>>411618>Socialist Realism is the only real form of proletarian art yet devised. Well that's just lie. There's no basis for this, just like it would have no basis in regards to discussing historical conceptions of bourgeoisie art.
>Certainly the best, most accurate and inspiring. Depends on the context.
>I didn't call abstract art inherently anti-communist. I accept that some constructivists supported Bolshevism. But no, socialist realism is still necessary. In the past? Debatably. Today? You'd just be creating what is effectively a facsimile, a dishonest repetition that lacks the initial context that birthed it and made it what it was. It would be no different then the bourgeoisie of today derivatively repeating revolutionary period colonial architecture or romantic art pieces in an era which it lacks the substance which birthed it.
>This is what I mean, little snivelling bourgeois liberals sneer that it's something for thick-skulled proletarians, something outdated and totally old school brooooooooo.I don't sneer at it, I respect it in the context it existed in, as I do all art. I only "sneer" at people who treat it as nothing more then aesthetic, and who try to manufacture what is the equivalent of a tribute band to satiate their own proclivities, while claiming it to be genuine and of similar substance.its not something for "thick skulled" people, it's for the people from which the conditions of the time founded the conditions for such art.
>Well I say down with all the liars, the idealists, the shit for brains aristocrats who hate us. We need socialist realism more than ever. It's a lightning bolt of truth that pierces the fog of mysticism and obscurantism.Actual larp. Analyze the context of your time and conditions rather then trying to inauthentically replicate what doesn't exist for you, and like those of the past who did make such good work and were revolutionary in their conception, forge your own path in that immortal tradition of artistic closures and births.