| dc.description.abstract | The significance of the First Nation-Wide Congress of Soviet Writers in the
literary life of the country has been repeatedly stressed in works concerning the
history of Soviet literature. Yet, for various reasons, the materials from this
Congress have till now not been analyzed in detail, thus, a current evaluation
of the Congress” role in the development of Soviet literature and of its contribution
żo the theory of socialistic realism were impossible.
By the middle of the thirties, socialistic realism became a new artistic conception
objectively expressing the tendencies of development and a *demand for
revolutionary Art”. Integral tendencies included by this creative conception were
completed in an organie way by building up an artistic synthesis, which
encouraged the writers to a fuller presentation of reality together with its vital
differentiations and contradictions. This conception guided literature towards the
attainment of a penetrating philosophic generalization permeated with philosophical
and political presuppositions or that epoch, a task of socialistic literature
which up till now has not been accomplished in a general sense.
Little, too, is known of the contributions the Congress made toward the
development of Soviet dramatic Arts. Increasing interest in «molecular”
processes occuring in the life of the nation, the *existence” of socialism (direction
of the psychological drama), appeared simultaneously with the determination of
creating a monumental form of drama. A constant demand for socialistie
tragedies and comedies also became apparent. Some defined but simplified
theories of the so-called "potisive comedy” (Kirshov, Uzovskii, and others) were
brought up at the Congress in connection with the development of lyrical comedy
at the beginning of the thirties. A notion of stressing the form of high ranking
«ąccusatory” Soviet comedy was opposed these tendencies.
Actual tasks of Soviet dramaturgy in the Arts and philosophy directed the
common interest of dramatists — with regard to the essence of the drama and
laws governing it — toward Shakespeare, whose dramatic writings were described
at the Congress as "full of passion, superb thoughts, and profound emotional
experiences”. Tendencies leading towards new artistic researches characterized the First
Congress. The whole course of it, its creative atmosphere permeated with criticism,
and especially its theoretical achievements, decidedly discredited arguments of
some West European experts of literature, and socialist countries” critics bend on
revisionism, who attempted and are still trying to present the Congress as
a turning point, and the beginning of regressive tendencies in Soviet literature
and Arts.
The discussions at the Congress proved that an organizational unity of writers
does not result at all in uniform creations or in erasing the writers' individuality,
neither does it limit their initiative or impedes innovative dynamism and experimental
researches, on the contrary it could become the foundation necessary to
secure the impetus of Soviet literature.
The Congress confirmed once again that the presuppositions of the cultural
policy of the Party (fruitful, as was later proven) which had been elaborated
in the middle of the twenties (especially the literary-political principle of complete
freedom in creative researches (!) and consequently endorsed in the
Statute of the Soviet Writers Association, shall remain valid.
During a discussion — concerning the socialistic realism theory — on the state
of Soviet dramaturgy symptoms of a narrowing comprehension of artistic gradation
(V. Kirpotin, especially in the case of conventional forms) were brought into
focus together with a wide perspective on a variety of artistic forms. By the
second half of the thirties these problems reached a climax and were canonized
in pure realistic knacks or forms of expression strictly conforming to true life
happenings. A notion by A. Bushmin, a Soviet literature expert, who endeavoured
to belittle the role and significance of artistic forms in the aesthetics of socialist
realism, proved there were still many misunderstandings in attempts to explain
these problems. Yet, already in the twenties and thirties A. V. Lunacharskii—
in agreement with his conception of realism as a "wide category” — recognized
both principles (i.e. the "realistic" and 'stylistic”) as equal, organic foundation
of realistic art. Lunacharskii saw the future of socialistic art
in creative developments shaped by these two stylistic determinants. Some of the
writers and politicians at the Congress (A. Fadeiev, N. Nikitin, N. Bukharin)
argued in favour of the wide conception of socialistic realism.
The problem of basic pathos in Soviet literature (common links between
affirmative and critical forms found at the beginnings of Soviet literature)
which, because of mechanical treatment, and a till now rather neglected
antinomy between critical and socialistic realism, appeared to be
another complex theoretical matter. And yet these eritical points were
recognized already 30 years ago, at a time when theoretical premisses had been
formulated for the first time and the principles of socialistic realism tentatively
brought into focus, but only now, after passing through a period of dogmatism,
have they been acknowledged by literary theory.
Summing up the Past, the participants of the First Congress iniciated at that
time a new period of development in Soviet literature. Courageous perspectives
capable of guiding literature to new artistic achievements were opened up. But
the Congress must not be judged only for not being able to actualize in full all
positive cultural and political accomplishments or theoretical achievements during
the subsequent period of development in Soviet literature and Arts; certain vulgar
and dogmatic presuppositions of the socialistic realism theory have caught on. | pl_PL |
