Scapegoat Architecture/Landscape/Political Economy Issue 03 Realism 24 Objectless in : ­Reflections on ­Kazimir ­Malevich, ­Architecture, and Representation

A Conversation with ­Elitza ­Dulguerova

Scapegoat posed the following questions to Elitza ­Dulguerova, Assistant Professor in Art History at the University of I, Panthéon—Sorbonne, who works on the social history of the Russian avant- garde. We are interested in ’s claim that “­ is the new realism.” Additional- ly, we want to clarify the relationship between this claim and what happened to Suprematism when it confronted the built environment, namely during Malevich’s tenure (1919–1922) in the then Soviet Malevich’s panels decorated several buildings in Vitebsk, including the White Barracks (above), town of Vitebsk. where the Committee for the Struggle against Unemployment had its workshops (December 1919).

Scapegoat Says What led Malevich to had already emphasized the distinction between to political conjuncture alone, insofar as the long ago” and bequeathed the task of ­developing proclaim that “Suprematism is the a “superficial” and a “deep” realism, the first being political appropriation (and approval) of realistic architectural Suprematism to the young architects new realism?” What, for Malevich, is solely concerned with meaning and granting little painting and sculpture as the only “appropriate” in somewhat vague terms, as the “era of the new the real in realism, and why does this consideration to the means of reaching it (Courbet), art for a communist state was not yet dominant, system of architecture.”10 Such a stance was not ­necessitate an attack on representation? while newer art such as was filed under the at least not until the end of the Civil War in 1921. surprising in 1920, when the INKhUK was label of “deep” or “true” realism. One of the closing The Vitebsk years in the life of Malevich—from debating the definition and rules of construction Elitza Dulguerova To my knowledge, Malevich sentences of their text sums up quite clearly Gle- late 1919 to mid-1922—were years during which as an alternative to easel ­painting.11 first used the concept of “realism” in 1915 within izes and Metzinger’s understanding that “realism” the political uncertainty and precariousness of certainly also played a part in this shift towards his performative declaration on the birth of Supre­ was not a reflection of reality but rather a means of everyday life left room for intense experiments architecture. Lissitzky had been a member of the matism. His announcement of the new art was transforming it. In doing so, the subjective vision of with future modes and possible forms of art.7 This Vitebsk branch of Narkompros [People’s Commis- staged both visually, through an ensemble of 39 the Cubist painter had to become an objective truth was the case not only in Vitebsk, at the Free State sariat for Education] since May 1919, and a teacher mostly unseen paintings, and as a discursive event, for every viewer: “A realist, he [the new ­painter] Artist Studios under the direction of Malevich, but at the People’s Art School of Vitebsk under the through several writings and declarations. The will shape the real in the image of his mind, for also at the Moscow Institute of Artistic Culture direction of the People’s Commissar . paintings were exhibited at the group show The there is only one truth, our own, when we impose (INKhUK), first under the direction of Kandinsky, It was under these circumstances that Lissitzky Last Futurist Exhibition of Paintings 0,10 (Zero- it on everyone.”4 Fernand Léger was another and then, from 1920 on, within the framework convinced ­Malevich in late 1919 to leave his teach- Ten) (Petrograd, December 19, 1915 to January active proponent of “réalisme de conception” over of the Constructivist circle. I would rather guess ing position at the Free State Artists’ Studios in 19, 1916). According to the well-known and “réalisme visuel,” arguing that, “The realist value that the move from “realism” to “objectlessness” Moscow and join the Vitebsk team.12 As is well infinitely reproduced photograph of Malevich’s of a work is perfectly independent of any imitative allowed for a more accurate definition of the real- known, Lissitzky was trained as an architect, and works at 0,10, the display in itself acted as a visual quality. [...] Pictorial realism is the simultaneous ity that Malevich was trying to conceive—both his Suprematist-inspired “Prouns” [Projects for manifesto for the advent of a new art of non- arrangement of the three great plastic quantities: philo­sophically, as a way to overcome not only the Affirmation of the New]13 were attempts to representational—almost geometrical—forms lines, forms, and colors.”5 Redefining realism stood imitation but also any dependence on established correlate the exploration of the pictorial space in floating in space. But Suprematism also came for more than a new technique: Léger believed that ­objects or rules, and politically, as a state of rest Suprematism to the space of the viewer, thus going into being through a series of written and spoken it had an emancipatory value for the artist as well and peace beyond conflicts, struggles and­divisions. beyond painting and into the three-dimensional texts. In addition to the short, hand-written state- as for the beholder, freeing them from the submis- A recently published transcript of “Note on realm. However, even though Malevich started ment hung on the wall of the Suprematist room, sion to the normative realm of bourgeois appear- the Limits of Reality,” a lecture that Malevich de- considering architecture as a potential field for Malevich published a longer essay, “From Cubism ances. Malevich’s emphasis on “realism” in 1915– livered to his fellow UNOVIS members in Vitebsk Suprematism and even qualifying it—in a still to Suprematism: The New Painterly Realism,” 1916 can thus be seen as a symptom of his urge to in 1921, can be used to introduce his conceptual ­unspecific phraseology—as the ultimate art, he which was on sale during the 0,10 group show. Its maintain a tie with Cubism and European modern framework.8 Malevich argues that the need to would not achieve the shift from painting to archi- second edition, based on a public talk from Janu- art, while defending the novelty and ultimate differ- represent phenomena or things belonged to a tecture, or even from two-dimensional to three- ary 1916, expanded the lineage of Suprematism to ence of Suprematism. In his interpretation, realism foregone conception of art, where art was seen as dimensional forms, during his stay in Vitebsk. Italian without altering the emphasis on in painting was a means to make “living art,” to go a means to grasp and understand the “real” world. realism: “From Cubism and Futurism to Supre- beyond representation and into creation: This could no longer be the case, he adds, as we SS Why and when was Malevich in matism: The New Realism in Painting.”1 now know that such an understanding cannot ­Vitebsk? Can you briefly explain Živopisnyi, the adjective translated into Eng- In the art of Suprematism forms will be objective: we perceive not one but multiple the situation there? lish as “in painting,” or sometimes as “painterly,” live, like all living forms of nature. […] “realities” smoothly sliding into each other. Argu- was not a mere epithet for Malevich but an import- The new realism in painting [živopisnyi, ing that reality has to be thought of as something ED Malevich moved from Moscow to Vitebsk ant part of how he conceived of “realism” at this painterly] is very much realism in painting that happens as a representation, Malevich gives in November 1919. The UNOVIS (Exponents or moment. It could even be argued that “realism” [painterly­ ], for it contains no realism of the example of a child who would alternately Champions of the New Art)14 group was officially was but the predicate of “painterly”: if Suprema- mountains, sky, water. […] Until now there define his father as a “big person” when in the created in February 1920 and became dominant tism was realistic, it was by being true to painting. was realism of objects, but not of painted company of other adults, and as a “small person” at the Vitebsk Free State Artist Studios after the Malevich was not the first artist who paired a term units of colour, which are constructed so when they play together. Malevich concludes that departure of Chagall in May of the same year. strongly associated since Courbet with commit- that they depend neither on form, nor on when we experience the world we do not single In the following two years, UNOVIS organized ment to everyday reality, with a non-mimetic colour, nor on their position relative to out things or elements: “no dishes, no palaces, no exhibitions, conferences, and theatrical represen- painterly technique (in his case, bespredmetnoe each other. Each form is free and indi­ chairs.”9 The existence of the latter divides the tations, published a series of books, including iskusstvo, or “objectless art”).2 By 1915, this shift vidual. Each form is a world.6 world into parts and thus betrays both our experi- several treatises by Malevich, and took part in the in the notion of “realism” away from mimesis ence and the demonstrations of contemporary life of of Vitebsk. Through its ramifica- was already a major stance in the writings of the It seems to me that this understanding of “real- science. This search for an experience that is both tions, the UNOVIS ideas spread out to the cities French Cubists, which were quickly translated to ism” does not outlive the 1917 Bolshevik Revolu- relative (free, not obeying predefined rules) and of , Orenburg, and Perm; its works Russian, thoroughly discussed at the futurist public tion. Instead, Malevich’s writings from the early unified (not divided) motivates the anti-­utilitarian were shown in exhibitions in Moscow and dis- debates in Moscow and Petrograd and sometimes 1920s dwell on the concept of “objectlessness” stance of Malevich’s writings in the 1920s. played at the 1922 First Russian Art Exhibition in directly “imported” by the Russian artists who (bespredmetnost) both as the ultimate goal of art In the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution, Berlin. For a number of reasons, including severe lived and worked in Paris.3 The 1912 treatise Du and as the condition of the world that Malevich Malevich reconsidered the other major premise of financial cuts, administrative reorganization and “Cubisme” by and longs for. I would not ascribe this semantic shift Suprematism by stating that “painting was done for increasing intolerance towards “formalist” art

Scapegoat Architecture/Landscape/Political Economy Issue 03 Realism 24 Scapegoat Architecture/Landscape/Political Economy Issue 03 Realism 25

tion stemmed from the invitation of the Vitebsk decorate the urban environment and translate daily life who has been granted palaces, gardens, Committee for the Struggle against Unemploy- revolutionary ideas into visual form. This would and monuments created for a specific, tempor- ment to celebrate its second anniversary. In explain why both Chagall’s and Malevich’s works ary, and utilitarian need.28 In contrast, the art December 1919, Malevich decorated the exterior could peacefully coexist in the city of Vitebsk of architecture is “eternally beautiful in its equi­ of the White Barracks building that housed the during the 1st of May celebrations in 1920, de- librium” and bears an “architectuality” that workshops of the Committee, and with El Lis- spite their theoretical differences.21 On the other resists social or ideological contingencies: “Pagan sitzky re-designed the interior of the Vitebsk hand, these projects were also attempts towards temples also serve as temples for Christians be- theatre for the festivities. While there is little a weightless, “objectless,” restful architecture as cause they are architectually [sic] beautiful.”29 visual evidence of most UNOVIS projects—except theorized in Malevich’s writings. The “1/48” essay contains a precious—and for some studies and sketches—this collabora- rare—depiction of objectless architecture which tion with the Committee for the Struggle against SS What is the relationship between brings to mind Malevich’s architectons, on which Unemployment was rather well documented. The ­Malevich’s realism (largely expressed he was working at that time. If architecture should photograph of the workshop building is particu- through painting) and the urban give rise to the feelings of spaciousness, emptiness, larly revealing. The Suprematist panels by Mal- ­projects in Vitebsk? What is at stake and restfulness (“in eternal beauty there are no evich are spread over the façade both horizontally in the ­transition from painting to horizons”30), it had to be freed from all obstacles and vertically. Most of the horizontal elements ­architecture? and limits, both material and conceptual. Walls, are painted compositions, while some of the floors and ceilings are designed to delimitate space, central figures seem to be shaped panels. On the ED Malevich’s own experiments in architecture— to create horizons, to host tools. Malevich starts first row, at the level of the street, large, human- his architecton models and planit drawings—date­ by suggesting to move apart the six sides of the sized panels containing simple compositions from the period between 1923 and 1927, after his basic structure of a cube (a room) to create more of triangles, squares and circles alternate with move to Petrograd and before his retrospective empty space but quickly objects that a full libera- the windows and doors of the building. The two shows in Warsaw and Berlin in 1927. During this tion from any limit is not possible, as “no matter entrances—to the building and to the adjacent period Malevich discussed architecture in a series how I shift the walls, I am always surrounded enclosure—seem to be framed by single-shape of texts and sometimes considered it as the ultim- by walls, my sight meets an obstacle but senses compositions: two full-sized squares for the for- ate end of creation which reaches beyond the three space.”31 He then considers a path opposite to this mer, two decentred circles for the latter. An up- realms of religion, civic life, and art.22 Architec- infinite openness: confinement within a cube as a per level comprises a series of smaller and more ture cannot be dissociated from Malevich’s more safe and concealed place to rest, as a refuge from complex compositions, each of which stands on global quest of a “reality beyond image” towards life’s adversities. This double bind seems to depict the cornice of one of the street-level panels. Their which “the bullet and the aeroplane fly, the train his own architectural experiments, as the archi- display is symmetrical on both sides of the main rushes by, man runs, the bird flies, the planets and tectons allow for a variety of points of view and entrance. Above the squares and the front door the sun move, for only there, in the idealess state, perceptions of space instead of a predetermined rises the central part of the decoration. It con- does the world end, as an image, as will, as im- notion of horizon, and yet offer the possibility to sists of two monumental vertical compositions agining, and the world dawns as objectlessness.”23 alternate between openness and inner retreat. of dynamically distributed, mostly rectangular In his fascinating 1924–25 text on the ideo­ Christina Lodder has argued that Malevich forms of various sizes. Between these two elon- logy of architecture Malevich does not reject was interested in “architecture as a problem” rath- gated panes stand two shaped panels: a big dark technology, science, or utilitarianism per se. He er than a solution, which might explain why, even circle in the middle, similar in size to the squares concedes that inventions like “aeroplanes, ships, in his architectons: on the first level and, immediately below it, a trains, radios, and electricity” were partly driven smaller dark diamond. The upper half of the by the desire to “sweep” away obstacles such The precise function of the elements in window behind the circle remains uncovered. as “water, space, hills, and time” on man’s way each structural ensemble is not identified It bears a strong resemblance to another basic to peace.24 However, “utilitarian technology” [...] There are none of the usual features Suprematist form: the black square. The balance keeps architecture subdued to objects and tools you might expect in an architectural between symmetric and dynamic positioning of as divided parts of the whole, and to ideas and model; there are no indications of windows, shapes testifies to Malevich’s desire to restruc- images (such as expediency) that were meant doors, entrances, or exits. The models were ture the rigid solidity of the original building to introduce order into what used to be chaos. not conceived in response to the needs of while creating a feeling of harmonious lightness. Malevich disagrees with this dependence, as for particular architectural briefs, or intended him “life wishes to be expedient, whereas art has to answer the highly specialized, practical SS What was the reception of the work parted with the image of an aim […] it has no requirements of specific building types, in the town? beginning or end, it has no ‘whither’ or ‘whence’ such as hospitals, communal housing, or […] consequently it is without idea because it is schools. They were also not related to any ED Documents on the reception of UNOVIS pro- already reality beyond image.”25 In contrast to particular structural system of building. jects in Vitebsk are quite scarce. One of the most the propensity of to shape life by Indeed, how they were to be built and func- Photograph from Aleksandra Shatskikh, Vitebsk: The Life of Art (New Haven: Yale University often quoted depictions is Sergey Eisenstein’s introducing new functional forms, Malevich con- tion was left pretty vague. Even their scale Press, 2007), 82. account of the transformation of this “sooty and siders that art should not give form. As he would is not really indicated. None of them has an cheerless” provincial city, typically “built of red demonstrate later in a 1928 text, our belief that identifiable façade, but exist in the round, brick”: “But this city is especially strange. Here the “art is something that gives form to the functional fully in space. If architecture is the way practices, in the summer of 1922 Malevich and red brick streets are covered with white paint, and side of life” is inaccurate, “since it is impossible space is enclosed for a given purpose, then most of his students left Vitebsk for Petrograd, green circles are scattered around this white back- to form any function of life: forming it we do Malevich’s structures are not architectural. where the UNOVIS project was carried on at the ground. There are orange squares. Blue rectangles. not really form it but merely place it in an order They exist in space, but do not define space, State Institute of Artistic Culture (GINKhUK).15 This is Vitebsk in 1920. Its brick walls have met the established by some form of art.”26 Architecture or contain space within them.32 brush of Kazimir Malevich. And from these walls doesn’t have to create a new form of order but SS Did the school have a presence in the you can hear: ‘The streets are our palette!’”20 It is a state of restfulness, unity, and spaciousness. Going back to Malevich’s Vitebsk projects such town? Can you describe Malevich and unclear whether this depiction of the filmmaker’s To do so, it has to be freed from the object-like as the 1919 façade for the Committee for the UNOVIS’ projects there? visit to Vitebsk in June 1920, probably written in characteristics of matter and of the divided things, Struggle against Unemployment, one notices 1940, refers to the Suprematist-decorated trains or namely weight (ves), so as to achieve balance that while it has departed from objects and ED The activities of the UNOVIS group within to buildings such as the one discussed above. and equilibrium (ravnovesie), as “weight is born utilitarian expediency, while it creates a dynamic the city of Vitebsk did not involve the building It seems to me that the urban projects of the in utilitarianism, outside utilitarianism I do not yet harmonious feeling of space, it persists in of new architectural forms nor did they redesign UNOVIS group can be read in at least two different know whether weight exists.”27 Malevich coins creating an image instead of being a “reality be- its urban plan. In most cases, they expanded and ways. On the one hand, as a non-­representational the neologism “ut-grazhdanin” [ut-citizen] for yond image”—an objectless image but an image translated Suprematism’s compositional and response to the post-­Revolutionary brief to the citizen submitted to the utilitarian needs of nonetheless. × formal characteristics to larger, two-dimensional surfaces. As Alexandra Shatskikh has summed it up in her study: Notes or purpose would mean dissolving and projects is strongly indebted metnost’ (ideologiia arhitek- this unity. to Aleksandra Shatskikh’s extra- tury)” in Sobranie sochinenii, 1. Malevich, K. S., “From Cubism 3. Two of Fernand Léger’s seminal ordinarily well-documented book, vol. 4, 216, translated as “1/48. Suprematism’s vast decorative potential and Futurism to Suprematism: The essays, “Les origines de la pein- Vitebsk: The Life of Art, trans. The World as Non-Objectivity,” in New Realism in Painting” in Es- ture et sa valeur représentative” Katherine Foshko Tsan (New Haven/ Essays on Art, vol. 3, ed. Troels was unleashed in a variety of ways: in the says on Art 1915-1928, vol. 1, (1913) and “Les réalisations pic- London: Yale University Press, Andersen (Copenhagen: Bergen, signboards created for the stores and shops ed. Troels Andersen, trans. Xenia turales actuelles” (1914), were 2007). 1976), 290 (translation modi- Glowacki-Prus and Arnold McMillin initially delivered as lectures 13. See Nancy Perloff and Brian Reed fied). of the EPO (United Consumer Association); (Copenhagen: Borgen, 1968), 19- at the Académie Vassilieff in (eds.), Situating El ­Lissitzky: 24. All quotes from “1/48” in in the propaganda panels that decorated 41. Both the 1915 and 1916 essays Paris, whose owner, the Russian Vitebsk, Berlin, ­Moscow ­Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 4, 205; have been reprinted in Russian in artist Marie Vassilieff, was also (Los ­Angeles, Getty Research in Essays on Art, vol. 3, 276-7. the sides of streetcars; in the drawings for Kazimir Malevich, Sobranie sochi­ one of the fourteen participants ­Institute, 2003). 25. “1/48” in Sobranie sochinenii, murals on buildings and interiors; and in nenii [Collected Works], vol. 1, in the 0,10 exhibition. 14. “Exponents” is the translation vol. 4, 216; in Essays on Art, ed. Aleksandra Shatskikh (Moscow, 4. Albert Gleizes and Jean Metz- adopted in the English version vol. 3, 290 (my emphasis). the decorations on the ration cards used Gileia, 1995), 27-34, 35-55. inger, Du “Cubisme” [27 December] of Shatskikh’s book, while the 26. “Zhivopis’ v probleme arhitek- during the period of War Communism.16 2. Following scholars like Chris- 1912] in A Cubism Reader. Docu- more affirmative “Champions” is tury”, in Sobranie sochinenii, tina Lodder and Charlotte Doug- ments and Criticism 1906-1914, suggested by Christina Lodder in vol. 2, ed. Aleksandra Shatskikh las, I prefer “objectless” to eds. Mark Antliff and Patricia her inspiring article, “Living in (Moscow: Gileia, 1998), ­135-136; And while for a year the streetcars in Vitebsk “non-objective” (the term used Leighten (Chicago and London: Space: Kazimir Malevich’s Supre- translated as “Painting and the in the English edition of Male­ The University of Chicago Press, matist Architecture and the Phil- Problem of Architecture” in were covered with Suprematist designs, the only vich’s writings). The problem 2008), 435. osophy of Nikolai Fedorov,” in ­Essays on Art, vol. 2, ed. Troels three-dimensional projects were the monuments with “non-objective” lies in its 5. Fernand Léger, “Les origines de Rethinking Malevich. Proceedings Andersen (Copenhagen: Bergen, philoso­phical undertones hinting la peinture et sa valeur repre- of a Conference in Celebration of 1968), 14. to Karl Marx and Karl Liebknecht by one of at oppositions such as object­ive/ sentative,” Montjoie! (May 1913), the 125th Anniversary of Kazimir 27. “1/48”, in Sobranie sochinenii, Malevich’s colleagues, the sculptor and teacher subjective. This is not the frame- english translation in Antliff & Malevich’s Birth, eds. Charlotte vol. 4, 205; in Essays on Art, 17 work Malevich is working with. Leighten, Cubism Reader, 535-6. Douglas and Christina Lodder vol. 3, 277. David Yakerson. Unveiled in Vitebsk in 1920, Furthermore, the Russian terms 6. Malevich, “From Cubism and Futur- (London: The Pindar Press, 2007), 28. “1/48”, in Sobranie sochinenii, the monuments combined Suprematist-inspired for these ­philosophical categories ism to Suprematism,” 38. 172-202. vol. 4, 211; in Essays on Art, are ob’’ektivnyi, sub’’ektivnyi, 7. On the relation between modernity 15. Shatskikh, Vitebsk, 220-224. vol. 3, 284. foundations of differently sized rectangular that is, Latin-based words, while and contingency, see T.J. Clark, 16. Ibid., 117. The projects men- 29. “1/48”, in Sobranie sochinenii, blocks, asymmetrically balanced together, with Malevich uses bespredmetnyi, a “God Is Not Cast Down,” in Fare- tioned by Shatskikh were realized vol. 4, 209; in Essays on Art, neologism based on the Russian well to an Idea: Episodes from a by different students and teach- vol. 3, 282. geometrically simplified yet representational word for object, predmet. “Object­ History of Modernism (New Haven/ ers from the UNOVIS circle. 30. “1/48”, in Sobranie sochinenii, busts. For Shatskikh, the lack of architectural less,” on the other hand, should London: Yale University Press, 17. Ibid., 169-183. vol. 4, 215; in Essays on Art, not convey connotations of “point- 1999), 225-297. 18. Ibid., 117. vol. 3, 289. experiments in Vitebsk was due to “material less” or “purposeless.” As used 8. “Zapiska o granitzah real’nosti” 19. Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, Suprema- 31. “1/48”, in Sobranie sochinenii, constraints,” material shortages and poverty.18 in recent scholarship on Malevich, [Note on the Limits of Reality] tizm i ­arhitektura: problemy for- vol. 4, 215; in Essays on Art, it is first and foremost a lite­ in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected moobrazovaniia (Moscow: Arkhitek- vol. 3, 288. The term “super-grafics” super-grafika[ ], used ral translation of bespredmetnyi, Works], vol. 5 (Moscow: Gileia, tura-S, 2007). 32. Lodder, “Living in Space”, 192. by some Russian scholars to depict the urban “without an object,” without the 2004), 191-194. 20. Sergey Eisenstein, “Strannyi qualities of a material object, 9. Malevich, “Zapiska,” 193. provintsial’nyi gorod” [A Strange projects of UNOVIS in Vitebsk avoids classify- mainly its materiality, its refer- 10. Malevich, “Suprematizm. 34 provincial city] (1940), quoted Elitza Dulguerova is Assistant ing them in pre-established categories such ence to the everyday, its weight. risunka” [1920], in Sobranie so- and translated in Shatskikh, ­Professor at the Université de Paris as “decorative.” However, in underscoring the However, on a more ­theoretical chinenii, vol. 1, 189; “Suprema- ­Vitebsk, 118. I—Panthéon-Sorbonne. Her research level Malevich does suggest that tism. 34 drawings,” in Essays on 21. Ibid. ­interests include the social history graphic aspects of Suprematism, it dismisses the “objectlessness” has to do with Art, vol. 1, 127-128 (translation 22. Cf. the ending of his 1924 of art in Russia/USSR and the study of ambition of spatial exploration and projection a certain degree of ­aimlessness modified). ­essay “Arhitektura kak stepen’ exhibitions in/as twentieth-century as well. His writings in the 11. See Maria Gough, The Artist as naibol’shego osvobozhdeniia art practices. In 2010, she guest- 19 into the three-dimensional realm. 1920s look forward to a state of Producer: Russian Constructivism cheloveka ot vesa” [Architecture edited the special issue “Exposer/ Most projects were commissioned for celebra- rest (or “laziness,” as he would in Revolution (Berkeley: Univer- as a degree of the greatest lib- Displaying” for the scholarly journal phrase it in another text from the sity of California Press, 2005). eration of man from weight], in Intermedialités and is now finishing tory occasions (1st of May, the anniversary of the Vitebsk period). Rest is a state 12. Unless otherwise noted, all the Sobranie sochinenii [Collected a book drawn from her thesis, Usages Vitebsk school of art, Karl Liebknecht’s and Rosa devoid of purpose or aim, it is factual and archival informa- Works], vol. 4 (Moscow: Gileia, et utopies: l’exposition dans l’avant- the state of unity that Malevich tion related to the city of Vi- 2003), 285. garde russe prérévolutionnaire (Dijon: Luxemburg’s deaths). An interesting collabora- is looking for. To follow any aim tebsk, its art school, teachers 23. Malevich, “1/48. Mir kak bespred- Les Presses du Réel).

Scapegoat Architecture/Landscape/Political Economy Issue 03 Realism 25