Aesthetics of Alienation: Reassessment of Early Soviet Cultural Theories

Notes

Notes 127 INTRODUCTION 1. Dobrenko, The Making of the State Reader. 2. Dobrenko, The Making of the State Writer. CHAPTER ONE 1. For more detail, see Bez”iazychnyi, “Poeziia nauki i nauka poezii.” 2. Chizhevskii, Akademiia Poezii: Proekt, pp. 10–11. 3. Ibid., p. 20. 4. Ibid., p. 21. 5. Ibid., pp. 21–23. 6. Ibid., pp. 24–25. 7. Ibid., pp. 23–24. 8. Ibid., pp. 25–26. 9. Ibid., p. 26. 10. Ibid., p. 31. 11. Various aspects of 1920s aesthetic concepts have been examined in the following representative works: “industrial art” (Mazaev, Kontseptsiia “proizvodstvennogo iskusstva” 20-kh godov), the sociology of art (Novozhilova , Sotsiologiia iskusstva), the problem of tradition (Aliev, Problema klassicheskogo naslediia), concepts of style (Eidinova, Stil’ khudozhnika), and the “artistic method” (Akimov, V sporakh o khudozhestvennom metode, Ermolaev, Soviet Literary Theories, and others). Important works on Proletkult (Mally, Culture of the Future), RAPP (Brown, The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature; Sheshukov, Neistovye revniteli), Pereval (Maguire, Red Virgin Soil; Belaia, Don-Kikhoty 20-kh godov), and the Serapion Brothers (Oulanoff, The Serapion Brothers) have viewed 1920s aesthetic problems as integral to the context of these groups’ “common ideas.” LEFists, constructivists, and other groups have received similar treatments. 12. In Russian, RAPP is Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia proletarskikh pisatelei, and LEF is Levyi front iskusstv. The full name of Pereval is the “Pereval” All-Union Organization of Worker-Peasant Writers (Vsesoiuznoe ob”edine- Notes to Pages 8–18 128 nie raboche-krest’ianskikh pisatelei “Pereval”). The word “pereval” means “crossing” or “pass.” 13. See Dobrenko, The Making of the State Reader. 14. This idea was laconically formulated by Arkadii Belinkov: “The artist differs from the nonartist in that he writes what he sees, and in other artistic eras what he knows, and never what others tell him” (Belinkov, Sdacha i gibel’ sovetskogo intelligenta, p. 22–23). CHAPTER TWO 1. Merezhkovskii, “O prichinakh upadka,” pp. 12–13. 2. Briusov, “Istiny (Nachala i nameki),” p. 60. 3. Briusov, “Kliuchi tain,” pp. 91–92. 4. See Blium, Za kulisami “Ministerstva pravdy.” 5. Mazaev, Kontseptsiia “proizvodstvennogo iskusstva” 20-kh godov, p. 222. 6. Bogdanov, “Sovremennye idealy (1917),” p. 285. 7. Bogdanov, “Voprosy sotsializma,” p. 332. 8. Ibid., p. 334. 9. Ibid., p. 350. 10. For an analysis of Ivanov’s theory in this context, see Mazaev, Prazdnik kak sotsial’no-khudozhestvennoe iavlenie, pp. 135–59. 11. Markov, “Revoliutsionnyi teatr,” p. 373. 12. See V. B. Blok, “Khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo mass.” 13. Kerzhentsev, Tvorcheskii teatr, pp. 67, 78, 89. 14. Ibid., pp. 71–72. 15. Quoted in V. B. Blok, “Khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo mass,” p. 137. 16. I have attempted to demonstrate this on the basis of Soviet literary material in The Making of the State Reader (particularly in chapter 3). 17. V. B. Blok, “Khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo mass,” p. 117. 18. Gusev, Estetika fol’klora, p. 269. 19. Ibid., p. 270. 20. V. B. Blok, “Khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo mass,” p. 119. 21. Lebedev-Polianskii, “Ob ideologii v literature,” pp. 99, 107. 22. See Blium, Za kulisami “Ministerstva pravdy,” pp. 92–93. 23. Mikhail Iampol’skii’s formulation: “Censorship as the triumph of life.” 24. See Aliev, Problema klassicheskogo naslediia v russkoi sovetskoi literaturnoi kritike 20-kh godov. 25. Mazaev, Kontseptsiia “proizvodstvennogo iskusstva” 20-kh godov, p. 36. 26. Ibid., p. 36. 27. Ibid., pp. 82–83. 28. Ibid., p. 84. Notes to Pages 18–27 129 29. Tret’iakov, “Iskusstvo v revoliutsii i revoliutsiia v iskusstve,” p. 116. 30. Mazaev, Kontseptsiia “proizvodstvennogo iskusstva” 20-kh godov, p. 87. 31. Ibid., p. 34. 32. Merezhkovskii, “O prichinakh upadka,” p. 11. 33. Lunacharskii, “Sotsialisticheskoe stroitel’stvo i iskusstvo,” p. 118. 34. Novozhilova, Sotsiologiia iskusstva, p. 63. 35. Bogdanov, O proletarskoi kul’ture, p. 138. 36. Bessal’ko, “Futurizm i proletarskaia kul’tura,” p. 10. 37. Literaturnye manifesty. Ot simvolizma k Oktiabriu, t. 1, pp. 143–44. 38. Lebedev-Polianskii, “Voprosy sovremennoi kritiki,” p. xx–xxi. 39. Pletnev, “O professionalizme,” p. 34. 40. Pletnev, “Sovremennyi moment i zadachi Proletkul’ta,” p. 25. 41. Pletnev, “Na ideologicheskom fronte,” p. 3. 42. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, t. 38, p. 368. 43. V. I. Lenin o kul’ture i iskusstve, p. 522. 44. Ibid., p. 520. 45. Ibid. 46. See Rudnitskii et al., “Iskusstvo, rozhdennoe revoliutsiei,” p. 32. 47. Trotsky, Literatura i revoliutsiia, p. 147. 48. Gastev, “O tendentsiiakh proletarskoi kul’tury,” p. 45. 49. Ibid. 50. Pletnev, “Proletarskii byt: Staroe i novoe,” p. 75. 51. See Pletnev, “Na ideologicheskom fronte...