Stalin's handshake with Cheeses Christ Recently I have come across the book Chinese propaganda posters from the collection of Michael Wolf. It contained detailed encounter of paintings period of Mao. I couldn't stop myself almost neurotically listing it over and over again. I suppose not only because it revived my own soviet past with almost the similar aesthetic as Chinese. With a little difference that instead of Mao Joseph Stalin was standing among yang school pupils holding flowers for the leader, or what ever the event it might be representing... but the oddness of the paintings, which in other occasions would be disgusting, justified as ideologically motivated etc... this time around I found them very attractive and that's the strangeness (oddness) of the feeling I had while listing the book over and over again... Of course it's very clear fact that it revived my own memories of early childhood with the similar aesthetic of Soc. Realistic art rooted in our very class rooms, school corridors, and study books. I thought that the very fact that this paintings look so odd now is the proof of their power and influence back than, in times when it was made and beyond that odd was the connection that my brain draw between Soc. realism all the way down to middle age Christian Iconography. there should be lot of innocent faith and trustfulness needed (both for Soc. realistic ChineseRussian as well as Christian iconography) to take this paintings as truthful representations. meanwhile similarities between this two traditions and aesthetics as Christian iconography and Russian-Chinese Soc. realism was becoming more and more clear. first of all the absence of the author. even though of course in both of the cases there was an author known, but still it was least important among all others. no matter who was an author, who was taking on job he had to take on account all the compulsory rules defined externally from the artist, because it is not you painting, you are just a simple device through which God represents his divine world as well as in case of Soc. realism it is not you painting but Party, Joseph Stalin or Mao is painting great picture of bright future. Anyhow, something or somebody greater that your own self. something greater than your own artistic interests, aesthetic or even your self. actually that was the main source of
the legacy of this images. not an authorship or copyright and I might say even not a mastership either. It is not a metaphorical Cheeses Christ standing among his saints and followers neither it is metaphorical Joseph Stalin with his famous pipe but the REAL Joseph Stalin and Real Cheeses Christ. the women with the reddish apple wise cheeks is not an aesthetical representation of mother of God but real flash and blood Madonna. in fact believer who would enter the church would approach to the Icon and kiss, as well as we kiss each other when greeting. History of Iconography is full of examples when some Icon fighter would hit the icon and icon was bleeding. not metaphorically but with a real blood.
Anyway this crazy action of believing in literal reality of the Icon has to do a lot with philosophy of Christianity that somebody standing right next to you might be a Christ himself. any person you gave a little help was Christ himself etc... and if you are unable to see it you are metaphorically mute and deaf for him. similarly in Soc. Realism... it really was a believe of a vast amount of people that communism really can create a new type of human and society. positive, full of strength, contrary to bourgeois not Ego centric and grid but somebody committed to a common purpose, to something greater then himself. as well as art of communists was not meant to realize this dream of humanity in experimental, aesthetical field as bourgeois art did but REALLY and literally in everyday life. In both cases images was not based on it's esthetic value, authorship or even mastership but on this crazy tradition of referring to image as REAL. call it power of imagination or faith and believe but to put it in religious terms image perception was similar to transforming water into wine, bread into real(in literal sense) flash of Christ. unless this crazy, insane action magic won't be realized image wouldn't become REALITY it would remain image. it would be mute and deaf in it's aesthetic stillness. I think in our times art has certainly made his choice on the side of aesthetic, on the side of normal reasonable chain of life over insanity of transforming water into wine, bread into flash, image into reality. Today lot of critics and theorists are claiming the importance of Visual art in times of overwhelming image production by media and others... saying that analytical and critical approach of visual art might be it's function this days. but I'm afraid it would be hard for me to agree. and not only because of the fact that influence of media and other big power players of now a days world in compression with art are not match to speak really softly and not only because of lost of ability to perceive image as real but namely and precisely because art has become so incorporated into structures and paths system is suggesting now. it is not only that it has become so institutionalized and close tied to governments and big finical sources but first and foremost it perfectly fit into main ideology of - career. having the same objectives and goals career, money, fame. system and ideology where everything and everybody can and should be sacrificed to this objectives and goals. whole mode of life our society is defines and determined
by this objectives. Putting each and every individual into the same perspective from the very birth to death. that is basically what we call democracy. that is not so much of the humanity achievements and universal values it make use of it as flag but rather this dictatorship of this perspective on our life. where every temptation of artist to the crazy transition of water into wine miraculously ends up in the same black hole named - career, market, fame. Instead suggesting the new term - creativity. soft version of in past hardcore profession artist. field of daring and brave people pushing the limits now harmless, pretty comfortable and elite place to be. same with the word creativity that entered in art language through bold idea of Joseph Beuys who stated every person is an artist, every one is creative. and in the beginning of 21 century we see that this terms become standard requirements for almost every vacancy from executive manager till financial officer . (can it be another example of Utopian idea become a reality and looking not very attractive anymore?) Creativity is not dangerous term anymore... dangerous of being sharp and crazy... looking for an metaphysical stone, a chemical code for making the gold but it's a strategy absorbed by advertising companies, fashion, success, career... that's where all the chemistry goes now. and this is what we call - democracy. I think impact of this word on art still should be seriously investigated and analyzed. while impact of this word on society widely analyzed in the philosophy and critics in general the outcomes of it on art namely on visual art is still less and especially not very well acknowledged. I don't think we should all jump in to Antiglobalisme and all this sort of movements and fight against I don't know - capitalist system, G8, against world bank or many institutions, I'm just saying that democracy is an ambivalent term. as well as almost every term. this is simple idea that seems to be forgotten by now a days very sophisticated time. I think if we can speak about any sort of function that has still left to art in our society, it won't be function of representation as it was from ancient times, or critical-analytical approach, or so called creativity but to find the places where it can show ambivalence of the things now. to be medium, instrument of ambivalence. that's where seems to me crazy transition of water into wine, image to reality still can happen now a days. so if Christian painter was the device of God and Soc. realist artist device of making communism and new humanity possible, it should be the device of showing ambivalence of the things that ends up in the basket of the thing that we call democracy.