cultural era that followed the collapse of the entire socialist system is usually called the post-Soviet period in Russian culture. From long years of isolation and the construction of a fundamentally new social system, Russia moved to active involvement in the liberal-capitalist path of development, again abruptly changing its course.

In order to understand the uniqueness of the Soviet type of culture, it is necessary to consider its most important characteristic features and the value core on which it was based. At the same time, it is important to understand that state ideology and the propaganda of socialist values by the theoreticians of the Communist Party and the media are only an official layer of culture. In the real cultural life of the Russian people, the socialist worldview and party guidelines were intertwined with traditional values and adjusted by the natural needs of everyday life and the national mentality.

Soviet culture as a unique cultural type

As a fundamental characteristic of Soviet culture, we can note its ideocratic character, which means the dominant role of political ideology in almost all spheres of social and cultural life.

Since the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, the foundations of not only a new statehood (one-party communist regime), but also a fundamentally different type of culture were purposefully laid. The ideology of Marxism-Leninism formed the basis of a new system of values, guidelines and norms that permeate all areas of cultural life. In the field of worldview, this ideology cultivated materialism And militant atheism . Marxist-Leninist materialism was based on the ideological postulate of the primacy of economic relations in the structure of social life. Economics was considered as the “basis” of society, and politics, law and the cultural sphere (morality, art, philosophy, religion) as a “superstructure” over this foundation. The economy was becoming planned , i.e., agricultural and industrial development throughout the country was planned for every five years (five-year plan) in accordance with the strategic state program. The final goal was declared to be construction communism – a higher socio-economic formation and a society of a “bright future”, classless (i.e. absolutely equal), in which everyone will give according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

Since the 1920s class approach they tried to implement it not only in the field of economics and politics, but also in spiritual culture. Creating a workers' and peasants' state, the Soviet government, from the very first days of its foundation, proclaimed a course towards building a proletarian culture oriented towards the masses. Proletarian culture, the creator of which was to be the working people themselves, was ultimately called upon to replace noble and bourgeois culture. In the first years of Soviet power, the remaining elements of the latest cultures were treated quite pragmatically, believing that they could be used until a culture was formed that would meet the needs of the working classes. To educate the masses and introduce them to creativity, under the Leninist government, representatives of the old, “bourgeois” intelligentsia were actively involved, whose leadership role in the future was to be replaced by the newly trained “proletarian” intelligentsia.

The very first steps of the Soviet government in the field of cultural policy speak eloquently about the intentions to build a fundamentally different, non-elite, but generally accessible and people-oriented culture: energetic actions in the field of education reform, nationalization of material cultural values and cultural institutions in order to “accessibility for all working people.” treasures of art created on the basis of the exploitation of their labor,” the gradual development of standards and their tightening in the field of artistic creativity.

It is worth talking about education reform in more detail. In 1919, the Bolshevik government launched a campaign to eliminate illiteracy, during which a comprehensive system of public education was created. Over more than 20 years (from 1917 to 1939), the level of literacy of the country's population increased from 21 to 90%. During the two pre-war five-year plans, the country trained 540 thousand specialists with higher education. In terms of the number of students, the USSR surpassed England, Germany, Austria, Poland and Japan combined. Despite some costs at the beginning of the reform due to the pursuit of quantitative results (shortened programs, accelerated training periods), during its implementation the Soviet state became a country of one hundred percent literacy, with an extensive system of free education. An important link in this system were higher educational institutions, which trained not only high-quality, but also widely erudite specialists. This was an undoubted achievement of the Soviet period.

Ideocracy in fields of art manifested itself in the fact that the latter was perceived instrumentally as a tool for promoting socialist ideals. The ideologization of art occurred not only at the instigation of the Bolsheviks. The task of forming a proletarian culture was enthusiastically embraced by part of the intelligentsia, who were optimistic about the revolution. It is no coincidence that the name of one of the first Soviet, most widespread and extensive cultural and educational organizations is “Proletkult”. Arose on the eve of the October Revolution, it was aimed at stimulating the initiative of workers in the field of artistic creativity. Proletkult created hundreds of creative studios throughout the country (the most popular of them were theater studios), thousands of clubs, and published works of proletarian poets and writers. In addition to Proletkult, in the 1920s, many other unions and artistic associations of the “left” creative intelligentsia spontaneously formed with colorful abbreviations: AHRR (Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia), whose members proclaimed themselves the successors of the realistic style of the “Itinerants”, OST (Society of Easel Painters), which consisted from graduates of the first Soviet art university (VKHUTEMAS - higher artistic and technical workshops), "Prokoll" ("Composers' Production Collective"), which focused on the mass song repertoire, RAPM (Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians), which set itself the task of creating new proletarian music in a counterbalance to the classical one, assessed as bourgeois. In the early period of Soviet culture, there were many other creative associations of politically engaged art, along with ideologically neutral artistic circles that survived from the Silver Age, such as the World of Art. However, by the 1930s, this diversity in the country's artistic life gave way to monolithicity due to the strengthening of power and cultural unification. All autonomous artistic associations were liquidated, and they were replaced by state-controlled “Unions” - writers, composers, artists, architects.

In the first years of Soviet power, due to the complexity of the internal situation in the country and the search for guidelines for cultural policy in art, there was a short period of relative freedom of creativity and extreme stylistic diversity. Special historical conditions contributed to the brief flourishing of all kinds of innovative movements that broke ties with the artistic traditions of old academicism. This is how Russian turned out avant-garde , whose origins go back to the beginning of the First World War. Since 1915, such associations as the “Jack of Diamonds” and the “Supremus” circle existed in Moscow, which promoted a fundamentally new approach to fine art. Thanks to the democratic position of the head of Narkompros (Ministry of Education) A.V. Lunacharsky to the artistic intelligentsia, loyal to the Bolshevik government, the activities of avant-garde artists were not at all embarrassed. Moreover, their leading representatives were involved in government structures in charge of cultural policy. The famous author of “Black Square” K. S. Malevich, the founder of the art of geometric abstraction, or Suprematism (from lat. supremus- highest, last) headed the museum section of the People's Commissariat for Education, V. E. Tatlin, founder constructivism in architecture and the author of the ambitious project of the “monument to the Third Communist International” headed the Moscow Collegium, V. Kandinsky, who later gained worldwide fame as one of the founders of the association of abstract artists of Germany “Blue Rider” - literary and publishing section, O. Brik, literary critic, member literary and artistic association LEF (Left Front of the Arts), was deputy chairman of the fine arts department.

Among the above listed styles, a special place belonged to constructivism, which until 1921 was officially proclaimed the main direction of revolutionary art, and in fact dominated in architecture and the arts and crafts until the early 1930s, when there was a revival of classical traditions in the form of the so-called “Stalinist Empire style.” " The main idea of constructivism was the practically useful use of abstract art. Soviet constructivist architects built many original buildings of cultural centers, clubs, and apartment buildings. From the depths of this movement came the production art of “artist-engineers” who abandoned easel types of traditional art, focused on creating strictly functionally determined household items.

By the end of the 1920s, a short period of creative freedom gave way to a transition to a totalitarian regime and the introduction of strict censorship. In the field of artistic creativity, the only correct method has been established socialist realism (since 1929), the principles of which were formulated by M. Gorky. The method of socialist realism consisted in a truthful depiction of life in the light of socialist ideals, which essentially meant the implementation in art of both content and form of party guidelines. The gradually introduced class approach led to the suppression of free creativity, increasingly narrowing the ideological boundaries of what was “permissible.”

As a result of the harsh ideological pressure and the practice of persecuting talented individuals who declared themselves under the conditions of Tsarist Russia, but were not convenient for the authorities with their civic position, Russia lost hundreds of thousands of educated people who were expelled from the country or emigrated of their own free will. As is known, for one reason or another, many writers, artists, painters, musicians ended up in emigration, whose names rightfully became the property of world culture (K. Balmont, I. Bunin, Z. Gippius, D. Merezhkovsky, V. Nabokov, A. Kuprin, M. Tsvetaeva, A. Tolstoy, S. Rachmaninov, F. Shalyapin, etc.). The consequence of the policy of repression against the scientific and creative intelligentsia was split in Russian culture since the beginning of the Soviet period into two centers. The first center was Soviet Russia, and later the Soviet Union (from 1922). It should also be noted that a spiritual split also occurred within Soviet society, although much later, after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the debunking of Stalin’s “cult of personality,” when the movement of “sixties” dissidents arose. However, this movement was very narrow; it covered only part of the intelligentsia community.

Culture of Russia of the Soviet and post-Soviet period

1. CULTURE OF RUSSIA IN THE SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PERIODS

1. CULTURE OF RUSSIA SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET

PERIODS

Three main stages can be distinguished in the development of Soviet culture. The first of them covers 1917–1929. and is marked by the struggle between the tendency towards ideological and cultural pluralism and the desire of the party state to suppress diversity and create a totalitarian culture. The second stage occurred between 1929 and 1956. and is characterized by the dominance of an ideologically monopolistic culture, the dominance of the method of socialist realism in the sphere of artistic activity.

1.1 Soviet culture 1917-1929

During the Civil War, Proletkult, a community of cultural workers formed in October 1917, which proclaimed the class approach as the basis of its creativity, enjoyed the support of the new government. Its leaders (A.A. Bogdanov, V.F. Pletnev and others) called on the proletariat to abandon the artistic heritage of the past and create “completely new” socialist forms of art. The network of Proletkult organizations covered the entire Soviet Russia, absorbing almost 400 thousand people. This association introduced a lot of vulgar, primitive, pseudo-artistic samples into new literature and other forms of art, being subjected to impartial criticism by M.A. Bulgakov in the novel “The Master and Margarita”. In the 20s Proletkult was abandoned by his temporary fellow travelers, the most talented prose writers and poets.

An indicative sign of the vibrant cultural and social life of the 20s. – creative discussions. Thus, in 1924, the subject of discussion became the formal method in art. New magazines were a means of mass dissemination of ideas and opinions, and subsequently played a prominent role in the socio-political and artistic life of the country (New World, Young Guard, October, Zvezda, etc.).

The formation of a new culture took place in an atmosphere of increased artistic activity and intense creative and aesthetic quest. Literature developed most intensively, still preserving the diversity of schools, movements, and groups that inherited the creative potential of the art of the Silver Age. Among the large number of works created at this time, there were many masterpieces that made the glory of Russian Soviet literature. Their authors are E.I. Zamyatin, M.A. Bulgakov, M. Gorky, M.M. Zoshchenko, A.P. Platonov, M.A. Sholokhov, S.A. Yesenin, N.A. Klyuev, B.L. Pasternak, O.E. Mandelstam, A.A. Akhmatova, V.V. Mayakovsky, M.I. Tsvetaeva and other wordsmiths were looking for new ways and forms of creative self-expression, while continuing to develop the best traditions of high Russian culture.

It should be noted that both during the period of “war communism” and during the NEP period, all theaters were ordered from above to stage plays on revolutionary themes.

1.2 Soviet culture 1929-1956

Since the late 20s. There have been radical changes in the life of Soviet society. The market option for the economic development of the country was rejected, which was explained by the strengthening of the power of the Communist Party, which set the task of mobilizing all resources for accelerated socialist construction. A totalitarian political system was taking shape, there was a sharp restriction of artistic freedom, a curtailment of forms of ideological pluralism, and the establishment of strict party-state control over all areas of social life. This had a negative impact on the development of culture. A sharp change in cultural policy in 1929–1934. was accompanied by the elimination of the remnants of artistic pluralism and literary factionalism.

Interest in the historical genre has increased, as evidenced, in particular, by the unfinished novel by A.N. Tolstoy “Peter the Great” (1929–1945), historical epic by A.S. Novikov-Priboy "Tsushima" (1932–1935).

Mass forms of art - theater and cinema - developed rapidly. If in 1914 there were 152 theaters in Russia, then by January 1, 1938 there were 702. The art of cinema enjoyed increased attention from the ruling party and the state, since it was distinguished by a quick and lasting impact on people’s consciousness; 30–40s became the time of formation of the Soviet cinematographic school. Her achievements are associated with the names of directors S.M. Eisenstein, G.V. Alexandrova, S.A. Gerasimova, M.I. Romm, Vasilyev brothers. The comedies “Volga-Volga”, “Jolly Fellows”, “Circus”, historical films “Chapaev”, “Alexander Nevsky”, “Peter the Great”, “Suvorov” were very popular.

In painting and sculpture of the 30s. Socialist realism reigned. B.V. worked in this vein and received official recognition. Ioganson, A.A. Deineka, S.V. Gerasimov. However, their contemporaries, the talented artists K.S., were not appreciated. Petrov-Vodkin, P.D. Korin, V.A. Favorsky, P.P. Konchalovsky. The leading positions were occupied by the portrait genre, in which the objects of depiction were, first of all, party and government figures (primarily Stalin), as well as officially recognized figures of science and art, simple workers - leaders of production. In 1937, at the height of Stalin’s terror, a talentedly executed sublime image of the Soviet era appeared - the monumental statue “Worker and Collective Farm Woman” by V.I. Mukhina, who became a symbol of idealized statehood.

Over the two decades of Soviet power, noticeable progress was achieved in the field of science: the number of scientific workers approached 100 thousand, which exceeded the pre-revolutionary level by almost 10 times. There were about 1,800 research institutes in the USSR (289 in 1914). In science in the 30s and 40s. such great scientists as V.I. Vernadsky, I.P. Pavlov, I.V. Kurchatov, P.L. Kapitsa, S. V. Lebedev.

Great Patriotic War (1941–1945). Many problems and contradictions of Soviet society were exposed by the war. It was a time of moral upsurge and spiritual unity of the people. In order to achieve victory over the external enemy, the authorities were forced to postpone the “witch hunt” and introduce a temporary moratorium on mass repressions for dissent and “unauthorized initiative.” For thinking people, these years, despite all the hardships, seemed like a “breath of freedom.” The activity of the creative intelligentsia has increased.

A grim phenomenon in the post-war years was the renewed trials of “enemies of the people” and the so-called development campaigns. The denunciation campaigns began with a series of party resolutions of 1946–1948. on issues of literature and art: “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad””, “On the repertoire of drama theaters and measures to improve it”, “On the opera “The Great Friendship” by V.I. Muradeli”, “About the film “Big Life”. Party criticism of A.A. Zhdanov and his henchmen, “dissent” resulted in a stream of insults addressed to apostates from the “general line” - A.A. Akhmatova, M.M. Zoshchenko, D.D. Shostakovich, S.S. Prokofiev and even officially recognized film directors A.P. Dovzhenko and S.A. Gerasimova. Some were accused of lack of ideas in creativity, formalism, distortion of Soviet reality, currying favor with the West, others - denigration, subjective depiction of history, incorrect placement of emphasis in the depiction of new life, tendentious assessment of significant events, etc.

1.3 Soviet culture 1956-1991

Soviet culture realism artistic postmodernism

A “warming” has begun in the public sphere; It is no coincidence that the Khrushchev era is called the “thaw” (a successful metaphor comes from the title of the story by I. Ehrenburg). Party-ideological control decreased somewhat, the shoots of free-thinking emerged, and symptoms of spiritual revival appeared. The publication in 1966–1967 did not go unnoticed. novel by M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". These changes led to a rapid increase in the creative activity of the intelligentsia.

A notable event in the field of education was the school reform, which was carried out in 1958–1964. Its main goal was to turn the school into a reserve for recruiting the working class and the technical intelligentsia. In 1958, the Law “On strengthening the connection between school and life and the further development of the public education system” was adopted. In accordance with this law, compulsory 8-year incomplete secondary education was introduced and the duration of complete secondary education was increased to 11 years. The school had to acquire a polytechnic profile, which was facilitated by compulsory industrial training for high school students. Applicants who had work experience enjoyed advantages when entering universities.

In the 50s–60s. There was a leap in the development of Russian science. In a number of main areas, Soviet science occupied leading positions and stimulated technical progress; great discoveries of talented scientists received practical implementation. Outstanding successes have been achieved in space exploration, rocket science and the use of atomic energy. In 1957, the first launch of the Earth satellite was carried out, and in 1961, the first manned flight into space took place. The Soviet Union was the first to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes: the first nuclear power plant began operating in 1954, and the nuclear icebreaker Lenin set sail in 1957.

Never has so much money been invested in science as in these years. Over two decades, costs have increased almost 12 times. It was in the 50s and 60s. The bulk of the discoveries and inventions were made, for which Soviet scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in the field of exact and natural sciences. Thus, in the field of physics, 9 Soviet scientists became laureates, including Academician L.D. Landau, who created the theories of superfluidity and superconductivity, academicians A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov, who designed the world's first laser. During this period, there was a significant quantitative and territorial expansion of the network of research institutes, experimental stations and laboratories. In 1957, construction began on the Novosibirsk academic campus, which became one of the country's leading scientific centers in the field of applied mathematics and physics.

The post-Stalin period saw a creative growth in theatrical art. Theaters were actively looking for their own path of development, acquiring their own style and aesthetic position.

However, in general, stagnation still affected culture to a lesser extent than the economy and political sphere. The powerful humanistic-renovationist impulse she received during the years of Khrushchev’s “thaw” continued to nourish bright, extraordinary personalities in literature, theater, cinema, and painting. In the 70–80s. artistic life in the country continued to be very rich.

The concept of “stagnation” is least applicable to literature. In terms of the richness of creative individuals, breadth of themes, and variety of artistic techniques, the literature of this time is comparable to the literature of the 20s. The winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature were M.A. Sholokhov (1965), A.I. Solzhenitsyn (1970), I.A. Brodsky (1987). In general, literature of the 70s and 80s. developed under the influence of ideas and attitudes that arose during the “thaw”. “Rural”, “military”, “urban” prose has reached a new creative level.

Soviet cinema, closely connected with reflective literature, despite the control, prohibitions and “guiding hand” of the dominant state order, in the 70s and 80s. reached its peak. E.A. made his best films. Ryazanov, M.A. Zakharov, T.M. Lioznova, G.N. Danelia, N.S. Mikhalkov. Children's cinema and animation developed, embodying the ideas of goodness and philanthropy at a high artistic level. It was difficult for Soviet elite cinema to navigate its way, overcoming bureaucratic indifference and misunderstanding of colleagues. “His central figure is A. A. Tarkovsky, who declared himself as a philosopher and experimental director. His films “Ivan’s Childhood”, “Andrei Rublev”, “Solaris”, “Mirror”, “Stalker”, “Nostalgia”, “ Sacrifice” opened up the possibility of an unconventional philosophical reading of time and man and, in essence, revealed a new film language.

The emergence of dissidence was met with hostility by party bodies. In the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On measures to further increase the political vigilance of Soviet people” (1977), dissidence was defined as a harmful trend that discredited the Soviet political system, therefore its participants were subject to criminal liability. In the 60–70s. Over 7 thousand people were convicted for dissent. Director Yu.P. ended up in exile. Lyubimov, artist M.M. Shemyakin, sculptor E.I. Unknown, musician M.L. Rostropovich, poets I.A. Brodsky and A.A. Galich, writers V.P. Nekrasov, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and other prominent cultural figures. These were representatives of the intellectual elite, whose creativity and civic position were classified by the authorities as “discrediting the Soviet state system.”

Rock and roll became a kind of musical accompaniment to underground culture. In the mid-60s. a number of amateur and professional youth groups in Moscow and Leningrad, and then in other cities, began to play rock music. Its main feature was its withdrawal into its own world, which had nothing in common with the myth of developed socialism and the appearance of its historical superiority. Hence the social pointedness of some texts and the shocking performance. The deliberate carelessness of the costumes and the extravagant appearance of the musicians seemed to further emphasize their denial of the “yoke of collectivity” and their reluctance to be “like everyone else.” Encountering opposition from official bodies, rock groups either switched to a semi-legal existence, or, combining the style of early rock music with pop songs, created vocal and instrumental ensembles (VIA) and continued their concert activities. In the 70–80s. genre and style features of Russian rock music have emerged. The emphasis in it was on words, “cocky” texts that excite the minds and feelings of avant-garde youth, and “groovy” improvisations. Its countercultural, socially progressive position was powerfully “voiced” by the group “Alice” (leader – Konstantin Kinchev).

Perestroika and glasnost. In 1985–1991 Attempts were made to radically reform society, which, however, getting out of all control, accelerated the collapse of the USSR, due to the collapse of the party-state monopoly and planned regulation of the economy. The collapse of socialist society was accompanied by the aggravation of social and national conflicts, the loss of influence on the social strata of the dominant type of regulated culture, the decomposition of the ideological system, and the loss of attractiveness of distorted communist values and ideals.

In general, the project of the declared perestroika was a fiasco, turning out to be not only unviable, but also destructive. It was doomed to fail from the start due to at least three major flaws:

1. This project did not contain a realistic, constructive program for transferring the socialist economy to a market economy during the transition period.

2. Its ideological basis eclectically combined incompatible doctrinaire-communist, social-democratic, neoliberal values and ideas.

3. He did not have clear prospects for a systemic evolutionary transformation of the economy, culture, ideology, social structure, or state-political system of a crisis society.

1.4 Culture of Russia in the post-Soviet period

List of sources used

1. Drach G.V., Matyash T.P. Culturology. Brief thematic dictionary. – M.: Phoenix, 2001.

2. Shirshov I.E. Culturology – theory and history of culture: textbook / Shirshov I.E. – Mn.: Ecoperspective, 2010.

3. Ehrengross B.A. Culturology. Textbook for universities / B.A. Ehrengross, R.G. Apresyan, E. Botvinnik - M.: Onyx, 2007.

4. Cultural studies. Textbook / Edited by A.A. Radugina - M., 2001.