Art Versus Dictatorships: Can You Suppress The Creative Mind? | Sedonna Henok

Dictators aim to exercise absolute control over their citizens, whether it be functional, ideological or within the cultural sphere. As a result of the provocative capability of art, there is a perceived necessity for dictators to subjugate and control its presentations. This necessity is reflected throughout history, uncovering the interplay between art and authoritarian regimes. But through these dictatorships, has art ever successfully been suppressed?

Art Vs Government Throughout History

Totalitarianism regimes have frequently and persistently affected the artistic world. From the 1937 Degenerate Art exhibition in Nazi Germany to the propaganda output within Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union, control over art has become a typical convention of totalitarianism regimes. This control does not always manifest as suppression due to a recognised potential from dictators to use art as propaganda and control the creative mind into supporting the regimes.

Within the Soviet Union, the cultural doctrine of Socialist Realism mandated an idealisation of life under the regime. The Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (1922-1933) was a group of artists that heavily promoted this movement, claiming their art was meant to capture the “revolutionary impulse of this great moment of history”. Socialist Realism portrayed the ‘New Soviet Man’, a heroic archetype that thrived in glamorous landscapes of Soviet Russia. After World War II, this doctrine was embraced by the communist allies of the Soviet Union, expanding this restrictive form of art as a dominant means of propaganda. The Soviet culture became dominated with representations of an idyllic paradise within communism, reinforcing its beauty to its citizens.

The control of the creative mind is further reflected within Nazi Germany. As previously mentioned, the Degenerate Art exhibition served to condemn artists that did not align with the Nazi party. After the Nazi party’s control in 1933, an effort known as Gleichschaltung took place, initiating the ‘coordination’ or ‘synchronisation’ of the Nazi identity across Germany. The creation of the Reich Chamber of Culture in 1933 prompted the beginnings of a shift in perception of art.

'Degenerate Art' exhibition catalogue, front cover (left) and p.31 (right), published by Verlag für Kultur- und Wirtschaftswerbung, 1937, Berlin, Germany.

Modern art began to be mocked on a smaller scale among local officials, but a centralised attack underwent in summer 1937. The first annual Great German Art Exhibition in Munich contained artwork personally selected by Adolf Hitler, restricting representation of German avant-garde art. Later, the ‘Degenerate Art’ exhibition was created, with more than 600 artworks by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and others presented in degrading ways.

'Self-Portrait as an Invalid', Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, 1917-1920. Displayed at the Degenerate Art exhibition.

With mislabelled art, pieces hung by long cords and unframed paintings, the Nazi regime aimed to present the artistic world as insufficient and beneath civilised Germany, suppressing the freedom of expression to promote pro-Nazi art.

Why Suppress Art?

Fundamentally, dictatorships thrive behind a clarified conscious. Art appeals and evokes the creative mind, encouraging interpretations and subjectivity. This juxtaposes the cultural hegemony of totalitarianism regimes, a termed coined by Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci. Dictators need to maintain a favourable status quo, making art dangerous due to its encouragement of diverging opinions and interpretations. Art’s impact of the psyche reinforces its potential to disrupt authoritarianism regimes.

Art has many psychological benefits, strengthening qualities that may prove vulnerable to totalitarianism regimes. The expressionistic nature of art reflects its capacity to promote empathy, reflected in Rezaei et al. (2023) reporting that art education increases empathy among medical students. An increase in empathy limits the strength of totalitarianism regimes, making it harder to promote exclusionary policies and alienate members of society. When exposed to a diversity of artistic expression, the individual is granted liberty to form their own opinions and become educated about the life and culture of the artist. This liberty undermines the collective conscious that maintains dictatorships. A society is less likely to be influenced by propaganda if it is next to a painting criticising blinded nationalism. Therefore, dictators need to maintain this dominance of influence through a complete dominance in culture.

Does It Work?

Dictators control the culture, but for how long? Despite a promotion of posterity through propaganda pieces, the dominance of the regime is undermined through frequent counter-movements. This is reflected in the cases of the Soviet Union and Chile.

Despite the dominance of Socialist Realism, a parallel movement began to emerge - Soviet Non-Conformist art. After Stalin’s death in 1953, the great ‘thaw’ enabled an increase in freedom for artists to work more freely and not face repercussions. This encouraged non-conformist groups like Lianozovo to become an active counter movement. Formed in 1958 and named after the small village outside Moscow, the Lianozovo group focused on the abstract to directly juxtapose the conventions of Socialist Realism. Artists like Oscar Rabin, Lidia Masterkova and Vladimir Nemukhin worked with poets like Igor Kholin to collectively juxtapose the paradise in Socialist Realism with an expressionistic take on Soviet reality. This key countermovement undermines the dominance of dictatorships over art, with a variety of artists across the geography of the Soviet collectively countering this dominant Soviet Realism doctrine.

Within Chile, the Brigada Ramona Parra (BRP) artistic collective strived to persistently contest authoritarian rule. Founded in 1968 by young Chilean communists, they actively painted murals as a way of inciting radical change.

In 1970, BRP propaganda propelled Salvador Allende, the Socialist candidate, into presidency. This success was undermined by the outlawing of the communist party in 1973 by Augusto Pinochet, who seized power through a military coup. Pinochet’s military regime targeting BRP, torturing and driving them into exile. However, they continued to work, painting a letter R in a ring, with a star next to it, with the R reflecting resistance, the circle reinforcing unity and the star an iconographic representation of the BRP. This resistance outlived the Pinochet regime which eventually crumbled in 1988, embodied in the ornate 25 metre mural covering an entire wall on the main cultural centre in the Chilean capital Santiago.

To conclude, art simply cannot be suppressed. Despite the persistent attempts by authoritarian regimes to control culture, artists are repeatedly inspired to oppose the strict, clarified conscious. There is an innate futility in attempting to suppress artistic expression. Creativity is boundless and abstract, constantly evading attempts by figures to be pinned down and shaped to their will.