Analysis of a Movement Artifact: Soviet Nonconformist Movement

Colin Potter

Dr. Stephanie Brown

ENGL 306

Analysis of a Movement Artifact

            Khrushchev and Brezhnev both had huge impacts on the Soviet nonconformist movement indirectly through how Soviet culture was impacted by their policy. However, these policies created only the context within which nonconformist works were created. Underneath the homogenized culture on the surface of the Soviet Union, the intelligentsia – artists, writers, photographers, and thinkers –were able to breathe life back into the culture and humanity that had been stamped out by the leaders of the Soviet Union. They contributed art, literature and ideas through the underground nonconformist movement, and were able to touch the lives of many Soviet Citizens. They created spaces to debate, to explore ideas, to revitalize culture, and to maintain individuality within a repressive Soviet regime, a dangerous undertaking but one which allowed these individuals to resist Soviet repression and retain their humanity and their unique culture and values.

            The creation of safe spaces was imperative to the distribution and the expression of movement artifacts and ideas. Without safe spaces spaces, the nonconformist movement wouldn’t exist as a movement at all, so their existence determined effectiveness of artifacts within the movement in maintaining culture and humanity in the face of oppression, which was the overall goal of the movement itself. These safe spaces served as a public sphere within the nonconformist movement, not visible outside of the Soviet underground, where thoughts, ideas, and works could be passed from one person to another as a way to resist the cultural repression of Soviet policy. This is the smaller context within which nonconformist works operated. Safe spaces provided the speakers and creators of artifacts with an audience receptive to ideas and unofficial works, and a space within which to speak dissent.

            Safe spaces relate intimately to the various identities who were a part of the nonconformist movement in ways that are important as I begin to look at specific artifacts of the movement itself. Often times, safe spaces were apartments or private locations were nonconformist works could be presented and consumed away from the prying eyes of the KGB and other Soviet officials. Because of this, each individual space provided a slightly different context in which works were disseminated, in a different region of the Soviet Union, where different cultural values were being repressed. The apartment of two Estonian artists, for example, had an interior decorated to reflect the aestheticism and different art that interested the owners of the apartment (Kurg 45). When this was used as a safe space for intellectuals and artists to gather, the location in Estonia and the interests of the apartment owners affected the context within which works were shown and discussed. Apartment showings in Leningrad and Russia in general also focused on the interests and style of those who lived there, and were likewise affected by the cultural interests of Russia itself (Troncale 29). The result of this is that the specific contexts in which works were disseminated in the Soviet Union varied both over safe space location and over time, and these contexts relate intimately with the identities of nonconformist artists, writers, and thinkers. Not only did this movement and these safe spaces allow individuals to express and preserve their specific identity in an oppressive society, the movement also became a part of these people’s identities. Nonconformist intelligentsia were able to find humanity and forge their identity by contributing to the unofficial works and culture of the nonconformist movement, and safe spaces were key ways in which this was able to occur. They set the context within which unofficial works were displayed and consumed and became intimately related to the identities of nonconformist intelligentsia.

            Knowing how these safe spaces impacted the environment, context, and identities of nonconformist intelligentsia, more specific contributors to the nonconformist movement can be investigated fully. Enter Alexander Zinoviev, a prolific writer and thinker in the Soviet nonconformist movement whose works were published as a part of the samizdat (Graffy 113). Zinoviev’s writing was prolific and thought provoking, but what makes him an especially interesting nonconformist intellectual was his work with art, which ends up being a fairly good representation of much of the art in the nonconformist movement (Hoptman 32). In the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet Union had appropriated art and transformed it to be used as propaganda, whether concealed or overt (Graffy 114). Official art at this time was often times in the form of state-approved cartoons, wall posters, color photographs and newspapers. Zinoviev was one of many intellectuals in the nonconformist movement to appropriate the style and themes of official art and use it to make political and social commentary on the Soviet Union, finding a way of expressing dissent of the government through underground unofficial art. The image I’ve selected (shown below and sourced from Alexander Zinoviev as Writer and Thinker ) is one such cartoon drawn by Zinoviev to accompany one of his literary works, however I am primarily interested in the drawing itself rather than the accompanying literature. It depicts a soldier and a tank, representing the Soviet Union and its armies, facing the West. The soldier is clearly baffled and confused as he gazes upon the sea of technological and economic development of the West, specifically the United States. Using the cartoon style of Soviet propaganda and official art, Zinoviev portrays the inability of the Soviet Union to keep up with the West, and the sense that the USSR was being left behind as the world forged ahead. Zinoviev appropriates the artistic style of the Soviet Union to convey a message that would have been considered treasonous under Brezhnev’s leadership, while simultaneously imparting a sense of levity and humor with the audience. This would have been something well-received in the context of safe spaces for both its wit and its insight.

            Zinoviev’s cartoon here is a rather unique artifact, as its purpose isn’t to persuade or to inspire the movement. It is designed to express an opinion, a commentary on the state of the Soviet Union at the time it was drawn that would accompany presumably a longer literary work. Connected with the purpose of the nonconformist movement, this cartoon takes on the additional purpose of expressing dissent in the oppressive Soviet regime. This artifact mainly appeals to kairos to accomplish this task, utilizing the state of the Soviet Union at the time of its creation to convey a message in the nonconformist movement. This appeal isn’t designed to be persuasive, rather, it was designed to be satirical and relevant in providing social commentary. The appeal to ethos is not evident in the cartoon itself, but becomes evident when the artifact is considered as an accompaniment of a larger set of literary works from a respected samizdat writer such as Zinoviev. His work was highly influential in the nonconformist movement, and this cartoon invokes the same appeal to ethos that his literary works did. This cartoon’s appeal to pathos is much more nuanced and it provides a lens with which to look at the intelligentsia identity in the nonconformist movement. On an emotional level, the response to this cartoon is one of levity, or at the very least it was designed to be at the time. The cartoon presents a meaningful social commentary with a humorous, satirial spin that appropriates the style of Soviet official art. This appeal to pathos in a humorous manner indicates that Zinoviev’s audience, other nonconformist intelligentsia, would have responded well to such humor and levity, and the prevalence of this appeal in Zinoviev’s art corroborates this notion. It begs the question, what about the identity of the intelligentsia made this appeal effective? It brings up the interesting topic of levity and even of foolishness in the nonconformist movement among intelligentsia, something that makes this appeal to pathos effective in providing an insightful social commentary in the Soviet nonconformist movement.

            The nonconformist movement wasn’t simply a place for intelligentsia to gather and discuss freely philosophy, politics, and art. Zinoviev’s cartoon shows another aspect of the nonconformist movement I have yet to discuss, but which is a huge part of the lives of nonconformist intelligentsia. I have already discussed the notion that the main purpose of the nonconformist movement was to preserve, maintain, and express culture and humanity that was being repressed by the Soviet government. This makes sense when the nonconformist movement is juxtaposed with the historical developments of the time and the nature of safe spaces, but I haven’t discussed how this is shown in the behavior and identities of nonconformist intelligentsia. This is where the notion of foolishness, of levity comes in as revealed by an analysis of Zinoviev’s art. It makes sense that maintaining one’s humanity is not simply a matter of expression of dissent, or of philosophical debate, but something that requires something more that defies the oppressive and negative aesthetics often exuded by the USSR. For the intelligentsia of the Leningrad nonconformist underground, one of the first instances of the nonconformist movement, this something became what is referred to as “holy foolishness” (Sabbatini 337). Intelligentsia in Leningrad showed, “provocative, subversive, and drunken,” behavior, portraying the peculiarities of literary performance and behavior. They emphasized a disregard for social rules, approaching topics and behaviors from the outside as a way to enjoy levity through this foolishness. Unconventional meeting places, those aforementioned safe spaces, also show a value placed on breaking social norms as a pursuit of levity and intellectual exploration. It allowed for intelligentsia to maintain humanity in spite of repression, and pursue existential, philosophical, and political topics in the nonconformist movement while accomplishing the goal of maintaining culture and humanity in the face of repression through this foolishness. This set of cultural values was something that came to define nonconformist intelligentsia, but unlike how identities of apartment owners affected the context and content of the nonconformist movement, this “holy foolishness” is an example of how the movement itself and its values came to define the identity of nonconformist intelligentsia. Nonconformist intelligentsia writers, artists, photographers, musicians, and thinkers all played a role in shaping the nonconformist movement through their existing values and their contributions, but through this, they also came to be defined by the collective unofficial culture that was created. This identity is intimately tied to the nonconformist movement.

Bibliography:

Barghoorn, Frederick C. “Regime—Dissenter Relations after Khrushchev: Some Observations.” Pluralism in the Soviet Union, edited by Susan Gross Solomon, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1983, pp. 131-168.

Dolinin, Vyacheslav È., Severyukhin, Dmitry Ya. “Samizdat: The Literary Self-Publishing Movement in Leningrad 1950s – 1980s.” Enthymema, vol. 12, 2015, pp. 166-173.

Fowkes, Ben. “The National Question in the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev: Policy and Response.” Brezhnev Reconsidered, edited by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle, Palgrave MacMillan, 2002, pp. 68-89.

Graffy, Julian. “Zinoviev’s Art and its Context.” Alexander Zinoviev as Writer and Thinker, edited by Philip Hanson and Michael Kirkwood, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1988, pp. 113-117.

Harrison, Mark. “Economic Growth and Slowdown.” Brezhnev Reconsidered, edited by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle, Palgrave MacMillan, 2002, pp. 38-67.

Hoptman, Laura J., Pospiszyl, Tomáš. Primary Documents: A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s. The Museum of Modern Art, 2002.

Johnston, Hank. “Talking the Walk: Speech Acts and Resistance in Authoritarian Regimes.” Repression and Mobilization, edited by Christian Davenport, Hank Johnston, and Carol McClurg Mueller, University of Minnesota Press, 2005, pp. 108-137.

Komaromi, Ann. “The Material Existence of Soviet Samizdat.” Slavic Review, vol. 63, no. 3, 2004, pp. 597-618.

Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse 1970-2000. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Kurg, Andres. “Empty White Space: Home as a Total Work of Art during the Late-Soviet Period.” Interiors: Design/Architecture/Culture, vol. 2, no. 1, 2011, pp. 45-68.

Neumaier, Diane, general editor. Beyond memory: Soviet nonconformist photography and photo-related works of art. Rutgers University Press, 2004.

Pipes, Richard. The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism 1917-1923. Harvard University Press, 1997.

Sabbatini, Marco. “The Pathos of Holy Foolishness in the Leningrad Underground.” Holy Foolishness in Russia: New Perspectives. Edited by Priscilla Hunt and Svitlana Kobets, Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2011, pp. 337-352.

Sandle, Mark. “A Triumph of Ideological Hairdressing? Intellectual Life in the Brezhnev Era Reconsidered.” Brezhnev Reconsidered, edited by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, pp. 135-164.

Schmelz, Peter J. “Andrey Volkonsky and the Beginnings of Unofficial Music.” Such Freedom, If Only Musical: Unofficial Soviet Music During the Thaw. Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 67-130.

Schmelz, Peter J. “Unofficial Venues, Performers, and Audiences.” Such Freedom, If Only Musical: Unofficial Soviet Music During the Thaw. Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 179-215.

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford University Press, 1993.

Troncale, Joseph C. “The Space of Freedom.” The Space of Freedom: Apartment Exhibitions in Leningrad, 1964-1986. Richmond, Virginia: Joel and Lila Harnet Museum of Art, University of Richmond Museums, 2006, pp. 27-39.

Wyszomirski, Margaret J., Oleszczuk, Thomas A., Smith, Theresa C. “Cultural Dissent and Defection: The Case of Soviet Nonconformist Artists.” Journal of Arts Management and Law, vol. 18, no.1, 1988, pp. 44-62.