Two Books Reassess Global Socialist Realism as Modernist Practice
Ksenya Gurshtein's review explores two recent works that confront the neglect of Socialist Realism in the realm of global art history. The publications, 'Was Socialist Realism Global? Modernism, Soc-Modernism, Socially Engaged Figuration' (2023) and 'Soviet Socialist Realism and Art in the Asia-Pacific' (2025), advocate for the movement's significance, highlighting overlooked narratives from the Second and Third Worlds. Both texts argue that Socialist Realism should be seen within the context of Modernism, showcasing parallels and divergences akin to Western Modernism. By the mid-20th century, it had established values that are now recognized as global standards. The review raises a critical question about whether to merge Socialist Realism with socially engaged figuration or to regard them as separate entities. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for new ethical perspectives when discussing artists under totalitarian regimes, avoiding moralism and simplistic dichotomies. This review appears in ARTMargins, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp. 85-98.
Key facts
- Review by Ksenya Gurshtein published June 25, 2026
- Examines 'Was Socialist Realism Global?' (2023) and 'Soviet Socialist Realism and Art in the Asia-Pacific' (2025)
- Both books reclaim Socialist Realism for in-depth investigation
- Narrate histories from Second and Third Worlds
- Situate Socialist Realism within Modernism
- Argue Socialist Realism had continuities and ruptures like Western Modernism
- By mid-20th century, Socialist Realism established international standards
- Unresolved question: conflation of Socialist Realism and socially engaged figuration
- Calls for new ethical discussion of artists under totalitarian regimes
- Published in ARTMargins, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp. 85-98
Entities
Institutions
- ARTMargins
- MIT Press