Authors

Not a single work of art of 1930–1950s dedicated to the events of Stalin’s life could appear as a result of artist’s personal intention. The imagery of Stalin existed only as a form of interpretation and illustration of the canonical text – the biography of the leader, verified and approved by Stalin himself. In this regard, it seems almost unbelievable that this text in its “classic” form was shaped only by 1939.

This article explores the obstacles that stood in the way of creating the main biographical narrative of the epoch, its proximity to the traditional genre of hagiography, as well as those relations between the text and the image that have developed under the conditions of sacralization of the leader’s power and the formation of a special “religion-like” public consciousness.

Soviet creators of Stalin’s imagery acted as heirs to two traditions at once. On the one hand, adherence to the precepts of Russian realistic painting of the 19th century was proclaimed, which was understood as a return to mimesis, to artistic embodiment of life in the forms of life itself. On the other hand, icon-painting methods of working on the Stalin’s image and an attitude to the text of his biography as to hagiography, requiring unconditional faith and not allowing deviations and distortions were revived.

As a result, this demonstrated unique examples of art, realistic in form and sacred in content.

The turn of the 1920s–1930s is one of the most controversial periods in the history of Soviet culture. There are still many gaps in its study. In particular, the problem of transforming creative and ideological programs of many post-revolutionary art associations remains insufficiently analyzed. The article examines the most influential art organization of the post-revolutionary period — the Association of Artists of Revolution (AKhRR) — taking a more radical stance towards the landscape genre. Initially neutral, this position became extremely critical, even intolerable at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s. An analysis of dozens of articles written by the ideologues of AKhRR reveals the ways how new, “revolutionary” criteria for describing and evaluating landscape paintings were developed and how an extensive system of accusations and a set of mandatory requirements for the genre were formed. Landscape was mostly seen as a “reactionary” genre, that made it possible to hide from modern reality, or, on the contrary, to “smuggle” in the Soviet art alien bourgeois values. The changing attitude towards the landscape also makes it possible to trace the transformation of emotional matrix of the era — the refusal to convey complex feelings, that for a long time were perceived as a basic characteristic of Russian landscape painting. The system of denying the landscape, so carefully developed by the members of the Association, was rejected by Soviet culture already in the mid-1930s. However, the events of the turn of the 1920s and 1930s demonstrate how the pictorial genre became a hostage to the movement of culture towards more radical, “leftist” ideological attitudes.