CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES IN SOVIET ART
By Margaret Carter
(Continued from March issue)

It is possible for the artist to closely ally himself with humanity and yet re-
main aloof, I am not disvaraging the Soviet idea of the artist intimately iden-
tifying himself with his subject, but I contend that it is not necessary for him
to take an active part in a collective society; he must through the needs of his
artist mind remain apart, Humanity, as long as it is freshly interpreted throu-
gh individual expression, is eternally interesting, The joys, the tragedies,
the struggles and the ecstacies of what we oall life are present in every great
piece of work, Otherwise, art could not have a universal appeal and would only
be for the few, intellectuals shall we say, who lifted themselves away from the
contact of humanity.

Again I quote from the article: “It (Soviet regime) requires that the artist be
imbued with the spirit of collective society and that he should not be marked or
isolated for the Russians are emphatically opposed to the smug aloofness and pro
test of individuality of the western world." . This is a direct statement that
all art before it can be called so, mst be stamped with a Soviet mark of collec
tive Society. Let me tell you in all emphasis that truly great art bears no
stamp and is marked by no static standard, If it were it would not be great, and
would fail to fulfil the meaning of a creative piece of work, Again I must state
that I am not condemning socialism (I don't consider it my business anyway) but
I am merely trying to explain my objections to the principles it involves as op-
posed to the non-static and nonearbitrary principles of great art.

Bearing in mind that it is not necessary to have a certain kind of government in
order to have artists, let us consider other countries and their creative genius
Can Russia claim two artists of such virility and undisputed originality as Jac-
ob Epstein and Augustus John? Both these artists live very much to themselves;
they do not loudly identify themselves with a socialist movement nor,on the oth=
er hand, do they extol a class system. Because they are great artists they do
not seek to assert any one form of how people should live. Rather they lose
their identities in the ebb and flow of life which in itself is much richer,
much stronger, and finally mich more inexorable than any form of government.Thus
they are aloof and at the same time an integral part of the trend of humanity.

What about the great artists Michaelangelo and Leonardo? They lived in the time
of the Renaissance which has proved to be a time of rich flowering of art, The
government, however, was not a Soviet one imbuing the artist with the idea of a
collective society, On the throne was a Medici ruler who applauded every sensu-
al practice and granted great freedom to a dissolute clergy. The poor were so
much dust under the feet of their Florentine lords, Life was rich and voluptu-
ous, cruel and unjust, according to the class in which one happened to be. Yet
do these two men, whose work has withstood the test of centuries, do they seem
to be smugly isolated and aloof?

Leonardo, to whom the drawing of a bramble was as important as the composing of
the "Last Supper", has not left work of bourgois nature just because he was not
in the thick of a Government, Michaelangelo's great themes embraced all phases
of suffering humans’ lives, The Sistine chapel frescoes send every form of gov
ernment toppling and leave one trembling in the great tregedy of life.

. (Continued on Page Hight)