How do Tankies defend USSR's artistic suppresion

So I was just reading about Prokofiev, and found out that the debut of his first opera in the USSR was delayed by the arrest and execution of the musical director Vsevolod Meyerhold on charges of being a foreign agent (his wife was also murdered by unknown intruders shortly after his arrest). He would recant his confession to being an agent later in a letter to a soviet diplomat, saying he was beaten mercilessly.

The reason I bring this up is that Meyerhold was a known avant-gardeist, and was strongly opposed to socialist realism, which Stalin made the de-facto art style of the USSR in the early 30s. The only reason I could see this guy being arrested is because of his many run-ins with soviet authorities, as he resisted working only within socialist realism, favoring more avant-garde styles.

My question is, why didn't the USSR allow its artists to pursue other forms of art, why did they arrest this guy and is his confession really genuine?

My source, admittedly, is wikipedia, which obviously is dubious, and the source it cites for the text is a book titled "in the court of the red tsar" the red tsar being Stalin, of course, so not exactly an unbiased testimony, but is there any compelling evidence to say otherwise.

pic related is Meyerhold

After Stalin laws become more lax and avant garde existed outside of state patronage.
Stalin was probably weary not of art but of the careless humanism and cultural relativism that later will become so common in the west.

I guess I should say Stalinist suppression, they cleared this guy of his charges during de-stalinization

If I'm not mistaken, artistic supression for non-political reasons wasn't as bad as in the west.

Idk if its as bad as being executed lol, I mean I doubt thats the reason the got on the kill list, but i bet his run ins with the authorities put him on the watch list

Art is a spooj

The USSR was at that point stalin's disneyland and artists didn't fit into the employee profile of perennially smiling useful idiots just smart enough to follow orders.

look just because we praise the USSR doesn't mean we do on all aspects, there was obviously a lot of wrongdoings.

that's fair, I'm not trying to do a ☭TANKIE☭/ML roast thread here, I have sympathies, this shit is just so bad though, makes me sad

Art at the time was so tied to philosophies that allowing your people to engage in art with counter revolutionary aims is the same as allowing counter revolutionary assembly of any other kind.

Really doubt he had that in mind. Just seems like he wanted all art to be a reflection of his idea of the perfect socialist worker paradise. Or to satisfy the Big Other that needs to believe this I guess.

Naturally if art has anything to express other than bland smiling pride in your surroundings then it's a possible reflection of something wrong with their society. Following this logic I think it's pretty obvious why he was against the avant guard.

Stalin loved musical films, so he forbiddid avant-gard film makers to continue to enjoy the freedom they had by then in order to make soviet musicals. Other than there wasn't that many restrictions…
I don't know much about the history other artistic fields in USSR.

Stalin loved westerns too

Honestly, not allowing bourgeois propaganda and shitty consumerism in is one thing, but there were definitely plenty of things that didn't need to be so strict as to quell the ground-breaking and tranformative nature of post-revolutionary creative thinking. If it was one thing that I DO agree with Khruschev in doing was the limited extent of which he allowed media from the West into the USSR like films and such.


Genuine culture up in this bitch.

I respect that, but how do you prevent such arbitrary use of power?

Easy, bourgeoisie "art" is not worthy of patronage. The minds of children and the intellects of adults should be free from taint from such postmodern trash that capitalist societies allow in their museums. Art serves more of a purpose than being "entertaining", it also must advance the socialist cause. If it does not advance the socialist cause, then it is by default trash.

Do not be a dogmatic brainlet. Socialism is supposed to enhance the artistic and creative capabilities of creators and at the same time have high art be acessible to ALL including the "minds of children and intellects of adults". That is what the Soviets did as no longer did people have to pay to watch a once expensive opera nor did they need to be rich and powerful to receive an education to appreciate books, film, and music. There is of course merit to preventing bourgeois propaganda and consumerism, but it is a thin line you walk to avoid stifling the radical ervour of art after a revolutionary event.

You mistake your narrow-mindedness as revolutionary dedication and frankly there is nothing else to say, but read a book.

idealists get the bullet too

We don't want art to be more difficult than bob the builder of course, the proles wouldn't understand.

What makes art Bourgeoisie, It doesn't exploit people for capital, and those that create it, generally create it as a worker for a porky, or just to create it. There are other reasons for art to exist other than propaganda.
You sound like a joyless husk.

this. nice dubs btw

You sound like a fucking annoying person to interact with.

What's there to defend? Art is useless liberal bourgeois decadence and should not exist

you mean deg.eneracy?

Read Adorno, you dogmatic pussy.



holy fucking pleb alert

Right so the cave paintings that people did in their spare time between surviving in primitive conditions is "useless liberal bourgeois decadence"? The use is creative output to keep the individual from going insane out of boredom, people will always create, there is nothing you can do to stop that.

cavemen were imperialists, literally carving caves.


Unsurprising that ☭TANKIE☭s sound like theyve read more of Plato than Marx.

Reading isn't going to help you in the revolution, faggot. Leave the intellectual pursuits to the ones who know how to use it.

Please explain how this is any different from what youre saying

Holy shit fucking READ a book. Skim a wiki article. Anything.

The difference is that religion is false, what I'm saying is based purely on materialism and logical facts. If you cant understand this now, then it just proves you're a snobbish postmodernist who thinks his degree in gender studies makes you better than the average prole.

you don't

shitposting aside, there's a lot worse stuff that happened in the US. McCarthyism for example.

The cave paintings were put there by liberal bourgeois college professors my man

Boy, you sure don't read much, I can tell.