Month: March 2021

In Kamp, we are presented with two narratives of how the events of March 8, 1927 unfolded. We are told by Rahbar- oi Olimov that the council did not want to mandate unveiling, “They said that it should be voluntary. Some of the progressive women were the first to unveil. The progressive women unveiled on the eighth of March, 1927” (158). However, a little further down we are told that, “The need to unveil was emphasized in Party and government circles, where members were told that the women in their families would be called on to unveil on Inter-national Women’s Day, March 8, 1927” (165).

Maybe I am reading into this difference too much, but I believe the views of the government seem substantially different based on these two quotes? Moreover, I find this difference important in the conversation surrounds Rahbar-oi asking her husband for a second paranji and him denying her. I think what my question is what type of agency do veiled women have?

Since Syd and I are leading class tomorrow, I wanted to bring up a point to discuss to get us started in thinking about the use of visual images like the ones we see in the slideshow to craft the public’s perception of a government official. For someone like Stalin who was the single most powerful person in the Soviet government, how important is it to plan and execute a campaign to shape the public’s perception? Should images work to promote both the ruler and their initiatives at the same time, or is it more important to simply achieve policy goals?

The “Cult of Stalin Slideshow” presents many paintings and photographs of Stalin. In most of the paintings he is the main focal point, although he is not always in the center of the photo. It is important to point out that there is very limited racial diversity in these paintings. In each of the paintings from 1930, all of the people in the background and surrounding him are white males. In the paintings from 1950 and 1938, Stalin is not an obvious focal point, and all the people around him are white. Propaganda posters are also majority people of caucasian descent. Do you think this was intentional? Do you think that this is relevant with the message about Soviet’s being an all accepting people?

When looking at the slideshow, I could really only remember our last class discussion in which Stalin is not the center focus in much of the architecture. Instead, it was Lenin. Of course there is some art that does depict him as the center of attention as a solid man. But, I could not help but notice how when Lenin is in the picture, it is more of a focus than Stalin is. Slide 7 is the perfect example in which Lenin is the taller guy, leading with his whole hand as if guiding where Stalin the the shorter one, pointing just to copy what is happening. In Slide 6, Lenin has more of a knowledgeable appearance, if that is the right word. Its kind of like a teacher and a student.

When depicting leaders, it is common for them to have a god like complex, but Stalin does not necessarily do this. What do you think the intent is behind these paintings?

During the Soviet dictator’s three decades in power, a dynamic “cult of personality” grew up around him. Comparisons to some dictators and even some democratic leaders are also being made. Plamper argues that the Stalin cult was one of the most well-crafted and strictly monitored in history. For example, Stalin’s status was enhanced to various extents depending as to how much he wanted to take credit for political, economic, and military developments. Stalin even identified himself as being a Russified Georgian-Asian, “yet, Stalin was never depicted as a Georgian. As a critique of a draft copy of heavily illustrated album of Lenin and Stalin put it, ‘The majority of the pictures…belongs to artists from Georgia. This creates the impression of Stalin as the leader only of the Georgian people not of all people of the Soviet Union. This flaw must be eliminated’” (p. 47).  Do you believe Plamper’s argument that Stalin’s image was well crafted?

When you imagine soviet architecture the first thing that might come to mind is the block style residential buildings. These buildings exist as a simple and cheap way to house the many people that are needed to be housed. It isn’t considered pretty to many but it is necessary. Then when reading about the lavishness that existed in government buildings, that is almost expected, but not extravagant Metro stations. O’Mahony on 185 writes about the “rich marble and granite” and the “huge chandeliers” that adorn the stations.

Anderson describes the situation in the metros:

“The art of infrastructure articulated the utopian and dystopian
aspects of Stalin’s Revolution. … These complementary spaces were symptoms of a paradoxical attempt to build a modern metropolis on the basis of arduous, unskilled and often forced labour.” (Anderson 162)

These workers were often working under forced labor to build a beautiful metro system when there was so much more needed. Why waste money and time on marble when any tile would have done? If I was a Soviet citizen that lived in a poorly constructed drab high-rise seeing these stations, I would feel betrayed. How would you feel?

In Anderson, there is a brief mention on how the city developments where not necessarily for the people, but more for the bureaucracy: “Travel for ordinary citizens remained difficult throughout the decade. Instead, these buildings served travelling dignitaries with great style” (169). At first glance this struck me as odd, but I found even more striking as I read about the grandeur of the metro. The fact that no cost was spared seemed even more obtuse since “travel for ordinary citizens remained difficult.” The Soviet Union consistently struggled economically, so I find it irresponsible to make such decadent hallways and facades. From a public policy, not an artistic, viewpoint, does this metro represent life becoming better?

In O’Mahoney’s The Moscow Metro, I found it interesting how metro stations were modeled after existing popular architecture but with an added Soviet twist. To me, this was another example of Socialist realism just in a more artistic aspect. One station, in particular, was modeled after the Parthenon but the traditional column carvings and frizes were related with Soviet iconography and depictions of Soviet athletics. After studying Greek architecture and it’s meanings in another class, it is clear to me that the Soviet’s adoption of the style is a clear attempt to show Soviet domination of Western civilization. O’Mahoney quotes in his piece that co-opting the Greek architectural style “establishes a link between the power and authority of ancient Athens and modern Moscow” (186). Much like the movies and novels we’ve read in the past, this choice of architecture promotes a highly idealized version of the strength and power of the Soviet Union, thus making it a perfect example of Soviet Realism

Do you think that co-opting the Greek architectural style is due to Socialist Realism?

The White Sea to Baltic Canal is just one of the many examples of how a government with complete authority over a nation can get things done quickly. Even though this is in no way humane or are the conditions good but objectives can get done. But with out the support of the people this can not be accomplished. this propaganda though only being pictures and posters is very good at rallying people towards a common goal. I question could the Soviet Union have accomplished such feats such as the 5 year plan or canal with out the use of propaganda.

It is really fascinating how the Bolsheviks went from having literally no experience with propaganda to mastering it so quickly. They created a dynamic machine that could make material to support just about any campaign or goal. I think we should spend some time talking about propaganda we have in our own culture and how that effects us, if at all. Is it something we notice? For the Soviets, do you think people knew the government was essentially manipulating them, or were they blind to the government’s true intentions?