Socialist realism: myth and reality

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Socialist realism: myth and reality

Oleksii Rohotchenko

Introduction

The purpose of the paper is to publish its own author's interpretation of the problems of development and the violent rooting of the method of socialist realism in the cultural field of the USSR and the largest Soviet Republic -- Ukrainian in the time period of the 1930s-1980s. The methodology of this study involves a number of methods that help correctly understand the complex problem of the mythologization of socialist realism -- the leading creative style -- the method of the USSR-USSR during the 1930s-1980s. The article uses elements of content analysis, formal and stylistic analysis, historical and artistic, compact and socio-cultural methods, semiotic approach. The scientific novelty of the obtained results consists in the author's interpretation of the controversial issues concerning the formation, victory and existence of the forcibly introduced creative method -- socialist realism in the structure of the state policy of a totalitarian society.

1.Socialist realism of Ukrainian totalitarianism

The only creative method after the avant-garde in the USSR and the Ukr.SSR was socialist realism. Despite dozens of interpretations of the history of the origin, development and actions of this creative method, the author has his own vision, which argues, based on the admitted facts, that socialist realism was an obligatory part of the Ukrainian totalitarianism of the 1930s-1980s. In this material the ways of development of the Ukrainian fine art of the period of the domination of socialist realism are explored. The author proves the moral dependence of the cultural field of the state from the then existing system. Particular attention deserves a kind of Ukrainian totalitarianism, which is distinguished by the researcher in an independent concept, which complements the usual norms of understanding totalitarianism as a general Soviet phenomenon. The study of Ukrainian fine arts of this period confirms the author's thesis concerning the inevitable victory of socialist realism, and in fact the classical method of academic real reproduction of the surrounding reality in painting, graphic art, and sculpture in Soviet Ukraine. With regard to Soviet literature, theater, musical works, cinema and architecture, it should be noted that the processes of destroying other artistic styles and the victory of socialist realism were identical to the processes that took place in the fine arts.

The definition of socialist realism in the Soviet art criticism was vague, but its essence, in the end, was put into a few words. So a well-known saying appears. The new art must be “national in form, socialist in content.” The victory of the proclaimed method became inevitable, first and foremost, thanks to the support of the punitive bodies and the ideology of the state, which directly influenced the artist. The correct perception of violent interference with the ideology of the 1930s-1980s in the development of culture in general and the fine art in particular will be the key to understanding a whole series of facts that occurred during the period. Facts that had no place in other civilized countries.

The second important component of the study of the fine arts of the studied period was the real transmission of the reality depicted in the work of art, which was present in most artistic schools, but initially in the USSR, and then in virtually all the states of the socialist camp, was a creative method. It is about understanding and perceptions by people of a non-free society of artistic problems in general and of a clear realistic art in particular. Presenting main material. Familiarity with the publicly accessible archives for the present makes it possible to perceive many facts from another angle. The study of art by culturologists, historians, art historians of today's free society gives a fundamentally new assessment of the actions of party leaders, as well as artists, writers, composers, cinematographers whose work took place during the specified period. The study of different views and their coverage, explanation of artistic processes and actions committed by people who lived and worked during the 1930s-1980s today provide the necessary opportunity to compare facts and events in the arts, to understand the truth and to explain the actions of artists, who were in a subordinate position. The purpose of this article is systematization and comparative analysis of a number of little-known works of art critics and artistic critics of the period, which is being studied and today's own analytical developments of the author.

To compare the opinions of experts on the method of socialist realism, we turn to the works of famous Soviet art critics G. Nedoshivn “Essays of the theory of art”, namely: “Art as a form of reflection of reality” and “Questions of the art of socialist realism” [21], V. Ivanov “From history the struggle for the high ideology of Soviet literature” [13], “The Issues of Fine Arts” [6], “Soviet Portrait Painting” by L. Zinger [11], “Essays on the Theory of the History of Portrait” [12], Ukrainian Theorist on Socialist Realism V. Afanasyev “Modern features spine” [1] and “Art and Modernity” [2], “Theoretical Problems of Soviet art history” [28].

From the works of contemporary art critics who study the problems of the formation, victory and development of the method of socialist realism, attention is drawn to the work of O. Morozov “The End of Utopia” [19], Ye.Dogot “Russian Art of the XX Century” [10], N. Stepanyan “The Art of Russia XX Century” [27], M. Krivolapov “Union of Artists of Ukraine” [16], B. Lobanovsky “Realism and Socialist Realism in the Ukrainian Painting of Soviet Time” [18], V. Lytvyn “Ukraine: the Era of War and Revolution” and “Ukraine: Interwar Day” [17], S. Ivanov “Architecture in the Cultural Creativity of Totalitarianism” [14], Yu. Shapoval and “Ukraine XX century: Persons and events in the context of difficult history” [29], O. Golubets “Between freedom and totalitarianism”. Special mention should be made of foreign historians and art historians studying the aforementioned period. These are works by I. Golomstok, V. Paperny, B. Grois, K. Girts, S. Veyl, T. Gops, and others. The largest social theoretic work of a powerful international team of scientists concerning the study of the roots of socialist realism was the project Socialist Realistic Canon. “Within the framework of the project, initiated by Hans Gunter, Eugene Dobrenko and Thomas Lachusen, five conferences were held at the University and Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Bielefeld (Germany) in 19941998. Leading specialists in the field of Stalinist studies from Russia, Germany, France, Switzerland, the USA and other countries took part in them.” [9, 3]. The great research work of the 1990s in the study of socialist realism was conducted by the English scientist Matthew Bowen. The result of his work was the book (Bown M. Socialists Realist Painting) [3]. In 2007, the world saw the monograph of O. Rogotchenko “Socialist Realism and Totalitarianism', devoted to the victory of socialist realism in Ukraine in the 1930-1950s [23]. Recent studies of socialist realism in the context of a totalitarian society were published in the monograph by L. Smyrna “The Age of Nonconformism in Ukrainian Visual Art” [26] and O. Rogotchenko “Art Studies: Reflections and Life” [24].

The Bolshevik Party, which won in 1917, began to use culture as a political tool during the life of its leader V. Lenin. The first signs of state interference in artistic processes date back to 1925. Therefore, the confirmation is the resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) (Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of the Bolsheviks) “On the Party Policy in the Field of Fiction.” The document says that the Communist Party will not tolerate artists whose preferences are not consonant with her (party) intelligence. Only the artistic product that will be available to the understanding of the millions of workers and peasants will receive support. The main thing in the work of fine art and in the literature is this form. So the perversion in the cultural policy of the young socialist state began. The main thesis was the slogan that the art “must be understood” by the masses. That is, the masses of ordinary people should not grow up to the understanding of artistic works, but art should fall to the level of understanding when it is understood by the people. Thus, “nationality” becomes no longer desirable, but an obligatory component of the new method, tendentiously interpreting the true reflection of reality in the revolutionary nature of its development. In simple words, this meant that fine art, literature, theater, and cinema should create non-existent praise pictures as if from the surrounding reality. The conflict in the artistic environment has come about immediately for several reasons. Despite all the shamefulness of the proposed method of socialist realism, it should be noted that an unprofessional artist, artist or composer, even with the great desire to please the customer (the Soviet regime), could not do it quickly. Professional skills came in first place, giving way to the party component. The desire of the artist to enjoy the lack of professionalism led to the so-called minority, the varnishing of reality. Subsequently, after the war, the theory of non-conflict, which accompanied the Ukrainian Soviet art before the proclamation of Independence, was born. This theory united the minority and patching of reality with a false, fictitious plot and a proposal to give the desirable for real. In this case, the artist's professional skill was often high. In 1925, the well-known Soviet theoretician of culture and author of the new laws of the USSR M. Bukharin, developing a party strategy, adds from himself, “the cadres of intellectuals must be ideologically trained.”

And then, in the spirit of mature totalitarianism, “... we will stamp out the intellectuals, produce them like a factory.” Famous art worker of the post-war era G. Nedoshivin gives an assessment to the Soviet art in the introduction to the study “Essays on the theory of art”. This is an example of how the opinion of the leading artistic critics of that time was formed. “In the immortal works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism there is a harmonious system of views on art, which constitutes an inviolable basis of Soviet aesthetics. Works by K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin are for us a remarkable treasure trove of the deepest theoretical positions on The various documents of the Communist Party, throughout the history of the Soviet Union, are of great importance for the development of questions of the theory of art, are guiding and guiding the development of art along the way, determined from the only correct positions, scientific positions of Marxism-Leninism. We find examples of a deep theoretical analysis of the fundamental problems of artistic culture in the works of the outstanding figures of the party -- M. I. Kalinin, A. A. Zhdanov, G. M. Malenkov, V. M. Molotov and others” [21, p. 4]. It is clear from the text of the book that high-ranking officials personally and directly participate in the formation of public opinion and in their own “art-study” developments of the theory of culture of the state. Corresponding Member of the Academy of Folk Art of the USSR F. Bogorodsky in the 1955 issue of “Issues of Fine Art” testifies to events around the art that took place before the Patriotic War (until 1941). The main topic in the text is the description of the meeting of artists with the first persons of the state at the art exhibition. “... they came on foot from the Red Square, while looking at the exhibition, JV Stalin kept himself simple and at ease. On my question, what kind of work Stalin likes especially, he thought:” I like the picture of Repin “Zaporozhians” So if the Soviet artists were able to express in the works as well the strength and power of the working class or peasantry, as Repin did in his Zaporozhians, it would be very good.

On the farewell I. V. Stalin wrote in the book of reviews “I was at the exhibition on November 26, In general, in my opinion, it is good.” The management of artistic processes has been given much attention by the governing authorities. The first persons of the state visited art exhibitions, theatrical performances, congresses of creative unions. It is on the brink of the 1920s and 1930s that a class of cultural figures -- artists, composers, theatrical figures, who actively collaborate with the authorities -- are emerging, support the leading state line for the development of art, thus earning themselves a dowry. “Court” artists were delighted with the leaders of the country. Such persons, in addition to moral support, had obvious material benefits, which were manifested in the first place in high earnings. As an example we recall the artist E. Katsman -- Corresponding Member of the Academy of Arts of the USSR. “In 1933, I. Stalin invited a group of artists to visit the city. They had to go I. Brodsky, A. Gerasimov, F. Modorov, V. Svarog and I. Brodsky somehow changed from the upcoming date. His eyes VOROSHILOV said that he was just as worried when he first approached the apartment B. I. Lenin. Joseph Vissarionovich made everything straight away, simple and clear. When I was playing in small towns, saw I. Brodsky mentally arranging the figure of Stalin against the background of the landscape, and talked a long way about the ways of developing Soviet art, the organization of art management”[6, p. 165]. The key words of the quote are “organization of art management”. The country's leadership did not rule out the development of artistic processes to the utmost. This explains the particular cruelty towards the creative intelligentsia, since the 1930s. Hundreds of writers, artists of other cultural figures came to prisons and concentration camps. Many artists have been physically destroyed. Even after the death of Stalin and the unfolding of the cult of his person, there were very few changes in the state policy regarding culture. From prison camps returned cultural figures.

2.Socialist realism as a leading method of art

Socialist realism remained the leading method, and any manifestation of artistic disagreement and individual appeals of artists to abstract art until the 1960's ended with the dismissal of artists from work. There were cases of incarceration of disagreeing.

Describing the artistic life of the second half of the fifties of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) -- the Ukrainian SSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), it should be noted that the main line of cultural development in the state has not been recorded. Despite the fact that L. Beria was declared an enemy of the people, the cult of I. Stalin's personality has not been scattered yet. Quotes and references to the leader are much smaller, but they happen. There is a temporary lull. The main method remains socialist realism. This phrase is spoken in every material about arts, literature, music, cinema and theater.

In the USSR, the term “socialist realism” appears for the first time on May 25, 1932, on the pages of the Literary Gazette. In the coming months, the principles of the proposed method will not only be desirable, but also binding on the Soviet culture. The name of a particular inventor of the phrase proposed as a leading method for the newly created country of the Soviets, who is destined to enter the world's history -- is still unknown. Art science science still uses assumptions, hypotheses that this invention belongs to O. Zhdanov, M. Gorky, or even to J. Stalin himself. In fact, none of the above persons is the author of this phrase. However, the pioneering idea is indisputable. After all, the socialist from “socium” could belong to any state, “realism', as a concept, as the name of a realistic, academic depicted, dates back to the centuries. Iconic Slavic images, images of the works of the Ghent altar, the work of the brothers Van Eyk, works of the Renaissance artists, the Baroque were quite academic, that is, realistic in the transmission of the depicted. The works of the wanderers of Russian and Ukrainian served as an example of an almost photographic transmission of the image.

The academic representation of the hero of the work in plastic arts and literature was, and probably, still the world's most comprehensible to many layers of the population.

The term “socialist realism” was born not in the thirties and not in Moscow, but in Slovenia. “For the first time, the term” socialist realism “was used in Slovenia in 1896. One priest who observed changes in social-democratic literature, noted that birth is not just social, but” socialist realism” [19, p. 89].

In the Soviet Union, this term was successfully borrowed and acquired signs of a dominant character. For the first time, it was proclaimed an artistic method on August 30, 1934, not the first All-Union Congress of Soviet writers. (Since that date, the count of a new totalitarian culture begins, which will become one of the constituent parts of the leader's cult (After 1929, the 50th anniversary of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, the cult of his person has entered threatening turns.) During the next 1935 the artistic ideology was formed and proclaimed in the mass media, which relied on the main artistic method of Soviet art. All creative groups in the USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) until now have been eliminated.

There is an aspect, the essence of which could be made public only in our time. The proclaimed method was needed first of all as a tool of class struggle. This is what distinguishes this artistic method from any other.

In the Ukrainian art history of the post-war era, the method of socialist realism is investigated in articles by V. Afanasyev, Y. Beliczka, L. Vladych, L. Popova, V. Celtner, P. Govdi, 3. Vinogradova, I. Blyumina, N. Aseyeva, M. Kryvolapov, etc.). Extremely cautious artistic critics try to tell the truth about the totalitarian artistic style, but the burden of memory of past years, where there were denunciations, repressions, concentration camps, shootings are still impeding true truths about real events. An example can be the introductory word to V. Afanasyev's book “The features of the present”.

In 1973, the interpretation of the “creative method” is quite different, although the pressure of censorship is felt in every word. “The creative method of Soviet art -- socialist realism, which is steadily guided by the activities of Ukrainian artists, provides them with inextricable ties with the people, with his life and struggle, obliges to strengthen the international tone of his works, to deepen his interest in folk art traditions, prompts to strengthen the civic positions and general intellectual growth, to the breadth and scale of artistic thinking. At the same time, the method of socialist realism, constantly improving and enriching with the experience of social requires a deeper, more insightful and refined reproduction of the living movements of the human soul, the transfer of deep and intense feelings of today's man and, above all, the embodiment of those positive changes in the worldview, morals of the Soviet man, which take place and are established in the process of building communism” [1, 6]. Actually, in such a definition of the role of art in society there is nothing wrong, and when the words “socialist” and “communism” are taken from the text, it will be quite correct for the definition of contemporary art, because internationalism, folk traditions, civic positions and intellectual growth of the artist remain. the leading criteria of the national art school in the fine arts. V. Afanasyev, was a highly educated, intellectual person. Of course, he knew and understood the problems of the leading artistic direction of the state, but he could not write anymore, given the strict censorship of the state publishing house “Art”, where the book was published. From the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first century, the third stage of the study of socialist realism begins. In our time there is no need to use the Aesopian language, masking the forbidden opinion between the phrases of the text. Over the past twenty years, leading cultural scientists, philosophers, and art critics have approached the problems of socialist realism. One should mention the research of B. Grois, O. Golubtsya, V. Paperny, B. Labonovsky, L. Sokolyuk, O. Lagutenko, O. Morozov, L. Smirnoy, Yu. Markin, E. Dobrenko, O. Rogotchenko, D. Gorbachev, T. Pavlova, V. Chechik.

It is safe to say that this artistic-historical stratum was impartially elaborated. However, “white spots” are still enough. First of all, because most of the archives of the 1930s and 1980s have not been opened yet. Paradoxically, it is archival documents that are not at all an art criticism that sheds light on the events that took place in the fine arts of the state.

Art historians of past periods bypassed one important aspect. Namely the creative artistic method of socialist realism since its emergence transformed into a powerful instrument of class struggle. Apparently, it became immediately apparent to the head of Soviet writers Maxim Gorky, who managed to send a victorious artistic method to fight his own opponents. It is known that M. Gorky did not like the writers of modernism, calling the style of modernism in the literature “the most shameful in the history of the Russian intelligentsia” [7, p. 296].

The global idea of socialist realism in the USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) searched the foundation of international experience. In the political realms, the International was successfully used. In artistic creativity it was desirable to refer to the work of previous (not Soviet) artists and cultural figures. A prerequisite for the cultural revolution and its main achievements was the destruction of free, uncontrolled artistic groups and the emergence of socialist realism, which was declared not only by the method but also by way of existence in the artistic society.

The first works of literature and art, revolutionary-proletarian in their orientation, appear in the second half of the XIX century. (“Internationale” by E. Potie, T. Steinl's drawing in France, N. Kasatkin's painting in Russia, M. Murashka in Ukraine). For socialist realism, at the time of his birth characteristic works that reflect the heroism of the revolutionary struggle and, especially, the leaders of this struggle, and then depict the life of the broad masses of the masses under the influence of the revolutionary movement.

The borrowing of the classical use of such a method in the second half of the twenties of the XX century would have led to the fulfillment of only a partial realization of the goal.

Beginning in the 1930s, in the USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in general, and in the Ukrainian SSR (the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), in particular, the struggle against the remains of old hosts by museums and their collections, as well as the estates which almost always were works of art began. The successor of such museum collections, of course, became the state.

The museum as a temple of arts became a counterpart to the communist government. The vast majority of museum collections told about the country's past. The “new” viewers did not need previous history. Their ideal was to be different from the ideals of the past. “There is a fundamental difference between the ideology of the frontline group or the party and the seemingly the same ideology, but when it adopted state status. The concentration of power in one hand, in the hands of the Bolshevik Party, radically changed the meaning and rationalism of both empiricism and utilitarianism” [4, p. 117]. The main ideological task in the restructuring of culture was its reorientation to the level of public practice. In this way, the bonds of generations in the cultural field broke up, which logically denied the integration of the person into the culture of the past and destroyed the progressive achievements of the predecessors. The destruction of the old culture was supported by virtually the entire ruling elite of the country, because the arts and culture of the landlords and the art of the imperialists became a counterweight to the Marxist-Leninist theory. Thanks to such a theory, the eradicated religious construction and the application of a new theory that all the works of art left still belonged to the people -- that is, the oppressed tsarist population, and the ruling class used art works illegally -- became justified. In this way, the state culture became popular and, of course, belonged to the people. Such an interpretation meant that the people as the owner had the primary right to use the culture. First of all, this meant that any items of cultural property could be sold abroad. What was done.

The next task of the leaders of the state was to justify the shattered shrines, which, in turn, argued for the socialist realism of the Stalinist model. This denied Lenin's interpretation of the old culture as just a bourgeois one. There was also no need to build a new proletarian culture on the wreckage of the old capitalist one. The new culture was built from a clean sheet. The political background from the point of view of historical justice was constructed competently. The capture of new owners of residences, houses, villas became justified.

The previous cultural activities of the Empire were depicted as a logical precondition for a super-culture of the newest model, that is, socialist realism in the broad sense of the process, covering literature, fine arts, music, theater, architecture. An example is the controversy surrounding the construction of the Proletarian Park in Kyiv. Two operating parks on the Dnipro slopes transformed into a new recreation area of Kiev. In April 1932 a meeting of party public organizations took place. Professional unions, workers of museums and clubs were involved in the work. In the scenario of those years, architects, artists, film directors were invited. Among the invited were V. Rykov, V. Krichevsky, O. Dovzhenko.

We cite the statement of the famous film director Oleksandr Dovzhenko, which was later published in the city newspaper: “I think that in solving the problem of building a cultural park, the Mikhailovsky monastery will be asked to” leave “, he has spent his age. It is absolutely unacceptable even that these walls are to somebody I think when we take down the Mikhailovsky monastery, the construction of the park will give a proper effect” [15]. (Mikhailovsky Golden- Domed Cathedral in honor of the Archangel Michael in Kiev, built by Yaroslav the Wise's granddaughter of Kiev prince Sviatopolk Izyaslavich in 1108-1113 years. This is a unique cross-dome six-storied temple with three nave and one gilded dome constructed of stones and brick-plinths on limestone -- cemic solution by the technique of “mixed masonry” using voices in the axes of the vaults. The walls of the cathedral were decorated with mosaics and frescoes.

It was one of the largest masterpiece of the Kievan Rus. In 1934-1936 the Mikhailovsky Golden-Domed Cathedral, the bell tower and part of other structures of the ensemble were undermined. The desperate attempts by some art historians (in particular those who were repressed by Mykola Makarenko, Dmitry Aynalov) to save the cathedral (at least in the pre-Mongolian part) were not heard by the authorities, which agreed only to remove the old mosaics and frescoes from the walls of the building, which are now stored at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow). The new art, according to humanistic principles, was to be divided into two poles -- “love-hate”. Love for the people, the party, Stalin. Hatred of enemies. From here begins the principle of class assessment of phenomena from the surrounding political life, which will fully justify the crimes related to the destruction of culture, science, religion, individual styles and trends, as well as specific people -- representatives of groups or unions that were not perceived by the official authorities. On January 10, 1939, J. Stalin will send an encryption to the secretaries of the regional committees, the Central Committee (central committees) of the national Communist parties, and the People's Commissar for Internal Affairs. The document will contain a detailed explanation that the use of “physical impact” in the practice of the NKVD (People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs) was allowed since 1937 with the permission of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) (the highest party body in the interval between the congresses of the party)” [17, p. 354].

In previous investigations, the author investigated the phenomenon of forced obedience in artistic circles of the state of a particular period [28]. In subsequent investigations it is planned to study the Ukrainian artistic work of the 30's and 40's of the XX century. in the context of the development of the arts of Russia, Germany and Italy as the most powerful representatives of world totalitarianism in the middle of the last century.

Conclusions

socialist realism creative style

New in the treatment of fine art in the 30's and 80's is the author's own vision of previously unknown or poorly-studied events that have shaped the artistic process exactly as it has come to these days. An analysis of contradictions in literary sources regarding the subject of study confirms the author's doctrine. Socialist realism as a style and method became a component of the Ukrainian totalitarianism of the 1920s-1980s.

References

1. Afanasjjev V. (1973). Features of modernity. Ukrainian Soviet Fine Arts Today. Kyiv: Mystectvo. [in Ukrainian]

2. Afanasjjev V. (1980). Ideological-thematic and story update Ukrainian art in the becoming of socialist realism. Art and modernity. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. [in Ukrainian]

3. Bown M. Socialists Realist Painting / M. Bown. London, 1998. 506 p.

4. Burjak O. (2003). Architectural modernism against the background of totalitarianism that is born (USSR, 20 years) Traditions and innovations in higher architectural and artistic education. Issue 1-2, 241. [in Ukrainian]

5. Vladych L. (1973). Visible features of modernity Culture and life, 22.XI. [in Ukrainian]

6. Issues of art (1955). Issue 2, Moscow: Soviet Artist. [in Russian]

7. Gholomshtok I. (1994). Totalitarian art. Moscow: Galart. [in Russian]

8. Gholubecj O. (2001). Between freedom and totalitarianism Lviv: Academic Express. [in Ukrainian]

9. Ghjunter Kh. (2000). Totalitarian state as a synthesis of arts. Socialist realistic canon: Sat. Art. in common. Ed. X Gunther and E. Dobrenko. St. Petersburg. 459-471. [in Russian]

10. Degot Ye. (2002). Russian Art of the 20th Century. Moscow: Shamrock. [in Russian]

11. Zinger L. (1978). Soviet portrait painting (1917-early 1930s). Moscow: Fine Arts. [in Russian]

12. Zinger L. (1986). Essays on the theory and history of portrait. Moscow: Fine Arts. [in Russian]

13.Ivanov V. (2001). Architecture in totalitarianism culture. Philosophical and aesthetic analysis. Kyiv: Stylos. [in Ukrainian]

14.Ivanov S. (2001). Architecture in the culture of totalitarianism. Philosophical and aesthetic analysis. Kyiv : Stylos. [in Ukrainian]

15. Kovalynsjkyj V. (2003). Dovzhenko and Mihailivsky monastery. MIST. 8, 290 [in Ukrainian]

16. Kryvolapov M. (1998). Spilka artists Ukraine. The Story of History. Kyiv: Direction of the exhibition Spilka artist. [in Ukrainian]

17. Lytvyn V. (2003). Ukraine: doba miwon (1921-1938). Kyiv: Vidavnichy dim “Alternatives”, [in Ukrainian]

18. Lobanovsjkyj B. (1998). Realism and Socialist Realism in the Ukrainian Painting of Soviet Time. Kyiv: I.K. Mackage. [in Ukrainian]

19. Morozov A. (1995). The end of utopia (from the history of art in the USSR of the 1930s). Moscow: Galart. [in Russian]

20. Morozov A. (2007). Socialist Realism and Realism. Moscow: Galart. [in Russian]

21. Nedoshivin G. (1953). Essays on the Theory of Art. Moscow: Art. [in Russian]

22. Rohotchenko O. (2003). National in the form of socialist content (to the etymology of obedience in the Ukrainian artistic work of the 1930s-1970s of the XX century. MIST. Kyiv : VKh (studio), 147, 290. [in Ukrainian]

23. Rohotchenko O. (2007). Socialist Realism and Totalitarianism. Kyiv: “Vydavnyctvo “Feniks” [in Ukrainian]

24. Rohotchenko O. (2018). Art studies: reflection and life. Kyiv: “Vydavnyctvo “Feniks”, [in Ukrainian]

25.Skljarenko Gh. (2003). A glimmer of great illusions. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].

26.Smyrna L 2018. The age of nonconformism in Ukrainian visual art. Kyiv: “Vydavnyctvo “Feniks”, [in Ukrainian]

27.Stepanyan N. (1999). Art of Russia of the XX century (Look from the 90s).

Moskva: Eksmo-Press.[in Russian]

28.Theoretical problems of Soviet art studies. (1977). Kyiv: Naukova dumka. [in Ukrainian]

29.Shapoval JU (2001). Ukraine XX century: Persons and events in the context of difficult history. Kyiv: Geneza. [in Ukrainian]

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru