Page 84 - Studio International - May June 1975

3rd OBMOKHU exhibition, Moscow, May 1921
Stenberg sculptures on the 2nd plan. On the left (foreground) 25 sculptures by Ioganson
Rodchenko's 'last painting'. general without carefully The negation of the descriptions as 'absolute
This anti-pictorial reaction in articulating its multiple stages or `representative' qualities of plasticity' in respect of Exter
Russia was accompanied by an the fundamental differences which painting, the affirmation of an (p. 88). We may add that the
ideological earthquake for which separate the spatial conceptions 'objectal' ideology and the author forgets the inventions of
Rodchenko gives us a proof in a of Malevich, Tatlin, Rodchenko appearance of 'spatial structures' Archipenko, and does not refer
citation from the work of the or Matiushin. The notion which in the work of Rodchenko and to the important text,
anarchist, Stirner, which he the author proposes on the Klucis are particularly illustrative `Composition of space and
placed as an epigraph on his work problem of perspective is of this moment. Yet John Bowlt calculation of spatio-dynamic
in the 1919 exhibition: 'At the simplistic. Far from the abstracts these considerations rhythms' (1931) by Strzeminski
foundation of my work I have discussions which have animated of a moment in time with a and Kobro, which would make his
put nothing.' For John Bowlt to numerous studies in the history certain facility for sophism, and own arguments decrepit. If such
see Rodchenko's formalist efforts of art (from Panofsky to White, leads the reader to hasty interpretations remain basic to
of 1919 as `technical graphics' Robert Klein or Baltrusaitis), conclusions. Basing his ideas on a this author's 'be! canto' of art
and to consider his three- Bowlt develops uninspired debate theory of real space and on criticism, one is hardly surprised
dimensional works of 1920-21 on the 'optical tradition'. His objectal sculpture in particular, to find factual error: on page 11,
as a 'brilliant culmination of the a priori argument of an 'absolute he seems to disregard the much a discussion of perspective in
Tatlin relief tradition' is pure and fundamental tradition of different problem of the painting is attributed to Stenberg,
nonsense. If until 1919 Rodchenko space and material' suprises us illusionist space of painting while this actually refers to (and is
certainly looked to Tatlin today after so many (two-dimensional), not to quoted from) David Sterenberg,
(and especially in 1917), from the anthropological studies defining mention the problem of space as a the ingenious imitator of the
time of the famous 1919 show he the multifarious conceptions of purely logical category (which is avant-garde whose work is a
pursued a search for a-pictorial pictorial space. Bowlt's principal the signification of the Hinton didactic formalist exaggeration
structures which is totally new and theme is developed from a epigraph introducing Bowlt's of the years 1916-22 and
absolutely opposite to the Tatlin theoretical formula by Punin article), or the conjunction of the without theoretical importance.
'fetichist object'. This level of (dating 1921) which he applies as two which is the basis of Another question animating
problematic does not flower in a speculative absolute, ignoring Matiushin's theories of Bowlt's text is that of the
Bojko's texts, while Bowlt's its origins and precise references, perception which Bowlt distorts postulates of Productivism.
biographical notes contain as well as its material and in his global view of things. The Again on page 11 we read this
surprising contradictions. As historical limits. For Punin, as confusion between the problems disastrous interpretation: 'it
the theoretical structure of the Tatlin's main critic, conceived of painting and of sculpture, and was absurd that artists, for the
catalogue belongs in the hands of his formula with the help of a those of space is even more most part without training in the
John Bowlt, it seems necessary Tatlin disciple, Bruni, and the serious since the comparison of applied arts or engineering, should
to study the conceptual formula is applied by him as an these three categories is the very have claimed the right to design
contradictions throughout his explanation of Tatlin's work. His tenet upon which his text is built. utilitarian objects.' With regard
introductory article, 'The text was published in a monograph Thus, we read in the note on to constructivist ideology, which
Construction of Space' and in on Tatlin in 1921, the very year of Popova that 'painting had to he is at such pains to describe,
his biographical notes. the most violent negation of the return to its two-dimensional this statement totally falsifies the
In repeating certain postulates existence of pictorial space (the basis and to dismiss perspective, basic artistic principles of
which other writers have exhibition, '5 x 5= 25', where space and volume as relevant only Productivism, and proves Bowlt's
previously discussed with more Rodchenko defies the very to the relief and material incapacity to understand their
conceptual rigour, Bowlt plunges existence of painting. For this construction.' Then, the thread philosophy of art and its place in
into long theoretical exhibition, cf. Taraboukine, of confusion throughout Bowlt's the totality of man's creative
deliberations on Russian art in `Le Dernier Tableau', Paris 1972). arguments leads to such activity. Tatlin's and Rodchenko's
232