1937 Paris Exhibition

One of the most interesting moments in the modern history of art came in the form of the 1937 Paris Exhibition. It was in that forum that both Soviet and Nazi artists, sculptors, and architects showcased their unique contributions to the arts.

Juxtaposed to socialist realism, the heroic realism of German fascism reveals its inferior aesthetic quality. Much can be said of its general lack of originality. [It certainly does not take realism in the fascinating direction Soviet artists did.]


The Spanish Republic had a pavilion featured at the exhibition, which showcased what was to become one of Picasso's most celebrated paintings, Guernica — which happened to be inspired by Nazi Germany's bombing of the Basque town.

Well of course the fascists would have inferior quality, they were far too busy driving away many of their nation's intellectuals, thinkers, artists, and so on. A rather big mistake on their part, since some of those very people helped in making the inventions used to topple their regimes.

How can it be said though that they lack originality, when most of these structures have been done in a similar fashion by past civilizations?
So wouldn't both classify as not being entirely original in their designs?

Balkan Beast wrote:Well of course the fascists would have inferior quality, they were far too busy driving away many of their nation's intellectuals, thinkers, artists, and so on. A rather big mistake on their part, since some of those very people helped in making the inventions used to topple their regimes.

How can it be said though that they lack originality, when most of these structures have been done in a similar fashion by past civilizations?
So wouldn't both classify as not being entirely original in their designs?

I don't feel as though it's fair to make such a criticism of socialist realism for simply being influenced by realism proper. Soviet artists built upon that style in such a way as to provide it with a uniquely proletarian dimension. The fascist heroic realists, on the other hand, were incapable of providing any level of depth to the style. Rather, the fascist art strikes me as little more than poor quality imitation of the real thing — what Hitler ridiculously referred to as 'Greco-Nordic' art.

The most striking distinction is how homoerotic fascist "Heroic realism" was.

Thank you for this. I have previously seen a photo comparing the two pavilions and I had no idea where they came from. Now I know.

Look at Mr. Schacht in the video.


My questions here:

-Why did this event transpire in 1937, Paris?

-What happened to the pavilions?

-What were the results of the pavilion exhibition?

When I was a fascist, the sculptures and architecture use to be very attractive to me.

I will simply say that the statue on top of the Soviet pavilion is probably the most beautiful one in existence. Socialist sculpture blows fascist sculpture out of the water, just look at my avatar.

Well... I do admire both, but in regards to Fascist architecture and art, Italy fits than Germany's, for the latter tries to act "folkish" that is, leaning to the past than looking at the future. Or rather say it tries to invoke past while presenting its own as futuristic; while Italy tends to present future as possible and not as a mere continuation of a past despite using marble, looking at roman architecture or what just to invoke their ideas.

As for the Soviet one, obviously, it tends to mirror the socialist future and at the same time caters to the reality such as to the common man. That architecture and art should be proletarian, realistic and liberative same as modernizing and conducive.

Political Necrophilia if you ask me,I've seen similar threads on stormfront.The majority of the working class people in my country turn away from left wing and right wing organisation becuse of this kind of stuff.Do you think in a socialist America people would want soviet style architecture?.