This question focuses on the introduction of Russian Constructivism, the Mexican
Mural movement which were mainly affected by the ideology of Marxism. How they are
different from each other aesthetically, ideologically, conceptually.
Russian Constructivism began right after the Bolshevik revolution against Russian
Empire. Before the revolution, people under the regime of the Empire were abused by the
government which was unwilling to change the old ways of its bourgeoisie rule. Lenin and
the people of Russian wanted to create a fair society for all. Basically the wealth should be
equally distributed to the people. It was a people's revolution rather than a traditional region
change. With the social change, brought upon the change of people's pursuit of art. Traditional
art like oil paintings and iconography were abandoned, because they were overly bourgeois.
In Russian Constructivism the art no longer was for art's sake, it served a social purpose. Art
objects were made out of ready-made materials. They focused on bring different elements
together to make an art whether it is music, architecture or cinema. The purpose of Russian
Constructivism was to serve the people and be practical at the same time.
Much similar to the Russian Constructivism, The Mexican Mural Movement was
people's cultural expression through art towards the Mexican revolution. Led by artists like
Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueriros, the movement was a way to unify the people and
express Mexican's cultural quality in the process. Themes of the murals were often related
...
... middle of paper ...
...mmunist society. On the other, it seems to
focus on the complete abolishing of bourgeoisie society.
We label John Berger as a Marxist critic because in his writings, he talks about
the relationships between art history and capitalism. Goes on to use Marxism to critique
traditional oil paintings and how they are related to the advertising today. “Publicity images,
which are merely momentarily desirable advertisements rule our sad American lives.” (WS)
The book “Way of Seeing” is trying to popularizing Marxism through art. It is a more
interesting way for people to learn Marxism through this book rather than Karl Marx's books.
“Way of Seeing” not only gives us a whole new way of seeing art, but new perspectives of
evaluating our society in general.
Culture in the Soviet Union possessed many stages as different leaders enforced very different rules in regard to accepted art forms. Under Lenin, many forms and styles of art were accepted as long as they were not overly detrimental to the party mission. Lenin wanted to find a signature style of art that would be unique to the Soviet Union. In order to do this Lenin put very little restriction on the arts. Great experimentation was done in writing and painting and many radical styles were developed during this time. When Lenin died, Joseph Stalin came into power and accepted art that looked drastically different from its previous years. Stalin enforced a much stricter policy on art. Stalin’s policy was named Socialist realism and featured
Historically, Russia has always been a country of perplexing dualities. The reality of Dual Russia, the separation of the official culture from that of the common people, persisted after the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War. The Czarist Russia was at once modernized and backward: St. Petersburg and Moscow stood as the highly developed industrial centers of the country and two of the capitals of Europe, yet the overwhelming majority of the population were subsistent farms who lived on mir; French was the official language and the elites were highly literate, yet 82% of the populati...
The Russian revolution was made with the goal of creating an egalitarian government that was based off of Karl Marx’s socialism principles. In short, they used Karl Marx’s socialist principles as a basis for their communist government that developed after the revolution.
Though people can look into color and composition, others can still even look into the source of the art itself. Cole goes deeper, delving into the source of the art, looking in particular into the idea of cultural appropriation and the view a person can give others. Though it is good for people to be exposed to different opinions of a group or an object, sometimes people can find it difficult to tell the difference between the reality and the art itself. Sometimes art can be so powerful that its message stays and impacts its audience to the point where the viewer’s image of the subject of the art changes entirely. Cole brings up an important question about art, however. Art has become some kind of media for spreading awareness and even wisdom at times, but in reality, “there is also the question of what the photograph is for, what role it plays within the economic circulation of images” (973). Cole might even be implying that Nussbaum’s advertisement can sometimes be the point of some media, and that sometimes the different genres of art can just be to make someone with a particular interest happy. One more point that Cole makes is that “[a]rt is always difficult, but it is especially difficult when it comes to telling other people’s stories.” (974) Truthfully, awareness and other like-concepts are difficult to keep going when a person or a group is not directly involved.
acceptance and humanitarian motives. I learned that the artists and admirers of art in the
Tyson, Lois. "Marxist Criticism." Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. New York: Garland Pub., 1999. 52-64. Print.
bearThroughout the story, but the kind of Marxism is not like in the 19th century. John Lasseter
Art, in general, is simultaneously a product of our society, and a way to control it. Members of society, no matter the period, have used various forms of art in order to take charge of the minds of individuals in their community. Art, having the ability to remain in the hearts and minds of the people, has always affected the psychology and emotions of the people. When art gives off a truly understandable message, viewers are captured by the intensity of the piece. Those in power can use this to their own advantage by having the art created in the manner in which they please...
As the twilight of Russian Realism was approaching, Russian modernism was on the way to its awakening. Due to the modernism movement, many different styles of art, and not to mention poetry, came to be. So, what exactly is modernism, one might ask. Modernism is described as breaking up with the past and promoting innovation along with creation; coming up with the next new thing. It is looking for new forms or ways to express one’s self. Modern artists and poets agreed that works of art shouldn’t be created for utilitarian purposes, rather for art’s sake; doesn’t necessarily have to have a purpose or meaning behind it. One shouldn’t have to make art solely to depict the common lifestyle, but rather to experiment with colors, shapes, forms, and textures. Thus, making art that is fresh and new. Ultimately, modernism is the exact opposite of realism, which strictly emphasizes the everyday life, the average, and the typical. Thus, the Silver Age has arose and continued for a couple of decades of the 20th century.
Karl Marx was a brilliant man. He would analyze the thoughts and publications of the philosophers of his time. Intellectuals were not overly impressed by him. It wasn’t until after his death that his political, social, and economic writings and philosophies were sought after. This was especially true in the socialist movement. His peers considered his thoughts radical.
Over the next few years, Russia went through a traumatic time of civil war and turmoil. The Bolsheviks’ Red Army fought the white army of farmers, etc. against Lenin and his ways. Lenin and the Bolsheviks won and began to wean Russia of non-conforming parties eventually banning all non-communist as well as removing an assembly elected shortly after the Bolshevik’s gain of power. Lenin’s strict government, however, was about to get a lot stricter with his death in 1924.
In Confronting Images, Didi-Huberman considers disadvantages he sees in the academic approach of art history, and offers an alternative method for engaging art. His approach concentrates on that which is ‘visual’ long before coming to conclusive knowledge. Drawing support from the field of psycho analytics (Lacan, Freud, and Kant and Panofsky), Didi-Huberman argues that viewers connect with art through what he might describe as an instance of receptivity, as opposed to a linear, step-by-step analytical process. He underscores the perceptive mode of engaging the imagery of a painting or other work of art, which he argues comes before any rational ‘knowing’, thinking, or discerning. In other words, Didi-Huberman believes one’s mind ‘sees’ well before realizing and processing the object being looked at, let alone before understanding it. Well before the observer can gain any useful insights by scrutinizing and decoding what she sees, she is absorbed by the work of art in an irrational and unpredictable way. What Didi-Huberman is s...
People decided to rebel against the political and social rules of their time and started a new trend of art. It conveyed dramatic subjects perceived with strong feelings and imagination.
Shlovsky, Victor. "Art as Technique" The Critical Tradition. Ed., David H. Richter, New York: St. Martin's Press,