Page 40 - Studio International - September 1967

Malevich not only seized on the new concept of realism
as based on the plastic values of painting and the impor-
tance of the use of contrasts. Leger had also hinted at the
historical development, leading up to this conclusion 'It
was born at the same time as Manet, developed with the
Impressionists and reached broad generalizations to-
gether with painters of today.'4 A similar viewpoint
was expressed by Kandinsky in an article of 1910.5
Malevich based at least three of his books on a discussion
of this historical process. Over the course of his lifetime he
built up a still more subtle concept of the art of his con-
temporaries which finally enabled him to write New Art.
The rapport between Leger and Malevich is evident
from their work.6 In connection with the two lectures
another question arises. Leger, when talking about
contrasts, says the artist must be guided by a new,
completely subjective sensibility. 'That he has broken an
object or placed a red or yellow square in the centre of
his canvas will not make his work new; what will make
his work new is his grasp of the creative spirit infus-
ing this outward appearance." There is little doubt
that Malevich's famous square was painted after Leger's
speech in the Academie Russe, although the passage
might sound as if he was referring to this or a similar
Supremalist composition painting. This, however, only demonstrates the striking
pencil parallels in the development and mode of thought of the
4½ x 4½ in.
two artists after 1910.
Malevich ascribes great importance to Futurism. His
treatment of the Futurist ideas are partly derived from
four phases, with his own architectural experiments as the the general debate taking place during those years in
fifth—the deduction. He spoke about, first, geometric, and Russia. The material available in translation around 1915
abstract elements; second, pure painting; third, collage; included all the manifestoes and several important
and fourth, relief, contre-relief (Tatlin) as the main stages. studies of Futurist art and literature. To both painters
But in New Art, which must be regarded as more defini- and poets the idea of an art of the future was innate.
tive, he gives the following classification : Attacking Marinetti and Boccioni, who attempted to
nationalize Futurism, Russian artists tried to develop an
1. Painterly Cubism independent movement of wider scope. Futurism in
2. Painterly Cubism, operating with contrasts and so- some cases became almost a synonym of modern art.
called additional elements Malevich's attitude towards Futurism, at least in his
3. Tone-painting earliest writings, should be understood against this back-
4. Spatial construction ground. However, his statement in favour of Marinetti,
5. Construction on the plane in a debate occasioned by Marinetti's visit to Moscow
in 1914, shows that from the very beginning Malevich
In pointing to contrast as an important factor in the was also concerned with more specific features of the
development of Cubism, Malevich seems indebted to Futurist movement. The positive attitude towards Boc-
Leger. In 1913-14 Leger gave two lectures in which he cioni in New Art is another, though late, proof of the
distinguished between the imitative and the realist quali- same approach. Malevich probably came to know
ties in a work of art. Malevich adhered to this dogma—as Boccioni's book very early. He seems to take up some of
Leger himself called it—in his first pamphlet (as well as its points in 1915 (in From Cubism...) and certainly in
in New Art). Leger stated 'Pictorial contrasts used in the 1919 (On New Systems in Art). Boccioni, like Leger,
purest sense (complementary colours, lines, shapes) will stresses an object's 'astratti significati plastici', not
henceforth be the framework of modern painting.'1 In its outward appearance, are of importance in the
the second lecture this is pointed out even more precisely: construction of a work of art. The study of nature is only
`Contrast= dissonance, consequently the maximum ex- valuable inasmuch as it creates 'una conzecione plastica
pressive effect.'2 Both lectures were delivered in the interna'. Boccioni also discusses the evolution of the his-
so-called Academie Russe, an open studio run by the tory of art towards this point. His general thesis is that
painter Mariya Vasiliyeve. Artists of many different Cubism destroyed the fluent character of Impressionist
nationalities worked there, including, of course, Russians. painting and became static and 'permanent'. The Futur-
Cubist conceptions were eagerly discussed and tried out. ists based themselves on Impressionism, taking movement
Leger's lectures were published almost immediately, and and matter as the primary factors. These can only be
there is little doubt that they soon became a subject of achieved through an intuitive approach. The painting be-
debate in Moscow.3 comes 'una construzione archittettonica, irradiante, di cui