Boris Groys: Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin

Groys, Boris. Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin: Die gespaltene Kultur in der Sowjetunion. München: Hanser, 1988.

In this book, one of his early book-length publications (in German at least), Boris Groys attempts to analyse socialist realism, the art of the Stalinist era. Although there are already tons of books that supposedly deal with socialist realism, this book seems special. As Groys notes a couple of reasons for the relative neglect. After Stalin, the art of his time has fallen into oblivion. Works have been detroyed etc. Groys also describes the well-known 'technique' of describing new things with old names, so that what people in later terms describe as socialist realism might very well something completely different.

One of Groys's main theses is that socialist realism is no simple negation of earlier Avantgarde currencts, but a radicalization of central Avantgarde concerns. To substantiate his thesis, Gorys needs to begin his book with the Avantgarde as the period before socialist realism. He also emphasizes that the Avantgarde does not simply reject technological progress; instead it tries to fight progress:

»Der Schaden, den die Technik der Welt zugefügt hat, soll so auch mit den Mitteln der Technik geheilt werden, wobei der chaotische Charakter der technischen Entwicklung einem Gesamtplan zur Reorganisation des Kosmos unter der Leitung des an die Stelle Gottes gerückten Künstler-Analytikers weichen soll. Ziel dieser totalen Operation ist es, jede weitere Entwicklung, jede Arbeit, jede Schöpfung ein für allemal zu unterbinden. Daraus entsteht eine neue 'weiße Menschheit'« (Groys, p.21).

Groys also includes the period after it, at least partly by dealing with "Soz-Art" (this is his expression in the German text, not sure how one translates this to English). Soz-Art is described as a Soviet branch of postmodern art in the 1960s and 1970s. It belongs to the book about art of Stalin since the artists (or their works) refer to the Stalinist time, commenting, interpreting and explaining socialist realism. As so often in postmodernism, these artists seem not to demask socialist realism as to explore it.

Groys's book attempts to shift conventional analysis of art works by regarding not only art, but also the state as a work of art (see title). In a totalitarian system like that established under Stalin, this assumption seems an interesting thesis at least, if not a straight forward approriate description. It gives way to one of the main topics of the book: that of autonomy. Surprisingly, Groys does not use the term (except in footnotes), but he clearly demonstrates that the Avantgarde (or at least some of the Avantgardists) understood their project as an attempt to change the world, i.e. the real social conditions. As such, their project has a similar totalitarian demand as that of the Bolsheviks. Groys argues that in the beginning of the Avantgardistic project, the artists welcome the revolution and take positions in the cultural field in order to change the world. In these times they clearly feel superior to the Bolsheviks. In the course of the Avantgarde (in the 1920), this demand is subordinated to the political domain and finally seized by Stalin.

Groys differentiates between early and late avantgarde. For the former, he discusses Kasimir Malewitsch (1878-1935) [sorry for the German translateration, I use the same spelling that is employed in the Groy's book], Welimir Chlebnikow  (1885-1922) and Solowjew. For the late phase of Avantgarde, Groys briefly discusses the works of Alexander Rodschenko (1891-1956), W. Tatlin, and the LEF  as well as Boris Arwatow.

»Zum Vorbild des konstruktivistischen Kunstwerks wählte man die Maschine, die sich nach ihrem eigenen Gesetz bewegt. Im Unterschied zur Industriemaschine wurde die 'Kunst-Maschine' seitens der Konstruktivisten zumindest zu Beginn noch nicht unter utilitaristischen Vorzeichen konzipiert; sie sollte als autonome Maschine gemäß der ursprünglich formalistischen Ästhetik der Konstruktivisten den Charakter des Materials, aus dem sie konstruiert ist, sowie ihre konstruktive Natur zeigen, sie sollte, wenn man so will, die 'Maschine des Unbewußten' offenlegen, die in der utilitaristischen Maschine ebenso verborgen ist wie im traditionellen Gemälde mit einer Einstellung auf den Transport eines 'bewußten' Inhalts« (Groys)

»Wir sollen die Wirklichkeit nicht reflektieren, darstellen oder interpretieren, sondern die skizzierten Ziele der neuen Arbeiterklasse, des Proletariats praktisch umsetzen und ausdrücken […] Der Meister der Farbe und des Lichts wie der Initiator von Massenaktionen – sie alle sollen zu Konstruktivisten werden für die gemeinsame Aufgabe der Organisation und Lenkung der viele Millionen Köpfe zählenden Massen.« (A. Gan, Theoretiker des Konstruktivismus, zitiert nach Groys, p. 30)

In his central chapter on socialist realism, Groys focuses on three topics:

1. the relation to the tradition
2. the concept of mimesis (Wiederspiegelungstheorie
3. the problem of the new mankind

Groys acknowledges that socialist realism -- in contrast to the Avantgarde --rejects formalism and -- also in contrast to the Avantgarde -- welcomes the tradition as reservoire of material without being eclectic. He further shows socialist realism as an idealist period with romantic tendencies, in spite of the perceived and acclaimed materialism.

»Die Kultur der Stalinzeit versteht sich […] als eine Kultur nach der Apokalypse: Das Urteil über die gesamte Menschheitskulktur ist gesprochen« (Groys, p. 55)

He argues that mimesis aims at a representation of the typical, not the actual where Stalin ultimately determines what is typical.

As usual, Groys is slightly superficial and tends to oversimplify - a tendency that he himself seems to acknowledge (or at least to allude to) in this book and which he tries to justify as working on the bigger picture instead of the minute details. But also usual, Groys has a fresh perspective and challenging, thought-provoking theses. The simplifications seems to be esp. good for me since I don't feel as an insider concering the Sovjet discourse or the corresponding art - not even Avantgarde in general.

Unfortunately, Groys does not show how the state apparatus developed after Stalin's death. Also, I have the impression that I still did not understand the communist utopia very well.