Page 27 - Studio International - November 1973

A dialogue of obstacle to its understanding. questions which, with rare exceptions, remained
unanswered for several years. Impotent critics
A gradual rediscovery of the impact of the
Russian intellectual and artistic revolution has are content to maliciously correct
the deaf been occurring in the West — so long ignorant documentary details of this book, while bringing
no valuable contributions on the level of ideas.
and contemptuous — during the last twenty years.
Andrei B Nakov Yet if the recently stimulated `fortuna critica' is Scholars waddle through tons of archives, seeing
attentively analysed one becomes aware of a no further than their 'crucial' years of 1910-
troubling fact: a strange necessity to justify the 1914. If this fate is not unique to Russian
autonomy and even existence of Russian art in non-objective art, it is aggravated by a linguistic
terms other than those established by lethargy. So too often it is abandoned by art
`Tatlin's dream: Russian suprematist and traditional art history. Thus, Western art historians and becomes the sacred cow of
constructivist art 1910-1923' ,is at Fischer Fine history is totally unprepared, from a historians of Russian literature. Their
Art, London, i November — 4January 1974. methodological point of view, to understand the publications of texts are rarely accompanied by
originality of Russian art. The very discourse of valid critical commentaries.3
In 1922 the impressive exhibition at the art history today is carried on by the consumer We have arrived at a stage where abundant
Galerie Van Diemen was the first to show a society of intellectual prefabs. In this way the documentation is available, and yet this has not
privileged Berlin public the achievements of very serious Art Bulletin compromised itself provoked a qualitative change in the discourse
Russian suprematist and constructivist art. in an analysis of Lissitzky's constructivist on Russian art. It is even more astonishing to
The revelation of this new trend in the visual method based on nineteenth-century idealistic find that this subject has recently become a
arts was to have undeniable influence on postulates. The author being unconscious of victim of an ideological manipulation which
European art of the twentieth century. But the constructivist method, found no better tries to make Russian non-objective art a mere
Amsterdam was the only city to welcome the argument than to characterize Lissitzky as an appendix to French Cubism. The tendentious
'Erste Russische Kunstausstellung' after Berlin; `artist whose "creative schizophrenia" made him aberration of the conclusions of the art historian
England and, especially, France put on their unable to make the choice between painting, in question4 are no more imaginative than those
political chastity belts to protect their public architecture and typography, mixing them until of certain Soviet authors fifty years ago. They
from the 'ignominy' of this 'subversive' art the end of his life.'1 were masters in brutalizing art historical
coming from Russia, a danger soon baptized This discourse shelters itself in the methodology (see A. B. Nakov, 'Introduction',
`Kulturbdschevismus'. comfortable boundaries of the Renaissance to 'Le Dernier Tableau', p. 16, note 7). This
The impact of Russian avant-garde art cultural myth (see Nicolai Tarabukin, Le situation is as narrow-minded as it is
rapidly decreased in the West despite its Dernier Tableau, Paris 1972) which Fernand chauvinistic. Any critic, conscious of the
continuous presence in such exhibitions as the Léger would disclaim as early as 1913. The intellectual implications of such a manipulation
1924 Venice Biennale, the Vienna Theatrical destruction of this myth was the primary task should vigorously object to such distortion.
Exhibition of 1924, and with Tairoff 's company between 1905 and 1925 for Russian intellectuals Happily, our knowledge of the subject is not
touring France and Germany in 1923. So that and artists, who were working for a change of confined to the writing of these unenlightened
by 1925, the Soviet participation in the Paris civilization. If the oeuvre of Malevich and scholars. Troels Andersen has recently brought
exhibition of Art Deco drew little attention. Tatlin are insufficient proof for non-visual to light the work and writings of Malevich
Melnikov's remarkable pavilion there has been critics, numerous and very explicit texts from (`Malevich', Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam,
obstinately ignored by the history of modern the period give long testimony to this state of 197o; and 'Essays on Art', Copenhagen, 1968)
architecture. And the important theatre section, mind and the resulting conclusions (see and on Tatlin (`Vladimir Tatlin', Moderna
a room dedicated to the Vhutemas (Higher writings of the Russian linguists and those of Museet, Stockholm, 1968). These texts give
Technical Art Studios), sets by Rodchenko and the theorists/critics N. Punin, Arvatov, critics and historians the opportunity to
an extraordinary section on architecture, were Tarabukin, Chuzak, etc.), whose audacity properly approach the subject of Russian
all overlooked by an uninterested Paris public. and quality of argumentation are even today avant-garde art. Further, the publication of
With unpardonable cultural indolence, the surprising and revelatory for the Western mind. critical texts by the tireless Giorgio Kriski in
Roaring Twenties forgot itself in the Western art history and the criticism which it Italy continues in France, providing Western
kaleidoscope of its fashionable gaiety, leaving the generates still refuses to admit the logical readers with essential factual material.
destiny of Europe to the 'chiefs'. This shrinking implications of a new level of thought in the Russian non-objective art is rich in surprises.
retreat cruelly reflected on the world of art visual arts (non-objective art). The lack of For if Malevich and Tatlin are familiar to
which withdrew into a style of decorative discernment is conditioned by the conception Western publics, there are numerous other
conformism. So the first breakthrough of the iconological neo-symbolism of the work trends still completely ignored. If the
achieved by Russian non-objective art found of art; this particular type of signification is beginnings of Suprematism and Constructivism
itself without any immediate posterity. The few attached, for example, to the exegesis of the are continuously entangled in the general
refugees (Larionov, Gontcharova, Pevsner, work of Mondrian. Moreover, one often finds confusion called 'geometric abstraction',
Exter) disappeared in anonymity and such superficial complaints (and arguments) the complexity of the twenties is no less baffling,
incomprehension. Artists who remained in the asserted as 'insufficient works, documents and and is harder to accept. In that decade the very
USSR did not fare much better; the fallacious texts', to defend the lack of a more essential foundations of the history of art were put to
Social Realism was obviously more efficient in set of art historical a priori. trial by the works and writings of the Russian
reversing the revolutionary perspective of the Even if the works are not abundant in the avant garde.
war years. Entire studios of avant-garde work West, one finds, nevertheless, sufficient Apart from the intrinsic quality of the works,
disappeared leaving no traces. By his sudden quantities of works by Malevich, Lissitzky, one may wonder what justifies the constant
death in 1935 Malevich avoided the fate of Popova, Exter, Puni and Rodchenko2 in public renewed interest of Russian art in the current art
Tatlin who died totally forgotten in 1953, or and private collections. Accessible documents scene. One can say without exaggeration that a
that of Klucis and Drevin who were not the are adequate enough to give us a clear, if complex discourse ties the posterity of The Great
only ones to 'disappear' in 1938. The USSR modest, view of Russian non-objective art. Experiment to the development of American
has erected social barriers around non-objective In 1962, the revealing work by Camilla Gray, art of the sixties. The 'return to the sources' is
art; and it has been stigmatized by the term 1863-1922, The Great Experiment, Russian Art, justified by the willingness to situate American
`formalism'. This certainly constitutes a real broadly presented the subject and posed art of the sixties in respect to its predecessors

175