Music and Art under Stalin's Regime
How does a totalitarian regime affect the art produced under it?
This essay was written by Salomon Singer-Portnoy, a high school student from Southern California
When we think about how totalitarianism functions, we may not consider how actions taken by the governing powers of a state affect its art, literature, and music. In totalitarian states, artists, writers and composers are strictly regulated, with their work being constantly scrutinized for any sign of dissent or deviation from the official narrative. Under these conditions, creating art that is authentic and true to oneself becomes very difficult, as artists fear severe punishment such as imprisonment or death. This was evident in the Soviet Union under the rule of Joseph Stalin, who implemented an official doctrine known as Socialist Realism. It mandated idealized representations of life under socialism in art to spread uplifting messages easily understood by the common person. Before this doctrine was imposed, Russia had a proud history of not only using realist painting as a form of social critique, but also of producing many of the most renowned avant-garde artists in the world. However, as the realities of socialist rule became increasingly apparent, artists were encouraged to depict positive, propagandist images of Soviet leaders and everyday conditions in the new Soviet Union. In the process, these restrictions stifled creativity and pushed artists to produce unimaginative and simple works. Though this idea is most easily understood through visual art, it is also seen in music.
One clear example of an artist who created music under these conditions was Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich, whose work was heavily impacted by the political pressures of the Stalinist Regime. Composing music under the intense scrutiny of the ruthless and oppressive dictator that was Joseph Stalin meant that Shostakovich had to find different ways of working around the restrictions that Stalin had set. While all other innovative forms of art at the time were being completely eliminated, Shostakovich managed to express outrage and resentment towards the Soviet government through the use of musical double entendre and sleight of hand. He achieved great success for such a long period of time because he figured out how to please two key audiences simultaneously. In his most renowned works during that time, he fulfilled the requirements of Stalin’s doctrine of social realism while also pleasing the public, who viewed his music as an expression of his rage and sadness towards the political climate of the time.
Before cracking the code of how to satisfy both of these audiences, Shostakovich endured heavy criticism from Stalin and his regime. In one specific instance in January of 1936, Stalin went to the opera in Moscow. This was nothing unusual for him, but this time the consequences would be dire for Shostakovich. The opera was Shostakovich’s Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, and it would be an understatement to say Stalin was not fond of the work. Then 29-year-old Shostakovich was also present for the opera, but any expectations he had of meeting Stalin were destroyed when the dictator stormed out before the end of the final act. Two days later, a review of the opera titled “Muddle Instead of Music” was published in Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Quotes from the article such as “singing is replaced by shrieking” and “the ability of good music to enthrall the masses has been sacrificed on the altar of petit-bourgeois formalism” make it abundantly clear that Stalin was the one who pushed for the story to be published. From that moment on, Shostakovich lived in terror of the secret police knocking at his door. More importantly, he was faced with the struggle of maintaining his artistic integrity while avoiding imprisonment, torture, or death. Lady Macbeth disappeared overnight, and his Fourth Symphony which he had been working on was scrapped and not performed until 1961.
In 1937, when the Leningrad Philharmonic premiered his Fifth Symphony, everyone in attendance understood that his artistic reputation was at stake. The work ended up receiving an unprecedented enthusiastic response through which he was able to rehabilitate himself and temporarily repair his rapport with the Soviet authorities. Essentially, the same work was interpreted in two different ways, and much to Shostakovich’s relief, both of these views were positive. Shostakovich managed to satisfy the demands of Stalin and other Soviet leaders by slightly holding back on the more modern and outlandish facets of his music while maintaining the seriousness and complexity that originally gained him popularity. The piece also found great success with the general public. Shostakovich’s subtle yet still apparent use of dark and atonal harmonies conveyed the feelings of suffering and anger towards the Soviet regime that was relatable to the common person. The symphony was subtitled “A soviet artist’s creative response to just criticism,” a reference to Pravda’s strong condemnation from a year prior. Though the piece was literally a response to criticism and an attempt at making amends, this title can be looked back on somewhat laughably. It is difficult to accept the so-called “just criticism” found in the mostly meaningless Pravda article once we realize that it caused him to forgo his bold and innovative Fourth Symphony for the far more conservative Fifth. We can only imagine how without this “just criticism” he would have continued down the more contemporary and experimental musical path that he was forced to abandon.
Contrary to the belief of many scholars and historians, art, but more specifically, music, should never be viewed in a vacuum. Like most art, a piece of music is often influenced by a composer's environment and personal experiences. In the case of Dimitri Shostakovich, it is essential to understand the circumstances under which he composed his music. This understanding allows us to fully appreciate the musical acts of resistance and dissent he committed while expressing to the world how he was emotionally affected by life in the Stalinist Era.