Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lodder Christina 1992 The Transition To Constructivism

    Uploaded by

    placebo1
    57 views19 pages
    Lodder Christina 1992

    Original Title

    Lodder Christina 1992 the Transition to Constructivism

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lodder Christina 1992

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    57 views19 pages

    Lodder Christina 1992 The Transition To Constructivism

    Uploaded by

    placebo1
    Lodder Christina 1992

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    The Transition to Constructivism Christina Lodder Constructivism is advancing —the slender child of am industrial culture Fora longtime capitalism as leit rot underground. That been liberated by—the Praletarian Revolution. — Aleksei Gan (1922) From painting to sculpture, from sculpture to construction, from ‘onstruction 10 technology and invention—this is my chosen path, and ‘will surely be the ultimate goal of every revolutionary arti —Karlloganion (1922) ‘The rediscovery of Russian Conseractivism has been a striking phenomenon of the past decade. The movement has acquired a heroic status for certain critics and artists of a Postmoderaist persuasion, Ac the same time, original works and documents hhave begun to emerge from the former Soviet Union, permitting a more detailed and complex historical “understanding of the period. This essay focuses on the initial ‘emergence of a Constructivise position within the Russian avant-garde and, in particular, on the extraordinary exhibition ‘that marked its first public manifestation, the Obmokhu (the Society of Young Artists) show of May 1921 ‘The idea of Constructivism has become a critical commonplace, variously understood, bue at the moment of its invention it clearly caeried specific implications and a real polemical edge. The First Working Group of Constructivists, also known as the Working Group of Constructivists, was formed in March r92r, within Inkhuk (the Institute of Arcistic Culture) in Moscow.’ The group comprised Aleksei Gan, Varvara Stepanova, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Karl Ioganson, Konstantin Medunetskii, and the brothers Georgii and Vladimie Seenberg.” They seem to have come together during the fascinating theoretical discussions conducted at Inkhuk: during the previous three months, discussions which addressed the distinction that arrsts were starting to make between construction and composition as principles of artistic organization. The self-proclaimed Constructivists were united in their commitment co a viewpoint articulated by Rodchenko in January 1921; “All new approaches to art arise from technology and engineering and move toward organization and construction,” and “real construction is utilitarian necessity.” Such a stance seemed indeed to crystallize their response to the pressing question of how artists could contribute to the new ‘Communist order and celebrate the values inherent in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, In their drafe program of April 1, 1921, written by Gan, the ‘group proclaimed a new synthesis of art and industry. They wanted co relegate their purely artistic explorations to the role of “laboratory work,” and to extend their experiments wich ‘manipulating ehree-dimensional abstract forms into the teal, environment by participating in the industrial manufacture of useful objects. They called the new type of activity chat ehey envisaged “intellectual production,” proclaiming that cheir ideological foundation was “scientific communism, built on the theory of historical materialism” and thae they intended co attain “the communistic expression of material structures” by organiing their material according ¢o the thece principles of tebtoniba (tectonics, oF the socially and politically appropriate use of industrial material), construction (the organization of, this material for a given purpose), and fabtura (che conscious handling and manipulation of i)” The stracegies they proposed included investigating the Sovier building industry and establishing links with commicees in charge of production. These measures were to be accompanied by a highly organized propaganda campaign of exhibitions and publications chae would include a weekly journal, Vetnik inelltrual nog proizvodstua (The Horald of Intellectual Production) and a bullecin. Gan explained In order tut cur work on show; an exhibition of Constructivist Spatial works should be staged, as testimony not only to what ws are doing taday but al t0 what we are aiming for and the tasks that we ave st ourselves ‘Accordingly, about cwo months after the formation of the ‘group, some of che Constructivists showed theie curre practical work ac the Vionsia vexenniaia tystavka (Second Spring Exhibition) of Obmokhu, more commonly known as che third 267 ‘Obmokhu exhibition, which opened on May 22, 1921." Altogether, fourtsen artists participated: Nikolai Denisovskii Mikhail Eremichev, Aleksandr Zamoshkin, Vasilii Komardenkoy, Sergei Kostin, Aleksandr Naumoy, Aleksandr Perekatox, Nikolai Prusakoy, and Sergei Svetloy, as well as the Constructivists Medunerskii and the Stenberg brothers—who ‘were members of Obmokdhu—and Ioganson and Rodchenko, who were specially invited to contribute to this one show.” “The previous history of Obmokhu reveals a radical political ‘commitment that would also underpin Constructivism. Alchough the precise chronology of the group is still somewhat ‘unclear, Obmokhs seems to have been set up in the aucumn of 1919 by students from the “workshop without a supervisor” at the State Free Art Workshops in Moscow! The members had also come together through their work on various agitational projects during 1918, particularly che decorations of Moscow's seteets for the revolutionary festivals. Medunetskii and the Stenberg brothers, who were living together by this time, had decorated the Post Office on Miasnitskaia (now Kirov Street) for May Day 1918 wich the help of Denisovskii Subsequently, it appears, they had worked with the other future members of ‘Obmokhu ro decorate the Rogozhsko-Simonovskii district of Moscow for November igi The artists later contributed ‘numerous posters to the government's propaganda programs, such as the Campaign to Abolish Illiteracy, and, according 0 \V. M, Lobanov, Obmokhu's first exhibition was devoced (0 such agiational work, which was displayed anonymously eo He emphasize che collective nature of the group's production described the contents of their second exhibition as mainly posters, with a small number of abstract works and ‘rvetokonstrvkici (color constructions), presumably paineings. Lobanov’s description corresponds to A. A. Sidorov’s review of the May 1920 show, which suggests chat some three- dimensional constructions were shown; Sidorov mentions by comrade Stenberg made of sheet metal, alongside paintings by Naumov and others in the style of Boris, Lobanov’s account identifies, ‘Obmolchu's Sacond Spring Exhibition as, i fact, their chird exhibicion overall, and this was confirmed by Vladimir Stenberg many years later” ‘Obmokhu exhibition was held "in a kind of salon-café on Bolshaya Dmitrovka Street and Kuznersky Bridge: ‘There was no catalogue for the exhibition, although ehe Grigor'ev and Georgii lakulo He recalled that the third invitation card survives. Fortunately, two installation photographs were reproduced soon afier the event: one view in the spring of 1922 in the journal Vishh 'Gegenstand/ Objet (Obpat), edited by El Lissitzky and Il'a Erenburg in Berlin (fig, 90. 1," and ehe other the same year in the Hungarian avant-garde magazine Fxysig (Unit), published by Béla Uitz in Vienna (fig. no. 2).° The ewo images show adjacent corners of 3 large ball, in which constructions by Rodchenko, loganson, the Stenbergs, and Medunetskii are visible, as well as abstract paintings, some of which can now be identified as works by the Stenberg brothers and Medunetskii, The ewo phatogeaphs are devoted exclusively to the works by the First Working Group of Constructivists and give no indication of what the other nine arcists showed. Indeed, Egys labeled its photograph of che ‘exhibition “The Conseructivists at the Obmokhu Exhibition and inchided separate illustrations of work by Vladimir The photograph of the Stenberg construction was almost certainly caken at the Stenberg and loganson (fig. no. 3) texhibition, as the molding on the ceiling conforms to that in the owo views ofthe show. Egpsdy also printed translations of the progeam of the Constructivist group ("A Konstrukcivistak Csoportjinak Progeammja’) together with “The Realistic Manifesto” ("Realista Kidleviny”) produced in August 1920 by Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner, albeit without mentioning the authors of either statement." Ic is possible ehae ehe Prusakov picture reproduced in Exysig was another exhibi since itis captioned "Gépkonstrukci6, Pruszakov COBMOHU. Mosekva. 1921."” Ifo, this is the only evidence concerning the work of other artists in the exhibition. Alchough entitled Machine Constraction in che Hungarian label, this is a schematized figurative image, posterlike in style and apparently evoking the proletariat at work and leisure. [ethus, serves to underline the essential innovation of the Constructivists—their evocation of a contemporary indus imagery through the language of macerials and abstract form rather than through illustrative subject maccer. The show was cercainly acclaimed at che time for its highly original cexploracions of a new kind of constructed sculpture. For instance, Ulen (possibly Lissitzky writing under pseudonym), in a survey of Russian exhibitions published in Object in 1922, ‘emphasized: ‘The exhibitions of Obmobbu were new in form. There we saw art works not only hanging on the walls but also and most importantly {filling the space of te al “These young artist have assimilated the experiences ofthe former generation, they work well, they have a subtle fling forthe specific (qualities f materials and construct spatial works. Moving between the chncogy ofthe engineers and the ainless expediency of art, they are ‘ying to progress further” ‘The artistic innovations of che works exhibited are discussed in more detail below, buc it should be noted that the atcitudes and meanings they embodied were in fact firmly ooced in contemporary Russian culture. Aca very general level, industry and che machine were seen in revolutionary Russia as the essential characteristics of the working class and hence of the new Communist order. More practically, industrialization was also regarded by the Party and Lenin as the key to political and social progress and to the consolidation of che Soviet state. Lenin seated in 1918, after che Treaty of Brest ‘organization, discipline and the best machines emerge on top ... Ie is necessary to master che highest technology or be crushed." This attitude was epitomized by his dictum ‘Communism equals Soviet power plus the Electrification of the Entire Country” and by his speech on December 22, 1920, co the Eighth Congress of Soviets (at which Vladimir Tatlin’ ‘Tower was displayed), in which he envisioned che fueure in the hhands of the “engineers and agronomists” rather chan of the politicians." With such official endorsement, che ideas of Henty Ford and Frederick Winslow Taylor concerning, efficiency in industrial production attracted considerable interest.” In 1921 the first conference on Taylor's principles of, time and motion (Taylorism) established NOT (che Scientific Organization of Work). Aleksei Gastev, a poet committed toa tucopian vision of the triumph of che machine and mechanization throughout Russian life, sin TSIT (che Central Institute of Labor), which was dedicated to studying the human machine and creating a new man through social engineering.” Platon KKerzhentsey, who had worked wich Gan in Teo Narkompros (che Theatr Enlightenment), wished to “introduce scientific principles not ‘only into man’s economic activity and production ue into all ‘organized activity and work.” These are merely instances of a prevalent discourse in which the machine was boch metaphor for a new culture under construction and the practical means t0 rebuild the economy for the collective benefie of the people Nevertheless, Gan—author of the Constructivists’ program and Kerzhentse’s collaboracor—links these ideas directly with the emergence of Consteuctivism, inovsk: “Those who have the best technology, Deparement of the People’s Commissariat of “The same fasion of ideological and practical imperatives underlay the growing idealization ofthe machine and the worker by some factions within ehe artistic community. ln November 1918 a debare was held in the Wincer Palace over the «question of whether are was “A Temple ora Facory.”” Nikolai Punin, the principal speaker, argued that bourgeois art with is sacramental character was no longer relevant and hata proletarian culture would generate a completely new kiod of ft: "Te is not a matte of decoration but ofthe creation of new artistic objects. Ar for the proletariat is nota sacred temple for lazy contemplation but work, a factory, producing artistic objects for everyone." Later, the newspaper Isstvo kommany (Are of te Conmane) argued that the existing division between art and industry was itelf a survival of bourgeois structures, and Osip Brik announced that “art is like any other means of production ... not ideas but areal objec is the aim of all crue Creativity"” Such atieudes were reinforced by official policy. Iz0 Narkompros (the Department of Fine Arts ofthe People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment), commicved to “arts Penetration into industrial production,"" organized a Conference in August 1919, where the Commissar of Enlightenment, Anatoli Lunacharski, pronounced cha “ehere 4s no doubs that production artis closer co human life than is pure art" Subsequcntly, an Art and Industry Commission was Set up under the Council of People’s Commissars to examine how are could be harnessed to improve the quality of induscrial products.” Since the Revolution, the avant-garde had, with some success soughe co establish itself a the eepresentaive expression ofthe new order. Developments ater 1919, however, increasingly involved the accommodation of the new values an expectations outlined above, prompting a radical reevaluation of acitudes toward abstraction and traditional aistic media, Already in February 1919 Punin had declared Suprematism bas Blssomed out in splendid colour all over Mascon Porters, exhibition, caféi—all is Suprematism. Aud this és cexsraordinarily significant. One can confidently asert thas the day of Suprematism is nigh, and on that very day Suprematism must tse ts significance in crsative forms Wohat was Suprematism? A creative invention without a doubt but an invention srctly confined to painting Kazimir Malevich's deparcure from Moscow in the autumn of 1919 has indeed been attributed to his “creative islation,”” and hhe acer conceded that Suprematism had reached the climax of its influence that year” Subsequent developments within Suprematism suggest the wider currency of the impulses manifest at che Obmokhu exhibition. Significantly, in Vitebsk Malevich began to adapt the Suptematist vocabulary to suit che creation of hypothetical architectural complexes. follower Lissitzky evolved the proun as “an interchange station beeween painting and architecture’ and, lecturing in Berlin in 1922, he even declare Likewise, his Tn groups claimed constructviim, the Obmokbu ... and the Unevis {the Affarmers ofthe New Art} The former grayp worked in material and space, the latter in ‘material and a plane. Both strove to attain the same result, namely the creation of ve veal obpat and of arcitecare. They are oppsed tach other im their compa of the practicality and utility of created thing. Some members of the Obmobu group... went as far as a complete ddisavowal of art and in their urge to be inventors, devoted their energies to pure technol. Unovisdistinguithed between the concept of ality, meaning the necessity for the eretion of new forms, and the question of dint serviceableness Lissitzky’ distincrion was clearly valid by 1922, when positions had consolidated, although earlier there had pethaps been a broader consensus in the ewo groups’ explorations of a machine-age aesthetic. On the one hand, as che Obmokhu exhibition demonstrates, he Constructivists did not immediately abandon the making of arc objects. On the other, the Unovis group centered around Malevich also produced dlirectly functional designs. In November 1920, the groups magazine published Ilia Chashnik’s peojece fora speakers rostrum (later reworked by Lissiezky and known as the Leninshaiatritana {Lenin Tribune, 1924, place no. 143), where the girder construction creates an emphatic aura of industrial uciity.” Architectural and engineering projects were also apparently included in the 1920 and 1921 Unovis exhibitions in Moscow; and by early 1921 Unovis had organized an architectural and technical faculty. In the gradual evolution coward a Constructivist stance within the Moscow avant-garde, particular attention should be pid tothe role of Rodchenko as both artise and polemicist. In the spring of 1921 he was clearly che leading figure among the Constructivist contingent at the Obmokhu show. Whereas the others were still students, Rodchenko was one of the most progressive ceachers at Vehuremas (the Higher Artistic- ‘Technical Workshops) set up in December 1920. In January 1919, Redchenko, Stepanova, Aleksandr Vesnit and other members of Askeanov (the Association of Extreme Innovators) had demanded an exhibition space from Iz0 Narkompros because of “the sucden death of Suprbez {Supcematism andl Non-Objectivieyl, its vitality pouring into the Association of Extreme Innovators." Alchough a cogene chronology of Rodchenko’ evolution is still needed, ie is clear thac in general terms he was seeking to move beyond ‘Malevich's more “metaphysical” aesthetic. He came to regard the creative act less as an expression of personal inspiration and more asa quasi-scientific investigation into the inherent properties of painting, such as cone, color, line, eexture, and ‘organization. Far from being a Modernist assertion of the “autonomy” of art, such a standpoint represented an attempr, akin Co that of the Russian literary Formalists ac precisely this time, to reconccive at as specialized, quasi-scientifie activity and the artist himself asa species of worker. ‘An aspiracion to establish a science of ar also inspired the foundation of Inkhuk in early 1920." Rodchenko was among, the original members and was infact commissioned by the Insticute to wrice his statement encieled “Liniia” (“The Line,” 920) In this important text, while discussing new approaches to the application of paint, to color, and especially to line as the

    You might also like