Ars Judaica 2007 1

3

, ed. Sophie Lissitzky-Kuppers (London, , ed. Sophie Lissitzky-Kuppers (Dresden, 1967). I will use Despite the artist’s own theories about his works, Schirften both the original German text of this book and its English translation: El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts 1968). of evident and hidden traces from his previous stages of despite a perfect intellectual biography of Lissitzky written written Lissitzky of biography intellectual perfect a despite by his wife and the recollections of his contemporaries, Lissitzky’s ecstatic evolutionartistic trends and national traditions create problems for and balance he where Darmstadt, from passage between artist’s The researchers. was trained in late Art Nouveau perspective to pre- and post-revolutionary Russia, where he discovered Jewish tradition and searched for Jewish style, followed by the “exodus” to the universalism of Malevich’s Suprematism artistic Weimar German of variety a into jump a later, and, trends, do not explain his heritage evolutionaryin terms progression. of subtleLissitzky is always between – between a Jewish search for style and cultural identityand the universal language of Suprematism,Suprematism andbetween Constructivism, between Malevich’s concept of and abstract non-objectivity De Stijl, between “Constructivism” and Dada, and last, between the world of Vitebsk, the west-Russian imaginary and Hanover, Berlin, provincialKiev, Moscow, Darmstadt, center – and America. Understanding El Lissitzky presupposes a study metaphorical textures are constructed and designed. To put it differently, the strongest rationalistic will towards synthesis moves Lissitzky beyond rationality, just as the Jewishness of his “Jewish-style” works contains formative impulses of universality. From yet another viewpoint, his abstract suprematist and post-suprematist creations and theories imply a hidden, genuine Jewishness. . He Igor Dukhan symbolists 5 (1978): 76. JJA constructor and Malevich affirmed 2 Situating El Lissitzky: Vitebsk, Berlin, El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From he was both Jewish and universal, and Jewish both was he 1 : their discourse refers to something character of his thought through all his , eds. Nancy Perloff and Brian Reed (Los Angeles, 2003). non-finito With regard to formative avant-garde dualities, El Moscow El Lissitzky: Maler, Architekt, Typograf, Fotograf, Errinerungen, Briefe, 2 Jewish In-Jokes,” Ziva Amishai-Maisels, “Chagall’s 3 1 As he was treated by the editors of tried to find clear visual solutionsproblems – infinity, to quantity, space, the etc. most His irrational sophisticated “Ah, qui a compris Chagall!?” this works. On the contrary, Lissitzky was a in the avant-garde beyond the rational. Chagall mentioned this explicitly: essentially distinct fromKasimir the Malevich language and Marc Chagall. of Within his all differences,theirpeers, Malevich and Chagall remained new worlds” while speaking in specific and complicated symbolical language. El Lissitzky’s discourse had been rationally-constructive and symbolically-enigmatic. He sophisticated with playing while universal be to attempted and hidden Jewish metaphors. He constructed “the Lissitzky is a characteristic case. The “enigmatic artist” of epoch, avant-garde the World War I), which internally contradict its universalism universalism its contradict internally which I), War World from within. oeuvre is intended to speak universally; yet, it contains diverse national, nationalistic, and even traitschauvinistic (the latter flourished during and immediately after symbolist play, full of direct,references and quotations.and Furthermore, theespecially avant-garde hidden, hand, it attempts to present a new vision of the totality of the world, a rational proposal for the “reconstruction of the world.” On the other hand, it might imply refined “Avant-garde oeuvre” implies certain dualities. On the one the On dualities. certain implies oeuvre” “Avant-garde Igor Dukhan 2 Ars Judaica 2007 7 On the cultural atmosphere of Vitebsk in the late nineteenth and early early and nineteenth Vitebsk late of the atmosphere in cultural the On 7 Ibid.,15. 6 Getty 5 the by organized conference, international the of title The 4 were absolutelyoppositeincharacter: parents Lissitzky’s us, reminds As Lissitzky-Kuppers Sophie background. early his in duality certain a mention must 1920s early – 1910s late Lissitzky’s (1925). of discussion A Pangeometry” and “Art and works to Berlin 1917–19 his of activities Kultur-Lige from – evolution avant-garde art. Lissitzky” El “situating of problem The ones. new to development and Islamic Art Islamic and Garde Urban Utopia,” in Avant- the in Intentions Symbolic City: Holy the “Beyond Doukhan, Igor see career, artistic Lissitzky’s El to related as centuries twentieth El Lissitzky:Life,Letters,Texts Research Institute: etfiueadlrebakeyes. black large and neat figure later in small her also and intelligence her inherited years, understand to difficult found she son, whom Her did. she everything in tenacity great a and mind keen extraordinarily an with endowed was mother orthodox The child. eldest his to on passed was books of love great his that doubt no and Heine is There man. freethinking a was He Shakespeare. translated he time spare his in and Yiddish, and Russian besides English, and German languages, foreign two knew father widely-traveled character.The in opposite absolutely were mother and Father […] back. husband her call should and family, her near she homeland, her that in remain opinion should the expressed he and Rabbi’s the first, advice sought she Jewess, orthodox an As come and join him, bringing the to two-year-old wife Lazar. young his asked was he prosper, to business beginning small a and success with met efforts had early his when later, year A him. before gone already had brother his where America, to emigrated he So family. small his and himself for Russia Tsarist in a future of real no saw steward estate, as large employed was who father, His We will examine a short period in El Lissitzky’s artistic 4 4 remains an intriguing issue for the history of of history the for issue intriguing an remains , ed. Bianca Kühnel (Jerusalem, 1998), 556–75; idem, idem, 556–75; 1998), (Jerusalem, Kühnel Bianca ed. , Situating ElLissitzky:Vitebsk, Berlin, Moscow The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian , 15. 5 . Sementovsky. Alexander and Nikiforovsky, Nikolay Sapunov, historians Alexey Vitebsk outstanding the by published were studies historical and ethnographical Well-known more. of the Moscow archaeological institute, nine libraries, and branch a gymnasium, a theater, a featured Vitebsk life. siècle cultural universal and intriguing Jewish an of with as mixture Russia, West city,” of center “small (regional) a it, not described was Lissitzky-Kuppers Sophie definitely in which childhood his Vitebsk, of part essential noted an be spent should Lazar It that work. later his in rediscovered be would “America” and world, the to openness Haskalah post- Jewishness, of mixture explosive this and his mother, of orthodoxy Jewish the and father his of thinking post-Haskalah broad the of context dual the in up grew Sophie Lissitzky-Kuppers’ testimony is essential – Lissitzky E 9 8 we should mention an inspiring architectural landscape of Yudovin,Azgur,To Zair others. and complete thispicture Solomon Zadkine, Ossip as Chagall, Marc artists Lissitzky, Lazar realist or avant-garde famous future such by school, which was attended in the early twentieth art century Pen’s Moiseevich) (Yuri Yehuda was Vitebsk siècle groups. and Bundist Zionist-oriented as well as Yazyka), Evreyskogo Lubiteley Russian Empire, a Society for the Jewish in Language (Obshestvo Jews of Enlightenment the for Society a society, literary–musical Jewish a – character contradictory even Jewish and diverse of organizations public as well as early bourgeoisie, and Hasidim, Litvaks, were there varied: hands.” Jewish in exclusively almost is Vitebsk of part central whole the present “at An that, city. stated 1904 the in of Vitebsk of observation component essential an was yet and of Belarus) (Minsk, 2001), 76–79. Belarusi god Vitebsk RegionfortheYear 1905)(Vitebsk,1905 1904). na gubernii Vitebskoy knizhka Pamiatnaya Motchalova (Moscow, 2004), 313–41. Studies Jewish on Conference in garde), “El Lissitzky, evreyskii stil’, avangard” (El Lissitzky, Jewish Style, Avant- . Jewish life in Vitebsk differed from the wider society society wider the from differed Vitebsk in life Jewish manuil G. Ioffe, Ioffe, G. manuil (According to Authentic Sources: Jews in the History of Cities ofHistory the in JewsAuthenticSources: (Accordingto Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary International Annual 11th the of Proceedings Po dostovernym istochnikam: Evrei v istorii gorodov gorodov istorii v Evrei istochnikam: dostovernym Po 8 Jewish life in Vitebsk was intense and and intense was Vitebsk in life Jewish 9 , eds. Rashid Kaplanov and Viktoria Viktoria and Kaplanov Rashid eds. , The artistic focus of fin-de- of focus artistic The 6 but a a but (Almanac of the the of (Almanac gubernian 7 Fin-de-

Ars Judaica 2007 3 El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky Fig. 1. Fig. (1st variant), 1917, watercolor on paper, State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow Gallery, State Tretyakov watercolor on paper, (1st variant), 1917, Had Gadya El Lissitzky, illustration for illustration for El Lissitzky, Figs. 1–3. Figs. Igor Dukhan 4 Ars Judaica 2007 12 Alan Birnholz, “El Lissitzky and the Jewish Tradition,” Tradition,” Jewish the and Lissitzky “El Birnholz, Alan 12 11 Chagall’s Marc on landscape Vitebsk’s of impact imaginative the On 10 The Darmstadt Technische Hochschule preserved a refined Lissitzky’scharacter. of “multiculturalism” the to tributed con- also 1909–14 in Technische Hochschule Darmstadt pre-revolutionary inspiration. and comfort cultural Orthodoxy, and bourgeois Haskalah modernity,post- and traditions non-Jewish and Jewish of Lissitzky found himself in a vibrant “multicultural” mixture Repin’sterm) landscapes. foregroundpicturesqueof hilly (“Toledo-style,” usetoIlya certain modern architectural additions and more, all in the the city hall, synagogues, Russian neoclassical architecture, central and distinctive Baroque buildings that included cathedrals churches, and Greek-Catholic and Orthodox Vitebsk,strikingwithits gothicized silhouettes wooden of International El Lissitzky:Life,Letters,Texts artistic vision,seeDoukhan,“Beyond theHolyCity,” 572–74. Studying in the architectural department of the the of department architectural the in Studying (October1973):130–36. 10 , 16–19. Fig. 2. So in his early, formative years Studio Studio 3 For a detailed 13 analysis of the two variants, see Haya Friedberg, “Lissitzky’s (or narrative invariant topological a certain structuraland every list reflects a Preserving character, 4). the treatment of forms becomes essentially more (fig. shift stylistic 1–3). The auto-lithographs of 1919 are already marked by a (figs. narrative and color of decorativism expressionist an Passoverpoem affairs, which shaped his artistic imagery till 1919. hebecame actively involved inJewish renaissance artistic manuscripts. Jewish medieval and was probably inspired by the Darmstadt famous Haggadah and drawing Europeanjourneys, architecture as well as the synagogue in Worms, architectural many made however, Lissitzky, colony. artistic Darmstadt the of idea the and Secession Vienna the of spirit Gabriel (Jerusalem, 1988), 101–24. (1912–1928) Art Avant-Garde Russian in Renaissance in Works,” Jewish Lissitzky’s Gadya,” Had In 1917 and 1919 Lissitzky produced two variants of the JA HadGadya 12/13 (1987): 292–303; Ruth Apter-Gabriel, “El “El Apter-Gabriel, Ruth 292–303; (1987): 12/13 . Fig. 3. 13 Tradition and Revolution: The Jewish Jewish The Revolution: and Tradition The 1917 watercolors feature 12 On his arrival in Russia Russia in arrival his On Gesamtkunstwerk , ed. Ruth Apter- Ruth ed. , 11

Ars Judaica 2007 5 (Vitebsk: (Vitebsk: (2d variant), 1919, gouache, (2d variant), 1919, gouache, Had Gadya Vitebsk: Vitebsk: zhizn’ iskusstva, 1917–1922 El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky El Lissitzky, illustration for illustration for El Lissitzky, Artists of the Kultur-Lige) (Moscow and Jerusalem, 2003), 173. Artists of the Kultur-Lige) 2001), 49–50. Artistic Life, 1917–1922) (Moscow, 16 Aleksandra S. Shatskikh, Fig. 4. Fig. Museum of Art Aviv Tel on paper, and pencil India ink,

(2d variant), lithograph, 1919, color private collection (The Had Gadya (Vitebsk, Had Had Gadya As already noted by Khudozhniki kul’tur-ligi 14 Of Two SquaresOf Two El Lissitzky, dustjacket for for dustjacket El Lissitzky, – 1919 was marked also by a 4 (2002): 33–37. Fig. 5. Fig. PROdyzain Had Gadya which sharply transformed the “flourishing” 16 designed in abstract suprematist forms with a 15 Montage of Time), Montage of Time), 15 Published in Hillel (Gregory) Kazovskii, 14 See Igor Dukhan, “El Lissitzky i montaz vremeny” (El Lissitzky and the deliberately developed his own version of a slightly to Vitebsk, Marc by led city, the in situation artistic post-revolutionary Chagall. Prior to Malevich’s arrival in Vitebsk, Chagall Lissitzky’s move towards abstraction followed with extreme extreme with followed abstraction towards move Lissitzky’s invitation the initiated who Lissitzky was It 1919. in speed of the leader of abstract Suprematism, Kasimir Malevich, – 1919 specially elaborated “suprematist” script (fig. 5). El considered as an artist’s symbolical positive statement of fulfillment of the Revolution’s most objectives.radical visual was innovation a cover for However, the which in a certain way coincided with the liberation of be might shift this pogroms, and discrimination from Jews of 1919 shows him as definitely dead, and his Lissitzky time that at As victimsresurrected. as kid) a and man old (an was quite sympathetic towards the October Revolution, principal programmatic shift: if shift: in of 1917 the the variant programmatic principal that alive, still but down cast as depicted is Death of Angel pattern) of the whole series in 1920–Berlin, 1922) (figs. 6–13). Haya Friedberg, Igor Dukhan 6 Ars Judaica 2007 Figs. 6–13. Fig. 8. Fig. 6. El Lissitzky, Skaz pro dva kvadrata (Of Two Squares), Berlin, 1922 Fig. 9. Fig. 7. Ars Judaica 2007 7 El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky Fig. 13. Fig. Fig. 11. Fig. Fig. 12. Fig. Fig. 10. Fig. Igor Dukhan 8 Ars Judaica 2007 21 See Leonid Katzis, “ Katzis, Leonid See 21 evreyskii Lissitzky, “El Dukhan, in statement this of analysis my See 20 Life- of (Suprematism zhiznestroitel’stva” “Suprematism Lissitzky, El 19 Lissitzky,” El to Letter Malevich “Kasimir 18 17 Lissitzky. by developed spatially and architecturally were predetermined by Malevich’s theoretical principles which ground,” the to “took Lissitzky and skies” the to “took Malevich Vitebsk a all. As he later wrote in simply a letter to El Lissitzky in Berlin, in not was Art] “master–disciple” relationship, or not “master–disciple” at New of Affirmatives – ISkusstva NOVogo [Utverditeli UNOVIS Vitebsk at Lissitzky and Malevich and between partnership The revolutionary narrativity. with Jewish combined style avant-garde “naïve” and Chagall’sromantic rejected individual and metaphysics Malevich’s on based construct advanced suprematist and radical the chose Lissitzky – very significant seems 1919 of Vitebsk episode This Malevich. with sided deliberately Lissitzky individuality. Chagall’s impulsive the over out won Malevich of charm metaphysical and methodological the Malevich, and Chagall of versions decorations. festival in Revolution the ridiculing of intention no had disciples his and he that insisting Newsletter), (Vitebsk the to explanation special a write to had receivedby the revolutionary masses, and in 1918 Chagall Thisrevolutionary artistic romanticism wasnotpositively horsemen, Jewishidioms.vividspecieof animals, composedetc., sub soldiers, revolutionary flying of interplay irrational an into anniversaries, center city the transformed Revolution Vitebsk the of to walls dedicated the on buildings, disciples his and Chagall of of Vitebsk spacestotality –the walls into and squares.imagery The his monumental expand murals to tried forms, he and its in figurative and narrative also but paradoxes, romanticizedavant-garde “alogist” style, full of space–time pro dva kvadrata’ El-Lisickogo v iudeyskoy perspective” (Malevich’s (Malevich’s perspective” iudeyskoy v El-Lisickogo kvadrata’ dva pro stil’, avangard”(n.7above),327–31. Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, ManuscriptsDepartment). in: Building), (1999): 150. the BelarusNationalLibrary). listok Vitebskiy In the confrontation between the avant-garde avant-garde the between confrontation the In 17 (Vitebsk Newsletter) (November 1918): 2 (collection of of (collection 2 1918): (Vitebsk (November Newsletter) UNOVIS Almanac UNOVIS 18 so it was cooperation in a certain way way certain a in cooperation was it so

‘Chiornyy kvadrat’ Kazimira Malevitcha i ‘Skaz ‘Skaz i Malevitcha Kazimira kvadrat’ ‘Chiornyy 1 (1920): 15 (collection of the State State the of (collection 15 (1920): 1 Experiment/ Vitebskiy listok listok Vitebskiy shtetl Эксперимент scenes, scenes, 5 22 The notion notion The 22 erhfrifiiywscoe oJws metaphysical Chagall. of Jewish expressionism to romantic “naïve” the than closer symbolism was infinity for search perspective, El Lissitzky probably believed that Malevich’s of trends. messianic Jewish culture and Age Silver the Russian of metaphysics apocalyptic the on world. the and art of also he attributed to Malevich a radical mission of transfiguration Pangeometry,” and “Art article on.” programmatic goes Testament Suprematist the Communist the of by replacement for and Communist, replaced the is New the one, New the by replaced was in In the paper “Suprematism zhyznestroytel’stva,” published messianic a explanation for his turn towards Malevich’s Suprematism. outline to tried Lissitzky Simultaneously, rgnlatsi hnig(g.61) fw compare we If 6–13). Lissitzky’s(figs. series of Prouns [PROektthinking Utverzhdenia Novogo – artistic original of idea Malevich’s Suprematism. However, of development and embodiment strategy wastobeprofoundlytransformed. Lissitzky’s artistic years few a strategy. in montage fact, In non-linear and impact visual on emphasis an with book” the cycle, of illustrative sequence the predetermined story Passover the in If developments. Berlin as a typologically similar manifestation of UNOVIS–early considered be could 1922, in house publishing Skythen émigré the by Berlin in published and 1920 in Vitebsk inspiration, book” “visual Renaissance his Jewish post-revolutionary 1958–1960) (Moscow, 1982),163–68. in Book), Visual a vizual’nayakniga” (The Book from the Viewpoint of Visual Perception – illustrations (El Lissitzky, accompanying “Kniga s tochki zrenia vizual’nogo vospriatia – and text linear of book classical a and imagery visual on based book avant-garde an between distinction ultimate an stress “El Lissitzky, evreyskiistil’, avangard,”313–41. Eschatology and Russian Literature) (Moscow, 2000), 132–39; Dukhan, Perspective), in idem, Jewish in TwoQuadrates” on “Tale Lissitzky’s El and Square” “Black UNOVIS Almanac, UNOVIS If If There is no doubt that that doubt no is There Had Gadya Had vizual’naya kniga vizual’naya Iskusstvo knigi, 1958–1960 knigi, Iskusstvo was a quintessence of El Lissitzky’s Lissitzky’s El of quintessence a was Of Two Of Squares 22 Russkaya eskhatologia i russkaya literatura

20 Of Two Squares Two Of Such statements by Lissitzky relied relied Lissitzky by statements Such he asserted: “The Old Testament Testament Old “The asserted: he Of Two Squares (visual book) was used by El Lissitzky to to Lissitzky El by used was book) (visual Had Gadya Had f w Squares Two Of was precisely a “visual “visual a precisely was , “constructed” in in “constructed” , the narrativity of of narrativity the features Lissitzky’s (Art of Bookprinting, Bookprinting, of (Art 19 Later, in his his in Later, 21 From this this From was an an was (Russian

Ars Judaica 2007 9

, 25 24 Situating El Lissitzky and form, as we will Of SquaresTwo El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky If in 1916–19 El Lissitzky was, metaphorically Pursuing Malevich’s basic ideas, El Lissitzky created that he [artist Naum Gabo] had once visited Lissitzky’s Berlin studio and had been horrified to see alying on the seal desk, identifying of Lissitzky as Cheka an informer in (Russianthe employof this rather morally dubious secret government agency” (Christina Lodder, police) “El Lissitzky and the Export of Constructivism,” in 33). However, there is no additional collaboration with the Soviet secret services. evidence to assert Lissitzky’s and intellectuals to settle in Berlin in the early 1920s; avant-garde the for capital inspiring an was Berlin second, trends in postwar art; and third, Lissitzkyofficials. cultural Soviet the from camemission cultural special with a however, Suprematism, and art of assertion messianic The didn’t escape from his theoretical horizon in the intense atmosphere of Berlin; on the contrary, below, it was developedas as a wemetaphysical willframework for see constructs of that period. rationalistic Lissitzky’s speaking, predominantly “Jewish,” between 19211919 primordiallyand “universal” (withJewish hidden time-sensitivity),traces of in couldBerlin find Lissitzkyand Germany “Jewish” we and “universal,”as “universal,” or “Jewish” with emphasis upondifficulty of“universal.” grasping simultaneously “theThe avant-garde” and “the Jewish” Lissitzky of the German–European period of 1921–25 is reflected in thepublications character on Lissitzky in those years, of which comprise the research and clashing with each other. The gravitation and energies energies and gravitation The other. each with clashing and of the pictorial field transformclash between theirforces of gravity and geometries. inertia leads to the compression This and disappearance of bodies. The narrative sequence of discourse dissolves in the dynamic struggle of forces, gravity, and inertia. Montage of visual events, the ecstatic temporality of “folding” (the term of Gilles Deleuze) creates the dynamic visuality of a time stream. The ecstasies of time emerge asfor constructiona fundamental of force attempt to an showexpressive later, trace of Jewish time- sensitivity. his individual time-language of Suprematism. At the end of 1921 he moved to Berlin. The reasons for Lissitzky’s long-term sojourn in Berlin, and elsewherewere in Europevaried. First, it was common for Russian artists

, Bog ne , 1919; , 1916, (God is not Berlin Ostbahnhof Of Two SquaresOf Two Of Two Squares (Berlin, 1998). , 1921); some of his Supremus N 56 (God is not Dethroned: , 1915, etc.). More dynamically More etc.). 1915, , and other theoretical treatises Vertical Suprematist Construction 23 Culture in Exile: Russian Emigrés in Germany, 1881- Germany, in Emigrés Russian Exile: in Culture Bog ne skinut: iskusstvo, tserkov’, fabrika Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge , 1916; Suprematism Proun 1 E: The City , 1920). (Ithaca and London, 1972); Karl Schlögel, The conflicts of abstract forms in 1941 Europas: Russen und Deutsche in ihrem Jahrhundert to the memoirs of Miriam Gabo of 1985: “In private, Gabo revealed Dethroned: Art, Church, Factory) (Vitebsk, 1920). Dethroned: Art, Church, Factory) (Vitebsk, Supremus N 58 is based on a dramaturgy of topological transfigurations. The energy. visual of thrust a forward puts page new Every geometric bodies meet in the gravity fields, compressing recalls of dramatic tensions in Michelangelo’sChapel. The montageSistine visual structure of of forces (poster Proun 30T and inertia ( directions the of diagram vector the like are compositions the conflicts of gravitational energies. Theaxonometric forms three-volume “struggle” with the plain suprematist surfaces, visualizing the conflict between forces of gravity of Suprematism and non-objectivity, El Lissitzky gradually Lissitzky El non-objectivity, and Suprematism of attempts to represent the dramatic tensions of forces and skinut: iskusstvo, tserkov’, fabrika Art, Church, Factory) from 1915 to the early 1920s. Pursuing the same concept movement from the dynamism and energies of earthly chaos to the weightlessness and calm of the lost universal harmony, the “fourth dimension,” explicated in 1917). This mode of representation corresponds to the whole harmonic idea of Malevich’s Suprematism, as etc.). The idea of gravity and tension of forcesslightly is only marked in some of Malevich’s( compositions chaotic movement and interaction of bodies, neutralized however by the dominating axis ( “float” in the proscenium (or(see Universe background) of the infinite of forms different evince compositions suprematist shaped establishes a vision of a balanced world harmony. In his freely plains colored suprematist the compositions abstract Project of Affirmation of theearly 1920s New]to Malevich’s suprematist and compositions posters1915–20, of a ofcertain difference the can be noted. Malevich 25 And even with a secret mission, as Christina Lodder exposes, referring 24 Williams, C. Robert 23 Kasimir Malevich, 10 Ars Judaica 2007 Igor Dukhan 28 Hartmut Walravens,in Hartmut Berlin,” in Kunstverlage “Russische 28 profound and rare A Works.” Jewish Lissitzky’s “El Apter-Gabriel, 27 “Novyy Khan-Magomedov, Selim are publications recent the Among 26 World of years the in field his in work for opportunities little with but architect, an as trained been had “Lissitzky statement: matter-of-fact very a made she 1917–19, of works Jewish Lissitzky’s Considering Malevich’s influence. De Stijlandmentionedhis“Constructivism,” yet ignored outlined Dutch and precisely Doesberg van Theo to She correlation Lissitzky’s circles. definite to artistic “belonging” Lissitzky’s El regarding picture ambiguous, sympathetic, yet a presented Wischnitzer, Rachel editor, paintings. wall century accompanied by his own copies of its synagogue, excellent eighteenth- Mogilev the of reminiscences his magazine, arts-and-letters modernist Jewish Berlin-based famous in published Lissitzky ideals, avant-garde field. publishing the in especially activities, cultural Jewish émigré of Russian and of center turbulent half a became first Berlin the 1920s in the known, well is As milieu. cultural émigré Russian and Jewish Berlin the with contacts his developed and preserved he however, etc.); circles, Stijl and by the most advanced avant-garde circles (Kurt Schwitters and asa“Jewishtypographerillustrator.” avant-gardist international an as him of studies separate “Yiddish Publishing in Berlin and the Crisis in Eastern European Jewish Levine, Glenn 125–40; 1989), (Berlin, Malke S. Lutz ed. Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Museen Staatliche Berlin, 1890–1933 Kunstbibliothek [catalogue] Kunstverlagen, Berliner aus Graphik und Buch Moderne: Lissitzky,” PhDdissertation, Yale University, NewHaven,1973. “El Birnholz, Alan in done was 1921–25 of period German–European attempt to interrelate the “Jewish” and the “avant-garde” Lissitzky of his Many UtopiasofElLissitzky’s ProunRoom the Export of Constructivism,” 27–47; Eva Forgacs, and Lissitzky “El Lodder, Christina 9–25; 1999), Hanover, and Haven (New Pohlmann Ulrich and Drutt, Matthew Tupitsyn, Margarita eds. in 1922–1925,” Germany, in 1917–1946 Victor 1990); Eindhoven, Margolin, and (Moscow Gallery] Tretyakov State in Prouns), and Suprematism Three- Style, (New prouny” i suprematism ob’emnyy styl’, In Germany and Europe Lissitzky was “accommodated” Merz , Hans Richter and G, Dada, Bauhaus and De De and Bauhaus Dada, G, and Richter Hans , The Struggle for Utopia: Rodchenko, Lissitzky, Moholy-Nagy, Moholy-Nagy, Lissitzky, Rodchenko, Utopia: for Struggle The (Chicago, 1997), chap. 2; Matthew Drutt, “El Lissitzky Lissitzky “El Drutt, Matthew 2; chap. 1997), (Chicago, 28 Referring through the years to his pre- his to years the through Referring 29 The memoirs of of memoirs The El Lissitzky: Beyond the Abstract Cabinet Abstract the Beyond Lissitzky: El Lazar’ Markovich Lissitzky Markovich Lazar’ , inibid.,47–77. entv pc:The Space: Definitive Milgroim Milgroim 27 Dimentional [catalogue, [catalogue, Europäische ’s art art ’s , the the , 26 , :

30 Rachel Wischnitzer-Bernstein, Rachel idem, in 1920s,” Early the “Berlin, 30 of Synagogue (The zikhroynes” shul: Mohliver der “Vegn Lissitzky, El 29 ChagallDavidandSterenberg exhibition, theto Lissitzky Marc of contributions the to attention more paid Berlewi by captioned (1921), Lissitzky’s El of reproduction a famous Sovietthe art in exhibition ofart 1922 in the Jewish Sturm new gallery, of Henryk observation and Berlewi’s synagogue Mogilev the of reminiscences of issue third the characteristics.”) national by than rather artist’spersonality, the and times the by inexorably moulded process creative general the of part as art Jewish regarded always have “I wrote: later (Wischnitzer universal. the of part as art Jewish towards the of personification a books.” Yiddishstory illustrated of War I he turned to the graphic arts and produced a number 34 Berlewi, “Yidishe kinstler”: 14–15. I am grateful to Professor Susanne Susanne Professor to grateful am I 14–15. kinstler”: “Yidishe Berlewi, 34 terms) in (even Constructivism to Proun of attribution early This 33 Henryk Berlewi, “Yidishe 32 kinstler in der hayntiger rusisher kunst: tsu der RachelWischnitzer-Bernstein, “From MyArchives,”inibid.,166. 31 (Berlewi’s “Chagallism” from himself liberated quickly emphasized that the artist, thanks modern to his analytical abilities,with other tasks. the artistic universal and folklore, romantic with preoccupied one – art Jewish contemporary in trends two Milgroim his was depicted as an almost ideal Jewish modernist artist and Martin-Finnis forherkindhelpinthe translationof the ExportofConstructivism.” and Lissitzky “El Lodder, see Constructivism), of conceptions Western the and Russian the of between as well (as Constructivism and Malevich Suprematism the between position ambiguous Lissitzky’s exposes Milgroim Russia), in Artists (Jewish 1922” Berlin in kunst-oysshtelung rusisher Dura to Rembrandt: Studies in the History of Art above). in Synagogue,” Mohilev the from the Yiddish by Seth L. Wolitz, see El Lissitzky “Memoirs Concerning Mohilev), Berlin), ed.V. Sorokina(Moscow, 2003). 1919–1924,” Culture From this perspective it appears intentional that in in that intentional appears it perspective this From Proun at theattopBerlewi’sof article. Berlewi delineated 3(1923):14–16(Yiddish). (Construction) was emblematically placed by by placed emblematically was (Construction) Milgroim 31 3 (1923): 9–13 (Yiddish). For an English translation Milgroim LBIY Milgroim 34 42 (1997): 85–108; 85–108; (1997): 42 Bifl osdrn istk,he Lissitzky, considering Briefly Milgroim Tradition and Revolution and Tradition , exactly between Lissitzky’s Lissitzky’s between exactly , as as Proun 1 E: The Town The E: 1 Proun 30 Construction modernistic attitude attitude modernistic Lissitzky himself was was himself Lissitzky (Milwaukee, 1990), 164. Russkiy Berlin Russkiy Milgroim , 233–34 (n. 13 13 (n. 233–34 , . 33 32 Even if if Even excerpts. appears (Russian (Russian From

Ars Judaica 2007 11

El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky 48 cm, Israel Museum, Jerusalem

built in the first half of the eighteenth Isaac ben by Chaim murals with on decorated it was 1740 century and from 35 Ibid.: 16. 36 Mohliver shul”: 9–13. der “Vegn Lissitzky, watercolor copies of mural paintings done by Lissitzky and and Lissitzky by done paintings mural of copies watercolor (fig. Ryback 14). The wooden synagogue of Mogilevof – the magnificent one synagogues of Eastern Europe – was x

) and ) in his his in ) Had Gadya watercolor and India ink on paper, 64.5 watercolor and India ink on paper, reyner konstruktsye reyner Issachar Ber Ryback, drawing based on the ceiling of the Mogilev Synagogue, 1916, Mogilev ceiling of the drawing based on the Ber Ryback, Issachar Fig. 14. Fig. 35 date back to his joint expedition with Issachar Issachar with expedition joint his to back date 36 Lissitzky’s reminiscences concerning the Mogilev by the Jewish Historical and Ethnographic St SocietyPetersburg. The text inwas illustrated by the wonderful synagogue sponsored 1915–16 in River Dnieper the along Ryback Ber proceeded to pure construction ( construction pure to proceeded works. Proun term) and sentimentalism (the period of 12 Ars Judaica 2007 Igor Dukhan 39 Kasimir Malevich, Malevich, Kasimir 39 Abram Efros, “Lampa 38 Alladina” (Aladdin’s Lamp), Maria and Kazimierz37 Piechotka, completeness of impression an leaves church Orthodox The vision. Lissitzky’s understanding for important and co- Vitebsk curious seem his parallels certain Malevich, after with operation just published were synagogue Catholic, Orthodox, and Judaist churches” in Vitebsk. “the to visit his describes Malevich 1919 December 19 of writer Mikhail Gershenson of the Russian-Jewish early Vitebsk period. In famous a letter and Malevich, Kasimir thecorrespondence between thefounder Suprematism,of from passage interesting an mind to brings church a and Lissitzky’s comparison of the Mogilev synagogue to a basilica Efros: Abram critic art Russian-Jewish famous the by described sense of the rediscovery of early Jewish art, so majestically Gothic a reflect basilicas, comparisons Such churches. Baroque or chapels, Roman to visits first his to comparable grandiose, and surprising really were synagogue Mogilev attempted to include Segal in his own family tree. his own times and later – even Marc Chagall paradoxically Halevi Segal of Slutsk. (Moscow, 2000),334–37. World) 1(Moscow, 1918):298. 1996), 273–74. Considering that Lissitzky’s memoirs on the Mogilev Mogilev the on memoirs Lissitzky’s that Considering beauty of the ancients, was wholly sustained by it. ItaliantheofRenaissance,art the whileunlikethe as just be, may it dissimilar however beauty, that upon feed will Jewry of art is created by the fledging what that feel we way same the exactly In depth.” the from retrieved “beauty on activity artistic our ardentlyas impassioned, likewiseand strivebase to the of vanguard the as much – efforts collecting historic truly the attentionwithwidespreadpublicdrawing finally is I.D.] – empire to Russian the in sites Jewish expeditions famous of organizer [the An-sky which to – art folk Jewish to responding are We the of impressions first his that mentions Lissitzky rinascimento Sobranie sochineniy Sobranie did to their statues. We are just Wejust are statues. their to did 37 The artist was fairly well known in Bramy Nieba (Collected Writings), vol. 3 vol. Writings), (Collected (Heaven’s Gates) (Warsaw, Evreyskiy mir (Jewish 38 39 nly otesnggea ueicroelt n non- and character incorporeality non-figural and non-objective pure The objectivity. as synagogue the to finally, heavenly,the and terrestrial the between mediator as and cathedral Catholic the to church, Orthodox “terrestrial” and blood” of “full the from important: is itself vision of dialectics the But sites. Vitebsk to reference precise any find cannot we spaces sacral of comparison metaphorical this In blood.” and body a lost having letters, the upon flew I synagogue a “In concentrated: is plants and life of variety entire the which in letters, sacral with space is filled completely non-present, Jewish only a place of reflection.” is “it movement, the in dissolved completely already is It synagogue. Jewish the to devoted is image brightest the discourse Malevich’s of stream complex the In it.” above passing is it and ground, the on more any stand not “does it however go.” spirit,” to leaving “the also place – church no Catholic contains “it Malevich, upon finality and is the legendary wild ox. On the northeastern side is a is side northeastern the On ox. wild legendary the is side, northwestern the on ceiling, the to wall the passage from the covers that board three-cornered the “On reminiscences: the from discourse typical a to proceed us Let other. each replace dynamically images bright and Condensed analysis. historical art purely a to synagogue of transformations,eventhefilm-montage. presents notastaticcompositionbutcontinuousstream visual new creates it effects. Thus, following Lissitzky’s vision, synagogue space hour new moving each – with circle, changes a in of dynamism this intensifies sun The imagination. and forms artistic of inexhaustibility the emphasizes bird Lissitzky a run. carries and fox fly figures teeth, its between the ground the the in on bird fish, a catches water the the flowers, of form in the in scattered stars are sky the description transfigurations: The poetical of top. full is the itself to murals registers of lower analysis the the from with proceeds afterwards and interior, the of composition spatial the with description Milgroim space. Jewish sacral the had in ideal paradoxically discovered its reflection avant-garde The vision. Suprematist the of of the synagogue space coincided with the non-objectivity We could hardly attribute the memory of the Mogilev Mogilev the of memory the We attribute hardly could Lissitzky’s El in on read us let perspective this From memoirs. As an architect, Lissitzky outlines his his outlines Lissitzky architect, an As memoirs. Ars Judaica 2007 13 was Shest’ povestey o “Shifs-karta” 45 Shest’ povestey o , like in his famous (Issues of Literature) 1 (2000): Shest’ povestey o legkikh kontsakh legkikh o povestey Shest’ ’s ’s point of view El Lissitzky was 5 (1999): 141. Voprosy literatury Voprosy memoirs could be considered as the (Six Tales with Easy Endings, fig. 15), Milgroim (The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio (Six Tales with Easy Endings) (Berlin, 1922), 102–22. (Six Tales Neobychainyie pokhozhdeniia Khulio Khurenito Эксперимент Milgroim El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky might be considered as an intermediate play 44 El Lissitzky’s illustration for Ilya Ehrenburg’s tale Thus, from Shest’ povestey o legkikh kontsakh legkikh kontsakh prohibited by Glavlit (Chief literary inspection). See Boris Frezinskyy, to Letters Ehrenburg’s (Ilya Polonskoy” Elizavete Erenburga Il’yi “Pis’ma Elizaveta Polonskaya), n. 65. Experiment/ 44 Ilya Ehrenburg, “Shifs-karta” (Boat Ticket), in idem, Ehrenburg’s of USSR the 45 into Import between these two facets of Lissitzky’s evolution – “Jewish” “Jewish” – evolution Lissitzky’s of facets two these between and “universal”? “Shifs-karta” (Boat Ticket), from his legkikh kontsakh published in Berlin by the émigré Gelikon publishinghouse, between his Jewish expressionism of the late 1910s and the new abstract and montage language of In the 1920s. Berlin novel i ego uchenikov Jurenito and His Disciples), EhrenburgRussian Revolutionary era in depictedpicturesque and anecdotal the tones, stressing its tragi-comic character. 40 “Memoirs Concerning the Mohilev Synagogue,” 234. Lissitzky, 41 Ibid. 42 El Lissitzky, “Preodolenie iskusstva” (The Overcoming43 “Memoirs Concerning the Mohilev Synagogue,” 234. Lissitzky, of Art), also attributes this immediacy of creativity to the historical historical the to creativity of immediacy this attributes also artist. The objective of Lissitzky’s essay is to reveal “the living dog” of historical perspective this from And art,creativity. modern with directly and this task correlates Lissitzky’s into creativity historical of incorporation the for paradigm process. artistic modernist Jewish actual the an almost ideal Jewish modernistaccumulated artist the whohistorical vividly correlates comprehension passé This expression. artistic modern and turned towards to the Kultur-Lige’s basic manifestation of authentically modern Jewish art ashistorical theinspiration with freecombination creativity. However, the ofquestion remains: In what way were culturalthe nostalgic poetics of Jewishness absorbed into Lissitzky’s Berlin avant-garde works, and was there a break, an “ontological” rupture Is it a 40 43 Suprematism, 42 Lissitzky’s vision is high-speeded is vision Lissitzky’s 41 This last paragraph calls for special commentary. the broadest distribution, and will infect the “art teachers,” who will begin to powder and thisstylize uniquely arranged face […]. This“vinaigrette” unstable will then be stirred up as a new art culture, but we would be better off without thisculture; it is unnecessary. And if, at present, when the technical means to repeat a performance are so available and printing presses work so thesequickly, artifacts will receive What did Lissitzky hope to find in the Mogilev very Berlin Dadaist idea expressing the anti-art attitude of of attitude anti-art the expressing idea Dadaist Berlin very the moment – is accepted by Lissitzky for a while. But he to face,” not through distanced reflection and stylization. “Today art is created by those who battle against it” – a know that when the dog dies, it becomes a lion.” Ancient art should be comprehended immediately, “face is doing is art. Only then does it remain as a monument against battle who those by created is art Today culture. of us, it.the To living dog is dearer than the dead lion. We And later on comes the most essential statement: “What one what that aware not is one when created is art called is unfurls before our eyescreativity. artistic thenew into germinating dynamic pictorial world, synagogue – the historical images of Jewish art or lively prototypes for new creativity? Lissitzky himself answered decoration synagogue ancient that explaining question, this motion, not only describes them in the futurist manner. motion, not only describes them in the have found ourselves inside a stream.” according to Lissitzky, is a specific stage in theand speed of essence the expresses it dynamism; and speed culture of as artistic strategy: “The economy of time has given birth to the machine. The machine showed us the speed. We clamber about in the sea of art history. I can only describe only can I history. art of sea the in about clamber observations”)? own my – the memories in general follow Lissitzky’s idea of speed consequent logical discourse on artor history, a montage of bright visual expressions (“Let the researches seek and wild goat; on the third plank, in the southeast,Leviathan; andis on thethe fourth plank, to the southwest,is an elephant with a saddle on its back […].” 14 Ars Judaica 2007 Igor Dukhan 48 A similar hand impress appears in the parody of the October Manifesto October the of parody the in appears impress hand similar A 48 Ibid.,102. 47 Ehrenburg, 46 introducing ironically imagery, somewhat Jewish popular montage-discourse. Ehrenburg’s to corresponding montage-image, a creates Ehrenburg’s of and impetus tale naïve-messianic the from illustration his In Berdichev. in era revolutionary the of events senseless stormy, of montage the to correlates tragicomically Moishe) disciple his to of the sense of revolutionary events by Rabbi Ele of Brody the promise of the Messiah’s coming (a vague explanation soon.” while. It should be well. a “Wait America: from letter son’s his in mentioned was the in faith romantic and naïve a preserves Revolution, the of events stormy the and pogroms despite – Igenson Hirsch – hero main its where Berdichev, of town Jewish revolutionary brings us to the turbulent atmosphere of the pre- and post- Gun], no 1 (1905). On its iconography, see John Bowlt, “Manipulating iconography,“Manipulating its Bowlt, On John (1905). see 1 no Gun], Tsar (from by 1905 issued October 30 on II Nicholas Pursuing Ilya Ehrenburg’s initiative, he plays with with plays he initiative, Ehrenburg’s Ilya Pursuing 46 This naïve faith in the in faith naïve This Shest’ povestey shifs-karta Fig. 15. ElLissitzky, cover for Ehrenburg, Ilya , 105. of Redemption. This This Redemption. of Shifs-karta shifs-karta will be delivered to you 47 Lissitzky proceeds proceeds Lissitzky of Redemption, of Pulemet shifs-karta Shest’ povestey olegkikhkontsakh [Machine [Machine

49 Dorothea Dietrich, Dietrich, Dorothea 49 intellectualize collage, combining the organic (photogram events. the to refer signals, and recallings of means by but message, clear other or political a present not do collages His texts.” explanatory unequivocally with images his of reading the guide he neither does nortitles, his in eventsthe referencesto clearmakes “Schwitters collages, his in Dorothea explains, As Dietrich events. of political to strategy allusion collage metaphoric Schwitters’ Kurt friend Hanover his to close is he illustration this In connotations. social creating David), of (Star a collage-image full David of meaning Magen and even traces framing of political- a and flag, American an America, to sailing ship a routes, sea York Hamburg–New and York–Hamburg New the of schedule hand tombstone initials for “here lies”). In the foreground is the open “ – the letters of Hebrew photogram The 16). (fig. of metaphors Jewish popular the Innovation 129–53. in Hand.” Crafted the and Lissitzky El Metaphors: (Cambridge,1993),108,112. (SixTales with EasyEndings),Berlin,1922 The Collages of Kurt Schwitters: Tradition and and Tradition Schwitters: Kurt of Collages The pe ” and “ and ” 49 Thus Lissitzky proceeded to to proceeded Lissitzky Thus nun ” (traditional Jewish Jewish (traditional ” shtetl and happiness happiness and Situating El Lissitzky El Situating 48 with two two with ,

Ars Judaica 2007 15

(Berlin, 1922), India ink 24.1 cm. Boris Collection and Lisa Aronson 24.1

x

Shest’ povestey o legkikh kontsakh However, it could be taken in another context, context, another in taken be could it However, El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky 52 El Lissitzky, illustration for Ilya Ehrenburg, “Shifs-karta” (Boat Ticket), Ticket), (Boat “Shifs-karta” Ehrenburg, Ilya for illustration Lissitzky, El It might appear strange and paradoxical to insert “Art Fig. 16. Fig. in Ilya Ehrenburg, 43.5 on paper, and collage and Pangeometry” into the methodological perspective of perspective into the methodological and Pangeometry” new Jewish art, for Lissitzky does not touch upon issues of theory. artistic of masterpiece this in identity artistic Jewish Meanwhile, to some extent “Art and Pangeometry” can be perceived as a framing concept of Jewish avant-garde already was Pangeometry” and “Art representation. of ideas read and interpreted as one artistic of the anti-perspectivist programmaticand non-Euclidean new regarding texts strategies. the 51 , 348–54, (Potsdam, Situating El Such und Experiment: (Dresden, 1978), 336–42 Europa-Almanach Problemy obraznogo myshlenia period, we find here the El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts , 353–58. The Russian text was translated was text Russian The 353–58. , Rossia-Frantsia: Problemy kul’tury pervyh in the 1920s he proceeded to shape 50 (Russia-France: Problems of Culture of the First Of SquaresTwo (Problems of Imagery Thinking and Design), ed. Galina , 153–77. El Lissitzky: Maler, Architekt Maler, Lissitzky: El Unlike his colleagues Boris Aronson, Issachar Ber desiatiletiy 20-go veka Decades of the 20th Century), ed. Iryna Danilova (Moscow,32–57; Leah Dickerman,1988), Camera“El Lissitzky’s Corpus,” in Lissitzky Demosfenova 1978), (Moscow, 62–76. I follow the English translation of “Art and Pangeometry” from correcting it where necessary in accordance with the German original. All references to the work are to this edition. the Idea of Pangeometry), in 1925), 103–13. Reprinted in Larissa Shadowa, Russische und sowjetische Kunst 1910 bis 1930 and from “Iskusstvo the i original German archival manuscript: El Lissitzky, pangeomrtria” (Art and Pangeometry), in i dizayn 52 Alexander Rappaport, “Lissitzky i ideya pangeometryy” (Lissitzky and 50 evreyskii stil’, avangard,” 313–41. Igor Dukhan, “El Lissitzky, 51 “Kunst und El Pangeometrie,”Lissitzky, in ontological feature of modern Jewish art. Jewish modern of feature ontological as an expression of infinity, andof otherabstraction, made profound slightly problematic issues andby RybackAronson in their manifestation of abstraction as the art history. findWe here a majestic conceptualof the possibilities synthesis of anti-figural abstract representation reflections of 1921–25, not onlyof artistic outlined strategies comparable to amathematics and the development of time and a but meta-narrative created sciences, natural his visual experiments. His brilliant survey of representation representation of survey brilliant His experiments. visual his strategies in modern art, “Art and Pangeometry,” culmination of his German–European experiences and his avant-garde artistic concepts, and to a certain extent his his extent certain a to and concepts, artistic avant-garde his than were of more consequence developments theoretical Even if essential remarks on Jewish art strategy might be discovered in his recollections of the eighteenth-century Mogilev synagogue, of modern Jewish art, nor did he play with the metaphors of “Jewish soul” and “Jewish artist” like Marc Chagall. indirect. manifestos promote not did Lissitzky El others, and Ryback, strategy of the next step in the montage game, more intellectual and impression of the hand, texts) and the artificial, tracing a metaphorical correspondence to Ehrenburg’s textuality and actual events. In comparison with the montage 16 Ars Judaica 2007 Igor Dukhan 6 The Wanderers 56 ( Rachel Vishnitzer, “Di 55 naye kunst un mir” (Modern Art and Our Jewish Experiment: and “Dream Dukhan, Igor and Marten-Finnis Susanne 54 yidisher der fun vegn “Di Aronson, Naum and Ryback Ber Issachar 53 Cubists Cézanne, – expression of modes modernistic new detail in described Aronson and Ryback their Further, in depth. Jewishness for express to both inability their and well, naturalism as fire critical Jewish under came themes illustrating artists Jewish Nineteenth-century Russian especially trends, naturalistic all criticized strongly also expression They identities. national artistic and between correlation and qualities pictorial pure of development the emphasizing Futurism, and Marinetti to art Persian and Egyptian ancient from representation artistic of modes analyzed Aronson and Ryback the to non-figurative. as art tradition modern of concepts classical basic of analysis typological the of the issue for first editorial Wischnitzer’s Rachel – Jewish Our Generation) and Art (Modern mir” un kunst naye “Di and maleray” yidisher Ryback der fun with vegn “Di Aronson’s and correlations structural interesting very mode of representation. abstract an of theory profound most the to manifestation Kultur-Lige’s early of enthusiasm naïve the from the turning and se, per abstraction as art Jewish of conception modernistic a of establishment the – context new this in developed was and expression, of form the Jewish being genuine abstraction and as creation art abstract Jewish originally of affirmation naïve and strong their with Aronson, Naum and Ryback Ber Issachar by Painting) Jewish of Ways (The maleray” yidisher der fun vegn “Di Kultur-Lige’s the from moved discourse This abstract. and anti-figurative essentially as art Jewish on discourse modernist Jewish the – discourse another of sub-species half of the nineteenth century characterized by critical realism, whose whose realism, critical by characterized century nineteenth the of half Generation), and Ptitsa Zhar Milgroym,” Magazines: Émigré Berlin 1920s in Style and Time 119–24. in Painting), Jewish of Ways (The maleray” Milgroim vna rtgac,“r n agoer”reveals Pangeometry” and “Art glance, first at Even . East EuropeanJewishAffairs 54 Milgroim Milgroim Let us consider “Art and Pangeometry” in in Pangeometry” and “Art consider us Let peredvizhniki 1(1922):2–7(Yiddish). . 55 All three articles proceed from from proceed articles three All ) – a movement in Russian art of the second 35,no.2(2005):225–45. Oyfgang peredvizhniki (Kiev, 1919), 1919), (Kiev, . 56 53

aesthetic withdeepJewishsensibility. non-imitational modernist of synthesis of paradigm a as put she and art sensibility, Jewish new of proscenium the Ryback on Ber Issachar Jewish of expression the for forms suitable most the be to Cubism and Expressionism considered She representation. pictorial pure of modes modernist new the to artists) Jewish among popular was not latter the that (emphasizing naturalism and forms the classical of critique trod the from passed also she Wischnitzer path: same etc.). color, surface, painting’s facture, picture,” the of (“architectonics forms abstract or pictorial purely new the in expressed was their how Jewishness explaining Chagall, Marc and Altman, Falk, Nathan Robert as such artists Jewish contemporary to proceed They form. abstract modern of epitome and synthesis the as role Picasso’s emphasizing Futurists, and 7 Ryback andAronson, “Divegn,”122–24. 57 two- plain considered He representation. space-and-time deliberate a to proceeded he terms, Heideggerian In science. and spatial of modes mathematicsinspace–time vision developmentsof the of basic parallels the brilliant the within art world in examined representation critically At he space. first irrational re- and space abstraction to classical of presentations typology the from structurally for thewholeofWestern art. example new a produce perception naïve and passionate and freshness ecstatic their with artists, Jewish young the Abstraction is the national form of expression. In this way sensitivity. non-imitational Jewish cultural basic the to correlating se, per art abstract an is art Jewish new the fun der yidisher maleray.” Ryback and Aronson stress that o h rttm usa ieadntr nalo t aspects. its of all in nature and life Russian time for thefirst everyday life as it was and became marvellous painting on insisted They order. social prevailing the of injustices the expose to wanted that intelligentsia Russian the by movement the of to part a became painters artists These themes. Roman and Greek ancient paint forced that art classical of to opposed as umbrella life, real in the saw they under what paint could from they that so Arts out of Academy Imperial move Russian the to artists Russian first the were artists dominated Russian art for more than thirty years. The Wanderers The most staggering case is the conclusion of “Di vegn Lissitzky’s “Art and Pangeometry” also proceeded proceeded also Pangeometry” and “Art Lissitzky’s destruction of the ontology of European artistic artistic European of ontology the of 57 plein air painters depicting Ars Judaica 2007 17 Lissitzky Lissitzky 61 , 70. The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Geometry Non-Euclidean and Dimension Fourth The Situating El Lissitzky (Princeton 1983), 294–97. El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky If If in the in especially Russian avant-garde, the art and Modern Art Proun Room,” in 58 354–55. “Art and Pangeometry,” Lissitzky, 59 Ibid., 350. 60 Henderson, Linda 61 Eva Forgacs, “Definitive Space: The Many Utopias of El Lissitzky’s know I am a rationalist, but there are moments when I get scared of ‘ratio.’ It has a grip on me just like electric power as long as it needs me, but then it just lets Oud in 1924). go of me,” he in wrote a to letter J.J.P. – one of dimension” the key the “fourth mentioned rarely rational the joining theory, avant-garde Russian in phrases and the mystical: over-sensationcorrelating to non-Euclidianof space and spacerelativity ideas – and time, experiences. space-time human enlarge which dimensions It is also noteworthy that in avant-gardethis aspectapproach towardsthe Russianthe “fourth dimension”differed from the previous French inherited.Cubist For the Russian avant-garde,attitudes the same idea of it the “fourth dimension” lay primordially in the domain of spiritual over-sensitivity: “the development of the ability first the only was once at sides all from objects visualize to step toward the desired ‘higher consciousness.’ And this higher consciousness with its ‘fourth unit of psychic life’ man’s before to be attained have would intuition) (higher perception could increase to include a ‘fourth dimension’ ideas. Lissitzky’s training as an architect was accompanied accompanied was architect an as training Lissitzky’s ideas. by the study of mathematics and scientific subjects thatenabled him to understand the theory in oftrained relativity architects and artists and than better geometries new art academies. New scientific ideas gave him inspiration. His approach to multidimensional spaces and critique of of the classical systems representation bore the features of and Russian both from differed and originality conceptual modes.German-Dutch avant-garde theory of Kasimir Malevich, the “fourth dimension” was mystified, even and Lissitzkyspiritualized highly developed a “scientific” approach which heinto transcendental gradually transformed vision. Thisequilibrium lively between the rational and and the irrationaldynamic was permanent his in rooted vision, Lissitzky’s of characteristic removal from rational to irrational and vice versa (“You ) as the The crucial The 58 = infinity of the by Kasimir Malevich. Zero ) in the experiments of ) as the association to planimetrischer Raum This desirable artistic irrational artistic desirable This 59 Black Square introduces the irrationaler Raum However, from “Art and Pangeometry” it 60 perspektivischer Raum Black Square Artistic interest in the theory of relativity and non- Lissitzky discovers attempts to construct the new deeply and clearly than other Russian and European avant- European and Russian other than clearly and deeply garde artists who were involved in discussions of these and worked. more theories new these understood Lissitzky that appears reasonably mentioned that Lissitzky’s approach to relativity to approach Lissitzky’s that mentioned reasonably was inspired by Theo van Doesburg and the intellectual climate of Berlin – Einstein’s city, where Lissitzky lived Euclidian geometries was not unusual in 1900–1930. In her comprehensive study of the impact of non-Euclidean geometry and relativity on modern art, Linda Henderson non-Euclidean geometries. and Pangeometry,” considering the relationships between and Pangeometry,” art, time, gravity, and relativity, was based on Lissitzky’s essential understanding of the theory of relativity and non-material materiality,” non-materialhe pushes materiality,” two factors onto the proscenium of artistic creation: gravity and time. “Art theoretically this new type of artistic space, which should be characterized by the visualization of the invisible and new space-time combinations. In order to approach “the space had to become an ontological destruction of space finitude and tectonics. Lissitzky makes an effort to portray the “invention” of the This dimension. space artistic irrational space ( Futurists. Italian and Cubists, Impressionists, was space imaginary irrational of formation the in moment cultural marginality. cultural to respond to irrational numbers and spaces, new imaginary imaginary new spaces, and numbers irrational to respond to geometries, and space-time relativity. Contemporary art, Lissitzky stressed, should do this in the endeavor to avoid development of the imaginary geometrical topologies left able been not had Art space. of concepts artistic the behind space, However, progression. geometrical and numbers fractional the invention of the system of irrational numbers and the arithmetic progression, and the system of perspective three-dimensional representation in depth (perspective dimensional rhythmical order of pictorial forms at thesurface (planimetrical space, of system and numbers of system natural the to correlation 18 Ars Judaica 2007 Igor Dukhan 0 On El70 Lissitzky’s photomontage works in relation Panofsky,to “DiePerspective,”n.75. “Art69 and Pangeometry,” Damisch, Hubert 68 Henderson, 67 66 Henderson, 65 Pavel Florensky, “Obratnaya 64 perspektiva” (The Reverse Perspective), in Ouspensky, Peter 63 Henderson, 62 and transcendence of ideas Henderson the that Linda reason with noted profundity. and consistency more space-time on much reveals theory Lissitzky’s Meanwhile, architecture. considerations Doesburg’s van Theo others) and Taut, to Bruno Scheerbart, closer (Paul thinking was he theosophical German dimension” “fourth the his to In approach traditions. Cubist French earlier the and garde a spiritual medium. been created.” have to was dimensionality higher a of image an Jouffret, by drawing geometrical a of manner the in synthesized were views multiple these When portrayed. be to object the around moving by space’ ‘motor creating and dictum Poincaré’s following of matter a was “it purposes, artistic French Cubists who discovered the “fourth dimension” for spaces). of geometric study multidimensional the of to ideas new contributing essentially (while media dominanceof spiritual vision over technical mathematical the emphasized Age, Silver the of theologian Orthodox study of “perspective in reverse” Pavel Florensky,human of the perception. Russian extension the towards approaches spiritual Eastern emphasized he contrary, the on Riemann; Georg it as non-Euclidean geometries by Nikolay Lobachevsky of and aspects scientific such neglected completely almost Ouspensky, Peter dimension,” “fourth the of philosopher space.” of see Dickerman,“ElLissitzky’s CameraCorpus,” 153–77. der BibliothekWarburg, 1924–1925 in Form,” “symbolische als Perspective “Die Panofsky, Erwin City,” 566–69. Taut Bruno by Architecture Alpine and Scheerbart Paul by Architecture Glass idem, Organum: TheKeytotheWorld’s Mysteries)(StPetersburg,1911). Lissitzky turned away from both the Russian avant- Russian the both from away turned Lissitzky , ed. Dennis Sharp (New York, 1972); Doukhan, “Beyond the Holy Ikonostas 62 I i raie h otifleta Russian influential most the treatise, his In 63 Fourth Dimension Fourth Dimension Fourth Dimension In a similar manner, in his comprehensive comprehensive his in manner, similar a In 65 (StPetersburg,1993),175–83. For Russian artists and thinkers it became The Origin of Perspective of Origin The Tertium Organum: Kliuch k zagadkam mira zagadkam k Kliuch Organum: Tertium 66 as well as the Dutch De Stijl and and Stijl De Dutch the as well as , 295. , 268. , 268. (LeipzigandBerlin,1927),126. (Cambridge, 1995), 26. See See 26. 1995), (Cambridge, (Tertium (Tertium Vorträge Vorträge 64 For For presentation focused on the problem of classical perspective. forward”). and depth in extent earthly tectonics (“infinite andgravity illusionistperspectivalfromorganization, free attemptthemodelartisticto space notlimited thebyany inhis graphic Proun works of 1919–1920s we could see an Architecture) to Painting In totality. imaginary new Lissitzky 1920s early the for draft a as work artistic construct to attempts made the in Already thinking. his of that joined the rational to the irrational was characteristic ” dimension.’ ‘fourth the of view pragmatic more “the was it that her with agree completely Wecannot world. new a to material the from transcendence of step a as reverse” in “perspective of study comprehensive his in Proun of concept his in discovered be can dimension” “fourth the t ufiletLsizycle o h esai gr of figure messianic the Malevich: for called Lissitzky fulfillment its experiments. photo and Prouns Lissitzky’s El in constructed artistically than portrayed metaphysically representative of another, anti-classical paradigm. “Artand Pangeometry,” published two years earlier, as the Lissitzky’s to reference detailed a made meanwhile who Panofsky, Erwin by years those in revealed was system symbolic a as perspective classical of understanding This space.” prosaic of disruption a as viewer the to tangible taking place within the soul of the depicted person, is made as understood in its most exalted sense, and which, though the representaion of religious “vision” – “that of the ‘vision’ of method the constructing only space, not or the was code – it was perspective a symbolic systemclassical for that stressed be should it El perspective of of criticism context Lissitzky’s hidden the understand to order in that mention shall and here details Wefurther into go cannot 67 Lissitzky’s idea of Proun as the step of transcendence transcendence of step the as Proun of idea Lissitzky’s Lissitzky’s criticism of the previous modes of re- of modes previous the of criticism Lissitzky’s etr htte0wsfis eadda number, a as regarded first was 0 the that century sixteenth the until not was it but 0, the used long notation, which is called the positional system, has arithmetical Our Art. of “set” the in expansion of manifestation first the was 1913), (Petersburg, The establishing of the square, by Kasimir Malevich more was space imaginary infinite desirable The written in Vitebsk in 1920, and and 1920, in Vitebsk in written Thesis on the PROUN (From (From PROUN the on Thesis 69 70 For For 68

Ars Judaica 2007 19

(Russian provided 77 Messianic Mystics Sobranie sochineniy 79 (1919) (Suprematism: A Those who survived these 76 (Berlin, 1914). Suprematizm: Katalog desiatoy gosudarstvennoy vystavki gosudarstvennoy desiatoy Katalog Suprematizm: Glasarchitektur Russkaya eskhatologia i russkaya literatura This Russian-German messianic context 78 El Lissitzky – Jewish as Universal: From Jewish Style to Pangeometry Style Jewish From as Universal: – Jewish El Lissitzky The year of the October Bolshevik Revolution 75 Eschatology and Russian Literature) (Moscow, 2000), 15 and elsewhere. and 15 2000), (Moscow, Literature) Russian and Eschatology mysticism in twentieth-century culture, Moshe Idel, (New Haven, 1998). “Bespredmetnoye tvorchestvo i suprematizm” Catalogue of the 10th State Exhibition “Non-Objectiveand SuprematismCreativity [1919]), in Kasimir Malevich, 1995), 151. vol. 1 (Moscow, (Collected Writings), above). 76 Ibid., 18–19. 77 Paul Scheerbart, 78 Doukhan, “Beyond the Holy City.” 79 We follow Moshe Idel’s methodology of interpretation of Jewish interpreting the post-Revolutionary times. i.e., the Third Communist Covenant, gradually order. transforming Suprematist new intothe the i.e., Covenant, Fourth the next, Earlier, Paul Scheerbart’s utopia of “Glass Architecture” covering the Earth (the Glass Apocalypse) shapes for the avant-garde relyingapocalyptic on the spatialimagination language of transparency.weightlessness and is essential for understanding El Lissitzky’s perception of considerably perspective, other the from was, which time, close to the context of Jewish messianism. 71 354. “Art and Pangeometry,” Lissitzky, 72 Malevich, Kasimir 73 352. “Art and Pangeometry,” Lissitzky, 74 See his statement made in “Suprematism zhiznestroitel’stva” (n. 19 75 Leonid Katzis, thinking of the pre- and post-revolutionary era. In this perspective of the apocalyptic vision the Old Testament had been succeeded approaching. as “seen” was by Fourth thethe even Newand Covenants, and then the Third The Russian Silver Age author Rozanov Vassily declared this apocalyptic vision in the strongest terms: the era of the Old (first) Testament had ended with theof Jesus appearance (non-realized Apocalypse); the era of the New has failed (Judaeo-Christian Apocalypse), and Testament after this the Era (Covenant) of the Holy Spirit would spread. 1917 – was perceived as the date of the Apocalypse and the Lord’s Day of Judgment. after activity their continued and times apocalyptic stormy the Revolution – Futurists and others – saw themselves as living in the new Era of the New (Third) Covenant. as already mentioned,El hadLissitzky, gone even further, 71 Meanwhile, the “0” itself was consistently 72 Such inspirations should be considered in the the in considered be should inspirations Such 73 ”

as a veiled assertion that he saw himself as living in 74 The intensive and ambiguous anticipations of the Messianic inspiration could already be discerned in as a numerical reality, and no longer twentieth the in asnow only nothingis It Taraglia). (Cardano, century the [Square] is being acknowledged as a the complex bodyplastic value, as 0 in of Art. Khlebnikov called it) and the resultingcharacteristic new era were of Russian (and German) avant-garde forthcoming “turn of the time axis” (as poet Velemir compression of time approaching the forthcoming and new new and forthcoming the approaching time of compression for the apocalyptic was innovative Covenant Suprematist avant-garde. Russian the of vision of time” indicates that the time scale has been condensed, condensed, been has scale time the that indicates time” of that even the era of the third – Communist – Testament This end. its to coming is Revolution) Bolshevik the (after the new era as being equivalent to five to equivalent hundred being as years era new the of the significant. especially is – Thisperiod previous “proportion eras (Bolshevik Apocalypse the of storms the after era new the five – time about remark His 1917). of yearsRevolution of context of Lissitzky’s understanding of time reckoning from from reckoning time of understanding Lissitzky’s of context Suprematist and Communist the to era Testament Old the Germany for example, George Grosz reproaches himself only only himself reproaches Grosz George example, for Germany art so-called the took ever we that was fault only ‘Our once: seriously.’ on its altar’ (Malevich, 1915) […]. Now after five after years Now […]. (five 1915) (Malevich, altar’ its on centuries in accordance with the old time reckoning) in the firstthe statement And ofdestroyed. was “Artrubbish old andof lot a Pangeometry”: 1918–1921 of “During period the ‘spat and throne sacred its off art dragged also we Russia in construction of new art beyond “0” artistic and messianic inspiration. brought together an “apocalyptical number” in the contextmessianic of intentionsRussian of the revolutionary era, so the broke off the blue lampshade of color limits, I came into the white, follow me, aviators, flow to theand so forth. abyss […]”), of intensive qualities of non-objectivity, based ideaon the of zero (exhibition “0,10”), infinity of white (“I This remark correlates with Malevich’s earlier writings on non-objectivity as infinity. LissitzkyMalevich’s definition proceeds of from Suprematism as the expression 20 Ars Judaica 2007 Igor Dukhan 81 The messianic topics in the Dura Europos frescoes and in ancient and and ancient in and frescoes Europos Dura the in topics messianic The 81 Revel-Neher, Elisabeth 80 and visualization specific his and understandable, Pangeometry” and “Art in makes time of latter montage The Lissitzky’s mentality. waves the messianic by Jewish washed the of was era revolutionary the Russian of thinking apocalyptical the that mention to just essential is it case, Lissitzky’s In later. and Ages Middle the of art the in “temporality” messianic Jewish of feature Goldberg) A. (to Sylvie time of quote axis the with playing the and non-Jewish, external and time Jewish messianic inner – of “times” two combination the discern already can we pavements art. Jewish later and centuries, sixth the to third the in Israel of Land the in pavements mosaic synagogues ancient of programs the in seen be can time of concept This art. Hellenistic in temporality of Revelation and Redemption unprecedented the utopian a shaped Europos, Dura of matter subject promises, central God’s of fulfillment the towards tendency strong A project. time utopian Jewish ancient an – time of horizons other over future messianic forthcoming the frescoes century third the as a considered be characteristic might mode of Jewish artistic expression. present the over future the of hope for the forthcoming Redemption and the dominance (Chicago, 1948). Incidentally, her attitudes towards messianic messianic towards exposed already were manuscripts attitudes illuminated her Jewish in inspirations Incidentally, 1948). (Chicago, 1935); 1940s: and 1930s the in writings Wischnitzer’s Rachel in outlined were art Jewish medieval and ChristianArt Kessler, L. Herbert and Weitzmann siècles dixième au second du chrétien et juif l’art dans In the historical context of Jewish messianic ideas, the 81 The Messianic Theme in the Paintings of the Dura Synagogue Dura the of Paintings the in Theme Messianic The was marked by the pronounced dominance of of dominance pronounced the by marked was (Washington, 1990). 82 Meanwhile, in the programs of mosaic mosaic of programs the in Meanwhile, Symbole und Gestalten der Jüdischen Kunst Jüdischen der Gestalten und Symbole CE Le signe de la rencontre: L’Arche d’Alliance d’Alliance L’Arche rencontre: la de signe Le , the program of the Dura Europos Europos Dura the of program the , 83 The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue Synagogue Dura the of Frescoes The became a characteristic characteristic a became (Paris, 1984); Kurt Kurt 1984); (Paris, 80 As early (Berlin, (Berlin,

83 Sylvie Anne Goldberg, Goldberg, Anne Sylvie 83 n o-grtv vni istk i o ee oany to refer not did Jewish aspectin“ArtandPangeometry.” Lissitzky if even – non-figurative and abstract – art Jewish modern “authentic” towards search modernist Jewish the shaping in emphasis intellectual an became that imaginary, the and as visualization of infinity this manner, El Lissitzky shaped the synthetic vision of art in Proceeding codes. mimetic visual European classical of expression pre-existing the to opposed an intentionality cultural Jewish abstraction, of experience the as Jewish art new of Issachar and manifestation essentially Aronson declarative – Ryback’s Boris Ber strengthened conversion and clarified time-space and infinity an historical and technical media in an endeavor to represent Pangeometry” – that contemporary art should transcend its and “Art in time and space artistic European of ontology sensibility of the future’s domination over “here and now.” 82 Zeev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, Netzer, Ehud and Weiss Zeev 82 finito avant-garde genuine a was avant-gardes, Russian and German, Jewish, the of artist-mediator an Lissitzky, El diversity. Lissitzky avant-garde within game nomadic a played style-paradigms, own their creating Malevich, vision, If artistic their avant-gardes. elaborated Tatlinconsequently or Chagall, European and Jewish, Russian, of strategies diverse of synthesis a for quest its le judaïsme Historical Contexts Synagogue: Deciphering an Ancient Message in Its Archaeological and Socio- Sepphoris from Mosaic Samson SlayingtheLion),ibid.5(1923):1–4(bothinYiddish). and (David kunst” yidisher der in leyb-batsvinger “Der 2–7; (1923): 4 Ornamentation), Book in Porch the of Motive (The kunst” to contributions earlier her in The consequence of El Lissitzky’s Lissitzky’s El of consequence The Lissitzky’s artistic route was profoundly marked by by marked profoundly was route artistic Lissitzky’s . (Paris,2000). (Jerusalem,2005). (Jerusalem, 1996); Zeev Weiss, Weiss, Zeev 1996); (Jerusalem, La Clepsydre: Essai sur la pluralité des temps dans dans temps des pluralité la sur Essai Clepsydre: La Milgroim Promise and Redemption: A Synagogue Synagogue A Redemption: and Promise : “Der toyer-motiv in der bukh- der in toyer-motiv “Der : destruction The Sepphoris Sepphoris The of the the of Milgroim non-