Art of the Commune

PoliticsandArtin SovietJournals,
1917-20

Christina Lodder

n October1917 the BolshevikPartyoverthrewthe Provi- Socialist Revolutionaries'Znamia truda [The banner of

sional Governmentof Russia, established in February, work],all of which concentratedon political and ideological
and replaced it with a Councilof People'sCommissars questions. When aesthetic matters were broached, Gorkii
committedto destroyingcapitalismand the bourgeoisieand emphasizedthe didactic role of art and promotedmoretradi-
to establishingthe dictatorshipof the proletariat,as a prelude tional values, while artistic innovatorssuch as Vladimir
to the ultimate creation of a fully socialist society. The Tatlin and KazimirMalevichwere published in Anarkhiia,
previouslyexiled radicalpoliticaloppositionhad becomethe suggestingthattherewerelinks betweenthe avant-gardeand
ruling establishment.Issues of modernart and society were the short-livedanarchistmovementafter the Revolution.
24 suddenlyno longerhypotheticaland "utopian."They had to One political body whose chief role was cultural was
be confronted. Hence, amongst the organs of powerin the Proletkult,or the independentproletariancultural and edu-
new governmentwas the Commissariatfor Enlightenment cational organizations(Proletarskiekulturno-prosvetitelnye
(Narodnyikomissariatpo prosvesheniiu-Narkompros),re- organizatsii),which were set up at the instigationof Alek-
sponsible foreducationand culture, with a separateDepart- sandrBogdanovin November1917 in Petrograd,and rapidly
ment of Fine Arts (Otdel IzobrazitelnykhIskusstv-IZO). spread throughoutRussia, attracting400,000 membersby
The profoundpolitical and social changes posed real ques- 1920. Independentof the Party and the Government,Pro-
tions for artists and their associates. Whatwas revolutionary letkult was specifically organizedto create"socialistformsof
art? What relationshipshouldexist betweenart and the new thought,feeling and daily life,"2 and a culture that would
state, betweenart and the Bolshevikparty?Wasavant-garde reflect the values and aspirationsof the proletariat.It pro-
art inherently "bourgeois"in fact, or did it representthe motedworking-classeducationand the emergenceof a prole-
emergenceof an alternativeand potentially"revolutionary" tarianintelligentsia, arrangingclasses foradults, organizing
outlook?Couldproletarianart itself be created only by au- schools, studios, clubs, and theaters, and publishing nu-
thentic workers,or could it also be producedby artists who merousjournalssuch as Gorn[The furnace](Moscow,1918-
embraceda proletarianworldview? Debates on these com- 22), Proletarskaia kultura [Proletarianculture] (Moscow,
plex issues foundexpressionin diversejournalspublishedin 1918-21), and Griadushchee[The future](Petrograd,1918-
the territoryof the formerTsaristempire. 21). None of these magazineswas profuselyillustrated, al-
The two most importantpublications promotingthe thoughtheir covers often carried images producedby mem-
ideologicalpositionof the Communistparty and the govern- bers of the Proletkultor worksof art of an agitationalnature,
ment were obviouslythe newspapersIzvestiia [News], pub- some of which possessed a slightly folk-artflavor.The jour-
lished by the SupremeSoviet, and Pravda[Truth],issued by nals tendedto presenta rudimentaryand essentially unified
the CentralCommitteeof the Party.Both publicized impor- concept of illustrative art, based on Bogdanov'sMarxist
tant governmentmeasuresrelatingto artisticquestions,such theory, according to which the cultural struggle was as
as the decrees nationalizing private art collections and importantas the political and economicfight forthe achieve-
Lenin'sPlan for MonumentalPropaganda,and a handfulof ment of socialism:
statements on art, particularly the importance of art for
Artorganizestheliving images of social experiencenotonly in
propagandaand agitation. Naturally,the amountof space the
devotedto artistic questions was severely limited, because sphereof cognition, but also in the sphereof emotionsand
The consequenceof this is that it is the most
the government'sprimeconcernfrom1918 to early 1921 was aspirations.
in theorganizationof the collective's
forces in
to consolidatethe Revolutionand successfully fight the Civil powerfulweapon
class society-of class power.3
War. After the decree of November9, 1917, banning the
"counter-revolutionary press,"'. only political publications As ValerianPolianskiiemphasizedin Griadushchee: "In the
that recognized the governmentwere permitted.These in- days of Octoberwe defeatedcapitalist powerand took it into
cluded newspaperssuch as Maksim Gorkii'sNovaia zhizn ourownhands;nowwe are going towardsa new,moremighty
[New life], the anarchists' Anarkhiia [Anarchy], and the and majestic victory-towards the victory over bourgeois

SPRING 1993

culture."4MostProletkulttheoreticiansarguedthat the new
culture could only be created by workersand thatthe newart
would be realistic. Typically, Pavel Bezalko declared: "We
proceed fromthe positionthat the workersthemselvescreate
proletarianculture, and notthe intelligentsiawhoby chance,
ornotby chance, havearrivedat the ideas of the proletariat."5
Like the majorityof Proletkultcritics, Bezalko attackedthe
so-called "Futurists," artists who had rejected academic
realism and who had experimentedwith Cubism and ab-
straction. He condemnedthem for being essentially "bour-
geois artists" who were unsuitable role models for the
proletariat.6
Less doctrinaire were the journals published by the
new local-governmentauthorities,all firmly allied with the
Bolsheviks. Plamia [The flame] (1918-20), conceived as a
"generallyaccessible scientific, literary, and artistic illus-
trated journal,"' was issued by the Petrograd Soviet of
Workersand Red Army Deputies from 1918 to 1920. Its
official nature was emphasized by the fact that Anatolii
Lunacharskii,the CommissarforEnlightenment,was its first
editor and an active contributorduring its initial year of
publication. Directed at a popularworking-classaudience,
Plamia was primarilydidactic, and concentratedon dissem-
inating informationratherthan on participatingdirectly in
the cultural debates of the time. It devotedfar morespace to
recent political history, importantsocialist figures, general
knowledge, and literaturethan to the visual arts. Neverthe-
less, there were several illustrated articles celebrating im-
portantindividual artists such as Leonardoda Vinci, Fran-
cisco Goya, Auguste Rodin, and Vincentvan Goghas well as
morepolitically directed pieces on subjects such as Gustave
Courbet'sactivities during the 1871 Paris Communeand
OscarWilde'sinvolvementwith Socialism. In addition,there
was a long series of articles written by Lev Pumpianskii
dealing with art-historicalproblems-for example, the rela-
tionship between primitive painting and primitivism, the
natureof agitationalart, and howthe workingclass had been
depicted in the visual arts beforethe Revolution.Individual
issues were often devotedto particularthemes, such as the
anniversary of the Revolution or May Day, when articles
about the celebrationswere accompanied by documentary
photographsas well as reproductionsof various items of
agitationalart including decorations,posters, and relevant
'61-
Wom - maw
aV;n
I'i~I'MIE A09W 25
AIN-
n-
FIG. 1 K.Dydyshko,Revolution,Plamia[Flame],no. 56 (June1919):7.
paintings. As befitted a journal edited by the head of
Narkompros,a relativelylarge amountof space was assigned
to the discussion and illustration of specific government
artistic measures such as Lenin'sPlan for MonumentalPro-
paganda. Between September 1918 and September1919,
Plamia published photographsof more than twenty monu-
ments, severalfeaturedon the covers;forexample,Grizelli's
monumentto FrangoisBabeuf in Petrogradand ViktorSin-
aiskii's projectfora Monumentto the GreatRussian Revolu-
tion. The journal also illustrated new designs for postage
stamps and an official stamp for Sovnarkom,the Soviet of
People'sCommissars,or the SupremeSoviet. In addition,the
covers reproducedphotographsof prominentsocialists, both
past and present. Lenin, forinstance, gracedthe coverof the
first issue. Otherwise,Plamia was illustratedby contempo-
raryartists such as IvanPuni and NatanAltman,or featured
an item of propagandasuch as a posteror monument(fig. 1).
Overall, the journalpresentedan artistic image thatwas not
particularlypartisan. ReflectingLunacharskii'sowntolerant
attitudes, it was sympatheticto avant-gardeexperimentation
as well as to moretraditionalformalapproaches.At the same
time, it clearly insisted, in accordancewith Partydirectives,
that"theproletariatmustbe equippedwitha generalhuman-
ist culture."8
ARTJOURNAL
 :::::
:::::4W:::::i
:l:iil
:::i:_
::::r:ii-:;i~:~'::::::::::::::L:::::ii::
:_::~i::::i
::::::::-
::::::':::::'-::::::;:::::
ci-~:i :::d::::m
?-~:i~--i~~-?~ii-li~~~i~i. m
ninm,::21:::

1,7/

A:a ~ il

::::::,r'4/7
::I::::y
<#' ~ i~ii::::: ii:i?is-

26

FIG. 2 Kazimir
Malevich,Suprematist
Painting,1916,
reproducedin
Irobrazitelnoe
iskusstvo[Fineart],
no. 1 (1919):29.

The equivalent of Plamia in Moscowwas Tvorchestvo
[Creation],"a journal of literature,art, science and life,"'9
published by the MoscowSoviet of Workersand Red Army
Deputies from1919 to 1922. Directed at a similar audience,
and with similar aims, its coverage of the visual arts was
again less extensive than its treatmentof literature.Its sym-
pathies seemed to be with the view expressed by one critic
who asked: "Andisn't it a rewardingtask to depict in images
and paintings all the momentsof that strugglefromFebruary
to Octoberand from Octoberto today?"'0The literarycom-
mentatorFriche, a member of the editorial board and an
active proponentof realism, wrote several articles on the
history of art that discussed such issues as the depictionof
the proletariator the countrysidein art; these were accom-
panied by a catholicselectionof illustrationsof worksby such
artists as Pieter Bruegel, Van Gogh, EdouardManet,Jules
Bastien-Lepage, Jean-FrangoisMillet, AndersZorn, Kaithe
Kollwitz, and George Grosz. Anotherfrequent contributor
was the art historian Aleksei Sidorov,who was consistently
critical of the avant-gardein his reviewsof the latest artistic
theories, exhibitions, and publications. He was clearly far
more comfortable writing about the artistic treasures of
Moscowand recent acquisitionsof the TretiakovGallery.In
one article, he surveyed the art of the previoustwo years,
including the Civil War posters, the statues producedfor
Lenin'sPlan of MonumentalPropaganda,andthe streetdeco-
rationsforthe revolutionaryfestivals. He emphasizedthatthe
Red Armysoldiers liked the postersof AleksandrApsit and

SPRING1993
Dmitrii Moor,and that the Futurists'decorationswere less
successful than those of more moderateartists such as the
C6zannistIlia Mashkov.Indeed, the journalcelebratedart- dM PM
ists such as Rodin alongside writers such as Gorkii and
contemporaryartists such as Leonid Pasternak,Sergei Ger-
asimov, and Mstislav Dobuzhinskii. The selection demon-
strated a tolerancefor some degree of experimentation,but
also a clear preference for a more representationalstyle.
During1920, therewas morecoverageof the Proletkult,with
the publicationof articles by AleksandrBogdanovand other
Proletkult spokesmen, accompanied by increasingly overt
criticism of the radical position of IZO."
Narkomprositself publisheda large numberofjournals
coveringeducationaland artistic issues. Khudozhestvennaia
zhizn [Artistic life], which first appearedin December1919,
was "the organof the Artistic Section of Narkompros,"12 and
coveredmostof its departments,includingthose dealingwith
Museums, Preservationof Monuments,Architecture, Fine
Arts (IZO),Theater(TEO),and Music (MUZO).Althoughit
was edited by a board which included the progressiveart FIG. 3 SergeiChekhonin,design for an officialstamp,reproduced
in
27
critic Abram Efros and the radical theoreticianOsip Brik, Izobrazitelnoe
iskusstvo,no. 1 (1919):63.
the journal'scoverage of the theory and practice of the fine
arts was fairly limited. WassilyKandinskywroteon projects of the workingclass," or "proletarianart," but it was also
to create a new type of museum, a Museumof the Cultureof paradoxically"classless art."Moreover,the editorsinsisted
Painting,to enshrinethe avant-garde'saspirationto establish that"this art shouldbe as free fromthe past and hatethe past
an objective basis for art, and on the organizationof an as much as the workingclass hates it."16Such a position
international"houseof arts"as partof the generalfosteringof allowed the rejection of past art to be seen as politically
internationalcontacts. Lunacharskiiand Efros also wrote progressiveand established a stronglink (in theoryat least)
about internationalcontacts, German Expressionism, and between"theartof the future"and the aestheticdevelopedby
exhibitions in Germany.13 the most progressiveRussian artists in the prerevolutionary
Farmorefocused on problemsconcerningthe contem- period, who similarly rejected academic art.
poraryvisual arts in Russia and directed at a more profes- Not surprisingly,the editorsof Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo
sional audience were the three journals producedby IZO emphasized that the future art should be professional,and
during this period: Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo[Fine art] (Pe- thereforeshouldhave assimilated artistic culture as defined
trograd, one issue, 1919), Iskusstvo[Art] (Moscow, eight by recent theory based on the achievementsof Cubism,
issues, January-September1919), and Iskusstvokommuny Futurism, and abstract art. The journal intended"to show,
[Artof the commune](Petrograd,nineteen issues, December althoughin the mostgeneraloutlines,"currentartisticdevel-
1918-April 1919). Of the three, Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvowas opments,because "onlyin whatis surroundingus nowcan we
the most substantial and luxurious publication, printed on find the path to the future.""7Kandinsky examined the
high-quality paper and lavishly illustrated, the cover being relationshipbetween artists and the stage; Malevichrumi-
printed in color (pl. 2, p.10). Although its one and only issue nated on the problemof a museumforcontemporaryart and
appearedin 1919, the editorialwas writtenin May1918, over the relationshipbetween contemporarypoetry and art; Osip
six months before Iskusstvokommunyeven started produc- Brik and Nikolai Punin argued for the collective quality of
tion. Conceivedonly a few monthsafter IZO itself had been proletarianart. The bulk of thejournal,however,was devoted
set up, and just after Vladimir Maiakovskiihad complained to a reportwritten by David Shterenberg,head of IZO, in
that the arts were continuingas if nothinghad happened,the April 1919. The reportcovered the history, activities, and
journalreflected a theoreticalbasis thatwas, in the wordsof resolutionsof variousbodies withinIZO;this was followedby
one critic, "distinguished by its astonishing simplicity."'14 specific declarations concerning museums and art educa-
The editors proceeded from the premise that "undoubtedly tion. Suprematistpaintings by Malevich(fig. 2) and Olga
socialist society will have its ownwayof life, its ownscience, Rozanova and abstract counter-reliefs by Tatlin, Petr
and its ownart;and, of course, this science and artwill differ Miturich, and Lev Bruni were reproducedalongside works
not only in their aims but also in their methods and tech- that responded far more directly to contemporaryrequire-
niques from everythingthat has been done in these areas ments:designs forofficial stamps (fig. 3), currency,and new
before."'"This completelynew"artof the future"was "theart insignia by Altman, Sergei Chekhonin, and Puni; projects

ARTJOURNAL
 W-44,,

for statues created for the Plan of MonumentalPropaganda

(fig. 4);18 and drawingsby workersproducedin the local art
,, 4,mm schools (fig. 5).
,x44
.4.. ..4
.....4.
.. 4
Iskusstvo,subtitled "TheBulletin of the Departmentof
28 Fine Arts of the CommissariatforEnlightenment,"declared
its aim to be that of "Informingthe broad mass of the
population about the activities of the Departmentof Fine
Arts" and "about artistic life as a whole and in all its
It entreatedits readers to participateby
manifestations."''19
sending articles and photographsof theirwork.The publica-
lx,4 tion appeared sporadically: after the first four issues in
On. ,4~ Januaryand February,only four more were published be-
tween Marchand September1919. The first four numbers
"Ell 4,4, 44~4444 carried Kandinsky'sdesign for the title (fig. 6), and the
columns of text were interspersedwith his vignettes. Subse-
iM4
' 4 44 4 4 ' 4 44 4 4 4 ,
quent issues, however,were smaller and less visually excit-
ing, employinga plain, businesslike typographyand a more
cramped layout. Once again, an importantelementof the
journal was a chronicle section that supplied details about
publications, exhibitions, competitions, significant events,
and importantinstitutions, such as the Museumof the Cul-
ture of Painting and the State Free Art Studios. Iskusstvo
provideda forumfor the discussion of aesthetic issues for a
fairlywide section of the avant-garde.Its initial emphasison
formalinnovationsand the theoreticalramificationsof such
explorationsmade it closer to prewarart journals such as
Soiuz molodezhi[The unionof youth].Indeed, its publication
of Kandinsky's"SmallArticles on Large Questions,""Con-
cerning the Point,"and "Concerningthe Line"extendedthe
attempts of the prerevolutionaryperiod to define and sys-
tematizethe fundamentalelementsof painting. In a similar
spirit of theoretical investigation, the literarycritic Viktor
Shklovskii examined the nature of space in Suprematist
painting. The journalalso containedarticles on Cubismand
Futurismas well as zaum, or "transrational,"poems by the
late Olga Rozanovaand stirringcontemporaryrevolutionary
verses by Maiakovskii.On occasion, the journaldid have a
FIG. 4 Viktor Sinaiskii, Monument to Lasalle, Petrograd, 1918, reproduced in
polemical aspect, which was demonstratedby Brik'sattack
iskusstvo,no. 1 (1919):77.
Izobrazitelnoe on those who espoused the more traditionalartistic values

SPRING 1993

FIG.5 Drawingproducedby a districtartschool, reproducedin Irobrazitelnoe
iskusstvo,no. 1 (1919):59.
associated with realism, Shterenberg'sdefense of IZO'spol-
icy, and Nadezhda Udaltsova'sjustification of the Futurist
aesthetic. It is clear, however,that such articles were con-
ceived as responses to specific incidents and were not pri-
marily concernedwith exploringthe implicationsof politics
for art. Such problemswere not central to Iskusstvo.
The issue of precisely how the avant-gardeshould
accommodatethe new ideologywas, however,fundamentalto
Iskusstvokommuny,which was deliberatelycontroversialand
polemical, devoted essentially to stimulating the debate
about the art of the future and the relationship between
progressiveartistic practice and the new socialist state. The
first issue declared:
Ourpaperisfor everyoneinterestedin the creationofthefuture
art of the commune.
Our columns are [dedicated] to everynew wordin the
field of artistic creation, workand construction.20
This remained the magazine's basic priority, although
Iskusstvokommunyalso acted as an informationbulletin,
publishing IZO's decrees and the latest news about its var-
ious sections (architecture,the decorativearts, publishing,
etc.) and about its competitions,exhibitions, meetings, and
artistic education. Like Iskusstvo,it frequentlyhad to defend
IZO's policies, such as its purchase of Futurist paintings,
against criticism from the Partyand the Councilof People's
Commissars.In all, only nineteen issues appeared, but the
journalplayedan extremelyinfluentialrolein the crystalliza-
tion of avant-gardeattitudesand ideas. It was so successful
that after three issues Lunacharskiihad to warnthe journal
about its "destructivetendencieswith regardto the past and
its inclinationwhen speaking as a specific school, to speak
on behalf of the government."21 He stressed that Narkompros 29
had to be impartial in its treatmentof different artistic
trends, although he acknowledgedthat the Futurists had
been the first to come to the help of the Revolution,wereclose
to it, had proved to be good organizers, and had a lot to
offer.22In August 1919, after the journal'sdemise, another
contemporaryobserved:
Of all the periodicalspublishedsince the proletarianrevolu-
tionand dedicatedto artisticand culturalquestions,Iskusstvo
kommunymorethan any otherwas characterizedby an ideo-
logical unity, as alien to eclecticism... as to any bureaucratic
emphasis. ... It was writtenwith experienceand thoughtful-
ness so that its polemic-the true sign of the sharpnessand
urgency of the questionsposed-possessed a really lively
character,and notan impartialoracademicone. Theessential
slogans and principlesof Iskusstvo kommunyfell into two
categories:firstly,the relationshipbetweenart and the revolu-
tion; secondly, the relationship between different artistic
trends.In thefirst, the representatives
ofprogressiveyoungart
clearly and definitely stood on the side of the progressive,
young ... class oftheproletariat.... In thesecond,theartist-
revolutionaries putforwardthe conditionsof the newcreativity
and discarded the old."23
In the second issue of December1918, Brik raised the
question of the nature and source of proletarianart. He
declared: "The art of the future will be proletarianart. Art
will be proletarianorit will notexist at all."24He rejectedthe
definitions of proletarianart as either art producedspecifi-
cally forthe proletariator art made by proletarians,criticiz-
ing Proletkultforthinkingthatit was sufficientto teachartto
any workerfor him to produceproletarianart. Instead, Brik
argued that proletarianart was art made by "the artist-
proletarian"who "unites a creative gift with a proletarian
consciousness into a single whole."25He elaborated:
ARTJOURNAL
 Fundamental to all the new theories promoted in
Iskusstvokommunywas a profoundcommitmentto the most
-'ii
_iii: :::i-i ~ i !Mll advancedaesthetics. This commitmentwas indicatedby the
i-i~ll ?
innovativetypographyof its headingon the first page (fig. 7)
ii Ikmuuusipl•
i ii- i:
and was evident in IZO's declarationon "artisticculture,"
which appeared in the issue of February16, 1919. This
manifestoemphasizedthat "the culture of artistic invention"
constituted "one of the positive achievementsof contempo-
,m
raryartistic creativityduringthe past decade"andthatit was
rooted in "the explorationsof the youngartistic schools and
~. - ~ ".7g. could be revealed only by them."29Its definition of the
'"
wgowa:-~::::~---*OVA"
:ii..!!iX,....ii-i '''iii-ii':i:iii?l:
essential artistic elements-material, color, space, time,
.....i::::
:l:._::_:l
... . form, and technique-provided an objective foundationfor
iii~
::iogmoowoq?*
a.~::j-::::::::
Uimp : ~
~:::::::-i~
~?ivo**
l i.~ M" ~
OWAW ~ • V*""w wwoo art, which, it was asserted, was the basis for all further
::::!i ii_:-:??:i? i~iii ~~~i~
ii!•iii!!ii~iiii
i!•iiiiiiiliiii i
:;ii•, !-i•!~c ,•iiiiiiiili•:•,r•ii innovation.
:"'-'-'-
-t w:o
:::--*A"
ow'?4000wimi~ "WA kg 4v*YMI
•i'i:'i
i•iiiiiiii
•
j:i~.~i~i-~i
i•
ot
i---: ~??ot,
A"W*,W",A ~ IEA: V*
ia:--:-:;-::::_-:-:::::x-::::i::?:-::~::-j:: 'Ams In accordancewith this position, Punin, Shterenberg,
ii~i~i•% ... .........
towwo--_::::-
ww*6"
tow%,_~i~`--i-~:i
OAUI , 40
.**00"*
*Nw
w and Brik published articles in Iskusstvokommunyin which
• • i•iii•i•
•!•i
•iii• they soughtto reconcilethe formalexplorationsof the artistic
avant-garde(the self-styled Futurists)with the revolutionary
30
ideologyof the Bolsheviksand to promotethe Futuriststhem-
selves as the creators of the new art, thus, explicitly or
implicitly,criticizingProletkultand, indeed, eventhe prefer-
ences of the Party itself. Punin, for instance, at one point
discarded class criteria, arguing that "an artist cannot be
proletarianor nonproletarian;the only quality by which an
artist can be defined is the presence or absence of talent."30
He asserted: "The artistic culture of communismwill be
created by those who.., possess creativity,forcreativityis
the basis and content of art."31This view excluded the
FIG. 6 Iskusstvo[Art],nos. 1-4 (1919):1. Mastheadandvignettesby Wassily
Kandinsky.
realists as "notrevolutionary"32 and meant that the workof
most Proletkultartists found little favor.Punin continually
that Futurismwas the most powerfulartistic school
The artist-proletarianis distinguishedfrom the bourgeois argued
and the one most able to contributenew artistic ideas to the
artist not by thefact that he createsfor a newclient, or by the
creationof a new socialist culture:
fact that he comesfrom a differentsocial class, but by his
attitudetowardshimself and his art. Theproblemofproletarianart is notwithinthepowerofProlet-
The bourgeois artist consideredcreationhis personal kult, the Wanderers,3and least of all the individualistsof The
affair, the artist-proletarianknowsthat his talent belongsto Worldof Art.34 . . . Only the young, affiliated with the so-
the collective. called "Futurist"movement,know,and knowverywell, what
Thebourgeoisartist createsin orderto revealhis "I," the they want, and havepresentedthe wholeextentof theproblem
artist-proletariancreatesin orderto carryout socially impor- of proletarianart, and naturally,no-oneelse can solveit. We
tant work.26 have not usurpedpower, we are the divinersof the future.
"Futurism"is not one among many artistic trends,but the
Further, Brik asserted that the true "artist-proletarian"
should not attemptto satisfy the tastes of the crowd, but on single living trend. .. . "Futurism"is not a state art, but the
correct pathfor thedevelopmentof universalhumanart.35
the contrary,shouldfight such tastes, alwaystryingto "cre- only
ate something new, because herein lies his social signifi- Similarly, Shterenbergaccused Proletkultof putting "new
cance."27In otherwords, he shouldbe committedto contin- wine into old, holeywine skins"36and arguedthatthe Futur-
uous innovation. Brik ended triumphantly:"These are the ists ratherthan Proletkultcould help the proletariatcreate
general principles of proletarian creative work. Whoever their new culture because Futurismwas committedto "the
acknowledges them is a proletarian,an artist-proletarian, search for new paths."'37He emphasized the Futurists' soli-
and the builderof the art of the future."28In this way, Brik darity with "workersin Proletkult,"38but attackedProlet-
attacked the idea dear to the Party and indeed to most of kult's monopolyon proletarianculture as unproductiveand,
Proletkult, i.e., that the new art shouldbe realist and com- by implication, harmful. Significantly,while promotingthe
prehensibleto the masses. roleof the avant-gardein the creationof the newart, Shteren-

SPRING1993
berg'scriticism of Proletkult'sinfluence dovetailedwith the
government'sreservationsabout Proletkult'sdemandfor cul-
tural autonomyand suspicions of the organization'spower
base. Likewise, Brik, who had been involvedwith Proletkult
in 1917, criticized it in 1919 forembracing"thelong outworn
formsof petit-bourgeoisromanticismwith its cheap heroism
and vulgarnationalism."39He acknowledgedthat"Proletkult
had posed the question of an independentproletariancul-
ture" when "the cultural and educational organs of Soviet
OTPe8tt4H - b Pa'
Power" had ignored it, but he, nevertheless, attacked
Tsyperovichand otherProletkultcritics whostressed "theart flAxue*,m w*"ww&U4Wll,
of the past" and believed that "the new socialist art of the 1u
vaatPAPAWiA?UR#w

proletariatwill only develop throughthe school of studying

the best worksof the greatest artists."40Brik arguedthatthe
it #Ox. X IW O
individualistic nature of this heritagewas in direct opposi-
tion to the new collective nature of proletarian art. He awoor.a#tfAI

claimed that the very ideas of universal human culture,

sacred art, and eternal beauty all belongedto "thearsenalof apEi ~i
bourgeois lies and deceits,"41 like the concept of eternal *woo"
"*too
&b
IU-::::-UW :::::
::::l:::1:j:i:::;_
:_:$i: _:-
4' bl/'IAO?
31
truth, which the Party rejected. In this way, Brik utilized 04- -48k
&j up ~em
Party doctrine to support Futurismand to attack the tradi- - Lir~~*:-~~W~~
&Aim

tional aesthetics espoused by the Partyand by Proletkult. ~ WP;W4""bAu

Other contributors to Iskusstvo kommuny, such as

Natan Altman, argued that the new art would be Futurist, :: --:ji:--:: M77" :!B(J ~ ~ :~~:~~ W-
because Futurismwas built "oncollective foundations"42-
by which Altman meant that no componentof a Futurist
painting existed independentlyof the whole. The identifica- 4J
iiii~~::l~~iiimiiii
:i- -

tionof Futurismwith the collective andwith Communismwas

~ ~: Iiii~i~iam
4mt -:Yi:- ' -
also made explicit in the organizationof Kom-Fut,or the
Communist-FuturistCollective. Set up by Brik and Kushner
FIG. 7 Iskusstvokommuny[Artof the commune],no. 1 (1918):1. Masthead
in January1919 and announced in the February2, 1919,
by unknowndesigner.
issue of Iskusstvokommuny,Kom-Futcalled on the Partyto
renounceits own nonrevolutionary cultural policies and em-
brace the ideas of Kom-Fut,whichwerealso the ideas of IZO. tive statues do not, in the end, interest anyone.""46Punin
In fact, Iskusstvokommunywas highly critical of the asserted that a new type of monumentwas needed, such as
Party's attitudes towards art and of its cultural policy in Tatlin'sprojectfora Monumentto the Revolution(eventually
general. Brik, for instance, accused Lenin of compromising exhibited in November1920 as the Modelfora Monumentto
with the bourgeoisie in the cultural sphere in a way that the the Third International),which was not a useless, static
great leader would never do in politics.43 The journal was statue, but a dynamic building with a specific function.
also critical of Lenin's Plan for MonumentalPropaganda, Punin also criticizedthe festivities organizedto celebratethe
instituted on April 12, 1918, and implementedby IZO. The first anniversaryof the OctoberRevolutionforbeing the same
plan providedforthe removalof"monumentserected in honor as those festivals organizedby the Tsars;and he insisted that
of the Tsars and their servants which have no historical or artists should not provide decorationsfor such occasions
artistic value" and their replacementwith "monumentsto because the very idea of decorationwas "alienand dead."47
commemoratethe great days of the Russian socialist revolu- Instead, he argued, artists shouldbe destroyingthe old art
tion"44 with the first such monuments to be erected within and monumentsbecause destructionwas the only effective
eighteen days. Iskusstvokommuny criticized the concept of weaponagainst the bourgeoisie.He was also outragedby the
erecting statues to individualson the groundsthat it contra- amountof cloth being wastedto makeflags and panelsforthe
dicted the collective ethos of socialism and also because it celebrations,when"weare all withouttrousersand skirts."48
seemed to follow the Tsarist practice of celebrating its His most damning indictmentwas that it was all unneces-
achievements and its supporters with commemorative sary: "History will not forgive this. In our time there is
statues.45Moreover,the critics deemedthe artistic qualityof nothing that is not necessary."49
the monumentsproducedto be "belowall norms,"considered Iskusstvokommuny'spromotionof Futurismas socialist
the realistic style "outmoded,"and concluded that "figura- art, its criticisms of existing governmentpolicy, and its

ARTJOURNAL
 exhortationsto the Partyto adopt the policies advocatedby
the journalall suggest that the journal'saim was ultimately
directed at gaining culturaldominance,as Lunacharskiihad
warned. Certainlystatementsin Iskusstvokommunysuggest
that an artistic dictatorshipmight be no less valid than the
political dictatorshipof the proletariat.Punin stressed: "We
want to see our October realized, we want to establish a
dictatorshipof the minority,foronly the minorityconstitutes
a creative force, capable of walkingin step with the working
class."s50
Iskusstvokommunynot only harnessed existing pro-
gressive art to the new aims but also laid the bases forthe
developmentof a new theoryof art, "productionart,"founded
32 on the industrialnatureof the proletariatand suggestingthat
art should become fused with industry. The idea that art
should be more public and become a more integral part of
everydaylife was implicit in the journal'svery first issue,
when Maiakovskiipublishedhis poem "Orderto the Armyof
Art," declaringthat"thestreets are ourbrushes,the squares
are our palettes.""'In the same issue, Punin'sstatementin
the debate "Templeor Factory"of November1918 was quoted
with approval:"'A new era in art will begin. . . . It is not a
matterof decorationbut of creatingnew artistic objects. Art
for the proletariatis not a sacred templefor lazy contempla-
tion, but work, a factorywhich producesartistic objects for
all.' "52A workerwrotethat"theproletariatneeds an art that
was born in the noise of the factories, the mills, and the
streets, which in essence must be the powerfulart of strug-
gle."53Accordingly, Brik exhorted artists to abandon the
"idealisticvapors"of bourgeoisart and instead make"mate-
rial objects," because "artis like any othermeansof produc-
tion."54Boris Kushner,too, argued that essentially "artis
simply work: ability, skill, and craftmanship. . . . To a
socialist consciousness, a work of art is no more than an
object or a thing."55Strippedof its metaphysicalattributes,
art became work, and the artist became merely a skilled
worker,"a technician," or "a constructor.""56 If art was like
any other means of industrialproduction, then the existing
division between art and industrywas not an "established
law"but the result of "bourgeoisstructures."5Hence, under
socialism, art and industrycouldbe reunited,as an editorial
made clear: "Artstrives towardsconsciouscreation;produc-
tion towardsthe mechanical. . . . Productionand art merge
into one whole; creation and work-towards conscious
work."58Suchdeclarationswereimpassionedstatementsand
did not amount to a fully formulatedor coherent theory.
Incomplete, defective, and unresolved, these assertions
neversuggested precisely howart was to become involvedin
SPRING1993
industry,as Nikolai Chuzhakpointed out with hindsight in
1923:
. by instinct and in disunity, in a fantastically eclectic
milieu . . . all the most importantwords used later were
employedin Iskusstvokommuny. . . but half wereissued by
accident..... Not only thepracticeof thepaper, but also the
wholepracticeof Futurismat this time, was almost entirely
based on the "agitational poster."59
Nevertheless,the implicationsof such pronouncements were
clear, and they generatedfurtherdiscussion in the journal.
One of the most reasonedattackscame fromwithinthe
ranks of the avant-gardeitself. In early 1919, Ivan Puni
expressed his oppositionto the "utilitarianaesthetic"thathe
had detected emerging,asserting that this was highly remi-
niscent of the nineteenth-centuryradical theoriesof Dmitrii
Pisarev and the presentattitudeof Proletkultthat art should
represent the workers and thus be socially relevant. He
arguedthatartcould notbe useful in "thecreationof life"and
"theproductionof newobjects,"60because it was completely
opposed to the concept of utility. Puni maintainedthat the
artist'sattemptsto cooperatewith the machinewouldmerely
produce an "appliedart," because "the constructionof an
object is completelydependenton itsfunction, the artist may
add only superfluouselementsto this."61Indeed, he asserted
that the introductionof extraneousaesthetic elements was
responsibleforthe ugliness of everydayitems. In contrast,he
arguedthattherewas an urgentneed forpeople"ableto think
in termsof utility constructively"and that"forthe proletariat
to have really beautiful things . . . it is essential for the
principle of utility to be assimilated more fully into all
industries."62
By 1921-22, however,such reservationswereless pow-
erful, and the ideas first explored in theoretical terms in
Iskusstvokommunyhad been further elaborated and had
foundtheir ultimatefulfillmentin the workof the self-styled
Constructivists.These artists rejected the autonomyof art in
favorof concretedesign projectsthatwouldcontribute,they
hoped, to the creation of a wholly new visual environment
appropriateto the new Communistsociety.63 Conversely,the
Party's eventual imposition of socialist realism was also
foreshadowedin a more populist and illustrativeconcept of
workers'art that found early expressionin the publications
underreview.The openand excitingdebatesof the immediate
postrevolutionary yearswouldbecomethe dogmaticandrigid
positions of the late twenties and thirties. In this respect,
artistic culture truly did reflect the wider political frame-
work.
Notes
Unless otherwise indicated, all translationsare by the author.
1. Reprintedas "Decree on the Press, issued by the Councilof People'sCommissars,"
in Yuri Akhapkin, ed., FirstDecreesofSovietPower(London:Lawrenceand Wishart,
1970), 29-30.
2. "Ot redaktsii"[Fromthe editor], Proletarskaiakultura[Proletarianculture], no. 3
(1918): 36. Fora discussion of Proletkult,see LynnMally, Cultureof the Future: The
ProletkultMovementin RevolutionaryRussia(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,
1990).
3. Aleksandr Bogdanov, "Proletariati iskusstvo"[Proletariatand art], in "Pervaia
Vserossiskaia konferentsiia Prosvetitelnykh organizatsii" [The First All-Russian
Conferenceof Educational Organizations],Proletarskaiakultura, no. 5 (1919): 32.
4. Valerian Polianskii, "Zlobodnevnyevoprosy"[Topicalquestions], Griadushchee
[Future], no. 2 (1918): 2.
5. Pavel Bezalko, "Futurizm i proletarskaia kultura" [Futurism and proletarian
culture], Griadushchee,no. 10 (1918): 10.
6. Ibid., 2.
7. K. D. Muratova,Periodikipo literaturei iskusstvuza gody revoliutsii,1917-1932
[Periodicals on literature and art during the revolutionary years, 1917-1932]
(Leningrad:IzdatelstvoAkademii Nauk SSSR, 1933), 195, entry no. 1225.
8. Anatolii Lunacharskii,"Proletariati sovetskaiakulturnaiarabota"[Proletariatand
Soviet cultural work],Proletarskaiakultura, nos. 7-8 (April 1919): 2.
9. Muratova,Periodiki, 248, entry no. 1594.
10. N. Angarskii, "Starye pisateli i novyi byt" [Old writers and the new life],
Tvorchestvo [Creation],nos. 8-9 (1919): 22.
11. See A[leksandr] Bogdanov, "Proletarskaia kultura" [Proletarian culture],
Tvorchestvo, nos. 7-10 (1920): 30-32; "VystavkaMoskovskogoProletkulta"[Exhibi-
tion of the Moscow Proletkult], Tvorchestvw, nos. 7-10 (1920): 46; and V. Kupavin,
"Proletarskaiakultura:v novykh usloviiakh (O proletkultakh)"[Proletarianculture:
Underthe new conditions (about the Proletkults)], Tvorchestvo, nos. 11-12 (1920).
12. "Ot redaktsii" [Fromthe editor], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn [Artistic life], no. 1
(December 1919): 1.
13. See AbramEfros, "Myi Zapad"[The Westand Us], Khudozhestvennaia zhizn, no.
2 (January-February1920): 1; P.E., "Novayazhivopis i ee mesto v istorii iskusstva"
[The new painting and its place in the historyof art], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 3
(1920): 20-22; A[natolii] Lunacharskii,"Peredovoiotryadkulturyna Zapade"[The
advanced vanguardof culture in the West], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 4 (May-
October1920): 1-3; idem, "Kalinin,"Khudozhestvennaia zhizn, no. 2 (1920): 39; and
idem, "PavelBezalko," Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 3 (March-April 1920): 38.
14. N. Lerner,"Izobrazitelnoe iskusstvo,"Kniga i revoliutsiia[Book and revolution],
no. 1 (1921): 77.
15. "Otredaktsii"[Fromthe editor],Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo[Fine art], no. 1 (1919):5.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. The following models of monumentserected in Petrogradwere reproducedin
Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo:Grizelli, Babeuf (1919), 73; Grizelli, Perovska(1918), 78;
Aleksandr Matveev,Karl Marx (1918), 3; ViktorSinaiskii, Heine (1918), 75; Viktor
Sinaiskii, Lassalle (1918), 77; K. Zalit, Garibaldi (1919), 71; TeodorsZalkalns,
Chernyshevskii(1918), 79.
19. "Ot redaktsii" [Fromthe editor], Iskusstvo[Art], no. 1 (January5, 1919): 1.
20. "Ot redaktsii"[Fromthe editor], Iskusstvokommuny[Art of the commune], no. 1
(December 7, 1918): 1.
21. A[natolii]Lunacharskii,"Lozhkaprotivoiadiia"[A spoonfulof antidote],Iskusstvo
kommuny,no. 4 (December 29, 1918): 1.
22. Ibid.
23. Ia. Lers, "O knigakh"[About books], Iskusstvo,no. 7 (August 2, 1919): 6.
24. O[sip] M. Brik, "Khudozhnik-proletarii"[Artist-proletarian],Iskusstvokom-
muny, no. 2 (December 15, 1918): 1.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. "PolozhenieOtdelaIzobrazitelnykhIskusstvi KhudozhestvennoiPromyshlennosti
po voprosuo Khudozhestvennoikulture"[The positionof the Departmentof Fine Arts
and Artistic Production concerning the question of "artistic culture"], Iskusstvo
kommuny,no. 11 (February16, 1919): 4.
30. N[ikolai] Punin, "Proletarskoeiskusstvo"[Proletarianart], Iskusstvokommuny,
no. 19 (April 13, 1919): 2.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. The Wanderers were members of the Society for Traveling Exhibitions
(Tovarishchestvoperedvizhnykh khudovhestvennykhvystavok), which was estab-
lished in 1870 to assert its independencefromthe Academyand to promotea realist art
that would reflect specifically Russian conditions.
34. The Worldof Art (Miriskusstva)was a St. Petersburg-basedgroupof artists at the
turn of the century who promotedthe disseminationof Westernart in Russia and had
affinities with the Aesthetic Movementand the Viennese Secession.
35. N[ikolai] Punin, "Futurizm-gosudarstvennoe iskusstvo"[Futurism-A state
art], Iskusstv kommuny,no. 4 (December 29, 1918): 2.
36. D[avid]P. Shterenberg,"Kritikamiz Proletkulta"[Tothe critics fromProletkult],
IskusstWv kommuny,no. 10 (February9, 1919): 3.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. O[sip] M. Brik, "Dovolnosoglashatelstva"[Enoughof compromising],Iskusstv
kommuny,no. 6 (January12, 1919): 1.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. N[atan] Altman, "Futurizmi proletarskoeiskusstvo"[Futurismand proletarian
33
art], Iskusstwvkommuny,no. 2 (December 15, 1918): 2.
43. Brik, "Dovolnosoglashatelstva,"1.
'44. See "Decree on Monumentsof the Republic, Issued by the Council of People's
Commissars,"in Akhapkin, ed., First Decreesof SovietPower,120.
45. N[ikolai] Punin, "O pamiatnikakh"[About monuments],Iskusstwvkommuny,
no. 14 (March9, 1919): 2.
46. Ibid.
47. N[ikolai] P[unin], "K itogam Oktyabrskikhtorzhestv"[On the results of the
Octoberfestivities], Iskusstvokommuny,no. 1 (December 7. 1918): 2.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. N[ikolai] Punin, "Proletarskoeiskusstvo"[Proletarianart], Iksusstvokommuny,
no. 19 (April 13, 1919): 1.
51. Vl[adimir] Maiakovskii, "Prikazpo armii iskusstva"[Orderto the army of art],
Iskusstvokommuny,no. 1 (December 7, 1918): 1.
52. M. L-in, "Mitingob iskusstve" [Meeting about art], Iskusstvokommuny,no. 1
(December 7, 1918): 3.
53. Rabochii [Worker]Mushtakov,"Oktyabrv iskusstve"[Octoberin art], Iskusstvo
kommuny,no. 2 (15 December 1918), 2.
54. O[sip] Brik, "Drenazh iskusstvu" [A drain for art], Iskusstvokommuny,no. 1
(December 7, 1918): 1.
55. Boris Kushner,"Bozhestvennoeproizvedenie"[Divine work],Iskusstvokommuny,
no. 9 (February2, 1919): 1.
56. Vl[adimir] Dmitriev, "Pervyi itog" [First result], Iskusstvokommuny,no. 15
(March16, 1919): 2.
57. "Primechanieredaktsii"[Editorialcomment],Iskusstvokommuny,no. 7 (January
19, 1919): 2.
58. See "Primechaniered[aktsii]" [Editorial comment], Iskusstvokommuny,no. 8
(January26, 1919): 2.
59. N[ikolai] Chuzhak, "Pod znakom zhiznestroeniia, opyt osoznaniia iskusstva
dnia" [Underthe slogan of life-building: An attemptto understandthe art of today],
LEF [The left frontof the arts], no. 1 (March1923): 24.
60. Khu[dozhnik][artist]Ivan Puni, "Tvorchestvo zhizni" [Creationof life], Iskusstvo
kommuny,no. 5 (January5, 1919): 1.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. See Christina Lodder, Russian Constructivism(New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983).
CHRISTINA LODDER is reader in the history and theory of
art at the Universityof St. Andrews,Scotland. She has written
extensivelyon the Russian avant-garde and particularly
Russian Constructivism.
ARTJOURNAL