1 The aesthetic turn after Stalin In­October­1967­readers­of­the­journal­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR were­ probably­ surprised­ to­ find­ that­ the­ latest­ issue­ lacked­ its­ usual­ table­ of­ contents­ and­ was­ mostly­ devoid­ of­ text.­ Instead,­ they­ were­ confronted­ with­forty-five­pages­of­high-quality­colour­and­black-and-white­images­of­ objects­produced­in­the­Soviet­Union­over­the­past­five­decades­since­its­ founding.­This­is­how­the­journal’s­editors­–­made­up­of­decorative­artists,­ designers,­critics­and­philosophers­–­chose­to­celebrate­the­jubilee­of­the­ October­Revolution,­joining­the­chorus­of­festivities­organised­all­over­the­ country­ in­ 1967.­ The­ editorial,­ appropriately­ entitled­ ‘Glory­ to­ the­ 50th­ Anniversary­of­the­Great­October­Socialist­Revolution’,­explained­that­they­ wanted­to­‘give­the­floor­to­the­wordless­yet­eloquent­witnesses­to­our­his- tory,­the­products­of­the­creative­spirit­of­artists’.1 The­following­pages­contained­no­text,­only­the­images­of­the­‘witnesses’:­ monuments­ to­ the­ Soviet­ Constitution,­ Karl­ Marx­ and­ Jean-Paul­ Marat,­ built­in­1918–19­in­Moscow­according­to­the­Lenin­Plan­of­Monumental­ Propaganda;­ a­ 1920­ porcelain­ saucer,­ ‘Red­ Baltic­ Fleet’,­ decorated­ with­ the­figure­of­a­revolutionary­sailor;­the­1935­post-constructivist­pavilion­of­ the­Moscow­metro­station­Red­Gates­by­the­avant-garde­architect­Nikolai­ Ladovskii;­an­ensemble­of­traditional­clay­toys­produced­by­Tajik,­Uzbek­and­ Russian­craftsmen­in­1960–61;­the­1967­memorial­to­the­victims­of­Nazism­ on­the­site­of­the­labour­camp­Salaspils­(Latvia);­a­1967­pulegoso2 glass­vase­ made­by­Moscow­artists;­a­selection­of­late­1920s­textile­patterns­with­indus- trial­motifs;­the­interior­of­the­Soviet­Pavilion­at­Expo­1967­in­Montreal;­a­ decorative­painting­of­a­peacock­by­a­village­craftsman­from­the­Kiev­region;­ the­recently­finished­high-rise­building­of­the­COMECON­headquarters­on­ New­Arbat­Street­in­Moscow;­and­many­more­(plate­1).­The­gallery­con- cluded­with­a­black-and-white­photo­of­a­1920s­statue­of­Lenin­in­Batumi,­ Georgia,­resolutely­facing­the­opposite­page,­coloured­a­pure,­simple­red. Yulia Karpova - 9781526139863 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/02/2021 09:54:12AM via free access KARPOVA 9781526139870 PRINT.indd 24 20/01/2020 11:10 The aesthetic turn after Stalin 25 To­ today’s­ observers,­ the­ image­ gallery­ is­ striking­ because­ of­ the­ eclecticism­of­themes,­types,­scales­and­techniques­within­it.­Its­princi- ples­appear­opaque.­In­a­way,­they­can­be­considered­similar­to­those­of­ Jorge­Luis­Borges’s­Chinese­Encyclopaedia,­famously­invoked­by­Michel­ Foucault­in­the­preface­to­The Order of Things,­in­which­the­reader­faces­ the­ ‘oddity­ of­ unusual­ juxtapositions’.­ What­ was­ the­ reason­ for­ placing­ side-by-side­a­war­memorial,­a­porcelain­cup,­the­interior­of­a­youth­café­ and­a­monument­to­Lenin?­The­simple­answer­would­be­that­they­were­ all­produced­in­the­Soviet­Union,­but­this­does­not­explain­precisely­why­ these­objects­in­particular­were­chosen.­It­also­does­not­explain­the­slightly­ mixed­chronology­(interchanging­objects­from­the­1920s­and­1960s)­or­ the­conspicuous­absence­of­anything­from­the­late­1930s­to­the­1950s.­The­ question­remains:­what­was­the­logic­behind­this­order­of­things? I­ suggest­ that­ the­ commonality­ between­ these­ images,­ which­ would­ have­been­immediately­comprehensible­to­the­journal’s­readers,­was­a­par- ticular­aesthetic­that­gradually­emerged­in­the­Soviet­Union­after­Stalin’s­ death­in­1953­and­became­pronounced­by­the­late­1960s.­I­do­not­use­‘aes- thetics’­as­it­is­used­in­art­theory­or­in­the­philosophy­of­art.­Instead,­I­inter- pret­aesthetics­in­a­broader­sense,­one­first­proposed­by­Jacques­Rancière,­ as­‘a­specific­regime­for­identifying­and­reflecting­on­the­arts:­a­mode­of­ articulation­between­ways­of­doing­and­making,­their­corresponding­modes­ of­visibility,­and­possible­ways­of­thinking­about­their­relationships’.3­This­ new­aesthetics­came­to­replace­the­Stalinist­regime­of­arts,­which,­follow- ing­Rancière,­can­be­deemed­representative,­that­is,­it­adhered­to­a­hier- archy­of­genres­and­subject­matter­and­privileged­speech­over­visibility.4­ Within­such­a­representative­regime,­the­publication­of­the­image­gallery­in­ Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR discussed­above­would­have­been­unthinkable.­ Even­the­idea­of­a­special­journal­just­for­decorative­art­would­have­been­ impossible.­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR did­not­exist­until­December­1957.­ Although­the­rhetoric­and­meanings­of­art­criticism­changed­throughout­ the­ Stalin­ era,­ text­ always­ overshadowed­ visual­ imagery.­ For­ example,­ the­article­‘Thirty-Five­Years­of­Soviet­Art’­by­the­president­of­the­Soviet­ Academy­of­Arts­Aleksandr­Gerasimov,­published­in­the­official­art­journal­ Iskusstvo in­ November­ 1952,­ included­ very­ few­ images­ –­ only­ figurative­ painting­and­heroic­sculptures.­This­was­accompanied­by­a­long­narrative­ glorifying­the­triumph­of­socialist­realism­with­an­abundance­of­references­ to­the­great­works­of­Lenin­and­Stalin.­The­images­were­only­illustrations­ for­the­text.­By­contrast,­in­the­October­1967­issue­of­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR the­text­was­reduced­only­to­captions,­making­the­images­the­primary­ carriers­of­the­ideals­of­the­Revolution.­In­other­words,­the­images­them- selves­represented­the­new,­post-Stalin­order­of­things. The­aesthetic­regime­of­arts­emerged­in­Soviet­Russia­in­place­of­the­ representative­one­in­the­1950s,­peaked­in­1960,­and­took­on­a­more­or­ less­clear­shape­by­the­start­of­the­1960s.­I­call­this­process­the­aesthetic Yulia Karpova - 9781526139863 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/02/2021 09:54:12AM via free access KARPOVA 9781526139870 PRINT.indd 25 20/01/2020 11:10 26 Comradely objects turn­and­consider­it­the­cornerstone­of­post-Stalin­Soviet­modernism.­The­ aesthetic­turn­was­not­just­a­return­to­the­avant-garde­or­to­the­cultural­plu- ralism­of­the­1920s,­which­had­not­been­limited­to­the­avant-garde.­Rather,­ it­was­a­gradual­formation­of­new­concepts,­largely­driven­by­people­who­ had­been­connected­to­avant-garde­movements­in­the­1920s.­Therefore,­ the­ aesthetic­ turn­ refers­ to­ change­ without­ neglecting­ the­ importance­ of­continuity.­This­chapter­offers­an­overview­of­the­key­concepts­of­the­ new­aesthetic­regime­of­arts­and­provides­background­for­my­analysis­of­ late­socialist­objects­in­the­following­chapters.­In­the­overview­I­describe­ the­ following­ concepts:­ first,­ realism­ as­ a­ specific­ quality­ of­ things,­ not­ depictions­of­them;­second,­contemporaneity­as­a­measure­of­the­social­ relevance­ of­ an­ object;­ and­ third,­ taste­ as­ a­ tool­ for­ constructing­ social­ hierarchies­and­probing­the­limits­between­authenticity­and­appearance. Realism reconsidered In­the­history­of­art,­the­Stalin­era­in­the­Soviet­Union­is­widely­known­as­ the­period­of­socialist­realism.­According­to­the­1934­formulation­of­the­ chief­ Party­ ideologist­ Andrei­ Zhdanov,­ presented­ at­ the­ First­ All-Union­ Congress­of­Soviet­Writers,­socialist­realism­was­not­a­style­but­a­method­of­ art-making­(its­eclectic­character­is­often­emphasised),5­a­working­method­ obligatory­for­artists­in­all­fields.­Despite­its­totalising­rhetoric,­socialist­ realism­ was­ not­ monolithic.­ In­ fact­ it­ had­ different­ faces­ depending­ on­ the­ artist,­ the­ genre­ and­ the­ medium.6­ It­ did­ not­ even­ preclude­ artistic­ individuality;­this­was­exemplified­by­the­cases­of­the­painters­Aleksandr­ Deineka­and­Aleksandr­Laktionov,­both­of­whom­were­incorporated­into­ the­framework­of­socialist­realism­despite­being­vastly­different­artists.7­ Nonetheless,­regarding­visual­arts,­socialist­realism­had­a­common­fea- ture:­according­to­the­official­formula,­an­artist­was­expected­to­portray­ reality­‘in­its­revolutionary­development’8­–­that­is,­to­visualise­the­state’s­ promises­by­depicting­recognisable­life­forms­in­the­desired­manner. Formally,­socialist­realism­remained­the­only­permitted­artistic­method­ until­ perestroika.­ However,­ with­ the­ changes­ in­ cultural­ policies­ after­ Stalin,­including­the­rise­of­decorative­art­and­the­emergence­of­the­design­ profession,­the­notion­of­socialist­realism­could­not­remain­the­same.­To­ fulfil­the­modern­socialist­material­culture,­the­notion­of­socialist­realism­ had­to­be­updated.­What­follows­is­an­overview­of­theoretical­and­prac- tical­ attempts­ to­adapt­ socialist­ realism­ to­ what­ Susan­ E.­ Reid­ calls­ the­ ‘Khrushchev­Modern’9­–­the­move­towards­the­mass­industrial­production­ of­commodities­and­to­mass­consumption. In­ the­ early­ 1950s­ decorative­ artists­ gave­ topicality­ priority­ over­ materiality.­For­example,­students­of­the­newly­established­schools­of­art­ and­industry­were­expected­to­render­the­powerful,­positive­image­of­a­ ­contemporary­–­a­type.­This­was­an­unavoidable­requirement­of­Stalinist­ Yulia Karpova - 9781526139863 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/02/2021 09:54:12AM via free access KARPOVA 9781526139870 PRINT.indd 26 20/01/2020 11:10 The aesthetic turn after Stalin 27 artistic­policy,­which­had­spread­from­literature­to­all­the­visual­arts.­The­ intention­was­to­portray­the­‘correct­type’­of­Soviet­personality,­a­model­ for­identification,­while­all­the­decorative­techniques­–­use­of­light,­colour,­ material,­ texture­ –­ were­ just­ means­ to­ achieve­ this.­ This­ is­ evident­ in­ the­Leningrad­critic­V.­Kalinin’s­review­of­the­1953­graduate­projects­of­ the­Mukhina­School.­He­praised­the­works­that­had­received­the­highest­