The Soviet Union:

From Worker to
Proletarian Photography
Erika Wolf
In the wake of the Russian Revolution a grassroots
movement of amateur worker photography arose,
partly a resumption of pre-revolutionary activity
and partly stimulated by the efforts of trade unions
to foster a new worker culture. This movement
flourished across the Soviet Union in the mid1920s, when numerous photo circles formed in
workers clubs, workplaces, and educational institutions. Largely an urban phenomenon, amateur
photography was also promoted in the countryside. With the rise of Stalinism, however, worker
photography came into conflict with state imperatives. Political contradictions arose, as encouraging workers and peasants to visually record their
experiences was contrary to the states need to conceal hostile labor conditions and the extremes of
the collectivization of agriculture. By the early
1930s, the worker photography movement languished and declined, while professional photographers took up the task of representing the new
culture. Already in the 1920s, the work of professionals was presented in the international arena as
examples of Soviet worker photography.
While photojournalism and art photography of
the first decades of Soviet power has been the subject of extensive scholarship and numerous exhibitions, the history of Soviet worker photography
is largely unknown.1 Drawing upon Soviet archival
and published sources, this essay will illuminate
this unknown story, tracing the trajectory of worker
photography from a popular amateur movement
to the domain of professional photojournalists
working in the central press. The shifting terrain
of Soviet worker photography during this period
is evident in its rapidly changing terminology. In
the mid-1920s, when worker photography was first

32 SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

discussed in the Soviet press, the individuals involved were referred to predominantly as fotoliubiteli (photo amateurs), a term strongly associated
with the arts and in binary opposition to professionals. Liubitel is derived from the word for love;
an amateur is someone who does something for
the love of it, not for money or professional advancement. Within a few years, fotoliubitel was
largely replaced by fotokor, an acronym for photo
correspondent. Derived from the acronym rabkor
(worker correspondent), fotokor marked a shift
to journalism. As the Cultural Revolution and accompanying class war heightened during the First
Five-Year Plan, the term proletarskii fotograf (proletarian photographer) came into usage around
1930. This designation is more explicitly political, but also more ambiguous in regard to professional or class status. While proletarian refers to
class politics, the proletarian photographer was not
necessarily a worker and more often was a whitecollar professional photographer. This shifting vocabulary reflects broad ideological developments
in the increasingly politicized arena of Soviet photography. It also registers the impact of specific organizations in claiming political leadership for
worker photography, and explains in part how the
work of professional Soviet photojournalists was
presented as worker photography in international
exhibitions and publications, including Der Arbeiter-Fotograf.

The Rise of Worker Photography

After the October Revolution in 1917, Russian photography experienced a prolonged period of stagnation due to material shortages. The revolution

and ensuing Civil War (191820) created difficulties for professionals and amateurs, and photography largely collapsed amid the post-revolutionary turmoil. Despite this situation, the new Soviet
government took an active interest in photographys potential as a tool for mass political persuasion, establishing a variety of organizations
to support photographic activity during the Civil
War. While various groups utilized photography
for propagandistic and documentary purposes,
governmental support largely disappeared with
the cessation of hostilities.2 With the start of the
New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, when the
government introduced small-scale market capitalism to stimulate the economy, the import of
such consumer goods as photographic supplies
and cameras was resumed. This trade stimulated
the broad revival of photography within Russia.
The pre-revolutionary Russian Photographic Society was reestablished, and diverse photographic
activities were resumed. This resurgence included
amateur photography, which had pre-revolutionary precedents with societies, journals, exhibitions,
contests, and varied activities in diverse parts of
the empire. From a Soviet viewpoint, however, prerevolutionary amateur photography was highly
suspect, as it was seen as a leisure-time hobby
for wealthy individuals. The emergence of a specifically Soviet amateur photography would entail
such distinctive characteristics as a correct class
approach, collective forms of work, education in
science and technology, opening up new areas of
culture previously denied to the lower classes, and
engagement with the construction and documentation of the new life and culture.
Soviet worker photography first received official assistance for its development from trade union
organizations. A key task of Soviet trade unions
was the improvement of the cultural and social situation of workers. This was carried out through
the establishment of workers clubs for the provision of activities that would stimulate the creation
of a new Soviet culture. Either connected with large

factories or uniting workers of particular trades or

professions, the clubs organized educational, cultural, and sports activities for laborers, with a special emphasis on youth. Clubs provided educational
opportunities, from basic literacy to vocational
training to political studies. Cultural activities included the fine and performing arts, film screenings, and radio. As places for workers to pursue
positive social leisure time activities, clubs were
calculated to supplant the pernicious environments
of the beer hall and church. Photography fitted
neatly into the club agenda in its provision of a positive cultural activity of broad social significance.
In 1927 a trade union activist at an organizational
meeting for photo circles of agricultural workers
observed: Photography raises the cultural level.
Many become interested in photography, quit
smoking and heavy drinking, and invest a lot of resources in this matter. This says a lot. It is necessary to inculcate photography among the masses
of workers and employees.3 In addition to clubs,
the trade unions also facilitated cultural, educational, and social circles within workplaces.
Union activities were centrally organized by the
All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (VTsSPS)
and complementary regional organizations, such as
the Moscow Province Council of Trade Unions
(MGSPS), which were responsible for guiding the
organization of cultural activities in clubs and factory circles. Following its general revival in the early
1920s, photography began to appear among the
activities facilitated by worker clubs and factory
groups. In 1925 MGSPS organized the first courses
for leaders of photo circles, which were initially directed by the pictorialist photographer Moisei Nappelbaum.4 The training of instructors and leaders
for photo circles remained an ongoing concern,
as interest in photography continued to grow within
clubs despite a shortage of qualified instructors
from suitable working class backgrounds. Photography proliferated within the Moscow trade unions
in 192627, with photo circles established for food
industry employees, agricultural laborers, textile

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

33

operatives, chemists, and municipal workers.5 This ing empires regularly exchanged materials for
activity was stimulated from the ground up, with publication and shared their expertise.
Koltsov created a network of photo corresponworkers becoming engaged by photography and
dents and established domestic and international
forming groups to pursue their interests.
photo agencies for the production, distribution,
and preservation of photographic material.7 Ogonk
cultivated many prominent Soviet photojournalThe Soviet Illustrated Mass Press
The growth of photo circles was fueled by the con- ists, including Semen Fridliand (Koltsovs cousin)
comitant rise of an illustrated mass press. Pho- and Arkadii Shaikhet. It published numerous fortographs were largely absent from Soviet period- mally innovative, visually compelling photographs
icals until 1923, when the launch of the illustrated and photomontages. Koltsov strove to create a popmagazines Ogonk (The Flame), Prozhektor (The ular illustrated press for the new Soviet person
Searchlight), and Krasnaia niva (The Red Field) that would provide an alternative to the bourgeois,
stimulated the emergence of a new generation of capitalist press. Fridliands photomontage The
explicitly Soviet press photographers. Ogonk Face of the Bourgeois Press visually asserts the sigplayed an especially decisive role in the evolution nificance of print media in defining a persons idenof Soviet photojournalism. Published with the tityyou are what you read [fig. 1]. Designed to
motto No material without a photo or drawing, accompany an article critical of the contempoOgonk quickly built a large mass readership. By rary French press, Fridliands multiple negative
1929 it was published in a weekly edition of nearly photomontage anticipated and may have inspired
five hundred thousand. 6 The magazines chief John Heartfields much celebrated The Cabbage
editor and publisher was Mikhail Koltsov Head (1930), in which the German communist
(18981940), a dynamic individual who actively artist similarly depicted a persons head physically
employed new technologies in his work as a com- wrapped in newspapers that render him deaf,
mitted Soviet journalist and editor. Koltsov began dumb, and blind [fig. 2].8
In order to create a modern Soviet illustrated
his career making documentary films during the
Russian Civil War, when he engaged the vanguard press, Koltsov had to cultivate appropriate condocumentary filmmaker Dziga Vertov to first tents, both textual and visual. Mere imitation of
work in cinema. Through Ogonk, Koltsov laid foreign models was unacceptable, as they presented
the framework for modern photojournalism and the threat of contamination by bourgeois ideology.
the popular illustrated press in the Soviet Union. In addition to grooming such talented individuOver the next decade, the Ogonk publishing als as Fridliand and Shaikhet, Ogonk promoted
house grew into the main publisher of popular the development of Soviet photography through
magazines, and in 1931 it became the State Union the magazine Sovetskoe foto (Soviet Photo), which
of Newspapers and Magazines, known by the began publication in April 1926. Founded and
acronym Zhurgaz. A Soviet complement to Willi edited by Koltsov, the title declared its mission:
Mnzenberg, Koltsov created a popular publish- the establishment of a distinct Soviet photography.
ing empire in the USSR that was parallel to the Sovetskoe foto featured special sections for beginso-called Mnzenberg Konzern and that simi- ning photographers, photojournalists, and amalarly promoted the development of worker pho- teurs. The design, layout, and content of this
tography. Through the Comintern (Communist monthly indicate that it was aimed at a wide, popInternational), an international communist or- ular audience. It quickly established itself as the
ganization based in Moscow, these two publish- leading Soviet photo publication with a diverse

34

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

readership that included amateurs, professionals, and scientists. By the end of the decade the
magazines print run reached twenty five thousand
copies per issue, and its activities expanded to include a yearly almanac and a series of popular guide
books.
The first issue of Sovetskoe foto begins with an
anonymous editorial that has been attributed to
Koltsov.9 This column staked Sovetskoe fotos claim
for leadership of Soviet photography, which it considered a primary field of cultural work in the construction of socialism, despite its lack of organization and inadequate recognition by the
government and society:
In the West, amateur photography has literally
entered into each home and serves as a very
powerful factor in the raising of the general cultural level of the masses. In the USSR photography is still the preserve of the few. The uncoordinated artistic photography of handicraft
professionals, the narrow circles of refined
photo-artists, the gastronomes of photography,
the active and lively but quite modest in quantity group of photo reporters, and the quite large
but disorganized and unaided cadres of amateursthis for the time being is our photosociety. 10
This analysis of the state of Soviet photography
in 1926 is nuanced by value judgments related to
the aims of the journal. Handicraft professionals
refers to studio and street photographers, who plied
photography as a craft trade or cottage industry.
These old-hands are depicted as backward, uncoordinated, a remnant of an antiquated pre-industrial economy. Similarly, the refined photo-artists
are negatively represented as the decadent gastronomes of photography, another group with
no future in the new Soviet order. In contrast, photo
reporters and amateurs are presented positively,
despite their shortcomings: there were too few
photo reporters and the amateurs lacked guidance.

Fig. 1 Semen Fridliand, The Face of the Bourgeois

Press, Ogonk 37, 1927
Fig. 2 John Heartfield, The Cabbage Head,
AIZ 6, 1930

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

35

However, these drawbacks could be overcome, and

Sovetskoe fotos subtitle indicated that goal: A
monthly journal devoted to questions of photo amateurism and photoreportage.
The leading articles of Sovetskoe fotos premiere
issue addressed the significance of photography
to the new Soviet culture, placing primary emphasis on the development of amateur and press photography while rejecting artistic and apolitical approaches. In the first article, Our Culture and
Photography, the old Bolshevik intellectual Anatolii Lunacharskii, Peoples Commissar of Enlightenment, advocated the broad development of photographic literacy in the Soviet Union: Just as
each vanguard comrade should have a watch, so
he should be able to master a photographic camera
. . . Just as there will be general universal literacy
in the USSR, likewise there will be photographic
literacy in particular.11 An invaluable tool of science, technology, and aesthetics, mastery of photography is presented as an indispensable part
of Soviet education. Opposite this text appears a
photograph by Arkadii Shaikhet of two young pioneers peering through a box camera on a tripod,
an image that suggests the role of photography
in shaping the consciousness of the new Soviet
person [fig. 3].
The next article, Attention to Photo Amateurism! called for the organization of a Soviet
photo amateur movement. Vitalii Zhemchuznyi, a
photographer and filmmaker affiliated with the
group Left Front of the Arts (Lef ), began by noting
conditions of neglect:
Until recently, photo amateurism was not widespread among the working masses of our Union.
Certain inflexibility in our leading cultural centers is to blame for this. Not long ago, some club
workers still looked unfavorably upon photo
circles in clubs, stating that politically they
do not enlighten, there is no creativity in it
only chemistry, and they require a lot of money.
In short, it is not a club matter.

36

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

It is true that photo circles have gradually

earned their right to exist. Nobody objects to
them anymore. But at the same time no-one in
particular is taking care of them.12
Zhemchuznyi contrasted this situation to that
of amateur radio, a well-developed movement with
a strong organizational base and suitable educational literature. Enumerating the social significance of photography and photo amateurism, he
gave primacy to its documentary function: Photography is a technical representational medium,
which allows us to precisely, documentarily capture the surrounding reality. While photojournalism fulfilled this task in part, amateurs were better
suited to document the deep historical processes
taking place in their daily life and work, as the
penetration of photo amateurism into the masses
gives us the most valuable material from a social
point of view. In addition to this documentary significance, amateur photography would also serve
the burgeoning illustrated press. We will see then
the inexhaustible natural wealth of our Union, various enterprises and production, the everyday life
of diverse peoples. We will also see those corners
where the professional photo reporter has never
set foot. Like Lunacharskii, Zhemchuznyi argued
for the inclusion of photography in the required
curriculum for labor schools, noting that it cultivates an aptitude for visual orientation. He also
noted the benefits of photographic literacy in warfare, the sciences, political education, worker club
art circles, wall newspapers (simple handmade
newspapers posted on the walls of workplaces,
clubs, schools, and public places), and the nascent
domestic photographic industry. Zhemchuznyi
outlined a series of measures to realize these benefits, including the provision of every club with a
laboratory; the creation of a central course for
photo instructors; the organization of exhibitions,
conferences, and presentations; the publication
of specialized literature for photo amateurs and
circle leaders; and the organization of photo con-

tests in the central press. He concluded by calling for the creation of an integrated center dedicated to the development of photo amateurism,
which he deemed vital to bring about this program
and provide the necessary leadership for the full
development of the social potential of photography. In the next few years, many of the points of
this program would be realized, if in imperfect
form.

Growing Pains: Material, Legal, and Social

Challenges
Due in part to Sovetskoe fotos advocacy, worker
club photo circle activity increased dramatically in
1926 and 1927. Sovetskoe foto dedicated columns
to photo circles and issued numerous educational
booklets with such titles as A Short Course of Photography for Photo Circles and The Photo Circle and
How to Work in It. It also regularly published letters and photographs submitted by amateurs, providing critical feedback and answering technical
questions. The cultural and club sectors of the trade
unions worked to provide more training and activities. In 1927 MGSPS organized a course to train
one hundred and fifty photo circle instructors, motivated by significant interest on the part of our
youth in photo work and also in the aims of eliminating existing problems in the organization of
photo circles due to the lack of cadres of experienced leaders. Advertised in Moscow newspapers
intended for worker or youth readership and open
to literate trade union members, this evening course
met three times a week for two months. After its
completion, students were required to serve as
instructors for worker photo circles.13
MGSPS organized some of the earliest exhibitions of worker photography, the first taking place
at the Central Club of Municipal Workers in December 1926.14 A second exhibition in May 1927
coincided with a contest intended to stimulate
photo amateurism. The terms of the competition
present a clear ideological vision for worker pho-

Fig. 3 Arkadii Shaikhet, Sovetskoe foto 1, 1926

tography. No individual entries would be accepted,

only collective ones. For individuals working in factories or areas without organized photo circles, a
factory commission could be assembled to view
and select work, thus ensuring a collective aspect
for such submissions. No works by photo professionals were allowed. This contest also called for
specific themes, all of which were highly ideological: our production, our everyday existence, our
social work, and the lives of our youth.15 In addition to exhibitions, photo circles also worked on
documenting club activities and providing images
for wall newspapers [fig. 4]. Photography was also
incorporated into other positive leisure time activities for workers, including sports and nature excursions.
Despite these activities worker photography developed unevenly, plagued by numerous material,

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

37

legal, and social problems. Most photographic

equipment and supplies continued to be imported.
The scarce photographic equipment available was
generally in such terrible condition that precious
photographic materials were often wasted. There
was a chronic shortage of functioning cameras,
which were not commercially released onto the
mass market in the Soviet Union until 1931. An
editorial in Sovetskoe foto in 1927 lamented the
lack of affordable cameras for amateurs. While an
inexpensive camera suitable for amateurs could
be purchased in Germany for the equivalent of
seven rubles, only imported professional cameras
that cost hundreds of rubles were available in the
Soviet Union. Industrial workers, whose average
monthly wage in 1927 was sixty rubles, simply
could not afford to purchase cameras.16 This state
of affairs seriously limited the range of activity of
photographers, especially amateurs. Photography
was expensive, and the supply networks were unreliable. This situation had some positive side effects: it encouraged collective work through the
sharing of cameras within photo circles and stimulated technical exploration, as many amateurs
were forced to make their own cameras and equipment. The dearth and expense of materials also
drew amateurs into photo circles, which had access
to the financial resources of the trade unions. Dark
rooms were also scarce. Few clubs had laboratory facilities for their groups, while a housing
crisis made the work of amateurs at home especially difficult. The Moscow journal Path of the
Worker-Village Correspondent even published a
column on how to equip a private dark room
during a housing shortage. 17 Given the already
quite difficult conditions in regard to sanitary facilities in the cramped collective housing, attempts
by photographers to employ communal bathrooms
as darkrooms were doubtless challenged by other
residents. The shortage of space within the clubs
themselves created difficulties for the circles to
simply meet, let alone exhibit their work or stage
public presentations.

38

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

Soviet amateurs also faced numerous legal difficulties and frequently encountered basic difficulties
in simply taking pictures. The laws concerning photography were contradictory and vague, leaving still
camerapersons in a gray zone between legality and
criminality. Sovetskoe foto attempted to clarify the
legal situation for photographers, engaging in a
lengthy yet fruitless correspondence with the Peoples
Commissariat for Internal Affairs (the secret police).18
Without the credentials routinely provided to professional photojournalists, amateurs risked arrest
and fines when attempting to shoot public places or
events. The situation was not much better concerning photographing their workplaces, despite the fact
that such activity occurred under the auspices of the
local factory press and trade unions. This situation
may explain the odd results of a contest on the theme
At Work that was announced in the premiere issue
of Sovetskoe foto: almost none of the entries reproduced in the magazine depict modern industrial
work [fig. 5].19 The three prizewinning photographs
all feature handiwork (wood carving, ceramics, and
housework). Other photographs from the contest
depict tinsmiths, a spinner, a barber, an engraver,
children polishing a samovar, youngsters studying
(everyone has their work), and a peasant plowing. The sole industrial image depicts an iron foundry,
but this pictorialist image is more evocative of the
workshops of the early industrial revolution than
the modern twentieth-century plant or factory. The
results of this contest vividly demonstrate the comparative lack of modern industry in the Soviet Union
prior to the onset of forced industrialization initiated by the First Five-Year Plan in 1928. They also
reveal the technical difficulty of capturing on film
industrial subjects, especially indoors, and the challenges photographers faced in freely shooting industrial workplaces.
The social composition of these photo circles
also created a problem for the development of
Soviet worker photography. The majority of the
individuals participating in these groups were
from middle-class backgrounds, not workers. They

were office workers, chemists, techniciansthe

very same strata that had made up a sizeable part
of pre-revolutionary Russian amateur photography. Far from documenting the new life, many
persisted in using older models for photography
as a form of personal artistic expression or to register their family and private life. The circles were
also overwhelmingly male, which went against
Soviet proscriptions about the advancement of
women. Finally, some workers joined a photo
circle with the intention of mastering photography in order to improve their financial situation
by becoming professional photographers. This
was viewed as an insidious aspect of photo amateurism, as the worker was acting for his or her
own personal benefit rather than to enrich the
collective. Worker photographers who managed
to make the transition to professional status risked

becoming class deserters by leaving their jobs

to pursue private commerce. During the period
of the New Economic Policy, when small-scale
trade flourished, such embourgeoisement was
highly suspect, especially with the growing emphasis on the creation of a proletarian culture.

The Assertion of Leadership for Soviet

Worker Photography
A lack of central coordination, ideological direction,
and coherent leadership aggravated the problems
facing Soviet amateur photography. The Society of
Friends of Soviet Cinema (Obshchestvo druzei sovetskogo kino, hereafter ODSK) sought to remedy this
situation through the organization of an amateur film
and photography section. Established in 1925, ODSKs
primary task was to actively involve the masses in

Fig. 4 A Wall Newspaper, Constructed Entirely from Photo-shots, Sovetskoe foto 7, 1926

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

39

Soviet cinema, a powerful tool for political education

and the campaign for universal literacy. Providing
ideological guidance for worker film circles in clubs
and factories, ODSK worked to counteract the pernicious influence of the Hollywood movies that were
in wide circulation during the New Economic Policy.20
Organized in 1926, ODSKs amateur film and photo
section provided leadership to amateur photography
groups throughout the Soviet Union. Sovetskoe foto
became its central organ and assisted in the provision of cameras and photo supplies to groups.21 The
main organizer of the amateur section was Grigorii
Boltianskii, a documentary filmmaker. ODSKs mission was supported by powerful patrons, most notably Ian Rudzutak, a member of the Central Committee and Politburo and himself an amateur
photographer.22 With the increasing politicization of
Soviet society, ODSKs photo activities grew in importance.
While ODSK claimed leadership of amateur photography, numerous groups continued to function
independently of the Society. This reflects a common
feature of Soviet culture in this period: the disconnection between organizational and/or governmental initiatives and what actually happened at
the grassroots level. Despite its claims to leadership,
ODSKs structures were weak and its financial resources were limited. Hence, the printed rhetoric
in magazines and bravura of decrees often had little
resonance in actual practice. Lacking the financial and administrative resources for truly facilitating worker photography, the leadership that ODSK
provided consisted of ideological guidance and organizational advice for photo circle leaders. Through
printed materials, ODSK sought to steer the development of worker photography along the correct
class lines and in response to contemporary political imperatives. While it attempted to dictate the
forms of activity and organizational structures,
ODSK was basically incapable of leading a mass
movement, especially one in dire need of basic materials and experienced instructors. Furthermore,
ODSK was predominantly a film organization,

40

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

largely dedicated to the screening and discussion

of Soviet films by mass audiences, a matter quite
different from facilitating worker photography. In
the early 1920s, the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin
asserted that of all the arts, for us the most important is cinema. While Lenins Directive on
Cinema Affairs (1922) also recognized the propaganda potential of still pictures, photography was
essentially overwhelmed by the cinema, which demanded much greater resources.23 The administrative pairing of film and photography in the Soviet
system was a severe impediment to the development of practically all photographic initiatives. The
composition of delegates for the First All-Union
Photo-Cinema Conference in 1927 exemplified this
problem. Of one hundred and forty-three delegates,
only three explicitly represented photography.24
ODSKs weakness as the main organizing
center for Soviet photo amateurism became evident in conjunction with several exhibitions in
1928. The massive show 10 Years of Soviet Photography included a section dedicated to Photography in Workers Clubs that featured exhibits
from more than twenty-five photo circles. Displaying the work of just three affiliated Moscow
photo circles, ODSK made a comparatively paltry
contribution to the exhibition. Shortly thereafter,
ODSK organized its First Exhibition of Moscow
Photo Circles (a misleading title, as the trade
unions had already organized such shows several
years earlier). 25 While ODSK-affiliated groups
were more strongly represented, their exhibits
were subject to harsh criticism. In a review published in Novyi Lef, Leonid Volkov-Lannit castigated Moisei Nappelbaum (who organized the
first courses for photo circle instructors for
MGSPS), citing the comment of a group of students in the visitors book: The Club of agricultural workers (led by M. S. Nappelbaum L.V.L.) for some reason reflects violinists and
some sort of ladies of the manor, instead of revealing the everyday life of agricultural workers. 26 This comment implied that pre-revolu-

Fig. 5 Results of the First Photographic Contest, Sovetskoe foto 3, 1926. N. Tatarchenko (Sverdlovsk),
Grandfather and Grandson (First prize for the At Work category); F. Sindeev (Tashkent),
An Uzbek Decorating Porcelain Dishes (Second prize for the At Work category)

tionary artistic culture had infected Soviet worker

photography. However, Volkov-Lannit observed
positive developments in other exhibits, where
he perceived the outlines of an authentic Soviet
photography as a representative medium of the
construction of everyday life. He commended
the Pravda photo circle (led by the photojournalists Semen Fridliand and V. V. Samsonov) for
taking up the task of photo reportage and avoiding the lure of artistic dabbling. In contrast, he
attacked ODSK for failing to provide adequate
leadership and for allowing reactionary, aestheticizing photographers to infect worker photo circles with counter-revolutionary approaches.

raphy. Both during and after these exhibitions,

ODSK was criticized in Sovetskoe foto for failing
to provide adequate leadership.27 In August 1928,
the Communist Party intervened shortly after the
closing of the ODSK exhibition. The Agitation and
Propaganda Department of the Central Committee issued a resolution declaring that photo amateurism should be closely tied with the workerfarmer correspondent movement.28 This movement
encouraged workers and peasants to take up the
pen to write about their work and daily lives. This
correspondence was presented in wall newspapers,
in small-run factory and local newspapers (the lower
press), as well as in the leading Soviet periodicals
(the higher press). Working collectively, these correspondents were directly engaged in the creation
Photography and the Worker Correspondent of new proletarian forms of culture.
Movement
The Central Committee resolution was followed
Volkov-Lannit was not alone in observing the de- with significant attention to photo amateurism at
fects in the organization of Soviet amateur photog- the Fourth All-Union Meeting of Worker and Peas-

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

41

ant Correspondents from November 28 to December 7, 1928. In the keynote address, Mariia
Ulianova, Lenins sister and a leader of the correspondent movement, noted the poor results of a
contest for wall newspapers executed by worker
photo circles organized by Sovetskoe foto in 1927.29
In contrast to the magazines other competitions,
which typically received hundreds of entries, only
twenty-two examples were submitted. Sovetskoe
foto did not award any prizes; instead, it merely reimbursed the groups for their expenses and called
for the better development of worker photography
in conjunction with the worker correspondent
movement. Acknowledging that the situation had
already improved since the contest, Ulianova
argued that the work of photo amateurs significantly aids the improvement of our wall and printed
newspapers, the growth of interest in them and
their effectiveness. It is necessary to develop the
bond between photo amateurism and the worker
and peasant correspondent movement in every possible way; it is necessary to help the worker photo
amateur. 30
The meetings official directives gave precise instructions on how this help would be provided. The
primary resolution of the meeting on Basic Conditions for the Work of Worker Correspondents
at Enterprises stipulated the need to recruit worker
photographers and artists as contributors to wall
newspapers.31 The meeting also issued a decision
concerning The Worker Photo Amateur Movement and the Lower Press that built upon the earlier resolution of the Agitprop Department of the
Central Committee.32 Composed by conference delegates working with representatives of Sovetskoe
foto and ODSK, this document directed the establishment of photo circles directly within the editorial boards of the factory press and instructed that
photographers function in a manner similar to
worker correspondents. The higher press would
also facilitate the integration of photography into
editorial work by publishing the pictures of amateur photographers and not just those of profes-

42

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

sional photojournalists. To make clear the new organizational status of these photo amateurs, the
decision endorsed the use of the term fotokor. It
also outlined the functions of already existing publications and organizations. Raboche-Krestianskii
Korrespondent (Worker-Peasant Correspondent)
would be the leading central ideological organ of
the fotokor movement. The trade unions and ODSK
would provide organizational and material assistance, and Sovetskoe foto would be the everyday
leading organ of Soviet photo amateurism. The
decision also addressed the material problems faced
by amateur photography, asserting that the provision of worker and village photo circles with supplies should take precedence over all other groups
and organizations. In effect, this would cut off access
to individual amateurs working outside of photo
circles attached to the lower press.33
While the Soviet worker photography movement initially arose through the establishment of
individual cells in the form of factory and club
circles, it became increasingly evident that these
groups were often narrow or worked in isolation,
with some focused largely on self-improvement or
artistic expression rather than social engagement.
By tying the photo amateur movement to wall newspaper editorial boards, the photographers became
part of the worker correspondent movement. Under
the guidance of Ulianova and Nikolai Bukharin,
the Communist Party newspaper Pravda played
a central role in organizing this movement and was
a key sponsor of the 1928 meeting. A prominent
editor and contributor to Pravda, Koltsov also
worked to promote this movement and spoke at
the meeting. Detailing the rise of factory newspapers, he noted: This is evidence of an entirely
new order! This is a genuine proletarian press!
With this, of course, I do not want to say that the
rest of our press is not proletarian, but that printed
factory newspapers are made entirely from the first
to the last letters by proletarians, without the help
of professionals, they are made in the factory itself,
in its setting!34 The worker correspondent move-

ment began before the First Five-Year Plan and

played an important role in shaping journalism
as it allegedly gave voice to a genuinely proletarian subjectivity emerging from the workplace.
However, the organizational linking of all amateur photography to the worker correspondent
movement narrowed the scope of activity to the
application of photography to political and social
ends via the lower press. This entailed the rejection of photography as a means of aesthetic or personal expression. With the start of forced industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture
during the First Five-Year Plan, worker photography was primarily seen as a weapon of the class
war, applied to exposing the treachery of class enemies or celebrating the achievements of workers
and peasants.
With these developments, photography became
a frequent topic in worker correspondent journals
in 1928 and early 1929. However, this coverage
quickly declined and disappeared almost entirely
and amateur worker photography almost vanished
from the central press. Over the next few years,
trade union engagement with photography largely
evaporated and ODSK was liquidated. 35 While
Sovetskoe foto asserted its position more strongly
as the leading organ for all matters related to Soviet
photography, discussion of the mass worker photography movement receded from its pages. There
are various explanations for the downfall of worker
photography. Bukharin was forced out of his key
editorial role at Pravda after his disagreement with
Stalin over the forced collectivization of agriculture.36 The worker correspondent movement was
discredited by these developments, as giving voice
to peasants and workers through a mass movement
was increasingly viewed as counter-productive with
the onset of forced industrialization and collectivization. Largely limited to local activities
after 1928, the worker correspondent movement
declined in popularity as it became implicated in
some of the worst aspects of the class war, such
as the exposure of class enemies and wreckers via

means of photographic documentation. Worker

photography was also affected by the publication
of a new law by the Council of Peoples Commissars in February 1929 concerning the conduct of
photographic and cinematic shooting. Resolving
the ambiguity of earlier statutes, this law proscribed
and controlled photography in public places. One
clause limited the ability of fotokors even to function within the factory press: Any sort of shoots
within buildings occupied by state and social institutions and enterprises may be carried out only
with the permission of the administration of these
institutions and enterprises.37

The Cultural Revolution and the Rise

of Proletarian Photography
In the years of Cultural Revolution that accompanied the start of the First Five-Year Plan (192832),
proletarian communists confronted bourgeois
intelligentsia in diverse cultural arenas, including
literature and the arts. As Sheila Fitzpatrick argues:
The aim of the Cultural Revolution was to create
a new proletarian intelligentsia. Its method was
class war.38 While worker photo circles continued
to function after 1928, the individuals working
to promote proletarian photography during the
Cultural Revolution were largely not from worker
backgrounds. Class status had been a recurrent
problem in ostensibly proletarian cultural groups
since the revolution. Organizations like Proletkult
and the Russian Association of Proletarian Photojournalists often attracted the so-called laboring intelligentsia, white-collar professionals whose
proletarian credentials were dubious.39 With the
end of the New Economic Policy and the start of
forced industrialization in 1928, resources for photographic work became more limited and tightly
controlled. The First Five-Year Plan brought increasing centralization of the economy and a narrowing sphere for independent cultural activity.
In professional photography circles these changes
led to a diminution of opportunities for work and

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

43

the consolidation of fledgling Soviet photo agencies. Coincident with the onset of forced industrialization, independent groups sought to find a
niche for themselves in the new economic order
by establishing connections with government organizations or undertaking opportunities in support of state policies. For worker photography, this
meant that professional photojournalists and such
groups as the Left Front of the Arts began actively
participating in the movement by working and exhibiting with photo circles. After worker photography was officially tied to the lower press in 1928,
professional photojournalism eclipsed amateur
photography. Sovetskoe foto increasingly published
materials concerning broader issues of press photography, which were ostensibly of significance to
both fotokors and professionals. However, matters concerning the organization of worker photography largely disappeared from Sovetskoe fotos
pages, and in an article published in 1934, the
photo editor Lev Mezhericher generally discouraged the publication of amateur photographs in
the press.40
While trade unions, Sovetskoe foto, and ODSK
initially sought to develop authentic worker photography in the USSR, the vast majority of Soviet
images published and exhibited abroad as representatives of worker photography were the work
of professional photojournalists from the very
outset. The bulk of the Soviet material published
in Der Arbeiter-Fotograf was the work of professionals affiliated with Koltsovs media empire. In
1930, the photography section of the All-Union
Society for Cultural Exchange Abroad organized
an exhibition of worker photography for display
in New York in conjunction with the establishment of the Worker Camera League. The theme
of this exhibition was Soviet worker photography,
but aside from a single individual photographer
identified as a fotokor and a number of wall newspapers, the vast majority of the exhibits were the
work of professionals.41 In the international arena,
the presentation of the most positive picture of

44

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

Fig. 6 The German worker photographer Willi

Zimmermann at a photographers meeting organized
by the ODSK, Moscow, November 13, 1929.
Zimmermann is seated at center, looking at an album.
Der Arbeiter-Fotograf 4, 1930

the achievements of the Soviet Union in the most

accomplished manner took precedence over authentic exchanges of worker culture.
Der Arbeiter-Fotografs publication of the work
of professional photojournalists was also due to the
poor technical and material qualities of Soviet amateur work. While fotokor images might have been
suitable for factory or wall newspapers, they were
rarely of a quality publishable in the central Soviet
press. The archive of Workers Newspaper includes
a collection of about two hundred photographs submitted to the newspaper by readers.42 The majority of them are minute contact prints, badly focused
and barely legible, and printed on poor quality
paper. They could not be published. Indeed, the
photographs that appeared in the Soviet press were
exceptional. In November 1929, the German worker

photographer Willi Zimmerman was a special foreign guest at an evening of international photo exchange organized by the Central Council of ODSK
[fig. 6]. In concert with this meeting, a display of
Soviet worker photography was organized. Much
to the consternation of the Soviet hosts, Zimmerman appeared to smirk at some of the photographs,
which the Soviet participants understood as being
due to their poor technical and visual quality. Zimmerman, in translation, responded to the Soviet
reaction: Comrade Volodin is not correct, I did
not smirk at your work . . . I only provided some
criticism, but I did not intend any irony in regard
to your works. We liked your exhibition.43 Regardless of such protestations, smirking was simply not
an acceptable response. Professional proletarians
could do the job much better.

NOTES

1. Two exceptions are Valerii Stigneev, Fototvorchestvo

Rossii: Istoriia, razvitie i sovremennoe fotoliubitelstva
(Moscow: Planeta, 1990), 934; and A. L. Sokolskaia, Fotoliubitelstvo, in Samodeiatelnoe khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo v SSSR: Ocherki istorii, 19301950 gg. (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2000), 199228.
2. Grigorii Boltianskii, Ocherki po istorii fotografii v SSSR
(Moscow: Goskinoizdat, 1939), 92111.
3. Tsentralnyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Moskovskoi oblasti
(TsGAMO), f. 180 (Moskovskii Gubernskii Sovet Professionalnykh Soiuzov), op. 1, d. 2306, ll. 6364.
4. Grigorii Boltianskii, Ocherki po istorii, 221.
5. TsGAMO, f. 180, op. 1, d. 2461, l. 1.
6. G. A. Belaia and G. A. Skorokhodov, Zhurnaly Krasnaia
niva, Prozhektor, Ogonk, in A. G. Dementev, ed., Ocherki
istorii russkoi sovetskoi zhurnalistiki, 19171932 (Moscow:
Nauka, 1966), 44244, 447.
7. Mikhail Koltsov, Ogonk i ego opyt, Krasnaia pechat
1718 (1925): 26.
8. Some of Fridliands montages were exhibited in the Soviet
Pavilion of the Pressa exhibition in Cologne in 1928. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), f. 5283
(Vsesoiuznoe obshchestvo kulturnoi sviazi s zagranitsei),
op. 11, d. 38, l. 60.
9. Semen Evgenovs reminiscences on Koltsov in N. Beliaev, ed., Mikhail Koltsov, kakim on byl (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel, 1965), 163.
10. Za sovetskuiu fotografiiu, Sovetskoe foto 1 (April 1926):
1. See translation in this anthology, p. 51.

11. Anatolii Lunacharskii, Nasha kultura i fotografiia,

Sovetskoe foto 1 (April 1926): 2.
12. Vitalii Zhemchuznyi, Vnimanie fotoliubitelstvu! Sovetskoe foto 1 (April 1926): 45. See translation in this anthology, p. 52.
13. TsGAMO, f. 180, op. 1, d. 2306, l. 5154. Sovetskoe foto
8 (August 1927): 249, 251. A photograph of the courses
graduates in Sovetskoe foto suggests a diverse group from
both worker and middle class backgrounds, including about
ten women.
14. This exhibition included both fine art and photography
from Moscow trade union clubs. TsGAMO, f. 180, op. 1,
d. 2307, ll. 2, 4. Sovetskoe foto 7 (July 1927): 222.
15. TsGAMO f. 180, op. 1, d. 2306, l. 58.
16. Daite deshevuiu foto-apparatu! Sovetskoe foto 3 (March
1927): 67. The Soviet Union: Facts, Descriptions, Statistics
(Washington: Soviet Union Information Bureau, 1929):
187.
17. Kak na domu oborudovat foto-laboratoriiu, Put rabselkora 6 (March 31, 1928): 24.
18. A. Enukidze, Tov. Enukidze o perspektivkah foto
semok, Sovetskoe foto 5 (May 1927): 1931. GARF, f. 393
(Narodnyi komissariat vnutrennikh del RSFSR), op. 81,
d. 41, ll. 1718, 2425.
19. Rezultaty 1-go fotograficheskogo konkursa, Sovetskoe
foto 3 (June 1926): 8081.
20. Grigorii Boltianskii, Kino i sovetskaya obshchestvennost, Zhizn iskusstva 45, 7/10 (November 1925): 15.
21. Foto-apparaty dlia foto-kruzhkov, Sovetskoe foto 7 (July
1927): 196. Sovetskoe foto 11 (November 1927): 353.
22. Grigorii Boltianskii, Na putiakh k tsentralizovannomu
rukovodstvu, Sovetskoe foto 11 (November 1928): 514.
23. Anatolii Lunacharskii, Conversation with Lenin, and
Vladimir Lenin, Directive on Cinema Affairs, both in
Richard Taylor and Ian Christie, eds., The Film Factory:
Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents (London: Routledge, 1988), 5657.
24. GARF, f. 5508 (Tsentralnyi Komitet Professionalnogo
Soiuza Rabotnikov Iskusstv), op. 1, d. 1044, ll. 2021.
25. Grigorii Boltianskii, Ocherki po istorii, 221. Foto-obshchestvennost, Sovetskoe foto 10 (October 1928): 472.
26. Leonid Volkov-Lannit, Mogilshchiki kisti (Pervaia vystavka rabochikh fotokruzhkov), Novyi lef 9 (September
1928): 3942. See translation in this anthology, p. 56.
27. Nashi chitateli o rabote ODSK, Sovetskoe foto 4 (February 1929): 99103.
28. Na putiakh k tsentralizovannomu rukovodstvu, Sovetskoe foto 11 (November 1928): 514.
29. Smotr fotografii v stengazete, Sovetskoe foto 11 (November 1927): 357.
30. M.E. Ulianova, Itogi i perspektivy rabselkorovskogo
dvizhenii. Otchet redaktsii RKK, in Chertvertoe vsesiouznoe soveshchanie rabkorov, selkorov, voenkorov i iunkorov pri Pravde i Raboche-Krestianskom Korrespondentom (28 noiabria 7 dekabria): stenograficheskii otchet
(Moscow: Pravda, 1929), 86.

THE SOVIET UNION: FROM WORKER TO PROLETARIAN PHOTOGRAPHY

45

31. Osnovye polozheniia o rabote rabkorov na predpriiatii, Chertvortoe vsesiouznoe soveshchanie, 211.
32. Rabochie foto-liubitelskoe dvizhenie i nizovaia pechati,
Chertvortoe vsesiouznoe soveshchanie, 29293. Na novom
etape: Soiuz pera i foto zakreplen, Sovetskoe foto 1 (January 1929): 14. See translation in this catalogue, p. 58.
33. Valerii Stigneev, Fototvorchestvo Rossii, 28.
34. Rech tov. M.E. Koltsov, Chertvortoe vsesiouznoe soveshchanie, 88.
35. Valerii Stigneev, Fototvorchestvo Rossii, 31.
36. Matthew Lenoe, Closer to the Masses: Stalinist Culture,
Social Revolution, and Soviet Newspapers (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2004), 153.
37. Postanovlenie soveta narodnikh komissarov RSFSR
o poriadke proizvodstva fotograficheskikh, kinematograficheskikh i prochikh semok na territorii RSFSR, Izvestiya
VTsI, 84 (April 12, 1929). Sovetskoe foto 9 (May 1929): 281.

46

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

38. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Cultural Revolution as Class War,

in Sheila Fitzpatrick, ed., The Cultural Front: Power and
Culture in Revolutionary Russia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), 115.
39. Lynn Mally, Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 6190, 230.
40. Lev Mezhericher, Segodniashnii den sovetskogo fotodela, Sovetskoe foto 89 (December 1934), quoted in Valerii Stigneev, Fototvorchestvo Rossii, 31.
41. GARF, f. 5283, op. 12, d. 318, ll. 7172.
42. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsialno-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI), f. 610 (Redaktsiia Rabochaia
gazeta), op. 1, d. 386. The photographs range in date from
1918 to 1931, with the bulk from 1929.
43. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva,
f. 2057 (G. L. Boltianskii), op. 1, d. 15, l. 186.

als, advances Soviet photography from a detachment of the cultural revolution to one of the first
places and puts before it the serious task of mobilizing and organizing the great army of laborers
of the USSR in the battle for the successful completion of the construction of the foundations of
a socialist economy.
Photography has an especially important role,
as it is highly accessible to the multi-million masses.
It influences the masses by virtue of it being simultaneously both a document and an artistic work,
and it acts upon both reason and emotion.
Up until now, Soviet photography was not up to
the mark of its possibilities, not up to the mark of
the tasks that it is called upon to fulfill.
The gigantic social shifts that have changed the
appearance of the country have not found deep analytic reflection in Soviet photography to the present day. A gliding across the surface of events and
phenomena, an absence of revelation of the inner
tendencies of their development, is a feature of the
majority of the pictures made by Soviet photographers. The isolated works that answer the demands of the present stage are overwhelmed by the
elemental torrent of protocol shots that impassively
reflect the faade of reality.
Hence, the main threat is the danger from the
right. Until now, the technique of photography
has been largely in the hands of people not able
and not wanting to reflect the events around them
in the context of the profound mastery of their
socio-political essence. They present a great
danger, as newly arising worker photo amateurs,
who thirst to put all their knowledge and creative
powers to the service of the Five-Year Plan, sometimes fall under their influence. The professional
skills of the torchbearers are absorbed by the
newly arrived worker photo amateurs and impede
the latter in their work in the direction of active
combat for the Five-Year Plan and retard the development of truly proletarian photography.
The source from which the right deviation draws
its strength is that petty-bourgeois element that
leaves its mark on other art forms (literature, film).
The transmitters of this bourgeois element are the

68

SOVIET PHOTO CORRESPONDENTS

sizeable number of photo reporters, the army of

professional photographers spread across the entire
Union, and the small handful of aesthetes from the
Russian Photography Society. To this day, the latter
openly maintains the role of photography as a pure
art. Their works are reactionary statements, their
theories of apolitical art stand apart from the present day, from socialist construction.
In concert with the relentless battle against the
right deviation, it is necessary to open a hardened
fire on the left, which in essence has itself arisen
from petty-bourgeois aestheticism, concealed by
left phraseology.
The source nourishing the creation of the leftists is the Western decadence represented by fashionable bourgeois photographers, especially MoholyNagy and his imitators. There, in the West, this
group of photographers wants to depart from surrounding reality (this is characteristic of all types of
contemporary bourgeois art) and is utterly absorbed
in the world of things used to good effect by them
the world of material and form. Servant to the bourgeoisie, this group signifies the decline of bourgeois
art; it does not find within itself creative energy even
for the mechanistic affirmation of the might of the
bourgeoisie by means of the artistically expressive
display of super-advanced Western technology, military power, etc. Creative bankruptcy asserts itself
in the world of the still life and formal searching.
In Soviet conditions this imitation of Western
fashions, the departure from deeply delving dialectical-materialist analyses of events occurring around
us in favor of a mechanistic gliding across the surface, leads to significant deviation from the path
along which proletarian photography should advance during the period of the construction of socialism. It leads to a direct withdrawal from surrounding reality and from the fulfillment of concrete,
operative class tasks by proletarian photography.
This group in Soviet photography was formed
from the splinters of the beaten Lef, in the form
of the Photo-Section under the wing of the artistic
organization October. Their creative method and
their creative growth are broadly advertised by
the workers of the aforementioned group.

This method and growth consist in that some

have already learned to shoot only from above down
and from below up and only with a distorted horizontal, while others are learning this subtlety with
commendable persistence.
We are not entirely against unusual points of
view and the slanted positioning of the camera
at the moment of exposure.
Yet we maintain that such an arrangement has
nothing in common with a creative method. It is
possible to endlessly discuss the question of how
and where to place the camera during shooting,
but this discussion occurs at an impermissible
distance from the genuine understanding of the
creative method of proletarian photography.
We consider it necessary to fight against an understanding of the creative method from the viewpoint of a certain abstract quality, from the standpoint of a dogma employed in all conditions.
We are against the opposition of quality in general to political quality.
The left deviation gives rise to a tendency to retreat to the area of petty, private problems put forth
and resolved from a bourgeois individualist point
of view, to skimming over the surface of events and,
in the final reckoning, leads to the destruction of
proletarian photography as a genuine class weapon.
Such are the conditions in which the style of
emergent proletarian photography is developing.
At the current stage, we reckon that photography
in general should be an operative function of the
press and that the working out of style and form
should take place in the process of serving the press.
The tasks that stand before the press as a whole
also stand before photography. The Leninist definition of the role of the press as agitator, propagandist, and organizer should serve as a criterion for
the value of each photograph.
Increasing the operative quality of the photograph is the first and fundamental task of the Soviet
photo reporter. A unified style of proletarian photography will take shape by striving to fulfill this
task through practical work in the press.
Hence the depravity and reactionary nature of
attempts to assert a style by means of the unusu-

alness and novelty of aesthetic play with the outward physical appearances of surrounding reality. True novelty and freshness emerge as a result
of achieving the highest operative quality of the
photograph, as a combination of maximally understandable photo-language and optimal artistic expression that simultaneously move the reader and
reveal the essence of events through the method of
dialectical materialism. It is necessary to agitate
and organize workers at the crucial sectors of socialist construction; only then will photography
cope with its tasks, only then will its simultaneous simplicity and expressiveness lead it to the
heights of proletarian art.
We are fully aware that neither we nor anyone
else is able to make photography a weapon of the
socialist reconstruction of reality without study and
application of the practice of the method of Marxist-Leninist theory. The method of dialectical materialism is the sole key to a complete and pure understanding of the motive forces of history. Mastery
of the dialectical method is an unavoidable stage
for switching over to the rails of conscious creative
work.
The attempt to found a style through the forces
of a single group seems entirely ineffectual to us.
This work should occur, on the one hand, in the
conditions of the complete consolidation of professional photo workers and, on the other, in close
contact with the mass of fotorabkors (photo-worker
correspondents) and fotoselkors (photo-village correspondents). Photo reporters should pass on their
technical and creative knowledge to the fotorabselkors (photo-worker-farmer correspondents)
and, in their turn, learn from the latter a political-productive, class-active, concrete-practical approach to reality.
Only in such circumstances is it possible for a
class proletarian photography to be born.
We call upon all comrades working in the area
of photo-information and in solidarity with the
directives outlined here to personally answer in writing or in the pages of Proletarskoe foto, thereby laying
down the foundations of a creative organization
of proletarian photo workers of the Soviet press.

69