Talk:Soviet art

Soviet Union High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

To my mind, this article should be merged with the Culture of Russia. KNewman 18:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic is too specific to be treated inside an accumulation of general culture-related articles. I think one should make a clear distinction between Cultural history and Art history. timo 07:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's lots of interesting art from the USSR after the death of Stalin. I'd suggest at least a category on non-conformist art (i.e. Ilya Kabakov). Robbyslaughter 15:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

topic should be capetalized Soviet ART (utc)

This article is dreadful; it is deeply anti-Soviet, paying little attention to the importance the revolution played in movements of the avant-garde that had a lasting impact on art throughout the world until the consolidation of socialist realism. It also fails to note the heavy censorship consistent throughout the Tsarist period (Tolstoy faced heavy censorship under Tsarism despite being the most popular author in the world) and the liberalization of forms of art which occurred in the period from 1917 to 1932.

Compare the unsourced, unverified text here to the content of the russian avant-garde, whose second paragraph reads:

"The Russian avant-garde reached its creative and popular height in the period between the Russian Revolution of 1917 and 1932, at which point the ideas of the avant-garde clashed with the newly emerged state-sponsored direction of Socialist Realism."

Let's look at some quotes from this page:

"Among early experiments of Proletkult was pragmaic aestetic of industrial art, the prominent theoretist being Boris Arvatov."

"However the latter sought too much independence from the ruling Communist Party of Bolsheviks, gained negative attitude of Vladimir Lenin, by 1922 declined considerably, and was eventually disbanded in 1932."

While I realize that this might not have been written by a native English speaker, it's still inexcusable for a supposedly high-importance article. The only redeeming quality is the section on Soviet Noncomforist Art, which still needs citations. If the section on the early years of Soviet art is not cleaned, I will certainly be taking a hammer (and sickle -- ha ha) to it shortly. Honestly -- has the person who wrote this actually seen pieces of art from that period? Undeniably (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leningradartist

Contributor Leningradartist is Russian art historian with main subject - Leningrad artists. The gallery is absolutely non typical for main subject and really marginal. We have our own problems with him in ru-wiki. --Shakko (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense vs. present tense

Art doesn't necessarily stop existing when the entity creating it is destroyed. It stops existing when the art itself is destroyed (and, depending on the nature of the destruction, parts of that art might still exist). Also, don't assume that every edit by an anon IP is in the wrong. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all very good and understandable points٫ but if an art is no longer being made or is historical٫ past tense is a better fit. That would essentially be like saying if a person died٫ present tense should still be used because the person's body is still out there somewhere. GenZenny (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tone

the tone of this article is incredibly informal and biased. it is also largely unsourced, entire sections may need to be reworked

Teemingwithrats (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]