Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0299/02996.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 32KB | 544 lines

$Unique_ID{COW02996}
$Pretitle{360}
$Title{Romania
Chapter 6A.   Artistic and Intellectual Expression}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Eugene K. Keefe}
$Affiliation{HQ, Department of the Army}
$Subject{art
romanian
cultural
artists
folk
century
expression
artistic
music
period}
$Date{1972}
$Log{}
Country:     Romania
Book:        Romania, A Country Study
Author:      Eugene K. Keefe
Affiliation: HQ, Department of the Army
Date:        1972

Chapter 6A.   Artistic and Intellectual Expression

     The arts and intellectual activity reflect Romania's position as a
crossroads of Eastern and Western cultures. Elements of ancient Roman culture
from the second and third centuries mingle with Byzantine elements (dating
from the Middle Ages) and with Islamic elements (brought by the Turkish
conquest of the fifteenth century) (see ch. 2). In more recent times, these
were joined by elements of Western European culture. Underlying all these
influences from abroad are elements of a native peasant culture that can be
traced back to the Neolithic settlement found on the territory of the
Romanian state. The mixing of all the elements has produced a cultural mosaic
that, although it has much in common with the cultures of neighboring
countries, is purely Romanian.

     The Romanian people are very proud of their cultural heritage and of the
artistic and intellectual expression that it has inspired. Artists and
intellectuals have always occupied a favored position in society as
transmitters of the aspirations of the people. They continue to feel an
identity as the social class that is responsible for the spiritual well-being
of the nation.

     The communist government has promoted this pride in the cultural heritage
by devoting considerable funds and effort to the restoration and preservation
of antiquities. It has also fostered the preservation of folk art and folk
traditions through the establishment of the Village Museums in Bucharest and
Cluj and through the continued urging of contemporary artists to produce a
national art based on folk traditions.

     The various ethnic minorities have preserved their own cultural
traditions and forms of expression. Although these forms reflect the same
modern influences of foreign origins that have affected Romanian forms, they
show relatively little direct borrowing from each other or from the Romanian
majority.

     Because artistic and intellectual activity is a very effective means of
protest and social criticism and, therefore, opposition to the established
order, the communist leadership has tried to keep such expression under
control and to use it for its own purposes. The degree of cultural freedom and
the content of cultural output have been indicators of the political situation
in the country.

     Despite controls, artists and intellectuals continue to create. Not all
of their effort becomes public, and that which does is not necessarily sincere
or direct. Symbolism and allusion have been developed to a high degree and are
well understood by both the creator and his audience.

THE ROLE OF THE ARTS UNDER COMMUNISM

     Since the communists took control of the government in 1947, artistic and
intellectual expression has been dominated by the cultural policy of the
Romanian Communist Party (Partidul Communist Roman-PCR), which follows the
model developed by the Soviet Union. The policy is based on the concept known
as Socialist Realism, whereby an artist must strive to grasp the essence of
human and social relations and depict them truthfully in the light of
socialist ideals. Art must be directed toward the working man; therefore its
style must be simple and straightforward.

     Adherence to this concept in the formulation and execution of cultural
policy has varied, however, and generally reflects the political climate of
the time and the particular outlook of the men in power. During the 1950s,
which has come to be known as the Dogmatic Period of cultural life in
post-World War II Romania, the content of the arts and of intellectual
expression was strictly controlled and restricted. Socialist Realism was
interpreted to mean the presentation of the glories of communist ideals
through the various forms of art and the use of such forms to further these
ideals. All cultural effort, therefore, had to be directed to these goals, and
no deviation was tolerated. The merits of a book, painting, or play were
judged only by how well they fulfilled the propaganda function. Most
individuals entrusted with passing judgment on what was or was not acceptable
had no professional qualifications. As a result of all these factors, artistic
production that was made public during this period was, with few exceptions,
dull and mediocre.

     With the discrediting of Stalin and his policies in the mid-1950s,
dogmatism in artistic expression gave way to a more liberal interpretation of
what was considered appropriate. Emphasis on Socialist Realism was replaced
with emphasis on nationalistic and historical themes, as Romania strove to
gain greater political and economic independence from the Soviet Union. In
order to be acceptable to the administrators of cultural policy, artistic
expression no longer had to confine itself to the presentation of communist
ideals in traditional styles, but it could address itself to a variety of
themes and could experiment in innovative styles. Although artists were
criticized for submitting to so-called decadent bourgeois culture if they
moved too far away from the standards of Socialist Realism, they were not
punished or enjoined from further creative activity unless their work could be
interpreted as an attack on the regime or its policies.

     At the same time, expanding relations between Romania and the
noncommunist world brought artists and intellectuals into contact with
cultural developments elsewhere and stimulated Romanian creative expression.
Cultural exchanges with Western countries were often used by the government to
allow artists more freedom of expression than could be politically justified
at home. Artists were allowed to exhibit or perform abroad works that had been
highly criticized at home. The critical praise received abroad was proudly
publicized at home as an example of Romanian genius, at the same time that
these very works were being criticized for not meeting the desired standards
of artistic expression.

     The apparent inconsistency in the application of cultural policy in the
late 1960s was indicative of a widespread effort to determine what the role of
art and literature should be in a socialist society. By 1971 this had become a
much debated topic. Party ideologists, communist and noncommunist artists and
critics, and other members of the intellectual elite, including students,
aired their views through roundtable discussions, through polemics in the
press, and through other means. The debates appeared to be unrestricted and
lively, and the views expressed ranged from strict adherence to the concept of
Socialist Realism to a plea for "art for art's sake." The opinion of the
majority, however, seemed to be that art and literature in a socialist
society, as in any other society, have both an aesthetic and a social role.
Neither of these functions should overshadow the other; social and political
elements in a work of art or literature should be implicit and artistically
presented rather than the sole justification for the existence of the work.

     In July 1971 President Nicolae Ceausescu announced a tightening of
cultural reins in order to bring cultural and educational activity back toward
its socialist purpose. The statement was followed by the removal of some books
from publication schedules, the cancellation of some theatrical productions,
and the resignation or removal of several editors of literary and cultural
periodicals. Most observers, however, agreed that, despite some tightening of
controls, artistic and intellectual expression in Romania at the end of 1971
was far from returning to the restrictions of the D