[mantas]

> Or arts funding in the USSR and other soviet bloc countries.

This is pretty good example why UBI is dangerous. Those funded artists were very happy to suck it up and go along with the regime. The censorship was in place, but self-censorship was even stronger.

Meanwhile a lot of art existed outside of the system with people working some shitty jobs and doing arts in free time.

[soperj]

Totally explains why the gulag archipelago was never written.

[mantas]

Well, that book was not officially published in USSR till the fall of the iron curtain. So in official sense your snarky comment is sort of correct :)

[soperj]

Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich was published. The premise was that people were self censoring even outside of what was being officially approved, so not really.

[mantas]

That book was published during Kruschiov era. Which was definitely not representative of the rest of Soviet era. Let alone that the book was peanuts compared to Gulag archipelago.

Eventually Solzhenytsin was kicked out from USSR and had to take exile in west. Do you really want to use him as an example of Soviet artistic freedom?

[soperj]

I didn't. I even said that the premise was that people were self censoring outside of the censors. Clearly not though.

[mantas]

So, one dude did not censor himself, during a cultural warm up era, ended up being kicked out to exile. Which was a fortunate outcome due to his previous fame. Hmmm, is that an example how people were free to do whatever in USSR? :) Is that more like an example how dangerous it was to not self-censor even to well known people with support (for some time) from the ruling elite?

Hearing parents and grandparents stories... And having talked to older artsy people who did grow up before the fall of USSR... Self-censorship was the default modus operandi. Sure, few didn't do it. Most of those paid the price either in gulags in earlier years or mental asylums later.

[Palomides]

ok, then look at the depression era US federal arts project