Hacker News Reader

Comment by uwagar | Hacker News Reader

what happens to artists/musicians/poets? did they have to work at a day job compulsorily to have wages/house/pension etc?

View on HN

As far as I know, the ones cozy with the regime were cared for (well beyond normal people) while underground artists worked odd jobs like night receptionists, janitors, boiler room operators or were in prison. (edit: also uranium mines for the ones who pissed off the state)

Those tend to get overlooked by people longing for the old days.

perhaps if the artist is cozy with the regime they cant be critical of the regime?

can parents support their child that is an artist with their income? or the state knows everything about the artist (her age, fit to work so on) and will compulsorily draft them to work?

It was illegal not to work in the Soviet Union. There was even a name for such people who weren't officially employed - "tuneyadets".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)

Young people were assigned jobs on finishing schooling. There was not much "looking for a job". Unless you had the right contacts, the closest thing to deciding where to work at was to pick a higher education - if you picked automotive engineering, you'd end up in a different place than if you picked medicine or something.

>> young people were assigned jobs on finishing schooling

Could you provide evidence for this?

"Job by distribution" was no secret and it is a well-known thing among people from post-soviet countries. Graduates were obliged to work at assigned place, usually for three years.

It's hard to find English source. You could try machine translation of this wikipedia page [1] - but that says it was mandatory only in 1951 to 1959 and then it was changed to a recommendation.

I know my uncle was supposed to go to one company but then that didn't work our for some reason and he had to look for a job himself, which was supposed to be rare. That would be early 1980s.

[1]: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Um%C3%ADst%C4%9Bnka

For what it's worth, that's what the vast majority of artists do today. Spending most of your time and energy doing stuff that doesn't make money doesn't typically lead to a comfortable lifestyle.

Was Tarkovsky, for example, cozy with the regime?

There were also a plenty of 'underground' artists, who had a day job of being a book illustrator, and did some stuff on the side, which they only would show to the close circle.

The artists were propaganda or workplace safety poster painters or they made statues of Lenin or of wartime heroes. The musicians were lucky enough to be able to play classical music but they also had to sing patriotic songs. The poets were either censored or had to write patriotic or propaganda pieces. Culture was ran by the state. Real literature like Roadside Picnic circulated undrground.

Well, first of all Roadside Picnic was actually published by the state. Then, the state funded a rather expensive Tarkovsky movie, inspired by the book ("Stalker"). I think I even had this book at parent's apartment. Plenty of Strugatsky's brothers novels were actually published by the state publishing houses. I think they ran into some problems with their more satirical pieces ("Tale of Troika" comes to mind, for example).

Your description of artists' life is pretty simplistic and one-sided. There were some people who did propaganda posters, but there were many things that existed outside the political domain, from book illustrations, to paintings with less ideological overtones, to working in theater. There was also Soviet cinema and animation, which would hardly be seen as only a propaganda vehicle, there was a lot of very nuanced works, which raised important questions. A lot of good stuff was shelved, or circulated underground of course.

Have you seen this film? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Look_Away

It is an interesting film in general, and in context of your comment from the politics of art perspective -- it starts with a Nazi lecture on the "degenerate art" of 20s-30s, to art class lectures in Communist times, and ends with the equally ideological forces dictating "what's art" in West Germany (where are hero finally achieves fame and fortune.) It's East German variety of old regime/new regime but likely will resonate at some level.

There's a great story about one writer, Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of We about the relation to the State ideology at the beginning of USSR and his subsequent emigration.

The Russian Novel That Foresaw — but Underestimated — Totalitarianism

https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/the-russian-nove...

I'm not talking about the USSR because I haven't lived there, but Eastern Europe. Yes, you are right, my description is simplistic but art was being amputated by the communist regimes. The Strugatsky novel was rejected on grounds of faul language and the Russian version was initially heavily edited. Of course it was published by the state, as all publishing houses were state owned before 1990.

Artists got paid to produce art, that was their day job.

We all have family or friends who were artists before 89. The state arranged structures for artists to have jobs and even subsidised it strongly, so working people could afford to experience culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com