Leftist Art (Anti-Tank)

What is up with polish nationalism in the internet, you call yourself a socialist? It was porky nationalistic uprising.

Polish nationalism can only exist through crapy facebook memes.

sheeeeitttt

...

kek

this.

what's with the middle painting? it looks like it was made during the enlightenment.

No, it doesn't.

my bad. it looks like it came from the dark ages

While most of it is mediocre, there's also the best art in the world in that category. Meanwhile, you posted no art, just some (fairly poor) propaganda posters. Now, communist art.

No, the whole canon of so-called Socialist Realism is garbage. Technical command and artistic merit are two different things.

1. They aren't "poor", not that you would know with your obvious lack of familiarity with the subject matter
2. They aren't propaganda posters (being a magazine illustration, a woodcut, a magazine cover, an exhibition poster and a psychogeographic map respectively)

You do realize El Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge was designed as a propaganda poster, right?

I dread to ask what art you'd call great.

Fantastic, another Holla Forums-tier philistine who believes art can't be anything else than pretty postcards.

Stalinist propaganda is dull, hackneyed and unimaginative. Get over it.

I cited a bunch of stuff worth checking out in the OP.

What does red triangle fucking white circle mean? :D:D:D

El Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge shows the Bolsheviks destroying the White armies in abstract form. It was printed in 1919, during the Civil War.

It looks like pretty shitty tactics.

People loved it for what it is.

And what is artistic merit?
They didn't strike a nerve of any prominent group of people, they didn't turn out to be a classics or a prominent peace of art. Noone cares about them, save some fringe group of art students.
It is both that, and art, outstanding in both functions.

Being actually creative. Creating something that is more than just "nice", "pretty" or "satisfying". Growing beyond your deviantArt phase.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Modern graphic design was defined by the avant-garde. What is left of Socialist Realism but dusty, rusty memorabilia?

Nobody cares about so-called Socialist Realism except a handful of LARPing tankïes on the Internet. See, two can play that game.

And what I posted isn't because…? You do realize that both Seiwert and Lozowick were massively influenced by Constructivism, right?

Damn, Holla Forums really is babby-tier when it comes to art and culture.

The former Holla Forumstards are showing themselves in this thread

“If the picture doesn’t look like the thing it’s degene- I mean bourgeois”

Socialist realism is Kinkade for Stalinists. Fuck your kitsch

And how can you determine if you created "more" or "less", other than by the impact that it has?
I dunno, the image of several cities, including Moscow? UNESCO sites?
It doesn't exist outside of your arts course.

Just because majority of people don't respond to an abstract form of art, it doesn't make them immature. The most prominent realist painters thought that abstract art was bullshit, and vice versa, which is unsurprising.

Abstract art existed prior to representational art. It is arguably more primordial and universal. All abstract art is simply art decomposed into basic form, color, and composition. There’s no reason why it should be associated solely with elites.

...

nothing mediocre about that at all. also i fail to see what is supposed to be particularly lefty about kölner prog and bauhaus. simplicissimus was more of a liberal paper rather than lefty afaik

for starters the only distinct and notable school of contemporary german painting since brücke and bauhaus, you ignoramus.

btw i love constructivism and did a couple constructivist works myself

Socialist Realism is great you pleb.

Socialist Realism > All other art

Are you being ironic here? This art is mediocre as hell .

yes, please enlighten us with a toddlers attempts on geometric figures with red color sprinkled in between, that'll teach us.
art doesn't have to be pleasant to look at because you can express things and make it look shit! genius!

I hope you realize your tirades are indistinguishable from conservative normies whining about modern art.

you're projecting. you are ignoramus itt

The avant-garde defined the arts of the 20th century and beyond, from mainstream cinema to graphic design. The impact of so-called Socialist Realism was nothing more than that of common propaganda, which faded away with the demise of state capitalism in the East; its artistic merit is null.

No UNESCO site is related to so-called Socialist Realism. You're imagining things.

Yes, for the most part it does. It's evidence of a lack of curiosity and imagination. I am perfectly fine with people who simply state they can't relate with abstract art, I just think it's too bad; but uneducated leftists who write off abstract art as "elitist", "bourgeois" or "kiddy doodles" I can't be bothered with.

Some might have, but this is hardly a rule. Many abstract and figurative painters significantly influenced each other. Some of the greatest artists of the 19th and 20th centuries — Klimt, Picasso, Klee, Kandinsky, the list goes on — dabbled in both abstraction and figuration.

The Kölner Progressive were influenced by New Objectivity and sought to relate avant-garde art with political concerns. They were for the most part Council Communists. Gerd Arntz probably is the most representative of them all. As for the Bauhaus, they sought to abolish the distinction between artist and craftsman, and many communists were associated with the school — one of the reasons it was shut down by the Nazis.

t. bourgeois elitist kiddy doodler

No idea what you're talking about, but I'd love to hear about it.

Socialist Realism is vulgar as fuck and reminiscent of the old regime, it pandered to the illiterate conservative peasantry.
Painting toiling women on a collective farm to remind the working class of the dignity of work etc. is another form of alienation.

...

...

"First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague."
— Marx, Paris Manuscripts (1844)

The point of communism is the self-abolition of the proletariat, not its glorification.

This is plain wrong. Even most educated and enlightened person will respond to just one and not the other type of art. Most (but not all) people have Realistic outlook, and likewise, respond to more or less realistic art.

Nope. This is a very particular form of art, which stemmes from their character, which is a combination of the two. Picasso's style, hyperrealism, I believe, isn't dabbling in both. It is combining both concepts in a single picture in a particular manner.
What about Moscow Metro then?
I'm not talking about avant-garde, everyone knows and explores the Red Wedge. Noone knows the stuff you put in the OP, and, frankly, just making a glancing look at them, I ignore them too.

People are still gonna need to farm under Communism kiddo. Your out of context quote is talking about alienating capitalist wage labour not socialist collective labour. When the product of the workers labour is owned by the workers themselves it empowers them instead of becoming estranged by them.
Depictions of this sort of work would necessarily empower the worker but a lazy fuck like you wouldn't understand that.

Again: There is a difference between not responding to abstract art out of subjective preferences, and rejecting it like a fascist shrieking about degeneräte art.

It isn't part of the UNESCO designated sites.

Seiwert and Lozowick were also part of the avant-garde, in movements close to and inspired by Constructivism.

But that's wrong. L'Assiette au Beurre was the highlight of Belle Époque political caricatures, for instance. You simply have no knowledge whatsoever about the subject and being challenged on that basis hurt your feelings.

So what? The point of communism is to reduce toil to a bare minimum, not to imbue it with artificial moral worth.

> Your out of context quote is talking about alienating capitalist wage labour not socialist collective labour.
"Labor" as a distinct sphere of human activity is a capitalist category.

— Marx, Capital vol. III

I feel like that picture perfectly captivates my feelings towards capitalist liberal “modern art”. I love it.

Too many words, not enough images.

Leftist anti-tank artwork, definitely not socialist realism.

RIP in F Sankara.

Funny how the second onesums up America right now: wars, police brutality and white supremacists.

Rare gommie art in the form of a mosaic.

Lastly, the Eastern European tradition of swank movie posters dates back to at least the NEP.

Most modern artists involved in politics — from Picasso to Niemeyer — were leftists.

Both full-fledged ☭TANKIE☭s. And OP was asking for "anti-tank" Left.

I wasn't responding to the OP but to the guy who claimed modern art is "capitalist" and "liberal".

Read this, anarkids

Note the translation of the first one in the filename.

Peter Griffin is Porky?

What a bad thread. "Wow Tanks BTFO by based artists" "Actually ANARKIDDIES are BTFO by your LIBERAL artists".
I can't even imagine what makes some of these better than some of the others. These all have the same sort of nothingness character. Does anyone here have any standards for art that are anything other than pure subjectivity? And if not, then why act like any of you have found great art? If so, what are they? I can't tell the difference between the mediocre art and the "high art".

Da Zhong Zhang incomming

...

...

...

honestly socialist fap material is dumb and generally demeans the contributions of revolutionary women

Like it's fine to jack off to it, but don't pretend it's more than cheesecake

Could the same be said about males in similar environments though? This sort of art doesn't seem to downplay women's achievements and contributions to revolution, but rather exhibits, represents, individuals of their kind in such an area of being.

Art that exhibits women's bodies, especially that which places the viewer in the position of a seuxally-interested observer, is just porn using communist aesthetics.

The male equivalent would be socialist realism that exists only to be badass and celebrate strength, with communism as nothing but a backdrop. You could maybe make this argument of some of the really macho Soviet war movies, but even then pictures like The Fall of Berlin has clear political objectives beyond just wowing the audience through bravado.

I suppose so. Although like images of natural scenery and architecture, it still displays, to some extent, the aesthetics of such thought, the particular range of art fitting with socialism. Some paintings do tend to lean towards a lewd nature, although otherwise ones of such a kind represent the movement by exemplifying its qualities, namely of order and structure yet also of egalitarianism, in contrast to subversive, decadent art which reflects poorly on what it is supposed to be of in this instance.

...

the hell u saying boy

love New Masses covers OP.

also think social realism is shit—the period following 1917 produced the best Russian art.

...

...

Can I share stuff from the Wobblies or is that looked down?

I don't see why not, if it looks nice.

share'em if ya got'em.

I love Wobblie art.

If your art isn't pretty enough for a postcard… it legally should not be considered art.

damn, why is he always depicted with kids surrounding him? like there's a bunch of kids who follow him around wherever he goes

Can't believe no one has posted the leftist work of art yet.

...

I'm fairly sure that thing is literally impossible to build.

no need for that
lenin was a great mind and his ideas and work should be honored, on the lowest level with statues and busts, but this building would've been insanity
would prefer to see it with the hammer and sickle carrying woman and man

...

Yeah , Lenin probably would have not liked him on such a big building.
He did despise a lot the personality cult that was being created after him, indeed he wanted to be buried in a small cementery near to his mother, but the Bolsheviks decided to bury him with the martyrs of the revoilution at the Kremlin, walls.

TBH if I was in charge, I'd forbid the depiction of any person, real or not, in public spaces, and bar their names from being used by organizations, locations or anything else. I know this has a religious tone to it, but socialist society should stop thinking in terms of "great men".

I like the inclusion of Kropotkin station which was always nice.

(me)
Oh the station was renamed from its intended name of Dvorets Sovetov and in 2020 will be gone… how sad :(

Here we go

...

...