2015 Russian Art of the 20th Century and Contemporary Russian Art

The well-known Hungarian artist Bela Uitz arrived in Moscow for the first time in 1921. At the time, he was interested in socialism and Modernism. Uitz quickly became acquainted with the artists supported by the critics from the journal “Lef”, including Aleksandr Rodchenko, Varvara Stepanova, and Gustav Klucis. After this trip, Uitz completed two important paintings, which broke with his usual figurative style. The first is entitled “Icon Analysis” (1922), and the second “Struggle” (1922). The forms of the canvases of these works covered with flying squares and circles and painted with bright colors are similar to the surfaces of the pre-revolutionary futurist paintings. The first part of this presentation demonstrates that these works do not represent a complete turn toward futurism, but rather constitute a short experiment with futurist forms and the theory of constructivism, as it had been developed in Moscow in 1921.
For Uitz, the most important problem of socialist art was the problem of perspective. When these works are compared with his other paintings from the early 1920s, they indicate that Uitz was working to find a way to open for the spectator paths for new ways of perceiving the material world. Documents from his personal archive, as well as from the archive of the October Association show that in his view, as an artist and a theorist, the perception of the material world is always located within the beholder, as a part of his physical organism. Therefore, the figure always remained the center of his attention and the central subject of most of his paintings until the end of his life in 1972. In the second half of this presentation I demonstrate how Uitz, after moving to Moscow in 1926, tried to combine the constructivists and the futurists’ ideas about perspective in painting with his own understanding of the theories of perspective developed during the Renaissance, in order to create a new theory of monumental art and visual perspective for the new Soviet epoch.

 PDF

The metro station “Mayakovskaya” designed by architect A. Dushkin and decorated with mosaic panels made from A. Deineka’s sketches was opened on September 11, 1938. In 1939, the design of the station received the Grand Prix at the New York World’s Fair. 34 mosaics survived (out of 35 which existed originally). They were united by a general theme marked by the author himself — “Day of the Land of the Soviets”.
One of the most striking features of the decorative cycle is the angle of view in the image: it’s due to the location of the mosaics on the ceiling of the station — the author simulates the upward look. However, this may be due to the fact that in the art of the 1920s — the first half of the 1930s, that especially in photography bold and forced perspective was considered to be the main innovation and characteristic feature. Moreover, many scenes in the mosaics are very similar to those in the photographs — in particular, a number of famous pictures by A. Rodchenko.
The other interesting characteristic of the monumental ensemble are the depicted scenes — bright, imaginative images — some derived from the past, some born by the era, peeped out of the constantly changing reality. Moreover, it’s characteristic that many of the motifs very similar in composition and set of elements can be found in the works of other authors of the epoch — in extreme frequency and almost in all art forms, but especially evident and often in photography, poster and applied art.
The art of A. Deineka is well studied; and the mosaics of the “Mayakovskaya” metro station are a landmark monument in the author’s work, the art of the epoch and in the ensemble of the Moscow Metro. It seems promising to explore the cycle of mosaics from a new angle — through the lens of photography, perhaps the most common, straightforward — democratic art form of the period. Furthermore, taking the ensemble as the case, by distinguishing its main themes and motifs and comparing them with a wide range of pieces of different types of art, it’s important to test the hypothesis that, firstly: in this period in the Soviet (or even global) art there existed common, typical for the time visual compositions or patterns. Secondly: that the photography along with poster and applied art represented these compositions in the most coherent and perspicuous way. And most importan­tly — replicated and distributed them, influencing people’s minds and visual culture in general.

 PDF

From 1918, the Dutch artist Theo van Doesburg, editor of the avant-garde artistic journal “De Stijl”, had been in touch with the Russian sculptor Alexandre Archipenko, who at the time was living in Paris. Archipenko had a considerable impact on Van Doesburg and other artists within the orbit of the magazine. In 1920, Van Doesburg published El Lissitzky’s Constructivist fairy-tale ‘Suprematist Development of Two Squares, in Six Constructions’ in “De Stijl”. Van Doesburg excitedly wrote to a friend ‘that architects must surround themselves much more with these kinds of works… and through them to begin to sense the endless spatial possibilities at the same time as coming to realise these possibilities in practice’. Lissitzky had a liberating influence on Van Doesburg’s development of Elementarism, and the Dutchman desperately wanted to travel to Russia. He clearly felt an affinity with the Russian’s work and ideas, which was confirmed when they met personally in Berlin in April 1922. The next month, Van Doesburg, Lissitzky and Hans Richter formed an alliance as the ‘International Faction of Constructivists’ at the ‘International Conference of Progressive Artists’ in Dusseldorf, and in June Van Doesburg published Lissitzky’s article ‘Proun’ (dated Moscow 1920) in “De Stijl”.
The Dutch radical artist was strongly influenced both in formal terms by the ‘Cubism’ of Archipenko and theoretically by the Constructivism of Lissitzky. Over the next year this was very fruitful in terms of Van Doesburg’s increasingly architectural oeuvre. Yet very soon differences between them resulted in mutual criticism, some of it became very public by 1926. As Proun and Elementarism developed, fault-lines appeared, and those years from 1920 to 1926 were pivotal so it is essential to explore the works and the writings of both the Russians and the Dutchman to understand precisely what was at stake in the theory and practice that first drew them into such a strong alliance, and then quite as strongly pushed them apart. The result of this study will clarify our vision of these astonishing works produced in the crucible of artistic revolution.

 PDF

In October 1917 the Russian art was in a phase of crisis. It was obvious both for the art critics and the artists. “In the end of the war it was necessary to mention art crisis”, Efros wrote. The First World War did not become an impulse for the renewal of the Russian art with its Renaissance at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries and in the period of avant-garde. N. Punin wrote: “We do not know when the revolution has begun: the war had not an end”. The Revolution “finished” in the period of the Civil War in 1921. 1917 was a turning point in the evolution of the Russian art undergoing the reform of artistic education, emigration of the Russian artists, formation of the Soviet culture and birth of new mass audience.
After the Revolution an artist was under the hardest conditions among other representatives of the creative professions.
In 1924 A. Lunacharsky wrote: “Russian sculpture is in the greatest decline. The painting still exists, but on its last legs. The best artists strive overseas. Only orders from abroad can feed them. The state does not buy anything. The State art purchase fund is destroyed. May be the graphic designers have a better situation due to the illustrated editions, but our wonderful graphic is going through difficulties and conceptual disorder”. Artists and art historians proposed to “put a question point-blank: is an easel painting necessary in the USSR?”.
In the 1920s the art market was in a difficult situation, collecting was complicated and collector’s destiny vague. How did the Soviet art change in the next few decades? Could the Soviet art come to live again during the 20th century? What is “renaissance” in this context? The report based on archival materials and periodicals makes the new stresses in the artistic life of the 1920s and 1930s and about the Soviet art in general.

 PDF

Artist and teacher Gustav Gustavovich Klutsis was one of the founders of a genre of political posters. The name of Klutsis was unfairly forgotten for some decades after his arrest and execution in 1938. Today his name is often heard. Two personal exhibitions of Klutsis have been held in Moscow and in Riga in recent years. He is well-known as master of political poster and one of creators of photomontage technique. There is a number of less studied aspects of his art. In the RGALI archives, the Museum of Mayakovsky and the Museum of the Moscow architectural institute unknown documents and the artist’s works were found. In 1924–1930 Klutsis was a professor of color theory in VKhUTEMAS. This period is not researched enough. His students studied the principles of coloring of a volume form, revealed essential design and figurative features of a designed project. It is necessary to mention special relation of Klutsis to color in art and color in production. In his last years Gustav Klutsis gave up production of posters and photomontages and turned to painting. There are some drafts for his works from this period. In this report the latest finds in the archives related to art and life of Klutsis will be considered.The author on the basis of the materials found in the archives analyzes educational work of Gustav Klutsis, focusing attention on his relation to color. This work is an attempt to fill in the gaps regarding art and life of Klutsis. The leader of constructivism, one of founders of photomontage, the master of the political poster, the innovator in the exhibition design, Klutsis sincerely believed in the ideas of transformation of the world and transformation of a person. The author of this work tries to shed a new light at the pedagogy of Klutsis actual for modern education.

 PDF

The report deals with the unexplored activity of Aristarkh Lentulov’s workshops. The workshops led by the artist were numerous communities due to their popularity among VKHUTEMAS students. The system of workshops (the relationship between a master and apprentices) which went back to the Renaissance favored an individual approach to teaching. Thus these communities became an important stage in some artists’ path and played a decisive role in their lives.
Lentulov occupied several positions at the Free State Art Studios (SVOMAS) and VKHUTEMAS. Since 1918 Lentulov was in charge of the First Free State Art Studios as their official representative and a leading master. At the same time he taught painting at the Second SVOMAS and on January 12th, 1919 he was invited together with Yakulov and Fedorovsky to run the Theater Painting and Decorative Art Workshops at the First SVOMAS. The latter were special workshops which students of different specializations could attend. From the 1920s Lentulov held a post as a professor and the leader of the Theater and Decorative section at the Art faculty.
The documents found in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI) reveal the names and the number of students from Lentulov’s workshops. Students’ works under Lentulov were influenced by both “The Jack of Diamonds” group and Lentulov as an individual stage designer. “The Jack of Diamonds” painters share similar principles in teaching and views concerning what “New Art” should be. Moreover, we find common ground in theoretical thoughts developed by Kandinsky and Lentulov which refer to the synthesis of the arts (Makarova M. Synthesis of the Arts as an Altering Idea Throughout A. V. Lentulov’s Teaching Experience // Nauka, obrazovanie i eksperimentalnoe proektirovanie. Trudi MARCHI 2015). They seek to implement their principles in teaching. It should also be noted that when Kandinsky leaves Moscow for Europe in 1921, the direction of his workshop is given to Robert Falk. Some bright Kandinsky students, including those who will form the OST, complete their education under Lentulov’s guidance. The common points make it possible to compare the pedagogical practice of the two artists.
The conclusions derived from the outlined issues provide information about Aristarkh Lentulov’s teaching methods in the Free State Art Studios and VKHUTEMAS as well as the influence of “The Jack of Diamonds” art heritage on painters of coming generations.

 PDF

Grigory Ivanovich Choros-Gurkin was the first representative of the indigenous population of the Altai Mountains, who received an art education and became a professional artist. His thematic preferences and approaches to painting were similar to a representative of the indigenous population of Central Australia Albert Namatjira, who mastered the European tradition of watercolor painting and was known world-wide as a watercolor artist.
Both artists are members of small ethnic communities grounded in traditional culture. Similar destinies, genre preferences and socio-cultural situation allow us to consider them in the same context. The creative methods of G. I. Choros-Gurkin and A. Namatjira were formed under conditions of cultural isolation and their intention to integrate into European culture. Both authors expressed their ideas about their native land in landscape. A comparative analysis of the socio-cultural context and the paintings of the artists allows us to find out the patterns of influence of the European painting on the interpretation of the national nature images. Landscapes of Altai and Australia in the interpretation of G. I. Choros-Gurkin and A. Namatjira reflect the mythological vision of the native populations, expressed by the language of tradition, brought from outside during colonization.

 PDF

In the scientific archives of the State Hermitage, we found a unique body of documents related to the process of organization of “The Room of Contemporary Art” at the Hermitage in the 1930s. Previously it was never mentioned in any publication on the history of the museum. The main aim of the research was to describe “The Room of Contemporary Art”, to define the time frame of its existence, the principles of its functioning and nature of its relationship with the museum’s collection and to find out its location. We discovered that “The Room of Contemporary Art” was created to display “the modern Western European art, giving prior attention to the proletarian art and related
currents” and was located on the 3rd floor of the Winter Palace, in room 415 (now room 318). According to the original plan the exposition was to include the art of contemporary Western European masters, received in exchange for paintings and sculptures of Soviet artists. However, the purchase of paintings for the exchange was never completed, and in early 1932 it became obvious that the organization of the permanent exhibition of contemporary art was in jeopardy. It was then decided to hold a number of temporary exhibitions instead. The first of them, “The exhibition of Dutch revolutionary artists”, was opened in October 1932. Western art department, responsible for its organization, considered “the way of arranging exhibitions” to be a short-term solution, but a permanent display of contemporary art in the Hermitage was not established either in the 1930s or later. Nevertheless, the study of archival materials related to the functioning of the “The Room of Contemporary Art” offers a new approach to the question of studying contemporary art exhibitions in the Hermitage in Soviet times and nowadays.

 PDF

The painting of the Soviet artist S. Adlivankin (1897–1966) is scantily investigated. He studied in the Odessa Art School from 1912 till 1917 under the guidance of K. Kostandi, and under V. Tatlin in 1918. In the early 1920s S. Adlivankin was a Commissioner of the Samara Vkhutemas (Higher Art and Technical Studious), and worked with V. Mayakovsky. In the early twenties together with G. Ryazhsky, the artist founded the “NOZH” group (New Association of Painters) (1921–1924); in the late 1930s S. Adlivankin designed several pavilions for VDNKh (All-Union Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy). His late works are practically unknown.
The image of Moscow takes an important part in his art. The master enjoyed painting the region where he lived (the Maslovka district). Some of his portraits were depicted against the Petrovskii Park (The Girl with a red bow, 1930). His genre paintings and magazine illustrations are set against Moscow streets and boulevards. Adlivankin paints the Petrovskii Park of those times when a rivulet flew through it; a Moscow courtyard of the 1940s, before a house was erected (Maslovka’s court yard, 1940); the Dynamo stadium (Autumn. Dynamo. The West platform, 1940). Nowadays, the stadium is under serious reconstruction and the surrounding area has already been changed. In S. Adlivankin’s works the image of prewar Moscow remained. We shall present “old” photos of Moscow and modern views of the city depicted in the paintings of the artist.

 PDF

The paper examines the work of an artist of the silver age, Raisa Kotovich-Borisyak (1890–1923), a student of K. Petrov-Vodkin. Her work is examined through the idea of her attitude to cultural tradition as a value. The choice of the angle of approach was determined by an actual creative search of the artist. The artist took part in the “Art World” (“Mir iskusstva”) exhibitions (1915, 1917) and in a number of other exhibitions in Moscow in 1918–1919, and posthumously her works were exhibited in the Historical Museum (1923, 1924), “Zhar Tsvet” and “30 Moscow artists” (both in 1924). In the beginning of the twenties, she was a researcher in the Chief Museum (“Glavmusei”) in Moscow, the curator of the Novodevichy Monastery Museum. Rediscovery and study of the artist’s work took place with two personal exhibitions in 2000, prepared by the author of this paper, together with the journal “Our Heritage” (“Nashe naslediye”), and the publication in 2005 of her diary “The Little Book of Great Bear”, inspired by her contacts with bright and creative persons. The memory of this circle of the intelligentsia of her time is preserved in the portraits by R. Kotovich-Borisyak. Self-portraits and portraits creatively implemented the synthesis of classical, iconic and avant-garde elements. Visual impression and intellectual perception harmoniously complemented each other. Their contents, in the phrase of I. Pearce, are what the work discloses involuntarily, but never parades. The artist giving a lot of attention both to color and to drawing has a variety of works to her credit. Her inspired landscapes are many-faceted, a prominent place belongs to the theme of the city — a kind of urban landscape colored by the creative vision of the artist. The pictures devoted to religious and mystical themes were inspired by the images of people and events of the epoch, of wars and revolutions disclosed to her as visions, sometimes calm and enlightened, sometimes full of frightening premonitions. They expressed her connection with the religious and philosophic quest of the silver age and her attitude to life: ethic and aesthetic comprehension of reality.

 PDF