78
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by lurker_supreme@hexbear.net to c/art@hexbear.net

But why? I was reading a fairly vacuous art history book and they drop all this knowledge and then do 0 analysis of it. Feels like they're saying "teehee, ain't it so quirky?" Their best guess was to counter Socialist Realism and to promote the US as an art powerhouse, a vision of artistic freedom!!! Is that the materialist interpretation?

E: Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Genuinely. When I write that it sounds corporate, but I mean it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 39 points 2 days ago

The Socialist Realism policies were a strategic mistake that made enemies without much benefit, so by encouraging art movements wildly contrary to Socialist Realism, they could turn people against it because this perfectly fine art movement wasn't allowed and perhaps even art that they like or would like to make was considered improper. That's my interpretation of it, anyway.

Obviously encouraging Socialist Realism was a good thing, but discouraging other genres was counterproductive.

this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
78 points (100.0% liked)

art

22943 readers
66 users here now

A community for sharing and discussing art in general.

If you are unsure if a piece of media is on theme for this community, you can make a post asking if it fits. Discussion posts are encouraged, and particularly interesting topics will get pinned periodically.

No links to a store page or advertising. Links to bandcamps, soundclouds, playlists, etc are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS