Stalin as Art Critic and Art Patron

Visitors to Moscow were often surprised at the asymmetric façade of the Hotel Moskva -- the right
and left sides of the enormous building were not simply different; they had been constructed in
different styles (fig. 1). Some uncertainty surrounds the cause of this discrepancy, but most accounts
indicate that Stalin was responsible. In the mid-1930s, Aleksei Shchusev, the building's architect,
brought the plans for the façade to Stalin for his signature, as was the common practice for major
construction projects. The architect presented two options, and he bisected the façade with a thin
line in the middle, with the right half representing one style and the left half another. But he was not
allowed to present his design to Stalin in person. Stalin approved the design by signing it directly in
the middle, either because he did not notice the difference between the two sides or because he had
no preference (1). Once Stalin had approved it, nothing could be changed, and the resulting building
bore the consequences of his indifferent, or inattentive, interference. The building was recently
demolished, but the story, even if apocryphal, characterizes Stalin's role in art in the Soviet Union
under his rule -- despite his lack of interest in art, his authority was absolute, and his rare
interference established the canons for all art that was created.

Art under Stalin developed under unique conditions of total state control which made all forms and
means of artistic expression serve propagandistic purposes. The state proclaimed the arts to be its
ideological weapon, established a monopoly over art production and distribution, and created a
system of control over art with strict criteria of what kind of art society needs. All deviations from the
state's demands, either in form or in content, were strictly forbidden and the violators prosecuted.

At the top of the pyramidal structure of total control over the arts was the figure of Stalin, who had
ties to all other spheres of activity in society. Although Stalin made virtually no public
pronouncements on the visual arts, his directives in all areas were made public by the state press
apparatus and reinforced by the cult of his personality developing in the 1930s. His main punitive
instrument was the NKVD -- the state secret police -- which threatened everybody with banishment,
imprisonment and execution. The mechanisms of control over art suggest that Stalin was in charge of
all artistic developments and was the main art critic and main art patron in the country. But this
would be an exaggeration. It would better characterize Adolf Hitler who was, in fact, personally
involved in creating a system of state control over art very similar to the one in the Soviet Union, and
personally defined the role of art in Germany (2). Hitler showed a tremendous interest in art
(partially because he was an unsuccessful painter himself) and organized exhibitions, wrote articles,
and delivered speeches on the role of art in the Third Reich Germany.

Stalin was different. He never published anything on art and never expressed himself publicly on
what kind of art he preferred or what he expected from the artists in a socialist society. Records
show that he visited only two exhibitions -- in 1928 and in 1933 -- while in power, but said little about
them (3). His statements on art are brief, broad and occasional. He did not like art enough to become
involved in the process of its regulation more actively. In art he primarily valued its propagandistic
capacity, but from this point of view literature and cinema for him were far superior means (4).
Nonetheless, with the help of the state press apparatus and partisan artistic critique, Stalin's brief
statements and unsophisticated tastes were adopted as incontrovertible canons for all to follow.
Stalin's influence on art also was implemented through the application of his general ideas (like his
famous phrase "Life has became better, life has became happier") to art or through broadening his
statements on other fields to include art (as with the description of writers as "engineers of human
souls"). The influence of Stalin's tastes and demands was surely not limited to plastic arts, but also
covered literature, music, cinema, sculpture and architecture. However, this paper will examine only
his influence on painting.

The major instrument of Stalin's control over the arts was a system of patronage and distribution.
The system functioned in such a way that it did not allow artists to work independently from the
state. Artists were not able to create works of art for private patrons because of the absence of a
free market. They also were unable to produce works just for themselves because such activity
would classify them as unemployed, opening the way to criminal prosecution for ‘parasitism’ (5).
Unofficial occupation with art could lead to an indictment for the attempt to undermine Soviet
ideology, potentially carrying severe punishment for the artist and his/her relatives. The ideological
content of all artistic products was thoroughly monitored by the Communist Party, and requirements
concerning the formal qualities of artistic works were so strict that those who did not follow the
party line were accused by the state-controlled critical apparatus of sympathies for "decadent"
artistic trends (like impressionism, Cézannism, and formalism) with far-reaching negative
consequences for the artist. However, for those who went along with the official guidelines, perks
were abundant. Many artists were attracted to state commissions because they promised a
privileged social status, substantial material rewards and a way of life that could not be compared to
what other people could afford in a society exhausted by continuous shortages of food, housing, and
clothing. The prospect of receiving a studio, a luxurious apartment, a country house (dacha) and
access to special stores appealed strongly and made many artists fall in line (6).

Total state control over the ideology of art was established after an April 1932 decree that liquidated
all independent artistic unions and organizations, which sprouted in the aftermath of the October
Revolution. Two months later the new Union of Soviet Artists was created with departments in all
Soviet republics and major cities. Membership in the Union was mandatory, conferring an official
stamp of approval to one’s creative pursuits. The Union was intended to ensure the inculcation of a
single coherent ideology as defined by the party. Two other organizations -- VseKoKhudozhnik and
IzoGIz -- handed out commissions to the members of the Union, and the state Art Foundation was
charged with providing materials (naturally, they were not sold in open retail) (7). Thus, the first step
in any project became the submission of a sketch to the Union. Only if it was approved, the artist
received an advance and materials for completing the work. Finished works were carefully analyzed
by the Union and became public only if they passed the censor’s muster. The artist would receive the
rest of his commission at this stage.
Most artworks were commissioned for the annual All-Union exhibitions organized by the Union of
Soviet Artists in Moscow and other major cities. After exhibition, these works went to various
museums or party institutions throughout the country, were copied for the numerous Houses and
Palaces of Culture that existed in nearly every population center in the Soviet Union, and were
reproduced in smaller scale for schools and private use. Thus, the artworks implemented the party
line for educating the masses and elevating the cultural level of the Soviet people.

We have no evidence to conclude that Stalin himself created this system of patronage and total
control over the ideological content of art. The system gradually evolved in the 1920s, while the
discussion of its details went on among party officials and some artists. The role of art as an
instrument for influencing the masses in the hands of the communist party was described in Lenin's
essay on the global organization of culture in a socialist society, "Party Organization and Party
Literature," as early as 1905 (8). It provided the blueprint for the future Soviet cultural policy. Two
other leaders of the October 1917 Revolution, Leon Trotsky and Grigorii Zinoviev, as well as Anatoliy
Lunacharsky, commissar of culture and education in the 1920s, expressed ideas on the subject that
were similar to Lenin's. Most of the avant-garde artists who cooperated with the Bolsheviks after the
revolution agreed on the necessity of a centralized body for total control over the arts and openly
urged the changing of the reality in accordance with a unified artistic principle (9). Stalin's
contribution to this discussion in the first years after the revolution is not documented, and later he
did not express himself publicly on the topic. We can assume that he was quite satisfied with the role
that art played under his rule, because it suited his purposes of total control over the society.

Stalin also was not responsible for establishing the single principle for all art work -- that it should be
based on realism. The basic consensus on a realistic form of art in a socialist society existed among
party leaders from the very beginning. People's Commissar for Education Anatoliy Lunacharsky wrote
in 1920: "I expect art to be saved form the worst forms of decadence and from pure formalism by its
aspiration toward the real objective and by its infectious expression of great ideas and great
experiences" (10). In 1920 Zinoviev said, criticizing the avant-garde: "Dear comrades, we should bring
more proletarian simplicity into our art" (11). His point was that people did not understand the
formalists' abstractions. The authorities' collaboration with avant-garde artists in the early 1920s was
forced by the necessity to use art as a propaganda tool. As soon as a new generation of realist artists
ready to work for the Communist Party appeared, all ties with the avant-gardists were broken and
"formalist tendencies" were forbidden. But this took place under Stalin, when the single style and
method of creating artworks was accepted and defined as socialist realism.

The Soviet press repeatedly stated that it was Stalin who developed the concept of socialist realism.
As an editorial in the newspaper Pravda stated: "Soviet art is developing along the path indicated by
Comrade Stalin -- the path of socialist realism" (12). An editorial in the central Soviet journal on art
stressed: "The concept of socialist realism was advanced by Stalin in 1932, when our country entered
the period of extensive socialist construction along the entire front" (13). Ascribing the term to Stalin
was a common practice, developed by the state apparatus (or perhaps Stalin himself) in order to
suppress all possible discussions of the appropriateness of socialist realism. However, it is hard to
measure Stalin's personal contribution to the invention of socialist realism. The phrase first appeared
in Literaturnaya gazeta (Literary Gazette) in late May 1932, and several months later Stalin met with
Soviet writers at Gorky's apartment to discuss the future of Soviet literature (14). It is believed that
during this meeting the outlines of socialist realism emerged (15). In 1934 the concept of socialist
realism was formulated by Andrei Zhdanov, the minister of culture, at the First Congress of Soviet
Writers. Developed primarily for literature, the principles of socialist realism were also adopted for
other arts, including painting, filmmaking, graphic design, photography, and sculpture. Socialist
realism demanded a "true and historically concrete depiction of reality in its revolutionary
development… combined with the task of educating workers in the spirit of Communism" (16). At
this point all writers and artists were required to create their work basing on the notion of partiinost',
or adherence to the party line; ideinost', or proper ideological content that included a certain
message; and narodnost', or the quality of being made for the people and comprehensible to the
people (17).

In his speech at the First Congress of Soviet Writers, Zhdanov attributed to Stalin the invention of the
other important term of the era -- that the writer is an "engineer of the human soul" (18). The term
was again broadened to include Soviet artists and other "representatives of the creative
intelligentsia." It emphasized the role of a writer or an artist as a manipulator, who helps to influence
the masses and implements the principles of state propaganda. Artists felt their responsibility to play
such an important role in society and did their best for it. Boris Ioganson, a prominent Soviet artist
and one of the foremost proponents and practitioners of socialist realism wrote that a proper
political consciousness is essential for a Soviet artist:

An accomplished Soviet artist is, above all, a highly educated artist who is on par with the ideas of
his time, has mastered the Marxist-Leninist worldview, correctly understands the policies of the
Soviet state, and understands the role of art in the construction of a communist society. (19)

Stalin's authorship of the phrase "engineers of human souls" is also dubious, because, as Igor
Golomshtok writes, "he often was credited with the ideas -- or himself claimed the credit for them
--which have been put forward long before him, often by people he had himself destroyed" (21).
Golomshtok states that the term "engineers of human souls" is a paraphrase of the idea of an artist
as a psycho-engineer, developed by a playwright, critic and editor of Novy LEF, Sergei Tretiakov, who
later died in Stalin's camps. The notion of an artist-engineer was also rooted in the Constructivist
theory of Tatlin and Rodchenko, developed immediately after the revolution (21). A similar
understanding of artists' role in society characterized the German Dada movement in the 1920s, and
was shared by many avant-garde artists and architects of that era, primarily Le Corbusier, a major
theorist of 20th century architecture. Le Corbusier believed that modern architecture and proper
urban planning can "affect the modern city dwellers on a physical, economic and even spiritual level"
(22) and avowed the role of an architect as a social engineer.
Even if Stalin did not himself develop the theory of socialist realism or define writers as engineers of
human souls, he certainly had a large imprint on its practice. In 1933 Stalin and his friend, People's
Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs Kliment Voroshilov, met with the leading artists Alexander
Gerasimov, Isaak Brodskii and Evgeni Katsman to discuss the current situation on the artistic front
(23). During this meeting Gerasimov made a painting (fig. 2) that showed his colleagues talking to the
leader, but otherwise the meeting did not receive a wide press coverage. Stalin said that artists
should follow the example of the Itinerants (peredvizhniki), who established the highest standards of
realism, created vivid compositions on themes from Russian history, and explored the political and
social inequities in tsarist Russia. This principle probably corresponded to Stalin's personal tastes and
his calculations that this popular art would be comprehensible to the masses and thus most effective
as a propaganda tool.

Although Stalin was by no means an art connoisseur, he highly regarded works of Repin and Surikov.
After visiting his first art exhibition, organized to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Red
Army in 1928, which showed a survey of Russian realist paintings, he said that his favorite was
Zaporozhe Cossaks writing a Letter to the Turkish Sultan (1880-91) (fig. 3) by Repin. After another
visit this time to the exhibition commemorating the Army’s 15th anniversary in 1933, Stalin also
expressed great interest in the works of the Itinerants and said that their paintings contained "living
people." According to Robert Conquest, Stalin's dacha was decorated with reproductions of the
works of the Itinerants and a copy of Zaporozhe Cossaks hung in his bedroom (24).

Stalin's favor for the Itinerants, although poorly documented and not openly discussed in that era,
was known to contemporaries, and as a result many artworks were created in their manner. The
works of the Itinerants were proclaimed "the highest example in the painting of the pre-socialist
society, raised to an unprecedented height that art had not attained, either before or at this time, in
any other country in the world" (25). Socialist realism was proclaimed to be their direct descendant
in technique, ideology and content, and to that end Itinerants were subjected to selective if not
misleading interpretations in contemporary art criticism. The works of the Itinerants were thoroughly
researched by Soviet scholars to establish the alleged direct succession line from Russian 19th
century art to socialist realism. Countless exhibitions of paintings by Repin, Surikov, Kramskoi, Levitan
and other artists traveled around the Soviet Union in commemoration of various anniversaries of the
19th century artists (26). Most of the important works of the Itinerants were extensively copied by
Soviet artists for wide distribution in schools, provincial museums and various party institutions
throughout the country (27). Moreover, many works by contemporary artists were based on the
same compositions that Repin and Surikov used and were done with similar methods. Gold-Diggers
Writing a Letter to the Creator of the Great Constitution (1947) (fig. 4) by Vasilii Yakovlev is an
adaptation of Repin's Zaporozhe Cossaks that uses a similar subject and explores a similar
compositional principle. Yakovlev modernized the content to make it timelier and employed a new
ideological message, showing ordinary workers writing a letter to the father of all people -- Josef
Stalin. Another Soviet artist, Gavriil Gorelov, got his inspiration for Bolotnikov's Revolt (1944) (fig. 5)
painting from Russian history -- an endless source for the Itinerants’ subjects. Ivan Bolotnikov was a
former serf who organized a revolt against Vasilii Shuisy on the side of the first false Dmitrii during
the Time of Troubles in 1606-07. In the Stalin era the historical role of Bolotnikov was reevaluated,
and the first Soviet Encyclopedia, published the year of Stalin's death (1953) (28) described him as
"the leader of a peasant war in 1606-1607 against feudal, serf-owning oppression in the Russian
state" (29). Gorelov's painting is an adaptation of Ermak's Conquest of Siberia (1985) (fig. 6) by
Surikov, where the same compositional principles, same method of painting and a similar palette are
used.

The Itinerants’ heritage and historical themes were highly praised in Soviet art, but the most
important genre of socialist realism was historical painting with scenes from the lives of the leaders
(primarily Lenin and Stalin) (30). Each year a considerable number of works from this series received
the Stalin Prize -- the highest award in the Soviet Union for achievements in arts, literature, science
and technology. During the Stalin era more than 2,000 prizes were awarded for arts and literature.
Laureates received a considerable sum of money (100,000 rubles, the equivalent of 10 times Stalin's
monthly salary) and became famous throughout the Soviet Union (31). The award was established in
1939 and immediately was recognized as, according to Golomshtock, "the central pillar of an artistic
structure in which individual themes or subjects, combined into genres and embodied in different
kinds of art, constituted a number of different levels of a rigid hierarchy" (32). It was believed that
Stalin himself made the decisions on the laureates. He chaired the Committee and often chose the
winners in his office (33). But most of the data available shows that he was preoccupied with the
literature laureates, as he read a lot and often interfered in the literary process. Since the archives of
the Stalin Prize Committee have not been researched yet, Stalin's personal involvement in the choice
of laureates among the artists is unclear and the criteria for the choice of works are unknown.
Nonetheless, Stalin's personal contribution to the choice of the top award in the country must have
been quite significant.

One of the most highly praised paintings that was awarded a Stalin Prize was Lenin's Speech at the
Third Congress of the Komsomol (1950) (fig. 7) by Boris Ioganson and brigade. Working in a brigade
on large and complex compositions was common for Soviet artists and became widely used
especially in the late 1940s. A group of younger artists usually worked under the leadership of a
famous academic, who made sure that his students received a proper education and brought their
technique to a single level of academism leaving virtually no room for artists’ individuality (34). This
method made it possible to produce monumental paintings in a timely manner to catch up with
unrealistic plans and strict deadlines. Many paintings, e.g., Lenin's Speech at the Third Congress of
the Komsomol, were produced and many of them were awarded Stalin prizes. Works from this series
tell the story of the Communist party showing Lenin or Stalin addressing large crowds of people on
various occasions. The source of subjects for these paintings was Stalin's book "The Short History of
the Bolshevik Party" published in 1938 (35). Ioganson's painting was considered a masterpiece (36). It
was valued for the high quality of its technique, proper ideological content, emotionality and
carefully balanced composition centered on the heroic figure of Lenin who is passionately speaking
about the glorious future of the world proletariat and illuminating the audience with the light of
knowledge. Very deep perspective of the painting built on a diagonal and a fine finish of painting
technique make it looked like an enlarged photograph. We know that Stalin liked this technique
because it created an effect of "living people" present in the painting. This technique was also
characteristic of Isaak Brodskii, who painted numerous portraits of Lenin and Stalin (such as Lenin in
Smolny, 1935).

Hyper-realistic photographic quality of the technique was characteristic for another artist of that era,
also favored by Stalin, a pupil of Brodskii, Aleksandr Laktionov. His painting A Letter from the Front
(1947) (fig. 8) was also awarded a Stalin Prize. The technique in this painting is so fine that the
individual brushstrokes are barely visible. The painting portrays a family visited by a soldier who has
brought a letter from a person who has been away at the front. The ideological message of the
painting is conveyed by the medals on the chest of the soldier, which mean military victories; a red
pioneer's tie around the boy's neck, which shows a proper Soviet upbringing; and the red armband of
a social worker that the young woman is wearing. The surroundings of the family are too grim to
properly render the socialist reality, however. The floor in the house is worn out and all cracked, and
the yard outside is all covered with naturalistic mud. Moreover, the faces of the letter recipients are
not shown, as it was required for the protagonists in socialist realism, and so the news from the front
could have been bad (that would be inappropriate). The debate over whether the painting is positive
or negative went on until State Tretiakov Gallery published a special monograph with comments on it
in 1951. In the monograph V. I. Antonova stated that the sunlight in the painting creates an
atmosphere of happiness, and thus the news from the front is good in spite of the grim surroundings
that might suggest the opposite (37).

The persistence of happiness in the paintings of socialist realism is remarkable. Most of the paintings
from that era show smiling people, overwhelmed by their positive emotions. This concept of
happiness was derived from Lenin's idea that art should not only educate the people, but also bring
them joy (38). Stalin's phrase, "The philosophy of 'worldwide grief' is not our philosophy. Let them
grieve who are on the way out" (39) was also quoted commonly in the press. And his famous "Life
has become better, live has become happier" statement of 1934 was incorporated into numerous
slogans, movies and works of art (as in A Collective Farm Festival by Arkady Plastov, 1937 (fig. 9).
Creating an atmosphere of happiness in art was the basic requirement for all artists. This theme of
happiness was most fully conveyed in paintings of proletarians and collective farmers after World
War II. The war brought massive destructions to the country, considering that about 27 million Soviet
citizens died in it, a lot of industry was destroyed and agriculture in the European part of USSR was
ruined. After the war it was particularly important for the government to stir the masses to greater
activity in order to overcome the consequences of the destruction. Use of the arts was one of the
ways to do this.

Both Tatiana Yablonskaya and Andrei Mylnikov were awarded Stalin Prizes for their paintings that
show happy and enthusiastically working collective farmers. Yablonskaya's Grain (1949) (fig. 10)
depicts a scene of bagging grain -- under bright sunlight a group of collective farmers rejoice over the
good crop and collect it excitedly. In Mylnikov's In Peaceful Fields (1950) (fig. 11) the peasant women
have happy expressions as they walk through a field under bright sunlight. Yablonskaya's painting
was considered superior, because the hyper-realistic technique that she uses was praised at that
time. Mylnikov, although a Stalin Prize laureate, was criticized by his colleagues for the sketchiness of
female figures and lack of finish in the painting: "Unfortunately, the artist has not made the images
of the women collective-farm workers as complete as they need to be" (40).

Arkadii Plastov (the author of A Collective Farm Festival and twice a Stalin Prize laureate) was not as
successful with this theme as his colleagues. His painting Threshing on the Collective Farm (1949) (fig.
12) shows a similar scene from the life of collective farmers, but critics said that the land is shown as
if it is exhausted and that the faces of the peasants are not happy enough and show tension. This
would be more appropriate for the depiction of tsarist Russia, but not the socialist reality. As an
editorial in Iskusstvo magazine put it: "When you examine closely the faces of the people, then you
feel as if you are in the countryside before the time of collective farms" (41).

Along with the depiction of Soviet people's happiness, another major principle of socialist realism
was derived from Stalin's words. In June 1930 at the Sixteenth Party Congress Stalin had proclaimed
that all culture in the Soviet Union should be "national in form and socialist in content." This principle
became the basic for all the artistic and propagandistic policy in the Soviet republics. The existence of
such a policy was particularly important in the multinational Soviet Union. Stalin understood this
well, both as the former Commissar for Nationalities after the Revolution and as an ethnic Georgian.
In the 1930s some of the artists from the republics were able to produce works which were more
liberal in content using as a cover the idea of "national in form" (as Alexander Volkov's A Brigade
Going Out into the Fields, 1934). As time went on, and especially after the war, the dominance of
ideological content and traditional realism over national form was proclaimed and all works were
required to be based on socialist realism and contain only some national features (42). All deviations
were considered signs of formalism, and their authors were punished (43).

Stalin's principle of "national in form and socialist in content" was most successfully implemented in
Daughter of Soviet Kyrgyzia (1950) (fig. 13) by Semyon Chuikov. It was awarded the Stalin Prize, was
massively reproduced and held up as an example for other artists from the republics because in this
work the artist managed to reveal the required national particularities of the scene within the
cannons of Soviet Academy painting. Chuikov's painting shows a hot sunny morning in the Soviet
Republic of Kyrgyzia. It depicts a young Kyrgyz girl walking across the steppe against the backdrop of
mountains. The sky on the horizon is white, but shades into a brilliant deep blue as it rises, and the
steppe is a rich yellow -- vivid southern colors. Although the sky is a backdrop, it forms most of the
visual frame behind the girl, making it seem boundless and giving the painting a monumental air. The
girl, painted from below, which gives her added height and dignity, is bravely looking into her bright
future, because she is carrying schoolbooks -- a symbol of the literacy that Soviet education has
brought to the remote Kyrgyz village.
The painting Carpet Makers of Armenia (1948) (fig. 14) by Maryam Aslamazyan, although also
"national in form and socialist in content," was often juxtaposed to Chuikov's work as an
inappropriate example of Armenian nationalism (44). It shows Armenian women in national dress
occupied with the traditional activity of carpet-making. They are enthusiastically engaged in their
work, admiring what they have accomplished. They have produced a portrait of Stalin in their
traditional medium, and the production was taking place in a Soviet factory, instead of a more
traditional domestic setting. The socialist content of this painting was conveyed well, but the critics
found that the national form was too decorative and almost folksy. Soviet critic Boris Veirman was in
charge of the campaign against decorativism in the art of the republics. In a speech at the Academy
of Arts in 1949 he said:

In some republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia there is a widely held idea that the national
particularity of the Soviet art of the Eastern peoples consists in decorativism ... But decorativism is
formalist and has nothing in common with the tasks of Soviet art. Decorativism does not allow Soviet
actuality to be correctly represented in art. (45)

But the most highly praised genre in socialist realism featured portraits of Stalin. Thousands of
images of Stalin, Lenin and other leaders of the Soviet state were produced in painting and sculpture
over the years. Alexander Gerasimov, the president of the Soviet Art Academy, wrote that to depict a
leader of the state is the biggest honor for an artist: "The task of the construction of images of Lenin
and Stalin, the geniuses who created Socialism, and of their closest comrades, is one of the most
responsible creative and ideological tasks that art has ever faced" (46). Each year, a number of Stalin
Prizes went to works that depicted Stalin. It is supposed that Stalin liked to see his images around
and considered them necessary for the proper education of the masses. The resulting cult of
personality was not too far removed from that of Hitler and Mussolini (47).

One of the most famous portraits of Stalin that was awarded a Stalin Prize is The Morning of Our
Native Land (1948) (fig.15) by Fyodor Shurpin. In this painting, Stalin is shown standing in the field.
He looks into the distance, contemplating the bright future on the horizon. His white clothes
symbolize his moral purity. The background of the painting is filled with the symbols of his successful
policy: the tractors point to successful collectivization, the electrical power lines testify to the
electrification of the entire country (a phrase which was a popular post-Revolutionary slogan), the
factory with smokestacks in the distance is evidence of industry on the rise. Stalin is standing alone
overlooking the achievements of the Soviet state under his rule.

Although Stalin's contribution to artistic criticism was so brief and inconsistent, his tastes,
preferences and expectations shaped the development of socialist realism. Stalin was not the one
who invented the major principles of the organization of artistic life, but it was under his rule that the
system of total control emerged, and shortly after his death in 1953 it became less effective
(nonetheless, it survived until the break-up of the Soviet Union). State patronage and total
ideological control over art followed by the fear of persecution did not allow artists to work
independently under Stalin. The leader’s affection for the heritage of the Itinerants made them serve
as an example of the best quality of artistic work and caused the revival of their style in the new form
of socialist realism. His directives on the happiness of the Soviet people and the principle of "national
in form, socialist in content" were applied to socialist realism to form a realistic art that had little in
common with the existing reality. Some of the works discussed above were criticized for
inappropriate depiction of Soviet reality. This shows that the artistic criteria established under Stalin
were strict but diffuse and that even the most famous artists were not safe from criticism (as in the
case of Plastov) or the authors of the most ideologically faithful works could be accused of
nationalism (such as Aslamazyan). Most importantly, the evidence demonstrates that in the art of
the period, the role of Stalin and the ideological context of the Soviet dictatorship were more
important than the aesthetic criteria or intentions of the artists themselves.