How did Russian art and design respond to changing social
and political forces in the first half of the 20th century?
From the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917 up to
the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953
Russian art and design went through a series of varied and profound stages,
mostly due to the massive changes in the social and cultural landscape. Starting
with the explosive avant-garde Russian Constructivism movement and ending in
the mundanity of Stalin's Socialist Realism.
An avant-garde movement had been growing amongst artists and
writers in Russia years before the Revolution of 1917 in the belly of Proletarian
culture; Russian Cubo-Futurism and Suprematism. Suprematism employed the use of
simple geometric shapes and a small colour palette to create minimalist artwork
with a distinctly urban-industrial style, and was spearheaded by Kazimir
Malevich when he published From Cubism to
Suprematism in 1915, which
introduced the movement to the wider artistic community. Malevich's theories
went on to become the foundation of Russian Constructivism after the
Revolution, when the avant-garde community in Russia felt the initial benefits
of communism. More importantly avant-garde Proletarian culture was backed by
the Bolsheviks (despite Lenin's personal misgivings), because its aim was to
'expunge elitist art by encouraging the proletariat to participate in the
conception of production art' (Heller, 2008, 131-132). Essentially empowering
the people to push out elitist ideology in the same way the Bolsheviks wanted
to push out the elitist Monarchy.
The Term 'Russian Constructivism' was coined for the first
time in January 1922 when it appeared in an exhibition booklet named 'The Constructivists' in Moscow. The
booklet stated that Constructivism is "the highest springboard for the
leap to universal culture" and that "The constructivists declare art
and its priests to be outlaws" (Stenberg, 1922). This really set the tone
to how the constructivists saw themselves, as power of modernity, modernists in
a tired country which was trying to reinvent itself. This was a direct
reflection on the principles of the revolution, While Lenin's Bolsheviks had
overthrown the Tsarist Autocracy of the previous centaury the constructivists would
revolutionise the art world. This connection between the ideology of Lenin's
brand of communism and constructivist modernism would bond the two together,
giving what avant-garde artists thought was freedom, in reality communism used
constructivism as a propaganda tool.
But this is not something which bothered constructivists,
for they were communists themselves and believed that communism was a force for
good. In 1921 Rodchenko was already an established artist, a field he gave up
for graphic design, "It is time for art to flow into the organisation of
life" (Lovejoy, 2004, 38). He, with other founders of constructivism,
moved into producing posters and publications to further propagate communist
ideologies. In 1921 they set up the 'First Working Group of Constructivists'
and printed a manifesto stating their aim was to 'involve its members in the
revolutionary inventive work of the constructivists, who... have decided to
realise the communist expression of material structures' (Lodder, 1983, 3),
Indisputably claiming that they disagree with individualism and fully embrace
the socialistic principles of the young communist Russia.
And Communism initially embraced the modernist principles of
the emerging constructivists. In 1918, Tatlin wrote to the Council of People
Commissars with a complaint that rushing a monument to the revolution would
destroy the artistic integrity of the work. 'the state, as it is now, cannot
and must not be the initiator of bad taste' (Lodder, 1983, 55). Shortly after
in 1919 he was commissioned to build a monument to the revolution, a monument
that would later become Tatlin's Tower.
'The form of the monument will correspond to all invented artistic forms at the
present time.... cubes, cylinders, spheres, cones, segments, spherical
surfaces...', the monuments architecture would lend itself directly to the
style of Malevich's Suprematism. But the tower would also symbolise what
artists, designers and politicians had in mind for the future of communist
Russia. The tower would contain within itself the equipment needed to
revolutionise the mind of its visitors. Tatlin stated that the monument 'must
house lecture halls, gymnasiums, agitational rooms' as well as massive screens
to display the revolutionary message as well as world events and an
international radio transmitter to broadcast messages to the same effect
(Lodder, 1983, 56). The tower would also contain printing shops and art
workshops for propaganda posters. It would be a massive homage to the new-found
modernity of Russia, a bright utopian future built out of modern materials and
new utilitarian ideas. Lissitsky wrote
that 'Iron is strong like the will of the proletariat, glass is clear like its
conscience' (Lodder, 65)
But the truth was that Tatlin had essentially designed a
monumental communist monolith, directly targeting civilians with the aim to
alter the stark reality of post-revolutionary Russia; that one autocracy had
been swapped for another, that adult illiteracy was still the norm and people
were still poor and starving. It also compounded the notion that although
Tatlin and his constructivist allies like Rodchenko and Popova preached that
they were creative's for the greater
good of the people the truth was in fact that they were lying to them on behalf
of the communist party. Tatlin's Tower was never built because Russia could not
afford the immense cost, in time or materials that Tatlin assumed would be available
when he started the concept. 'the reality of soviet industry lagged far behind
this vision.... By the end of the civil war in 1921, what little heavy industry
remained was crippled by shortages of supplies and capital [and] outdated
technology' (Kiaer, 2005, 17).
This futurist mentality of constructivists had also began to
disengage with the general population. When the new economic policy (NEP)
arrived in 1921, allowing a small number of capitalist projects to boost the
economy, the constructivists saw this as an insult towards their idea of a
communist future, in a Lef article Osip Brik, a leading constructivist scholar
wrote; 'Things are hard right now for the constructavist-productivist. Artists
turn away from him. economic planners brush him aside with annoyance. The
Philistine goggles at him and fearfully whispers: "Futurist!" It
takes a lot of endurance and strength of will not to lapse into the peaceful
bosom of canonized art' (Osip, 1923, 108). Osips elitist use of the word
'Philistine' to describe the feelings of the average man set the tone for the
demise of constructivism. Constructivism had become an elitist movement in the
eyes of many and new artists were beginning to fill the gaps that
constructivists could not touch, like working for associates under the NEP,
with art which harked back to imperialistic realism. From these beginnings
socialist realism was born. 'in the [mid] 1920's, most artists, including young
art students, rejected what they saw as the extremism of the Lef artists (leftist constructivists) in favour of
easel painting of various degrees of realism' (Kiaer, 2005, 23).
If constructivism was dying in the late 20's if was killed
on 23rd April 1932. Under Stalin's orders the Central Committee issued a
national edict 'disbanding all existing artistic groups and declaring that all
Soviet creative workers should be organised according to profession in unitary
"creative unions"' (Solomon, 2006, 318). Socialist Realism was then
proclaimed the 'obligatory method' for all artistic professions in 1934
including visual artists and writers. The decree stated that all art produced
must 'be realistic in form and Socialist in content' (Solomon, 318).
So if the avant-garde movement of constructivism used the
revolution as a springboard to get into the forefront of Russian culture, the concept of Socialist
Realism is the exact opposite. A type of art for the people, art that Stalin
hoped the common man would understand, and subsequently forced upon them. If constructivism
distanced the workers and peasants from the party realism could draw them back
in. Artists who continued to practice any other form of artwork would be
treated like any other political dissident, resulting in exile or death.
It could be argued that at this point Russia entered uniquely
modernist era before 1953, when Stalin died. As artists were forced into
realism they used the techniques and subject of their own 19th centaury masters.
The subject matter however remained focused on modernity, so while the style
was ancient, artists and designers felt a justification in what they were
creating based on the socialist content alone. 'Critics [of Russian
Avant-garde] argued that true revolution takes place not on the level of
artistic forms but rather on the level on their social use' (Solomon, 2006,
319), and since the proletariats where considered to be unresponsive to the
avant-garde, realism was the only way forward.
Realism worked in exactly the same way constructivism had;
creating imagery of a bright utopian future. However realism spoke to the
masses and was not layered in the elitism of constructivism. It was also easy
to understand, which was the main goal for Stalin in the late 30's and 40's,
with total war breaking out on the eastern front, realism could be used as a
tool, painting imagery of totally unrealistic scenes., glory and honour on and
off the battlefield. Stalin wrote "What is most important to dialectical
method (of socialist realism), is not that which is stable at the present but
is already beginning to die, but rather that which is emerging and developing,
even if at present it does not appear stable , since for the dialectical method
only that which is emerging and
developing cannot be overcome." (Solomon, 2006,320) My understanding of
this is that Stalin was happy to use socialist 'realism' to create imagery of a
brighter future which at the time did not exist. This is evident in Vasili
Efanovs Painting 'An unforgettable
meeting' painted in 1937. The painting depicts Stalin caring for the
proletariat by meeting a collective farm girl. Various happy dignitaries look
on. However the date of this painting falls in the dead centre of the Great
Purge (1936-38), where Stalin ordered, amongst other things, the execution of
an estimated 681,692 to 2.1 million people. (Pipes, 2001, 67).
Body Copy 1652 Words.
Bibilography
Heller, S. (2008) 'Iron
Fists. Branding the 20th Centaury Totalitarian State' , London, Phaidon.
Medunetski, K.K & Stenberg, G.A & Stenberg, V.A.
(1922) ' Konstruktivisty', Moscow,
Kafe Poetov.
Lovejoy, M. (2004) 'Digital
Currents: Art in the Electronic Age', London, Routeledge. pp38.
Lodder, C. (1983) 'Russian
Constructavism', New Haven and London, Yale University.
Kiare, C. (2005) 'Imagine
No Possessions: The Socialist Objectives of Russian Constructavism',
Cambridge MA, The MIT Press.
Brik, O (1923) 'V
proizvodstvo!', Moscow, Lef.
Solomon, R. (2006) 'RUSSIA!',
New York, Guggenheim Foundation.
Pipes, R. (2001) 'Communism:
A History', New York, Modern Library.
Rowell, M & Wye, D. (2002) 'The Russian Avant-Garde
Book: 1910-1934', New York, The Museum Of Modern Art.
King, D. (2010) 'Red
Star Over Russia: Visual History Of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Death of
Stalin', London, Tate Publishing.
