Indian artists on ninety years of Russian revolution


This is a video about painting in India.

By Suneet Chopra, in People’s Democracy weekly in India:

Artistes Observe Bolshevik Revolution Anniversary

THE 90th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was observed at the Visual Art Gallery in Delhi, with an exhibition of the works by some 26 artistes, including Arpana Caur, Neeraj Goswami, Komala Vardan, Shamshad Husain, Subroto and Nupur Kundu, Nand Kishore, Avijit Roy, Dattatraya Apte, Anoop and Ritu Kamath, Asurvedh, Biplabi Samaddar, Dharmendra Rathore, Laxman Aelay, Laxma Goud, Jayant Gajera, T. Vaikundam, L.N. Rana, N S Rana, Prabir Bepari, Prokash Karmakar, Rohit Sharma, Santosh Verma, Vinod Sharma and Vinodvrat.

The reason I had in mind when curating the exhibition was that the impact of the Russian Revolution and the setting up of the Soviet state was something without which the independence of India and other colonies was unthinkable. For, empires that came into being before the Soviet state simply replaced one oppressor state with another. The Arabs fought the Turks for their independence, but Lebanon and Syria were parcelled out to France and Iraq and Jordan to Britain. Palestine, put under British ‘protection’, suffered a fate worse than death. Even after the World War II, the USA demanded Korea as a “mandated territory” while the Korean people had defeated Japanese colonialism on their own!

China Mieville’s new book provides a gripping account of the Russian Revolution but it has some telling omissions, says NICK WRIGHT.

Sir Richard Eyre, the distinguished director who led the [UK] National Theatre for 10 years, has warned that ‘apartheid’ in the arts is denying millions of people access to high culture: here.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Indian artists on ninety years of Russian revolution

  1. Pingback: Karl Marx and economic crisis today, from TIME magazine | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  2. Saturday, 19 November 2016

    REVOLUTION – NEW ART FOR A NEW WORLD
    A Margy Kinmonth Film
    Director: Margy Kinmonth
    Created with the support of Alisher Usmanov, Founder of the Art, Science and Sport Charity Foundation
    Contributors: Museum Directors:
    Professor Mikhail Piotrovsky & Zelfira Tregulova
    Film Director: Andrei Konchalovsky

    2017 WILL mark the centenary of one of the most important moments in the history of the 20th Century – the Russian Revolution. In the lead-up to the Centenary of the Russian Revolution, a film that explores the art coming out of Revolutionary Russia Revolution: New Art for a New World was screened in UK cinemas for one night only on 10th November.

    This feature length documentary explores the world of the Russian Avant-Garde art movement through this turbulent time in history. Directed by acclaimed filmmaker Margy Kinmonth, the movie is a bold and exciting feature documentary. Drawing on the collections of major Russian institutions, contributions from contemporary artists, curators, and performers and personal testimony from the descendants of those involved, the film brings the artists of the Russian Avant-Garde to life.

    It tells the stories of artists like Chagall, Kandinsky, Malevich and others – pioneers who flourished in response to the challenge of building a New Art for a New World, only to be broken by implacable authority after 15 short years.

    Stalin’s rise to power marked the close of this momentous period, consigning the Avant Garde to obscurity. Yet the Russian Avant-Garde continues to exert a lasting influence over art movements up to the present day.

    Revolution: New Art for a New World confirms this, exploring the fascination that these colourful paintings, inventive sculptures and propaganda posters retain over the modern consciousness 100 years on.

    The documentary was filmed entirely on location in Moscow, St. Petersburg and London, with access to The State Tretyakov Gallery, The State Russian Museum, The State Hermitage Museum and in co-operation with The Royal Academy of Arts, London.

    It features paintings previously banned and unseen for decades, and masterpieces which rarely leave Russia. Contributors include Museum Directors Professor Mikhail Piotrovsky and Zelfira Tregulova and film director Andrei Konchalovsky.

    The film also features Matthew Macfadyen, Tom Hollander, James Fleet, Eleanor Tomlinson and Daisy Bevan who bring to life some of the most prominent voices of this time. Director Margy Kinmonth says: ‘I was inspired, as an artist, to discover how many of the descendants of Russian Avant-Garde artists are themselves working as artists today. Access to their intensely moving stories brings to life this extraordinary period of artistic innovation, which continues to exert such a powerful legacy a hundred years on.’

    The film shows the enthusiastic response of the group of young artists and their devotion to the Bolshevik-led revolution. The opening titles proclaim: ‘The message was workers of the world unite … everyone is going to have equal rights, including the artists.’ Painter Popova says, ‘We are breaking with the old because we cannot accept their hypotheses.’

    The film proper opens with historic footage of the Women’s Day March of February 17 which was brutally dispersed by Tsarist troops, killing hundreds. Photographer Bulla captured the scene of the massacre from his apartment window. The massacre set light to the February revolution which deposed the Tsar and brought in the Provisional government. Later footage of the storming of the Winter Palace from Eisenstein’s film October is shown.

    One of those interviewed says: ‘Before 1917 the artistic revolution was already underway but the political revolution let it flourish.’ Here the film considers Malevich and his abstract Suprematism movement. It talks of his emphasis on black and poster colour kinetic marks out of a white background. There is a debate about his controversial Black Square.

    Chagall’s flying couple in Vitebsk: Over the Town is considered with commentary that it reflects on a freedom brought on by the revolution. The film notes the conflict between the Russian art academy’s European classicist teaching and the new art which is full of colour and often ignored perspective. One commentator calls Kandinsky ‘the father of abstract art’ who ‘would change the course of painting forever’.

    The work of inventive theatre director Meyerhold is praised, with modern actors demonstrating the revolutionary director’s ‘biomechanics’ exercises for actors. Outstanding works are found in museum archives, stored away. The film recounts how the Bolsheviks set up a Visual Arts Department.

    Rodchenko, we are informed, worked as a multifaceted artist in many disciplines, photography, graphic art and design. And Vertov was a pioneering documentary film maker. A new school of photomontage was encouraged by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

    Women artists flourished. Among them, Stepanova who was married to Rodchenko.
    As well as posters, Lenin’s agitprop train steamed across Russia in a literacy drive. One famous poster proclaims BOOKS. Artists, workers and peasants alike suffered huge privation during the imperialist wars of intervention and the counter-revolution of the White Guards financed by the west.

    Trotsky built the Red Army to successfully defend the new workers state but it came at a cost. The film does not talk about Trotsky, save to say Stalin entered the editing room of October and made Eisenstein cut Trotsky out when he was filmed standing next to Lenin during a cheering rally. This is when the film deals with Stalin’s dead hand on art and artists after Lenin’s death, with his insistence on Social Realism and the ever increasing censorship.

    Then came the Stalin purges of 1936-38 that continued till the 1950s. Many were sent to the Gulag, many were tortured and executed on false charges. Avant-garde artists were declared ‘enemies of the state’. One surviving relative tells how ‘we stayed awake at night; if we heard boots on the ground, we knew they were coming.’

    Some fled like Chagall and others survived including Malevich who subverted realism with stylised larger than life portraits. However, the director insists, the Russian avant-garde has a ‘lasting legacy which has transformed art’. The closing credits name the many artists and their fates. Look out of this inspiring must-see documentary. Hopefully there will be more screenings and it will reach a wider audience.

    http://wrp.org.uk/news/12703

  3. Thursday 18th May 2017

    posted by Morning Star in Arts

    Mike Quille: Culture Matters

    HOW do the ruling classes manipulate art and culture to secure political consent for oppression and exploitation? Two exhibitions on the 1917 revolution in Russia go some way towards providing an answer.

    Most historians accept that the February and October revolutions in that year were both clear improvements on the tsarist autocracy that preceded them.

    And most cultural historians also recognise the explosion of creativity and widespread democratisation of culture which followed the October revolution.

    Art and cultural activities suddenly became exciting, accessible and relevant to ordinary Russians.

    But these are uncomfortable facts for our current rulers, who must crush any hopes for political or cultural progress if they are to stay on top.

    There are two ways they can do this. One is to construct a biased and misleading narrative which ignores historical evidence and downplays artists’ support for the revolution. That was on view in the recent exhibition at the Royal Academy, an openly one-sided and distorted presentation of its politics and art.

    The second is to create a monumental fudge which obscures the real historical and cultural achievements of 1917, through a kind of chaotic eclecticism.

    This is the strategy followed by the British Library in its current exhibition on the Russian Revolution, embodied in the mistaken and banal commentary offered by one of its curators in the Morning Star last Saturday.

    “Today, people are not so much concerned about the faults of capitalist society but are trying to find their way through the new challenges of the global world,” she asserted.

    How on Earth anyone can write this in the middle of an election campaign in which the Labour Party is quite clearly trying to address the faults of a capitalist society which concern us all is beyond belief.

    She provides an individualistic focus on the “personal stories” of those involved and the “individual interpretations” of visitors to the exhibition, rather than promoting a broader, historically based understanding of Russian history.

    This is a cop-out because curatorial practice, including the type of contextual and supporting material supplied, is bound to influence visitors’ perceptions.

    It is also disingenuous, because the curators do have a message. They believe that the exhibition “can convey a simple idea that violence can only create more violence in response.” This is sloppy thinking.

    History is full of instances where individuals and classes have violently seized control of commonly held resources and have been unwilling to give them up peacefully.

    Oppressive rulers have had to be challenged, defeated and restrained by force as well as by peaceful argument, in order that most people can have a fair share of the Earth’s resources.

    Of course, peaceful persuasion is best. But what alternative is there to force if that doesn’t work to end exploitation? Would slaves, peasants and serfs have ever been freed without their violent, illegal rebellions?

    The “violence breeds violence” message conceals a defeatist political agenda. When the law itself is nothing more than a codification of unjust and oppressive social and economic relationships, it has to be challenged and changed by every means at our disposal.

    Coincidentally — or perhaps not — both exhibitions have been sponsored by the Blavatnik Foundation, the beneficiary of Britain’s secondrichest man Leonard Blavatnik.

    He made a huge fortune after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the accompanying legalised robbery by private individuals and corporations of the wealth built up by the Russian people since 1917.

    So money stolen from the Russian people is used to fund cultural exhibitions which distort the truth about Russian history. That is how dominant classes manipulate art and culture to secure consent for exploitation and oppression.

    Have there ever been more obvious examples of the increasing corruption of our cultural institutions by corporate capital, masquerading as philanthropic or charitable foundations?

    A key demand of any progressive arts and culture policy must now be the complete abolition of private sponsorship of our common culture and heritage.

    Mike Quille is co-editor of the website Culture Matters, http://culturematters.org.uk

    http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8a5f-Why-corporate-capital-subverts-radical-cultures-intent#.WR3GKtykIdU

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s