Supported by the Soviet state throughout the period 1917-1947, photography was a formidable propaganda instrument in the service of the Patriotic War or the cult of great men. A recent work takes stock of the genesis of Soviet photography and its links with the society of the time.
The art historian Annette Melot-Henry rightly points out in the afterword to her work that the editorial reception of her book follows the evolution of interest in Soviet photography in France. Conditions have changed. In recent years, Soviet photography has enjoyed renewed popularity both in France and in Russia. In Moscow, exhibition venues are multiplying. The house of photography, opened in 1996, the recent Center of Photography of the Lumière Brothers regularly organize retrospectives highlighting the Soviet photographic heritage and its most famous representatives.
In Western countries, Soviet photography also enjoyed growing success and went beyond interest in avant-garde photography. Exhibitions are frequent (thus, in Paris, the following exhibitions: Max Penson in 2002, Dmitri Baltermants in 2005, A visual weapon: Soviet photomontagein 2007, Rodchenko, a revolution in the eyein 2012, at the Aitouares Gallery, a double exhibition: From the Soviet Dream by Khaldeï to the American Dream by Cravenat the Saint-Benoît des Prés Bookstore: Travel in USSR -Evgueni Khaldeï), regular publications (initiated in particular in France by Mark Grosset), sales of Soviet photographic collections became important events. For example, on March 28, 2011, the Piasa house organized a sale in Paris bringing together Soviet photographs of the XXe century, counting among them some of Penson and Baltermants. More recently, Sotheby’s on June 5, 2013 put up for sale 800 Soviet photographs.
A total history of photography
It is the genesis of Soviet photography that Annette Melot-Henry is interested in this work, in a broad approach which goes well beyond the question of propaganda and the falsification of photographs. Photography is in fact not only a vector of propaganda. Reportage photography was thus able to leave in the field elements that say a lot about Soviet society. The author chose to favor the idea of a photograph reflecting the Soviet period (1917-1945). This must in fact be perceived as a “ family novel » with choices of themes and people represented which are partial and biased. Annette Melot-Henry also emphasizes the political voluntarism of Soviet leaders in matters of photography, which favored its rapid development.
His questions can be compared to those of historians, specialists in cinema, literature, painting and architecture working on the question of arts in transition in theUSSR during the 1920s and 1930s. The latter contributed to reinscribing the history of Soviet art in the context of society in the 1930s, in particular by questioning the structuring of artists’ unions, the processes of ordering and supply. One point, however, differentiates Annette Melot-Henry from these works: the question of sources. The work is certainly based on the analysis of numerous journals (Sovetskoe Foto, Novyi Lef, Proletarskoe Foto, Fotograf) and uses extensively the life stories of former photographers but makes little use, for example, of the archives of photographers’ associations. They would undoubtedly have been able to provide us with clarification on the question of the material conditions of these groups (ordering and remuneration process, allocation of equipment, privileges, etc.).
The first part “ History is written very well with the objective » whose title takes up a phrase from Lenin, questions the development of photography and the forms it takes. The author first points out that photography was encouraged from the top of the state. Both Lenin and Lunacharsky defended photography and supported its development. It then shows that those in power attempted to control the production and distribution of images early on. In 1918, the People’s Commissariat of Education established photographic and cinematographic committees in Petrograd and Moscow. In 1919, the Moscow committee was reorganized into the All-Russian Department of Photography and Cinema, moving to Goskino in 1922. Annette Melot-Henry shows that photography then gradually ceased to be managed by this institution and was taken care of by the newspapers and press agencies like Soiûzfoto then TASS. The establishment of copyright is also a form of Soviet innovation, gradually reinforced.
The 1920s were characterized by a flowering of photographic associations. Some born during the tsarist period continue their existence. The author shows the essential role of the latter in supply in the difficult context of the civil war. By studying these groups, Annette Melot-Henry highlights the opposition between professional groups, focused on defending the rights of their members, and avant-garde groups defending avant-garde positions.
Two observations can be made, however. The first concerns the question of associations. The author analyzes the different associations one after the other from the point of view of structures but fails to show what causes adhesion to this or that. We also do not know if the same photographer can belong to several and what are the motives for these memberships. The second remark concerns the question of professionalization. Annette Melot-Henry does not sufficiently show how these different associations have made it possible to professionalize the practice of photography. In the same way, if the end of the associations is indicated by concomitant dates – 1930 for the associations which existed before the Revolution, 1932 for the Soviet associations – the way in which the world of Soviet photography was structured thereafter is not not mentioned.
In the sub-section devoted to the photographic industry, the author highlights the difficulty of supply and shortages of equipment, the strengthening of state control in the concentration of the photographic industry and the diffusion more wide scope of photography by producing devices that are easier to use and in greater numbers. Certain aspects still remain in the shadows and we would have liked to know more about foreign collaborations and technology purchases, about the degree of integration of specialists from the tsarist period into the beginnings of Soviet photography.
Photography, mirage or mirror of the Soviet world ?
The second and third parts focus on the content of Soviet photographs: on the subjects recorded on the film. The subject is articulated thematically. The inventory of subjects represented is organized (in the second part) around the question of a photograph “ mirage or mirror “. The great moments of Soviet history and major projects are associated here. Annette Melot-Henry shows how photography was used on several occasions as an instrument of regime construction both at the time of the civil war and during the Great Patriotic War. She analyzes how photography was an agent of war, useful for showing and disseminating the abuses committed by the enemy and symbolizing the reconquest and reconstruction of the country. Great men and the cult of personality are the subject of Part Three.
The fourth part of the work returns to the question of the evolution of the artistic conception of photography. Annette Melot-Henry notes that the avant-garde only brought together a small number of artists, who have passed into posterity. It shows that the revolution has not completely changed the artistic conceptions of photography: the vast majority of photographers still practice portraits and landscapes. However, these representations are evolving. The landscape experienced a return to honor from the 1930s and from 1941, it allowed the land and Russian heritage to be highlighted. If the portrait did not fall into disgrace, it was nonetheless the subject of debate. In the 1920s, he had to capture people in action and movement. During the 1930s, the portrait was used to present new heroes, to highlight certain types. The replacement of painting by photography was supported by some photographers. Painting, non-reproducible, no longer met the demands of a changing society while photography made it possible to capture unforeseen events.
The book could be criticized for not having integrated the corpus studied into a current in the historiography of contemporary Soviet culture questioning Soviet values and the portrayal of the State in the press. The author could also be criticized for not having included her research in an increasingly rich history of Stalinist heroes and figures and for not relying more on research on literature or cinema. However, the very detailed work is a useful synthesis for understanding this medium which has managed to bring together political power, activists, artists and the general public in theUSSR under construction.