“Socialist in content, national in form:” the making of Soviet national art and the case of Buryatia

Abstract

This article examines the fine art of the Soviet national republics and its discourse in the Soviet Union, which were considerably shaped under the influence of socialist realism and Soviet nationality policy. While examining the central categories of Soviet artistic discourse such as the “national form,” “national distinctness,” and “tradition,” as well as cultural and scientific institutions responsible for the image of art of non-Russian nationalities, the author reveals the existence of a number of colonial features and discursive and institutional practices that foster a cultural divide between Russian and non-Russian culture and contribute to the marginalization of art. Special attention is paid to the implications of this discursive shaping for the local artistic scene in Buryatia.

Socialist in Form, “National” in Content? Art and Ideology in Soviet Tajikistan

“…In Soviet Central Asia, this period was characterized by the strengthening of national identities and the rise of nationalist movements, pushing for “national” agendas (Brown 1990). This corresponded with the cultural and “national” revival in non-Russian Soviet republics (Tagangaeva 2017, 407; Dodkhudoeva 2006, 144), which was visible for example in attempts to “nationalize” socialist discourses in locally created artworks, in order to ensure public resonance. Yet, as our third case study from Soviet Tajikistan will show, the “national” meant not only “Tajik,” but also involved opening a new space for an independent agency of local artists.…”

“…In that period, the prominent tsarist-era artists who preferred avant-garde styles continued to enjoy dominant positions among the artists involved in the newly created national art unions. At the same time, the “artisanal” folklore-type of art was developing freely under the “national in form” dictum (Tagangaeva 2017, 396–399; Boynazarov 2018, 117–118). It was only in 1932, under Stalinist control, when artists, as “engineers of souls,” as Rosenthal (2002) puts it, “were invited to participate in socialist construction” (294).…”

“…In that period, naturalist representation weakened and Tajik art witnessed what Dodkhudoeva (2006) calls “a certain democratization of the art language” (73, our translation). Given the attention paid to the so-called “nationalities question” by the Soviet elite starting from the 1920s (see Tagangaeva 2017), art started being more actively deployed at that time as a means to acknowledge the nationalities living in Soviet republics—more and more on their own terms.…”

“…By exploring the nexus between art and ideology in Soviet Tajikistan, we aim to contribute to diverse, emerging bodies of literature, which re-read the Soviet past and legacies (Kiaer and Naiman 2005; Yurchak 2005; Abashin 2015; Mamedov and Shatalova 2016; Tlostanova 2018); Soviet-era art and the arts (Reid 1996; 1998; Kiaer 2005); and cultural practices in the non-Russian Soviet periphery (Stronski 2010; Igmen 2012; Kudaibergenova 2017; Tagangaeva 2017; Isaacs 2018). By adopting a post-modern perspective on ethnicity, nationhood, and culture, we refrain from an essentializing reading which would take concepts such as the Soviet, the Tajik, or the local as given.…”

Free Time Is Not Meant to Be Wasted: Educational, Political, and Taboo Leisure Activities among the Soviet Buryats of Eastern Siberia

“…They explain that museums—both the buildings and the content inside—are impressive and therefore make the state appear modern, progressive, and concerned for society (Duncan 1995; Prior 2002). Maria Taganaeva explains that when officials provided people like the Buryats with spaces to exhibit their art, they could fulfill one of the goals of Soviet nationalities policies, which was to demonstrate how people, especially from places like Siberia and Central Asia, could evolve under Soviet tutelage (Taganaeva 2017). In Buryatia, the building of museums and the exhibitions that they housed showed that the Soviet government and the Communist Party were the providers of a developed and modern infrastructure for the Buryats, which had improved intellectual, cultural, and social life.…”