Learn more about these living fossils from millions of years ago
Faced with international sanctions, Russian artists are struggling. Empty spots usually occupied by Russian artists in international fairs, such as Art Basel, have been substituted by Ukrainian artists. Many of these artists who are now featured in international spaces were previously rejected.
While contemporary dynamics point to the complexities of art in the context of war, there is also a history of art in relation to state power, especially in Russia's case.
Curious to know more? Click through the gallery.
In the Russian context, state and culture have long been intertwined. From visual art to music, ‘socialist realism’ has been a fixture of historical Soviet culture.
This wasn’t exactly optional. Artists “who veered from the official aesthetic line faced ostracization, public condemnation, arrest, or even execution.”
It was Stalin himself who had a direct hand in the list of targeted artists. An example was his aversion to Dmitri Shostakovich’s ‘Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk.’
Allegedly, Shostakovich lived in fear for years, awaiting arrest or some sort of other punishment that, ultimately, never came.
Although Putin and Stalin share a similar approach to cultural domination, their methods are not the same. Even so, cultural production in Russia, both historically and today, is an extension of the state for a number of reasons.
Most cultural funding comes from the state. This in itself limits how cultural operations can function and their respective flexibility.
For example, Russia’s public theaters, like most in Europe, are highly dependent on access to public funding.
Without public funding, they simply cannot operate. In Russia, state theaters receive over 65% of funding from the state.
There’s an intrinsic dilemma when considering the relationship between the state and art. But it’s not just in Russia. Ukraine’s cultural institutes, too, face a similar dynamic between the state and culture.
In Ukraine and Russia, both states avidly practice censorship of any state criticism, as well as other social issues, such as LGBTQ+ themes.
In the city of Moscow, the cultural department is responsible for approving each potential exhibition that takes place in the city.
These decisions can be quite arbitrary. For example, one exhibition was denied for being “too depressing.”
Artists often argue their positions, attempting to demonstrate that there is no issue of political risk. Sometimes it’s successful, other times, not so much.
But cultural officials claim there is no censorship of cultural spaces and production. In some ways, they’re right.
There is no specific regulation that artists can consult. Instead, Russian institutions engage in forms of “self-censorship."
There is, of course, resistance to this kind of censorship in Russia. For example, Garage, one of Moscow’s well-known contemporary art spaces, has ceased any new exhibitions.
The space “didn’t want to participate in this charade that everything is fine and life goes on as before.”
In this way, censorship is a method that the state exercises to control its citizens, but it’s also a way citizens can protest against their governments.
According to The New Yorker, cinema in particular is subjected to a great deal of censorship, as sanctions have isolated the Russian market.
As of 2025, the majority of film productions are overwhelming dependent on state funding and all the subsequent licensing that comes with film production.
Many Russian artists (and their Ukrainian counterparts) have left their respective countries to continue their careers, for a myriad of reasons. Pictured is blacklisted Russian artist, Boris Grebenshchikov.
One of the biggest distinguishing factors between Stalin’s approach to censorship in comparison to Putin's is exactly what is being censored—Stalin aimed to censor the art, while Putin censors the artist.
Stalin focused on the cultural product, but Putin is more concerned with the individual producing the work. The individual’s politics are to him more of an issue. Pictured is blacklisted Russian singer, Andrey Makarevich.
Dissident artists who, for example, oppose the Ukraine-Russia war, either domestically or abroad, are considered terrorists and "foreign agents." Pictured is blacklisted Russian actress, Masha Mashkova.
This was the case for Russian writer Boris Akunin (pictured), one of Russia’s well-known contemporary authors who attended a fundraiser in support of Ukraine.
The Russian state placed him on a terrorist watch list and categorized him as a foreign agent, and therefore, a threat to the state.
The content of Akunin’s books is irrelevant as he writes detective novels. The Russian state isn’t censoring his art. Instead, they are censoring the artist.
In Russia, cultural products by “foreign agents” are legally required to be concealed and marked only appropriate for those 18 years old and up.
The crackdown on Russian artists is an international feat, but it’s also domestic. With nowhere to go, what will become of the representatives of Russia’s cultural sector?
Sources: (The New Yorker)
See also: Vandal expressionism: attacks on famous works of art
The disappearance of Russian art
The ostracization of Russian artists in the public space
LIFESTYLE Conflict
Faced with international sanctions, Russian artists are struggling. Empty spots usually occupied by Russian artists in international fairs, such as Art Basel, have been substituted by Ukrainian artists. Many of these artists who are now featured in international spaces were previously rejected.
While contemporary dynamics point to the complexities of art in the context of war, there is also a history of art in relation to state power, especially in Russia's case.
Curious to know more? Click through the gallery.