Titlebook: Art and Politics under Modern Dictatorships; A Comparison of Chil Caterina Preda Book 2017 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

蠟燭

有助于

大都市

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07162-5ower that was achieved by the two leaders, their economic models, and the repressive systems they enforced. Paradoxically, both regimes led to the formation of atomized societies where the citizens were enclosed in private spaces. The Ceau?escu regime was characterized by extreme personalization of

萬(wàn)神殿

oxidize

International Human Rights Law,ional structure for the artistic space, and looks at its policies and the use of censorship or other punitive strategies. Specific types of artistic expression that supported the official approach are analyzed, such as amateur art (the festivals . and .), homage painting of Nicolae Ceau?escu, social

周年紀(jì)念日

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45896-5ired by the left-wing resistance; a new metapolitics, as in the case of the .; and different type of distractions that, inspired by the market and aestheticism, proposed an escape rather than confrontation of the dictatorship. Each of these alternatives led to the politicization of art, the opposite

否認(rèn)

Extraterritoriality of EU Economic Lawtive artistic expressions that did not respect the official canon, and which developed diverse types of aesthetic resistance. They include “resistance through culture,” or aestheticism; a range of formal innovations that were tolerated because of their ambiguity; accidental forms of subversion, as i

Kidney-Failure

無(wú)意

prolate

Art and Politics Under Modern Dictatorships: An Introduction,der modern dictatorships. Despite the development of the study of dictatorships, the attention granted to their cultural institutions and cultural policies has been limited. With a multidisciplinary focus on art and politics, this chapter proposes a model of analysis that looks at the regimes’ appro