• Aucun résultat trouvé

View of What/Which Truth? Photography and Photojournalism in the Soviet Union

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "View of What/Which Truth? Photography and Photojournalism in the Soviet Union"

Copied!
19
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

44 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

What/Which Truth? Photography and

Photojournalism in the Soviet Union

1

Jessica Werneke

Abstract

Thi a icle in e iga e h and eali a he e e e e ed b S ie a h i ie a ell a

photographers and critics over time. It examines how the indexicality of the photograph influenced

h g a h c l al a in he e e f fficials, why particular aesthetics were galvanized to bolster

h g a h a hen ici , and ha c mbina i n f inde icali and ae he ic defined he cial e

of Soviet photography. Between 1945 and 1991, there were individuals who expressed dissatisfaction with the status quo and sought new ways of visualizing Soviet reality in the post-Stalinist epoch, though their arguments were also couched in distinctly Soviet dialectics. These dissenters included Sergei Morozov, a prominent photography theorist and critic, and others who began arguing that photography was not only artistic, but that it also possessed unique features that placed it in a category of its own based precisely on its dual creative and documentary features. This was manifested in stylistic and aesthetic changes in

h g a h in he 1950 and 1960 . A a medi m, h e e , h g a h e cei ed abili e eal

h emained n e i ned b c i ic and he S a e, e en a cce i e egime gh di lge

photographic fallacies in order to legitimate their own authority.

Résumé

Cet article examine la façon dont les notions de « vérité » et de « réalité » ont été utilisées par les autorités soviétiques comme par les photographes et critiques russes à travers le temps. Il se penche sur la manière d n l inde icali d n clich a influencé le statut culturel de la photographie aux yeux des officiels, en se

demandan i ne e le e h i e a gal ani e dan le en de l a hen ici h g a hi e, e

elle c mbinai n d inde icali e d e h i e d fini ai le b cial de la photographie soviétique, même si ces arguments étaient eux aussi exprimés dans une dialectique nettement soviétique.

Entre 1945 et 1991, certains individus ont exprimé leur désaccord quant à ce status quo et ont recherché de

nouvelles façons de i ali e la ali i i e l e -staliniste. Parmi ces opposants, il y avait

Se gei M , n minen c i i e e h icien de la h g a hie, e d a e i n c mmenc

eni e la h g a hie n ai a a i i e, mai e ses propriétés uniques la situaient dans une

catégorie spécifique basée précisément sur ces doubles caractéristiques créatives et documentaires. Cette

i i n e manife e dan le changemen li i e e e h i e de la h g a hie de ann e

1950 et 1960. En tant que medium, néanmoins, la soi-disant capacité de la photographie à révéler les

(2)

45 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

« vérités n a a emi e en e i n a le c i i e ni a l E a , m me l e le gime cce if

ont cherché à divulguer les mensonges photographiques pour asseoir leur propre autorité.

Keywords

Soviet History; Photojournalism; History of Photography; Cultural Thaw

Thi a icle add e e ha c n i ed h in S ie h g a h , and h j nali m in a ic la . I

argue that while the Soviet regime, photography critics, and photographers themselves recognized that photographs had the ability to show false representations of reality, they paradoxically never questioned the

inherent (in their opinion) truthfulness and authenticity of the photograph.2 The notion that photographs

h ed and a hen ica ed S ie h a ied he e e fficial cial e f h g a h in

he USSR, ha f inde icali and d c men ali . De i e he em ha i n h g a h hf lne ,

photographers, photojournalists, journal editors (specifically at the premier photography journal Sovetskoe

foto or The Soviet Photo), and critics struggled with how to express (both practically and aesthetically) the

realities of Soviet life under a regime that was ultimately interested in propaganda rather than exposing truths or attempting objective documentation. This resulted in several aesthetic shifts in photography from

he 1920 h gh he 1960 ha ela ed cce i e S ie leade c n olidation of power and which

e i n f eali and h e e acce able each f hem. Thi , in n, ha ed he li ic ch ice

of photographers.

The ea ch f a defini i n f ha e ac l c n i ed a S ie h g a h d ing hi period, in contrast

to Western capitalist photographs, was at the center of deciding how to visualize official truths that were, in reality, either partially or entirely untrue (through cropping, physical manipulation/airbrushing and the avoidance or omission of certain subjects). To shed further light on the debate, this article is divided into three parts, each designed to explain, contextualize, and illuminate the ways in which photography was discussed amongst photographers, how their discussions and practice were in dialogue with the Soviet

g e nmen , and h hi dial g e a ha ed b li ical ci c m ance in hich he S ie

h g a h nde en a i age f and di f m he and in f c l al a h i ie .

I do not intend this article to be a comprehensive history of Soviet photography, Soviet censorship, Soviet artistic movements, or Soviet photojournalism. Rather, it is an investigation of photographic liability,

eliabili , and hf lne in he S ie Uni n e a broad period of time. Chronologically, my

explanation of early Soviet and Stalinist photography is meant to contextualize discussions about photography in the1950s and 1960s, a time when photographers returned to earlier arguments about the purpose of photography, debating if it was journalistic, propagandistic, artistic, or a combination of the three. In order to explain developments in terms of the propagandistic potential of photography, as well as

he came a abili e eal he h en ially conceal inconvenient realities, I begin by

el cida ing he B l he ik f a gh ela i n hi i h h g a h a a ma medi m f aganda

2 Lenin gene al ie n ae he ic gh e l e inc n i encie in Ge gi Plekhan Ma i idea ab ae he ic ela i i m: The limits of approximation of our knowledge to the objective, absolute truth are historically conditional, but the existence of such truth is unconditional, and the fact that we are approaching nearer to it is also nc ndi i nal (Lenin 128-129). This is itself problematic when related to photography as it presupposes the camera and h g a he abili i ali e nc ndi i nal h acc ding Ma i dialec ic .

(3)

46 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

e . I hen de c ibe h h g a h a em ed f m a i ic in i i n d ing S alin C l al

Revolution, the institution of Socialist Realism, and the consolidation of the arts. This sets the stage for

e laining he immen e im ac f Kh hche C l al Tha ( ghl 1953 1964) n h g a h

and photographers themselves, both in attitude and in creative potential. I conclude by explaining how the

1950 and 1960 e e a f fal e a , he e en h ia m f h g a h ae he ic and d c men a

properties waned, though arguments about the nature of these dual characteristics persisted.

Though censorship played a role in the trajectory of discussions and debates about photographic aesthetics and the place of photography within the Soviet cultural hierarchy, it is not the focus of this article. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the post-Stalinist rehabilitation of modernist aesthetics from the 1920s and early 1930s (as well as the reputations of individual photographers whose work became known as part of the avant-garde canon) was made possible by the renegotiation of censorship policies afte S alin death. Similarly, while censorship, Stalinist and otherwise, influenced and reinforced aesthetic trends, Socialist Realism was not a monolithic top down initiative. Instead, censorship and the primacy of Socialist Realism was the result of the interaction between cultural producers (i.e., photographers) and the State (Benjamin 39). As Jan Plamper explained, Soviet censorship, and censorship in general, is not unidirectional. Margarita Tupitsyn writes about how modernist photographers themselves were somewhat complicit in the development of Socialist Realism and the elimination of competing visions and versions of modernist photography (Tupitsyn 144-146). Additionally, as I show below, Stalinist censorship policies related to photography were aimed at eliminating polysemy and minimizing interpretive ambiguity,

b aining a ing deg ee f cce af e S alin dea h (Plam e 537).

The overarching narratives of post-WWII discussions in Sovetskoe foto were dominated by a desire for official recognition of photography beyond its indexical properties while reaffirming indexicality as

distinctive to print photography and photojournalism.3 Unlike documentary film, which required a screen

and projector, both artistic and journalistic photographs were more mobile and reproducible, thus reaching a wider audience in the form of hundreds of newspapers and illustrated journals. Yet, since the majority of photographs were circulated in the press, rather than displayed in museums and galleries, arguments about

h g a h lace am ng he a fell la gel n deaf ea . Gaining fficial ec gni i n f m b ea c a

and the Ministry of Culture that photography was, in itself, a form of art was one of the greatest hurdles faced by photographers after 1953 (Michelkevicius 101). The popular use of photographs in illustrated magazines and the press enhanced its documentary value, but also hindered its acceptance as an art form. Furthermore, because photographers were seen as journalists, they were denied access to exclusive artistic unions and professional art education (Tifentale 15).

After the 1930s, unionization was the most basic demarcation of defining an official artistic medium within

the massive Soviet bureaucratic structure.4 Unions were organized hierarchically, and existed at the

All-Union, Republican, and local levels. Photographers were not eligible for admission into the Union of

3 To a lesser extent, this also applied to film, though few if any ever made the argument that film could not be used beyond its indexical properties, i.e. it was not only used for film journalism, but also for movies and, later, television (which brought its own ideological problems, see Roth-Ey, 278-306). As with photography, the Bolsheviks realized the propagandistic potential of cinema early on (see Kenez 416, Russell 20-21, Taylor 36-37) and while there were problems with the medium from a propagandistic point of view in that viewers tended to favor romance and adventure, the combined propagandistic, artistic, and journalistic potential of film was never seriously questioned. Photojournalists and photography critics were arguing and attempting to demonstrate that photography could likewise fulfill all three roles.

4 The USSR Uni n f W i e a e abli hed in 1934 and he A i Uni n f he USSR held its first congress in 1957, though it existed in many different iterations from 1931 onwards.

(4)

47 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Artists, though photojournalists could join the photography section of the Union of Journalists. From the

purely structural poin f ie ha g ided m c l al a h i ie and li ician c nce i n ab

c l e and ae he ic , h g a h a n high a ; i a a ade, ca i n, h bb .5 Similarly, and

as a result, these same officials believed that the sole purpose of photography was that of documentation, and while documentation could be presented artistically and creatively, it still relied predominantly on the

h g a h inde icali . Th , h g a h cla ifica i n and lacemen i hin he J nali Union

was adequate and appropriate. This circular logic (photography is documentary and therefore should be classified as journalism, and that because it is classified as journalism, it must be documentary) prevented photographers, despite their best and continuing efforts, from forming their own union.

For photographers, unionization was a matter of prestige: it guaranteed recognition, funding, and access to standardized education. For example, because photography was not unionized, if an individual wished to pursue photography in higher education and become a photojournalist, their only option was to enter the journalism department of their university or institute. In these programs, standard training in photography consisted of a two-term course with the first term devoted to theory, and the second to applied practices. Final grades were based on a four-photograph portfolio that included two portraits, one landscape photograph, and one example of architectural photography. Photojournalists, critics, students, and amateurs found this certification process woefully inadequate, not only because it was so brief and assessment was based on such a small number of photographs, but also because it was the only option for those wishing to learn technical skills at the university level (Sverdlovsk 14). Unionization would have also provided a means of controlling the dissemination of cameras, lenses, photo paper, and other materials that, during the S ie e i d, a inc edibl ne en (We neke, N b d Unde and Wha I Bea if l and Wha I N 54).

The exclusion of photography from unionization and its inability to be recognized as art were, of course,

he fficial line. F m he and in f a h i ie , h g a h e a b l e he egime,

document progress, and propagandize the realities officials wished to project in the press. The supposed authenticity of the photograph protected the truths and realities they wished to showcase, and masked inconvenient actualities they sought to avoid publicizing. In reality, however, art photography did exist in the Soviet Union, and Soviet photographers (photojournalists and amateurs) participated in art exhibitions abroad and photography exhibitions across the USSR. Similarly, cultural authorities did not shy away from calling photography artistic, while also admitting that its artistic value simply was not equal to that of sculpture, painting, or writing.

Cameras in the hands of the proletariat: Early Soviet conceptions of photography

According to John Tagg, the h g a h i an i em f m hich e cann e ac me e i en ial

ab l e c l al, ch l gical and e ce al c de and ce e hich c n i e e e ience f

5 It is unclear why exactly Soviet officials were so set against the idea of photography as an art form. Cultural authorities, including Yekaterina Furtseva, the Minister of Culture of the USSR from 1960 to 1974, tended to have more conservative ideas about what constituted art, but it also appears that, despite appeals from photojournalists, critics, and amateur photographers, the unionization of photography was simply not a priority. Though she did not publicly comment specifically on a union for photography, in 1966 Furtseva promised to petition the Minister of C l e f he RSFSR and he Ci Admini a i n f M c c ea e a h g a h m e m ( M ei f i kusstva na b de ! ). I i nclea if hi e i i n a e e filed, b he m e m a ne e e abli hed. The fi a e museum specifically devoted to photography, The Russian Museum of Photography (Russkii muzei fotografii), opened in Nizhny Novgorod in 1992. The first photography museum in Moscow, The Moscow House of Photography, (Moskovskii dom fotografii) opened in 1996.

(5)

48 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

he ld and make [ he h g a h] meaningf l (Tagg 3-4). Similarly, the present reality in which an

image is produced is manufactured, altered, and, therefore, inherently problematic. Consequently, the photograph infuses itself with meaning that may be divorced from, but still connected to, reality (Tagg 3).

Max Kozloff has also noted he h g a h en ial f n eliabili hile main aining me mea e f

a hen ici . F him, he main di inc i n be een a ain ing and a h g a h i ha he ain ing all de

to its content, whereas the photograph summons it, from wherever and hene e , (K l ff 236).

Both Tagg and Kozloff confront the issue of truth and authenticity in photography, explaining that both the photographer and viewer graft their own meanings, experiences, and versions of objectivity upon the image. These manipulations, however, remain hidden in the photograph itself. As a result, photography appears to be more authentic than other modes of visual representation. Similarly, photography manipulates

bjec i i and bjec i i , e en ing an in e e a i e challenge to its reader/viewer, precisely because it

i f amed and beca e f he a in hich h e f ame migh hif , ma e iall , e all , c n e all

(Rei chl 12). Di c i n ab he en ial n h f h g a h a e alm en i el absent in Soviet

critical discourses about the medium. Unlike Kozloff, Tagg, and Reischl, who draw attention to the uncertainties of photographic representation, its potential for manipulation, and differing viewer responses, Soviet critics demanded reliability and authenticity from a medium that simply could not provide these absolutes.

The B l he ik c nce i n ab h g a h c ld ne e c me e m i h he af emen i ned

ac ali ie beca e he de i ed c n l b h he h g a h ci c la ion and meaning (Dickerman 141).

Ne e hele , h g a h a ealed he e l i na i i f he ime and he B l he ik m emen

forging of the Soviet citizen: Modernist aesthetics presented new ways of seeing the world (through intense

cropping and ni e angle ), hile h g a h e d cibili a a ic la l de i able f ma

propaganda campaigns in the form of press circulation and photomontage for agitational posters. Its appeal, however, came with caveats that were inextricably bound to the nature of the medium and its relationship to reality and truth.

In 1926, he Pe le C mmi a f Ed ca i n, Ana lii L nacha kii, bli hed hi en ned O

C l e and Ph g a h in he j nal Sovetskoe foto. In this article, Lunacharskii, perhaps

h g a h g ea e ad ca e i hin he B l he ik g e nmen , lined he nece i f h g a h

and em ha i ed ha i a a echn l g ha h ld be emb aced b e e ci i en: j a e e

progressive comrade should have a wristwatch, he should be able to use a photographic camera. This will come with time. In the USSR, there will not only be mass literacy, but photographic literacy in particular as

ell. And, i ill e i e m ch ne han he ke ic hink (L nacha kii 2). L nacharskii was

interested in educating citizens to use cameras, and not necessarily in the practicalities of this education. Following World War I, the revolutions, and the Russian Civil War, photographic materials were in short

l and h g a h e e ienced a l nged e i d f agna i n (L dde 292, ee al W lf

32-33). More problematically, a proliferation of photographic cameras and the increase in photographic

li e ac c ld en iall challenge he B l he ik c n l f li ical de . Wha ruths about the USSR,

which at the time had existed for less than a decade, could the camera reveal about the realities of everyday life? And, would photography tell truths that did not necessarily correspond to Bolshevik ideology and their narrative of the revolution?

Leah Dicke man Came a Ob c a: S ciali Reali m in he Shad f Ph g a h line he ea l

hi f he B l he ik Pa in e ac i n i h he came a. On he ne hand, he B l he ik e inced a

desire, even a need, for authentication and, on the other, they distrusted photography for its ability to show imprints of the past that may betray the ideological and historical narrative of the present. As a result, the

(6)

49 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Party both desired and feared mass media culture, and photography in particular, because it had the potential to pose a very real threat to Bolshevik conceptions of history, reality, and truth (Dickerman 143). Thus, the Party recognized that the camera had the ability to falsify the past through manipulation, but also

invited he ca ef l elec i n f a ed image f blica i n. F he m e, he came a c ld n

nece a il di ing i h be een B l he ik ian h and he eali ie f e e da e i ence in he

USSR. As a result, the relationship between the Bolshevik cum Soviet Communist Party and photography

a manife ed in he de i e ide i al d c men a i n, b nl f he c ec na a i e. Thi

paradox that defined the cultural position of photography for the entirety of the Soviet period.

Despite this atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, art photography and photojournalism flourished in the 1920s. The main feature of Bolshevik attitudes towards the arts in the years 1918-1928 was of relative freedom so long as artists were ideologically aligned with the Bolshevik cause. Thus, the Party tacitly supported experimentation with several different styles in an effort to find a distinctive Soviet form and, as

a result, did not discourage the spread of modernist (or avant-garde) art movements.6 Attitudes towards

aesthetics were broadly informed by Marxist-Leninist theory, but the main concern was public accessibility

and destroying artistic exclusivity.7 The Party ostensibly favored artistic forms that were available to the

masses that could be produced, reproduced, shown, and published on a mass scale, leveling the differences between high and low art. Though multiple competing visions of modernist photography existed at the time, historians generally group art photographers in the late 1920s and 1930s into three competing factions. The Russkoe fotograficheskoe obshestvo (Russian Photographic Society, RFO), a group of traditionalists whose main genres were portraits and landscapes, was the first and oldest. Founded in 1894, this group aligned itself with the aesthetics of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century European photography (Stigneev 16-17). The second group, the Revoliutsionnoe obshestvo proletarskikh fotografov (Russian Association of Proletarian Photographers, ROPF), emphasized the importance of the photograph as a document and a means of capturing reality. The third group, Oktiabr (October), was led by Aleskandr Rodchenko and Elizar Langman; it supported photography as a versatile medium that could surpass its documentary processes to produce new ways of seeing and viewing the world. After the 1917 revolutions, the RFO was marginalized and eventually dissolved in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The ROPF and

Oktiabr were more ideologically associated with the Bolshevik Party and mass media. Though Oktiabr and

the ROPF were divided about the role of aesthetics in photography, both groups were united in their opposition to the work of the RFO, which they found to be excessively bourgeois.

While at odds with one another, Oktiabr and the ROPF were essentially competing over how to visualize the early Soviet period, grappling over what revolutionary photography should look like. Serious complications arose from the disjunction between ideology and reality. They asked how one was to provide documentary proof that life had become better under Bolshevik socialism when, in actuality, the fledgling country was crippled by the aftermath of successive wars and revolutions. Members of the ROPF supported

6 Th gh man ch la efe he e g a he a an -ga de, I ch e e he de c i m de ni . A an -garde implies that each of these artists were unified by a single artistic movement or style when, in reality, there were several competing visions of modernism(s) and members were not always ideologically united when it came to aesthetics or the social and cultural role of photography, even within Oktiabr and the ROPF (see below).

7 He e, i i im an n e ha S ie ae he ician hem el e enc n e ed c n ide able diffic l ie in e l ing the question of the aesthetic in the context of Marxist-Leninist phil h (S ide ki, ii). The e a e man ible Marxist interpretations of aesthetics, and Marxist-Leninism could be considered one of those interpretive iterations. Lenin himself seemed to prefer realist aesthetics, though his main focus was propagandistic potential. Similarly, his views on aesthetics must be extrapolated from his few writings on the subject, though it would appear that the main tenets of Socialist Realism ( a , a , a d , and de or class-mindedness, party-mindedness, nationality, and ideological content) e e e ie f Lenin a i de a d ae he ic (S ide ki 55).

(7)

50 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

realism in photography, emphasized content rather than over-stylized experimental techniques, and

ad ca ed f a nified le a ian le f h g a h m deled n hei efe ed ae he ic. The

fa ed aigh f a d, edl nmani la ed e age (Benda id-Val 37). Oktiabr was

established ba ed n he emi e ha i membe fel ha he ne e a e i ed ne media and a e

n ied ce e and he an ed a l ma d c i n a . Pa f hi e e imen a i n in l ed

the tearing down of walls between media, so that one artist c ld lea n f m an he (Benda id-Val 37-38). To the ROPF, members of Oktiabr were more interested in innovation than in documentation. The

work of Oktiabr a ba ed n f agmen a i n, and membe ie ed eali a a di c nnec ed and ling

ace, hile he ROPF leaned a d h le image and a he ld a a c nc e e and c n in

en i (T i n 67). Ae he ic diffe ence be een he g emmed f m f ndamen all diffe en

ideas about the purpose of the camera and how to depict reality. ROPF Photographer Mark Markov-G inbe g main bjec i n Oktiabr was that form and style overtook content in their photographs:

Cha ing af e he h d mina ed c n en We, in he i e g , h g a hed f a ea n, f a

e. A f a ake i n hing (Benda id-Val 37). Put simply, if Oktiabr was more interested in the

a i ic and c ea i e fea e f h g a h , he ROPF a m e c nce ned i h h g a h

documentary properties. This fundamental disagreement about the function of photography in Soviet society would reemerge in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, despite their aesthetic disagreements, neither group

a f ndamen all in e e ed in e i ning he h g a h abili h he h; hei mani la i n

of images for aesthetic purposes did not inherently call the authenticity of the photograph into question. Despite the ideological and aesthetic sparring between the two groups, ROPF and Okitabr members mutually influenced one another (see Figure 1). In 1934, ROPF member Arkadii Shaikhet admitted that the

(8)

51 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

intense cropping and unique angles of Oktiabr h g a he e e fa hi nable. He e ha i i

still necessary in all honesty to admit that the Oktiabr photographers gave each of us a lot. I found their works, in and of themselves, interesting and useful. As a result of this struggle, I reconsidered and changed

m ie n a n mbe f hing (Shaikhe 13). B 1934, h e e , he ROPF had al ead n he a n

h g a hic ae he ic . Wi h J e h S alin ic in he leade hi c n e af e Vladimi Lenin dea h

came the 1932 Central Committee of the CPSU(b) decree on the restructuring of literary and art organizations. This effectively liquidated both the ROPF and Oktiabr, collapsing them into the single

category of press photographers. Stylistically, however, the supposed aigh d c men a h g a h

of the ROPF was favored by the Stalinist regime. While the vestiges of both groups continued to exist until 1937, Socialist Realism became the only acceptable means of representation, overshadowing all other

artistic movements (Tupitsyn 7-8). Ph g a h ed hf lne a e cei ed a n eliable f

depicting the teleological and historical narrative that the Party and government put forth. Precisely

beca e f i d c men a fea e and he h g a h a a ent inability to lie or show what was and

was not in front of it, photography was deemed to be a liability. Though this could be rectified by manipulating photographs, either though cropping, airbrushing, or montage, these rudimentary forms of excising what the Soviet government wanted to avoid were less effective than simply employing other artistic media (King 7). Yet, the distinction between art photography and press photography remained ill-defined, and the lines between the two genres were blurred by years of debate that unfolded in the 1920s and 1930s about what acceptable photographs should look like.

The 1930s and 1940s saw the gradual replacement of modernism with realism in all Soviet arts. Socialist Realism, the official genre of Soviet art after 1934, is a complicated category. Its definition is more exclusive than inclusive because it was never formally defined. In terms of the official view on the subject, Socialist Realist art should be realist in form and socialist in content (though both were often fabricated). This definition is vague and carried with it a number of specifications and qualifications. Boris Groys

de c ibe S ciali Reali m a a kind f h g a h : The g al a gi e he image f he f e

world, where all the facts would be the facts of Socialist life, a kind of photographic quality, which would

make hi image i all c edible (G 143-144). But photography could not easily lend itself to both

the propagandistic and artistic demands of the Stalinist regime. The complication that persisted was

h g a h ela i n hi and eflec i n f eali , e eciall in he S alini e i d. While h g a h

as a medium remained desirable to the government and Party because of its reproducibility and

indexicality, photogra h c n en e i ed be nd he c e f he g e nmen ideal f S ciali

Realism in that it was too rooted in reality and could not be untruthful enough to satisfy the needs of the Stalinist government. Photography was necessary for documentation purposes throughout the Stalinist era, and especially during World War II, but Socialist Realism, as it was defined at the time, excluded

photography precisely because of its documentary functions.8

8 Documenting World War II presented its own Soviet peculiarities, but is beyond the scope of this article. During the war, many of the photographs circulated in Pravda and Izvestiia were perfunctory inclusions, serving as proof that the Soviet Union was at war. They fulfilled the purpose of an informative document: newspapers and Red Army magazines did not have the space to publish many images, and those that were chosen for publication were subject to strict guidelines and the demands of editors who often outlined topics and ideas for staged photographs before h j nali e en a i ed n l ca i n. Da id Shnee Through Soviet Jewish Eyes: Photography, War, and the Holocaust questions what possessed young Soviet photographers (specifically young Soviet Jewish photographers) to capture Nazi atrocities during the war, particularly atrocities against Jews, which they did frequently towards the end of the war. While there are many poignant exceptions, as a rule the majority of photographs published in the Soviet press on a daily basis were not concerned with war crimes or atrocity. This is not to say that photographers did not capture these crimes. But, the Soviet government was wary of publishing this material, and when these images were published, they followed a set narrative of Nazi criminal activity, highlighting German immorality and ruthlessness. In

(9)

52 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

What Is a Soviet Photograph?: Truth and Artistic Photojournalism in the 1950s and

1960s

Unde S alini m, acc ding E gen D b enk , m S ie a engaged in in en i e d c i n f he

ma e f he e le and f cla c n ci ne , e en iall c ea ing cial eali ie f fic i nal

categories, thus rendering them real (Dobrenko 183).9 The e ne ca eg ie , h e e , im l did n

e i ide f S ciali Reali m, [and e ] in c ea ing he e le, S ciali Reali m im l ane l

de-realized the social field in which real people li ed (D benk 183). If ne e e c ea e a Venn diag am illustrating photographic representations of Soviet life, ideology/propaganda and reality would overlap, but only slightly. Similarly, the transition to Socialist Realism in photography was patchy and incomplete. This made it difficult for contemporary critics to place photography within the theoretical boundaries of Socialist Realist art. The Soviet State perceived the very nature of photography as documentary and firmly

based in reality. This perce i n c nflic ed i h he e e e f S ciali Reali m he e ical

totality that, whether acknowledged or not, by definition blurred the lines between reality and fiction.

In Feb a 1956, nea l h ee ea af e S alin dea h, Niki a Kh hchev, the First Secretary of the

C mm ni Pa , deli e ed hi On he C l f Pe nali and i C n e ence (c mm nl efe ed

a he Sec e S eech ) a he Twentieth Party Congress. The speech was deeply critical of Stalinist policies and was followed by a period of political and cultural liberalization, commonly referred to as

Kh hche Tha and de-Stalinization. The Thaw had an immense impact on cultural policy across the

a and j nali m. S alini h g a h a c i ici ed f ine ia of bombast, of frozen

m n men ali , f hamele e f mance , i hea ical im la i n and embelli hmen f ac ali

(Reid 34). In ead, ha eme ged d ing he Tha a a c nce n i h h, c n e ed he

fallacie f he S alin c l , [ hich] cha ac e i ed he c l e f he Tha a a h le (Reid 33). While he

ba ic ene f S ciali Reali m (and he gen e in a ) emained, i al media and a f m he la e Stalinist period were attacked precisely based on their exaggeration of and deviation from reality (Vikulina,

432). Rela edl , i a ecificall documentary photography or reportage that was privileged during the

Tha a ed he facele , h c i ical hack k f he S alin e i d (Reid 33). The n e f

Party leaders altered interpretations of the problems facing both the Party and society, and the press, the venue through which most photographs were circulated, was subject to periodic reorientations and

redefinitions (Wolfe 8). In the 1950s and 1960s, photojournali lied he e and image ha ld

make Soviet readers aware of and a part of the processes through which their society was realizing

ciali m, a ell a h ha eali a de ic ed in e h g a h (W lfe 18). On he face, hi

proved challenging: how were photographers to visually demarcate the drastic political and cultural divide

be een S alini m and Kh hche Tha ? H c ld, h h ld, eali and h be e e en ed

when, for the nearly twenty-fi e ea f S alin s reign, what had been shown as documentary proof of the

S ie Uni n achie emen and e a ba ed n a em and lic ha he c n em a

a h i ie den nced? F he m e, he e a n g a an ee ha he Tha libe ali ing end ld n

be e e ed and he e i d bjec f e en fi and a (Bi ne 15). H e e , he ea ch f a f e h

style and individual self-e e i n and a ee amina i n f h, n nl in i al media b in all

aspects of life, underscored the character of the Cultural Thaw (Zubok, 22).

the everyday press, however, these photographs represent a drop in the proverbial ocean. Typically, the central press only distributed and officially recognized images that showed the fallibility of the Soviet army or the grief of war years after World War II ended. This was a concerted and delibe a e g e nmen eff af e S alin dea h c mba heroicizing images of war with photographs that demonstrated the imperfections of Stalinism. For more about Soviet wartime photography, see Shneer.

(10)

53 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Despite the changes ushered in by the Cultural Thaw, the Soviet Union was not a free society, regulation and censorship were arbitrarily enforced, and photographers recognized that there were still restrictions on

what they could and could not photograph, including vagrancy, criminal activity, and pornography.10

An hing ha ca d b n he na a i e f S ie S ciali m e i i ca i ali m a ab .11

Nevertheless, the Cultural Thaw provided photographers with some measure of creative freedom that, to an

extent, photojournalists and amateur photographers were eager to exploit.12 In 1961, S alini h g a h

was officially condemned by the Union of Journalists for its monotonous rehearsal of standardized f m la (Reid 34). Ye , c n a Reid a e i n ha he ing ained habi hich e e he legacy of

la e S alini h g a h e e n be b ken ickl , I a g e ha man h j nali e e

enthusiastic about expanding the boundaries of viable representation.13 This was made especially clear in

the early issues of the newly reinstated journal Sovetskoe foto.14 While some contributors to the journal,

primarily those who had participated in modernist groups in the 1920s and 1930s, complained of Stalinist stylistic holdovers, the younger generation of photographers, and especially amateurs, were keen to explore the creative possibilities that photography offered (Fridliand 23).

10 For more on homelessness and vagrancy in the Soviet Union, see Stephenson.

11 Yet, as a result of the Thaw, 1950s and 1960s Soviet attitudes towards what constituted pornography were shifting, and penalties for possessing pornographic images were loosened, though producing and distributing pornography was still illegal. Photographic nudes, especially by the 1960s, were no longer automatically considered pornographic. Legislation about what constituted pornography, however, remained intentionally vague (Goldschmidt 911-912). 12 Ph g a h , like he c l al media, h ha he Tha a n nl ab ut the erosion of propaganda. At the heart of the search for new words was the question of reflecting the emotional and experiential universe that the press and li e a e f S ciali Reali m had failed de ic (K l 50). Ye , h g a he , a ic larly those outside of the Union of Journalists, were in a unique position because they were non-unionized individuals involved in cultural production, press illustration, and art exhibitions. This was not the case for unionized artists and even as photojournalists and amateurs insisted on unionization from the mid-1950s, they capitalized on the creative possibilities they were afforded based on their semi-official, non-organized status by reevaluating modernist trends from the 1920s and 1930s.

13 While I di ag ee i h hi a ic la a emen , Reid acc a el de c ibe S alini h g a h a aged, h ing from eye level, with no attempt to explore the expressive and emphatic potential of composition, angle, lighting and f c (Reid 34).

14 The journal was shut down in 1941 after the Soviet Union entered World War II. The publication of the reestablished Sovetskoe foto was approved in 1956, and the first new issue of the monthly journal was published in January 1957. Until January 1961, the journal published exclusively black and white images; afterwards, it incorporated color photographs for inserts and the front and back cover. Each issue of the journal ranged between forty and sixty pages in length. In 1960, the circulation of each issue of the journal reached 130,000. Though this number seems small, many copies were acquired by photography clubs and libraries, masking the number of individuals with access to the journal (Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv rossiiskoi federatsii 47-48).

(11)

54 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Figure 2. Ota Rikhter, Youth, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto, no. 12 (December 1959).

Aesthetically and at the level of representation, photographers in the 1950s and 1960s began incorporating elements of earlier modernist photographic styles into their work (Figure 2). Cropping and angular composition and framing resurfaced in the pages of Sovetskoe foto and in amateur work, and to a slightly lesser extent in popular illustrated magazines like Ogonek (Little Flame). Contributors to Sovetskoe foto

j bilan l decla ed ha he eeme gence f m de ni ae he ic fi ml ec ed h g a h lace am ng

the arts and used this claim in their attempts at unionization and professionalization (Werneke,

Reimagining he Hi f he A an -ga de 272). In he age f Sovetskoe foto, descriptions of this

eme ging le, hich I efe a a i ic h j nali m, gl ed e he ide l gical and ae he ic

differences of the competing modernist styles of the ROPF and Oktiabr. In this way, early Stalinist cultural policies were somewhat successful: by incorporating elements of both groups, artistic photojournalism

conveniently nullified competing modernist ver i n f h i all e e S ie h in

photographs.

By the 1960s, the stock declarations of photography having achieved the status of other artistic media were commonplace in Sovetskoe foto. Ye , he c nfiden and elf-congratulatory declarations barely reached the ears of the elitist Soviet art establishment, for they were made in the quite separate context of the

fe i n f j nali m (Reid 36). The e deba e e e ign ed b a i ic unions because they occurred

mostly within the confines of meetings of the Photography Section of the Union of Journalists, publications devoted specifically to photography, and read mostly among photographers themselves. Many publications

(12)

55 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

and articles about photography theory (even in Sovetskoe foto) carefully side-stepped these declarations, stating merely that photography contained the indexical properties of journalism coupled with the creative

and aesthetic qualities of Socialist Realist art.15 In his formative work on the history of Soviet Photography,

Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia fotografiia (Soviet Artistic Photography), critic Sergei Morozov wrote that

c mm nica i n i h he e de e mine he eng h f S ie a i ic h g a h (M ,

Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaia fotografiia 5). In his later work, Fotografia kak iskusstvo (Photography as Art), M m ed ha he de el men f c ea i e h g a h in he la decade [ he 1960 ], suggests that documentary photography is increasingly a e ing i elf a an inde enden a f m, and ha

Ph g a h bea he h ab he life f ciali c n (M , Fotografia kak iskusstvo 26,

31). Fotografiia kak iskusstvo c ciall d a a c nnec i n be een hf l h g a hic evidence of

Soviet life and its independence from other artistic media.

O he c i ic ech ed h g a h c nnec i n eali , h, and a . Le nid V lk -Lannit wrote that

cce f l h g a h c ld be e al a ed b a ingle c i e i n: h i mea res the truth and beauty of

life E e hing ignifican in a c me f m he h f life... (V lk -Lannit 24). A. Zis, a philosophy

scholar and frequent contributor to Sovetskoe foto, e, The a f h g a h i dee l eali ic b i

very natu e A h g a h i ne f he l m de n f m f eali m in a (Zi 20). Tha c i ic

f c ed n a i and c ea i i , hile al c ncen a ing n h and eali ngl gge ha

artistic photojournalism developed as a response to questions about what purpose photography served in the late Soviet period. Increasingly, photography publications and Sovetskoe foto relied on these features of photography as a means of explaining the medium in terms of its connections to Socialist Realism. Based on the principles of Marxist-Leninist concepts of socialist artistic culture (as interpreted by the Party),

S ie a demanded a fai hf l eflec i n f eali ha f ll ed he d c ine f a affilia i n and

nationality, [and] a close relati n hi he life f he e le (L kin 4). A Zi e lained, T e a

cannot lie -- and in hi en e, eali m lie in he na e f a i ic c ea i i (Zi 20). A i ic

photojournalism performed each of these functions, arguably more completely than any other art based on its indexical features. Thus, if critics were to argue that photography was artistic, as they chose to do, focusing on the documentary and journalistic aspects of the media and its relationship to the people (published in illustrated journals and magazines, rather than hidden in museums, libraries, and conservatories), was the most effective means to argue for the artistic value of photography, and furthermore, as being a unique art form in that its mechanical reproducibility, connec i n eali , and creativity made it the archetypal Socialist Realist medium.

15 In 1968, Sovetskoe foto published a year-long series of articles debating the role of art and photography, though the a h , M. Kagin, failed each a defini i e c ncl i n. In ead, he in ed he a i ic and c ea i e fea e f photography that made it unique amongst artistic media (Kagin 27).

(13)

56 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Figure 3: L. Ustinov and D. Khrenov, Motocross, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto no. 1 (January 1959)

For critics, the documentary features of the medium (connected to reality) complied with Socialist

Reali m em ha i n a ic la h and eali m, hile he c ea i e a ec f h g a h (angle

of shooting, cropping, subject choice, composition, etc.) evidenced authorial and artistic intent (Figure 3). In the 1950s and 1960s, theoretical arguments about the place and status of Soviet photography concentrated on these two main ideas that were linked to one another. They first focused on the purpose of photographic indexicality and its relations to realism and to journalism. Photography in the Soviet Union

h ld be d c men a , a e n eali , a e e e en a i n f e e da life and a de a e f m

staged photographs (a rejection of late Stalinist press photography). The second component of these arguments determined the aesthetics of photography or the form documentary photography was to take. In

other words, the manner in which reality was to be presented to viewers. Volkov-Lanni e ha S ie

photography does not ignore sharp angles...However, we do not pursue photographic properties as an end

in hem el e , hich ine i abl lead di i n (V lk -Lannit 19). Volkov-Lannit reveals that the

sharp angles, abstraction, and experimentation with perspective, points of view, and lighting pursued by

modernist photographers were not at odds with contemporary Soviet photography.16 Incorporating or

exploring these technical and stylistic aspects in photography was not only acceptable, but actively encouraged as a means of demonstrating the artistic capabilities of photography, and thus connecting the

medi m d c men a e ie i h S ciali Reali ae he ic . M de ni h g a h , ba ed n he

work of artist-photographers in the 1920s and 1930s, resurfaced as a means of fulfilling the simultaneous requirements of index and artistry in Soviet photojournalism. Critics argued that the resulting photographs

e e in e en iall S ciali Reali a beca e he f lfilled he le f a and d c men

simultaneously.

16 Rather, the pursuit of photography for aesthetics alone, or a digression into formalism where the design and composition are more pronounced than the subject, of which the Western and Russian modernist photographers were guilty, made these images unacceptable.

(14)

57 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

In a way, (Socialist) Realism in photography, which I argue was expressed via the emerging style of artistic photojournalism, could only exist in the post-Stalinist context. It did not fit with the revolutionary ethos and agitprop of the Bolshevik period and was certainly too realist and rooted in actuality to visually represent the Stalinist period. Thus, artistic photojournalism emerged as the government and Party no longer relied on violent repression as a means of maintaining political order and as officials were actively searching for a means of exposing flaws in the historical narrative and ideology of Stalinism.

Modernist photography that flourished in the early years of Bolshevism eventually gave way to the arrest

and imprisonment of prominent photographers and journalists in the late 1930s.17 It was only after

photographers no longer feared (based on their creative style or choice of subject) for their immediate safety that they could return to or experiment with alternatives to Stalinist photographic representation. Rejecting Stalinism in photography manifested itself in rejecting that which his policies discarded, namely modernist aesthetics.

Epilogue: What Became of the Soviet Photograph?

In the Thaw era, discussions about photography intersected and incorporated the complex political and

cial di bance ha e l ed f m Kh hche en ncemen f he S alini a and he in i i n

of patchy cultural liberalization. Photographers were tasked with visualizing the changed environment through the authoritative authenticity and indexicality of the photograph. But, for photographers,

ee al a ing S ie h and eali in he -Stalinist era was more than an exercise in

documentality. It was an aesthetic break from Stalinist era staged photography and the focus on momentous

bjec . I ided ni e l e e e da life and dina ci i en ; e eal ne h

about Soviet existence; to attempt to elevate their status within the Soviet cultural community. Stylistically, this required a major shift away from Stalinist era press photography and prompted a reassessment of photography in general: Its relation to reality and truth, how that truth was best expressed (aesthetically), and what could be gained by individuals within the photographic industry through reexamining the artistic

and documentary properties of the medium (Figure 4).18

17 Aleksandr Danilovich Grinberg and Gustav Klutsis were the two most prominent photographers arrested in the 1930s. Grinberg was arrested for distributing pornography and sentenced to five years of hard labor in the Baikal-Amur Gulag complex (Obnazhennye dlia Stalina 14). Kl i a e in S alin La ian O e a i n ha

ema icall a ge ed e hnic La ian ac he S ie Uni n f a e and e ec i n. He a killed in Feb a 1938. Andrejs Plakans estimates that over 70,000 Latvians disappeared between 1937 and 1938 (Plakans 120 121). F f he inf ma i n ab he La ian O e a i n, ee T a n . Mikhail K l , he iginal edi and f nde of Sovetskoe foto, was arrested in 1938, accused of espionage, and shot dead in 1941 (Efimov 292). L. Mezhericher, a photography critic and the editor of many illustrated journals in the 1920s and 1930s was arrested in 1937 and again in 1938 f , am ng he cha ge , he di emina i n f f eign an i-Soviet image . He was executed in February 1938 for counter-revolutionary sabotage (Genealogicheskaia vaza znanii).

(15)

58 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Figure 4. Fig. 4: Yuri Muravin. Girl from Kamchatka, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto no. 12 (December 1961).

Though modernist aesthetics of the 1950s and 1960s were less experimental than the trends in early Bolshevik era photography, the explosion of the accessibility of cameras (and other required materials for photographic production) during the period was nothing less than a watershed moment in Soviet history. In 1960, cameras and other photographic materials generated 300 million rubles in the Soviet Union (Krimerman 22). This was a result of the increased emphasis on providing the population with consumer

d c . I al e e a e idence f he S ie lace in e e in h g a h . A nd he ame ime,

amateur photography clubs sprung up across the Soviet Union, not only in the capital cities of each Republic, but also in smaller regional cities as well. In some cases, amateur activity was spurred by the Ministry of Culture, but by the 1960s, clubs were formed based on the initiative and interest of local

hobbyists.19 H e e , a Kh hche C l al Tha ga e a he B e hne e a, f en efe red to as

the Stagnation Period, the pleas of photographers for the elevation of photography as an artistic pursuit

d ced fe calc lable e l . A h g a he ni n a ne e f med, and he en h ia m f he la e

1950s and early 1960s was, for all intents and purposes, gratuitous in terms of an official recognition of

photography as an artistic medium.20

Aesthetically, however, the Cultural Thaw solidified artistic photojournalism as the only acceptable means of photographic representation. This did not occur by official decree, but instead through the reinforcement of the style by critics and in Sovetskoe foto. While some aspects of the liberalizing trends of the Thaw persisted in photography, including the general consensus that not all nude photographs constituted

19 Order No. 467 issued by the Minister of Culture of the Lat ian SSR J ni O n 29 Ma 1957. The S a e Archives of Latvia, (LVA 678. f., 2. apr., 160. l., 1 1p).

20 The founding of the Lithuanian Society of Art Photography in 1969 is the one exception to the official lack of recognition of art photography (See Michelkevicius).

(16)

59 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

pornography, stylistically artistic photojournalism became the de facto practice for images circulated in the press, and were replicated by amateur club members.

Critics and photojournalists were in a state of arrested development, unable to move beyond artistic

h j nali m. Tha hich had been a adical ejec i n f S alini h g a hic ae he ic became he

mundane norm decades later. Similarly, critics seemed incapable or unwilling to couch photography in terms beyond its dual indexical and artistic qualities. They simply could not divorce the medium from its connections to reality, and this perhaps indicates one of the memetic failures of photography within the Soviet system: Socialist Realism was based on the conflation of reality, ideology, and utopianism. So long as Socialist Realism existed as the only official artistic genre, photography could not be considered art. Without overt, direct staging (which had been denounced in the post-Stalinist era), photography was simply too rooted in reality to produce the rosy narrative of Soviet life that the government required of the arts. Nonetheless, the indexicality and reproducibility of photographs made the medium indispensable.

If artistic photojournalism solved the conundrum of what constituted a Soviet photograph, it hardly led to genuine innovation after the Cultural Thaw, nor was it particularly more adept at illustrating the truths of Soviet life than its Stalinist and modernist predecessors. But, if we ignore Soviet restrictions on what could or could not be shown, we are still confronted with the limitations of photography: it is capable of showing that which exists or existed, but it is unable to produce a comprehensive narrative chronical of reality, whether that reality is fictional, imagined, manufactured or, in fact, true. The framing of a photograph

e e en he ini ial elec i n ( f ha a e a en i n) in he c ea i n f he h g a h i elf,

mi ing inf ma i n ha migh he i e inf m he ie e in erpretation of reality (Reischl 12). Thus, the truths revealed in Soviet photographs, or any photograph for that matter, are merely imprints of partial truths that allow the viewer to graft their own memories, experiences, and understanding of reality on to traces of the past.

Works Cited

Bendavid-Val, Leah. Propaganda and Dreams; Photographing the 1930s in the USSR and the US. Edition Stemmle, 1999.

Benjamin, Walter. Denkbilder. Suhrkamp, 1974.

Bittner, Stephen V. T e Ma L e K c e T a : E e e ce a d Me M c A ba .

Cornell UP, 2008.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Randall Johnson. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford UP, 1998.

Dicke man, Leah. Came a Ob c a: S ciali Reali m in he Shad f Ph g a h . October, vol. 93,

no.3, 2000: pp. 138-153.

Dobrenko, Evgeny. Political Economy of Socialist Realism. Yale UP, 2007. Efimov, B. De a De a e . Vagrius, 2000.

(17)

60 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Genealogicheskaia vaza znanii: persony, familii, khronika, Mezhericher, Leonid Petrovich (n.d). Retrieved

from <http://baza.vgdru.com/1/21095/>

G ld chmid , Pa l W. Legi la i n n P n g a h in R ia. Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 4, no. 6, 1995,

pp. 909-922.

Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv rossiiskoi federatsii (GARF) f. 9425, op. 2, d. 285. GARF f. 9425, op. 2, d. 317. Groys, Boris. Art Power. MIT Press, 2008.

Kagin, M. S de hanie i f ma i edeniiakh f i k a. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 5, 1968, pp. 25-27.

King, David. The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia. Metropolitan Books, 1997.

Kene , Pe e . The C l al Re l i n in Cinema. Slavic Review, vol. 47, no. 3, 1988, pp. 414-433.

Kozloff, Max. The Privileged Eye. U of New Mexico P, 1987.

K ime man, P. D m f kin li bi elia M k e. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 10, 1961, pp. 21-22.

Kozlov, Denis and Eleonory Gilburd. The Thaw: Soviet Society and Culture During the 1950s and 1960s. The U of Toronto P, 2013.

Lenin, Vladimi . Ma e iali m and Em i i c i ici m. Collected Works, vol. XIII, Lawrence and Wishart, 1938.

L dde , Ch i ina. P m ing C n c i i m: Kino-fot and R dchenk M e in Ph g a h .

History of Photography, vol. 24, no. 4, 2015, pp. 292-299.

Lukin, Y. A. XXIV S e d KPSS b e d e e . Znanie, 1972.

L nacha kii, A. V. Na ha k l a i f g afiia. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 1, 1926, pp. 2. LVA 678. f., 2. apr.,

160 l.

Michelkevicius, Vytautas. The Lithuanian SSR Society of Art photography (1969-1989): An Image

Production Network. Vilnius Academy of Arts Press, 2011.

Morozov, Sergei Aleksandrovich. Fotografiia kak iskusstvo. Znanie, 1970.

Morozov, Sergei Aleksandrovich. Sovetskaia khudozhestvennaya fotografiia. Iskusstvo, 1958.

M ei f i k a na b de !. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 3, 1966, pp. 24.

Obnazhennye dlia Stalina: Sovetskaia fotografiia 1920-1940-kh godov. Punktum, 2004.

Plakans, Andrejs. The Latvians: A Short History. Hoover Institution Press, 1995.

Plam e , Jan. Ab li hing Ambig i : S ie Cen hi P ac ice in he 1930 . The Russian Review, vol.

60, no. 4, 2001, pp.526-544.

Reischl, Katherine M. H. Photographic Literacy: Cameras in the Hands of Russian Authors. Cornell UP, 2018.

Reid, S an E. Ph g a h in he Tha . Art Journal, vol. 53, no. 2, 1994, pp. 33-39.

(18)

61 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

2007, pp. 278-306.

Russell, Michael. Soviet Montage as Propaganda and Political Rhetoric. 2009. University of Edinburgh, PhD Dissertation.

Shaikhet, Arkadii. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 6, 1934, pp. 13-15.

Shneer, David. Through Soviet Jewish Eyes: Photography, War, Holocaust. Rutgers UP, 2011.

Stephenson, Svetlana. Crossing the Line: Vagrancy, Homelessness and Social Displacement in Russia. Routledge, 2006.

Stigneev, V. T. Vek Fotographii: ocherkii istorii otechestvennoi fotografii 1894-1994. Knizhni Dom LIBROKOM, 2009.

Sverdl k, G. V m hn i f h nali iki. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 6, 1957, pp. 14-15.

Swiderski, Edward M. The Philosophical Foundations of Soviet Aesthetics: Theories and Controversies in

the Post-War Years. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.

Tagg, John. The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. U of Minnesota P, 1993.

Ta l , Richa d. S ie Cinema a P la C l e: O he E a dina Ad en e f M . Ne man in

he Land f he Sil e Sc een. Revolutionary Russia, vol. 1, no. 1, 1988, pp. 36-56.

Tifen ale, Ali e. The O igin f Homo Novus in La ian Ph g a h , This Is Latvia: Photographs

2007-2011, edited by Helena Demakova and Alise Tifentale, Andrejsala, 2007-2011, pp.14-27.

T a n , And i . The La ian C mm ni Pa and he P ge f 1937. Journal of Baltic Studies, vol. 11,

no. 1, 1980: pp. 25-38.

Tupitsyn, Margarita. The Soviet Photograph, 1924-1937. Yale UP, 1996.

Vik lina, Eka e ina. Vla i media: Vi al naia e li iia he ide ia kh. Cahiers du Monde Russe,

vol. 2, no. 56, 2015, pp. 429-466.

Volkov-Lanni , Le nid. I k a d hi ni. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 1, 1965, pp. 24-25.

Werneke, Jessica. N b d Unde and ha i Bea if l and Wha i N : G e ning S ie Ama e Photography, Photography Clubs and the Journal Sovetskoe foto. Photography and Culture, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019, pp. 47-68.

We neke, Je ica. Reimagining he Hi f he A an -garde: Photography and the Journal Sovetskoe

foto in he 1950 and Ea l 1960 . The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, vol. 44, no. 3, 2017, pp. 264-291.

W lf, E ika. The Soviet Union: From Worker to Proletarian Photography, The Worker Photography

Movement 1926-1939: Essays and Documents, edited by Jorge Ribalta, Reina Sofia Museum, 2011, pp.

32-46.

Wolfe, Thomas C. Governing Soviet Journalism: The Press and the Socialist Person after Stalin. Indiana UP, 2005.

Zi , A. O iali i iche k m eali me i k e f g afii. Sovetskoe foto, vol. 5, 1965, pp. 20-23.

(19)

62 IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE Vol. 21, No.2 (2020)

Jessica Werneke is a British Academy Newton International Fellow at Loughborough University and former Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the International Centre for the History and Sociology of World War II and its Consequences at the NRU Higher School of Economics in Moscow. She received her PhD in History from the University of Texas at Austin in May of 2015. Her recent work explores the aftermath of Stalinist cultural policies in photojournalism, amateur photography and visual culture.

Figure

Figure 1. Arkadii Shaikhet, Gostorg Entrance, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto, no
Figure 2. Ota Rikhter, Youth, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto, no. 12 (December 1959)
Figure 3: L. Ustinov and D. Khrenov, Motocross, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto no
Figure 4. Fig. 4: Yuri Muravin. Girl from Kamchatka, black-and-white photograph, Sovetskoe foto no

Références

Documents relatifs

First, we designed and fabricated a robotic postural interface that allows real-time control of mediolateral trunk orientation during locomotion in rats with severe spinal

Plus récemment, Alison Froese, promotrice passionnée de l ’HFO rappelle, dans un chapitre co-écrit (dans l ’édition 2013 du prestigieux livre de Martin Tobin intitulé Principles

Résultats : 1. Avec une dose de 0,001 mg/g, nous induisons une baisse de 20 % de la FC chez les souris sans autre différence significative entre les souris LPS et LPS

Keywords Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease · COPD · Anxiety · Depression · Quality of life · Intensive care

Objectif : Évaluer si l’augmentation de la pression artérielle (PA, mesurée via un cathéter artériel ou un brassard automatique) permet d’identifier les patients ayant

ont montré chez 35 patients obèses la corrélation forte qui existait entre la PaCO 2 et la PtcCO 2 , avec des différences moyennes de –1,4 mmHg, mais également, pour les 18

Cependant, là où les monnaies traditionnelles recourraient à un tiers qui se portait garant de leur solvabilité, par exemple un prince, une banque, un État,

Although the second element of the discontinuous negator NEG___ bu in Tarifit (and indirectly also in MAO) looks very similar to the Tuareg negation particle bo, it