The Control of Soviet Artists: A Current Perspective on the Role and Function of the Artist Under Stalin (1929-1953)
Контроль над советскими художниками: современный взгляд на роль и функции художника при Сталине (1929-1953)
Introduction
From 1929 to 1956, while in the rest of the world, modern art was thriving and known for its freedom, the control of artists in the Soviet Union was more constrictive than ever before. During this period, Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, used the arts as an instrument for consolidating his power and promoting the communist ideology. This dissertation discusses that although Stalinist art was predominantly used as a tool of propaganda for the party, there were still examples of creative agency. By analysing works of art created during the years 1930 to 1945 by Soviet artists, including paintings and more public art such as posters, this essay will explore the boundaries between creative expression and state control. Using an example of Stalin’s favourite painting, Repin’s Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks (Fig 1), the significant impact of Socialist Realism will be evaluated, looking at how artists, such as Georgy Rublev, Aleksandr Gerasimov and Viktor Koretsky, engaged, or rebelled, from its expectations. Art historical writings that focus on this topic will be evaluated, including writings by Susan E. Reid and Matthew Cullerne Bown, who analyse the relationship between the party and artistic production. Ultimately, this essay will explore the extent of freedom and prosperity available to artists in the Soviet Union, challenging the notion that Soviet art can purely be limited to propaganda.


Figure 1: Gerasimov, Aleksandr, Stalin and Voroshilov in the Kremlin, oil on canvas, 1938, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/russian-pictures-2/stalin-and-voroshilov-in-the-kremlin


Creative Agency and Control
Creative agency and control are two key terms that will be referenced throughout this dissertation. The definition of these terms will guide the theories and points relating to the case studies, as well as Soviet art before, during and after The Great Patriotic War. The battle between artistic expression and the states’ authority is central to understanding visual culture and the role of the artist during the Stalinist period. Creative agency refers to the idea that an artist can act independently in their work and are able to express their own ideas. Having artistic freedom links to ideas of the artist’s individuality being central to the piece. It is most highlighted in artistic movements such as Expressionism, Surrealism, and Impressionism. In the rest of Europe, artists were renowned for their creative freedom in the same period, while in the Soviet Union there was very little space for any artistic individuality. The work of Impressionists, specifically those of Paul Cezanne, became ‘subject of endless debates’ within the Soviet Union, as it ‘threatened’ the ideals of Socialist Realism. In a general sense, control is rather subjective, with no strict definition; “one of the classic puzzles of social theory is how society induces us to behave in ways that serve not our own interest, but the common interest of society.” Stalin believed that the arts were a key part of consolidating his power, which would serve the ‘common interest of society.’ Control, or in this context, the control of the arts, can be dissected into two sections. Firstly, formal social control, which refers to explicit rules and laws, such as the implantation of official artistic organisations like the Union of Soviet Artists. Secondly through informal social control, which relies predominantly on social pressure and ‘unwritten’ rules to maintain order. Under Stalin, the state restricted artistic output and aimed to gain complete control over the arts. Stalin saw art as a way of communicating with the masses, and more importantly, influencing them. Artists were tasked with conveying the Soviet ideology to the people of Russia through their paintings or sculptures, with most works through the 1930s and 40s being commissioned directly by the state; ‘99% commissioned on themes devised by committees and approved by the political leadership’ What once was a creative and independent field of work, was soon tightly controlled by the state. Stalin, who had been General Secretary since 1922, wanted art to act as propaganda for his policies. ‘For Stalin, art of any kind was never to be more or less than the means to a political end – the establishment of communism.’

Chapter 2: Socialist Realism Using a Case Study of Stalin’s Favourite Painting
One of the most important themes of Stalinist art was Socialist Realism. Susan E. Reid, professor in Russian visual culture, has written numerous texts upon the topic. She discusses the importance of Socialist Realism in a 2001 issue of The Russian Review. Through the example of The Industry of Socialism, the first all-union art exhibition in the Soviet Union, Reid provides a clear and in depth understanding of Socialist Realism, and its relevance to the control in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Using examples of artists who exhibited in The Industry of Socialism, Reid explores why Socialist Realism was preferred and provides a limited insight into why these artists conformed to these expectations. In his 1995 book, Gleb Prokhorov also explores the theme of Socialist Realism through paintings created between 1930 and 1950. Prokhorov explores how Socialist Realism is a key example of how the Soviet Union was controlled by its dictatorship. He emphasises how unrealistic the subjects of these Socialist Realist paintings were and suggests how they were used purely as a form of propaganda, to encourage a ‘brighter Soviet future.’ Published only four years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a time when capitalist societies jumped at the opportunity to dissect the weaknesses of communism. 


Figure 2: Repin, Ilya, Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, Oil Paint on Canvas, 1880-1891, State Russian Museum, Russia, https://www.arthistoryproject.com/artists/ilya-repin/reply-of-the-zaporozhian-cossacks/


Prokhorov uses this book to point out the negatives of the regime and holds a relatively negative tone throughout the source. Socialist Realism functioned not only as an artistic style, but as a mechanism of ideological control. Some artists, such as Aleksandr Gerasimov, didn’t view Socialist Realism as repressive; they saw it as an opportunity to reconnect with the traditional ways of making and embraced the style into their practice. Gerasimov was one of the leading figures in Socialist Realist painting, creating some of the most recognisable pieces of the time, such as Stalin and Voroshilov in the Kremlin (1938) (Fig 1). Artists may have found the style reminiscent of Tsarist Russia and wanted to reunite with a time that was now beginning to be eliminated from their history. Socialist Realism moved art ‘away from the hallowed ideas of individual insight and expression, in theory making room for community and togetherness. It allowed the artists to explore themes of community and the simplicities of human life, although these images were often an ‘ideal’ of the truth, it may have acted as an escape from the harsh realities of Soviet life. There were also many bonuses for the ‘successful’ Socialist Realists. The Stalin Prize awarded artists with attention and large financial gains. Maintaining an artistic practice in such a harsh and tightly controlled regime, the Stalin Prize offered an opportunity for the artist to reap some benefits. At its core, Socialist Realism’s intention was to function as a political tool. Through using strong, heroic, and optimistic imagery, Socialist Realism aimed to shape public consciousness to support the State. Art was to be  easily accessible and uplifting, leaving no room for abstraction and artistic expression which was branded elitist. Gorki on Art, published in 1940 in the Soviet Union, provided a guide for how a Socialist Realist artist should approach their work. He stated that the artist should be both ‘midwife’ and ‘grave digger.’ An artist should ‘bury everything harmful to people, harmful even when they like it’ and look at the present day from the point of view of an assured glorious future.’ This suggested that artists should keep up the perfect image the party wants to show, hiding anything that goes against Party values. Artists were encouraged to portray the New Soviet Person; the New Soviet Man should be of ‘conventional masculine qualities, of good looks and athleticism’ while the New Soviet Woman should be the ‘physically robust version of womanhood – broad shouldered, broad hipped, big boned.’Stalin wanted to portray a moral and intellectual exemplar that was unique to the Soviet Union, and the manipulation of visual culture was his way of doing so. Understanding Socialist Realism and the function of art under Stalin provides a standard criterion for what was accepted in the Soviet Union. Using the example of Stalin’s favourite painting Ilya Repin’s Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks (1880-91) (Fig 2), a stronger idea of the visual criteria of Socialist Realism can be understood. In 1928, Stalin attended the 10th exhibition of AKhRR, The Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia, which was an independent art group, before Stalin dissolved all into one state managed group, the Union of Soviet Artists. The exhibition was dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the Red Army. Supposedly, Stalin gave no opinion on the art besides stating 13 that his favourite painting was Repin’s Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, before writing in the guest book: ‘was at the exhibition on  26.ii.28.Generally, in my opinion, good.’ By praising Repin’s work, Stalin gave his blessing to art in a similar style; ‘patriotic, realistic, levelled at the popular imagination.’


Figure 3: Plastov, Arkady, Collective Farm Celebration, oil on canvas, 1937, State Russian Museum, Russia, https://rusmuseumvrm.ru/data/collections/painting/19_20/zh-5699/index.php?lang=en


 The work is a realist oil painting, depicting a traditional Russian folktale.13 Although the piece was created prior to the Russian Revolution and the entire Soviet regime, the painting was treated as a model of what Socialist Realist art should look like. The painting is centred on the people, rather than the Bourgeoisie and is realistic, stylistically. The painting highlights unity and collective solidarity, which was a common motif in Socialist Realist Paintings. The work shows similarities to Plastov’s Collective Farm Celebration (1937) (Fig 3), which was created during the famine in order to encourage the collective and increase production. Stalin wanted art to easily ‘educate and inspire the masses,’ therefore the works needed to be easy to understand and not too complex or abstracted in any sense. Stalin wanted to show the ‘truth.’ This ‘truth’ however was merely a dream, with Socialist Realism highlighting the ideal of Soviet society.

Chapter 3: A Portrait of the Leader (The Personality Cult)
In Soviet portraiture there was no real distinction between the historical and the contemporary; ‘the Socialist Realist must look at life from the position of a builder of communism with a broad projection into the future …providing a heroic, even mythic ambience. An example of a portrait that totally rejected Socialist Realism was Georgy Rublev’s, Portrait of Stalin (1935) (Fig 4). The painting depicts a figure, Stalin, sitting in an armchair, reading a newspaper, presumably Pravda, with a dog laying at his feet. Although the portrayal of the figure is relatively realist, the background, armchair, and dog are all abstracted. The brushstrokes are prominent in this piece, almost allowing the armchair to blend with the figure’s equally pale attire. Stylistically this piece rebels from the standard of Socialist Realism, relating more to modernist techniques and artists. There are some elements that conform to the standard of Socialist Realism. The crimson dog, sprawled out complimenting the curve of the armchair’s base, gazes up at the figure, drawing attention to Stalin, highlighting his importance and power. The artist uses other motifs associated with Socialist Realism, such as the use of red being a symbol of communism and Stalin being portrayed in white to depict as a ‘god like’ figure. 


Figure 4: Rublev, Georgy, Portrait of Stalin, Oil on Canvas, 1935, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow https://arthive.com/artists/26042~George_Iosifovich_Rublev/works/597094~Portrait_IV_Stalin  


The difference from an ‘official’ portrait comes down to the dictator being portrayed in an intimate, casual setting, rather than the more formal background of a traditional portrait of power. There is no scene being set, with lack of details on his clothing, this differs from a more formal portrait such as Isaak Brodsky’s Portrait of Joseph Stalin (1933) (Fig 5). Brodsky’s portrait depicts Stalin standing at a lectern, making a speech, in front of a red fabric backdrop. In this work, Stalin is central in the frame, with his body taking up the majority of the space. Despite the lectern highlighting the leader’s authority, and the red curtain symbolising Communism, the focus of the work is completely on Stalin himself. The brushwork is very smooth, with no abstraction or observable creative expression. He is also portrayed in formal, military style clothing, highlighting his authority and helping to build his cult of personality, which is lacking in Rublev’s more casual portrait. In Rublev’s portrait of Stalin, the portrayal of his power is much more subtle, stylistically showing more complexity and emotion than Brodsky’s portrait. Compared to the playful manner of Rublev’s portrait, Brodsky’s work has a much more serious tone to it, idolising the leader, just as Socialist Realism was created to do. Brodsky’s portrait would have been seen everywhere, not only was it shown in many major Soviet exhibitions, but it was also highly reproduced into easily accessible means, such as post cards and posters. Highlighting the importance of Stalin’s image, acting as a figure for the people of the Soviet Union to look up to, adding pressure to artists who depicted the leader. He had to look real and professional, like a strong leader, who would protect the masses, rather than a relaxed small man that is suggested in Rublev’s portrait. Although the work could be viewed as an act of rebellion, in reality Rublev’s portrait was never shown publicly until after Stalin’s death. “Rublev kept this portrait…turned to the wall of his studio from the early 1930s until his death.” The artist did this because of its Formalist style and the ‘ambiguous characterisation of Stalin’ which would haveput the artist in danger if the painting had been displayed.

Figure 5: Brodsky, Isaak, Portrait of J.V. Stalin, oil on canvas, 1933, State Museum and Exhibition Center ROSIZO, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isaak_Brodsky_stalin02.jpg

Once described as the ‘Soviet Mattisse,’ Rublev studied at the Higher Technical workshops in Moscow under Gerasimov and Mashkov, taking influences from modernist Italian artist, Modiglani.18 Rublev’s portrait of Stalin was very out of character for the artist. In regard to his ‘public’ art, he made his living as a monumental artist, working as part of a collective, painting the interior of the ‘Corn’ Pavillion at the 1939 All-Union Agricultural Exhibition, a propaganda showcase to celebrate the USSR’s agricultural development. The work was titled Comrade Stalin Together with the Leading Workers of the Party and the Government Inspect the Work of a Soviet Tractor of a New Type (1939). It is interesting that an artist who made such a controversial work also created some of the largest public art works of the Stalinist period.  This suggests that the artist’s place in Stalinist Russia left little room for clear creative agency, showing the extent of fear and control of soviet artists. The creation of this artwork suggests that although Rublev conformed to Socialist Realism, this example of slight rebellion left room for creative agency. In a more contemporary setting, Rublev’s portrait acts as an important insight into the states control of Soviet artists. In 2017, the work was used as the cover of the October edition of Artforum magazine and in the same year was also featured at the Royal Academy’s exhibition Revolution: Russian Art 1917-1932, covering the early years of the Soviet Regime.20 The exhibition highlighted the modernist works that Stalin had suppressed, exploring how Formalism and Modernism were quickly replaced by Socialist Realism, describing the time as “one of the most turbulent  periods in history.” This example demonstrates that control and creativity coexisted in a dynamic and often unstable relationship.



Fig Y: Rublev, Georgy. Cover image. Art Forum, October 2017 https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/148184/october-2017-in-artforum


Chapter 4: The Great Patriotic War: The Importance of the War Poster
Propaganda posters had been important in spreading the Soviet message since the early 1930s, with Pravda, the official Party newspaper, promoting the idea that ‘Soviet patriotism is a burning feeling of boundless love, a selfless devotion to one’s motherland and a profound responsibility for her fate and defence which issues forth like mighty spring waters from the depths of our people.’22 On June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Soviet territory, dragging the Soviet Union into the Second World War (referred to as the Great Patriotic War in this context).23 Adolf Hitler hated Communism and saw the people of the Soviet Union as ‘subhuman.’24 During the Great Patriotic War, the main art form, and a key tool of boosting morale, were propaganda posters. Graphic designer and author MüllerBrockmann discuss how there are four types of poster: the illustrative poster, the objective-informative poster, the constructive poster and the experimental poster.25 He describes how a poster ‘is one of the most important means of communication between organiser and participant’ and should ‘inform, stimulate, activate, mobilise, expand, query, provoke, motivate and convince.’ 


Figure 7: Koretsky, Viktor, Red Army Soldier, Save Us!, Lithograph on paper, 1942, Tate https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/koretsky-red-army-soldier-save-us-p81663

Muller-Brockmann perfectly sum up how Soviet artists were expected to work; ‘The designer forgoes any manifestation of his primarily subjective artistic feeling.’ Soviet art, especially during the war, was not about creative expression but rather informing the masses of the Soviet way of thinking, and most importantly being victorious in the Great Patriotic War. The role of the artist shifted, their main focus becoming to encourage the war effort in an easily accessible manner. Due to the low literacy level in the Soviet Union the poster was especially important in ‘visually communicating revolutionary ideology to an illiterate public.’ During the Great Patriotic War, The Soviet Poster had been ‘developed to a high level of effectiveness as an instrument of war.’ The poster was an important tool in both boosting morale and encouraging soldiers to fight for the motherland. An article from the time of the war explained that ‘artists (had) aimed to arouse the devotion of the Soviet citizens for their country and at the same time to arouse fury against the Nazi hordes that have violated the soil of their homeland.’Suggesting that creative agency had, or should be, put to the side in order to support the Soviet Union during the war. Richard Stites, historian of Russian culture, discusses how, in Soviet political posters, ‘Nazis were almost literally too horrible for words.’ He explains how the Axis powers were portrayed as ‘rodent like creatures’ or attacked using text. Emphasising the importance of visual culture during the Great Patriotic War


Figure 8: Vatolina, Nina, Don’t Chatter! Gossiping Borders on Treason, Lithograph on paper, 1941, Tate https://www.tate-images.com/P81658-Don%27t-Chatter-Gossiping-Borders-on-Treason.html




and the artist’s role as conveyer of the Soviet message. Viktor Koretsky began a career in the arts during the first Five-Year Plan. Studying under Marxist art historian Aleksei Fedorov-Davydov, the artist was introduced to ‘ideas about the social role of art and the need to develop new forms of representation to depict the new themes required of Soviet art.’ Through his artistic education Koretsky received guidance on how to artistically manoeuvre through a tightly controlled regime, set the artist up for a successful career. Red Army Soldier, Save Us! (1942) (Fig 7) was one of nearly forty propaganda posters created by Koretsky in aid of the Great Patriotic War. The artist used a mixture of photographs, pencil drawings and gauche paint. This war poster depicts a strong mother clutching her young son, both of whom are being threatened by a Nazi bayonet. The piece is emotionally charged, suggesting that the war was not only political, but deeply personal. The red text translating to “Red Army Soldier, Save Us!’ could be representative of the strength of communism while the red on the bayonet depicts blood and the terror caused by the Nazi regime. The poster suggesting that the soldier should fight for his loved ones but also for the whole Soviet regime. The pale tones used in the face of the mother shows her as vulnerable and in need of protection, very different to other  depictions of the Soviet woman, who were encouraged to be strong workers, such as Nina Vatolina’s Don’t Chatter! Gossiping Borders on Treason (1941) (Fig 8) which portrays the woman as a stern and powerful figure.  Printed in a large-scale format, these posters would have been posted on walls in most Soviet cities.

Figure 9: A hand-drawn version of Koretsky’s Red Army Warrior, Save Us! on display in a tank factory during the Great Patriotic War. 


Acting as a direct call out for help, the main aim of this work was to show the Red Army exactly what they were fighting for and what they were fighting against. The work was reproduced in numerous ways; it is estimated that more than ten million copies of 28 Koretsky’s work were printed. Its scale was increased and put up in factories, as a way to encourage the workers making tanks and ammunition for the war effort (Fig 9). It was also made into ‘cheaply printed halftone propaganda leaflets distributed to Red Army soldiers in numerous Soviet languages.’ On the back of these leaflets included ‘detailed accounts of the brutal fate of civilians subjected to Nazi assault.’ Showing how visual culture was equally as important as the written word in the Soviet regime. Immediately after the war, Koretsky was highly celebrated by the Party. In 1946 Koretsky won the Stalin Prize, The Soviet Union’s most prestigious award at the time. Giving Koretsky more public attention and praise, confirming his place as one of the most highly regarded Stalinist artists. The Stalin Prize was introduced in 1939, first awarded in 1941. Art Historian Oliver Johnson argues that the Stalin Prize ‘played a central role in the promotion of political and ideological agendas.’It was designed to ‘closely mirror the hierarchy system of Soviet military decorations.’ The Stalin prize worked as a tool to show the masses what was approved of. It told artists what should be created and what was the ‘accepted’ way of making, as well as representing an ‘‘interface’ between political power and creative authority.’ Solidifying Koretsky’s work as a standard for Soviet Art. However, Koretsky’s success was short lived. The use of photomontage had been central to debate since the early 1930s, with Ivan Matsa, a Soviet, Marxist art critic, stating that ‘photomontage’s de facto use in Soviet art  was inappropriate, as it was visually unintelligible to a large sector of the Soviet population.’ At the beginning of the 20th Century, the majority of the Soviet Population was illiterate, the Party wanted art to be a way of distributing the



Soviet ideas in a visual way, which could be easily consumed by the masses. Therefore, any art that was abstracted, or ‘formalist’, was viewed as too complex for the general population. Koretsky was harshly attacked during the campaign against Formalism. Through the eyes of the Party ‘Formalist’ art, ‘emphasises the forms and styles of artworks, including the arrangement of colour, lines, shapes, and even sounds,’ and was viewed as bourgeois. In October 1951, The Central Committee held a meeting to discuss the political poster. Vladimir Kemenov, soviet art historian, closed his speech by ‘extensively attack[ing] the use of photomontage and photography in posters,’ singling out Koretsky for ‘formalist deviation.’ In the same speech, Kemenov also praised Koretsky, using Red Army Soldier, Save Us! as an example of why photography should be used. However, he suggested that the success of the poster was due to the emotional expression of the model rather than the skill of the artist. This shows the Party’s feelings towards artists in general, creative agency and artistic skill is not relevant, as long as the work spreads the Soviet message to the masses. A lot of artists during the war were not acknowledged, despite the success of their work. Yevgeny Khaldei, Soviet war photographer, was one of the most notable photographers of the time, capturing the iconic Raising a Flag over the Reichstag (Fig 10). However, Khaldei was never celebrated during his lifetime, his legacy was only recognised after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Koretsky’s treatment was harsh, but not out of the ordinary. Again, emphasising how the Party prioritised the message over the artist. The artist was merely a pawn in the greater game of consolidating power and spreading the Soviet ideology. Joseph Stalin died 5th March 1953 and was succeeded as leader of the USSR by Nikita Khrushchev. At the twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, on 24th February 1956, the first congress after the death of Stalin, Khrushchev spoke for four hours about ‘Stalin’s crimes towards the Party and the whole nation.’ During this period, known as the thaw, free speech was encouraged for the first time since the revolution, allowing artists to speak openly about their treatment under Stalin. Simultaneously, Koretsky was able to speak freely on his opinions on the political poster and address the criticism of his work.  In contemporary society, Koretsky’s work is some of the most recognised Stalinist art. Many of Koretsky’s pieces were part of the David King collection and the 2017 exhibition Red Star Over Russia: A Revolution in Visual Culture, at the Tate Modern, an exhibition covering Soviet art from 1905-55. Collector and artist David King had one of the largest Soviet ‘propaganda’ collections outside of what was the Soviet Union.47 The exhibition had a huge focus on photography and photomontage, as well as propaganda posters. The aim of the exhibition was to‘show how propaganda on the streets transformed everyday culture, giving a public face to the ideals and ideology of the new state.’

Chapter 5: The Female Nude
In the Soviet Union, specifically under Stalin, the subject of the nude was particularly disputed, occupying a complex and contested position. The inherently sexual and individualistic nature of the female nude, morally clashed with the ideals of Socialist Realism, just as in other traditions. John Berger’s renowned 1972 book ‘Ways of Seeing’ explores the female nude in the West. Berger explains how the nude allows men to ‘survey women;’ ‘you painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her…’ His exploration of the nude vs the naked portrait exemplifies how this way of thinking was not exclusive to the Soviet Union and provides a framework for understanding how the Party reconfigured this visual tradition to suit their political agenda. Stalin’s reinterpretation of the nude was purely political, rather than based on moral grounds. The nude was co-opted to further broadcast his ideological agenda, using the female body to serve his political ends. Gender and sexual expression were very much controlled generally, with the distribution of pornography being illegal across the Soviet Union.  Sexual pleasure was viewed as individualistic and bourgeois, but most importantly as a distraction from the bigger picture: Communism. Under Stalin, the nude was not completely banned. 


Figure 11: Mukhina, Vera. 1937. Worker and Collective Farm WomanStainless Steel Sculpture. Moscow. https://www.alisetifentale.net/article-archive/2016/11/5/the-peasant-woman-leads-the-dance. 

Nudity was permitted as long as its intention was not overtly erotic and that it conveyed the messages of the Party. The Socialist Realist nude should encourage productivity and collectivisation, causing the female body to become weaponised by the Party and be used as political propaganda. However, this ideological backing does not necessarily remove the erotic vulnerabilities of a nude portrait. Susan E Reid suggests that the Party used the sexual nature of the nude in order to distribute their ideology. Reid questions if ‘women [were] there purely to be looked at because of their appearance?’ And if it is ‘their appearance that ‘sells’ communism?’ Physical beauty became evidence of Socialist success, with physical strength showing agricultural and industrial productivity. The eroticism of the female nude was diverted and redirected towards the idea of communism. Women were commonly used as subjects within art, expressing the importance of the ‘New Soviet Woman.’ She must be both feminine and the embodiment of productivity, healthy and powerful. She was not celebrated as an individual but rather as a personification of socialist ideas, exemplifying the dual expectations of beauty and labour. She is portrayed most successfully in Vera Mukhina’s widely celebrated sculpture Worker and Kolkhoz (Collective) Woman (1937) (fig 11). The aim of the work was to represent‘the proletariat and the peasantry as the true masters of the Soviet land.’The seventy-eight-foot-tall sculpture depicts a  female collective farm worker, holding a sickle, walking alongside a male industrial worker, holding a hammer. The female figure is shown with great power, holding a similar physique to her male companion. The two figures are shown as equals, with the focus being placed on their working roles rather than their genders. Significantly, the work being produced by a female artist reinforces the Party’s ideas of equality and productivity. This work held further importance as it was to feature as part of the 1937 International Exhibition in Paris; ‘Russia’s change of identity, from a Tsarist empire to a pseudo-communist Union, required the crafting and assertion of a new image to be propagated beyond its borders.’ This added extra pressure to the artist,as it was showing the strength of the Soviet Union to the rest of the world. Mukhina’s creative agency operated within the state approved boundaries, her female worker is strong and empowered, but purely because that is how the Party wanted the New Soviet Woman to be portrayed.

Figure 12: Gerasimov, Aleksandr, V.I. Lenin on a Tribune, oil on canvas, 1930, State Historical Museum, Moscow https://soviet-art.ru/soviet-artist-alexandr-gerasimov/v-i-lenin-on-a-tribune-1930-state-historical-museum/

Often described as the ‘godfather’ of Socialist Realism, Aleksandr Gerasimov was a leading figure of the art world during the Stalinist period.54 The artist studied under Sergei Krivolutski and moved to Moscow in 1903 to pursue a career in art without any formal education. Throughout his career, Gerasimov stayed loyal to realist traditions and mainly produced painted portraits; ‘portrait genre is the main kind of my work, it expresses my essence as an artist.’55 Under Stalin, Gerasimov held a leading role in the main official artistic organisation, from 1939 until 1954 he acted as the Chairman of the Organising Committee of the Union of the Soviet Artists.56 Gerasimov painted several of the most recognised works under Stalin, including Stalin and Voroshilov in the Kremlin (1938) (Fig 1) and V.I. Lenin on a Tribune (1930) (Fig 12) solidifying his position as one of the leading artists of the USSR. In 1938 Gerasimov’s practice took a shift from his usual political portraits to a more controversial subject matter. The artist began a project focusing on the subject of banya, the Russian communal bath. A Russian Communal Bath (1938) (Fig 13) depicts three female figures bathing themselves, arranged in a pyramid form, the viewers’ attention is drawn to the centre of the piece. The figures are mid movement, rather than posing for the artist, and in turn the viewer. The dynamic nature of the work puts the emphasis on their actions rather than their idle bodies. Soft tones and lines in this workprovide a humanistic element to the figures, allowing 42 them to exist as they are rather than sexualising the activity. The informality of the composition reduces any sensuality or eroticism which is usually associated with the female nude. 


Figure 13: Gerasimov, Aleksandrsandr, A Russian Communal Bath, oil on canvas, 1938, Springville Museum of Art, Utah,  https://webkiosk.springvilleutah.gov/objects-1/info/2160?sort=0

The figures are obviously feminine, with long hair and curved, but are not overly sexualised, suggesting a difference between the nude and the naked, complicating a purely erotic reading. The work aligns with Socialist Realist values, showing the women in a collective setting, expressing a shared, lived experience rather than a sensual, private activity. Although the nude aspect of the work could be interpreted as sensual, the act of the banya was an everyday, ordinary experience for those in the collective.  This piece can be interpreted in two ways, its purpose may be to exemplify and encourage collectivisation and the physical ideal of the New Soviet Woman, just as a Socialist Realist work would intend. Alternatively, the simple act of depicting nude women during the Stalinist era could have been a small act of rebellion. Although the overall theme of the painting is not erotic, it could be viewed as subtly provocative. In this example, the form of constrained creative agency appears purely because of the subject choice, rather than any stylistic rebellion. The subject of the banya could be hidden as a celebration of collectivisation, while at the same time being reminiscent of the western nude. Creative expression was not purely stylistic; it could be achieved through subject choice. This work is an example of an artist embedding a rebellious topic, in this case nudity, within an ideologically approved narrative.  An artist who explored a similar theme of bathing within his work was French impressionist, Edgar Degas. Although not under the same constraints as artists in the Soviet Union and creating his bathers series at 44 the end of the nineteenth century, comparing Gerasimov’s work to Degas’ will reveal how ideology reshapes the symbolism of the female nude. During the 1880s and 1890s, Degas created over 200 studies of female bathers, including After the Bath, Woman Drying Herself (Fig 14) and After the Bath, Woman with a Towel (Fig 15). Similarly to Gerasimov’s work, the female figures are depicted mid action, bathing themselves. However, the lack of movement within Degas’ pieces suggest that the figures are almost posing for the viewer. 

Figure 14: Degas, Edgar, After the Bath, Woman Drying Herself, pastel on paper, c. 1890-5, Courtauld Institute, London https://gallerycollections.courtauld.ac.uk/object-d-1932-sc-27
Figure 15: Degas, Edgar, After the Bath, Woman with a Towel, pastel on paper, c.1893-97, Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge Massachussetts https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/304370?position=9

The figures are placed centrally to the work, drawing the viewers’ attention to the feminine lines of the woman’s back. Degas’ female bathers are always depicted alone, making the scene feel much more intimate, creating a voyeuristic nature to the pieces, as if the viewer is watching something that they shouldn’t; suggesting a ‘sensual submissiveness.’ This differs to Gerasimov’s work, where the viewer feels a part of the collective themself. Although the towels could suggest modesty, the careful positioning highlights the contours of the women’s hips and backs. Linking back to Berger’s argument, Degas’ works reinforces the male gaze, with the female subjects being unaware that they are being watched. The works of Degas and Gerasimov are similar in the lack of identity of the subjects, both focus purely on the body; ‘the head, thevery focus of human identity, is distanced through that alienating point of view.’ The anonymity universalises the body and reinforces sexual consumption. Although the subjects are remarkably similar, the way in which the women are depicted by the two artists differ greatly. Degas’ bathers reflect the western traditions of the male gaze, while Gerasimov’s work portrays the realities of communal living and the communist dream. Gerasimov’s example proves that Stalinist art was not purely propaganda. The female nude was mobilised for ideological purposes but allowed artists to express creative agency; the nude wasn’t eradicated but rather reshaped. The soviet female body was no longer an object of private desire, but a symbol of the state. The Soviet artist operated within a tightly controlled system in which meaning was regulated but not entirely fixed. This suggests that conformity and creative agency were not mutually exclusive, but rather  coexisted within Stalinist visual culture. From a contemporary standpoint, this case study provides a more nuanced view of the Soviet nude.

Conclusion
From a contemporary standpoint, it is clear that art did not function as a means of creative expression but also cannot be strictly limited to a political tool that was manipulated by the state. In the eyes of Stalin, the arts’ function was purely to shape public consciousness, promote communist values and consolidate the leader’s personal power. Artistic expression emerged from a complex, and often unstable negotiation between ideological control and creative practice. Artistic production during this period was deeply embedded within an approved ideological framework from the Party. As discussed in chapter three, there were limitations placed upon creative experimentation. Rublev’s Portrait of Stalin (1935), being hidden in the artist’s studio until Stalin’s death exemplifies the atmosphere of caution in which Soviet artists worked. The impact of the Great Patriotic War emphasised the importance of the role of the artist in the Soviet Union. Red Army Soldier, Save Us! (1942) proved how art could strengthen patriotism and mobilise the masses in times of crisis. Koretsky’s artistic career highlighted the turbulent nature of the Soviet regime, and how even one of the most celebrated artists could later be blacklisted. The discussion of the female nude (see chapter five) made clear that similar motifs could have very different meanings, and repercussions, depending on their ideological framework. The case studies provided within this dissertation provides an understanding that Soviet art under Stalin cannot be limited purely to propaganda. Although the party exercised significant restraints, through commissions and organisations, artists were not simply passive participants within the regime. Despite these restrictions, artists exercised various degrees of creative expression, negotiating their practice in a tightly controlled regime; occasionally finding opportunities for covert artistic rebellion. Stalinist art was not simply imposed from above but actively navigated by those who produced it. This tense relationship between control and creative agency, not only defines art in the Soviet era, but also raises broader questions about power and creative expression in all politically regulated cultural systems.


Bibliography
  1. Berger, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.  
  2. Butterwick, James. “Georgy Rublev - James Butterwick.” 2020. September 2, 2020. https://www.jamesbutterwick.com/artists/georgy-rublev/. 
  3. Brandenberger, David. 2002. National Bolshevism : Stalinist Mass Culture and the Formation of Modern Russian National Identity, 1931-1956. Cambridge, Ma ; London, England: Harvard University Press.  
  4. Brown, Kathryn. 2018. “Degas in Pieces: Form and Fragment in the Late Bather Pastels.” Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide 17 (2). https://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/autumn18/brown-on-degas-in-pieces-form-and-fragment-in-the-late-bather-pastels. 
  5. Cecile. 2022. “MODERN ART as PROPAGANDA: VERA MUKHINA’S SOVIET PAVILION SCULPTURE at the 1937 INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.” JBC Commons. 2022. https://digitalcommons.ncf.edu/theses_etds/6215/?utm_source=digitalcommons.ncf.edu%2Ftheses_etds%2F6215&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages. 
  6. Chen, Andrew. 2020. “Expressionism and Formalism: A Shallow Analysis.” Medium. June 30, 2020. https://andrewact.medium.com/expressionism-and-formalism-a-shallow-analysis-e027a8487ea1. 
  7. Eaves, Peter. ‘Traces of Human Tragedy: The David King Collection’, Tate Research Feature, July 2018, /research/features/human-tragedy-david-king-collection, accessed 20 July 2025. 
  8. Foster, Hal, Rosalind E Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, and David Joselit. 2016. Art since 1900 : Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. 3rd ed. London: Thames & Hudson.  
  9. Gale, Matthew, and Natalia Sidlina, eds. 2017. Red Star over Russia: A Revolution in Visual Culture 1905-1955. Millbank, London: Tate Publishing. 
  10. Gleb Prokhorov. 1995. Art under Socialist Realism: Soviet Painting 1930-1950. Roseville East, Nsw: Craftsman House, Cop. 
  11. Holz, Wolfgang. 1993. Art of the Soviets: Painting, Sculpture and Architecture in a One-Party State, 1917-1992. Edited by Bown and Taylor. Manchester: Manchester University Press.  
  12. Johnson, Oliver. 2011. Review of The Stalin Prize and the Soviet Artist: Status Symbol or Stigma? Slavic Review 70 (4). https://doi.org/10.5612/slavicreview.70.4.0819.  
  13. Jungen, Bettina. 2009. “Vera Mukhina: Art between Modernism and Socialist Realism.” Third Text 23 (1): 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528820902786651. 
  14. Matthew Cullerne Bown. 1991. Art Under Stalin. Oxford: Phaidon.  
  15. Medvedev. 1976. N.S. Khrushchev: The Secret Speech. Nottingham: Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation Ltd. 
  16. Meier, Robert F. 1982. Review of Perspectives on the Concept of Social Control. Annual Review of Sociology 8: 35–55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2945987. 
  17. Müller-Brockmann. 1971. History of the Poster. Translated by Schärer-Wynne. Switzerland: ABC Verlag Zurich.  
  18. Newman, James. 2021. “Socialist Realism: Stalin’s Control of Art in the Soviet Union.” The Collector. September 12, 2021. https://www.thecollector.com/soviet-realism-stalin-control/. 
  19. Novossiltzeff, George A. 1945. Review of Soviet Union War Posters. Quarterly Journal of Current Acquisitions 2 (2): 68–79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29780376.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Acf6c1a7d5d5cb805f11f40fa636086d6&ab_segments=&initiator=&acceptTC=1. 
  20. Reid, Susan E. 1998. “All Stalin’s Women: Gender and Power in Soviet Art of the 1930s.” Slavic Review 57 (1): 133–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2502056.  
  21. Reid, Susan E. n.d. Review of Socialist Realism in the Stalinist Terror: The Industry of Socialism Art Exhibition, 1935-41. The Russian Review 60 (2): 153–84. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2679538. 
  22. Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” n.d. Obelisk Art History. https://www.arthistoryproject.com/artists/ilya-repin/reply-of-the-zaporozhian-cossacks/. 
  23. Searle, Adrian. 2017. “Revolution: Russian Art Review – from Utopia to the Gulag, via Teacups.” The Guardian. The Guardian. February 7, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/07/revolution-russian-art-review-from-utopia-to-the-gulag-via-teacups. 
  24. Stites, Richard. 1992. Soviet Popular Culture : Entertainment and Society in Russia since 1900. Cambridge University Press.  
  25. Witkovsky, Matthew S. 2017. “SEEING RED: EXHIBITING THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.” Artforum. October 2017. https://www.artforum.com/features/seeing-red-exhibiting-the-russian-revolution-235842/. 
  26. Wolf, Erika. 2011. Koretsky: The Soviet Photo Poster: 1930-1984. The New Press.