Page 16 - Studio International - March 1972

El Lissitzky's El Lissitzky (r890-1941) was one of the most evolution would culminate, of course, in

prolific writers on art among the Russian avant Suprematism. Lissitzky's idea of the artist
writings on art garde during the 1920s. Several recent expanding his activities into various fields is
publications, particularly Sophie Lissitzky- Constructivist, but Suprematist is the artist's
Alan Birnholz Kiippers's El Lissitzky and the reappearance role as prophet leading his compatriots to the
of Lissitzky's Russland, the first study of Soviet coming Utopia. In his lecture 'New Russian Art'
architecture, have made a large number of of 1922 Lissitzky specifically identified his
Lissitzky's writings on art and architecture Proun compositions with Suprematism, and
readily available. But no effort has been made to one observer has even seen in Russland a
examine this body of literature. Such an `polemic' for Malevich.5 But perhaps Lissitzky's
examination, in fact, provides significant insight sharpest break with the Constructivists emerged
into developments in Russian art in the post- over opposing theories of the significance of the
revolutionary period. These developments, as machine and its new materials for the artist.
reflected in Lissitzky's essays, may be discussed Lissitzky began 'New Russian Art' by praising
under three general headings : Suprematism and the Constructivists for their embrace of modern,
Constructivism, the theory of space-time, and urban life symbolized by the machine. He even
the impact of political decisions on art. tends to criticize Suprematism for remaining
spiritually bound to the Russian village. But the
I Constructivists committed a major error by
Analysts of Lissitzky's art have often termed his becoming 'material fetishists' since they 'forgot
work a 'bridge' linking the two rival groups of the necessity for creating a new plan'. Lissitzky
Suprematism and Constructivism, and a survey frequently emphasized a plan or an aesthetic
of his writings initially supports this unity as basic to the work of art, and he went
interpretation. Lissitzky's article of 1920, on in his lecture to credit Suprematism with
`Der Suprematismus des Weltaufbaus' 2 — the providing the 'warning' about the dangerous
title itself seems to connote this union of mistakes being made by the Constructivists. The
Suprematism and Constructivism —clearly latter consequently appear in Lissitzky's essays
foresees the new art combining elements from as prone to lose sight of the true nature of art
both isms. Lissitzky's concern with art as without the guiding principles, the 'warnings'
dynamic, utilitarian, employing modern of the Suprematists.
materials, and actively participating in modern What is the significance of placing Lissitzky
life with no longer a separation between artists squarely with Suprematism ? First, this
and non-artists, reflects Constructivist interpretation clarifies our analysis of Lissitzky's
principles. Suprematist influences are apparent art during. he 192os. Constructivist
in the emphasis on economy of means in the art utilitarianism must be seen as subsumed within
object, the reference to the work of art as a Suprematist idealism; Constructivist interest
self-contained entity or 'object' independent of in materials occurs only as part of a Suprematist
its creator, and the prospect of art conveying to emphasis on the integration, the unity of the
the spectator 'the clear sign and plan' of a utopian work of art. That is, whereas we formerly saw
world to exist at some time in the future. But Lissitzky as attempting to straddle or 'bridge'
we soon realize that Lissitzky's thought hardly both sides of the fence dividing the Russian
represents a 'bridge' establishing a union avant garde, a more helpful image may be his
between these two concepts of art, for Lissitzky use of Constructivist innovations as a stepping-
concludes the essay by prophesying that stone to a more encompassing Suprematist
Suprematism, having superseded concept.
Constructivism in art and Communism in Second, Lissitzky's consistent adherence to
politics, 'will bring the world to a pure state of Suprematist principles now forces a re-
perfection'. In a view quite similar to De Stijl evaluation of alleged shifts in his thought. Joost
theories on the messianic purpose of art,3 Baljeu, who has provided frequent insight into
Lissitzky proclaimed the future perfection of the Lissitzky's concept of Proun, was struck by
universe under the banner of Suprematist art. Lissitzky's opening words of a 1924 article
That Lissitzky firmly considered himself a entitled `Nasci' :
Suprematist is revealed throughout his writings. It is ENOUGH already, always MACHINE
For example, one may cite Lissitzky's belief MACHINE
that art had not become identical to science and MACHINE
technology, but instead retained laws of its MACHINE.
own,4 and that the crucial element in a work of `It is remarkable', Baljeu remarks, 'to see El
art was 'invention', a concept directly related Lissitzky refuting the entire 'world of the
to Malevich's emphasis on the artist's machine.... The circumstance that "Nasci" was
imagination. Although Lissitzky's frequent written in Switzerland where El Lissitzky had
denials that evolution occurred in art would stayed for the treatment of his lung-
support the Constructivist concept of the work tuberculosis and where he was daily confronted

of art as a utilitarian response to a given with a landscape, may have been relevant'.6
problem, such essays as `Rad —Propeller und das In fact, Lissitzky was hardly refuting the world
Folgende' and 'K. [Kunst] und Pangeometrie' of the machine, only those Constructivist
demonstrate Lissitzky's adherence to precisely degradations of the ideal of the machine into a
this evolutionary interpretation. And that `material fetishism'. The machine remained a

90