realism came to be considered passé. In fact, many modern movements measured their
own worth by the extent to which they actively departed from realism.
In the 1930s there arose fierce argument about what constituted revolutionary art. The
German expressionists, the dadaists and the surrealists all had programmes of social
renewal, and argued that a new and experimental avantgarde style could best convey this
message. The Mexican muralist Diego Rivera, on the other hand, argued that because
realist art was true to life and without artifice, it could be immediately understood and
read by an uneducated audience. Stalin agreed with him, and the style of flat, linear,
illustrative art that resulted came to be known as social (or sometimes socialist) realism,
because it combined truth in representing objects with political truth in representing the
class struggle. In Germany, Hitler also favoured simple, graphic, narrative art and
despised all the -isms of avantgarde art, which he regarded as perversions. All agreed on
the broad idea that art is a vehicle for ideas, and a control over the production of art
means some control over the political agenda.
In Fascist Italy, however, there was less policing of artistic styles. Official architecture
and sculpture was monumental and classicist in a dry, modernist way, but Mussolini
expressed no desire to censor the styles of individuals. Hence Il Corrente (The Current),
an artists’ movement formed in 1939, included both formalists and realists, who were
united more by opposition to Fascist politics than by stylistic concerns. The solidarity
among artists increased during the last years of the Second World War, when many
participated together in the Resistance. However, as with the democratic political parties,
often all they had in common was their opposition to Fascism, so it was not surprising
that their unity soon crumbled.
Some artists, such as the Forma (Form) group, quickly declared themselves for
abstract art, arguing that it was possible to be both formalist and Marxist. Even among
those who supported realism, there was a considerable range of opinion. The most
orthodox communist view was put forward by writer Antonello Trombadori, who
favoured a flat, pictorial style with aesthetic qualities clearly subordinate to the
expression of the political message. Trombadori praised the didactic nature of Guttuso’s
Gott mit uns (God With Us), from 1945, which depicted a historical episode of German
brutality, but was unable to see how more personal or abstract art could also express
positive political values. De Micheli, on the other hand, spoke out against veristic or
naturalistic realism, which he saw leading to the error of social realism. In their manifesto
Oltre guernica (Beyond Guernica) from 1946, Morlotti and Vedova made the same
claim, suggesting that realism was a shared state of mind rather than a style, which shows
just how broad the Italian sense of realism could be. Indeed, elsewhere the term
‘figurative’ (dealing with the recognizable shape of objects) would be used, as it allowed
for a lesser or greater degree of abstraction. Guttuso himself adopted a neo-cubist style.
Thus when Birolli, Morlotti, Vedova, Santomaso, Corpora and Guttuso came together in
1947 in the Fronte nuovo delle arti (New Front of the Arts), they could speak of
themselves as representing a realismo nuovo or new realism, even though collectively
they ran the gamut of figurative styles.
In 1948, the ideal of a unity between political action and art was shattered when
Communist Party leader Palmiro Togliatti condemned modernist art, including the work
of Forma and the Fronte, as rubbish, in terms remarkably similar to those which had been
used by Hitler fifteen years earlier. At the same time, growing tension between America
Encyclopedia of contemporary italian culture 704