Görüntüleme
26
İndirme
11
Nâzım Hikmet, Haziran 1951’de Türkiye’den kaçıp Romanya üzerinden Sovyetler Birliğine, Moskova’ya gider. Bu, Moskova’ya üçüncü gelişidir. 1921’de bir üniversite öğrencisi olarak bulunduğu, Ekim Devrimi’nin tüm coşkusu, enerjisi, cesareti, deneyciliğiyle bir sanat merkezi hâline gelen Moskova, 1920’lerin sonlarına doğru, özellikle 1934’teki Sovyet Yazarlar Birliği Kongresinde sosyalist realizmin resmî sanat ideolojisi olmasından itibaren, denetleyici, baskıcı, tek tipleştirici bir sanat politikasının merkezine dönüşür. Hayatı boyunca sanatçının yaratma özgürlüğünü, estetik deneyciliğini, evrenselliğini savunan Nâzım Hikmet, Moskova’ya bu son gelişinde karşılaştığı ortamı kabul etmekte zorlanır. Tek adam kültünü olumlayan, birbirinin aynı denebilecek eserlerin karşısında tepkisini yüksek sesle dile getirmekten çekinmez. Bu tavrı, Moskova’ya ilk adım attığı andan itibaren iktidarın hem Stalin hem Krusçev döneminde eleştirilerine neden olacaktır. Bu süreçte Nâzım Hikmet’in iktidarla açık bir çatışmaya girmesini engelleyen, onun Moskova’daki güvenliğini sağlayan, onu hem destekleyen hem denetleyen isimse, Stalin’in sanat politikalarının yürütücüsü Aleksandr Fadeyev olacaktır. Bu nedenle, Nâzım Hikmet’in Sovyetler Birliği’ne 1951 'deki son gidişinin ardından orada bulduğu siyasal-sanatsal ortamla ilişkisini, bu ilişkinin değişken dinamiklerini, Aleksandr Fadeyev ile olan dostluğu odağında tartışmak anlamlı olacaktır.
Nazim Hikmet escaped from Turkey in June 1951 and went through Romania to the Soviet Union, Moscow. This is the third visit to Moscow. Moscow, which became an art center with all the enthusiasm, energy, courage, and experience of the October Revolution in 1921 as a university student, becomes the center of an art policy of supervisory, oppressive, one-typistic, since it became the official art ideology of socialist realism at the Soviet Writers' Congress in 1934, by the end of the 1920s. Nâzım Hikmet, who throughout his life defended the artist’s freedom of creation, aesthetic experience, and universality, is difficult to accept the environment that Moscow encountered in this last arrival. One man is not afraid to express his reaction with a loud voice in the face of the works that can be called the same. This attitude will lead to criticism from the moment it took the first step towards Moscow during both Stalin and Krushev's period. If in this process the name that prevents Nazim Hikmet from entering an open conflict with power, ensures his security in Moscow, both supports and controls him, then Stalin's art policy manager will be Alexander Fadeyev. Therefore, it will be meaningful to discuss the relationship with the political-artistic environment that Nazim Hikmet found there after his last departure to the Soviet Union in 1951, the changing dynamics of this relationship, in the heart of his friendship with Alexander Fadeyev.
Nâzım Hikmet, fled from Turkey through Romania to the Soviet Union, Moscow in June 1951. This is his third time in Moscow. When his first coming to Moscow as an university student, Moscow, is an art center with all the enthusiasm, energy, courage and experimentation of the October Revolution. However since the late 1920s, especially since the declaration of socialist realism as the official ideology of the State at the Soviet Writers Union Congress in 1934, it becomes the center of a supervisory, oppressive, uniformizing policy of art. Defending the artist's freedom of creation, aesthetic experimentation and universality throughout his life, Nâzım Hikmet has a hard time accepting the environment he encountered in this last visit to Moscow. He does not hesitate to voice his reaction loudly against the works that support the single man cult and which can be considered the same as form and content. His attitude will cause criticism of the State during both the period of Stalin and Kruschev, from the moment he took his first step into Moscow. In this process, Aleksandr Fadeyev who is the executive of Stalin's art policies prevents him from entering an open conflict with power, ensures his security in Moscow, supports and supervises him also. Therefore, it would be meaningful to discuss the variable dynamics of Nâzım Hikmet and Fadeyev’s friendship to understand Nâzım Hikmet’s relationship with the political-artistic environment he found there after his last visit to the Soviet Union in 1951.
Alan : Eğitim Bilimleri; Filoloji; Güzel Sanatlar; Hukuk; İlahiyat; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler; Spor Bilimleri
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
