The ideology of the "right-wing threat" in Soviet Art of the turn of the 1920–1930s

Rutsinskaya Irina ORCID: 0000-0002-4033-8212 Doctor of Cultural Studies Professor of the Department of Regional Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie gory 1, Bldg. 13-14. irinaru2110@gmail.com Other publications by this author

As you know, the turn of the 1920s-1930s in the USSR was held under the banner of the struggle against the "right bias". This concept was introduced into wide use as a term that guides the interpretation and assessment of political events in the country in a given direction. It did not lend itself to a clear and unambiguous interpretation, did not fit into the established dichotomy of "left" and "right", as it took shape in the socio-political discourse of the twentieth century, and required purposeful ideological efforts to determine the approximate range of meanings. But with his help, a simple, easily assimilable picture of the world was built in the mass consciousness, in which there is the only correct position – Stalin's, and the positions are obviously false and dangerous, deviating from the "right": "left" (led by Trotsky) and "right" (led by Bukharin). Thus, the definition of "right bias" (and the associated "right threat", "right opposition", etc.) at the turn of the 1920s-1930s had all the signs of an ideologeme: it performed an axiological function, was emotionally colored, did not have a strictly defined meaning.

Its use helped Stalin to win in internal party discussions about the methods of building socialism in the USSR, to stigmatize opponents (primarily N. Bukharin) and to assert his sole power.

However, the ideologeme very quickly left the narrow field of factional struggle in the CPSU (b) and began to conquer new spaces. Stalin only partially controlled the nature of its spread. Of course, in strict accordance with the instructions of the leader, "right deviators" were sought primarily in Soviet and economic apparatuses. Soviet newspapers wrote endlessly about such evaders: "only in Pravda from October 10, 1928 to November 18, 1929 ... more than 150 articles on this topic appeared" ^[23]; satirical magazines Crocodile and Behemoth regularly visualized their unsightly images. Everything was done to ensure that the ideologeme entered the everyday lexicon of the Soviet man and was fixed in it as a sign referring "communication participants to the sphere of proper (correct thinking and impeccable behavior) and warning them against the illegal" ^{[5, p.12]}. But later, following the inexorable logic of the emerging authoritarian regime, "right-wing deviators" began to be sought and found in literature, theater, music, cinema, fine arts. Art functionaries, art critics, ideologists of various creative associations, cultural figures themselves have calculated the party vocabulary and transferred it to the artistic space. The goal was still the same: to stigmatize opponents, to prove the correctness of their own ideas about Soviet/proletarian art and the ways of its development. 

The problem of the interrelationships of the political and artistic in Soviet culture cannot be called ignored by research attention. It inevitably affects almost every culturologist or art critic, regardless of whether he studies general patterns or particular aspects of the cultural development of the USSR. However, the issues of the functioning of the categories "right" and "left" in the field of Soviet art, their direct dependence on the political situation in the country, their use as a denunciation, sentence, denunciation, did not immediately attract the attention of researchers.

An important milestone on this path was the implementation of the international project "Transformations in the literary fields of the USSR and France: the circulation of the "left idea" in the period from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s" (2013-2015). Within the framework of this project, a collective monograph "Politicization of the field of art: historical versions, theoretical approaches, aesthetic specifics" (2015) was published, on the pages of which such authors as L.A. Sachs ^[10], J.Sapirro ^[24] and others directly addressed the problem of the functioning of the concepts of "right" and "left" in soviet art.

The focus of attention of modern researchers turned out to be fiction, which is not surprising, since most of the phenomena, trends, norms characteristic of Soviet art as a whole were most clearly and vividly manifested in the literary sphere. Various publications of philologists are devoted, among other things, to the analysis of how the struggle against the "right bias" influenced the creativity and self-identification of Soviet writers ^[17], on the fate of individual literary works ^[19].

At present, works are increasingly appearing in which the problems of the "fight against the right bias" are studied on interesting and sometimes unexpected sources. These undoubtedly include a series of articles by A.L.Yurganov ^{[27, 28]} on the fight against the right bias on the pages of the Crocodile magazine; publications by A.O. Tyurin showing how the "right bias" affected the daily life of residents of the Russian province ^[25]; articles by T.A.Kruglova devoted to the functioning of concepts "left" and "right" in Soviet popular culture ^[12-15].

However, fine art in the context of the struggle against the right bias has not been practically studied. In general, the time period from 1928 to 1932, which was the peak of these battles, is the least studied period in the history of Soviet art. As E.Z. Degot notes, it turns out to be "lost" between the two eras that framed it: "Firstly, the painting of the partial bourgeois restoration of the NEP era ... And, secondly, the art of the "great terror" and at the same time the "great style"" ^{[6, p.136]}. In this regard, the exhibition "The Struggle for the Banner" and the collective monograph with the same title published in parallel with it ^[1], on the pages of which the events of artistic life are analyzed in direct unity with the political and ideological events of the turn of the 1920s-1930s, seem to be an important stage.

Nevertheless, to date, the process of "drawing in", the connection of fine art to a broad political and propaganda campaign called "the fight against the right threat" has not been traced, the use of the ideologeme "right bias" in the Soviet art-critical discourse of the late 1920s - early 1930s has not been studied.

This article is an attempt to fill the existing gap by considering the chronology and logic of the unfolding of this process.

As we have already mentioned above, the penetration of the ideologeme "right bias" into artistic life and art criticism was not always initiated from above. In particular, Stalin made an attempt (even two!) to stop the exploitation of the ideologeme in the artistic space. On February 7, 1929, in a reply letter to the Ukrainian playwright V.N. Bill-Belotserkovsky, he indicated: "I think it is wrong to pose the question of the "right" and "left" in fiction (and hence in the theater). The concept of "right" or "left" is currently a party concept in our country, actually an intra–party one. The "right" or "left" are people who deviate in one direction or another from a purely party line. It would therefore be strange to apply these concepts to such a non-partisan and incomparably broader field as fiction, theater, etc." ^{[2, p.100]}.

Just a few days later, on February 12, 1929, he repeated his thesis for a wider audience – at a meeting with Ukrainian writers: "They often say: the right play or the left one, the right danger is depicted there. For example, "Turbines" constitute the right danger in the literature. Or, for example, "Running", it was banned, is a right danger. This is wrong, comrades. The right and left dangers are purely partisan. The right danger means that people are somewhat moving away from the party line, the right danger is within the party. The left danger is a departure from the party line to the left. Is literature party? This is not a party, of course, it is much broader literature than the party, and there should be other, more general standards" ^{[2, p.108]}.

The leader's words had no effect. As it turned out, even he could not form separate spaces in which the ideologeme created in order to construct the surrounding reality would be recognized as irrelevant. Yes, however, the leader was not zealous in his resistance: in any case, no one stigmatized or stopped active fighters with the right threat on the field of art. So the turn of the 1920s-1930s became the time of "fitting" the term to a specific artistic sphere. For many participants in the process, this seemed quite logical, especially in the light of the total politicization of art that they welcomed.

The leading positions in this movement, as we pointed out above, were occupied by literature. Already in May 1928, the weekly "Reader and Writer" launched a discussion "Is our literature in danger of the right?", many participants of which answered the question positively ^[26].

In the visual arts, this process proceeded at a different pace and at different times.

In the autumn of 1928, in the tenth issue of the magazine "Life of Art", one could read a phrase that reflected a fairly common view of the dynamics of artistic development in the country: "The gap that until recently separated the extreme flanks of the artistic front, the notorious "left" and "right", is being smoothed out more and more every year. Recent, seemingly irreconcilable enemies are moving towards the same goal." ^{[9, p. 7]}. The author of the article did not decipher what he meant by talking about the "right" and "left" flanks of the artistic front, and such a decoding in the context of 1928 was already necessary. The literary critics mentioned above, who confirmed the existence of the "right threat", and this anonymous art critic spoke about completely different concepts, using the same words. The confusion with terminology, already significant, doubled when it was used in relation to literature and art.

Even before the revolution, the definition of "left" and the less popular (rather used as an antipode) definition of "right" entered the artistic lexicon: "The term "left art" began to be legitimately applied after the "Exhibition of Paintings of left trends" held in April – May 1915 at the Art Bureau of N.E. Dobychina in Petrograd. Along with the concept of "futurism", he denoted innovative art" ^[22]. After the revolution, during the 1920s, the frequency of using the term as a synonym for the words "innovative", "avant-garde" increased. At the same time, its meaning was constantly changing, reflecting the processes that were growing in art.

The fact that in the 1920s the concept of "left" became commonplace is evidenced by satires and cartoons from the magazine "Crocodile". So, N. Moskvin's satirical story "At the left exhibition (notes of a layman)", published in the 19th issue of 1924, begins with a dialogue between two characters far from art: "Are you free now? – Free. And what? – Let's go look at the exhibition of the left" ^{[18, p. 790]}. What follows is a story about visiting the exhibition, full of irony and skepticism both about the exhibits presented and about the nature of their interpretation. The word "left" both in the article and in the caption under the cartoon illustrating it by I. Malyutin clearly appears as a common one, widely used among philistines far from art.

In the professional environment, the separation between the left (LEF – the leftmost association) and the right (AHRR – as the rightmost) in the 1920s seemed quite clear. The space between the two poles was occupied by numerous associations and they were often labeled with the help of political vocabulary: for example, the OST was characterized as the leftmost of the right-wing groups.

So in the quoted article, the conciliatory phrase about the rapprochement of the "notorious "left" and "right"" did not correlate in any way with political categories. The author has not noticed them yet, he still meant not political cliches, but formal characteristics.

Thus, even at the end of 1928, when Stalin's speech was already heard at the plenum of the MK and MK of the CPSU (b) "On the right danger in the CPSU (b)" (October 19, 1928), and then his speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the industrialization of the country and the right bias in The CPSU (b)" (November 19, 1928), when the increasingly outspoken persecution of N. Bukharin and his supporters began, when battles around the "right threat" were boiling in literature, no one in the visual arts had yet risen to battle with a new enemy.

At the same time, it cannot be said that other Stalinist theses that accompanied and explained the maxims about the "right deviation", its causes and essence, were not heard. By this time, the critical and review texts of art critics had already been penetrated and textbook phrases about the aggravation of the class struggle, about the resistance of capitalist elements, about bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influences settled there for a long time. All these theses did not require terminological efforts, they were used as introductory formulas – without explanations and confirmations. However, the authors clearly did not dare to include the definition of "right bias" in their articles, obviously not understanding how to link it with art. The solid seven-hundred-page collection "Yearbook of Literature and Art for 1929", published by the Comacademy, is indicative in this regard. The section devoted to fine art included articles by such venerable critics as I. Matsa, D. Arkin, N. Maslennikov, A. Mikhailov. The texts are literally full of phrases that directly reflected the contemporary party vocabulary: "we have the beginning of an increase in the activity of bourgeois tendencies associated with the aggravation of the class struggle in our country" ^{[7, p.397]}; "the demarcation of [artistic trends. - Rutsinskaya] were ultimately caused by the conditions of that new stage of socialist construction, which was marked by the attack of the proletariat on class-hostile groups in the ideological field" ^{[7, p. 474]}; "we put the strengthening of reactionary, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois currents and manifestations in painting in connection with the aggravation of the class struggle." ^{[7, P. 483]}.

Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois tendencies in painting are scourged, attention is focused on their growth in the conditions of the aggravated class struggle, but they have not yet found the definition of "right threat". Art associations are already divided into two camps, but they are still characterized by the old terms "progressive" (October, OMAHR) and "reactionary" ("Heat-color", OMH, OHR and others). 

The situation began to change slowly in 1929.

During this period, the struggle in the "right bias in the ranks of the CPSU (b)" entered a culminating phase, which was accompanied by an increase in Stalin's oratorical activity and an increase in the number of party meetings devoted to this issue: in late January – early February 1929, Stalin delivered a report "Bukharin's Group and the right bias in our Party" on joint meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee and the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b); April 16-23, 1929 – he delivers a speech "On the right bias in the CPSU (b)" at the plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). These were no longer cautious speeches without naming names. Here all the accusations are pronounced, all the labels are hung. The views of Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky are officially condemned as coinciding with the position of the right bias. Bukharin and Tomsky were removed from their posts, warnings were issued to them. The final defeat of the right-wing opposition was announced from all the stands. True, it was still "finished off" at the XVI Party Conference (April 23-29, 1929), and then at the November Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), where it was proclaimed "the bankruptcy of the position of the right deviators (the group of T. Bukharin), which is nothing more than an expression of the pressure of the petty-bourgeois element, panic before the escalated class struggle, capitulation to the difficulties of socialist construction" ^{[11, p.383]}.

Such an active struggle could not fail to provoke a response. The editorial in the spring issue of the Akhrrov magazine "Art to the Masses" became a direct and immediate answer to it. It was called: "The enemy on the right." The article makes one of the first attempts to define the essence of the concept of "right threat" in relation to fine art. The author began with a statement of quite natural perplexity: "why is the question of the right danger in the visual arts being raised and debated right now, in the twelfth year of the revolution?" ^{[3, p.3]}. His explanation is quite expected and truthful in its own way: "Never, as now, have the newspapers been full of reports about facts that indisputably testify to the growth of Kulak activity and the revival of the activity of churchmen...". In addition to the incredible propaganda activity of the Soviet press, the author noted a second reason: the fight against the "right danger" is in full swing in literature and theater. Art, as many critics of this time wrote, is one of the "backward sections of the cultural revolution." So the conclusion of the author of the editorial is obvious: it's time to overcome backwardness, it's time to "raise the question of the right danger in art" ^{[3, p.3]}.

The article clearly and distinctly pointed out the emerging terminological confusion: "On the front of art, the fight against right-wing danger is complicated by the lack of universally recognized criteria for determining right-wing danger. Due to this, the question of right-wing danger is often replaced by the question of "right art" and "left art" on formal grounds (old bourgeois concepts!)" ^{[3, p.3]}. The author clearly separates the two concepts: "The left is not always formally left at the same time ideologically left" ^{[3, p.3]}.

Further, trying to adapt the Stalinist ideology to painting, the critic came to another problem that would later torment many: where to look for the "right threat", in what one can see its reflection. He expanded the space of its manifestation as much as possible: "To fight the right danger in art means simultaneously to raise the problem of form and content, to raise the question of the language of art, about the correspondence of the means of expression to what should be expressed" ^{[3, p.4]}. However, the author further avoided discussing the problem of what is the "right danger" in the means of expression, in the form. He does this quite masterfully and in full accordance with Akhrov's guidelines: "What form corresponds to the militant materialist worldview of the proletariat? We don't know that yet" ^{[3, p.4]}. And since the corresponding form has not yet been found, it is impossible to describe the ways of deviation from it. The critic thereby freed himself from the need to define formal, stylistic manifestations of the "right bias". After that, it would be possible to immediately move on to the "right content", but, realizing the lightness of such evasion, he still sets some guidelines: "it is already obvious that neither the passive naturalism of the OMX, nor the eccentricity of the OST, nor the pointlessness of French art can be the language of modern proletarian art" ^{[3, p.4]}. Associations that have long been the object of criticism for the ideologists of the AHRR are now united in a new ideological context. This is the end of the conversation about the forms of the "right bias". What follows is a description of the "right" content.

The author has identified several main forms of its manifestation:

- "When an artist takes a revolutionary theme and expresses it protocol, passively, when he expresses the revolution in inappropriate images – there is undoubtedly a displacement of the revolution, that is, elements of the right danger."

- "When an inappropriate type is taken in the paintings of the Akhrovites – Komsomol women who look like "young ladies" or "seductive maidens", pioneers who look like geeks or barchats, workers who cannot be distinguished from thugs or Chubarovites, etc."

- "Unacceptable "objectivity" and good-nature of the author in the depiction of a class enemy or episodes of class struggle" ^{[3, p.4]}.

"Inappropriate images", "inappropriate types", "good nature" when depicting a class enemy - the set of manifestations is still small. In addition, it is clearly borrowed from literary texts, where the "right-wing deviators" were constantly accused of making "the hero of our time" not proletarian characters, but the new bourgeoisie, that portrayed its representatives not critically, but with sympathy and sympathy.

So, in the editorial of the Ahrrov magazine, many pain points were identified and the main directions of adapting the ideologeme to the space of fine art were indicated.

Throughout 1929, there was a slow increase in the number of its uses in the press. Later, in 1930-1931, the speed of this movement increased significantly.

Many texts of that time did not demonstrate a desire to comprehend or at least more or less logically link a set of ideological stamps to the specifics of fine art, limiting themselves to their ritual repetition: "The newspaper will firmly defend the party directives, exposing any deviations from the party line. Here, in particular, there is the same task of fighting the right bias in practice, as in any other branch of our construction" ^{[21, p.1.]}; "To fight against the right danger in the new conditions means to fight for the Bolshevik pace of perestroika, against everything that delays perestroika" ^{[4, p.12]}.

 But there were critics who sought to formulate the content of the "right bias" in fine arts. The search took place in several directions.

The easiest and most familiar way is to classify existing artistic associations, singling out the "right" among them. They were those who were previously called "reactionary", that is, the transfer of meanings and assessments turned out to be extremely straightforward. The list of branded art organizations wandered from article to article almost unchanged. It has firmly established: OMH, "Zhar-tsvet", "Society of Artists named after A. I. Kuindzhi", "Society of Artists named after I. E. Repin", "Four Arts".

The continuation of this strategy was to expose specific artists, regardless of which association they belonged to. It could be not only about living Soviet masters, but also about those who were no longer alive. The object of criticism was, for example, A. Arkhipov.  Of modern artists, perhaps, P. Kuznetsov got more than others. Very often, A. Kuprin was among the rightists. At the same time, the "selection criteria" remained not spelled out. There were already familiar accusations of petty-bourgeoisness, nostalgia for the past, inability to see grandiose changes in Soviet life.

The case was not limited to exposing individual artists or artistic associations. Whole genres – landscape and still life - were included in the category of "pushing bourgeois ideology". More precisely, they turned out to be a space where right-wing art most often celebrated its victory.

The accusers of genres were divided into two groups: those who considered them by their very nature bourgeois, right-wing, and therefore condemned to cease to exist, and those who believed that it was necessary to separate the right landscape and still life from the right. Moreover, no one gave clear indications of where the border runs between them. Each critic drew them quite arbitrarily. For example, an industrial landscape is good, and a night industrial landscape is a right art.

In May 1931, the RAPH (Russian Association of Proletarian Artists) was established. The magazine "Art to the Masses" became the organ of the RAPH and received the name: "For proletarian art." Two years of its existence paint a picture of the further formalization of the term "right threat" in relation to fine art.

Already in one of the first issues of the journal, an introductory article lists in what, according to the editorial board, the right danger manifests itself: "in the distortion of theory and practice, in the objective blunting of the class struggle in art forms, in the weak activity of the proletarian sector, in the weak resistance to bolshevism, adaptability, ideological enveloping"

Su^{[20, p.4The words and accusations are so general that they can imply anything. Surprisingly, the publications in the journal carry echoes of the still ongoing discussions. So, in the article by D. Lyakhovets "Keep the thief" [16, pp.12-14]}, it is described in detail about the meeting of the presidium of workers of spatial arts, held at the end of March 1931. At this meeting, a very sharp debate suddenly broke out around the "rightwing" group of artists (part of the OST association headed by D. Shtenberg) "slipping into the position of bourgeois art." In response to the statements of the critic and artist AHR L. Vyazmensky says that any increased attention to questions of form is a right threat: "formalism and the so–called pure "formal" quality is an attempt by artists alien to us to hide their class face" ^{[16, p.12]}, D. Shterenberg states: "For the sake of some idea, you can't sacrifice quality" ^{[16, p.12]}. He is supported by the chairman of RABIS, H. Ioffe: "the words of the comrades who spoke about the class struggle in art are a phrase", "all these assessments are very, very superficial, their solution is very, very unfinished, far–fetched", "the main danger on the isofront now is not the right danger, vulgarism" ^{[16, p.12]} .

Of course, the "only right" decision was made at the meeting, and D. Shterenberg's group was declared right, slipping into the position of bourgeois art, and "the essence of their class-alien attitudes is covered by artists with "quality", "skill" in general, regardless of the clear class-oriented content, sometimes with Soviet themes serving as an excuse and the cover of "pure" formal searches" ^{[16, p.12]}.

However, in general, by 1932, the use of the term "right danger" was becoming more formal or even "formulaic". By this time, no one is trying to understand the specifics of its application in relation to fine art: "It is necessary to wage an even more irreconcilable struggle against the right danger on a higher theoretical basis of the revolutionary theory of Marx, Lenin, Stalin" ^{[8, p.1]}.

After the adoption in April 1932 of the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations" and, accordingly, the dissolution of the RAPH, the frequency of use of the term began to significantly decrease. By the mid-1930s, he had completely left the "agenda", in exact accordance with the general ideological and political attitudes in the country.

Thus, the formation of the ideologeme in relation to fine art began later than in literature and other types of art. Serious publications appeared only in 1929. The peak of the "struggle against the right danger on the isofront" occurred in 1930 - early 1932. It is important to emphasize once again that at the initial stage there were sincere attempts to find, to grope for some real features of this "revealed by the party" phenomenon, to determine the forms and ways of its manifestation. However, as the ideologeme became more and more a political stigma in socio-political life, attempts or even the appearance of attempts to define its essential, meaningful definition weakened in art criticism. The texts were increasingly reduced to a set of cliched accusations, their scope of application was expanding, losing the boundaries of reason. By the mid-1930s, the use of the term had come to naught. However, the logic of discussions formed during the struggle against the right bias, orientation to party events and ideological campaigns, and the nature of the accusations made against opponents became the tracing paper that was later widely used in Soviet art criticism of the Stalin era. 

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.