Tag Archives: Russia

Arkhip Kuindzhi

Posted on by

 

Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi was born in January 1841 in Mariupol, which is now Ukraine, to a Greek shoemaker. Arkhip grew up in the city of Taganrog. When he was six, he was orphaned and raised cattle and worked construction to make a living. From 1860 to 1865 he worked in a photo studio and later attempted to own a studio himself, but this plan failed. So Arkhip moved to Saint Petersburg and began studying painting on his own until he joined the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts in 1868. He also formed a realist artist group called Peredvizhniki, which later became known as the Society for Traveling Art Exhibitions. Arkhip left the academy in 1872 to pursue a freelance career and was featured in several art galleries in Russia. He received the bronze medal at the 1874 International Art Exhibition in London. During this time frame he also focused his art on landscapes and panoramas. He experimented with color and illuminating nature as he matured as an artist and later lectured at the same academy he once attended. From 1892 to 1897, he was a professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts and was fired for supporting student protests. Some of his students include Arkady Rylov Nicholas Roerich and Konstantin Bogaevsky. Arkhip founded an artists group called the Society of Artists in 1909 but it was renamed for him after his death in July 1910.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Kuindzhi

 

http://www.wikigallery.org/paintings/391501-392000/391516/painting1.jpg

 

Arkhip Kuindzhi

Arkhip Kuindzhi

 

Battleship Potemkin

Posted on by

Battleship Potemkin accurately reflects the description of Russia during this era that Mazower writes in Dark Continent. Mazower discusses briefly the living conditions of the Russian peasants as being the worst across europe. The beginning of Battleship Potemkin begins with the sailors being extremely unhappy about their conditions of living. The meat they are expected to eat is ridden with maggots, and they are told to wash it off with brine.

Mazower also discusses the anti-semitic sentiments that were spreading across Europe towards due to catholicism having more influence on the government with the rise of christian nationalism which started in portugal but also had influences which spread to Austria and beyond, where “Violent anti-semitism was the corollary” (Mazower, 31). Although Russian anti-semitism may have had other roots. When the people realized that the sailor had been killed over a bowl of soup, one of the revenge shouts was “Kill the Jews!”, which seemed random but was just part of the overall sentiment.

The mutiny on the ship projects the tensions between the Russian peasants and the government during the era of industrialization when the peasants were not getting adequate care from the state, and were tools of the states progression. This was representative of the Russian revolution

How propaganda was used: Mazower’s “Dark Continent” and Eisenstein’s “October”

Posted on by

October: Ten Days that Shook the World, directed by Sergei Eisenstein and Mark Mazower’s Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century illustrate differing perspectives of Russia’s October Revolution–the film is clearly a work of propaganda. The film shows exclusively positive elements of the Bolshevik Revolution.

The film tries to express the ‘unilateral’ support of the Proletariat at a time when Stalin was fighting to gain complete and undeniable control over the country. For this reason, Trotsky has a minimal role at the beginning of the Revolution. The film uses words to update the audience on changes, but offers no further explanation of why Trotsky, for instance, wanted to postpone an armed uprising. Stalin’s government wants to stop Trotsky’s influence to help cement his own claim to the Soviet Union. The film, in condemning the opinions of Trotsky, places Lenin as the hero of the revolution. This idea was used to aid Stalin at the beginning of his reign so that he could gain more legitimacy–he was following in the footsteps of Lenin. Eventually, this type of propaganda will change as Stalin begins to distance himself from Lenin and Lenin’s plans for the USSR–namely, the New Economic Plan for Collectivization and Dekulakization.

The film clearly exaggerates certain events: the toppling of the czar’s statue in the first few moments of the film is a key example of this. This film celebrated the 10th Anniversary of the Revolution. To do this successfully, the film needed to show that the Revolution had broad and sweeping support. Each time opponents of the Revolution are shown, words such as “traitors” and “turncoats” are flashed across the screen to show that these men and women have betrayed their country. Moreover, the film shows violent confrontations unfolding as the Bolsheviks win control over St. Petersburg/Petrograd and the Winter Palace–an event that occurred without violence and bloodshed.

Furthermore, all representations of the Provisional Government show a lazy group that does not fight for all the people. Near the end of the film there are many words shown across the screen that show the Provisional Government as wanting to discuss the changes and negotiate, rather then implement changes. The strongest image is when the screen says the Provisional Government is trying to save itself, but flashes to an empty office.

The film ends with the win of the Bolsheviks. This win is displayed “across the world” with the use of clocks to show that this is a monumental step for the entire world. The other countries will soon follow the example of the USSR and communism will become the new world order. The film presents a romanticized perspective of the Revolution and one that is extraordinarily different from the history described by Mazower. In Dark Continent, the Revolution is placed within the context of the extreme political change and radical political sentiments that were shaking Europe as WWI unfolded and ended. None of this was explored within the film because it would have undermined the struggle of the people that the Soviet government wanted to propagate.

Comparison of Chapter One from “Dark Continent” and the Film “October” [Revised]

Posted on by

 

‘Dark Continent” was written by Mark Mazower in 1998, about interwar Europe. “October: 10 Days that Shook the World” is a 1928 Russian movie commemorating the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. After giving a brief introduction about Russia in World War One, the February Revolution, and the provisional government that ensued, it goes on to show the conditions under the new government, the heroism of the Bolsheviks and finally the popular victory of Lenin, communism and the proletariat. However, while watching the movie, one must remember that it was a piece of propaganda designed to promote the communist government, and hence is biased towards the communist ‘victors’.

In an initial scene, the movie depicts the early enthusiasm that greeted the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the provisional government, which promised the people a greater say in the political running of the country. However, this enthusiasm soon fades as the War continues and people are seen to be starving as the rationing of bread drops from a pound a person to a quarter pound in a matter of seconds on-screen. This disillusionment with forms of post-war democracy is reflected in the writings of Mazower, who says that early liberal [i.e. pro-democracy] policy makers in Europe did not seem to realize that the people primarily needed security of life and land, rather than the immediate ability to determine their long-term political fate (p.11). In comparison, the right and left wing politicians promoted the idea of ‘bread, land and peace’, which can clearly be seen in several scenes in the movie, notably when Lenin returns to Russia.

However, the scene when the peaceful proletarian rioters are attacked by the upper class aristocrats, who were enjoying ‘leisurely’ activities at the time, stinks of propaganda and the advocacy of the working-class communist government, who are coincidently in power in 1928. Mazower confirms that this attack by democrats on the normal people is absurd when he says that they mostly lost power because they lost touch with the people (p.27), not because they attacked them in the street.

Another, slightly subtler, form of propaganda arrives in the scene when the Bolsheviks are deciding whether to stage a revolution or not. Trotsky initially states they should wait, which is followed by an impassioned speech by Lenin stating that to wait is tantamount to giving up any chance at a revolution. At the end of the scene the Bolsheviks take a vote (subtly hinting again that everything in the state is done to the peoples’ wishes) and completely decide on supporting Lenin. This scene was most probably worked in to gain support for Stalin’s eventual decision to exile Trotsky, and to confirm his rightful position of head of the Soviet Union. Another subtle put down is when the movie refuses to acknowledge that Trotsky was in charge of the Red Guard and was largely responsible for the successful capture of Petrograd (p.11).

While “October” may have certain historical discrepancies, it is a useful movie to understand both the timeline of 1917 Russia and the evolution of mass propaganda in an interwar European dictatorship during the early age of film.

Religion in Battleship Potemkin

Posted on by

Traditionally, when people are in unsatisfactory situations, or are unhappy with their lives, they turn to religion. The Communist Party flips the notion of religion as a solace on its head, and preaches that religion is what keeps the lower classes appeased and prevents them from taking down those that oppress them. In Battleship Potemkin, directed by Sergei M. Eisenstein, this Communist ideal and its merits are displayed.

The film takes place during the 1905 Revolution, in which the lower classes rallied together to fight the Czar. The most interesting thing, to me, was the portrayal/the importance of religion in the film. Before the mutiny on the ship takes place, a sailor breaks a plate that has “give us this day our daily bread” in-scripted on it. During the mutiny, a priest stands in the way of the sailors, siding with the captain and the officers. In this way, religion is shown as a proponent of the Czar and his authority. Distain for religion is  a large part of Communism, which, at the time that the film was made, was the political ideology of the Russian government. The film was ostentatiously about the 1905 Revolution, but it was really a way to enforce the views of the Communist party, and reiterate the reasons why Russia turned to Communism in the first place.

Because they both morphed into authoritarian states, German Fascism and Russian Communism are often look at as similar forms of government; they are not. The film shows this when a Russian aristocrat says “Kill the Jews”, and all of the lower class people attack him for this comment. In Russia, everyone was supposed to be equal, and religion and ethnicity were things to be forgotten with the rise of Communism. In Russia, it was the rich and privileged who were hated, regardless of ethnicity and/or religion. In Germany, it was quit the opposite; the Germans wanted to racially cleanse their country. As Mazower explains in Dark Continent, “the law no longer protected the rights of jews and gypsies, as well as “degenerate” classes of Aryans” in Nazi Germany (Mazower 33).

This film illustrates why Communism was appealing to the Russian people. The brutal actions of the Czar’s regime are connected to religion, and both the regime and the church must lose their power for the people to gain theirs. Battleship Potemkin reminds the Russian people of the camaraderie they share under the rule of the Communist government.

 

Sustainability

Posted on by

 

The photo above explains how sustainability is connected not only to the environment of a city but also to it’s social and economic health.Therefore, sustainability is not just an environmental problem that be fixed by powering down electric devices and using methods of transportation that do not harm the environment. Sustainability involves more than just the environment around us. It involves living within the limits of what our planet can afford to give us and distributing its resources with everyone. One definition of sustainability is “Understanding the interconnections among economy, society, and environment”.  Without understanding these connections and limits, our future suffers as we deprive others of resources we have misused.

Sustainability is the linking of our social, personal, and environmental health in order to provide a healthy future for generations to come. We need to provide resources to others and care for our world. We need to help our communities by making them healthier, environmentally, socially, and economically. Without these connections in our cities, our towns, our nations, we waste the resources of our planet.

http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm#sustainability

http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/node/35

http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/node/36

http://gogreen.fiu.edu/_assets/images/about-us/sustainability-chart-medium.jpg

Russia’s Hangover

Posted on by

In looking for something to blog about for this week I discovered an article titled “Russia’s Hangover: How to curtail a serious drinking problem?”. In the article, the author, Janet Davison of the Canadian Broadcasting Corportation (CBC) discusses how the Russian government has enacted a new law declaring that beer is an alcoholic beverage and not a food, which could theoretically limit its sales.

Upon first reading this subtitle, I was instantly confused, if not somewhat amused. I never thought of beer as a food, and seeing a law enacted just to declare something that seems so obvious struck me as slightly odd. However, through reading this article, I learned that imbibing in alcoholic beverages is something intrinsic to Russian life and culture, and in fighting a battle against alcoholism, the Russian government was essentially waging a battle against a psycological habit that has transcended centuries.

A quote that specifically epitomizes this theme was made by Yuri Leving, chair of the department of Russian studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He stated that “In Russia, the drinking culture has long been established and historically justified… No holiday is complete without a feast with the obligatory presence of a large amount of alcohol.” Leving also mentioned that “life in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia has never been easy, and often the cause of addiction to alcohol can be explained by man’s desire to suppress strong emotions and escape from stress.”

When I read that line, I instantly associated it with the alcoholism problem with Native Americans in the United States. Similarily to the Russian situation, the Native Americans within American society have always had issues with alcoholism, or at least have been stereotyped as having these problems. History may have instigated the prevalence of alcoholism in the United States. Early demand, with no regulation and strong encouragement, may have contributed to a “tradition” of heavy alcohol use being passed down from generation to generation, which has led to the current high level of alcohol-related problems. The Russian population has a similar issue in that the government has never regulated alcohol in the country, and is only just acknowledging it as an issue. Drinking is not only legal, but also easily accessible and portrayed in a positive light. The problem, according to the article, lays in the very denial of a problem with alcoholism.

What I also found interesting in this article were the statistics used to argue just how intense this issue was within Russian society. According to the article, alcohol contributed to the deaths of about 500,000 Russians annually, and consumption was double the World Health Organization’s critical level. Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev stated that, “In Russia, each person, including babies, accounts for about 18 litres of spirits per year. In the opinion of World Health Organization (WHO) experts, consumption of more than eight litres per year poses a real threat to the health of the nation. Russia has long exceeded this level.”

I think that in reading this article it would be interesting to see if this upward trend of alcholism was a worldwide trend. Especially regarding the current state of many national economies, it would not surprise me if the world as a whole was facing a problem with alcoholism. I remember reading at one point during my AP World History class sophomore year of high school that Russian soldiers during World War II were actually allotted alcohol daily. That only goes to show that alcohol within Russian society stretches back at least as far as World War II, certainly longer than that. I really am glad that I found this article to read. I might even see if I can do something along these lines for my final project. One of my only gripes about being at a school like Dickinson is that I constantly find myself disconnected with the outside world while on campus. Reading articles like this really is helping me to become more globally aware, and realize that the world is so much bigger than Carlisle, Pennsylvania.