Page 33 - Studio International - April 1971

to Futurism and ultra-urbanism, which could
only be disturbing; it was hostile to cosmo-
politanism, which might conflict with the
nationalism on which the new worker-peasant
alliance was to be ideologically based; and it
was hostile to experimental forms which would
only exasperate both the proletariat and the
peasantry, as indeed they had exasperated
Lunacharsky. (Lunacharsky remarked about
the Tatlin tower that 'I believe it would be a
matter of great exasperation, not only to
myself, if Moscow or Petersburg were to be
adorned with such a product...' and this was
in 1922). In effect, 'socialist realism' boiled
down to party-line, party and national sentiment
in content and academicism, bordering on
kitsch, in form. It was institutionally
guaranteed by turning renegade 'proletarian'
artists and critics into party officials with the
job of enforcing it. Functionalism and
technicism made up an element of 'socialist
realism', but stripped of the militant Futurism,
formal experimentalism and cosmopolitanism
which had historically accompanied their
growth. Now artists really were going to
become engineers and propagandists serving
the party and industry.
I think it is idle to imagine that things could
have turned out very differently if the artists
had acted differently. The problems of the
artist were fraught with difficulties far
transcending his ability to determine events.
Nevertheless, I believe that there are some
things which need to be said. As the twenties
had to be fully mobilized. The RAPP progressed an arrogant tone crept into many of
re-appeared and proletarian organizations the avant-garde manifestos: Consider, for
emerged even in fields such as architecture, example, the comments of the opening editorial
where hitherto they had been unknown. The of LEF on prolet-art : 'the third and best part,
`fellow-travellers' on the other hand were leaving behind the rose-coloured Belys, is
subject to unrelenting attacks. This was the re-learning with our things as guides and, we
period, for instance, when the universities were believe, will go further with us'. It is obvious
seriously purged for the first time. Education that this tone—rather Trotskyist, one might say
was re-organized once again, forcing —was not going to make it easy for avant garde
Lunacharsky's resignation. The Constructivists artists to find friends among the masses. In
were caught in the middle. Themselves hostile fact, the only time there was real collaboration
to the populist, pro-peasant and between the avant garde and the masses was
pre-revolutionary aura of the fellow-travellers, during the early years of agit-prop, street art
they were nevertheless open to attack as and mass fetes and festivals. This period was
fellow-travellers themselves, since they were one in which futurist ideas were modified and
obviously intellectuals and not bona fide changed by contact with the Proletcult and
workers. It is not surprising, in this atmosphere, vice versa. After the beginning of the NEP, the
that they took refuge in an intensified main strongholds of the avant garde,
functionalism. VKHUTEMAS and LEF were, in effect,
After his letter Dizzy With Success, when cultural ghettoes. (Malevich, of course, cut
the collectivization campaign was completed, himself off deliberately.) Perhaps things might
Stalin worked out a new cultural policy. have been different if Rosanova, who was in
Firstly, he wanted a return to calm and order, a charge of industrial and applied art for
period of consolidation and stability. Second, NARKOMPROS, had not died in 1918.
in line with this, he wanted an end to factional Already, in the year since the revolution, she
quarrels, which might disturb the new order. had travelled throughout the country visiting
Thirdly, he wanted to re-establish the 'link' schools, trying to break down the
with the peasantry, now their economic and metropolitanism of her fellow artists.
political power was broken, on a cultural basis. The real probem was that expressed by
`Socialist realism' expressed these three Lissitzky, to find a way in which Constructivism
priorities. It was hostile to ultra-proletarian could intervene, not simply in the production
tendencies —RAPP, TRAM, VOPRA, etc. process but in everyday life as well and, for
were once again brought to heel; it was hostile this to happen, there must be some recognition