Between myth and reality: censorship of fine art in Soviet Lithuania

Abstract

In 1990, following the restoration of independence in Lithuania, one of the most significant topics of fine art research was the refusal by Lithuanian artists to obey Soviet rule.A summary of the materials presented here leads to the conclusion that Soviet censorship of the fine arts did exist, and that it was preventative in nature. The documentation shows that many works had to be modified before they were exhibited in public spaces. The undesirable artists were put under immense psychological pressure to ensure that they shy away from freely chosen creative principles and move closer to mainstream socialist realism. Methods used included criticism at the meetings of the Artists’ Union and during exhibition discussions, financial restrictions which prevented them from obtaining art supplies and tools, and the compulsory obligation to “improve one’s ideological level” at evening Marxist “universities”. These tactics could be described as the promotion of self-censorship. It seems that in their efforts to obstruct the realisation of creative ambitions in unacceptable ways, and clearly indicating the acceptable path to recognition, the censors wanted the artists to come closer to the artistic concepts which were being promoted by the state. It is not clear if requests to modify state commissioned works should be deemed censorship, or considered merely the representation of the customer’s interests. In answering this question one must keep in mind that the Soviet regime occupied all spheres of public life. Under these circumstances it was virtually impossible to find legal ways to develop and publicly promote alternative activities. Thus, in the case of the fine arts, the restriction of ideas and their visual representation under the guise of protecting the customer’s interests could be called censorship. Documented sources contain virtually no signs of repressive censorship. It seems that many issues were decided by mutual conformism between the controlling and controlled bodies or individuals.

Tyrinėjant XX a. antrosios pusės Lietuvos dailę neišvengiamai susiduriame su įvairaus pobūdžio liudijimais apie sovietinės sistemos taikytus draudimus, kūrybinio akiračio apribojimus, stilistinius, žanrinius suvaržymus. Jų gausu publikuojamuose ir išsakomuose amžininkų prisiminimuose. Prisitaikymo prie sovietinės sistemos, kolaboravimo su ja, oponavimo jai temos gvildentos daugelyje po Nepriklausomybės atkūrimo publikuotų dailėtyros tekstų. Kaip sambūvio su sovietų valdžia pasekmę, dailėtyrininkai įvardijo „tyliojo modernizmo“, pusinio individualizmo reiškinius. Tačiau peržvelgus iki šiol publikuotą medžiagą, klausimai, ar tikrai egzistavo sovietinė dailės cenzūra, jeigu taip, tai kokia ji iš tiesų buvo ir kaip veikė, tebelieka atviri. Straipsnis skirtas atsakymų į klausimus – kokia buvo ir kaip veikė sovietinė dailės cenzūra – paieškoms. Remiantis archyviniais šaltiniais – LSSR Dailininkų sąjungos, LSSR Kultūros ministerijos, LSSR Glavlito dokumentais ir kitais duomenimis – bandoma išsiaiškinti sovietinės dailės cenzūros veikimo principus, jos kontroliuotas sritis, hierarchinę struktūrą, sprendimų priėmimo ir vykdymo procedūras. Dokumentinis dailės cenzūros tyrimas – vienas iš žingsnių, mitologizuotą įsivaizdavimą apie šį reiškinį priartinančių prie tikrovės.