This book is about how the belief that only artists in free societies can produce great art overlooks the artistic works by artists in the Soviet Union. We also learn about the CIA-funded Congress for Cultural Freedom which was used to show America's superiority in the arts since we are a free society as opposed to the Soviet Union, which had a Communist government. There is also a difference in how the arts are funded in this country as opposed to other countries. This book was informative about the government and the arts community during the Cold War.

This book feels a bit unfinished--it could have used a bit more editing to balance out some sections. But really, there are several excellent biographies of Shostakovich, an autobiography of Stravinsky, and any number of books about JFK and the Cold War, so it doesn't really seem like this book is bringing that much new to the table. The question of "freedom" vs. creativity seems too broad and too psychological to make any sweeping pronouncements. Still, if this book gets more people listening to DSCH, I guess that's not a bad thing.

Thank you to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a temporary digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

When I requested this book I did not know that Joseph Horowitz was a well-respected and long-standing cultural commentator, specialising in classical music. I was intrigued by its central thesis, that despite what was said by John F. Kennedy in the 1960's, and the overall conversation around freedom of speech, it did not follow that to make successful art you needed to live in a free society. Indeed in the process of requesting the ARC I thought of several obvious counter-examples from literature and film (pretty much the entire Iranian industry scene of the last forty years stands out as a clear disproof). So as I approached this book I was somewhat surprised by the process, namely that Horowitz wanted to prove his point via the means of classical music and in particular by comparing the work of Igor Stravinsky - a Russian emigre in the USA, with Dmitri Shostakovich, work under the Soviet regime. OK, I thought, interesting - but it does feel a bit like building a real actual Death Star in space before you film Star Wars - I have some models over here that look just as good.

It is a fascinating if infuriating read for this reason. He gets wonderfully grubby with the CIA's funding of arts projects, and wistful when reminiscing about the cultural tours Shostakovitch was sent on by the Soviets to prove his brilliance. A cultural arms race in tandem with the space race, in the one area that is accessible to all, whilst still sitting in a somewhat elitist world (he never really gets to grips with censorship of popular music in Soviet Russia which would have potentially given him another angle). The problem is he never really identifies in a way that convinces a layman - well me - that you can particularly tell the regime that a Symphony is recorded under. He convinces that Shostakovich broadly remains brilliant while Stravinsky peters out, but there isn't a sense that this would necessarily be any different if their positions were reversed.

The obstruction theory of art (that great art is often sparked by its restrictions) seems pretty well established by now, so Kennedy's quote that only artists in free societies can produce great art seems ridiculous. What may happen to the art and/or the artist, in non-free societies, and what kind of deterrence that might be, is perhaps a more salient point. The lack of distribution or access to the art also becomes interesting. But Horowitz is more interested in the USA cultural policy (that it had one) and pointing a lot of fingers at a pretty grubby low-rent composer and fixer called Nicholas Nabakov (some relation). It is all fascinating stuff, and once I'd committed to the actual point of the book I enjoyed it (and listened to quite a lot of Shostakovich) but if you want to prove the actual central thesis I suggest watching some Jafar Panahi movies.

I thought this book was very well researched, but not so well written. The presentation seemed to jump around in time, making it difficult to form a clear chronology of what happened and to assess the impact/importance of various events mentioned. I also found it annoying that several times the author made a comment that an item would be explained in the footnotes - I feel like if the explanation wasn't important enough to include in the text, then it's also not important enough to include a call-out to the footnote in the text.

I started reading the work to write a review for On the Seawall; however, it was just not quite connecting with me nor was it a great fit for the online magazine, so I discontinued reading it.