Kate87 Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Romantic realism: Socialist realism: Romantic realism: Socialist realism: There are huge similarities between romantic realism and socialist realism. Why do you think this is the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Because socialist realism is just a more restrictive imitation of romantic realism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Most philosophic systems can be mixed, just like today’s mixed economy. My guess would be that Socialists of that era, while rejecting much of the philosophy and politics of the Enlightenment still accepted implicitly the art of that era by default, much like most political advocates do today. Few people make much of a connection between art and philosophy. If you want to get at the essence of the difference there is only one distinction I can see and that is content. I’m not well versed in art but to draw a distinction between the two, my off the cuff answer would be Romantic Realism is Romantic Art as individual inspiration while Socialist Realism is Romantic Art as a Labor Movement propaganda vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) The old left was so much cooler than the new left. Some interesting quotes from wikipedia - In art, Constructivism flourished. In poetry, the nontraditional and the avant-garde were often praised. This, however, was rejected by some members of the Communist party, who did not appreciate modern styles such as Impressionism and Cubism, since these movements existed before the revolution and were thus associated with "decadent bourgeois art." Socialist realism was, to some extent, a reaction against the adoption of these "decadent" styles. It was thought that the non-representative forms of art were not understood by the proletariat and could therefore not be used by the state for propaganda. Alexander Bogdanov argued that the radical reformation of society to Communist principles meant little if any bouregeois art would prove useful; some of his more radical followers advocated the destruction of libraries and museums.[1] Lenin rejected this philosophy, "Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner, and bureaucratic society."[3] Modern art styles appeared to refuse to draw upon this heritage, thus clashing with the long realist tradition in Russia and rendering the art scene complex.[4] In Leningrad well-known artist and art teacher Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin was elected the first president of the Union of Artists. This choice laid down the foundation of the lasting development of the Leningrad Union of Artists and Academy of Arts as a unified creative body. In 1931-2, the early emphasis on the "little man" and the anonymous laboring masses gave way to the "hero of labor", derived from the people but set apart by the scale of his deeds.[7] Writers were explicitly enjoined to develop "heroization."[7] This reflected a call for romantic art, which reflected the ideal rather than the realistic.[8] Furthermore, it should show one clear and unambiguous meaning.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzma_Petrov-Vodkin It seems like the main thing thats wrong with Socialist Realism is the fact that, like the early naturalists, there is an absurd emphasis on "educating" people. I don't think at all. What the artist gains from creating are and what the person gains from enjoying it are two different things that can vary from person to person. Also, it is ideologically bathed in a bastardization of Marx's philosophy. Otherwise I generally approve of a lot of what I am seeing. Edited December 3, 2012 by Hairnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) There are huge similarities between romantic realism and socialist realism. Why do you think this is the case? Artworks don't necessarily qualify as "romantic realism" under Objectivism's usage of the term just because an artist says that his art is "romantic realism." I think it's highly unlikely that Rand would agree that the samples that you posted above are examples of what she meant by the term. I think she'd call them something like "false romanticism," "fantasy symbolism" or "propagandistic heroism." J Edited December 3, 2012 by Jonathan13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Because socialist realism is just a more restrictive imitation of romantic realism? How could socialist realism be an "imitation" of something that it preceded? J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) How could socialist realism be an "imitation" of something that it preceded? J Socialist propaganda preceded romantic realism? Huh? (wait, are you saying that romantic realism is something Ayn Rand came up with?) Edited December 3, 2012 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Socialist propaganda preceded romantic realism? Huh? (wait, are you saying that romantic realism is something Ayn Rand came up with?) Yes, "romanitic realism" IS something that Rand came up with, and she came up with it after the existence of socialist realism. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate87 Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) The old left was so much cooler than the new left. Some interesting quotes from wikipedia - In art, Constructivism flourished. In poetry, the nontraditional and the avant-garde were often praised. This, however, was rejected by some members of the Communist party, who did not appreciate modern styles such as Impressionism and Cubism, since these movements existed before the revolution and were thus associated with "decadent bourgeois art." Socialist realism was, to some extent, a reaction against the adoption of these "decadent" styles. It was thought that the non-representative forms of art were not understood by the proletariat and could therefore not be used by the state for propaganda. Alexander Bogdanov argued that the radical reformation of society to Communist principles meant little if any bouregeois art would prove useful; some of his more radical followers advocated the destruction of libraries and museums.[1] Lenin rejected this philosophy, "Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner, and bureaucratic society."[3] Modern art styles appeared to refuse to draw upon this heritage, thus clashing with the long realist tradition in Russia and rendering the art scene complex.[4] In Leningrad well-known artist and art teacher Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin was elected the first president of the Union of Artists. This choice laid down the foundation of the lasting development of the Leningrad Union of Artists and Academy of Arts as a unified creative body. In 1931-2, the early emphasis on the "little man" and the anonymous laboring masses gave way to the "hero of labor", derived from the people but set apart by the scale of his deeds.[7] Writers were explicitly enjoined to develop "heroization."[7] This reflected a call for romantic art, which reflected the ideal rather than the realistic.[8] Furthermore, it should show one clear and unambiguous meaning.[9] http://en.wikipedia....a_Petrov-Vodkin It seems like the main thing thats wrong with Socialist Realism is the fact that, like the early naturalists, there is an absurd emphasis on "educating" people. I don't think at all. What the artist gains from creating are and what the person gains from enjoying it are two different things that can vary from person to person. Also, it is ideologically bathed in a bastardization of Marx's philosophy. Otherwise I generally approve of a lot of what I am seeing. Interesting points, but I still don't think we have a satisfactory explanation of the visual similarities of the art. Also, I should have included Nazi art: Die Partei, Arno Breker's statue representing the spirit of the Nazi Party Why is the art of Objectivism, Nazism, and Communism visually the same in all essentials? I especially want to explore this in light of Rand's definition of art: "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments". This implies that Nazi, Communist, and Objectivist romantic realists share the same metaphysical value judgements. If this is not the case, then surely you are disagreeing with Rand's definition of art since the 3 styles are visually the same in all essentials. Artworks don't necessarily qualify as "romantic realism" under Objectivism's usage of the term just because an artist says that his art is "romantic realism." I think it's highly unlikely that Rand would agree that the samples that you posted above are examples of what she meant by the term. I think she'd call them something like "false romanticism," "fantasy symbolism" or "propagandistic heroism." J The examples I label romantic realism above are from http://www.cordair.com/ labelled as romantic realist. One of the images is used on the cover of Ayn Rand's books. The socialist realism ones are from Wikipedia labelled socialist realism. And the Nazi one above is from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....iki/Arno_Breker. Apparently Goebbels used the term "romantic realism" to describe the party's policy on art. But I am not interested in the propaganda aspect. All three are identical in visual artistic essentials. Why? And what does this say about Rand's definition of art? Edited December 3, 2012 by Kate87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 But I am not interested in the propaganda aspect. All three are identical in visual artistic essentials. Why? And what does this say about Rand's definition of art? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) sorry fat fingers As to your point of Rand's definition of art are you only focusing on sculpture? not say literature? or painting? Edited December 3, 2012 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Why is the art of Objectivism, Nazism, and Communism visually the same in all essentials? The "art of Objectivism"? Rand would say that, other than her art, there is no such thing as "the art of Objectivism." Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (p. 185): (Before you deluge me with questions about there being no such thing as Objectivist art, let me add: My novels are Objectivist, because I translated my sense of life into conscious terms. I can't say that about anyone else's novels. Further, no such formulas necessarily apply to other fields of art. For example, my husband's paintings are exactly in his field what my novels are in mine, but I'd never call it "Objectivist painting." No such term is appropriate.) I especially want to explore this in light of Rand's definition of art: "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments". This implies that Nazi, Communist, and Objectivist romantic realists share the same metaphysical value judgements. If this is not the case, then surely you are disagreeing with Rand's definition of art since the 3 styles are visually the same in all essentials. How did you determine what is "essential" to the styles? How have you determined that you have accurately identified the "metaphysical value-judgments" in the various artworks, and that you haven't erred in your interpretations? On what grounds have you concluded that you haven't misread some of the subtleties of differences in style and content in the artworks? There are elements of Objectivism that are similar to the other ideologies, so how have you verified that you haven't misidentified which of the elements presented in the various artworks are "essential" to the art and to the ideology that you think they reflect? The examples I label romantic realism above are from http://www.cordair.com/ labelled as romantic realist. One of the images is used on the cover of Ayn Rand's books. Again, the fact that some of Rand's followers have called their art "romantic realism" doesn't necessarily make it so. The fact that a publisher of Rand's books has printed certain images on the covers doesn't not make those images "romantic realism" by her meaning of the term. In fact, they might not even quality as "art" by her criteria. She might have seen them as mere illustrations or utilitarian, commercial graphics. But I am not interested in the propaganda aspect. All three are identical in visual artistic essentials. Why? And what does this say about Rand's definition of art? I disagree that they are identical in visual artistic essentials. I don't think that you have enough knowledge of the visual arts to be asserting what is "essential" to a work of art's style or content. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate87 Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 sorry fat fingers As to your point of Rand's definition of art are you only focusing on sculpture? not say literature? or painting? Why is the art of Objectivism, Nazism, and Communism visually the same in all essentials? I especially want to explore this in light of Rand's definition of art: "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments". I am focusing on all visual arts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I am focusing on all visual arts. Then based on that you are focusing on a particular style/media , I would say it says nothing whatsoever as it concerns Rand's definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate87 Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 The "art of Objectivism"? Rand would say that, other than her art, there is no such thing as "the art of Objectivism." Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (p. 185): (Before you deluge me with questions about there being no such thing as Objectivist art, let me add: My novels are Objectivist, because I translated my sense of life into conscious terms. I can't say that about anyone else's novels. Further, no such formulas necessarily apply to other fields of art. For example, my husband's paintings are exactly in his field what my novels are in mine, but I'd never call it "Objectivist painting." No such term is appropriate.) How did you determine what is "essential" to the styles? How have you determined that you have accurately identified the "metaphysical value-judgments" in the various artworks, and that you haven't erred in your interpretations? On what grounds have you concluded that you haven't misread some of the subtleties of differences in style and content in the artworks? There are elements of Objectivism that are similar to the other ideologies, so how have you verified that you haven't misidentified which of the elements presented in the various artworks are "essential" to the art and to the ideology that you think they reflect? Again, the fact that some of Rand's followers have called their art "romantic realism" doesn't necessarily make it so. The fact that a publisher of Rand's books has printed certain images on the covers doesn't not make those images "romantic realism" by her meaning of the term. In fact, they might not even quality as "art" by her criteria. She might have seen them as mere illustrations or utilitarian, commercial graphics. I disagree that they are identical in visual artistic essentials. I don't think that you have enough knowledge of the visual arts to be asserting what is "essential" to a work of art's style or content. J You are right about my knowledge; I am no expert on art. From a complete layman's perspective however, I put it to you that all the images posted above are visually very similar. Why? I agree that I shouldn't have used the phrase "Objectivist art". But I do think the image examples I used above are correctly classified. ie the romantic realist examples are romantic realist. Whether they are good or bad works of art is a different question, as is whether Rand would have agreed with the classification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 You are right about my knowledge; I am no expert on art. From a complete layman's perspective however, I put it to you that all the images posted above are visually very similar. Why? Why do the artworks have similarities? I think one reason is that the artists have approached their work as something closer to propaganda and overtly message-laden symbolism than as art. I think the common element you're detecting in the works is a blunt evangelism, a desire to really pound home and sell the message, even though the messages are quite different. I agree that I shouldn't have used the phrase "Objectivist art". But I do think the image examples I used above are correctly classified. ie the romantic realist examples are romantic realist. Whether they are good or bad works of art is a different question, as is whether Rand would have agreed with the classification. I disagree. They are not "Romantic Realism" as Rand meant when using the term. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdegges Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I disagree. They are not "Romantic Realism" as Rand meant when using the term. Can you post an example of a piece of artwork that you consider to be under the category 'romantic realism'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 The art is similar because it involves portraying a hero and a heroic sense of life. Also I would also like to point out that Nazis, Fascists, and even the Soviets were clearly taking inspiration from the classical era (Rome, Greece) as well as the 19th century romantics. They wanted stuff that was ungothic and unmodern. There wasn't much choice for them but to embrace those movements. Its clear that these artists were brought together and were used to make propaganda for the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Yes, "romanitic realism" IS something that Rand came up with, and she came up with it after the existence of socialist realism. J That's so blatantly not true, I'm not even sure it needs addressing. Ever heard of a guy named Fyodor Dostoevsky? He was a romantic realist. Ayn Rand went even further than that: She attributed the idea of romantic art (as it should properly be made: as romantic realism) to Aristotle. She called Victor Hugo's Les Miserables a romantic realist novel many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Yes, "romanitic realism" IS something that Rand came up with, and she came up with it after the existence of socialist realism. Reading the Wikipedia suggests that you're wrong, that Rand didn't come up with the term. I'm aware that she defined it uniquely and had other unique considerations, but is it accurate to say she came up with it? Or do you mean others may have said romantic realism, but Rand spoke of a *particular* viewpoint that is more specific than others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Reading the Wikipedia suggests that you're wrong, that Rand didn't come up with the term. I'm aware that she defined it uniquely and had other unique considerations, but is it accurate to say she came up with it? Or do you mean others may have said romantic realism, but Rand spoke of a *particular* viewpoint that is more specific than others? I'm not even sure it's relevant who came up with the term. What's relevant is who came up with the kind of art the term describes. The OPs question is about why socialist art is similar to romantic art, not about the names they each have. By Ayn Rand's own admission (and by just looking at the history of art, no matter how superficially), the idea of drawing, painting, sculpting about man as he can and ought to be is not new. It's been done before the 20th century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) That's so blatantly not true, I'm not even sure it needs addressing. Ever heard of a guy named Fyodor Dostoevsky? He was a romantic realist. No, he wasn't. Donald Fanger is the only person who has referred to Dostoevsky as a "romantic realist." The fact that people other than Rand have used the term "romantic realism" does not mean that their usage has anything in common with her use of the term, just as others' previous use of the term "objectivism" doesn't mean that their ideas had anything in common with Rand's, or that they were the basis of Rand's philosophy. If you're suggesting that Rand was influenced by Fanger's book, that it is the basis of the Objectivist Esthetics, and that Rand took Fanger's concept of "romantic realism" and "went even further," then you're wrong. Ayn Rand went even further than that: She attributed the idea of romantic art (as it should properly be made: as romantic realism) to Aristotle. She called Victor Hugo's Les Miserables a romantic realist novel many times. The fact that Rand may have anachronistically called others' previous novels "romantic realism" doesn't make it retroactively true. In arguing about which came first, Rand's concept of "romantic realism" or the Nazi's or Soviet's "socialist realism," it is illogical to cite Rand's anachronistic classification of others' works, just as it would be for me to identify certain works of Greek art as being consistent with socialist realism and to therefore categorize them as "socialist realism," and to then say, "There, see? Socialist realism was around before Dostoevsky, and therefore prior to any use of the term 'romantic realism.'" Rand's categorizing of others' previous works as "romantic realism" doesn't make those artists retroactive adherents to her belief system, but only makes therir art examples of art that is coincidentally consistent with her concept of romantic realism. As for Rand's attributing romanticism to Aristotle, she was mistaken. Aristotle was not the father of romanticism. If any philosopher could be said to be the father of romanticism, it would be Kant (but it would be more accurate to say that, in the history of art, artists have led and philosophers have followed -- the artists created new means of expression, and the philosophers then sought to explain it. In other words, the Objectivist view of the influence of philosophy on art has it historically backwards). Rand didn't have much knowledge of art history, or of aesthetics outside of literature, and I think that she was misled by someone in her circle who wasn't as scholarly on the subject as he or she may have led Rand to believe. I mean, Rand's comment on Kant's destructive aesthetic influence reveals that she wasn't even aware of the fact that the signature aesthetic style and "sense of life" in all of her own art was Kant's very famous concept of the Sublime! Do you grasp how misled she had to be on the subject of aesthetics in order to not recognize that fact? J Edited December 4, 2012 by Jonathan13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Reading the Wikipedia suggests that you're wrong, that Rand didn't come up with the term. I didn't say that no one prior to Rand had ever used the term. If they had, it's nothing but a coincidence, and has nothing to do with her use of the term. Rand did not begin with someone else's concept of "romantic realism" and "take it further." She developed her own original theory and called it "romantic realism." I'm aware that she defined it uniquely and had other unique considerations, but is it accurate to say she came up with it? Or do you mean others may have said romantic realism, but Rand spoke of a *particular* viewpoint that is more specific than others? Yes, Rand's use of "romantic realism" has nothing to do with others' previous uses of it. J Edited December 4, 2012 by Jonathan13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Can you post an example of a piece of artwork that you consider to be under the category 'romantic realism'? As far as I know, some of Capuletti's work may be the only visual art that we know might qualify as "romantic realism" according to Rand's meaning of the term. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan13 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) The OPs question is about why socialist art is similar to romantic art, not about the names they each have. No, the OP's question is not about why "socialist art" is similar to "romantic art," but why socialist realism is similar to art works that are purported to be romantic realism. (my point here is that your use of the terms "socialist art" and "romantic art" are not anywhere near to being accurate, since they cover much larger categories of art than what they OP addresses -- "socialist realism" is a small subcategory of "socialist art," and "romantic realism" is a small subcategory of "romantic art.") By Ayn Rand's own admission (and by just looking at the history of art, no matter how superficially), the idea of drawing, painting, sculpting about man as he can and ought to be is not new. It's been done before the 20th century. And there are also ancient works of art which show working class people heroically struggling in the name of the state. The fact that they are coincidentally fully consistent with socialist realism doesn't make them socialist realism. J Edited December 4, 2012 by Jonathan13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.