ESSAY// Russia

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.