The Daily Worker Newspaper, November 27, 1926, Page 10

Lenin and Art - - Translated from the German by Sophie Schmidt. ‘ Sema had very little time in his life to give close attention to art; and in that respect he usually considered himself totally incompetent. For that reason, as all dilettantism was foreign and hateful to him, he did not like to give an opinion on ques- tions of art. His tastes, however, were nonetheless definite. He Joved the Russian classics, and he liked realism in literature, painting, etc. Once, in the year 1905, the time of the first revo- lution, he had the opportunity to spend a night at the home of Comrade D, I. Leshtchenko, which con- tained a whole series of Knackfuss monographs of the world’s greatest artists. On the next morning Viadimir Ilyitch said to me, “How wonderful is the realm of the history of art! How much work it offers for the Communist! Last night I could not go to sleep till morning~I examined one book after another. And it vexed me that I had no time to occupy myself with art, and that I never shall have!” Several times I had the opportunity—it was after the revolution—to confer with Lenin at various oc- casions about matters of art. I remember, for ex- ample, that he once asked me over the telephone to go with him and Kamenev to see an exhibit of models for a statue which was to be set up oh the magnificent pedestal next to the Christ Cathedral in the Krem],.from which the figure of Alexander III had just been removed. Vladimir Iyitch examined all these models with a critical eye. Not one pleased him. For a long time he contemplated a monument in a futuristic style, and when asked for his opinion, he answered, “Here I comprehend nothing; ask Lunatcharsky.” Upon my remark that I saw no design worthy of execution, he wag very happy and said, “And I thought you would set up some futur- istic scare-crow!” At another time a memorial of Karl Marx was under consideration, The well-known sculptor, M. manifested a particular obstinacy.. He exhibited a large project for a statue called, “Karl Marx on the Four Elephants.” This unexpected conception ap- peared very curious to us, and also to Vladimir llyitch. The artist began to alter his design, and he did. this three times; under no circumstances did he wish to forego the victory over his competitors. When under my chairmanship the jury definitely rejected his model and gave preference to a com- mon design of a group of artists under the direction of Alyoshin, the sculptor M. rushed into the study of Vladimir Ilyitch and complained to him about the matter. Vladimir Ilyitch took his grievance to heart and asked me over the telephone to call in a new jury. He declared that he would inspect the model of Alyoshin and that of the sculptor M. himself. He actually came, and approved Alyoshin’s design; but that of the sculptor M. he also rejected, In the same year the group of Alyoshin erected for the May celebration a miniature of Karl Marx on the spot where the memorial was to be placed. Viadimir Ilyitch walked several times around the statue, asked suddenly how large it was going to be, finally declared himself satisfied, added, how- ever, turning to me, “Anatoly Vasilyevitch, remind the artist to see that the hair of the head be more like, so as to give the same good impression as does a portrait of Marx; it seems as if it were a little unlike.” Already in the year 1918, Vladimir Ilyitch called me to him and told me that art ought to be used for agitation purposes; at the same time he presented two projects to me, First, aceording to his opinion, buildings, walls, etc., where bills are usually post- ed, should be furnished with large revolutionary in- scriptions, several of which he at once suggested. Gen, Brichnitchev took up this project later, when he was director of the branch for mass-education in Homel. When I came to Homel, I found the city literally covered with these inscriptions, which real- ly would not have been bad, had they been true to the original conception, Even the mirrors in a large restaurant, where an enlightenment committee was quartered, were written over with proverbs and citations. In Moscow and Leningrad this idea was never realized, neither in the exaggerated form of Homel nor in one resembling the conception of Ilyitch. The second project dealt with the erection of memorials for the great revolutionists, and‘on a very large scale. Provisional statues of plaster of Paris were to be set up in Leningrad as well as in Moscow. Both cities responded with enthusiasm to my suggestion that Lenin’s plan be carried out. It was intended that every monmment be solemnly in- augurated with @ speech on the particular revolution- ist; the rest was to be left to enlightening inscrip- tions. Vladimir Dlyitch referred to this as “Monu- ment-propaganda,” In Leningrad this propaganda was very success- ful, The first of the memorials was by Sherwood By and represented Raditchev. A copy of this monu- ment was set up-in Moscow. Unfortunately the original in Leningrad was broken and*has not been replaced, On the whole, because of their fragility, most good memorials in Leningrad did not last long. Among them-I remember very good ones; for ex- ample, busts of Garibaldi, Shevtchenko, Dobrolubov, Herzen, and several others. The statues in a left- radical vein proved less successful. When, for ex- ample, the cubistically styled head of Peryovskaya was unveiled, some of the spectators were quite ap- palled, and S, Lilina made the positive demand that the statue be removed immedately. The memorial of Tchernishevsky also, was deemed too artificial by many. Most satisfactory was the monument of Lassalle by Selit. This statue, placed in front of the former city duma,/is still intact. 1 believe it is of bronze, The monument of Marx by Matveyev, representing him standing, also turned out well. Unfortunately it was soon broken, and a bronze-head of Marx in the usual style, without the original plas- - tic conception of Matveyev, took its place at the Smolny. The Moscow monuments were less successful. -Marx and Engels were represented in a sort of basin gand received the designation, “The Bearded Bath- ers.” The sculptor K. surpassed all others. For a long time men and horses coming through Myaznit- skaya Street cist furtive, uneasy glances at a queer, spooky figure, covered by way of caution, with boards. It was Bakunin in the conception of the worthy artist. It I am not mistaken, the monument was destroyed immediately after its inauguration by anarchists, who, in spite of their advanced point of view, could not tolerate such sculptural derision of their leader’s memory. j In general, there were few satisfactory monuments in Moscow. Better than the others is perhaps the monument of Nikitin. I do not know whether Ilyitch has given close attention to these memorials; at any rate, he told me once with a certain dissatisfaction, that the monument propaganda had turned to no account, By way of an answer, I pointed out the experience in Leningrad and the testimony of Zino- viey. Vladimir Ilyitch shook his head doubtfully and said, “Should all talent be concentrated in Petro- grad, and in Moscow—-only amateurs?” I was not in a position to explain to him this extraordinary phe- nomenon, . He also had certain skepticisms concerning the “Memorial-Tablet” of the sculptor, Konenkov, Not without humor Konenkov named his work “The Pseudo-Real Tablet.” I also recollect how the art ist, Altman, once gave Lenin a bas-relief represent: ing Chalturin. Vladimir Ilyitch was greatly pleased with the bas-relief, but asked me whether it was not a@ futuristic work. He was altogether adverse to futurism. I was not present when Lenin once visited a home of artists which, if I am not mistaken, had been inhabited by a young relative of his, Later I was informed of a discussion between him and the artists of this group, who were all of the radical turn of mind. Vladimir Ilyitch avoided serious dis- cussion, jested and ridiculed a little; but here, too, he declared that he did not consider himself suffi- ciently competent to talk seriously about the mat- ter. Youth itself he loved, and rejoiced over its Communistic spirit. ; In the last period of his life, Vladimir Ilyitch seldom had the opportunity to enjoy art. He was several times at the theater; I believe, without ex ception at the Art theater which he esteemed very highly. This theater always made an excellent im- Pression on him. 4 Vladimir Ilyitch loved music exceedingly, but its effect on him was too strong. For some time good concerts took place at my home. Schaliapin sang occasionally, Meitchik played, or Romanovsky, the quartet of Stradivarius, Kusevisky and others. I often asked Viadimir Ilyitch to come, but he always was busy. Once he told me frankly, “Certainly it fa &@ great pleasure to hear music, but you see, it a A. V. Lunacharsky affects me too muchy I cannot stand it very well” I recollect that Gen. Tchurupa, who succeeded sev- eral times in bringing Vladimir Ilyitch to attend a concert at his home at which the same Romanovsky played, also told me that Lenin enjoyed the music greatly, but that he was obviously very agitated. I will add that Vladimir Ilyitch was yery critical about the government theater. I pointed out to him several times that we enjoyed the theater at rela- tively moderate cost; -but he insisted that state sub- sidies for this theater be abolished. In this matter Viadimir Ilyitch was guided by two considerations. The one he named forthwith, “It ig not fair to spend large sums on a magnificent theater, when we have no means to maintain the most primitive schools in the villages.” The other consideration he brought out at a meeting, where I refuted his attacks on the * great theater. I emphasized the unquestionably great cultural value of this institute. Vladimir [ly- itch screwed up his eyes sardonically and said, “And yet, no one can deny that it is a piece of the purest “feudal-culture.” It does not necessarily follow that Vladimir Ilyitch was hostile to all culture of the past. Specifically, he considered “seignorial” the entire ostentatious courtly tone of the opera.. Art of the past in general, and especially, Russian realism (including also the tendéncies of the “Peredvishniki”), was rated very highly by Vladimir Llyitch. These are the facts which I can present out of my reminisceses of Ilyitch. I repeat that to Lenin his esthetic sympathies and antipathies never became principles. Comrades interested in art remember the declara- tion of the central committee, concerning questions of art and directed severely against futurism. I have no further information on the matter, but I am inclined to think that Vladimir Ilyitch was in some way connected with it. Lenin at that time quite erroneously considered me a follower of futurism and a man who supported that view exclusively; and therefore, perhaps, he did not consult me be fore the publication of this rescript of the, commit- tee—apparently endeavoring to correct my behavior. A difference of opinion, and a very acute one, existed between Vladimir Ilyitch and myself on the subject of the “Proletcult.” Once, in fact, he up braided me very harshly. I will observe, first of all, that Vladimir Ilyitch by no means denied the impor- tance of workers’ groups for the purpose of develop- ing authors and artists out of proletarian ranks; he even considered an all-Russian federation of such . Broups advisable. But he feared the pretentions of the proletcult—the endeavor to take over the em tire development of proletarian science and culture. This seemed to him in the first place entirely pre- mature and a task surpassing the resources at hand; secondly, he was of the opinion that the proletarian © would, by such a system, be caused to neglect the study and the acquisition of the already existing science and culture; thirdly, Vladimir Ilyitch ’ obvi- ously feared also the possibility of political dissen- tions growing up in the proletcult. He was quite an- noyed, for example, by the important role played by A. A. Bogdanov in the prolet¢ult, In the year 1920, when the conference of the pro- letcult was in session, Viadimir-Ilyitch asked me to go there and to point out definitely that the prolet cult must work under the leadership of the people’s commissariat for enlightenment, that it must con- sider itself part of that institution, etc. In a word, Vladimir Ilyitch desired that the proletcult be drawn closer to the state, while he at the same time took measures calculated to intensify the relationshjp between the proletcult and the party. The speech I then made at the conference was fairly evasive and conciliatory. To me it seemed wrong to injure the assembled workers with a violent attack. Vladimir Ilyitch learned about the speech in a form still milder, He called me to him and there was an ex- plosion. Later the proletcult was reconstructed ac- cording to the directions of Vladimir Ilyitch. I re peat, he never intended to dissolve the proletcult; on the contrary, he was sympathetic with its purely artistic pursuits. The new artistic literary formations which grew up during the revolution received little attention from Vladimir Ilyitch. He had no time to occupy himself with them. At any rate, I know that the “Hundred and Fifty Millions” of Mayakovsky did not please Vladimir Ilyitch in the least. He con- sidered this book to be affected and superficial.* It is to be deplored that Lenin could not pronounce judgment on later and more mature development of literature in the revolutionary direction, The enormous interest of Vladimir Lyitch in the photoplay is well known to everybody. “On the other hand, a little poem of Mayakovsky, treating of a hobo, made Vladimir Nyitch laugh, and occasionally he even repeated several lines of it, eee ey