Art of the Commune Politicsand Art in SovietJournals, 1917-20

Christina Lodder

n October1917 the BolshevikParty overthrew the Provi- Socialist Revolutionaries' Znamia truda [The banner of sional Governmentof , established in February, work],all of which concentratedon political and ideological and replaced it with a Councilof People'sCommissars questions. When aesthetic matters were broached, Gorkii committedto destroyingcapitalism and the bourgeoisieand emphasizedthe didactic role of art and promotedmore tradi- to establishingthe dictatorshipof the proletariat,as a prelude tional values, while artistic innovatorssuch as Vladimir to the ultimate creation of a fully socialist society. The Tatlin and KazimirMalevich were published in Anarkhiia, previouslyexiled radical political oppositionhad become the suggesting that therewere links betweenthe avant-gardeand ruling establishment.Issues of modernart and society were the short-livedanarchist movementafter the Revolution. 24 suddenlyno longer hypotheticaland "utopian."They had to One political body whose chief role was cultural was be confronted. Hence, amongst the organs of power in the Proletkult, or the independentproletarian cultural and edu- new governmentwas the Commissariatfor Enlightenment cational organizations(Proletarskie kulturno-prosvetitelnye (Narodnyikomissariat po prosvesheniiu-Narkompros),re- organizatsii),which were set up at the instigationof Alek- sponsible for educationand culture, with a separateDepart- sandr Bogdanovin November1917 in Petrograd,and rapidly ment of Fine Arts (Otdel IzobrazitelnykhIskusstv-IZO). spread throughoutRussia, attracting400,000 membersby The profoundpolitical and social changes posed real ques- 1920. Independentof the Party and the Government,Pro- tions for artists and their associates. Whatwas revolutionary letkult was specifically organizedto create "socialistforms of art? What relationshipshould exist between art and the new thought, feeling and daily life,"2 and a culture that would state, between art and the Bolshevikparty? Was avant-garde reflect the values and aspirationsof the proletariat.It pro- art inherently "bourgeois"in fact, or did it represent the motedworking-class education and the emergenceof a prole- emergenceof an alternativeand potentially"revolutionary" tarianintelligentsia, arrangingclasses foradults, organizing outlook?Could proletarianart itself be created only by au- schools, studios, clubs, and theaters, and publishing nu- thentic workers,or could it also be producedby artists who merousjournals such as Gorn[The furnace](, 1918- embraced a proletarianworld view? Debates on these com- 22), Proletarskaia kultura [Proletarianculture] (Moscow, plex issues foundexpression in diversejournals published in 1918-21), and Griadushchee[The future] (Petrograd,1918- the territoryof the formerTsarist empire. 21). None of these magazines was profuselyillustrated, al- The two most important publications promotingthe thoughtheir covers often carried images producedby mem- ideological position of the Communistparty and the govern- bers of the Proletkultor worksof art of an agitationalnature, ment were obviously the newspapersIzvestiia [News], pub- some of which possessed a slightly folk-artflavor. The jour- lished by the SupremeSoviet, and Pravda[Truth], issued by nals tendedto presenta rudimentaryand essentially unified the CentralCommittee of the Party. Both publicized impor- concept of illustrative art, based on Bogdanov'sMarxist tant governmentmeasures relating to artistic questions, such theory, according to which the cultural struggle was as as the decrees nationalizing private art collections and importantas the political and economicfight forthe achieve- Lenin'sPlan for MonumentalPropaganda, and a handful of ment of socialism: statements on art, particularly the importance of art for Artorganizes the living images of social experiencenot only in propagandaand agitation. Naturally, the amount of space the sphereof cognition, but also in the sphereof emotionsand devoted to artistic questions was severely limited, because aspirations. The consequenceof this is that it is the most the government'sprime concernfrom 1918 to early 1921 was powerfulweapon in the organizationof the collective'sforces in to consolidatethe Revolutionand successfully fight the Civil class society-of class power.3 War. After the decree of November9, 1917, banning the "counter-revolutionarypress,"'. only political publications As ValerianPolianskii emphasized in Griadushchee:"In the that recognized the governmentwere permitted. These in- days of Octoberwe defeatedcapitalist powerand took it into cluded newspapers such as Maksim Gorkii'sNovaia zhizn our ownhands; nowwe are going towardsa new, moremighty [New life], the anarchists' Anarkhiia [Anarchy], and the and majestic victory-towards the victory over bourgeois

SPRING 1993 '61-

Wom --maw culture."4Most Proletkulttheoreticians argued that the new aV;n culture could only be created by workersand thatthe new art would be realistic. Typically, Pavel Bezalko declared: "We proceed fromthe positionthat the workersthemselves create proletarianculture, and not the intelligentsiawho by chance, or notby chance, have arrivedat the ideas of the proletariat."5 Like the majorityof Proletkultcritics, Bezalko attackedthe so-called "Futurists," artists who had rejected academic realism and who had experimentedwith and ab- I'i~I'MIE A09W 25 straction. He condemnedthem for essentially "bour- AIN- being n- geois artists" who were unsuitable role models for the proletariat.6 Less doctrinaire were the journals published by the new local-governmentauthorities, all firmly allied with the Bolsheviks. Plamia [The flame] (1918-20), conceived as a "generallyaccessible scientific, literary, and artistic illus- trated journal,"' was issued by the Petrograd Soviet of FIG. K. Plamia no. 56 Workersand Red Army Deputies from 1918 to 1920. Its 1 Dydyshko,Revolution, [Flame], (June1919): 7. official nature was emphasized by the fact that Anatolii Lunacharskii,the Commissarfor Enlightenment, was its first paintings. As befitted a journal edited by the head of editor and an active contributorduring its initial year of Narkompros,a relativelylarge amountof space was assigned publication. Directed at a popularworking-class audience, to the discussion and illustration of specific government Plamia was primarilydidactic, and concentratedon dissem- artistic measures such as Lenin'sPlan for MonumentalPro- inating informationrather than on participatingdirectly in paganda. Between September 1918 and September 1919, the cultural debates of the time. It devotedfar morespace to Plamia published photographsof more than twenty monu- recent political history, importantsocialist figures, general ments, several featuredon the covers;for example, Grizelli's knowledge, and literaturethan to the visual arts. Neverthe- monumentto FrangoisBabeuf in Petrogradand ViktorSin- less, there were several illustrated articles celebrating im- aiskii's projectfor a Monumentto the GreatRussian Revolu- portantindividual artists such as Leonardoda Vinci, Fran- tion. The journal also illustrated new designs for postage cisco Goya, Auguste Rodin, and Vincentvan Goghas well as stamps and an official stamp for Sovnarkom,the Soviet of morepolitically directed pieces on subjects such as Gustave People'sCommissars, or the SupremeSoviet. In addition,the Courbet'sactivities during the 1871 Communeand covers reproducedphotographs of prominentsocialists, both Oscar Wilde'sinvolvement with Socialism. In addition,there past and present. Lenin, forinstance, graced the coverof the was a long series of articles written by Lev Pumpianskii first issue. Otherwise,Plamia was illustratedby contempo- dealing with art-historicalproblems-for example, the rela- raryartists such as Ivan Puni and NatanAltman, or featured tionship between primitive painting and , the an item of propagandasuch as a posteror monument(fig. 1). natureof agitationalart, and howthe workingclass had been Overall, the journalpresented an artistic image that was not depicted in the visual arts before the Revolution.Individual particularlypartisan. ReflectingLunacharskii's own tolerant issues were often devoted to particularthemes, such as the attitudes, it was sympatheticto avant-gardeexperimentation anniversary of the Revolution or May Day, when articles as well as to moretraditional formal approaches. At the same about the celebrations were accompanied by documentary time, it clearly insisted, in accordancewith Partydirectives, photographsas well as reproductionsof various items of that "theproletariat must be equippedwith a generalhuman- agitationalart including decorations, posters, and relevant ist culture."8

ARTJOURNAL ::::r:ii-:;i~:~'::::::::::::::L:::::ii:::_::~i::::i::::::::::4W:::::i :l:iil :::i:_ ::::::::-?-~:i~--i~~-?~ii-li~~~i~i.ci-~:i::::::':::::'-::::::;::::: :::d::::m ninm,::21:::m

1,7/

A:a ~ il

::::::,r'4/7 ::I::::y

<#' ~ i~ii::::: ii:i?is-

26

FIG. 2 ,Suprematist Painting,1916, reproducedin Irobrazitelnoe iskusstvo[Fine art], no. 1 (1919):29.

The equivalent of Plamia in Moscowwas Tvorchestvo panied by a catholic selectionof illustrationsof worksby such [Creation], "a journal of literature, art, science and life,"'9 artists as Pieter Bruegel, Van Gogh, EdouardManet, Jules published by the MoscowSoviet of Workersand Red Army Bastien-Lepage, Jean-FrangoisMillet, AndersZorn, Kaithe Deputies from 1919 to 1922. Directed at a similar audience, Kollwitz, and George Grosz. Anotherfrequent contributor and with similar aims, its coverage of the visual arts was was the art historian Aleksei Sidorov,who was consistently again less extensive than its treatmentof literature.Its sym- critical of the avant-gardein his reviews of the latest artistic pathies seemed to be with the view expressed by one critic theories, exhibitions, and publications. He was clearly far who asked: "Andisn't it a rewardingtask to depict in images more comfortable writing about the artistic treasures of and paintings all the momentsof that strugglefrom February Moscowand recent acquisitionsof the TretiakovGallery. In to Octoberand from Octoberto today?"'0The literarycom- one article, he surveyed the art of the previoustwo years, mentatorFriche, a member of the editorial board and an including the Civil War posters, the statues producedfor active proponentof realism, wrote several articles on the Lenin'sPlan of MonumentalPropaganda, and the streetdeco- history of art that discussed such issues as the depictionof rationsfor the revolutionaryfestivals. He emphasizedthat the the proletariator the countrysidein art; these were accom- Red Army soldiers liked the posters of AleksandrApsit and

SPRING 1993 Dmitrii Moor,and that the Futurists'decorations were less successful than those of more moderateartists such as the C6zannistIlia Mashkov.Indeed, the journal celebratedart- dM PM ists such as Rodin alongside writers such as Gorkii and contemporaryartists such as Leonid Pasternak,Sergei Ger- asimov, and Mstislav Dobuzhinskii. The selection demon- strated a tolerance for some degree of experimentation,but also a clear preference for a more representationalstyle. During 1920, therewas morecoverage of the Proletkult,with the publicationof articles by AleksandrBogdanov and other Proletkult spokesmen, accompanied by increasingly overt criticism of the radical position of IZO." Narkomprositself publisheda large numberof journals coveringeducational and artistic issues. Khudozhestvennaia zhizn [Artistic life], which first appearedin December1919, was "the organof the Artistic Section of Narkompros,"12and coveredmost of its departments,including those dealing with Museums, Preservationof Monuments,Architecture, Fine Arts (IZO),Theater (TEO), and Music (MUZO).Although it 27 was edited by a board which included the progressive art FIG. 3 SergeiChekhonin, design for an officialstamp, reproduced in Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo, critic Abram Efros and the radical theoreticianOsip Brik, no. 1 (1919):63. the journal's coverage of the theory and practice of the fine arts was fairly limited. Wassily Kandinskywrote on projects of the workingclass," or "proletarianart," but it was also to create a new type of museum, a Museumof the Cultureof paradoxically"classless art." Moreover,the editors insisted Painting, to enshrinethe avant-garde'saspiration to establish that "this art shouldbe as free fromthe past and hate the past an objective basis for art, and on the organizationof an as much as the working class hates it."16Such a position international"house of arts"as part of the generalfostering of allowed the rejection of past art to be seen as politically internationalcontacts. Lunacharskiiand Efros also wrote progressiveand established a stronglink (in theoryat least) about internationalcontacts, German , and between "theart of the future"and the aesthetic developedby exhibitions in Germany.13 the most progressiveRussian artists in the prerevolutionary Far morefocused on problemsconcerning the contem- period, who similarly rejected academic art. poraryvisual arts in Russia and directed at a more profes- Not surprisingly,the editors of Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo sional audience were the three journals produced by IZO emphasized that the future art should be professional,and during this period: Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo [Fine art] (Pe- thereforeshould have assimilated artistic culture as defined trograd, one issue, 1919), Iskusstvo[Art] (Moscow, eight by recent theory based on the achievements of Cubism, issues, January-September1919), and Iskusstvokommuny , and abstract art. The journal intended "to show, [Artof the commune](Petrograd, nineteen issues, December althoughin the mostgeneral outlines," current artistic devel- 1918-April 1919). Of the three, Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo was opments,because "onlyin whatis surroundingus nowcan we the most substantial and luxurious publication, printed on find the path to the future.""7Kandinsky examined the high-quality paper and lavishly illustrated, the cover being relationshipbetween artists and the stage; Malevichrumi- printed in color (pl. 2, p.10). Although its one and only issue nated on the problemof a museum for contemporaryart and appearedin 1919, the editorialwas writtenin May1918, over the relationshipbetween contemporarypoetry and art; Osip six months before Iskusstvokommuny even started produc- Brik and Nikolai Punin argued for the collective quality of tion. Conceived only a few monthsafter IZO itself had been proletarianart. The bulk of the journal, however,was devoted set up, and just after Vladimir Maiakovskiihad complained to a report written by David Shterenberg,head of IZO, in that the arts were continuingas if nothinghad happened,the April 1919. The report covered the history, activities, and journalreflected a theoreticalbasis that was, in the wordsof resolutionsof variousbodies within IZO;this was followedby one critic, "distinguished by its astonishing simplicity."'14 specific declarations concerning museums and art educa- The editors proceeded from the premise that "undoubtedly tion. Suprematistpaintings by Malevich(fig. 2) and Olga socialist society will have its own wayof life, its own science, Rozanova and abstract counter-reliefs by Tatlin, Petr and its own art;and, of course, this science and art will differ Miturich, and Lev Bruni were reproducedalongside works not only in their aims but also in their methods and tech- that responded far more directly to contemporaryrequire- niques from everything that has been done in these areas ments:designs forofficial stamps (fig. 3), currency,and new before."'"This completelynew "artof the future"was "theart insignia by Altman, Sergei Chekhonin, and Puni; projects

ARTJOURNAL W-44,,

for statues created for the Plan of MonumentalPropaganda (fig. 4);18 and drawingsby workersproduced in the local art ,, 4,mm schools (fig. 5). ,x44 subtitled "TheBulletin of the .4.. ..4...... 4. 4 Iskusstvo, Departmentof 28 Fine Arts of the Commissariatfor Enlightenment,"declared its aim to be that of "Informingthe broad mass of the population about the activities of the Departmentof Fine Arts" and "about artistic life as a whole and in all its manifestations."''19It entreated its readers to participate by sending articles and photographsof their work.The publica- lx,4 tion appeared sporadically: after the first four issues in and On. ,4~ January February,only four more were published be- tween March and September1919. The first four numbers "Ell 4,4, 44~4444 carried Kandinsky'sdesign for the title (fig. 6), and the columns of text were interspersedwith his vignettes. Subse- ' 4 44 4 4 ' 4 44 4 4 4 , iM4 quent issues, however,were smaller and less visually excit- ing, employinga plain, businesslike typographyand a more cramped layout. Once again, an importantelement of the journal was a chronicle section that supplied details about publications, exhibitions, competitions, significant events, and importantinstitutions, such as the Museumof the Cul- ture of Painting and the State Free Art Studios. Iskusstvo provideda forumfor the discussion of aesthetic issues for a fairlywide section of the avant-garde.Its initial emphasison formalinnovations and the theoretical ramificationsof such explorationsmade it closer to prewarart journals such as Soiuz molodezhi[The unionof youth].Indeed, its publication of Kandinsky's"Small Articles on Large Questions,""Con- cerning the Point," and "Concerningthe Line"extended the attempts of the prerevolutionaryperiod to define and sys- tematize the fundamentalelements of painting. In a similar spirit of theoretical investigation, the literarycritic Viktor Shklovskii examined the nature of space in Suprematist painting. The journal also containedarticles on Cubismand Futurismas well as , or "transrational,"poems by the late Olga Rozanovaand stirring contemporaryrevolutionary verses by Maiakovskii.On occasion, the journaldid have a polemical aspect, which was demonstrated Brik's attack FIG. 4 Viktor Sinaiskii, Monument to Lasalle, Petrograd, 1918, reproduced in by Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo, no. 1 (1919):77. on those who espoused the more traditionalartistic values

SPRING 1993 tion of avant-gardeattitudes and ideas. It was so successful that after three issues Lunacharskiihad to warnthe journal about its "destructivetendencies with regardto the past and its inclinationwhen speaking as a specific school, to speak on behalf of the government."21He stressed that Narkompros 29 had to be impartial in its treatment of different artistic trends, although he acknowledged that the Futurists had been the first to come to the help of the Revolution,were close to it, had proved to be good organizers, and had a lot to FIG. 5 Drawingproduced by a districtart school, reproducedin Irobrazitelnoe iskusstvo,no. 1 (1919):59. offer.22In August 1919, after the journal'sdemise, another contemporaryobserved: associated with realism, Shterenberg'sdefense of IZO'spol- Of all the periodicalspublished since the proletarianrevolu- icy, and 'sjustification of the Futurist tion and dedicatedto artisticand culturalquestions, Iskusstvo aesthetic. It is clear, however,that such articles were con- kommunymore than any otherwas characterizedby an ideo- ceived as responses to specific incidents and were not pri- logical unity, as alien to eclecticism... as to any bureaucratic marily concerned with exploringthe implicationsof politics emphasis. ... It was writtenwith experienceand thoughtful- for art. Such problemswere not central to Iskusstvo. ness so that its polemic-the true sign of the sharpnessand The issue of precisely how the avant-garde should urgency of the questionsposed-possessed a really lively accommodatethe new ideologywas, however,fundamental to character,and notan impartialor academicone. Theessential Iskusstvokommuny, which was deliberatelycontroversial and slogans and principlesof Iskusstvo kommunyfell into two polemical, devoted essentially to stimulating the debate categories:firstly,the relationshipbetween art and the revolu- about the art of the future and the relationship between tion; the between artistic artistic and the new socialist state. The secondly, relationship different progressive practice trends.In the the art first issue declared: first, representativesofprogressive young clearly and definitely stood on the side of the progressive, Ourpaperis for everyoneinterested in the creationofthefuture young ... class oftheproletariat. ... In thesecond, the artist- art of the commune. revolutionariesput forward the conditionsof the newcreativity Our columns are [dedicated] to everynew word in the and discarded the old."23 field of artistic creation, workand construction.20 In the second issue of December1918, Brik raised the This remained the magazine's basic priority, although question of the nature and source of proletarianart. He Iskusstvokommuny also acted as an informationbulletin, declared: "The art of the future will be proletarianart. Art publishing IZO's decrees and the latest news about its var- will be proletarianor it will notexist at all."24He rejectedthe ious sections (architecture,the decorativearts, publishing, definitions of proletarianart as either art producedspecifi- etc.) and about its competitions,exhibitions, meetings, and cally for the proletariator art made by proletarians,criticiz- artistic education. Like Iskusstvo,it frequentlyhad to defend ing Proletkultfor thinking that it was sufficientto teach art to IZO's policies, such as its purchase of Futurist paintings, any workerfor him to produceproletarian art. Instead, Brik against criticism from the Party and the Councilof People's argued that proletarian art was art made by "the artist- Commissars.In all, only nineteen issues appeared, but the proletarian"who "unites a creative gift with a proletarian journalplayed an extremelyinfluential role in the crystalliza- consciousness into a single whole."25He elaborated:

ARTJOURNAL Fundamental to all the new theories promoted in Iskusstvokommuny was a profoundcommitment to the most : : i !Mll -'ii_iii ::i-i i-i~ll ~ ? advanced aesthetics. This commitmentwas indicatedby the innovativetypography of its heading on the first page (fig. 7) Ikmuuusipl•ii i ii- i: and was evident in IZO's declarationon "artistic culture," which appeared in the issue of February16, 1919. This manifestoemphasized that "the culture of artistic invention" constituted "one of the positive achievementsof contempo- artistic the decade"and thatit was ,m rary creativityduring past rooted in "the explorationsof the young artistic schools and could be revealed only by them."29Its definition of the ~. - ~ ".7g. '"wgowa:-~::::~---*OVA" essential artistic elements-material, color, space, time, :ii.. '''iii-ii':i:iii?l:... and !!iX,:l:._::_:l..... i::....ii-i:: . form, technique-provided an objective foundationfor a.~::j-::::::::Uimp::iogmoowoq?* iii~ ~:::::::-i~l i.~ ~?ivo**: ~ M" ~OWAW ~ • V*""wwwoo art, which, it was asserted, was the basis for all further ::::!i ii!•iii!!ii~iiiii!•iiiiiiiliiiii~iii ~~~i~ i :;ii•, ii_:-:??:i?!-i•!~c,•iiiiiiiili•:•,r•ii innovation. :"'-'-'--t w:o:::--*A"ow'? 4000wimi~ ot"WAA"W*,W",A kg??ot, 4v*YMI V*'Ams •i'i:'i ia:--:-:;-::::_-:-:::::x-::::i::?:-::~::-j::j:i~.~i~i-~ii---: ~ ~ IEA: In accordancewith this position, Punin, Shterenberg, ii~i~i•%i•iiiiiiii• i• ...... tow%,_~i~`--i-~:iww*6"towwo --_::::- OAUI .**00"*, 40 *Nw w and Brik published articles in Iskusstvokommuny in which • to reconcile the formal of the artistic • i•iii•i••!•i •iii• they sought explorations avant-garde(the self-styled Futurists)with the revolutionary 30 ideologyof the Bolsheviksand to promotethe Futuriststhem- selves as the creators of the new art, thus, explicitly or implicitly, criticizingProletkult and, indeed, even the prefer- ences of the Party itself. Punin, for instance, at one point discarded class criteria, arguing that "an artist cannot be proletarianor nonproletarian;the only quality by which an artist can be defined is the presence or absence of talent."30 He asserted: "The artistic culture of communismwill be created by those who.., possess creativity,for creativity is the basis and content of art."31This view excluded the FIG. 6 Iskusstvo[Art], nos. 1-4 (1919):1. Mastheadand vignettesby Wassily Kandinsky. realists as "not revolutionary"32and meant that the workof most Proletkultartists found little favor. Punin continually argued that Futurismwas the most powerfulartistic school The is the artist-proletarian distinguishedfrom bourgeois and the one most able to contributenew artistic ideas to the artist not the that he creates a newclient, or the by fact for by creationof a new socialist culture: fact that he comesfrom a differentsocial class, but by his attitude towardshimself and his art. Theproblem ofproletarian art is notwithin the power ofProlet- The bourgeois artist consideredcreation his personal kult, the Wanderers,3and least of all the individualistsof The affair, the artist-proletarianknows that his talent belongsto Worldof Art.34 . . . Only the young, affiliated with the so- the collective. called "Futurist"movement, know, and knowvery well, what Thebourgeois artist createsin orderto revealhis "I," the they want, and havepresented the wholeextent of the problem artist-proletariancreates in orderto carry out socially impor- of proletarianart, and naturally,no-one else can solveit. We tant work.26 have not usurpedpower, we are the diviners of the future. "Futurism"is not one among many artistic trends, but the Further, Brik asserted that the true "artist-proletarian" single living trend. .. . "Futurism"is not a state art, but the should not attemptto satisfy the tastes of the crowd, but on only correctpath for the developmentof universalhuman art.35 the contrary,should fight such tastes, always trying to "cre- ate something new, because herein lies his social signifi- Similarly, Shterenbergaccused Proletkultof putting "new cance."27In otherwords, he shouldbe committedto contin- wine into old, holeywine skins"36and arguedthat the Futur- uous innovation. Brik ended triumphantly:"These are the ists ratherthan Proletkultcould help the proletariatcreate general principles of proletarian creative work. Whoever their new culture because Futurismwas committedto "the acknowledges them is a proletarian, an artist-proletarian, search for new paths."'37He emphasized the Futurists' soli- and the builder of the art of the future."28In this way, Brik darity with "workersin Proletkult,"38but attacked Prolet- attacked the idea dear to the Party and indeed to most of kult's monopolyon proletarianculture as unproductiveand, Proletkult, i.e., that the new art shouldbe realist and com- by implication, harmful. Significantly,while promotingthe prehensibleto the masses. role of the avant-gardein the creationof the newart, Shteren-

SPRING 1993 berg's criticism of Proletkult'sinfluence dovetailedwith the government'sreservations about Proletkult'sdemand for cul- tural autonomyand suspicions of the organization'spower base. Likewise, Brik, who had been involvedwith Proletkult in 1917, criticized it in 1919 forembracing "the long outworn forms of petit-bourgeoisromanticism with its cheap heroism and vulgar nationalism."39He acknowledgedthat "Proletkult had posed the question of an independentproletarian cul- ture" when "the cultural and educational organs of Soviet OTPe8tt4H - b Pa' Power" had ignored it, but he, nevertheless, attacked and otherProletkult critics who stressed "theart Tsyperovich flAxue*,m w*"ww&U4Wll, of the past" and believed that "the new socialist art of the vaatPAPAWiA?UR#w1u proletariatwill only develop throughthe school of studying the best worksof the greatest artists."40Brik arguedthat the it #Ox. X IW O individualistic nature of this heritage was in direct opposi- tion to the new collective nature of proletarian art. He awoor.a#tfAI claimed that the very ideas of universal human culture,

sacred art, and eternal beauty all belongedto "thearsenal of apEi ~i IU-::::-UW& b :::::::::l:::1:j:i:::;_ :_:$i: _:- bourgeois lies and deceits,"41 like the concept of eternal *woo""*too 4' bl/'IAO? 31 truth, which the Party rejected. In this way, Brik utilized &j up ~em04- -48k Party doctrine to support Futurismand to attack the tradi- - Lir ~~*:-~~W~~ &Aim tional aesthetics espoused by the Party and by Proletkult. ~ WP;W4""bAu Other contributors to Iskusstvo kommuny, such as Natan Altman, that the new art would be Futurist, argued :: --:ji:--:: M77" :!B(J ~ ~ :~~:~~ W- because Futurismwas built "on collective foundations"42- by which Altman meant that no component of a Futurist painting existed independentlyof the whole. The identifica- 4Jiiii~~::l~~iiimiiii ::i- - tion of Futurismwith the collective andwith Communismwas 4mt~ ~: Iiii~i~iam -:Yi:- ' - also made explicit in the organizationof Kom-Fut, or the Communist-FuturistCollective. Set up by Brik and Kushner in 1919 and announced in the FIG. 7 Iskusstvokommuny [Art of the commune],no. 1 (1918):1. Masthead January February2, 1919, by unknowndesigner. issue of Iskusstvokommuny, Kom-Fut called on the Partyto renounceits own nonrevolutionarycultural policies and em- brace the ideas of Kom-Fut,which were also the ideas of IZO. tive statues do not, in the end, interest anyone.""46Punin In fact, Iskusstvokommuny was highly critical of the asserted that a new type of monumentwas needed, such as Party's attitudes towards art and of its cultural policy in Tatlin'sproject for a Monumentto the Revolution(eventually general. Brik, for instance, accused Lenin of compromising exhibited in November1920 as the Modelfor a Monumentto with the bourgeoisie in the cultural sphere in a way that the the Third International),which was not a useless, static great leader would never do in politics.43 The journal was statue, but a dynamic building with a specific function. also critical of Lenin's Plan for MonumentalPropaganda, Punin also criticized the festivities organizedto celebratethe instituted on April 12, 1918, and implementedby IZO. The first anniversaryof the OctoberRevolution for being the same plan providedfor the removalof"monuments erected in honor as those festivals organizedby the Tsars;and he insisted that of the Tsars and their servants which have no historical or artists should not provide decorations for such occasions artistic value" and their replacementwith "monumentsto because the very idea of decorationwas "alienand dead."47 commemoratethe great days of the Russian socialist revolu- Instead, he argued, artists should be destroyingthe old art tion"44 with the first such monuments to be erected within and monumentsbecause destructionwas the only effective eighteen days. Iskusstvokommuny criticized the concept of weaponagainst the bourgeoisie. He was also outragedby the erecting statues to individualson the groundsthat it contra- amountof cloth being wasted to makeflags and panelsfor the dicted the collective ethos of socialism and also because it celebrations,when "weare all withouttrousers and skirts."48 seemed to follow the Tsarist practice of celebrating its His most damning indictmentwas that it was all unneces- achievements and its supporters with commemorative sary: "History will not forgive this. In our time there is statues.45Moreover, the critics deemed the artistic qualityof nothing that is not necessary."49 the monumentsproduced to be "belowall norms,"considered Iskusstvokommuny's promotion of Futurismas socialist the realistic style "outmoded,"and concluded that "figura- art, its criticisms of existing governmentpolicy, and its

ARTJOURNAL exhortationsto the Party to adopt the policies advocatedby industry,as Nikolai Chuzhakpointed out with hindsight in the journal all suggest that the journal'saim was ultimately 1923: directed at gaining culturaldominance, as Lunacharskiihad . by instinct and in disunity, in a fantastically eclectic warned. Certainlystatements in Iskusstvokommuny suggest milieu . . . all the most importantwords used later were that an artistic dictatorshipmight be no less valid than the employedin Iskusstvokommuny . . . but half wereissued by political dictatorshipof the proletariat.Punin stressed: "We accident. Not only the practiceof the paper, but also the want to see our October realized, we want to establish a .... wholepractice of Futurism at this time, was almost entirely dictatorshipof the minority,for only the minorityconstitutes based on the "agitational poster."59 a creative force, capable of walkingin step with the working class."s50 Nevertheless,the implicationsof such pronouncementswere Iskusstvokommuny not only harnessed existing pro- clear, and they generatedfurther discussion in the journal. gressive art to the new aims but also laid the bases for the One of the most reasonedattacks came fromwithin the developmentof a new theoryof art, "productionart," founded ranks of the avant-gardeitself. In early 1919, Ivan Puni 32 on the industrialnature of the proletariatand suggesting that expressed his oppositionto the "utilitarianaesthetic" that he art should become fused with industry. The idea that art had detected emerging,asserting that this was highly remi- should be more public and become a more integral part of niscent of the nineteenth-centuryradical theoriesof Dmitrii everydaylife was implicit in the journal's very first issue, Pisarev and the present attitudeof Proletkultthat art should when Maiakovskiipublished his poem "Orderto the Armyof represent the workers and thus be socially relevant. He Art," declaringthat "thestreets are ourbrushes, the squares arguedthat art could notbe useful in "thecreation of life"and are our palettes.""'In the same issue, Punin'sstatement in "theproduction of new objects,"60because it was completely the debate "Templeor Factory"of November1918 was quoted opposed to the concept of utility. Puni maintainedthat the with approval:"'A new era in art will begin. . . . It is not a artist'sattempts to cooperatewith the machinewould merely matterof decorationbut of creating new artistic objects. Art produce an "applied art," because "the constructionof an for the proletariatis not a sacred temple for lazy contempla- object is completelydependent on itsfunction, the artist may tion, but work, a factorywhich producesartistic objects for add only superfluouselements to this."61Indeed, he asserted all.' "52A workerwrote that "theproletariat needs an art that that the introductionof extraneousaesthetic elements was was born in the noise of the factories, the mills, and the responsiblefor the ugliness of everydayitems. In contrast,he streets, which in essence must be the powerfulart of strug- arguedthat there was an urgentneed forpeople "able to think gle."53 Accordingly, Brik exhorted artists to abandon the in termsof utility constructively"and that "forthe proletariat "idealistic vapors"of bourgeoisart and instead make "mate- to have really beautiful things . . . it is essential for the rial objects," because "artis like any othermeans of produc- principle of utility to be assimilated more fully into all tion."54Boris Kushner,too, argued that essentially "art is industries."62 simply work: ability, skill, and craftmanship. . . . To a By 1921-22, however,such reservationswere less pow- socialist consciousness, a work of art is no more than an erful, and the ideas first explored in theoretical terms in object or a thing."55Stripped of its metaphysicalattributes, Iskusstvokommuny had been further elaborated and had art became work, and the artist became merely a skilled foundtheir ultimatefulfillment in the workof the self-styled worker,"a technician," or "a constructor.""56If art was like Constructivists.These artists rejected the autonomyof art in any other means of industrialproduction, then the existing favorof concrete design projects that wouldcontribute, they division between art and industrywas not an "established hoped, to the creation of a wholly new visual environment law"but the result of "bourgeoisstructures."5 Hence, under appropriateto the new Communistsociety. 63 Conversely,the socialism, art and industrycould be reunited, as an editorial Party's eventual imposition of was also made clear: "Artstrives towardsconscious creation;produc- foreshadowedin a more populist and illustrativeconcept of tion towardsthe mechanical. . . . Productionand art merge workers'art that found early expressionin the publications into one whole; creation and work-towards conscious underreview. The open and excitingdebates of the immediate work."58Such declarationswere impassionedstatements and postrevolutionaryyears would become the dogmaticand rigid did not amount to a fully formulatedor coherent theory. positions of the late twenties and thirties. In this respect, Incomplete, defective, and unresolved, these assertions artistic culture truly did reflect the wider political frame- neversuggested precisely how art was to become involvedin work.

SPRING 1993 Notes 32. Ibid. Unless otherwise indicated, all translationsare by the author. 33. The Wanderers were members of the Society for Traveling Exhibitions 1. Reprintedas "Decree on the Press, issued by the Councilof People'sCommissars," (Tovarishchestvoperedvizhnykh khudovhestvennykhvystavok), which was estab- in Yuri Akhapkin, ed., First DecreesofSoviet Power (London: Lawrence and Wishart, lished in 1870 to assert its independencefrom the Academyand to promotea realist art 1970), 29-30. that would reflect specifically Russian conditions. 2. "Ot redaktsii"[From the editor], Proletarskaiakultura [Proletarian culture], no. 3 34. The Worldof Art (Mir iskusstva)was a St. Petersburg-based groupof artists at the (1918): 36. Fora discussion of Proletkult, see LynnMally, Cultureof the Future: The turn of the century who promotedthe dissemination of Westernart in Russia and had ProletkultMovement in RevolutionaryRussia(Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, affinities with the Aesthetic Movementand the Viennese Secession. 1990). 35. N[ikolai] Punin, "Futurizm-gosudarstvennoe iskusstvo"[Futurism-A state 3. Aleksandr Bogdanov, "Proletariati iskusstvo"[Proletariat and art], in "Pervaia art], Iskusstv kommuny,no. 4 (December 29, 1918): 2. Vserossiskaia konferentsiia Prosvetitelnykh organizatsii" [The First All-Russian 36. D[avid] P. Shterenberg,"Kritikam iz Proletkulta"[To the critics fromProletkult], Conferenceof Educational Organizations],Proletarskaia kultura, no. 5 (1919): 32. IskusstWvkommuny, no. 10 (February9, 1919): 3. 4. Valerian Polianskii, "Zlobodnevnyevoprosy" [Topical questions], Griadushchee 37. Ibid. [Future], no. 2 (1918): 2. 38. Ibid. 5. Pavel Bezalko, "Futurizm i proletarskaia kultura" [Futurism and proletarian 39. O[sip] M. Brik, "Dovolnosoglashatelstva" [Enough of compromising],Iskusstv culture], Griadushchee,no. 10 (1918): 10. kommuny,no. 6 (January12, 1919): 1. 6. Ibid., 2. 40. Ibid. 7. K. D. Muratova,Periodiki po literaturei iskusstvuza gody revoliutsii,1917-1932 41. Ibid. on literature and art the [Periodicals during revolutionary years, 1917-1932] 42. N[atan] Altman, "Futurizmi proletarskoeiskusstvo" [Futurism and proletarian 33 (Leningrad: IzdatelstvoAkademii Nauk SSSR, 1933), 195, entry no. 1225. art], Iskusstwvkommuny, no. 2 (December 15, 1918): 2. 8. Anatolii Lunacharskii,"Proletariat i sovetskaiakulturnaia rabota" [Proletariat and 43. Brik, "Dovolnosoglashatelstva," 1. Soviet cultural work], Proletarskaiakultura, nos. 7-8 (April 1919): 2. '44. See "Decree on Monumentsof the Republic, Issued by the Council of People's 9. Muratova,Periodiki, 248, entry no. 1594. Commissars,"in Akhapkin, ed., First Decrees of Soviet Power, 120. 10. N. Angarskii, "Starye pisateli i novyi byt" [Old writers and the new life], 45. N[ikolai] Punin, "O pamiatnikakh"[About monuments],Iskusstwv kommuny, Tvorchestvo[Creation], nos. 8-9 (1919): 22. no. 14 (March9, 1919): 2. 11. See A[leksandr] Bogdanov, "Proletarskaia kultura" [Proletarian culture], 46. Ibid. Tvorchestvo,nos. 7-10 (1920): 30-32; "VystavkaMoskovskogo Proletkulta" [Exhibi- 47. N[ikolai] P[unin], "K itogam Oktyabrskikhtorzhestv" [On the results of the tion of the Moscow Proletkult], Tvorchestvw,nos. 7-10 (1920): 46; and V. Kupavin, Octoberfestivities], Iskusstvokommuny, no. 1 (December 7. 1918): 2. "Proletarskaiakultura: v novykh usloviiakh (O proletkultakh)"[Proletarian culture: 48. Ibid. Underthe new conditions (about the Proletkults)], Tvorchestvo,nos. 11-12 (1920). 49. Ibid. 12. "Ot redaktsii" [Fromthe editor], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn [Artistic life], no. 1 50. N[ikolai] Punin, "Proletarskoeiskusstvo" [Proletarian art], Iksusstvokommuny, (December 1919): 1. no. 19 (April 13, 1919): 1. 13. See AbramEfros, "Myi Zapad"[The Westand Us], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 51. Vl[adimir] Maiakovskii, "Prikazpo armii iskusstva"[Order to the army of art], 2 (January-February1920): 1; P.E., "Novayazhivopis i ee mesto v istorii iskusstva" Iskusstvokommuny, no. 1 (December 7, 1918): 1. [The new painting and its place in the historyof art], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 3 52. M. L-in, "Miting ob iskusstve" [Meeting about art], Iskusstvokommuny, no. 1 (1920): 20-22; A[natolii] Lunacharskii,"Peredovoi otryad kultury na Zapade"[The (December 7, 1918): 3. advanced vanguard of culture in the West], Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 4 (May- 53. Rabochii [Worker]Mushtakov, "Oktyabr v iskusstve" [Octoberin art], Iskusstvo October1920): 1-3; idem, "Kalinin,"Khudozhestvennaia zhizn, no. 2 (1920): 39; and kommuny,no. 2 (15 December 1918), 2. idem, "PavelBezalko," Khudozhestvennaiazhizn, no. 3 (March-April 1920): 38. 54. O[sip] Brik, "Drenazh iskusstvu" [A drain for art], Iskusstvokommuny, no. 1 14. N. Lerner,"Izobrazitelnoe iskusstvo," Kniga i revoliutsiia[Book and revolution], (December 7, 1918): 1. no. 1 (1921): 77. 55. Boris Kushner,"Bozhestvennoe proizvedenie" [Divine work],Iskusstvo kommuny, 15. "Otredaktsii" [From the editor],Izobrazitelnoe iskusstvo [Fine art], no. 1 (1919):5. no. 9 (February2, 1919): 1. 16. Ibid. 56. Vl[adimir] Dmitriev, "Pervyi itog" [First result], Iskusstvokommuny, no. 15 17. Ibid. (March16, 1919): 2. 18. The following models of monumentserected in Petrogradwere reproducedin 57. "Primechanieredaktsii" [Editorial comment], Iskusstvo kommuny, no. 7 (January Izobrazitelnoeiskusstvo: Grizelli, Babeuf (1919), 73; Grizelli, Perovska(1918), 78; 19, 1919): 2. Aleksandr Matveev,Karl Marx (1918), 3; Viktor Sinaiskii, Heine (1918), 75; Viktor 58. See "Primechanie red[aktsii]" [Editorial comment], Iskusstvokommuny, no. 8 Sinaiskii, Lassalle (1918), 77; K. Zalit, Garibaldi (1919), 71; TeodorsZalkalns, (January26, 1919): 2. Chernyshevskii(1918), 79. 59. N[ikolai] Chuzhak, "Pod znakom zhiznestroeniia, opyt osoznaniia iskusstva 19. "Ot redaktsii" [Fromthe editor], Iskusstvo[Art], no. 1 (January5, 1919): 1. dnia" [Underthe slogan of life-building: An attemptto understandthe art of today], 20. "Ot redaktsii" [Fromthe editor], Iskusstvokommuny [Art of the commune], no. 1 LEF [The left front of the arts], no. 1 (March1923): 24. (December 7, 1918): 1. 60. Khu[dozhnik][artist] Ivan Puni, "Tvorchestvozhizni" [Creationof life], Iskusstvo 21. A[natolii] Lunacharskii,"Lozhka protivoiadiia" [A spoonful of antidote],Iskusstvo kommuny,no. 5 (January5, 1919): 1. kommuny,no. 4 (December 29, 1918): 1. 61. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 23. Ia. Lers, "O knigakh" [About books], Iskusstvo,no. 7 (August 2, 1919): 6. 63. See Christina Lodder, Russian (New Haven: Yale University 24. O[sip] M. Brik, "Khudozhnik-proletarii"[Artist-proletarian], Iskusstvo kom- Press, 1983). muny, no. 2 (December 15, 1918): 1. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. 29. "PolozhenieOtdela IzobrazitelnykhIskusstv i KhudozhestvennoiPromyshlennosti po voprosuo Khudozhestvennoikulture" [The positionof the Departmentof Fine Arts and Artistic Production concerning the question of "artistic culture"], Iskusstvo CHRISTINA LODDER is reader in the history and theory of kommuny,no. 11 (February16, 1919): 4. art at the University of St. Andrews,Scotland. She has written 30. "Proletarskoeiskusstvo" Iskusstvo N[ikolai] Punin, [Proletarianart], kommuny, on the Russian and no. 19 (April 13, 1919): 2. extensively avant-garde particularly 31. Ibid. Russian Constructivism.

ART JOURNAL