Russian Constructivism

Russian Constructivism

The experience of the Russian Revolution of 1917 altered the relationship between

the artist, his work and society. Russian artists reevaluated their roles as participants of

political and social transformation through the use of materials, conceiving their potential

and bringing their concepts to fruition.1 Constructivism first emerged in Russia during the

1920s when artists began to build structures from real materials with a strong industrial

emphasis.2 As Russia looked toward a classless society of the future, the Constructivists

declared that the time had come for them to make work in the factory, recognizing that it is

the “real creative force in the world” and to abolish art that stood for individualism and the

bourgeoisie.3 The constructivists engaged in formal abstract “laboratory work” while

adhering to a utilitarian ideology; however, it was the non-‐utilitarian constructions during

the pre-‐revolutionary period that provided the formal vocabulary for Constructivism.4

Following the October Revolution of 1917 and notably beginning in 1921, the “artist-‐

constructor” and “artist-‐engineer” applied the formal language and materials to design

visual propaganda for the new communist environment and the importance of industry.

Beyond the Communist agenda, sought-‐after artists like Rodchenko and Stenberg created a

distinctive and effective aesthetic in advertising and film posters that communicated the

forward-‐moving sentiment following the Russian Revolution, encouraging collective action

in order to construct the future.

1 Lodder, Christina. Russian Constructivism (New Haven: Yale University Press (1983), 1.

2 Ibid., 2. 3 Ibid., 3. 4 Ibid., 3.

During his travels to Paris, Rodchenko was dismayed with the widely capitalistic

treatment of art as a commodity, citing, “Our things in our hands must be equals, comrades,

and not these black and mournful slaves, as they are here.”5 Here, he establishes a non-‐

capitalist cornerstone of Socialist modernity that the material object will not be a

possession, but rather an active participant of social life.6 Rodchenko advocated these

utilitarian things while denouncing the Russian avant-‐garde nonobjective paintings and

sculptural experiments of the preceding decade.7

Rozanova distinguishes “the picture as an important phenomenon” from the passive

representations of prior artists, who, according to David Burliuk, had “painterly

objectives.”8 On one hand, the mirror image had little significance above representing an

object, but Russian critics saw the familiarity of imitation as an opportunity to articulate

messages as an accessible visual language. Trotsky wrote in Literature and Revolution

(1923):

“To reject art as a means of picturing and imaging knowledge because of one’s opposition to the contemplative and impressionistic art of the past few decades, is to strike from the hands of the class which is building a new society its most important weapon.”

5 Kiaer, Christina. Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2005), 1.

6 Ibid., 1 7 Ibid., 2 8 Fer, Briony. “Metaphor and Modernity: Russian Constructivism.” Oxford Art Journal Vol. 12, No. 1 (1989), 2

Thus, figurative realism became a withstanding element during the revolutionary

reorganization for its ability to communicate beyond merely reflecting an object. As a result,

it became an underpinning to all avant-‐garde activity.9

Osip Brik called for artists to abandon the vague and distorted ideas of bourgeois art

and to create art using knowledge, craft and skill.10 He asserted that the artist would be

removed from whimsical, metaphysical labels and redefined as a constructor – almost

certainly the first instance of the word “constructor” printed in connection with art.11

Constructivism, thereby, parted ideologies with autonomous “art-‐for-‐art’s sake” in favor of

participating fully in political project of the Bolshevik state, including its mass culture and

propaganda.12 The fusion of art and productivity would be adhere to the “maximum

program” of Socialism, with the factory being the birthplace of artistic objects.13

As a result of many debates, The Institute of Artistic Culture was formed and hosted

even more discussions and formed theoretical developments that would contribute to the

design movement in Russia.14 The IZO dictated the objective criteria of artistic value of the

inventive process in terms of professionalism, listed as:

“1. material: surface, texture [faktura], elasticity, density, weight and other qualities of material

2. color: saturation, strength, relationship to light, purity, transparency, independence and other qualities of color

3. space: volume, depth, dimension and other properties of space

9 Ibid., 3 10 Lodder, Russian Constructivism, 76 11 Ibid., 77 12 Fer, “Metaphor and Modernity,” 5 13 Lodder, Russian Constructivism, 77 14 Ibid., 78

4. Time (movement): in its spatial expression and in connection with color, material, composition, etc.

5. Form as a result of the interaction of material, color, space and in its particular form, composition

6. Technique [tekhnika]: painting, mosaic, reliefs of different kinds, sculpture, stone structure and other artistic techniques.”15

These criteria comprised The Institute of Artistic Culture’s empirical and scientific basis of

visual art; but also, the some of the criteria were used to evaluate as the intuitive element

in other creative arts such as poetry, dance and music.16

As a result, the systematic structuring of these properties would, therefore,

synthesize a communistic ideology with the formal aspect of the work. 17 Furthermore, the

works, as they were formulated in this manner, would become akin to a language of

industry and construction rather than an autonomous creation. Consequently, the idea

followed that a new socialist society could be built in opposition to the bourgeoisie and

facilitated using the constructivists’ visual platform of communication. 18

Successfully achieving the communistic ideology was contingent upon the use of

technology and engineering to economize materials. Employing the system of organization

listed previously, artists such as Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir and Georgii Stenberg and

Aleksei Gan created works that clearly communicated without superfluous or decorative

15 Ibid., 79 16 Ibid., 79 17 Fer, “Metaphor and Modernity: Russian Constructivism,” 16 18 Ibid., 23

elements that would distract viewers. 19 Rodchenko in his own writings alluded to the

common people and moving toward a futuristic genre of artwork, saying:

“May you all be gods and sovereigns, do not wrap yourselves in the old blankets of our grandmothers’ art, do not sleep on the feather beds of our great-‐grandfathers’ love, do not chew the cud of science’s old words. Do not fear a life of rebellion, build your life without guardians and prejudices, be heroes for your very selves! Move ahead, invent, search… Be rid of and destroy everything superfluous, unneeded. Be free, eternally youthful seekers… In short, be creators, and not a herd, O you, living people!”20

Rodchenko conducted a number of visual experiments using technical instruments

to achieve an aesthetic displaying technological sophistication, such as the press, the roller,

the drafting pen, the ruler, and the compass.21 Popova described this as research with the

objective of reducing the abstract elements to a “defined and concrete form so that the

artist can use it freely and assuredly for his general constructive objectives.”22 Rodchenko

focused on the line during a period of experimental works including Linear Construction

(Figure 1; 1918) and Non-‐Objective Painting (Figure 2; 1919). He observed that the

composition of forms arranged in a system would bring the line to the surface as an

element of construction. 23 He applied color to differentiate planes depending on the hue’s

19 Horozic, Amina. “The Influence of Russian Constructivism in the Graphic Arts.” http://artandthis.com. http://artandthis.typepad.com/art_and_this/2009/06/mark-‐danceys-‐graphics-‐and-‐russian-‐constructivism-‐.html (accessed April 11, 2013).

20 Rodchenko, Aleksandr Mikhaĭlovich. Experiments for the Future: Diaries, Essays, Letters, and Other Writings. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2005.

21 Tate Modern. Rodchenko & Popova: Defining Constructivism exh. cat., edited by Margarita Tupitsyn. London, 2009. 14. 22 Fer, 6. 23 Ibid., 6.

depth and weight, density and intensity; and he established faktura or rough texture in the

paint to signify the artist’s industrious hand at work.24

While Rodchenko believed that all of these experimentations would lead to the

successful design of physical objects, Popova specifically alluded to graphic design when

she stated, “Here in Russia, in connection with the socio-‐political moment in which we are

living, the goal of the new synthesis has been organization as a principle for any creative

activity, including graphic design.”25 Expounding on Rodchenko’s experiments with line,

color and built-‐up textures, Popova established her first definition of “Construction in

Painting” as “the sum of the energy of its parts.”26 Their formal experiments were intended

for the service of utilitarianism, abandoning unscientific approaches and insisting on non-‐

referential abstraction.

Architect Vladimir Krinskii advocated the use of line as an aid in the schematic

construction of structures with “movements of force and direction.”27 Following this

statement and the anti-‐aesthetic debates surrounding it, Popova’s last series of two-‐

dimensional works called Space-‐Force Constructions (Figure 3) articulated these

constructivist structures, which included semi-‐circles, lines and cross-‐like bindings on an

unprimed plywood support leaving large areas bare.28 The ready-‐made surface and

industrial context of plywood diminished the status of easel painting that she and

Rodchenko had rebelled against since the revolutionary years. By the process of creating

24 Rodchenko & Popova, 15. 25 Ibid., 87. 26 Ibid., 15. 27 Ibid., 18. 28 Ibid., 18.

their two-‐dimensional constructivist structures with the use of tracing paper and the tools

of draftsmen, Popova and Rodchenko transformed painting into an intellectual process

devoid of emotions that would lead to materialized constructions.29

The year 1921 brought with it many unsuccessful experiments leading to crop

failure, famine and epidemics that lead to the launch of the New Economic Policy (NEP),

which showed signs of concession to the elements of a capitalist economy.30 Consistent

with avant-‐garde artists who sought to “bring art into life,” she was asked to apply her

Constructivist methods to design clothing and textiles for Russian consumers and use in

film. Black lines and sharp angles defined the shape of the “production clothing” for both

the male and female characters of The Magnanimous Cuckhold, lending them gender

neutrality and a sense of egalitarianism related to Constructivism (Figure 4).31 In regards to

the women’s costumes, her designs fought against the objectification of the bourgeoisie

order, yet were modern and rationalized.32

The encouragement of capitalist consumption was perpetuated in the visual form of

film posters, borrowing from the utilitarian design principles of Popova and Rodchenko’s

own manifesto in 1920. His statement set forth the ideology of artists’ work having

practical application to social life -‐ and the advent of film, indeed, became a social

phenomenon.33

29 Ibid., 19. 30 Ibid., 21. 31 Ibid., 145. 32 Ibid., 153. 33 Margolin, Victor. “Constructivism and the Modern Poster.” Art Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, The Poster (Spring, 1984): 28.

Rodchenko’s statement marked an end to the experimental laboratory period and

led to an applied phase that influenced the graphic design of posters in general.34 The

poster was a visual means of reaching a largely illiterate audience, where the image

communicated more strongly than the written text. In the case of film posters, the content

of the film was translated into an image of dramatic action emphasizing movement in time

rather than static portrayals of people, objects or symbols.35 A successful example of this is

Georgii and Vladimir Stenberg’s poster for Man with a Movie Camera, 1929 (Figure 5), in

which a young woman is seen spiraling downward from a worm’s eye view amidst

towering skyscrapers in a ribbon of swirling text. This effect closely mimics the dynamism

of Rodchenko’s photograph “Pine Trees, Pushinko Forest,” 1925, in which he exploited the

worm’s eye point of view to heighten, so to speak, the sense of drama. The use of block

coloring differentiates the planes of the skyscrapers and brings forth the constructed sense

of line. Modeled after the previous Constructivist design methods established by

Rodchenko and Popova, Russian film posters conveyed the urgency and acts of social

change that the Russian revolution sought to advance in a direct and accessible aesthetic.36

The Constructivists adhered to the social intent of the movement from its

conception. They found fault with the autonomous and capitalist trade of art in Paris,

which compelled them to invent a new form of expression that would prove useful and

familiar to a post-‐revolutionary society. Using industrial and factory materials, artists like

Rodchenko and Popova used symbols familiar to their Russian audience beyond mere

imitation, and utilized design elements such as the line to convey directness in 34 Ibid., 28 35 Ibid., 31 36 Ibid., 28

communication to a largely illiterate audience. As a result of much experimentation,

Rodchenko and Popova enhanced their skills as constructors and aspired to the rebuild the

image of a futuristic Russian culture. With concession to capitalism and the social

phenomena of film, the Stenberg brothers’ film posters borrowed from the Constructivist

aesthetic to literally move the audience to the theaters, parallel to the Socialist call to action

of citizen labor participation. Utilitarian in its ideology, the distinctive Constructivist style

served a significant visual role in Russian Revolution’s image of the new social order it

sought to construct.

Bibliography

Horozic, Amina. “The Influence of Russian Constructivism in the Graphic Arts.” http://artandthis.com. http://artandthis.typepad.com/art_and_this/2009/06/mark-‐danceys-‐graphics-‐and-‐russian-‐constructivism-‐.html (accessed April 11, 2013).

Tate Modern. Rodchenko & Popova: Defining Constructivism exh. cat., edited by Margarita Tupitsyn. London, 2009. Fer, Briony. “Metaphor and Modernity: Russian Constructivism.” Oxford Art Journal Vol. 12, No. 1 (1989): pp. 14-‐30

Kiaer, Christina. Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005.

Margolin, Victor. “Constructivism and the Modern Poster.” Art Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, The Poster (Spring, 1984): pp. 28-‐32.

Lodder, Christina. Russian Constructivism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

Rodchenko, Aleksandr Mikhaĭlovich. Experiments for the Future: Diaries, Essays, Letters, and Other Writings. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2005.

Figure 1. Alexander Rochenko: Linear Constructuon, 1918, oil on board, 47 x 36.2cm

Figure 2. Alexander Rodchenko: Non-‐Objective Painting, 1919, oil on

canvas, 84.5 x 71.1cm

Figure 3. Lyubov Popova: Space Force Construction 2, 1921, Oil with wood dust on plywood, 1123 x 1120–50 mm

Figure 4: Liubov Popova, Working clothes for actor No. 3 in The Magnanimous Cuckhold Cut and pasted papers, gouache, ink, varnish on paper; 33 x 25.3cm

Figure 5:Vladimir and Georgii Stenberg, poster for Man with a Movie Camera, 1929

5 x 71.1cm

Russian Constructivism

Documents

Transcript of Russian Constructivism