A depiction of life in the light of the ideals of socialism. Socialist realism in literature

To understand how and why socialist realism arose, it is necessary to briefly characterize the socio-historical and political situation of the first three decades of the beginning of the 20th century, because this method, like no other, was politicized. The dilapidation of the monarchical regime, its numerous miscalculations and failures (the Russo-Japanese War, corruption at all levels of government, cruelty in suppressing demonstrations and riots, “Rasputinism,” etc.) gave rise to mass discontent in Russia. In intellectual circles it has become a rule of good manners to be in opposition to the government. A significant part of the intelligentsia falls under the spell of the teachings of K. Marx, who promised to organize the society of the future on new, fair conditions. The Bolsheviks declared themselves to be genuine Marxists, standing out among other parties for the scale of their plans and the “scientific” nature of their forecasts. And although few people really studied Marx, it became fashionable to be a Marxist, and therefore a supporter of the Bolsheviks.

This craze also affected M. Gorky, who began as an admirer of Nietzsche and by the beginning of the 20th century gained wide popularity in Russia as a herald of the coming political “storm.” In the writer’s work, images of proud and strong people appear, rebelling against a gray and gloomy life. Gorky later recalled: “When I first wrote the Man with a Capital Letter, I still did not know what kind of great man he was. His image was not clear to me. In 1903, I realized that the Man with a Capital Letter was embodied in the Bolsheviks led by Lenin ".

Gorky, who had almost outlived his passion for Nietzscheanism, expressed his new knowledge in the novel “Mother” (1907). There are two central lines in this novel. In Soviet literary criticism, especially in school and university courses on the history of literature, the figure of Pavel Vlasov, growing from an ordinary craftsman to the leader of the working masses, came to the fore. The image of Pavel embodies the central Gorky concept, according to which the true master of life is a person endowed with reason and rich in spirit, at the same time a practical worker and a romantic, confident in the possibility of the practical implementation of the eternal dream of humanity - to build a kingdom of reason and goodness on Earth. Gorky himself believed that his main merit as a writer was that he was “the first in Russian literature and, perhaps, the first in life, like this, personally, to understand the greatest importance of labor - labor that forms everything that is most valuable, everything beautiful, everything great in this world."

In “Mother,” the labor process and its role in the transformation of personality are only declared, and yet it is the man of labor who is made in the novel the mouthpiece of the author’s thought. Subsequently, Soviet writers would take Gorky’s oversight into account, and the production process in all its subtleties would be described in works about the working class.

Having a predecessor in the person of Chernyshevsky, who created the image of a positive hero fighting for universal happiness, Gorky at first also painted heroes who rise above everyday life (Chelkash, Danko, Burevestnik). In "Mother" Gorky said a new word. Pavel Vlasov is not like Rakhmetov, who feels free and at ease everywhere, knows everything and can do everything, and is endowed with heroic strength and character. Paul is a man of the crowd. He is “like everyone else,” only his faith in the justice and necessity of the cause he serves is stronger and stronger than that of the rest. And here he rises to such heights that were unknown to Rakhmetov. Rybin says about Pavel: “The man knew that they could hit him with a bayonet and treat him with hard labor, but he went. If his mother had laid down on him on the road, he would have stepped over. Would he have gone, Nilovna, over you?” “He would have gone!” the mother said, sighing. ..." And Andrei Nakhodka, one of the characters most dear to the author, agrees with Pavel ("For comrades, for the cause - I can do anything! And I will kill. Even my son...").

Even in the 20s, Soviet literature, reflecting the cruelest intensity of passions in the Civil War, told about how a girl kills her beloved - an ideological enemy ("The Forty-First" by B. Lavrenev), how brothers, scattered by the whirlwind of revolution in different camps, destroy each other, how sons put their fathers to death, and they execute children ("Don Stories" by M. Sholokhov, "Cavalry" by I. Babel, etc.), however, the writers still avoided touching on the problem of ideological antagonism between mother and son.

The image of Pavel in the novel is recreated with sharp poster strokes. Here in Pavel’s house, craftsmen and intellectuals gather and conduct political disputes, here he leads a crowd indignant at the arbitrariness of the management (the story of the “swamp penny”), here Vlasov walks at a demonstration in front of the column with a red banner in his hands, here he speaks at the trial diatribe. The hero's thoughts and feelings are revealed mainly in his speeches; Paul's inner world is hidden from the reader. And this is not Gorky’s miscalculation, but his credo. “I,” he once emphasized, “start from a person, and a person begins for me with his thoughts.” That is why the characters in the novel so willingly and often come up with declarative justifications for their activities.

However, it is not for nothing that the novel is called “Mother” and not “Pavel Vlasov”. Pavel's rationalism sets off the mother's emotionality. She is driven not by reason, but by love for her son and his comrades, since she feels in her heart that they want the best for everyone. Nilovna doesn’t really understand what Pavel and his friends are talking about, but she believes they are right. And this faith is akin to religious.

Nilovna “before meeting new people and ideas, she was a deeply religious woman. But here’s the paradox: this religiosity almost does not interfere with the mother, and more often helps to penetrate the light of the new creed carried by her son, the socialist and atheist Pavel.<...>And even later, her new revolutionary enthusiasm takes on the character of some kind of religious exaltation, when, for example, going to the village with illegal literature, she feels like a young pilgrim who goes to a distant monastery to venerate a miraculous icon. Or - when the words of a revolutionary song at a demonstration are mixed in the mother’s mind with Easter singing in honor of the risen Christ."

And young atheist revolutionaries themselves often resort to religious phraseology and parallels. The same Nakhodka addresses the demonstrators and the crowd: “We have now gone on a religious procession in the name of the new god, the god of light and truth, the god of reason and goodness! Our goal is far from us, the crowns of thorns are close!” Another of the characters in the novel states that the proletarians of all countries have one common religion - the religion of socialism. Paul hangs a reproduction in his room depicting Christ and the apostles on the road to Emmaus (Nilovna later compares his son and his comrades with this picture). Having already started distributing leaflets and becoming part of the circle of revolutionaries, Nilovna “began to pray less, but thought more and more about Christ and about the people who, without mentioning his name, as if not even knowing about him, lived - it seemed to her - according to his commandments and, like him, considering the earth to be the kingdom of the poor, they wanted to divide equally among people all the riches of the earth." Some researchers generally see in Gorky’s novel a modification of “the Christian myth of the Savior (Pavel Vlasov), sacrificing himself in the name of all humanity, and his mother (that is, the Mother of God).”

All these features and motives, if they had appeared in any work of a Soviet writer of the thirties and forties, would have immediately been regarded by critics as “slander” against the proletariat. However, in Gorky’s novel these aspects of it were hushed up, since “Mother” was declared the source of socialist realism, and it was impossible to explain these episodes from the standpoint of the “main method”.

The situation was further complicated by the fact that such motives in the novel were not accidental. In the early nineties, V. Bazarov, A. Bogdanov, N. Valentinov, A. Lunacharsky, M. Gorky and a number of other lesser-known Social Democrats, in search of philosophical truth, moved away from orthodox Marxism and became supporters of Machism. The aesthetic side of Russian Machism was substantiated by Lunacharsky, from whose point of view the already outdated Marxism became the “fifth great religion.” Both Lunacharsky himself and his like-minded people also made an attempt to create a new religion that professed the cult of strength, the cult of a superman, free from lies and oppression. In this teaching, elements of Marxism, Machism and Nietzscheanism are intricately intertwined. Gorky shared and in his work popularized this system of views, known in the history of Russian social thought under the name “god-building.”

First, G. Plekhanov, and then even more sharply Lenin, criticized the views of the breakaway allies. However, in Lenin’s book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” (1909), Gorky’s name was not mentioned: the head of the Bolsheviks was aware of the power of Gorky’s influence on the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia and youth and did not want to separate the “petrel of the revolution” from Bolshevism.

In a conversation with Gorky, Lenin spoke about his novel as follows: “The book is necessary, many workers participated in the revolutionary movement unconsciously, spontaneously, and now they will read “Mother” with great benefit for themselves”; "A very timely book." This judgment is indicative of a pragmatic approach to a work of art, resulting from the main provisions of Lenin’s article “Party Organization and Party Literature” (1905). In it, Lenin advocated for a “literary cause,” which “cannot be an individual cause, independent of the general proletarian cause,” and demanded that the “literary cause” become “a wheel and a cog of a single great social-democratic mechanism.” Lenin himself had in mind party journalism, but already from the beginning of the 30s, his words in the USSR began to be interpreted broadly and applied to all branches of art. This article, according to the authoritative publication, gives “a detailed demand for communist party membership in fiction...<.. >It is precisely the mastery of the communist party, according to Lenin, that leads to liberation from errors, beliefs, and prejudices, since only Marxism is a true and correct teaching." And just at the time of Gorky’s passion for “god-building,” Lenin, conducting an epistolary dispute with the writer, “ at the same time I tried to involve him in practical work in the party press...".

Lenin completely succeeded in this. Until 1917, Gorky was an active supporter of Bolshevism, helping Lenin's party in word and deed. However, Gorky was in no hurry to part with his “delusions”: in the journal “Chronicle” (1915) he founded, the leading role belonged to the “arch-suspicious bloc of Machists” (V. Lenin).

Almost two decades passed before the ideologists of the Soviet state discovered the original principles of socialist realism in Gorky’s novel. The situation is very strange. After all, if a writer grasped and managed to translate into artistic images the postulates of a new advanced method, then he would immediately have followers and successors. This is exactly what happened with romanticism and sentimentalism. Gogol's themes, ideas and techniques were also picked up and replicated by representatives of the Russian "natural school". This did not happen with socialist realism. On the contrary, in the first decade and a half of the 20th century, Russian literature was characterized by the aestheticization of individualism, a burning interest in the problems of non-existence and death, and the rejection not only of party affiliation, but also of citizenship in general. An eyewitness and participant in the revolutionary events of 1905, M. Osorgin, testifies: “...Youth in Russia, having moved away from the revolution, rushed to waste their lives in a drunken drug stupor, in sexual experiments, in suicide circles; this life was reflected in literature” (“Times” ", 1955).

That is why, even in the social democratic environment, “Mother” did not initially receive wide recognition. G. Plekhanov, the most authoritative judge in the field of aesthetics and philosophy in revolutionary circles, spoke of Gorky’s novel as an unsuccessful work, emphasizing: “people who encourage him to act in the roles of a thinker and preacher do him a very disservice; he is not created for such roles.” .

And Gorky himself, in 1917, when the Bolsheviks were still establishing themselves in power, although its terrorist nature had already manifested itself quite clearly, revised his attitude towards the revolution, coming out with a series of articles “Untimely Thoughts.” The Bolshevik government immediately closed the newspaper in which Untimely Thoughts were published, accusing the writer of slandering the revolution and failing to see the main thing in it.

However, Gorky’s position was shared by quite a few literary artists who had previously been sympathetic to the revolutionary movement. A. Remizov creates “The Word of the Death of the Russian Land”, I. Bunin, A. Kuprin, K. Balmont, I. Severyanin, I. Shmelev and many others emigrate and oppose Soviet power abroad. The “Serapion Brothers” demonstratively refuse any participation in the ideological struggle, striving to escape into a world of conflict-free existence, and E. Zamyatin predicts a totalitarian future in the novel “We” (published in 1924 abroad). Soviet literature at the initial stage of its development included proletcult abstract “universal” symbols and images of the masses, in which the role of creator was assigned to the Machine. Somewhat later, a schematic image of a leader is created, inspiring the same masses of people with his example and not demanding any concessions for himself ("Chocolate" by A. Tarasov-Rodionov, "The Week" by Yu. Libedinsky, "The Life and Death of Nikolai Kurbov" by I. Ehrenburg). The predetermination of these characters was so obvious that in criticism this type of hero immediately received the designation “leather jacket” (a kind of uniform for commissars and other middle-level managers in the first years of the revolution).

Lenin and the party he led were well aware of the importance of the influence of literature and the press in general, which were then the only means of information and propaganda, on the population. That is why one of the first acts of the Bolshevik government was to close all “bourgeois” and “White Guard” newspapers, that is, the press that allows itself to dissent.

The next stage in introducing the new ideology to the masses was the exercise of control over the press. In tsarist Russia there was censorship, guided by a censorship charter, the contents of which were known to publishers and authors, and non-compliance was punishable by fines, closure of the press and imprisonment. In Soviet Russia, censorship was declared abolished, but along with it, freedom of the press practically disappeared. Local officials in charge of ideology were now guided not by censorship regulations, but by “class instinct,” the limits of which were limited either by secret instructions from the center or by their own understanding and diligence.

The Soviet government could not act otherwise. Things did not go at all as planned according to Marx. Not to mention the bloody Civil War and intervention, the workers and peasants themselves repeatedly rose up against the Bolshevik regime, in whose name tsarism was destroyed (the Astrakhan riot of 1918, the Kronstadt rebellion, the Izhevsk workers’ formation that fought on the side of the whites, the “Antonovschina”, etc. .d.). And all this caused retaliatory repressive measures, the purpose of which was to curb the people and teach them unquestioning submission to the will of the leaders.

For the same purpose, after the end of the war, the party begins to tighten ideological control. In 1922, the organizing bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), having discussed the issue of combating petty-bourgeois ideology in the literary and publishing field, decided to recognize the need to support the Serapion Brothers publishing house. This resolution had one caveat that was insignificant at first glance: support for the Serapions would be provided until they took part in reactionary publications. This clause guaranteed the absolute inactivity of party bodies, which could always refer to a violation of the agreed conditions, since any publication, if desired, could be classified as reactionary.

As the economic and political situation in the country becomes somewhat more streamlined, the party begins to pay more and more attention to ideology. Numerous unions and associations still continued to exist in literature; Individual notes of disagreement with the new regime were still heard on the pages of books and magazines. Groups of writers were formed, among which were those who did not accept the displacement of Rus' by industrial Russia (peasant writers), and those who did not propagate Soviet power, but no longer argued with it and were ready to cooperate ("fellow travelers") . “Proletarian” writers were still in the minority, and they could not boast of such popularity as, say, S. Yesenin.

As a result, proletarian writers who did not have special literary authority, but realized the power of influence of the party organization, began to think about the need for all party supporters to unite into a close creative union that could determine literary policy in the country. A. Serafimovich, in one of his letters in 1921, shared his thoughts on this matter with the addressee: “... Whole life is being organized in a new way; how can writers remain as before as artisans, handicraft individualists. And the writers felt the need for a new system of life, communication, creativity, the need for a collective principle."

The party took charge of this process. In the resolution of the XIII Congress of the RCP(b) “On the press” (1924) and in the special resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) “On the party policy in the field of fiction” (1925), the government directly expressed its attitude towards ideological trends in literature. The resolution of the Central Committee declared the need for all possible assistance to “proletarian” writers, attention to “peasant” writers and a tactfully caring attitude towards “fellow travelers”. A “decisive struggle” had to be waged against “bourgeois” ideology. Purely aesthetic problems have not yet been addressed.

But this state of affairs did not suit the party for long. “The influence of socialist reality and the party’s policy, which met the objective needs of artistic creativity, led in the second half of the 20s to the beginning of the 30s to the elimination of “intermediate ideological forms”, to the formation of the ideological and creative unity of Soviet literature,” which was supposed to result in “ universal unanimity."

The first attempt in this direction was not successful. RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) energetically promoted the need for a clear class position in art, and the political and creative platform of the working class led by the Bolshevik Party was offered as an exemplary one. The leaders of RAPP transferred the methods and style of party work to the writers' organization. Those who disagreed were subjected to “processing,” which resulted in “organizational conclusions” (excommunication from the press, defamation in everyday life, etc.).

It would seem that such a writers' organization should have been quite suitable for a party that rested on the iron discipline of execution. It turned out differently. The Rappites, “fierce zealots” of the new ideology, imagined themselves to be its high priests and, on this basis, dared to propose the ideological guidelines of the supreme power itself. A small group of writers (far from being the most outstanding) were supported by Rapp's leadership as truly proletarian, while the sincerity of their “fellow travelers” (for example, A. Tolstoy) was questioned. Sometimes even such writers as M. Sholokhov were classified by RAPP as “exponents of the White Guard ideology.” The party, which focused on restoring the country’s economy destroyed by war and revolution, at the new historical stage was interested in attracting to its side as many “experts” as possible in all fields of science, technology and art. Rapp's leadership did not catch the new trends.

And then the party takes a number of measures to establish a new type of writers' union. The involvement of writers in the “common cause” was carried out gradually. “Shock brigades” of writers are organized, which are sent to industrial new buildings, collective farms, etc., works that reflect the labor enthusiasm of the proletariat are promoted and encouraged in every possible way. A new type of writer, “an active figure in Soviet democracy” (A. Fadeev, Vs. Vishnevsky, A. Makarenko, etc.) becomes a notable figure. Writers are involved in writing collective works like “History of Factories and Plants” or “History of the Civil War,” initiated by Gorky. To improve the artistic skills of young proletarian writers, the magazine “Literary Study” is created, headed by the same Gorky.

Finally, considering that the ground was sufficiently prepared, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted the resolution “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (1932). Until now, nothing like this has been observed in world history: the authorities have never directly intervened in the literary process or decreed the working methods of its participants. Previously, governments banned and burned books, imprisoned authors or bought them, but did not regulate the conditions for the existence of literary unions and groups, much less dictate methodological principles.

The resolution of the Central Committee spoke of the need to liquidate RAPP and unite all writers who support the party's policies and strive to participate in socialist construction into a single Union of Soviet Writers. Immediately, similar resolutions were adopted by the majority of the union republics.

Soon preparations began for the First All-Union Congress of Writers, which was led by the organizing committee headed by Gorky. The writer's activity in pursuing the party line was clearly encouraged. In the same 1932, the “Soviet public” widely celebrated Gorky’s “40th anniversary of literary and revolutionary activity,” and then the main street of Moscow, the airplane and the city where he spent his childhood were named after him.

Gorky is also involved in the formation of a new aesthetics. In mid-1933, he published the article “On Socialist Realism.” It repeats the theses that the writer varied many times in the 30s: all world literature is based on the struggle of classes, “our young literature is called upon by history to finish off and bury everything hostile to people,” i.e., “philistinism” broadly interpreted by Gorky. The essence of the affirmative pathos of new literature and its methodology is discussed briefly and in the most general terms. According to Gorky, the main task of young Soviet literature is “... to excite that proud, joyful pathos that gives our literature a new tone, which will help create new forms, create the new direction we need - socialist realism, which - of course - can be created only on the facts of socialist experience." It is important to emphasize one circumstance here: Gorky speaks of socialist realism as a matter of the future, and the principles of the new method are not very clear to him. In the present, according to Gorky, socialist realism is still in its infancy. Meanwhile, the term itself already appears here. Where did it come from and what was meant by it?

Let us turn to the memoirs of I. Gronsky, one of the party leaders assigned to literature to guide it. In the spring of 1932, says Gronsky, a commission of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was created to specifically solve the problems of restructuring literary and artistic organizations. The commission included five people who had not shown themselves in any way in literature: Stalin, Kaganovich, Postyshev, Stetsky and Gronsky.

On the eve of the commission meeting, Stalin summoned Gronsky and stated that the issue of dispersing RAPP had been resolved, but “creative issues remain unresolved, and the main one is the question of Rapp’s dialectical-creative method. Tomorrow, at the commission, the Rappovites will certainly raise this issue. That’s why we need in advance, before the meeting, to determine our attitude towards it: whether we accept it or, on the contrary, reject it. Do you have any proposals on this matter?" .

Stalin’s attitude to the problem of artistic method is very indicative here: if it is unprofitable to use the Rappov method, it is necessary to immediately, in contrast to it, put forward a new one. Stalin himself, busy with state affairs, had no thoughts on this matter, but he had no doubt that in a single artistic union it was necessary to introduce a single method, which would make it possible to manage the writers' organization, ensuring its clear and harmonious functioning and, therefore, the imposition of a single state ideology.

Only one thing was clear: the new method had to be realistic, because all sorts of “formal tricks” by the ruling elite, brought up on the work of revolutionary democrats (Lenin resolutely rejected all “isms”), were considered inaccessible to the broad masses, and it was precisely the latter that the art of the proletariat was supposed to focus on . Since the late 20s, writers and critics have been groping for the essence of new art. According to Rapp’s theory of the “dialectical-materialist method,” one should follow the “psychological realists” (mainly L. Tolstoy), putting at the forefront a revolutionary worldview that helps “tearing off all and every mask.” Lunacharsky (“social realism”), Mayakovsky (“tendentious realism”), and A. Tolstoy (“monumental realism”) spoke about the same thing; among other definitions of realism, such as “romantic” and “heroic” appeared. and simply “proletarian”. Let us note that the Rappites considered romanticism in modern art unacceptable.

Gronsky, who had never thought about the theoretical problems of art before, began with the simplest thing - he proposed the name of the new method (he did not sympathize with the Rappovites, therefore he did not accept their method), rightly judging that later theorists would fill the term with suitable content. He proposed the following definition: “proletarian socialist, or even better, communist realism.” Stalin chose the second of three adjectives, justifying his choice as follows: “The advantage of such a definition is, firstly, brevity (only two words), secondly, clarity and, thirdly, an indication of continuity in the development of literature (literature of critical realism, which arose at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic social movement, passes and develops at the stage of the proletarian socialist movement into the literature of socialist realism)."

The definition is clearly unsuccessful, since the artistic category in it is preceded by a political term. Subsequently, theorists of socialist realism tried to justify this connection, but were not very successful. In particular, Academician D. Markov wrote: “... taking the word “socialist” away from the general name of the method, they interpret it in a bare sociological way: they believe that this part of the formula reflects only the artist’s worldview, his socio-political convictions. Meanwhile, there should be it is clearly realized that we are talking about a certain (but also extremely free, not limited, in fact, in its theoretical rights) type of aesthetic cognition and transformation of the world." This was said more than half a century after Stalin, but it hardly clarifies anything, since the identity of the political and aesthetic categories is still not eliminated.

At the First All-Union Writers' Congress in 1934, Gorky defined only the general tendency of the new method, also emphasizing its social orientation: “Socialist realism affirms being as an act, as creativity, the goal of which is the continuous development of the most valuable individual abilities of man for the sake of his victory over the forces of nature, for the sake of his health and longevity, for the sake of great happiness to live on earth." Obviously, this pathetic declaration did not add anything to the interpretation of the essence of the new method.

So, the method has not yet been formulated, but has already been put into use, the writers have not yet recognized themselves as representatives of the new method, but its pedigree is already being created, its historical roots are being discovered. Gronsky recalled that in 1932, “at a meeting, all the members of the commission who spoke and the chairman P. P. Postyshev stated that socialist realism as a creative method of fiction and art actually arose a long time ago, long before the October Revolution, mainly in the works of M. Gorky , and we have just given it a name (formulated)."

Socialist realism found a clearer formulation in the SSP Charter, in which the style of party documents makes itself felt. So, “socialist realism, being the main method of Soviet fiction and literary criticism, requires from the artist a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. At the same time, the truthfulness and historical specificity of the artistic depiction of reality must be combined with the task of ideological reworking and education working people in the spirit of socialism." It is curious that the definition of socialist realism as main method of literature and criticism, according to Gronsky, arose as a result of tactical considerations and should have been removed later, but remained forever, since Gronsky simply forgot to do it.

The Charter of the SSP noted that socialist realism does not canonize genres and methods of creativity and provides ample opportunities for creative initiative, but how this initiative can manifest itself in a totalitarian society was not explained in the Charter.

In subsequent years, in the works of theorists, the new method gradually acquired visible features. Socialist realism was characterized by the following features: a new theme (primarily the revolution and its achievements) and a new type of hero (a working man), endowed with a sense of historical optimism; disclosure of conflicts in the light of the prospects for the revolutionary (progressive) development of reality. In the most general form, these characteristics can be reduced to ideological, partisanship and nationality (the latter implied, along with themes and problems close to the interests of the “masses,” simplicity and accessibility of the image, “necessary” for the general reader).

Since it was announced that socialist realism arose even before the revolution, it was necessary to draw a line of continuity with pre-October literature. As we know, Gorky and, first of all, his novel “Mother” were declared the founder of socialist realism. However, one work was, of course, not enough, and there were no others of this kind. Therefore, it was necessary to elevate the work of revolutionary democrats, which, unfortunately, could not be placed next to Gorky in all ideological parameters.

Then they begin to look for signs of a new method in modern times. Better than others, “Destruction” by A. Fadeev, “Iron Stream” by A. Serafimovich, “Chapaev” by D. Furmanov, and “Cement” by F. Gladkov fit the definition of socialist realist works.

Particularly great success fell to the heroic-revolutionary drama by K. Trenev “Yarovaya Love” (1926), in which, according to the author, his complete and unconditional recognition of the truth of Bolshevism was expressed. The play contains the entire set of characters that later became a “common place” in Soviet literature: the “iron” party leader; who accepted the revolution “with his heart” and has not yet fully realized the need for the strictest revolutionary discipline “brother” (that’s what the sailors were called then); an intellectual slowly comprehending the justice of the new order, burdened with the “burden of the past”; a “bourgeois” adapting to harsh necessity and an “enemy” actively fighting the new world. In the center of events is the heroine, who in agony comprehends the inevitability of the “truth of Bolshevism.”

Lyubov Yarovaya faces a most difficult choice: in order to prove her devotion to the cause of the revolution, she must betray her husband, who is beloved, but has become an irreconcilable ideological enemy. The heroine makes a decision only after making sure that the person who was once so close and dear to her understands the good of the people and the country in a completely different way. And only by revealing her husband’s “betrayal”, renouncing everything personal, does Yarovaya realize herself as a true participant in the common cause and convinces herself that she is only “a faithful comrade from now on.”

A little later, the theme of the spiritual “restructuring” of man will become one of the main ones in Soviet literature. A professor ("Kremlin Chimes" by N. Pogodin), a criminal who has experienced the joy of creative work ("Aristocrats" by N. Pogodin, "Pedagogical Poem" by A. Makarenko), men who have realized the advantages of collective farming ( "Whetstones" by F. Panferov and many other works on the same topic). Writers preferred not to discuss the drama of such a “reforging,” except perhaps in connection with the death of a hero going into a new life at the hands of a “class enemy.”

But the machinations of enemies, their cunning and malice towards all manifestations of a new bright life are reflected in almost every second novel, story, poem, etc. “Enemy” is a necessary background that allows one to highlight the merits of a positive hero.

A new type of hero, created in the thirties, manifested itself in action, and in the most extreme situations ("Chapaev" by D. Furmanov, "Hatred" by I. Shukhov, "How the Steel Was Tempered" by N. Ostrovsky, "Time, Forward!" Kataeva, etc.). “A positive hero is the holy of holies of socialist realism, its cornerstone and main achievement. A positive hero is not just a good person, he is a person illuminated by the light of the most ideal ideal, a model worthy of all imitation.<...>And the virtues of a positive hero are difficult to list: ideology, courage, intelligence, willpower, patriotism, respect for women, readiness for self-sacrifice... The most important of them, perhaps, is the clarity and directness with which he sees the goal and rushes towards it. ...For him there are no internal doubts and hesitations, unanswerable questions and unsolved mysteries, and in the most complicated matter he easily finds a way out - along the shortest path to the goal, in a straight line." A positive hero never repents of what he has done and if he is dissatisfied with himself , then only because he could have done more.

The quintessence of such a hero is Pavel Korchagin from the novel “How the Steel Was Tempered” by N. Ostrovsky. In this character, the personal element is reduced to the minimum that ensures his earthly existence; everything else is brought by the hero to the altar of the revolution. But this is not an atoning sacrifice, but an enthusiastic gift of the heart and soul. Here is what is said about Korchagin in a university textbook: “To act, to be needed by the revolution - this is the aspiration that Pavel carried throughout his life - stubborn, passionate, unique. It is from such aspiration that Paul’s exploits are born. A person driven by a high goal seems to forget about himself, neglects what is dearest to him - life - in the name of what is really dearer to him than life... Paul is always where it is most difficult: the novel focuses on key, critical situations. In them the irresistible power of his free spirit is revealed aspirations...<...>He is literally eager to meet difficulties (fighting banditry, pacifying a boundary riot, etc.). In his soul there is not even a shadow of discord between “I want” and “I must.” The consciousness of revolutionary necessity is his personal, even intimate."

World literature has never known such a hero. From Shakespeare and Byron to L. Tolstoy and Chekhov, writers have portrayed people who seek the truth, doubting and making mistakes. There was no place for such characters in Soviet literature. The only exception, perhaps, is Grigory Melekhov in “Quiet Flows the Don,” who was retroactively classified as socialist realism, but was initially regarded as a work that was certainly “White Guard.”

The literature of the 1930s–1940s, armed with the methodology of socialist realism, demonstrated the inextricable connection of the positive hero with the team, which constantly had a beneficial influence on the individual and helped the hero shape his will and character. The problem of leveling the personality by the environment, so indicative of Russian literature before, practically disappears, and if it appears, it is only with the goal of proving the triumph of collectivism over individualism (“Destruction” by A. Fadeev, “The Second Day” by I. Ehrenburg).

The main sphere of application of the forces of a positive hero is creative work, in the process of which not only material values ​​are created and the state of workers and peasants is strengthened, but also Real People, creators and patriots are forged (“Cement” by F. Gladkov, “Pedagogical Poem” by A. Makarenko, "Time, forward!" V. Kataev, films "Shining Path" and "Big Life", etc.).

The cult of the Hero, the Real Man, is inseparable in Soviet art from the cult of the Leader. The images of Lenin and Stalin, and with them leaders of lower rank (Dzerzhinsky, Kirov, Parkhomenko, Chapaev, etc.) were reproduced in millions of copies in prose, poetry, drama, music, cinema, and fine arts... Almost all prominent Soviet writers, even S. Yesenin and B. Pasternak, were involved in the creation of Leniniana to one degree or another; “epics” were told about Lenin and Stalin and “folk” storytellers and singers sang songs. "...The canonization and mythologization of leaders, their glorification are included in genetic code Soviet literature. Without the image of the leader (leaders), our literature did not exist at all for seven decades, and this circumstance is, of course, not accidental."

Naturally, with the ideological focus of literature, the lyrical principle almost disappears from it. Poetry, following Mayakovsky, becomes the herald of political ideas (E. Bagritsky, A. Bezymensky, V. Lebedev-Kumach, etc.).

Of course, not all writers were able to imbue with the principles of socialist realism and turn into singers of the working class. It was in the 1930s that there was a massive “movement” into historical topics, which to a certain extent saved people from accusations of being “apolitical.” However, for the most part, historical novels and films of the 1930s–1950s were works closely associated with modernity, clearly demonstrating examples of “rewriting” history in the spirit of socialist realism.

The critical notes that were still heard in the literature of the 20s were completely drowned out by the sound of victorious fanfare by the end of the 30s. Everything else was rejected. In this sense, the example of the idol of the 20s M. Zoshchenko is indicative, who tries to change his previous satirical manner and also turns to history (the story “Kerensky”, 1937; “Taras Shevchenko”, 1939).

Zoshchenko can be understood. Many writers then strive to master the state “copybooks” so as not to literally lose their “place in the sun.” In V. Grossman’s novel “Life and Fate” (1960, published in 1988), the action of which takes place during the Great Patriotic War, the essence of Soviet art in the eyes of contemporaries looks like this: “They argued about what socialist realism is. This is a mirror that answers the question of the party and the government, “Who in the world is the sweetest, the fairest and the fairest?” answers: “You, you, the party, the government, the state, are the most ruddy and sweetest of all!” Those who answered differently are forced out of literature (A. Platonov, M Bulgakov, A. Akhmatova, etc.), and many are simply destroyed.

The Patriotic War brought the most severe suffering to the people, but at the same time it somewhat weakened the ideological pressure, because in the fire of battle the Soviet people gained some independence. His spirit was also strengthened by the victory over fascism, which was achieved at the hardest price. In the 40s, books appeared that reflected real life, full of drama ("Pulkovo Meridian" by V. Inber, "Leningrad Poem" by O. Berggolts, "Vasily Terkin" by A. Tvardovsky, "Dragon" by E. Schwartz, " In the trenches of Stalingrad" by V. Nekrasov). Of course, their authors could not completely abandon ideological stereotypes, because in addition to political pressure, which had already become familiar, there was also auto-censorship. And yet their works, compared to the pre-war ones, are more truthful.

Stalin, who had long since turned into an autocratic dictator, could not indifferently observe how shoots of freedom were sprouting through the cracks in the monolith of unanimity, on the construction of which so much effort and money had been spent. The leader considered it necessary to remind that he would not tolerate any deviations from the “common line” - and in the second half of the 40s a new wave of repression began on the ideological front.

The infamous resolution on the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” (1948) was issued, in which the work of Akhmatova and Zoshchenko was condemned with cruel rudeness. This was followed by the persecution of “rootless cosmopolitans” - theater critics accused of all conceivable and unimaginable sins.

In parallel with this, there is a generous distribution of prizes, orders and titles to those artists who diligently followed all the rules of the game. But sometimes sincere service was not a guarantee of safety.

This was clearly demonstrated by the example of the first person in Soviet literature, the General Secretary of the USSR SP A. Fadeev, who published the novel “The Young Guard” in 1945. Fadeev depicted the patriotic impulse of very young boys and girls who, not willingly remaining in the occupation, rose up to fight the invaders. The romantic overtones of the book further emphasized the heroism of youth.

It would seem that the party could only welcome the appearance of such a work. After all, Fadeev painted a gallery of images of representatives of the younger generation, brought up in the spirit of communism and who in practice proved their devotion to the behests of their fathers. But Stalin began a new campaign to “tighten the screws” and remembered Fadeev, who had done something wrong. An editorial dedicated to the Young Guard appeared in Pravda, the organ of the Central Committee, in which it was noted that Fadeev had not sufficiently illuminated the role of the party leadership of the youth underground, thereby “distorting” the real state of affairs.

Fadeev reacted as he should. By 1951, he created a new edition of the novel, in which, despite the authenticity of life, the leading role of the party was emphasized. The writer was well aware of what exactly he was doing. In one of his private letters, he joked sadly: “I’m turning the young guard into the old one.”

As a result, Soviet writers carefully check every stroke of their work with the canons of socialist realism (more precisely, with the latest directives of the Central Committee). In literature ("Happiness" by P. Pavlenko, "Cavalier of the Golden Star" by S. Babaevsky, etc.) and in other forms of art (films "Kuban Cossacks", "The Tale of the Siberian Land", etc.) a happy life in free and generous land; and at the same time, the owner of this happiness manifests himself not as a full-fledged, versatile personality, but as “a function of some transpersonal process, a person who has found himself in a “cell of the existing world order, at work, in production...”.

It is not surprising that the "industrial" novel, whose genealogy dates back to the 20s, became one of the most widespread genres in the 50s. A modern researcher builds a long series of works, the very names of which characterize their content and focus: “Steel and Slag” by V. Popov (about metallurgists), “Living Water” by V. Kozhevnikov (about land reclamation workers), “Height” by E. Vorobyov (about builders domain), “Students” by Y. Trifonov, “Engineers” by M. Slonimsky, “Sailors” by A. Perventsev, “Drivers” by A. Rybakov, “Miners” by V. Igishev, etc., etc.

Against the background of bridge construction, metal smelting or a “battle for the harvest”, human feelings look like something of secondary importance. The characters in an “industrial” novel exist only within the confines of a factory floor, a coal mine or a collective farm field; outside these limits they have nothing to do, nothing to talk about. Sometimes even contemporaries who had gotten used to everything could not stand it. Thus, G. Nikolaeva, who tried to at least a little “humanize” the canons of the “industrial” novel in her “Battle on the Way” (1957), four years earlier, in a review of modern fiction, mentioned “The Floating Village” by V. Zakrutkin, noting that the author “ concentrated all his attention on the fish problem... The peculiarities of people were shown only insofar as it was necessary to “illustrate” the fish problem... the fish in the novel overshadowed the people.”

Depicting life in its “revolutionary development,” which, according to party guidelines, was improving every day, writers generally cease to touch on any shadow sides of reality. Everything conceived by the heroes is immediately successfully put into action, and any difficulties are no less successfully overcome. These signs of Soviet literature of the fifties found their expression most clearly in S. Babaevsky’s novels “Cavalier of the Golden Star” and “The Light Above the Earth,” which were immediately awarded the Stalin Prize.

Theorists of socialist realism immediately substantiated the need for just such optimistic art. “We need holiday literature,” wrote one of them, “not literature about “holidays,” but holiday literature that raises a person above trifles and accidents.”

Writers were sensitive to the “demands of the moment.” Everyday life, the depiction of which in the literature of the 19th century was given so much attention, was practically not covered in Soviet literature, because the Soviet person was supposed to be above the “trifles of everyday life.” If the poverty of everyday existence was touched upon, it was only to demonstrate how a Real Man overcomes “temporary difficulties” and achieves universal well-being through selfless labor.

With such an understanding of the tasks of art, the birth of the “theory of non-conflict” is quite natural, which, despite the short duration of its existence, perfectly expressed the essence of Soviet literature of the 50s. This theory boiled down to the following: class contradictions have been eliminated in the USSR, and, therefore, there are no reasons for the emergence of dramatic conflicts. Only a struggle between “good” and “better” is possible. And since in the country of the Soviets the public should be in the foreground, the authors had no choice but to describe the “production process.” In the early 60s, the “conflict-free theory” was slowly consigned to oblivion, because it was clear to even the most undemanding reader that “holiday” literature was completely divorced from reality. However, the rejection of the “conflict-free theory” did not mean a rejection of the principles of socialist realism. As an authoritative official source explained, “the interpretation of life’s contradictions, shortcomings, difficulties of growth as “trifles” and “accidents”, contrasting them with “holiday” literature - all this does not at all express an optimistic perception of life by the literature of socialist realism, but weakens the educational role of art, tearing away him from the life of the people."

The renunciation of one too odious dogma led to the fact that all others (party affiliation, ideology, etc.) began to be guarded even more vigilantly. It was worth several writers, during the short-term “thaw” that came after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, where the “cult of personality” was criticized, to come out with a bold, at that time, condemnation of bureaucracy and conformism in the lower echelons of the party (V. Dudintsev’s novel “Not by Bread Alone”, A. Yashin's story "Levers", both 1956), as a massive attack began on the authors in the press, and they themselves were excommunicated from literature for a long time.

The principles of socialist realism remained unshakable, because otherwise the principles of government would have to be changed, as happened in the early nineties. In the meantime, literature "should bring home what is in the language of the regulations "brought to your attention". Moreover, she had to draw up And bring into some system isolated ideological actions, introducing them into consciousness, translating them into the language of situations, dialogues, speeches. The time of artists has passed: literature has become what it should have become in the system of a totalitarian state - a “wheel” and a “cog”, a powerful tool for “brainwashing”. The writer and the functionary merged in the act of “socialist creation”.

And yet, since the 60s, a gradual disintegration of the clear ideological mechanism that took shape under the name of socialist realism began. As soon as the political course within the country softened a little, a new generation of writers, who did not go through the harsh Stalinist school, responded with “lyrical” and “village” prose and fantasy that did not fit into the Procrustean bed of socialist realism. A previously impossible phenomenon also arises - Soviet authors publishing their “unacceptable” works abroad. In criticism, the concept of socialist realism imperceptibly fades into the shadows, and then almost goes out of use altogether. It turned out that any phenomenon of modern literature can be described without using the category of socialist realism.

Only orthodox theorists remain in their previous positions, but even they, when talking about the possibilities and achievements of socialist realism, have to manipulate the same lists of examples, the chronological scope of which is limited to the mid-50s. Attempts to push these limits and classify V. Belov, V. Rasputin, V. Astafiev, Yu. Trifonov, F. Abramov, V. Shukshin, F. Iskander and some other writers as socialist realists looked unconvincing. The squad of true believers of socialist realism, although thinned out, nevertheless did not disintegrate. Representatives of the so-called “secretary literature” (writers holding prominent positions in the joint venture) G. Markov, A. Chakovsky, V. Kozhevnikov, S. Dangulov, E. Isaev, I. Stadnyuk and others continued to depict reality “in its revolutionary development", they still painted exemplary heroes, however, already endowing them with small weaknesses designed to humanize ideal characters.

And as before, Bunin and Nabokov, Pasternak and Akhmatova, Mandelstam and Tsvetaeva, Babel and Bulgakov, Brodsky and Solzhenitsyn were not considered among the pinnacles of Russian literature. And even at the beginning of perestroika one could still come across a proud statement that socialist realism is “essentially a qualitative leap in the artistic history of mankind...”.

In connection with this and similar statements, a reasonable question arises: since socialist realism is the most progressive and effective method of all that existed before and now, then why did those who created before its emergence (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov) create masterpieces from which they studied? adherents of socialist realism? Why did the “irresponsible” foreign writers, whose flaws in their worldview were so readily discussed by the theoreticians of socialist realism, not rush to take advantage of the opportunities that the most advanced method opened up for them? The achievements of the USSR in the field of space exploration prompted America to intensively develop science and technology, but for some reason the achievements in the field of art left artists of the Western world indifferent. “...Faulkner will give a hundred points ahead to any of those whom we in America and generally in the West classify as socialist realists. Can we then talk about the most advanced method?”

Socialist realism arose on the orders of the totalitarian system and served it faithfully. As soon as the party loosened its grip, socialist realism, like shagreen skin, began to shrink, and with the collapse of the system it completely disappeared into oblivion. At present, socialist realism can and should be the subject of impartial literary and cultural study - it has long been unable to lay claim to the role of the main method in art. Otherwise, socialist realism would have survived both the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the SP.

• As A. Sinyavsky accurately noted back in 1956: “...most of the action takes place here near the factory, where the characters go in the morning and from where they return in the evening, tired but cheerful. But what are they doing there, what kind of work and What kind of products the plant actually produces remains unknown" (Sinyavsky A. Literary encyclopedic dictionary. P. 291.
• Literary newspaper. 1989. May 17. S. 3.

“Socialist realism” is a term for the communist theory of literature and art, depending on purely political principles, and since 1934 has been mandatory for Soviet literature, literary criticism and literary criticism, as well as for all artistic life. This term was first used on May 20, 1932 by I. Gronsky, chairman of the organizing committee Union of Writers of the USSR(corresponding party resolution dated April 23, 1932, Literaturnaya Gazeta, 1932, May 23.). In 1932/33, Gronsky and the head of the fiction sector of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) V. Kirpotin vigorously promoted this term. It received retroactive force and was extended to previous works of Soviet writers recognized by party criticism: all of them became examples of socialist realism, starting with Gorky’s novel “Mother”.

Boris Gasparov. Socialist realism as a moral problem

The definition of socialist realism given in the first charter of the Union of Writers of the USSR, with all its ambiguity, remained the starting point for later interpretations. Socialist realism was defined as the main method of Soviet fiction and literary criticism, “which requires the artist to truthfully, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. Moreover, the truthfulness and historical specificity of the artistic depiction of reality must be combined with the task of ideological remodeling and education in the spirit of socialism.” The relevant section of the 1972 charter stated: “The proven creative method of Soviet literature is socialist realism, based on the principles of party membership and nationality, the method of a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. Socialist realism provided Soviet literature with outstanding achievements; Having at his disposal an inexhaustible wealth of artistic means and styles, he opens up every opportunity for the manifestation of individual talent and innovation in any genre of literary creativity.”

Thus, the basis of socialist realism is the idea of ​​literature as an instrument of ideological influence CPSU, limiting it to the tasks of political propaganda. Literature should help the party in the struggle for the victory of communism; in a formulation attributed to Stalin, writers from 1934 to 1953 were seen as “engineers of human souls.”

The principle of partisanship required the rejection of the empirically observed truth of life and its replacement with “party truth.” A writer, critic or literary critic had to write not what he himself learned and understood, but what the party declared “typical”.

The requirement for a “historically specific image of reality in revolutionary development” meant the adaptation of all phenomena of the past, present and future to the teaching historical materialism in its latest party edition at that time. For example, Fadeev I had to rewrite the novel “The Young Guard,” which received the Stalin Prize, because in hindsight, based on educational and propaganda considerations, the party wanted its supposedly leading role in the partisan movement to be more clearly presented.

The depiction of modernity “in its revolutionary development” implied a rejection of the description of imperfect reality for the sake of the expected ideal society (proletarian paradise). One of the leading theoreticians of socialist realism, Timofeev, wrote in 1952: “The future is revealed as tomorrow, already born in today and illuminating it with its light.” From such premises, alien to realism, the idea of ​​a “positive hero” arose, who was supposed to serve as a model as a builder of a new life, an advanced personality, not subject to any doubts, and it was expected that this ideal character of the communist tomorrow would become the main character of the works of socialist realism. Accordingly, socialist realism demanded that a work of art should always be based on the principles of "optimism", which should reflect the communist belief in progress, as well as prevent feelings of depression and unhappiness. The depiction of defeats in the Second World War and human suffering in general was contrary to the principles of socialist realism, or at least should have been outweighed by the depiction of victories and positive aspects. In the sense of the internal inconsistency of the term, the title of Vishnevsky’s play “Optimistic Tragedy” is indicative. Another term often used in connection with socialist realism, “revolutionary romance,” helped to obscure the departure from reality.

In the mid-1930s, “nationality” joined the demands of socialist realism. Returning to the trends that existed among part of the Russian intelligentsia of the second half of the 19th century, this meant both the understandability of literature for the common people and the use of folk speech patterns and proverbs. Among other things, the principle of nationality served to suppress new forms of experimental art. Although socialist realism, in its concept, did not know national boundaries and, in accordance with the messianic faith in the conquest of the whole world by communism, after the Second World War was exhibited in the countries of the Soviet sphere of influence, nevertheless, its principles also included patriotism, that is, limitedness in mainly the USSR as the setting and emphasizing the superiority of everything Soviet. When the concept of socialist realism was applied to writers from Western or developing countries, it meant a positive assessment of their communist, pro-Soviet orientation.

In essence, the concept of socialist realism refers to the content of a verbal work of art, and not to its form, and this led to the fact that the formal tasks of art were deeply neglected by Soviet writers, critics and literary scholars. Since 1934, the principles of socialist realism have been interpreted and demanded for implementation with varying degrees of persistence. Failure to follow them could entail deprivation of the right to be called a “Soviet writer,” exclusion from the SP, even imprisonment and death, if the depiction of reality was outside “its revolutionary development,” that is, if a critical attitude towards the existing order was recognized as hostile and damaging damage to the Soviet system. Criticism of existing orders, especially in the forms of irony and satire, is alien to socialist realism.

After Stalin's death, many indirectly but sharply criticized socialist realism, blaming it for the decline of Soviet literature. Appeared in the years Khrushchev's thaw demands for sincerity, vital conflicts, depictions of doubting and suffering people, works whose outcome would not be known, were put forward by famous writers and critics and testified that socialist realism is alien to reality. The more fully these demands were implemented in some works of the Thaw period, the more energetically they were attacked by conservatives, and the main reason was an objective description of the negative phenomena of Soviet reality.

The parallels to socialist realism are not found in 19th century realism, but rather in 18th century classicism. The vagueness of the concept contributed to the emergence from time to time of pseudo-discussions and the immense growth of literature on socialist realism. For example, in the early 1970s, the question of the relationship between such varieties of socialist realism as “socialist art” and “democratic art” was clarified. But these “discussions” could not obscure the fact that socialist realism was a phenomenon of an ideological order, subordinate to politics, and that it was fundamentally not subject to discussion, like the very leading role of the Communist Party in the USSR and the countries of “people’s democracy.”

“Socialist realism is a late avant-garde movement in Russian art of the 30s and 40s, combining the method of appropriating artistic styles of the past with avant-garde strategies.” Boris Groys, thinker

When I hear the words “socialist realism,” my hand goes somewhere. Or for something. And my cheekbones are aching with melancholy. Lord, how much they tormented me with them*. At school, at art school, at university... But you need to write about him. For this is the most extensive direction in art on Earth and within it the largest number of works for one direction was created. It practically had a monopoly on a territory whose area had never been dreamed of by any other movement - what was called the camp of socialism, something like that from Berlin to Hanoi. His powerful remains are still visible at every turn in his homeland - which we share with him - in the form of monuments, mosaics, frescoes and other monumental products. It was consumed with varying degrees of intensity by several generations of varying numbers of billions of individuals. In general, socialist realism was a majestic and creepy structure. And his relationship with avant-garde art, which I am actively talking about here, is extremely difficult. In a word, socialist realism has gone.

Boris Iofan, Vera Mukhina. USSR Pavilion at the World Exhibition in Paris

Apparently, Stalin gave him the name after all, in May 1932, in a conversation with the ideological functionary Gronsky. And a few days later, Gronsky announced this name to the world in his article in Literary Gazette. And shortly before this, in April, by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, all artistic groups were dissolved, and their members were gathered into a single union of Soviet artists** - the material carrier and implementer of a complex of ideas, which received its very name a month later. And two years later, at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, he received that very definition, practically a creed, with the creative application of which responsible cultural workers tormented several generations of Soviet creators and lovers of beauty: “Socialist realism, being the main method of Soviet fiction and literary criticism requires from the artist a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. At the same time, the truthfulness and historical specificity of the artistic depiction of reality must be combined with the task of ideological remodeling and education of working people in the spirit of socialism.” There is no need to pay attention to the fact that we are talking about literature. It was a writers' congress, and they talked about their own things. Then this fruitful method covered almost all areas of Soviet creativity, including ballet, cinema and Georgian coinage.

Vladimir Serov. Lenin proclaims Soviet power at the 2nd Congress of Soviets

First of all, in this formula one sees a strict imperative - how to do it - and the presence of a task that traditionally did not belong to the field of art itself - the creation of a new person. These are, of course, worthy and useful things. They were invented - or, better, brought to such limits and affects - by avant-gardeism, thereby, the fight against which for socialist realism all the way was a sacred, honorable and obligatory occupation. It’s normal and somehow understandable to be human - to fight with a predecessor from whom he took a lot, especially when it comes to religious*** or almost religious practices, which, in many ways, were both socialist realism and avant-gardeism, especially Russian avant-gardeism .

Boris Ioganson. Interrogation of communists

After all, what did he, Russian avant-garde, do? He did not draw black squares of indefinite color for aesthetic pampering, but created serious projects for a radical remaking of the world and humanity towards utopia. And socialist realism was also developed for this purpose. Only if in avant-gardeism there were several projects-sects irreconcilably competing with each other: Tatlinism, spiritual Kandinism, Filonovism, Khlebnikovism, Suprematism of several sects, etc., then socialist realism united the insane energy of all these now ambiguously interpreted types of pathos of radical utopianism under one brand .

In general, socialist realism happily realized many avant-garde pink dreams of a black square color. The same totalitarianism - the fact that socialist realism was declared not the only one, but the main one - this is the usual Bolshevik cunning, in this case it is better to look at practice, and not at words. So here it is. After all, every avant-garde movement claimed to have the final truth and fought terribly with its neighbors who had their own Truth. Each movement dreamed of being the only one - there can never be too many truths.

Vasily Efanov. An unforgettable meeting

And now socialist realism becomes the only accessible direction in art, which is supported by the existence of serious institutions in all areas related to creativity - in the education system, in the system of government orders and procurement, in exhibition practice, in the incentive system (prizes, titles, awards), in the media , and even in the system of household/professional provision of art front workers with art materials, apartments, workshops and vouchers to the house of creativity in Gurzuf. Creative unions, the Academy of Arts, committees for various awards, the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, the Ministry of Culture, a bunch of different educational institutions from the art school to the Surikov and Repin Institutes, the critical press and literature **** - all this ensured a truly monotheistically harsh exclusivity socialist realism. There were no artists outside these institutions. Those. they were, of course, different kinds of modernists and nonconformists, but their existence was extremely marginal and even doubtful from the point of view of the laws of physics. Therefore, we can say that there were none at all. In any case, during the times of classical socialist realism, i.e. under Stalin. All this husk, not only to exhibit itself, in difficult times could not provide for itself with a brush without a membership card. Socialist realism was one and everywhere - from the main exhibition sites of the country to the work barracks with a reproduction from Ogonyok on the wall above the bed.

Sergey Gerasimov. Collective farm holiday

The uniqueness of socialist realism was also manifested in its expansion into adjacent areas of creativity. Every avant-garde ism sought to capture them, but only socialist realism managed to do this so consistently and unconditionally. Music, cinema, theater, pop music, architecture, literature, applied arts, design, fine arts - in all these territories only his laws were in effect. It became a single project.

Palekh. Meeting of Heroes of Socialist Labor

Boris Iofan, Vladimir Gelfreich, Vladimir Shchuko. Competition project for the Palace of Soviets in Moscow. Perspective

Could any Suprematism dream of such total domination? Of course he could. But who will give him...

Avant-garde dreamed of religious art - not traditional Christian art, of course - the level of its utopianism, i.e. the depth and nature of the transformation of the world, the remoteness of the limits beyond which the new Universe and the new man were supposed to go, the qualities that they were supposed to acquire, were at a completely sacred height. The masters of avant-gardeism reproduced the behavior patterns of the messiahs - they themselves were the creators and bearers of the Law, followed by apostolic communities of disciples who disseminated and interpreted knowledge, surrounded by decreasing groups of adepts and neophytes. Any deviation from the canon was interpreted as heresy, its bearer was expelled or left on his own, unable to stand near untrue knowledge. All this was later reproduced by socialist realism with much greater energy. There were tablets with a basic law that was not subject to, let alone revision, friendly criticism. Under his umbrella, private discussions took place: about the typical, about traditions and innovation, about artistic truth and fiction, about nationality, ideology, etc. In their course, concepts, categories and definitions were honed, subsequently cast in bronze and included in the canon. These discussions were completely religious - every thought had to be confirmed by compliance with the Law and be based on the statements of authoritative bearers of knowledge. And the stakes in these discussions, as in creative practice itself, were high. The bearer of something alien became a heretic or even an apostate and was subjected to ostracism, the limit of which was sometimes death.

Alexey Solodovnikov. In a Soviet court

Avant-garde works for the most part sought to become new icons. Old icons are windows and doors into the world of sacred history, into the divine Christian world, and ultimately into heaven. New icons are evidence of avant-garde utopia. But the circle of those who worshiped them was narrow. And without mass ***** ritual there is no religious legitimacy.

Socialist realism also realized this dream of the avant-garde - after all, it was everywhere. As for the works themselves, the socialist realist icons - and all his works were, to one degree or another, icons connecting this created world with the communist utopia, with the exception of some completely worthless bouquets of lilacs - were created practically according to proven Christian canons. Even in terms of iconography.

Pavel Filonov. Portrait of Stalin

This is a completely normal Savior Not Made by Hands. It is characteristic that this picture was made by an avant-garde artist who tried to be a socialist realist here - this was in 1936. So let's say, a new icon painter in the square.

Ilya Mashkov. Greetings to the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b)

But the main dream of the avant-garde, realized, however, not by socialist realism itself, but by its creator, the Soviet government, is to create history according to the laws of artistic creativity. This is when there is an artistic plan, a creator-demiurge, practically equal to God, who alone, in accordance with his will, embodies this plan, and the artistic material is subjected to violence on the way to the result******. The Soviet government truly acted like an artist, uncompromisingly fashioning from raw human material what it saw as consistent with its design. Ruthlessly cutting off what is superfluous, adding what is missing, burning, cutting out and performing all the other cruel manipulations necessary when working with rough matter, which the creator resorts to on the way to creating a masterpiece.

Tatiana Yablonskaya. Bread

This is where the avant-garde artists really had a bad break. They thought that they would be the demiurges, and the demiurges were communist ideologists and bureaucrats, who used cultural masters only as carriers of their artistic will*******.

Fedor Shurpin. Morning of our Motherland

Here the question may arise: why did socialist realism, if it was so cool, use such an archaic language compared to avant-gardeism? The answer is simple - socialist realism was so cool that its language did not float at all. He, of course, could speak something similar to Suprematism. But there the barrier to entry is high, the religious and ideological message will take a long time to reach the addressee, who is the broad masses. Well, you would simply have to make unnecessary efforts to teach them this language, but it is not necessary. Therefore, we decided to focus on the generally familiar eclecticism of academism/peredvizhniki, especially since it has already shown itself well within the framework of the Academy of Religious Works. In principle, socialist realism needed some sufficient resemblance to life in order to make credible the messages that the government sent to the people. So that they get into the head without hindrance. At the same time, the pictorial quality, when it comes to pictures, was completely unimportant - recognizable, approximately as in life, and that’s enough. Therefore, the best works of socialist realism - and the quality criteria here, as in avant-gardeism, were established by the expert community, the main figures in which were, again, ideologists and functionaries, and not artists - i.e. those works that were awarded in any way, from the point of view of the same academicism, realism and other classical styles, are nothing. They are rather poor in painting.

Leonid Shmatko. Lenin at the GOELRO map

Mikhail Khmelko. “For the great Russian people!”

And the fact that socialist realism called for learning from the masters of the past was from him in order to gain some legitimacy in the tradition - like, they took the best from world art, they didn’t come from the trash heap. So, for example, surrealism compiled entire lists of its predecessors. It could also be private initiatives of specific figures who have not completely simplified their means of expression to socialist realism. Therefore, inside it there are works that are of high quality by the standards of traditional painting. But this is so, shortcomings of the method. Those. it turns out that those ideologically correct hacks that many artists sculpted solely for the sake of a career and income are truly good socialist realist pictures.

Socialist realism, if it is good anywhere, is not in these program structures,

Alexander Deineka. Defense of Sevastopol

Alexander Deineka. Parisian

Like this. Again, things didn’t turn out like people did.

******* It can be compared with avant-garde practice, when an artist orders the production of his work from other people.

******** Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia. 20th 30s

It was a creative method used in art and literature. This method was considered an aesthetic expression of a certain concept. This concept was associated with the period of struggle to build a socialist society.

This creative method was considered the main artistic direction in the USSR. Realism in Russia proclaimed a truthful reflection of reality against the background of its revolutionary development.

M. Gorky is considered the founder of the method in the literature. It was he who, in 1934, at the First Congress of Writers of the USSR, defined socialist realism as a form that affirms existence as action and creativity, the goal of which is the continuous development of the most valuable abilities of the individual to ensure his victory over natural forces for the sake of human longevity and health.

Realism, the philosophy of which is reflected in Soviet literature, was built in accordance with certain ideological principles. According to the concept, the cultural figure had to follow a peremptory program. Socialist realism was based on the glorification of the Soviet system, labor enthusiasm, as well as the revolutionary confrontation between the people and the leaders.

This creative method was prescribed to all cultural figures in every field of art. This put creativity within a fairly strict framework.

However, some artists of the USSR created original and striking works that had universal significance. Only recently has the merit of a number of socialist realist artists been recognized (Plastov, for example, who painted scenes from village life).

Literature at that time was an instrument of party ideology. The writer himself was considered as an “engineer of human souls.” With the help of his talent, he had to influence the reader and be a propagandist of ideas. The main task of the writer was to educate the reader in the spirit of the Party and support with him the struggle to build communism. Socialist realism brought the subjective aspirations and actions of the personalities of the heroes of all works into line with objective historical events.

At the center of any work there had to be only a positive hero. He was an ideal communist, an example for everything. In addition, the hero was a progressive person, human doubts were alien to him.

Saying that art should be owned by the people, that it is on the feelings, demands and thoughts of the masses that artistic work should be based, Lenin specified that literature should be party literature. Lenin believed that this direction of art is an element of the general proletarian cause, a detail of one great mechanism.

Gorky argued that the main task of socialist realism is to cultivate a revolutionary view of what is happening, an appropriate perception of the world.

To ensure strict adherence to the method of creating paintings, writing prose and poetry, etc., it was necessary to subordinate the exposure of capitalist crimes. Moreover, each work had to praise socialism, inspiring viewers and readers to the revolutionary struggle.

The method of socialist realism covered absolutely all spheres of art: architecture and music, sculpture and painting, cinema and literature, drama. This method asserted a number of principles.

The first principle - nationality - was manifested in the fact that the heroes in the works had to be from the people. First of all, these are workers and peasants.

The works had to contain descriptions of heroic deeds, revolutionary struggle, and the construction of a bright future.

Another principle was specificity. It was expressed in the fact that reality was a process of historical development that corresponded to the doctrine of materialism.

SOCIALIST REALISM - a type of realism that developed at the beginning of the 20th century, primarily in literature. Subsequently, especially after the Great October Socialist Revolution, the art of socialist realism began to acquire increasingly wider significance in world artistic culture, putting forward first-class masters in all types of art who created the highest examples of artistic creativity:

• in literature: Gorky, Mayakovsky, Sholokhov, Tvardovsky, Becher, Aragon
• in painting: Grekov, Deineka, Guttuso, Siqueiros
• in music: Prokofiev, Shostakovich
• in cinematography: Eisenstein
• in the theater: Stanislavsky, Brecht.

In its own artistic sense, the art of socialist realism was prepared by the entire history of the progressive artistic development of mankind, but the immediate artistic prerequisite for the emergence of this art was the establishment in the artistic culture of the 19th century. the principle of concrete historical reproduction of life, which was an achievement of the art of critical realism. In this sense, socialist realism is a qualitatively new stage in the development of art of a concrete historical type and, therefore, in the artistic development of humanity as a whole; the concrete historical principle of mastering the world is the most significant achievement of world artistic culture of the 19th-20th centuries.

In socio-historical terms, the art of socialist realism arose and functions as an integral part of the communist movement, as a special artistic variety of communist, Marxist-Leninist socially transformative creative activity. Art as part of the communist movement accomplishes in its own way the same thing as its other components: reflecting the real state of life in concrete sensory images, it creatively realizes in these images the concrete historical possibilities of socialism and its forward movement, i.e. with his own artistic means, he transforms these possibilities into the so-called. second, artistic reality. Thus, the art of socialist realism provides an artistic and imaginative perspective for the practical transformative activity of people and directly, concretely and sensually convinces them of the necessity and possibility of such activity.

The term “socialist realism” arose in the early 30s. during a discussion on the eve of the First Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers (1934). At the same time, a theoretical concept of socialist realism as an artistic method was formed and a fairly comprehensive definition of this method was developed, which retains its meaning to this day: “... a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development” with the goal of “ideological reworking and education of working people in the spirit of socialism."

This definition takes into account all the most essential features of socialist realism: the fact that this art relates to concrete historical creativity in world artistic culture; and the fact that its own real fundamental principle is reality in its special, revolutionary development; and the fact that it is socialist (communist), party and popular, is an integral, artistic part of the socialist (communist) remaking of life in the interests of the working people. It is no coincidence that the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On the creative connections of literary and artistic magazines with the practice of communist construction” (1982) emphasizes: “For the art of socialist realism there is no more important task than the establishment of the Soviet way of life, the norms of communist morality, the beauty and greatness of our moral values - such as honest work for the benefit of people, internationalism, faith in the historical correctness of our cause.”

The art of socialist realism qualitatively enriched the principles of social and historical determinism, which first formed into the art of critical realism. In those works where pre-revolutionary reality is reproduced, the art of socialist realism, like the art of critical realism, depicts the social conditions of a person’s life critically, as suppressing or developing him, for example in the novel “Mother” by M. Gorky (“... people are accustomed to life crushing them always with the same force, and, not expecting any changes for the better, they considered all changes capable of only increasing oppression").

And like the literature of critical realism, the literature of socialist realism finds in every social class environment representatives who are dissatisfied with the conditions of their existence, rising above them in the pursuit of a better life.

However, unlike the literature of critical realism, where the best people of their time, in the pursuit of social harmony, rely only on the internal subjective aspirations of people, in the literature of socialist realism they find support for their desire for social harmony in objective historical reality, in historical necessity and real the possibilities of the struggle for socialism and the subsequent socialist and communist transformation of life. And where a positive hero acts consistently, he appears as a self-valued personality who is aware of the world-historical necessity of socialism and does everything possible, that is, realizes all objective and subjective possibilities to transform this necessity into reality. Such are Pavel Vlasov and his comrades in Gorky’s “Mother,” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in Mayakovsky’s poem, Kozhukh in Serafimovich’s “Iron Stream,” Pavel Korchagin in Ostrovsky’s “How the Steel Was Tempered,” Sergei in Arbuzov’s play “The Irkutsk Story” and many others. But a positive hero is only one of the characteristic manifestations of the creative principles of socialist realism.

In general, the method of socialist realism presupposes the artistic and creative development of real human characters as a unique concrete historical result and the prospect of the general historical development of mankind towards its future perfection, towards communism. As a result, in any case, a self-developing progressive process is created in which both the personality and the conditions of its existence are transformed. The content of this process is always unique, because it is the artistic realization of the given specific historical capabilities of a given creative person, her own contribution to the creation of a new world, one of the possible options for socialist transformative activity.

In comparison with critical realism in art, socialist realism, along with a qualitative enrichment of the principle of historicism, also saw a significant enrichment of the principle of form-creation. Concrete historical forms in the art of socialist realism acquired a more dynamic, more expressive character. All this is due to the substantive principle of reproducing real life phenomena in their organic connection with the forward movement of society. This also determines, in a number of cases, the inclusion of deliberately conventional, including fantastic, forms into a concrete historical imagery system, such as, for example, the images of the “time machine” and the “phosphorus woman” in Mayakovsky’s “Bath”.