The Romanian people are very proud of their cultural heritage and of the artistic and intellectual expression that it has inspired. Artists and intellectuals have always occupied a favored position in society as transmitters of the aspirations of the people. They continue to feel an identity as the social class that is responsible for the spiritual well-being of the nation.
The communist government has promoted this pride in the cultural heritage by devoting considerable funds and effort to the restoration and preservation of antiquities. It has also fostered the preservation of folk art and folk traditions through the establishment of the Village Museums in Bucharest and Cluj and through the continued urging of contemporary artists to produce a national art based on folk traditions.
The various ethnic minorities have preserved their own cultural traditions and forms of expression. Although these forms reflect the same modern influences of foreign origins that have affected Romanian forms, they show relatively little direct borrowing from each other or from the Romanian majority.
Because artistic and intellectual activity is a very effective means of protest and social criticism and, therefore, opposition to the established order, the communist leadership has tried to keep such expression under control and to use it for its own purposes. The degree of cultural freedom and the content of cultural output have been indicators of the political situation in the country.
Despite controls, artists and intellectuals continue to create. Not all of their effort becomes public, and that which does is not necessarily sincere or direct. Symbolism and allusion have been developed to a high degree and are well understood by both the creator and his audience.
THE ROLE OF THE ARTS UNDER COMMUNISM
Since the communists took control of the government in 1947, artistic and intellectual expression has been dominated by the cultural policy of the Romanian Communist Party (Partidul Communist Roman—PCR), which follows the model developed by the Soviet Union. The policy is based on the concept known as Socialist Realism, whereby an artist must strive to grasp the essence of human and social relations and depict them truthfully in the light of socialist ideals. Art must be directed toward the working man; therefore its style must be simple and straightforward.
Adherence to this concept in the formulation and execution of cultural policy has varied, however, and generally reflects the political climate of the time and the particular outlook of the men in power. During the 1950s, which has come to be known as the Dogmatic Period of cultural life in post-World War II Romania, the content of the arts and of intellectual expression was strictly controlled and restricted. Socialist Realism was interpreted to mean the presentation of the glories of communist ideals through the various forms of art and the use of such forms to further these ideals. All cultural effort, therefore, had to be directed to these goals, and no deviation was tolerated. The merits of a book, painting, or play were judged only by how well they fulfilled the propaganda function. Most individuals entrusted with passing judgment on what was or was not acceptable had no professional qualifications. As a result of all these factors, artistic production that was made public during this period was, with few exceptions, dull and mediocre.
With the discrediting of Stalin and his policies in the mid-1950s, dogmatism in artistic expression gave way to a more liberal interpretation of what was considered appropriate. Emphasis on Socialist Realism was replaced with emphasis on nationalistic and historical themes, as Romania strove to gain greater political and economic independence from the Soviet Union. In order to be acceptable to the administrators of cultural policy, artistic expression no longer had to confine itself to the presentation of communist ideals in traditional styles, but it could address itself to a variety of themes and could experiment in innovative styles. Although artists were criticized for submitting to so-called decadent bourgeois culture if they moved too far away from the standards of Socialist Realism, they were not punished or enjoined from further creative activity unless their work could be interpreted as an attack on the regime or its policies.
At the same time, expanding relations between Romania and the noncommunist world brought artists and intellectuals into contact with cultural developments elsewhere and stimulated Romanian creative expression. Cultural exchanges with Western countries were often used by the government to allow artists more freedom of expression than could be politically justified at home. Artists were allowed to exhibit or perform abroad works that had been highly criticized at home. The critical praise received abroad was proudly publicized at home as an example of Romanian genius, at the same time that these very works were being criticized for not meeting the desired standards of artistic expression.