Socialist Realism remains a controversial art form: is it art? Is it propaganda? Is it real life, or does the fact that it was commissioned render it entirely devoid of emotional worth? The article I had to read for the most recent connect reading, titled "Return to the Worker's Paradise" and published in ARTnews, discussed the recent upswing in popularity of Socialist Realism. Once written off as kitsch at best, macabrely ironic portrayals of an idyllic life in the face of terrible repression at worst, Socialist Realism has recently been embraced by the young, Russian elite in the former Soviet Union. The article discussed this trend and emphasized the history of Socialist Realism and Russian art in conjunction with the changes in the political sphere.
In this article, I was most surprised by the very severe juxtaposition of the art work itself and the realities behind it. For example, an Isaak Brodsky painting shows a beautifully executed painting, with a stunning composition and brilliant use of color; however, the painting was commissioned at the height of Stalin's reign of terror, and the artist potentially could have been in grave danger had any high-ranking officials disliked his finished work.
While the first article discussed the resurgence of a long past genre of art, the second article presented a very modern artistic issue: a photographer from West Hollywood one day discovered that an image he had created was being used by the terrorist organization ISIS on Twitter as a means to gain a larger following. His original photograph showed a plastic princess doll surrounded my missiles in a war zone to promote anti-war sentiment; ISIS appropriated the image for the antithetical purpose. And, although ISIS is purportedly worth "over $2 billion," the artist Brian McCarty has no means to receive compensation for this copyright infringement.
The articles are especially interesting in contrast. The former describes art created for a very specific political message. The latter describes art stolen for the opposite political message. Ironically, the latter issue would never have been a problem during the age Socialist Realism: while Soviet Realism and Western Abstraction may have been components in an aesthetic proxy war, the lack of technology never escalated this conflict, whereas in the modern era ISIS can weaponize even the most peaceful image for its social-media proxy war.
In this article, I was most surprised by the very severe juxtaposition of the art work itself and the realities behind it. For example, an Isaak Brodsky painting shows a beautifully executed painting, with a stunning composition and brilliant use of color; however, the painting was commissioned at the height of Stalin's reign of terror, and the artist potentially could have been in grave danger had any high-ranking officials disliked his finished work.
While the first article discussed the resurgence of a long past genre of art, the second article presented a very modern artistic issue: a photographer from West Hollywood one day discovered that an image he had created was being used by the terrorist organization ISIS on Twitter as a means to gain a larger following. His original photograph showed a plastic princess doll surrounded my missiles in a war zone to promote anti-war sentiment; ISIS appropriated the image for the antithetical purpose. And, although ISIS is purportedly worth "over $2 billion," the artist Brian McCarty has no means to receive compensation for this copyright infringement.
The articles are especially interesting in contrast. The former describes art created for a very specific political message. The latter describes art stolen for the opposite political message. Ironically, the latter issue would never have been a problem during the age Socialist Realism: while Soviet Realism and Western Abstraction may have been components in an aesthetic proxy war, the lack of technology never escalated this conflict, whereas in the modern era ISIS can weaponize even the most peaceful image for its social-media proxy war.