EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Anyone who has been interested in the history of Bulgarian art knows that the years of the totalitarian communist regime are those in which art was most centralized, controlled and limited artists within certain limits. The period from 1944 to 1989 (very roughly, since things are a bit more complicated) are years in which everything happens centrally – not only the commissions, but also the control, the decisions about what can be exhibited publicly, who can use what materials, where to order them, etc. In a sense, this idea is correct – but to what extent were the years before September 9th (and after) years of free creative expression, minimal censorship and diverse opportunities for Bulgarian painters, sculptors and other visual artists?
Here I will focus only on the “preparatory” period before the totalitarian communist system. Unfortunately, when we look into history, we discover that September 9 and the totalitarian regime (by coincidence – communist, with Moscow as its center) did not come on a “bare field”, but on a territory well prepared for centralized management. There are not one or two attempts – more or less successful – for totalitarian management of certain spheres of life, in which the state interferes extremely much. The same is true in the sphere of arts.
Bulgarian art in the first decades after the Liberation
Before we reach the peak in the 1930s, an overview of Bulgarian art and the attitude of the state authorities towards it in the previous decades is necessary. Here I will not deal with Bulgarian Renaissance art and its achievements in a period in which not only was there no “state support”, but the existing political system (and religious, that is, we double the assessment by two) was rather aggressive towards those who proudly expressed their Bulgarian nationality. The first years after the Liberation were too turbulent to think too much about art. The “support” for various artists was rather incidental. The dispute "which is the first exhibition in our country" is indicative of how few similar events were in the first years after the Liberation - whether a "general exhibition" in the National Assembly in 1885, Ivan Angelov's solo exhibition in the hall of the First Boys' High School in Sofia in 1887, or the exhibition in Plovdiv during the Industrial Exhibition of 1892.
In any case, these events gathered, prepared, and shaped society – and the respective elites – for 1893, when a group of people founded the Society for the Preservation of Art in Bulgaria. This essentially voluntary association, with the aim of supporting, rather than controlling, art, worked towards the establishment of a school of painting. It was the establishment of the State Drawing School that was the first serious intervention by the state in the sphere of the arts in Bulgaria.
It is curious that the state spending of funds on artists – to create a State School of Painting – found its opponents both in parliament and among the intellectual elite. Among them were the politician Petko Karavelov and the writer, and at that time already with certain political positions, Aleko Konstantinov, who ironically stated in his text that then we should also create a ballet school, so that we would have so many ballerinas that Europe would envy us.
Still, the State Drawing School (SDS) was established and – not without ups and downs and various scandals over the decades – it exists to this day, now as the National Art Academy. It is extremely difficult to give an “economic” assessment of the State Drawing School, that is, was it worth spending so much money for what was achieved as a result.
Although some of the most successful Bulgarian artists such as Haralampi Tachev, Vladimir Dimitrov – The Master, Ivan Milev and many others pass through it, DRU annually throws up with its state subsidy many names that remain anonymous and without much success. At the same time, many wonderful artists appear in our country who have nothing to do with DRU – Tsanko Lavrenov never enrolled there, wonderful artists are formed abroad, such as Sirak Skitnik, Goshka Datsov and others.
In any case, the State Drawing School existed over the years as a stable center around which various other independent organizations were formed “revolutionarily”. Thus, in the first years of the 20th century, the “Contemporary Art” society was created, which rebelled against the academicism of the DRU. Among the curious moments are precisely the attempts of “Contemporary Art” to modernize the program of the DRU, which, at least until the Balkan and First World Wars, they failed to achieve. It is interesting that it was precisely such different societies with different points of view that would shape artistic life in the 1920s and 1930s. As early as 1919, the “Native Art” society was created, already from its own point of view, rebelling against the conservatism of “Contemporary Art”. Different groups of artists were grouped in different ways, for example geographically, as the societies of South Bulgarian or North Bulgarian artists, or by gender – the Society of Women Artists.
These societies exist completely independently and independently. The members support each other, finance joint exhibitions with membership fees or income according to their statutes and generally serve as a community that unites individual artists under one roof. However, each of them is independent for itself and independent of the state. It can be safely said that these are the most fertile years for Bulgarian art – the 20s and 30s are the years in which Ivan Milev, Nikolay Raynov, Vladimir Dimitrov – the Master, Zlatyu Boyadzhiev, Tsanko Lavrenov, Boris Georgiev, Dimitar Gyudzhenov, Nikolay Kozhuharov, etc. rose (and for some – undoubtedly the strongest years). Some of them are active members of various associations, others are more independent – but it is in this environment that these artists create some of the greatest Bulgarian works. Of course, we cannot ignore the fact that many of them come from the State Drawing School. We have no way of knowing whether without it (or without the state support for such a school, since private art schools also existed) some of these artists would have existed and formed in this way. Another fact, however, is that it was during this period that they created free from restrictions, orders, guidelines, party or national lines, and so on. Everyone chooses their own path or association to be a part of.
The 1934 coup and attempts to "nationalize" art
However, this entire environment changed in 1934. It was then that the greatest attempts were made for strong centralized state control over the arts – they (paintings, sculptures, monuments, etc.) were recognized as a strong propaganda tool that should be in the hands of the state and political power. Thus, in the months after May 9, Kimon Georgiev and his close circle made a series of attempts for totalitarian management of the arts in the country. The scale was incomparably larger than the apparent state intervention, through state orders, the creation of a state school, etc.
In a way, this was “prepared” by society, on the one hand through the Society of New Artists, on the other hand through the so-called Union of Artists’ Societies in Bulgaria. The first organization, “The New Ones,” is one of those many associations that have their own vision of art and exist independently among the rich palette of other such structures. The difference with them, however, is the categorically clearly stated goal of seeking “state support” and working on things like opening art galleries in every Bulgarian city, supported by the state. The Society of “The New Ones” achieved a lot of success in the 1930s, and in many cases had very close and successful ties with the then government. It is extremely curious that in the years after September 9, it would be “rebranded” and its history rewritten by the communist regime so that “The New Ones” would turn out to be left-wing Marxists who fought against the status quo of monarchical power. This myth was debunked only in the 1990s in several of her texts by the art critic Tatyana Dimitrova – thanks to her discoveries, it turns out that the “News” were not actually fighting against the status quo at all. However, the desire for centralized state control fits perfectly with both their goals before September 9th and the nomenklatura after the communist coup.
The other organization – the Union of Artists’ Societies in Bulgaria (SDHB) became even stronger, as at one point it even presented itself as an official state controller, although without being a government organization in any way. Also created around 1930, it was no longer an independent structure, and also aimed at centralization – the consolidation of all these many “society” into one common union. The golden moment (before September 9) of the SDHB was in 1934, after the coup of Kimon Georgiev.
It was in the months before Kimon Georgiev was overthrown from power that some of the most totalitarian ideas for centralized control over art in our country were sneaked in or even created (before September 9). Thus, at that time, the idea of a "Federation of Literature and the Arts" appeared - a complete unification of all artists under one umbrella, which would be the only competent structure on matters of the arts in our country. The goals, as was the spirit of the time, were nationalistic - to create "original folk art", and foreign cultures would not have the right to be represented if they were not reworked in the spirit of the Bulgarian one. For example, membership would be denied to artists who "imitated foreign works". This idea was not realized in 1935, but it would happen in full glory under the rule of the SDBH, in 1944.
The role of the SDFH in the centralization of art
Thus, after 1935, the state again adopted a “softer” approach, instead of chasing and stopping “foreigners”, supporting “national” artists – through various funds, incentive systems, etc. However, the SDFH remained the central partner and if an artist was not a member of this organization, he missed out on many privileges. For example, SDFH members were exempt from certain taxes or traveled with a discount on BDZ.
Thus, the SRFB also used the state legislative apparatus to fight other artists and in general - to impose control over the visual arts in the country. Thus, a fight was launched against "itinerant art dealers", the union demanded a leading role in deciding the vision of the monuments in the country, as well as orders for monumental works or ways to preserve antiquities ("movable and immovable cultural heritage", as we call it today). The SRFB exerted pressure on the state to be the sole advisor on aesthetic issues and even at one point launched an initiative that all state and private(!) banks must consult only this union when making their purchases. On the initiative of the SRFB in 1939, a slightly comical from today's point of view idea-competition for "uniformity in the way of depicting historical figures" was held.
It is not superfluous to specify that the SRFH includes many people and societies with different views on art, and the more centralized the structure becomes, the less different views have their voice. However, this union became more and more centralized over time, and began to receive more and more power from the state. Thus, in 1942, an “artistic council” was created at the SRFH, which judged all exhibitions of societies that were part of the union, decided on the buyouts of the Ministry of Public Education, and other actions that were essentially censorship of creativity. In one of her articles, Tatyana Dimitrova also cited an interesting statistic – out of 230 individual members, only 80 were freelancers – that is, 2/3 of the SRFH members were actually civil servants.
Thus, in the reorganization of the state after September 9, 1944, no major changes needed to be made – the SRF very easily and smoothly accepted its new role as a centralized and total censor of art in Bulgaria.
Slightly apart from this process – and quite unknown today – stands the Society of Independent Artists. The historical sources for the existence of this organization are few, but it was certainly not marginal – names such as Ivan Boyadzhiev, Nikolay Rostovtsev, Ekaterina Savova-Nenova, Kiril Petrov and other extremely important artists for Bulgarian art were associated with it. What is unique about them is their freedom-loving structure – each artist is free to choose what to exhibit at the general society exhibitions, there is no jury to select the works, and there are no stylistic or other restrictions. Everyone is free to create as they wish, “without any restrictions and conventions” in order to cultivate a “sense of responsibility and self-criticism” in each individual artist. The society retains its independence, although it joins the Union of Societies in 1932. It is not known how the radically different views of the two organizations coexisted. The independent life of the Society of Independents ended in 1944.
