The Russian Revolution is often placed in the context of a political revolt by a small minority of radical extremist with the Bolsheviks. In considering the broader cultural environment of Russia at the turn of the 19th century you have been challenged to see what other forces were in play to bring about the destruction of Tsarist power and the end of the Romanov dynasty. The underlying question of whether or not art inspires or imitates life is in full play here. Is the Mir Iskusstva movement of the Silver Age merely reflection of the social unrest of a modernizing Russia or is it further instigation to change, highlighting the insufficiencies of a decrepit political and economic regime?
How does the Silver Age of Russian Culture contribute to Russia's increasing foment at the turn of the century? Is there more in play than radical political and econmic ideologies? How do the visual arts, literature, music, dance, etc. move Russia to a new future? How does the Silver Age help discredit the Tsar? Looking ahead, why do many of the artist from this period break from the revolutionaries of the Bolsheviks?
Another way to think about this historic episode is a test of Charles Tilley's thesis regarding the relationship between modernization and revolution. [See Class Handout] "Does modernization breed revolution?"
I am just going to try to answer the question Tilley addressed in his thesis "does modernization breed revolution." To look at this in a really simplistic way, I think that yes, modernization does breed revolution. Because modernization and industrialization and all those sort of progressive movements give people an idea of what the world has potential to be. (This goes with the dialectic model we discussed last year... the way things are vs. how they could be...) When progressive thoughts turn into actions, I think this opens up more opportunities and people begin to recognize them. Like with industrialization, people see that work can be accomplished in a more efficient way... and this, I think, can lead to revolutions. When people are surrounded with big, effective changes, the potential for the country (or nation or state, whatever) becomes escalated and can be the force behind a revolution.
ReplyDeleteTilley kind of contradicts himself because it goes on for a while about why modernization creates perfect conditions for a revolution, only to end the piece with the conclusion that modernization doesn't really breed revolutions directly (and there's no way to prove this statement).
SO, while there might not be direct evidence that big social changes like modernization have influence on revolutions, I do think that changes like this cannot be made without having an effect on the people and their thinking about their world (which sparks thoughts about revolutions). Does that make sense?
I think the Silver Age of Russian culture contributed to Russia's increasing ferment because it pushed people to examine the world they were living in and discover new ways of looking at things. This reflected with the way that people were looking at the workings of power in Russia and questioning it. People were looking for changes, and art allowed artists to portray new ideas and hope for the future.
ReplyDeleteArt might also have also allowed people to feel like they were putting their opinions out into the world - art is a form of self-expression, and people began to feel that they could go beyond the standard forms and expand into new ways of thinking. This could have influenced the way they dealt with other topics in their society - if they were expressing themselves in art form, they could express their opinions about politics too.
Like Gretchen was saying, this culture movement taught people how to turn progressive thought into action, opening up new opportunities for the people.
I believe the Mir Iskuustva was a social revolution in itself, reflecting the modernization (or need thereof) of Russia. Up to this point in time, it appears much of Russia’s art culture was based off of what other countries in Europe had set as precedent. Now, by ‘pushing the envelope’ so to speak and joining the modernist movement, Russia developed a nationalist fervor in the arts and subsequently became a leader in world culture. On the whole, Mir Iskuustva is representative of the general yet fundamental change in Russian society. Change, in any form, can be seen as progress from the viewpoint of a revolutionary. This innovative art movement could only have added fuel to the fire for the call to socially transform society- especially since these artists are expressing themselves through their respective mediums. It seems only logical these art pieces inspired more people to speak out as the society itself was breaking through a highly regimented and traditionalistic ‘bubble’ in the silver age.
ReplyDeleteTo go along with what both Jessica and Alex said... I think it's also importnat to consider the ways in which different art forms are connected. In times when art form/purpose/structure is changing, there is often a correlation between visual art, music and literature. These forms of art tend to build off of each other, making their distinctive characteristics intertwined. For example, in Russia, the ballet became a huge "all encompassing" form of art. Composers write literature for the musicians to accompany the dancers... stage sets become more and more intricate and elaborate. The actually production brought different areas of art together for a similar purpose. But the ballet also brought together the people of society as an audience and patrons of the productions. So not only did the theatrical side of Russian culture bring various artists together, it also acted as an opportunity for people to gather.
ReplyDeleteFor a revolution to be successful, I think that people have to interact and have a more united view of society (including different types of people in the cause can strengthen the revolutionary force... i.e. scholars, peasants, etc.). So I think it's fair to say that the arts give people an opportunity to realize the potential of unification of different people and groups.
In response to Jessica's comment, I agree totally. I view the situation as the Mir Iskusstva is in direct contrast to the politics of Russia. Russia was thriving in the arts, but not so much in the stable government area. I also agree that art is a form of self-expression, which could be used to view themselves in a new light. Perhaps Russians detected their success in the arts and then felt it was time for a change in government to reflect that success.
ReplyDeleteJust a quote to go along with the arts:
"The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way to make life more bearable"
-Kurt Vonnegut
I agree that modernization and the World of Art movement helped to instigate change in Russia. Also, I think it is important that the arts inspired nationalist sentiment, as Alex pointed out, because as we saw with the French Revolution, this is what unites the people in favor of the revolution and undermines the current rule (Tsar). In Russian art and literature the social changes are evident in the evolving purpose of the artists/writers. The movements went from praising spirituality, to focusing on the Russian people and culture, and finally to glorifying the future of Russia. The intent and success of the arts inspired nationalism for Russia. Furthermore, the revolutionary ideals and this futuristic movement went hand in hand, thus the arts were effective in promoting the revolution, which in turn undermined the tsar's power.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important idea that the Silver Age brought to the revolution was the idea of change and progress in a way that wasn't seen as threatening to the conservative Tsarist regime at the time. I don't think that an idea has to be radical or violent to affect change, but it has to stir something in a large enough audience that will make them think, "maybe things don't have to stay the way they are." Also the numerous mediums of art involved at the time is important for the modernization of Russia because it could reach a group larger than just the intellectuals, including people who were still illiterate, and allow them to draw their own meaning from the art that fit with their beliefs. In my opinion, although the Silver Age had a symbiotic relationship with the revolution, it cannot be seen as a cause in itself because the movement was promoting change in any form, which is why when the Bolsheviks did take controls, many of the intellectuals involved in the Silver Age were exiled or executed.
ReplyDeleteDo the times make the art, or does art make the times? is the essential question that we seem to be exploring.
ReplyDeletePrevious to the Russian Revolution, it seems to work either way, and the factor modernization does indeed factor into the explanation. Now, modernization does not only include the tangible (e.g. factories, railroads, advances in technology/science), it is inherently linked to the social consciousness, of which artistic expression is a facet of. We see the influence of Western Expressionism on the Silver Age--aptly so because Expressionism emphasizes the release of emotion, which is reflected within the Russian artwork of the time. This in turn can slowly develop public consciousness into a vehicle towards change, fueled by an emotional response towards the government that was made accessible though the Silver Age because of the drastic changes in social and even intellectual cultures.
We can see the relationship between art and "the times" to be intertwined--both are influenced by each other, and in Russia's case, modernization was a key factor in developing this connection. To open up that potential is key, which in a stagnant political and social society like Russia at the time, was in itself a radical idea that promoted revolutionary ideals.
In many ways, the art during the Silver Age was a stepping stone into the revolution. As artists studied, altered and combined the Western artist styles, they began to form their own protest of tsarist oppression. For example, in literature and many art pieces, typical Russian peasant life was portrayed, though often altered, such as with cubo-futurism or repetition. These art forms opposed the poverty they found most of the population in, in comparison to how the nobles and the tsar were living. Since, at the beginning, most of the artists supported the Bolshevik movement, they used expressionism in drama or dance showing working class people who worked together against the main authority, calling for change. Despite the large focus on the peasants, the middle working class was the one most affected by the art showing up during the time period as the peasants had no time to spare between farming and paying off their mortgages. This sets up the revolution, which was mostly middle class rising up against the tsar. As Bolsheviks weren't allowed to publicly express their views, art enabled the spread of their ideas to the slightly more censored regions of Russia. The new art styles, such as cubo-futurism, forced people to look closer at the world surrounding them because they had to look closer at the art piece to see what the picture was of, which resulted in an examination of their lives, or so the artist intended. The modernization of Russia that came with the Mir Iskuutzva, such as improved transportation and communication, allowed for Russians to compare their own country to the technologically and economically advanced western countries, which I believe instigated further reason for a reform in government.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the original question, "How do the visual arts, literature, music, dance, etc. move Russia to a new future?" we must examine some actual examples of the Silver Age. For this instance, I will look at the visual arts, as they visually depict the forces of revolution at work.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the painting, "Anna Akhmatova" by Nathan Altman is representative of the Revolution because of the style of painting he chose and subject matter. Altman's painting is in the Cubist style, and this is significant because this style marked a new era in Russian art. Part of the Russian Avant-garde movement, Altman advocated a complete reject of Realism, instilling a radical idea instead -- going back to basic shapes to distort the subject to focus on the subject at hand rather than the technique or colors used. Second, the subject matter he selected for this piece is important to note because Anna Akhmatova is another leader of the cultural revolution in Russia. She was one of the most important poets in the Acmeist movement, essentially doing the same with her poetry as Alman was doing with his artwork. Acmeism is a reject of "mystical" poetry -- it focuses on reality and clarity rather than the vague and dreamlike style of her predecessors.
In essence, the answer to this question is that the visual arts moved Russia to a new future in terms of style and content because artists like Altman chose to reject conventional and orthodox routines in favor of something the Russians had never seen before.
I believe that Mir Iskusstva was a further instigation to change because the people were at last being heard and they were finally able to express themselves. I believe Mir Iskusstva was a “place” where all the creative intellects could meet and create something beautiful, an art journal for all people to read and have access to. This “World of Art” was a world away from the political and economic chaos, it was a world in itself and the Russians had something to be proud of, their rich culture, and no one could take that away from them, not even the Tsar. It was a celebration of their rights and they expressed themselves through these creative outlets.
ReplyDeleteThe Silver Age helps Russia move into modernization because the people of Russia now have a voice, and they want to be heard. They are finally realizing what they can do to influence their government and the life and culture around them. During this period the Russia culture was seen by the West for one of the first times, and Russia was influential once again. The Tsar could be discredited during this time because he was no longer seen as the only opinion that mattered and he wasn’t the only person making a difference. During this time people were also becoming more educated, literate, and aware of what was going on so they were more in check with the corruption of the Tsar and his regime. The Silver Age and Mir Iskusstva helped Russia out of the dark ages of the Tsar Regime by making the impact on the West that was so desperately desired at the time—and the people of Russia were no longer dependent on their corrupt leaders; they had a mind and voice of their own.
Ah, Gretchen! You bring up a great point about how the arts are intertwined and grow off of one another. I totally agree and think that when one type of artistic expression evolves, it induces change in other types. Likewise, the social and political revolution would never have been possible if it hadn't been for the cultural one as well. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it -- the Russians had to be ready socially, politically, and culturally ready for change. If they were merely socially and politically ready, they'd only be two thirds of the way there; the old regime would have still been prevalent in at least a part of their lives. When change happens in one scope of society, it ought to occur in all scopes in order to bring about total change, I think.
ReplyDeleteAdding to what Gavyn said, I think that while it's important to note how modernization and revolution are intertwined and feed each other, it's also interesting to observe the effect it has on the tsar. I think the most pivotal aspect of modernization is that it physically represented a break from the old and an embrace of the new times. Countries, like France, that had many people living in a confined area, like Paris, experienced revolution because it was easier to get ideas around. Paris was one of the main cities, with many factories and modern innovations, so it made sense for people to flock there. When Russia started to modernize, all of a sudden you didn't have people spread over such a great expanse of land. More and more, peasants came to the cities to work in the factories and this made it much easier for them to talk, complain, exchange ideas, get riled up, and go as a unit to protest.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Amy’s piece about the changing style of Art during the silver age, I agree that it is important to look at the subject matter of the painting "Anna Akhmatova" by Nathan Altman. Anna Akhmatova represents social change in Russian culture. As Amy noted, her poems were of a new style; acmeism which emphasizes reality and clarity. However, it is also important to look at the result of her poetry. She inspired many other women poets, who wrote “in honor of Akhmatova.” In a larger picture, more and more women became involved in the arts. Not only through poetry, but there was also an increase in the number of women in the theatre. Therefore, the art of the Silver Age can be seen as a spark for social change in the involvement of women in the arts of Russia, as well as a stylistic change to acmeism or cubism.
ReplyDeleteLucy brings up an interesting effect I do not think that we have explored fully: the direct causal influence of the arts upon people. While it is true that art reflects upon the pervading themes of the social consciousness, it is important to note the direct causal effect of art on individuals. Here, we see women in increasing numbers in poetry and in theatre. This concept of a “chain reaction” that begins with art is significant because it does not only depict the loosely defined “theme” of the times, but shows how people already primed and motivated for change can be influenced causally through art to make it a reality.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Mir Iskusstva movement of the Silver Age is a reflection of the social unrest, and not the instigation to change, because Russia's revolutionary ideas stemed early from intellectuals. These revolutionary ideas spread from intellectuals, who couldmread and understand the concepts presented in pamphlets and books, to the normal public by verbal means. The Silver Age, however, does portray a relevant depiction of the time period, and the increasing tension between public and government. Not all ideologies were radical, many were moderate and reasonable, however, it seemed to the people that radical action must be taken in order to see changes within Russia. The arts and literature pushed Russia into a new future, because, often times, art is associated with a higher class and more industrial/social advanced countries; the initiation of the art and literature movement in Russia propelled the country into becoming more of a European nation, and less of a third world country. The Silver Age has discredited the Tsar because the emerging art and other forms portray different ideas than the Tsar wishes to verbally share with Russia at the time. Although many people were illiterate, it is very easy to understand art, dance, etc., which is exactly what proved to happen in Russia during the time. Via art, dance, and simple literature, radical ideas were presented to the general public.
ReplyDeleteAs a general response to Charles Tilley's posing question of modernization breeding revolution, I do believe that it does breed revolution, because with modernization, comes education of the general public, and an increased willingness to take a chance for change.
i think that the mir iskutzva (totally not spelled correctly, but who cares) movement helped the revolutionary cause along. art has traditionally been a way of communication, one that cannot be censored as easily as pamphlets or newspapers or even people who stand on soapboxes and scream at passers by. art, especially abstract art, can be seen in any number of ways, and that can allow the members of a revolutionary group to use it to spread their message covertely.
ReplyDeletethe visual art of the silver age, especially, is often very abstract, and can be seen to be either a message or a random alignment of shapes, colors, and lines. if the government confronts someone about their art, said person can just say, 'oh, i had this random dream and was inspired? what, you see revolutionary symbols in this? nonsense! i didn't think you were supposed to be drinking vodka while you were on duty!' or something to that effect. so people can spread the revolutionary message while still remaining safe.
on the other hand, that very fluidity of meaning means that people may not realize what the art is supposed to convey, so the artist runs the risk of alienating the populace. however, there will be a few who see the message as the author/artist intended it, and those few people are victories over the oppressive rule.if enough people can see the message, the revolutionary ideas are spread, and they influence the timing of the revolution.
--anne
I think Lucy brings up a really good point about women gaining more recognition in involvement in the arts. Women artists, writers, dancers are emerging in the cultural world of Russia. This growing social/cultural movement of females goes along with the westernization of Russia. Before this time in Russia, painters and writers (like Mary Cassat) were becoming well known throughout the western world. So I think it's important to look at how the cultural formation (which in a way shadows the western cultural trends) influenced the more political aspects of Russia. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the arts were beginning to mirror the western world, isn't it logical that this had an impact on the revolution?
ReplyDeletein response to gavyn's original post:
ReplyDeleteif i understand your post correctly, you are saying that the art and the times influence each other equally, and that they build off each other, correct? if so, i would like to respectfully disagree with that.
i believe that the times make the art. art is a response to something, a method of communicating one's thoughts about an event or idea. while the thoughts may aim to promote change, they are still in response to the original event.
granted, if art is forceful enough, people will begin to react to it, but the art itself is simply the method of communication, and, as the times change, then so will the art. so, i suppose you might be able to say that the art inflences the times some, but i believe that art is mostly a side-effect of the times, something people create to say what they wish to say about the events around them without actually coming out and saying so.
--anne
in response to gretchen's last post (itself a response to lucy's):
ReplyDeleteit's interesting that you bring up the push for westernization in russia. if i could jump forward in time for a moment, during the cold war, the soviet union continued to look west, though they did not admit it. for this reason, they made great advances up until the point that the west had already reached. once they had reached that point, they could go no further, or not much further. you can order people to copy what has already been done, but you cannot order them to invent something new.
clearly, then, russia has been looking towards the west for much of its history. i believe that this is important because it shows just how much russia longs to be accepted. its art, its politics, its language... all are influenced by the west, especially during the silver age. to bring it into high school terms, russia is the ultimate poser: it tries to pretend that it's like europe, even though all of europe realizes that it isn't.
--anne
In response to Gavyn's original post and Anne's response to it...
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that the times and art are so intertwined that they do equally affect each other. As we saw with the Enlightenment, literature, visual arts and music all were changed by the radical new ways of thinking, so the arts are a reaction to the times. However, without literature and art the new philosophies would not have been explained, interpreted and expanded upon to create a full cultural evolution. The arts push the boundaries of these ideological movements, providing fuel for future ideas and movements that are newer and more radical still. Literature is a medium through which the whole society can transform, as it gives commentary on the political and economic situations and how they fit with or oppose the current interpretations of the “ought” side of the dialectic. Without the the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau and the input of many others would French society have been able to revolutionize? In Russia the arts reflected societal unrest but also influenced common thought and commentary on the society. In my opinion art culture is just as important to the times as societal changes are to shaping art.
This is a response to the conversation about Russia’s westernization… I agree with Anne that the country, for a good portion of its history, has struggled to keep up with the western world in economic and political progress. Russia’s Silver Age also followed western cues, but in this period Russia actually excelled in the arts and pushed forward in a way that was different from other movements in more modern and industrialized countries. This is seen through the focus on and new interpretations of Russian society and the movements of Russian Symbolism and Russian Futurism.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gavyna and Katie's posts...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the progressing art movement can instigate change outside the cultural art scene and ultimately shape part of this revolution. As just a small example, after the first few showings of The Rite of Spring under Serge Diaghilev, several riots actually broke out due to the controversial subject matter, a sharp contrast to the accustomed classical ballets. Even small changes such as these can evolve into a common mindset of departing from the traditional and expressing whatever you want whether it be in the arts or the policial sphere.
Well at this point I can't say much that hasn't already been said. However, I think it might be interesting to look at the effect the Silver Age had on the general public, the people not making the art. The simple fact that Russia was producing art (in all its forms) that was truly respected around the world, kindled a new sense of pride in the Russian people. Pride as a national feeling had been absent in Russia for a long time, especially after the devastating loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. John M. Thompson says it this way: "Whatever its deficiencies in social and political terms, Russian society could be proud of its artistic and creative contributions, an area in which Russia was not only not 'backward' but was instead a leader of world culture." With pride comes confidence. The more proud the general public felt,the more confident they must have felt to make changes in their life. Reaching excellence in one area is never enough. Soon there were demands for the overthrow of Tzar, the people wanted the same pride they felt in their culture to be mirrored in their government.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lauren’s post:
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with connection between modernization and the development of the arts, and the transmission of ideas through mediums that require less technical knowledge, per se, saying that “Russia’s revolutionary ideas stemmed early from intellectuals” may be a little sketch.
What I am trying to say is that it is important to note that the Russian Revolution differs from other revolutions, such as the French Revolution, which was considered a bourgeoisie revolution—started by the middle-class intellectuals from the Third Estate. While they did reflect upon public dissent, it was largely through their political power that the French monarchy came to see the will of the people. However, in Russia, the origins are solely within the people that made the government see what was wrong (as we have seen within the video we just recently watched, Nicholas II was flipping out because of public dissent), and it is this dissent that has festered and grown over a period of 50 or so years until an explosive culmination in 1905, and then again in 1917. While it is true that by 1917 there were more “intellectual” influences, such as Lenin expounding the ideals of Marx and the Communist Manifesto, the development of Soviets, etc., the main cause for impetus and change occurred within massive shifts in public consciousness (so much so that the soldiers by 1917 joined the protestors) rather than the consolidation of power in a small select group that reflected the whole.
In short, while revolutions may follow Brinton’s model of sinusoidal awesomeness, the causes and steps that lead us to each point of “rule” may be different.
I believe that the silver age is a representation of the social unrest of pre-revolutionary Russia. I believe that this newly found desire to change led to an artistic change within the country. The widespread sentiment of the people (excluding the peasants) is seen in the art. New methods were being experimented with, a western flair seems to have been assimilated by Russian artists. It seems as if the art brought about a Nationalistic “self-realization” – The art was not bound by the oppression of the Tzar. So in a way, it fueled the revolution, but the desire was what fueled the art. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteI agree with REM's post (I don't know who it is) in that this movement of the Silver Age instilled pride in the people and respect from others. The Russian Ballet, for example, created a huge movement worldwide and greatly impacted the art of performing dance. This recognition could have created a sense of national identity: people were now feeling more proud of being Russian, and wanted to keep improving their image. They felt like they had accomplished something culturally, and now they could move on to accomplishing something politically. This therefore caused them to look closely at the government, and they saw something that could be made better, in the way that ballet was improved. This therefore caused them to act.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anne's post, which was a response to Gretchen's, which was a response to Lucy's...
ReplyDeleteI don't think Russia was doing all of these things just because it was "posing". Yes, it was taking ideas from the Western world, and yes, it wanted to be seen as a more developed country like the western ones, but a lot of what was seen in the Mir Iskusstva movement was groundbreaking, never-before-seen techniques and ideas. Lots of new art forms were seen, the music was new, etc. Because they were seen to be breaking out of both the "underdeveloped" mold and the Western mold, Russians were really starting to look more closely at their country, in both pride because of what they had accomplished and analysis because of what they could continue to do.
Going along with Raliegh, I agree that the Silver Age and Mir Iskusstva represent the social unrest in Russia, however I will have to offer another opinion on the art bringing about a Nationalistic "self-realization." I do not think that this self-realization can be looked at as a result of Mir Iskusstva. I think that we need to look at these as results of the social reforms put into place by the Tsar. While Mir Iskusstva was definitely a step in the right direction for Russia I do not believe it lead to Revolution by any stretch of the imagination. The "art revolution" is more of a precursor to the revolution that would soon occur. These two revolutions probably began at the same time in similar ways, however it is much easier to change a style of art than it is to change a government. The art revolution was just on a faster curve.
ReplyDeleteP.S.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it is late and I am exhausted. I'll clear it up if I look at it again when I'm actually awake.
In response to Anne's original post, I think she brings up a really good point about the subjectivity of the message of art. For the most part, we think of this as a good thing, so that people find their own meaning, however we forget to realize that abstract art also makes the message more unclear than traditional art. I would imagine that if you were to show a cubism painting or a new symphony to a person living in poverty at the time, he/she first of all would have no idea of how to get a message of art, and second would probably not really care. So my question is... did art really influence a larger population than new political and economic reforms?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jenna's post
ReplyDeleteI believe whether or not people really understood the author/artist's true purpose to the piece is beside the point. The audience to the arts, not particularly the working class or 'proletariat' per se, would have seen the transition from the traditional art forms to the new styles emerging from the Mir Iskusstva. This sharp transformation might very well have fueled other movements (like the political or social reforms) through this developing atmosphere of necessary change, a key ingredient in social unrest and ultimately revolutionary conditions.
First of all, on the topic of whether art imitates life or inspires it, I believe that art is created in response to life. For example, in the time period of impressionism, the new-age impressionist art was partially in response to industrialization. It was a creative protest objecting the rapidly multiplying factories and a loss of appreciation for nature. In terms of the Russian Revolution, I think the growing social unrest due to the war and the increasing dislike for the Tsarist regime caused the influx of progressive art that was part of the Mir Iskusstva. I do not think the art itself caused the social unrest. Additionally, I believe art was able to progress during the Silver Age because, as the Tsar fell out of favor and the people saw that he did not have their best interests in mind, his position of the presumed religious head of Russia lost influence. A large portion of the art before the turn of the century was religiously based, and as artists lost faith in the Tsar, they were more prone to break free of the religiously based confines which formerly restricted their subject matter.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Silver Age art was created in response to negative sentiments at the time, the Mir Iskusstva a revolutionary cause in conjunction with radial political and economic ideologies. Censorship in Russia was lessened because the Tsarist Regime attempted to prevent large scale revolution and possible implementation of a provisionary or radical government. The influx in material a normal Russian person had access to spread the messages the artists of the Mir Iskusstva were trying to send, as well as the art from different countries. Therefore, the Silver Age art did inspire Russian people to revolt, because it reinforced their negative feelings towards the government and spread the revolutionary message.
In response to Charles Tilley’s thesis, modernization does breed revolution, in my opinion. As a country becomes more progressive and people receive more civil liberties and more opportunities, they are enlightened to the oppression their government. In terms of Russia, as the Silver Age art spread and the people received small amounts of new freedoms and a little more power in their government, they were able to see the Tsarist Regime for what it really was.
In response to Alex Thomas' post about my last post...
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the fact that the ideas of Mir Iskusstva didn't necessarily reach the peasants is important. Although most political and economic ideas were not necessarily brought about by the peasants, their influence did reach these lower classes (Stolypin land reforms, for example), whereas I am still doubtful that the Silver Age did. Therefore, I hold my point that although the Silver Age did provide fuel to the fire, it may also just have been a tangent of of the revolution.
In response to Jenna’s post, I agree that the art of the Silver Age was important because it spread art throughout the classes so working class Russians had access to some of the same revolutionary information as intellectuals and royalty. However, I do not agree with the point raised that says, “The Silver Age brought to the revolution was the idea of change and progress in a way that wasn't seen as threatening to the conservative Tsarist regime.” I do not agree with this because I think art was threatening to the Tsarist regime, and I think the Tsarist Regime saw Silver Age art as threatening. Although censorship laws were lessened by the government, this was only done to prevent widespread revolution. The government still felt threatened by art, which can be seen when the sculpture that was created to commemorate the October revolution of 1905 was destroyed and used to make shoes for soldiers. Also, the art was radical because its subject matter and style was so different than Russian art before the turn of the century. Additionally, although it may not have been physically violent, many of its messages were brutal and aggressive.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Raleigh’s original comment, I agree that the Silver Age art is a representation of the social unrest in Russia, however, I am not sure if I agree that the desire for change was the sole cause for artistic change in the country. As Raleigh stated in his post, Russian art developed a western flair, which makes me think that decreased censorship in Russia permitted previously banned foreign art to circulate through Russia. In my opinion, the influence of this European and western art was partially responsible for the stylistic changes and changes of subject matter. I am also unsure if the art fueled the revolution. To some extent this is true, but it seems to me that with or without art, the Tsar was falling out of favor and loosing his God-like status, people were unhappy with the war and their difficult ways of life, and modernization was breeding political unrest. Art helped to spread the message of the revolutionaries, but the desire for change was already present.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Silver Age in Russia contributed to the instigation of revolution in Russia. However, I do not think it was the sole contributor. I beleive that the Silver age allowed the populus of Russia to realize that the standards in which they lived their lives were not the only way in which to live. New ideas were being thought up and expressed through art. These new ideas expressed through art gave people courage and intuition to examine thier own beliefs and ideas. I beleive that this change, however, is more a result of the changing ideas and sentiments of the Russian people, rather than the Russian people's ideas were changed by the appearance of a new art form. The Silver Age is important in the fact that is shows, to an extent, the change occuring within Russia. It shows how Russia is beginning to modernize in its ideas, which overall leads to the inevitable collapse of Tsarist Rule.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex Swartz's comment
ReplyDeleteI beleive that the art did help to increase the social unrest of the Russian people. It may not have been the direct cause, but it served to fuel the unrest through the ideas it presented. The people were already angry with the Tsar and the way things were going, and the addition to the radical ideas proposed through art fueled the unrest by showing the people there were other ways to live than under Tsarist rule. However, I agree that the art was a cause of inspiration of revolt. It fortified their beleifs, and gave them the courage to act out directly in revolt.
in response to Riley Edward Mulhern
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting what Riley said that the art instilled pride within the Russian people. I agree that there had been a serious lack of pride within Russians ever since the Russo-Japanese War. And honestly, there was no reason to be proud to be a Russian. They had a weak army, an outdated political system that could no longer support its own weight, and a huge general populus barely making it by everyday. There was not a lot to be proud of. Therefore, when Russian art was becoming respected in Europe and around the globe, it re-installed a sense of pride for Russia. Since the art was source of this pride, it is not suprising that people within Russia were looking at the message the art was bringing, and listening to the ideas the art was trying to spread. It was a source of pride, and therefore worth paying attention to. I think that the pride the art instilled was a prominent reason the art had the impact it did during the Silver Age on revolutionary feelings within Russia.
Continuing on the thread about the influence of silver age art on the general populace (last mentioned by peter blei), I believe that while the upper class that were instigating revolution might have been inspired and motivated by mir iskutsva, the lower class peasants were probably more strongly swayed by loud bolshevics than anything else. After all, illiteracy wasnt the russian peasants only communication problem. If we are to assume that most of them did not spend their 'free time' analyzing art, it seems that they would not have made a habit of it once revolution was in the air.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Peter, who responded to Riley...I agree art was a point of pride, but why was that? any artistic movement needs to be well thought of and popular before it is really acknowledged in its won time, and the silver age art certainly seems to fill both of these conditions. However, the reason it does so is because the Russian people supported it and in the same stroke made it popular. Obviously there was something, before their pride in Mir Iskutsva, that caused them to consume this art. I suggest it was a combination of the dire conditions in Russia at the time, and a deeper set need to find something the world would admire, even if they didn't know what that was. The desperation of the people could be expressed through the art, or alternatively the art could be used as an escape from their woes into Russia's past.
ReplyDeleteThe wide scope of art forms encompassed by Mir Iskutsva suggest to me that the Russian people were blindly reaching out into any medium they could, in an attempt to find just one thing that they were good at. Since war and farming obviously weren't there forte, they really only had art left. Luckily for them, the enormous ill and sheer volume of artists available to them made the silver age of art something the world truly did admire. But, I think that they created Mir Iskutsva to fill that void in their nations pride, rather than lifting up mir iskutsva because of how proud they were after the fact.
So pretty much everything has been said and because I am a little too lazy to read through EVERYONEs posts I am just going to say what i think- sorry if I am repeating anything. I completely agree with Riley's comment about nationalism. Art was a refreshing anecdote that the Russian people could be proud of and feel connected to. As we have seen in the past (in the French Revolution and parts of WWI) nationalist pride can have a major effect on the people's desire to uprise. I also believe that without this sentiment of working towards a better existence (which art portrayed) a revolution will not likely occur. In the art produced during the Silver Age, people were able to display their opinions and beliefs in a "productive" way. It was an outlet to share themselves with fellow russian people and other members of the world. The art served as a plate to completely lay themselves out there and find a common ground.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex Schwartz's response to Raleigh's comment...
ReplyDeleteAlright so Alex and Grant have both said (or implied) that the artwork of the Silver Age was not necessarily a sole cause of the revolutionary movement. I agree with Alex that the lifting of censorship laws would allow more modern, radical art into the country, affecting and possibly changing the style of art in Russia. The style of art was not all that changed during this time, though; the topic changed as well. More and more poems and artwork showed and symbolized the conditions of the lower class Russians as well as the insufficiencies of the Tsarist political system. Were it only the style of art that changed, I would agree that the lifting of censorship laws had more of an effect on the changing style of art than the social unrest. Because the artists were creating work to show this social unrest, though, I believe that the times had a very significant effect on the art in comparison to the influence of western art.
In response to Grant's last comment...
ReplyDelete"a deeper set need to find something the world would admire..."
I doubt that in times of poverty and starvation the lower classes of Russia would have been worrying about not being admired by the world. If I was in their situation, I would be worrying about fixing the problem at home of not having food. I believe nationalism and pride were not issues for these lower class Russians. That is why I would suggest that they used the emerging Mir Iskusstva movement to motivate themselves out of poverty, rather than as an outlet to be admired by the world.
It can be (and has already been) asked how poetry and artwork can have any effect at all on poor, lower class citizens who are not educated and cannot read. After all, what good is a poem to an illiterate? This, however, is comparable to asking how the media affects our own lives. A commercial about a presidential candidate can contain statistics that hold no meaning for the viewer, but can still change public sentiment toward that candidate. In Russia, there were educated people who could analyze visual art and could read. These people understood the messages of the artists, and their feelings "trickled down" to the illiterate citizens, and public sentiment had changed. Just as in our society, large groups of people are often swayed fairly easily. Just because the lowest classes of Russia could not read does not mean that the artists' ideas did not reach and motivate them, just as the meaningless statistics in commercials can still portray an idea to the viewer.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica's post, I agree that the Silver Age 'fueled the fire' of the revolution because ideas were spread through art, something that even illiterate people could understand. This is significant, because before the Silver Age, over half of Russia's population (who were illiterate), could not understand printed information, making it less widespread.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Peter's post, there is vailidity to the fact that the Russian people could visibly see the parallels between the art produced, and their own lives. In this sense, through visual presentation, versus printed information, holds a stronger representation and spreading of ideas amungst the Russian people. I agree with what Peter said about the Silver Age not causing, but adding to the extent of the revolution.
ReplyDeleteAlright this probably isn't going to make any sense.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on Gavyn's original comment, and Anne and Katie's responses, I think that the question of "does time make the art or does art make the times?" Sort of like if great men make history or history makes great men. I feel like this is also a question of necessity vs. sufficiency. Was the art's success enough to fuel the revolution, or was it quintessential for the revolution to take place? Or maybe it's not responsible for the revolution at all, and I'm not understanding this.
In response to Natalie...
ReplyDeleteI think that rather than looking at rather or not the art was enough to fuel the revolution, we should be looking at how much it fueled the revolution, or if if fueled it at all? I do not think that Mir Iskusstva was quintessetial for the success of the revolution. In my opinion, it is either part of the fuel (possibly an insignificant amount) that got the revolution going, or it is simply a product of other events that started the revolution. While Mir Iskusstva was a significant reminder that Russia was slowly changing and possibly moving away from European influence (first art style that they could call their own), Mir Iskusstva was more a result of more freedom of press (Mir Iskusstva magazine). That freedom, allowing people to communicate more freely allowed for some change.
I am also interested in looking at what we talked about today (Sept. 28th) in class. Looking at the western point of view from "Problem 10" that we looked at today, it seems that starting the revolution was sort of a shot in the dark that was successful merely because of Lenin and some lucky circumstances. I think it is also important to think about what effect WWI had, and also the idea that Lenin was promoting, bread, land and peace. Just looking at what the people of Russia really wanted makes me question how much Mir Iskusstva could have influenced the revolution. The peasants were uneducated and probably did not have that much respect for the arts. What they did care about was land, bread, and peace. If they had land to live on, food to eat, and they were being sent to the Russo-German border to get slaughtered they were happy. Even without an art revolution the people were going to realize that they wanted change.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gretchen:
ReplyDeleteAlthough modernization breeds revolution, does art during the Silver Age? Personnally, I think art reflects the modernization that is occurring in the country. This is showed in the new styles of art that emerged during the time. Along with modernization, art shows people the world they are in and how their lives could be better. This in itself breeds a revolutionary spirit, though more to the cause of modernization, like you said. Since modernization and progressive thoughts can be influential enough to escalate into a revolution, what sort of effect do you think the Silver Age had in the progression and evolution of the revolution? Is art alone enough to change the attitude of an entire nation or state the way industrialization did? What else culturally contributed to the revolution?
In response to Anne's comment:
ReplyDeleteIn comparing the art of today to that from the Silver Age, how do we (as people) respond to art? Russia still has a lack of transportation, education, and communication throughout the country as well as to Western Europe. How much do you think this hindered the spread of art and their ideas? Although I agree art was a major influence in the expression of revolutionary ideas, and therefore the spread of them, it is impossible to measure the actual effect the artistic movement had in the revolution.
I am responding to Gretchen’s very first post. Gretchen said that she believes modernization does indeed breed revolution due to expanding ideas, innovation, technology, industrialization, opportunity, and so on. However, I must disagree, at least partially. I don’t see how all these progressive qualities of modernization can lead to revolution, when revolution is simply a means of progress in the first place. Didn’t the Russian people revolt because they wanted more opportunity, more jobs, more of the qualities of the quickly modernizing west? Why then, would modernization, which is exactly what the people wanted, cause them to revolt? I don’t think it would, unless of course you are Karl Marx. He would of course say that a proletarian uprising due to capitalism (which in the case of western countries, came with modernization), is inevitable. This may be true over the long run; Marx himself admitted that it wouldn’t occur immediately. However, in the case of Russia, modernization was occurring very slowly, and the country was only beginning to develop industrially, so it definitely was not modernization that instigated the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. I think it was exactly the opposite, disillusionment with the old ways.
ReplyDeleteJenna, I think I know what you are getting at about the peasantry not really understanding or appreciating the Silver Age. How is a peasant farmer supposed to find meaning in the craziness of 20th century art and music? Like, Stravinsky, his stuff is awful. No farmer would listen to that (or maybe they would considering how much they like singing about beating their wives). But that’s not the point. The art wasn’t directed toward the majority of the population. It was probably only seen and appreciated by the artist themselves, and elite bourgeoisie and royalty. But obviously, that was enough. Like I was saying before, I think the pride that erupted in the upper classes simply trickled down to the lower classes over time. However, the peasantry responded to such nationalist sentiments radically differently than the royalty and the rest. Pride only makes the Tsar happier to be Tsar, while it makes the rest of the country itch for more.
ReplyDeleteIn response to modernization --> revolution:
ReplyDeleteI agree. Gretchen pretty much covered how progressive thoughts inevitably lead to actions which in turn cause a revolution. I think is empirically proven even in society today. If we look to Iran and the autonomous feminist movement that has occurred, we can see that these beliefs, which go against the "norms" on which this society is built upon, have, and potentially will, foster a revolution. Though women have had a substantially increased role in Iranian society due to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iranian ideology is inherently committed towards inequality for women. The question that arises is: what "modernization" in society is occurring that could spur the change needed for a revolution? For the Russian Revolution, we see that oppression inevitably lead to progressive thought. While this is an important aspect of modernization and revolutions in society today, I believe that oppression coupled with democratization/westernization are the sole reasons for the modernization of thought we see in revolutionary societies.
A question that I had while thinking about modernization and Revolution is whether or not modernization could spur revolution within America in the status quo?
While paintings, poems, and ballets were enjoyable for the citizens of Russia who could afford to experience them, the vast majority of Russia could not afford to tour art museums, attend ballets, or even learn to read the poems that are supposed to cause this revolution. The art form that was going to reach the masses and the one that I would like to focus on is architecture.
ReplyDeleteIn 1905 Russia underwent the "Neoclassical Revival" in architecture. New technologies like steel frames and reinforced concrete merged with classical order and 'Russian empire style'(wikipedia, 2009). The classical beauty of the cities was perserved and then expounded on. As the peasants moved into the cities they saw all around them dominating structures. Beacons of power and of Russia's culture. And yet these structures also had the grace and elegance of classical art. Being exposed to these buildings must have instilled in the working class a new standard, a new potential. Once this new quality of life is added it is hard to remove.
"The human soul requires architectonic beauty just as human vision requires good illumination." -Professor Wagner.
And as professor Wagner says, the architectonic beauty illuminated the world around the working class. Buildings are seen many times a day, they become symbols of the cities they reside in. The most beautiful buildings represent the highest standard of living. And if you are a factory worker that sees these buildings everyday before returning to sub-standard housing the want to raise one own's quality of life will have a much more tangible goal, to eventually own a big expensive house like the ones you pass by. This eventually leads to revolution as a means of establishing a ruler that will enable the citizens to all have better houses.
I find Ali Follett's questions very insightful. The main underlying one being if modernizing and progressive thoughts are enough to escalate Russia to a revolution? If they are necessary or sufficient? Which really addresses the more philosophical question of 'what is the power of a 'thought' in society'?
ReplyDeleteWell, in Russia's case, in do not believe that the Silver Age of art was sufficient to cause a revolution. The 'thought' spurred by the new art was that man had higher potentials but this would only cause the audience to go home and work harder to achieve these new goals. The additional thought that 'the tsar is holding us back and the only way to really move forward is to change the leadership' is the thought that would cause a revolution.
What the people needed was a demonstration of the Tsar's inadequecies. This most like came with the war. Therefore the Silver Age was necessary for the revolution to happen. It was absolutly crucial that the Russian people had seen a better life and was willing to try for it as soon as the Tsar proved flawed.
In response to Grant:
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on Grant's comment,
"...while the upper class that were instigating revolution might have been inspired and motivated by mir iskutsva, the lower class peasants were probably more strongly swayed by loud bolshevics than anything else." -Grant
Grant makes the distinction here between the Bolsheviks using 'loud' techniques to attract the lower class to the idea of revolution and the upper class using art to attract other upper class patrons to the idea of revolution. I would say that the Bolshevik's technique was both loud and connected to art. The platform of ending the war appealed to those interested in art because expansion focused on destruction and force while art focused on the creation and beauty of life. Art simply has the power to make people want to stop fighting and live up to the beauty of the art. Therefore, someone who promises to end the war and allow life to be more peaceful would win approval of both the upper class, wanting to have more freedom to learn about and make art, and the lower class who in a warless society might have the opportunity to appriciate art more or even become artist of their own.
Response to Jeff: I dont think you can lump the world into 'Artists' and 'Soldiers'. Peace would have appealed to many peasants simply because they were tired of devestation, and it wasn't their war after all. And, while the upperclass enjoyed art and music, they may have supported the war just as they supported the former Tsar, and as a matter of russian pride. Also, if you look at this point in history, not many lowerclass people were able to enter another field, let alone a field of art. Their Mir was their mir. thats is to say, anythiung outside the village was not even a blip on their radar. WHile Mir Iskutsva may have largely passed them by, I wonder if the lower class had any art within the villages that reflected the changing times, but was small scale enough not to be recorded? It certainly would be interesting to see how the villagers, slightly removed but still impacted by the goings on, would express themselves. I believe their expression might have been more basic (rather than portraying proletariats and their glorious work, they might simply have depicted their fear of soldiers, or rage at the oppressors within their community). Not because they were simple minded, but because they were less entrenched in the politics of russia.
ReplyDeleteI think that perhaps Mir Iskusstva had the potential to change Russia slowly, and evolve its 'class consciousness' into something else. It had shown the world what the Russian people could achieve, and was beginning to change Russia's public image from poor, backwards farmers to artists, musicians and enlightened people. Similar to the enlightenment period, which they missed out on, the Russian people were becoming more complex, and more contemplative. This might eventually have led to a slow but peaceful change in the government, much like what the Menshevics sought after. Does anyone else believe slow change was possible, or was their simply too much pressure for something new to alow for time?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletein response to Lauren's post, I believe modernization added fuel to the fire for a revolution for the same reasons I stated before, as well as the reasons she states; with the spread of literacy among the country, information was also obtained and spread throughout the public faster. I do, however, disagree with her remark about Mir Iskusstva being "a reflection of the social unrest, and not the instigation to change" because I believe that social unrest and instigation for change go hand in hand, at least in this case. Without the need to change social unrest does not exist.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Konrad's comment "Just because the lowest classes of Russia could not read does not mean that the artists' ideas did not reach and motivate them, just as the meaningless statistics in commercials can still portray an idea to the viewer"...
I believe this is a very true statement, one that we face in our lives everyday. In his post he did an outstanding job of comparing the Russian Revolution to an everyday modern situation. The spread of the lower classes' understanding also came from the fact that Russia's population grew more literate (as Lauren pointed out in hr original post) as time went on, but Konrad makes a valid claim...the people are very influential within their own community. This fact is another component of what fuels the want for a revolution.