Soviet art house: Lenfilm studio under Brezhnev

Author(s):  
Denise J. Youngblood
Keyword(s):  
1990 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-317
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER IVASHKIN
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
S. T. Makhlina ◽  

In the history of wars, humanity has more than once met with the blockade of cities of one of the belligerent countries. The blockade of Leningrad introduced a new page in the history of mankind. The artists who lived in the city during the blockade did not stop their work, understanding it as their civic duty, contributing to confronting the enemy and giving hope to achieve victory. Every day on the streets of Leningrad there were propaganda posters, caricatures of enemies, which were created by graphic artists, painters and sculptors. The works created by them entered the treasury of Soviet art and represent its golden fund. Despite all the difficulties of life in the besieged city, exhibitions were organized in it. The years of the Great Patriotic War inscribed a special page in the history of Soviet art, reflected the life of Leningraders in the besieged city and their struggle for victory over the enemy.


Author(s):  
Catriona Kelly

This book examines cinema in the Brezhnev era from the perspective of one of the USSR’s largest studios, Lenfilm. Producing around thirty feature films per year, the studio had over three thousand employees working in every area of film production. The discussion covers the period from 1961 to the collapse of centralized state facilities in 1986. The book focuses particularly on the younger directors at Lenfilm, those who joined the studio in the recruiting drive that followed Khrushchev’s decision to expand film production. Drawing on documents from archives, the analysis portrays film production “in the round” and shows that the term “censorship” is less appropriate than the description preferred in the Soviet film industry itself, “control,” which referred to a no less exigent but far more complex and sophisticated process. The book opens with four framing chapters that examine the overall context in which films were produced: the various crises that beset film production between 1961 and 1969 (chapter 1) and 1970 and 1985 (chapter 2), the working life of the studio, and particularly the technical aspects of production (chapter 3), and the studio aesthetic (chapter 4). The second part of the book comprises close analyses of fifteen films that are typical of the studio’s production. The book concludes with a brief survey of Lenfilm’s history after the Fifth Congress of the Filmmakers’ Union in 1986, which swept away the old management structures and, in due course, the entire system of filmmaking in the USSR.


1989 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Bowlt
Keyword(s):  

Slavic Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 957-964
Author(s):  
Mayhill C. Fowler

This article argues that a focus on Ukraine challenges the general understanding of culture in the revolutionary period, which either focuses on artists working in Moscow making Soviet art, or on non-Russian (Ukrainian, Jewish or Polish) artists in the regions making “national” art. Neither paradigm captures the radical shift in infrastructure during the imperial collapse and civil war. Placing the regions at the center of analysis highlights how Kyiv was an important cultural center during the period for later artistic developments in Europe and in the USSR. It shows that revolutionary culture is fundamentally wartime culture. Finally, the article argues that peripheral visions are central to a full geography of culture in order to trace how cultural infrastructures collapse and are re-constituted.


October ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 147 ◽  
pp. 56-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Kiaer

The thirty-three-year-old artist Aleksandr Deineka was given a large piece of wall space at the exhibition 15 Years of Artists of the RSFSR at the Russian Museum in Leningrad in 1932. At the center of the wall hung his most acclaimed painting, The Defense of Petrograd of 1928, a civil-war-themed canvas showing marching Bolshevik citizens, defending against the incursions of the White armies on their city, arrayed in flattened, geometric patterns across an undifferentiated white ground. The massive 15 Years exhibition attempted to sum up the achievements of Russian Soviet art since the revolution as well as point toward the future, and Deineka, in spite of his past association with “leftist” (read: avant-garde) artistic groups such as OST (the Society of Easel Painters) and October, was among those younger artists who were anointed by exhibition organizers as leading the way forward toward Socialist Realist art—a concept that was being formulated through both the planning of and critical response to this very display of so many divergent Soviet artists. Known for his magazine illustrations and posters, Deineka had also established himself at a young age as a major practitioner of monumental painting in a severe graphic style that addressed socialist themes, such as revolutionary history (e.g., Petrograd), and, as his other works displayed at the Leningrad exhibition demonstrate, proletarian sport (Women's Cross-Country Race and Skiers, both 1931) the ills of capitalism (Unemployed in Berlin, 1932), and the construction of the new Soviet everyday life (Who Will Beat Whom?, 1932).


1989 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 542 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Bowlt
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Robert W. Cherny

Arnautoff emigrated to the Soviet Union in 1963 and lived there until his death in 1979. Living first in Mariupol (then called Zhdanov), he again created large public murals, this time using small ceramic tiles. In adjusting to Soviet society under Khrushchev and then Brezhnev, Arnautoff was privileged by his status and his American dollars from his small Stanford pension, and his marriage to a Soviet art critic. He and his second wife moved to Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) where he continued to paint until his death.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document