Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review
Lysenko's “Michurinism" and Art at the Darwin Museum 1935-1964. / Simpson, Patricia.
Lysenkoism as a Global Phenomenon: Genetics and Agriculture in the Soviet Union and Beyond, vol1. ed. / William deJong-Lambert; Nikolai Krementsov. Vol. 1 New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. p. 129-175 (Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology).Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review
}
TY - CHAP
T1 - Lysenko's “Michurinism" and Art at the Darwin Museum 1935-1964
AU - Simpson, Patricia
N1 - Pat Simpson, ‘Lysenko's “Michurinism" and Art at the Darwin Museum 1935-1964’, in William deJong-Lambert and Nikolai Krementsov, eds., Lysenkoism as a Global Phenomenon: Genetics and Agriculture in the Soviet Union and Beyond (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), ISBN: 978-3-319-39176-2, e-ISBN: 978-3-319-39176-2
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - This chapter offers a case study from an art historian’s perspective, of the impact of the growth and decline of Trofim Lysenko’s power between 1935 and 1964 on the displays at the Darwin Museum, a natural history museum in Moscow. The institution was unusual for the heavy commitment of its directors, Aleksandr Kots and Nadezhda Ladygina-Kots, to the use of art works for illuminating past and contemporary evolutionary theory within the displays. The discussion focuses on the Museum’s strategic, discursive use of what Nikolai Krementsov has termed “Marxist Darwinst” rhetoric, in contextualising and explaining the significance of the art works, in order to defend its position and access state resources for a larger building to house the collection. It will be seen that the Darwin Museum gradually aligned itself in the 1920s-1930s with aspects of Marxist Darwinism that became key elements of Lysenko’s “Michurinist biology”. This strategy opened up a gap between the scientific research and interests of the museum directorate, their connections with western scientists, and what was said to the museum visitors. Lysenko’s triumph in August 1948 necessitated dramatic changes to the museum display and very careful adherence to the current nuances of Lysenko’s version of “Michurinist biology”. After 1955, while Kruschev’s “Thaw” and de-Stalinisation allowed the museum tentatively to indicate visually its (enduring) adherence to genetics rather than Michurinism, this was strategically, equivocally expressed - ultimately to the museum’s disadvantage regarding the new building. In conclusion, while the study notes that the museum clearly contributed, however unwillingly, to the entrenchment of Lysenkoism, it vividly illustrates some of the attendant dangers of transforming the complex discourses of science into simplified and demagogic “cultural resources.” In particular, it underlines the deep problems underlying any suppression of public access to the complexity and relativism of real scientific discourse.
AB - This chapter offers a case study from an art historian’s perspective, of the impact of the growth and decline of Trofim Lysenko’s power between 1935 and 1964 on the displays at the Darwin Museum, a natural history museum in Moscow. The institution was unusual for the heavy commitment of its directors, Aleksandr Kots and Nadezhda Ladygina-Kots, to the use of art works for illuminating past and contemporary evolutionary theory within the displays. The discussion focuses on the Museum’s strategic, discursive use of what Nikolai Krementsov has termed “Marxist Darwinst” rhetoric, in contextualising and explaining the significance of the art works, in order to defend its position and access state resources for a larger building to house the collection. It will be seen that the Darwin Museum gradually aligned itself in the 1920s-1930s with aspects of Marxist Darwinism that became key elements of Lysenko’s “Michurinist biology”. This strategy opened up a gap between the scientific research and interests of the museum directorate, their connections with western scientists, and what was said to the museum visitors. Lysenko’s triumph in August 1948 necessitated dramatic changes to the museum display and very careful adherence to the current nuances of Lysenko’s version of “Michurinist biology”. After 1955, while Kruschev’s “Thaw” and de-Stalinisation allowed the museum tentatively to indicate visually its (enduring) adherence to genetics rather than Michurinism, this was strategically, equivocally expressed - ultimately to the museum’s disadvantage regarding the new building. In conclusion, while the study notes that the museum clearly contributed, however unwillingly, to the entrenchment of Lysenkoism, it vividly illustrates some of the attendant dangers of transforming the complex discourses of science into simplified and demagogic “cultural resources.” In particular, it underlines the deep problems underlying any suppression of public access to the complexity and relativism of real scientific discourse.
KW - Lysenkoism
KW - Darwinisim
KW - Darwin Museum
KW - Soviet Art
KW - Darwin Museum Moscow
KW - Aleksandr Kots
KW - Nadezhda Ladygina-Kots
KW - Michurin
KW - Cold War
KW - Evstaf'ev
KW - Vatagin
M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)
SN - 978-3-319-39176-2
VL - 1
T3 - Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology
SP - 129
EP - 175
BT - Lysenkoism as a Global Phenomenon: Genetics and Agriculture in the Soviet Union and Beyond, vol1
A2 - deJong-Lambert, William
A2 - Krementsov, Nikolai
PB - Palgrave Macmillan
CY - New York
T2 - 2nd International Workshop on Lysenkoism
Y2 - 21 June 2012 through 23 June 2012
ER -