Symbiosis of conformism and Socialist Realism as the basis of the creative activity of the Soviet artist

Mysovskikh Lev Olegovich ORCID: 0000-0003-0731-1998 Postgraduate Student, Philological Faculty, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature, Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin 620083, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Lenin str., 51, office 336 levmisov@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

In modern research, one can find conclusions that conformism can act as a kind of tactic for the artist to achieve his creative goals, since "the phenomenon of conformism can be used as an effective way of maneuvering the artist between certain problems that does not require a moral assessment from the researcher" ^{[16, p. 62]}. With this approach to the phenomenon under consideration, conformity becomes an effective way for the artist to optimize relations with the authorities and society, a way of social self-preservation. At the same time, such tactics of the artist's existence does not necessarily mean that he sincerely shares the norms and rules established in the society where he exists, and supports the government with its dominant ideology. This kind of situation among the Soviet intelligentsia is described, for example, by V. F. Kormer in his article "The double consciousness of the intelligentsia and pseudo-culture". The author asserts that "the whole existence of the intelligentsia bears the imprint of an all-pervading duality. The intelligentsia does not accept Soviet Power, repels it, sometimes hates it, and, on the other hand, there is a symbiosis between them, it nourishes it, nurtures and nurtures it; the intelligentsia is waiting for the collapse of Soviet Power, hopes that this collapse will happen sooner or later, and, on the other hand, cooperates in the meantime with the intelligentsia suffers because it is forced to live under Soviet rule, and at the same time, on the other hand, strives for well-being. The incompatible is combined. It is not enough to call it conformism, conformism is a completely legitimate reconciliation of interests through mutual concessions, accepted everywhere in human society. It is also not enough to denounce the behavior of the intelligentsia as opportunism. That would be a one-sided interpretation. Adaptability is already a derivative of deeper processes. If this is lackeyism, then lackeyism is not ordinary, but lackeyism with a twist, with suffering, with a "dostoevschinka". There is both the horror of the fall and the enjoyment of it at once; no conformism, no adaptation knows such sophisticated torments. The existence of the intelligentsia is painful for itself, irrational, schizoid" ^{[8, pp. 65-79]}.

An artist who wants to do what he loves and carry his artistic works to the masses is often simply forced to compromise with the authorities, since this is sometimes the only opportunity for him to engage in creativity. An artist can hate the government, can even criticize it, if, of course, the government allows it to do so. But are there many artists who are ready to completely abandon creativity in order to have nothing to do with the government and the existing system, which they find unacceptable? The opposite picture is usually observed: the artistic intelligentsia fights in a fierce competition for state grants, subsidies, prizes and awards, participates in tenders in order to receive a state order for the creation of a certain work of art. Thus, the driving force behind the development of conformity in the artistic sphere is the right for an artist to exist within the framework of culture approved by the authorities, which arises due to conformity.

We can also say that an artist always has a choice: whether to cooperate with the authorities or, on the contrary, to defiantly dissociate himself from it, as well as from society in general, and engage in creativity in conditions of complete autonomy. In fact, there is not always such an opportunity. Sometimes the authorities deprive the artist of such a right. For example, in the USSR, the author could easily get a real term for samizdat. Such a situation is typical, in principle, for any totalitarian state. But even if an artist is lucky enough to live in a state with a liberal-democratic system, this still does not mean that he can freely engage in creativity. The artist's creativity is determined by his financial situation.

Thus, we can say that conformity is an indispensable condition for the existence of an artist within the framework of official culture defined by the authorities. Only being inside these frames, the artist has the opportunity to engage in creativity, which is able to expand these frames, as if by stealth, as if inadvertently, by creating works of art. Although existence within strict boundaries inevitably leads the artist to a decrease in his creative potential, forces him to look for opportunities for creative realization that clearly do not go beyond the established line, nevertheless, even in such conditions artists are capable of creating beautiful works of art.

At the same time, works of art created by conformist artists can have a radically opposite effect on their consumers. Turning back to ancient times, we can recall David, who pleased the evil king Saul with his music. David's musical art was so perfect that even the demons left Saul alone for a while and he stopped doing evil. In contrast to this example, we can mention the choreographic art of Salome, with which she flattered King Herod, and as a reward for which she asked to bring her the head cut off from John the Baptist. In both cases, art can be considered as a weapon created by an artist, presumably a conformist, and in his hands. But, as can be seen from the examples given, the hands are different…

Speaking about the specifics of conformism in the Soviet art sphere, it is important to note that the totalitarian regime established in the early years of Soviet power was a favorable ground for the development of conformism among Soviet artists. In the twenties and thirties of the last century, a radical restructuring of the entire sphere of culture took place in the Soviet Union. Socialist realism becomes the official artistic method, within the strict framework of which the government allowed artists to exist. The artists who went through the process of their formation in tsarist Russia faced a difficult task: how to bring your creativity in line with the requirements of the new time? In fact, the artists had no other choice but to completely abandon creativity in their native country. As a result, only adherence to socialist realism gave artists the right to creativity. Although it should be noted here that, of course, not every artist had to commit violence against himself in order to join the socialist realist creativity. Of course, many artists sincerely accepted the ideas of socialist realism and felt quite harmonious, engaging in creativity within its strict framework, which sometimes led to the creation of outstanding works of socialist realist art, a vivid example of which is the Soviet ballet, the formation of which on the basis of socialist realist ideas began in the second half of the twenties of the twentieth century. Modern research shows that "through the efforts of those artists who stayed and found ways to reconcile, agree, accept and justify what their experience, reason and taste did not accept initially, ballet in the Soviet Union soon became one of the main trends in the entire Soviet socialist-realist art, becoming later, despite its a bright ideological orientation, a standard for classical choreographic art all over the world" ^{[15, p. 56]}.

Thus, in the situation that developed in the early years of Soviet power, characterized by the complete scrapping of the previously existing model of culture and the establishment of completely different cultural ideals, conformism becomes for artists a tool for determining their own identity, a way of existence consistent with new cultural requirements that gave artists the opportunity to live and engage in creativity. In such a situation, conformity is a kind of strategy for artists, thanks to which they manage to achieve their creative goals and successfully exist within the established cultural framework.

It can also be assumed that conformism helped artists who put their work at the service of socialist realism to find some basis for their activities, because socialist realism did not initially possess such a basis. Socialist realism could not be considered a classical art, since it had no established traditions. But it is also impossible to consider socialist realism as Art Nouveau, because it was completely dependent on state power and was in the service of the official ideology, and therefore it is impossible to talk about the autonomy of socialist realist art, since the presence of an autonomous field of art described in the theories of the representative of the French sociology of culture Pierre Bourdieu is a characteristic feature of Art Nouveau. The only reason that made possible the emergence and continued existence of socialist realism was the state order for the production of works of art. The artists needed to somehow link together this order for their creative work with the idea of creative freedom, without which the truth of art can be questioned. And then conformism came to the artist's aid, helping to find acceptable forms of consent for him and to start custom-made creativity. A striking example of such a conformist artist is the outstanding Soviet ballerina Galina Ulanova, whose study of life and work makes it possible to conclude that "Ulanova throughout her life constantly showed signs of conformist behavior, finding ways to reconcile, agree, accept, justify what initially her experience, mind and taste did not accept, which, however, did not make her art fake or worthless. The brilliant art of Galina Sergeevna Ulanova has received worldwide recognition, despite any ideological differences and ambiguity in assessing the personality of the greatest ballerina. The name of the conformist artist - Galina Sergeevna Ulanova – turned out to be inscribed in golden letters in the world history of classical choreographic art, despite the canon of the autonomous field of art that she violated, stating that creativity should be free" ^{[14, p. 385]}.

Perhaps some artists, as if justifying themselves, are trying to disguise their policy of agreement with the authorities, arguing about the blurring of terms. For example, the famous playwright, novelist and poet Vladimir Nikolaevich Voinovich in the book "Self-Portrait: The Novel of my Life" argues that conformity and compromise differ significantly from each other. Voinovich argues that "compromise is a necessary condition for human existence in human society. There are no completely uncompromising people. Extreme uncompromising bordering on idiocy. On the other hand, compromise can cross the line beyond which conformity and unscrupulousness begin" ^{[7, pp. 65-79]}. That is, here V. N. Voinovich puts conformity on a par with unscrupulousness, and opposes compromise to them, apparently meaning by it an agreement achieved through mutual concessions. But in fact, it is quite difficult to imagine a totalitarian government, at least in some way inferior to the artist.… And why? After all, the authorities can demand from the artist anything they want without any concessions. Moreover, there are always plenty of artists who are ready immediately and with full zeal to fulfill any demand of the authorities without any concessions on their part. But it is also important to note that the authorities do not need any artist who shows loyalty and willingness to fulfill any order, but, above all, talented, and even better – known in the world and having a large symbolic capital in the international autonomous field of art, as Pierre Bourdieu also argues in his theories, comparing the accumulation of symbolic artists capital with a peculiar game: "Certain types of capital, as trumps in the game, are the power that determines the chances of winning in a given field (indeed, each field or subfield corresponds to a special type of capital that has circulation in this field as power or as a bet in the game)" ^{[6, p. 16]}. The constant attention of the authorities to such outstanding creators as S. Prokofiev, M. Gorky, B. Pasternak, D. Shostakovich, S. Eisenstein and many other geniuses of world fame testifies to the attitude to attract artists with solid symbolic capital to their camp. It was such representatives of the sphere of art, with their great authority, that the authorities were eager to get as singers of their greatness. Bargaining and deals with such famous creators were among the most important priorities of the authorities. So these artists, even if they wanted to shut up, or choose the path of "writing to the table", they would not be allowed to do it. But in order to achieve their goal, the authorities had to accept how the artists themselves saw the contours of the task, how they intended to fulfill it, by what means to achieve the expression of Soviet ideals. For example, no one could impose the principles of composition and methods of working with musical material on Shostakovich. And this meant that within the social order he had the possibility of a certain freedom of choice of artistic strategy, solving his own creative tasks, for example, in the field of language and form.

During the seventy-year existence of the Soviet government, the Soviet artist repeatedly had to change his masks. First, this happened during the change of the culture of tsarist Russia to the new Soviet culture, then during the exposure of the cult of personality and the Khrushchev thaw, then during the so-called "stagnation" and, finally, at the turn of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In such conditions of constant transformation of cultural requirements and the need to fully comply with them, conformism becomes for the artist not just a tactic in achieving creative goals, but also a kind of self-defense mechanism that allows to preserve mental and physical health.

The work of Soviet artists who achieved success within the framework of socialist realism often leads modern researchers to difficulty in assessing it. On the one hand, the complete dependence of creativity on the state order for it is obvious, which, it would seem, belittles its true value, but on the other hand, the presence of works of socialist realist art recognized as masterpieces all over the world clearly indicates that serving the creativity of the prevailing ideology, it turns out, does not automatically make this creativity fake and unfit. In light of this, it can be suggested that the greatest success in putting creativity at the service of the government and the official ideology approved by it could be achieved by those artists who were most organically able to fit into the Soviet system and accept its ideological attitudes as close to their own artistic preferences. That is, the artists themselves from among the most successful of them could also be interested in meeting the demands of the authorities, and not only creating from under the stick, fearing cruel repression and being under vigilant control and constant pressure from the competent authorities. In other words, our assumption can also be expressed as follows: the most successful Soviet artists were able to realize their talent by creating a lot of bright works of art due to the fact that they created precisely in line with socialist realism, and if it were not for it, perhaps the world would never have known about some outstanding Soviet artists, equally nor would I have seen their works of art, since the realization of Soviet artists in a different cultural environment might well not have taken place.

The study of the creativity of artists who created their works in conditions of unfreedom constantly makes us ask ourselves whether this creativity can be considered authentic? Are such concepts as art and freedom inseparable? And is a true artist necessarily a nonconformist? A positive answer to these questions, presumably, should put an end to the Soviet artists who worked in the field of fulfilling the state order, as artists. However, the presence of vivid examples of the creative activity of many Soviet artists who created brilliant works of art refutes this assumption.