sign in sign up
<<
Home , Red Square (painting), Suprematism, Suprematist Composition, Vera Ermolaeva, White on White

Suprematist Architecture: a Plane Drawing Architectural History Thesis on Suprematist Architecture by

Delft University of Technology Fenna Regenboog April 2021 ABSTRACT

The thesis examines the unbuilt Suprematist architecture through the architectural drawings made by Russian artist Kazimir Malevich (1878-1935) over the period 1923-24. By looking into the expression of non-objectivity in the built object, the study complements the current body of knowledge of and architectural form development in the twentieth century. The research is constructed of a literature review and analysis of three architectural drawings by Malevich. Malevich envisioned an urban environment which form originates from Suprematist principles. Although the thesis has been able to establish the relation between Suprematism and the architectural form, there remains discussion to whether architectural principals or utopianism underlie the argument to why Suprematist architecture has not been constructed.

Keywords, Kazimir Malevch, Suprematism, Architecture, Drawing, Non-Objectivity

Delft University of Technology April 2021

AR2A011 Architectural History Thesis Dr. mr. E. Korthals Altes

Fenna Regenboog

Title page image, Kazimir Malevich in his Atelier, retrieved march 2021 from https://www.nrc.nl/ nieuws/2017/12/27/kosten-restauratie-eerst-betalen-dan-mogelijke-malevich-terug-a1586293 CONTENT

CHAPTER 1 Introduction p7

CHAPTER 2 Suprematism and the Planar Painting p9

Suprematism p9 Malevich and Suprematist Painting p11

CHAPTER 3 Architectural Drawings of Kazimir Malevich p15

Suprematist Architecture p15 The Architectural Form p17 The Architectural Drawing p19

CHAPTER 4 Discussion and Conclusion p25

4 5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

In the early twentieth century, the form and tempo of started changing as result of rapid industrialization. Therefore, it became apparent for painters to search for a new formative language that would capture the new dynamics of the city. The previous portraying of the perceptual beauty of nature became in contradiction with the artistic self, the painter had to go back to the primitive form. The search for an artistic language that would represent expressiveness, structure and simplicity of technique was a direct product of the experiments earlier done by Van Gogh, Gaugin and Cézanne (Gombrich & Houtzager, 1996). The search eventually led to a break between the reproduction of the perceptive and the new formative language in painting. In this period, the Russian painter Kazimir Malevich (1878-1935) developed the non-objective expression of Suprematism. With the principles of Suprematism, Malevich created a significant turning point in twentieth century painting. However, the exploration of non-objective painting was not enough for the artist, and from the twenties onwards, his work focused on translating his objectives on art to everyday life. The built environment became subject of the Suprematist form. By projecting his principles onto the built form, architecture became a new artistic style that would serve alone the purpose of beauty.

‘Our contemporaries must understand that life will not be content of art, but rather that art must become the content of life, since only thus can life be beautiful.’ Kazimir Malevich (In Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989, p 131)

In the twenties Malevich captured his objectives is several arkhitektonies and architectural drawings, and also in his theoretical work of The Non-Objective World (1959). The principles of Suprematism reached beyond the borders of ; The Non-Objective World was included in the curriculum of Walter Gropius’ School of Architecture (Frampton, 2020) and in 1924 his work was on display in the Russian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale (Barnett, 1992). Malevich and the non-objective form were not only of great significance in time of its origin, even in contemporary practice of painting and architecture his work remains to inspire, and thus of importance. The arkhitektony reappears in Rem Koolhaas’ The City of the Captive Globe Project (figure 1.1) and Suprematist architecture has greatly influenced the architectural practice of . Nevertheless, the Suprematist architecture of Malevich has never been translated to the built form, the Suprematist principles only came into built form by and Lazar Khidekel (Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013). Hence, the question arises why the principles of Suprematism were never translated to the built object by design of Malevich himself, and why his ideas on the architectural translation of Suprematism only remain to be traced on paper. Despite a remarkable amount of research regarding Kazimir Malevich and Suprematism in painting, the subject of Suprematist architecture remains to be obscure in academic writing. Thus, in the framework of drawing, the aspiration of this paper is to discover why the Suprematist architectural drawings of Malevich of the period 1923-24 have not been constructed. A literature review will create a theoretical framework from which three architectural drawings of Malevich - Future ‘Planity’ for Earth Dwellers, Modern Building and The Pilot’s Planit – will be analyzed to distinguish how the Suprematist principles are manifested in the architectural object. The first chapter will provide an overview of Suprematism, the non-objective form, and Malevich’s artistic development in painting. The following chapter will proceed with Malevich’s vision for Suprematist architecture and the analysis of the architectural drawings. The final chapter will discuss and conclude with the notion Figure 1.1 The City of the Captive Globe Peroject by R. Koolhaas and M. Vriesendorp (1972), Museum of , New York City of Suprematist architecture in drawing and how the thesis contributes to the wider understanding of architectural history and theory.

6 7 CHAPTER 2 Suprematism and the Planar Painting

The development of Malevich’s artistic expression created his momentum, and he rapidly became part of the Russian avant-garde, for the origination of Suprematism and his philosophical theory of non-objectivity (Beeren, Joosten &Veneman- Boersma, 1989). This chapter will introduce the definitions of Suprematism and the principles of non-objectivity, after which Malevich’s artistic progress in painting will be discussed in a chronological order.

Suprematism ‘Under Suprematism I understand the supremacy of pure feeling in creative art. To the Suprematist the visual phenomena of the objective world are, in themselves, meaningless; the significant thing is feeling, as such, quite apart from the environment in which itis called forth. The so-called ‘materializaton’ of a feeling in the conscious mind really means a materialization of the reflection of that feeling through the medium of some realistic conception. Such a Suprematist art, but in art generally, because the enduring, true value of a work of art resides solely in the feeling expressed.’ Kazimir Malevich (1959; p67)

The formation of Suprematism is, in Malevich’s opinion, a natural product of the progress of art. Art itself is not a reactionary activity, it is a progressive activity and therefore is not the act of merely reproducing the perceptive. The artist is to be aware of the conscious and subconscious state of mind in order to grasp the artistic value that lays beyond the sensible world, he is to be actively involved in the process of creation (Malevich, 1959). Cézanne started this movement of new artistic expression by composing the natural phenomena not only with reproducing the objective world, but by distorting the perceptive in order to create a balanced composition (Gombrich & Houtzager, 1996). Malevich (1959) thereby recognizes the introduction of the additional element – the attribute of a (artistic) culture and its expression in painting – which for Cézannism is characterized by the loose and light line that tries to imitate nature. The development of artistic form is followed by , a projection of which destroys the familiar aesthetic order of the ‘established’. The additional element of the canvas transforms into the crystalline, which properties origin in geometric form. Malevich detects the additional element of the Cubists in the work of the Futurist, only it no longer appears static, but is transformed into a dynamic line which echoes the movement of the city. thereby borders on a new artistic culture, that of Suprematism. Suprematism is the projection of pure feeling on the canvas, it is no longer restricted by the limitations of the objective world and therefore is described by Malevich as the non-objective projection. The phenomena of the objective world is without value, if not for the feeling it signifies. The mere purpose of art is to capture the world of will and idea, the non-objective world. This art is defined by the pure form, it only exists in and for itself (Malevich, 1959). The value of Suprematist art is therefore captured in the additional element of the straight line. As described in The Non-Objective World (1959), the Suprematist additional element expresses pure feeling, seeking no practical values, no ideas, no ‘promised land’; it lives beyond the time of its creation. The artistic form of Suprematism comes to be universal, as in the end, it is beauty itself. ‘The only obligation to nature which mankind has taken upon itself – namely to create art’ (Malevich, 1959; p84). Thus, Suprematist art obtains permanence, as it solely translates the feeling. Malevich recognizes that mankind, in its core, is formed and driven by feeling. The creation of objects which are bound to the needs of society, which are claimed to the practicality of life, are devalued and might be obsolete tomorrow – as society is dynamic.

8 9 Only when the artist is freed from practical utility, will he recognize the absolute artistic value of non-objectivity (Malevich, 1959; Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989).

Malevich and Suprematist Painting

The formation of Suprematism, as Malevich recognizes and proves in The Non-Objective World (1959), is only the product of the natural progression of art. As described before, the progress of Cézannism, Cubism and Futurism finally results in the formative expression of non-objectivity. Kazimir Malevich himself was only able to construct this formative language as he passed through the singular different phases of his predecessors (Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989; Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013; Malevich, 1959). Sarabianov (in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma; 1989) remarks on Malevich’s desire to create ‘something’ new, as in the act of reproducing nature there is no creative element to be detected. Malevich (1959) states that the artist rather creates by expressing himself, the act of composing a new reality which roots in the unconscious mind of the creator, is art itself. Therefore, Malevich starts experimenting with color and compositional placement, and arrives at his so-called Alogism. The Alogist artwork (figure 2.1) is constructed out of visual and spatial dislocated elements in order to move beyond the boundaries of the common sense and its establishes connections with superficial phenomena (Lodder, 2003; Kovtun & Douglas, 1981). In 1913 Malevich was asked to design the costumes for the Futurist performance of . His designs for the costumes were Cubist, however resemble the first traces of objectlessness. In the Futurist Strongman (figure 2.2) we recognize elements like the colored planes and the square, which will become central for Suprematist painting (Kovtun & Douglas, 1981). In addition, Malevich composed a curtain backdrop for the play (figure 2.3), which ‘abstract’ configuration of primitive forms resembles closely to his later Suprematist painting. Although Malevich was not aware of it at the time, this drawing embodies the final transition to Suprematism. The new artistic form is captured in its composition, which is supported by the (Kovtun & Douglas, 1981; Lodder, 2003). Malevich wrote ‘the curtain depicts the black square, the embryo of all possibilities; in its development it acquires a terrible strength. It is the ancestor of the cube and the sphere; its disintegration brings an amazing standard in painting’ (in Kovtun & Douglas, 1981; p235). Suprematism was introduced to the art scene during The Last Futurist Exhibition 0,10 in December 1915. Even though the curtain may have been the transitional piece of Suprematism, the central work of the exhibition was the painting of the Black Square (figure 2.5). The Suprematist painting translates the ambition of non-objectivity, which is also emphasized in the title of the exhibition; ‘I have turned myself into null of forms and have gone beyond 0-1’ (Malevich in Kovtun & Douglas, 1981). The Suprematist form was the product of a process of reduction of all formative objects to zero and the point beyond, and therefore symbolizes the break between form and object itself. The black square on the white canvas compresses the whole of painting for Malevich, as the square is comparable to the symbol of primitive men. The intent of man was never to create ornamented or decorative art, but to express the beauty of life (introduction by Hilberseimer in Malevich, 1959). The black square therefore not only expresses the feeling of non-objectivity, it is the liberation of the figurative picture and the objective representation; Figure 2.1 Cow and Violin by K. Malevich (1913), State , St. Petersburg ’The Black Square on the white field was the first form in which non-objective feeling came to Figure 2.2 Futurist Strongman by K. Malevich (1913), State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void beyond this feeling’ (Malevich, Figure 2.3 Suprematism: Large Black Trapezium and among Rectangles and Lines by K. Malevich (1915), Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1959; p76). Later analysis of the original painting shows that there lays a fully formulated Figure 2.4 Suprematistism by K. Malevich (1915), Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam

10 11 composition beneath the black paint, indicating that the composition of the black square is indeed the ultimate result of a process of reduction (Lodder, 2003). Thus, understandably, the painting became the iconic representation of Suprematism, as it not only captures the non-objective form, but it is itself the product of progressive artistic expression. In the period that followed, Malevich experimented further with the formative expression of Suprematism. In his later theoretical work, he depicts three stages of Suprematist painting – black, red and white.

‘Suprematism is divisible into three stages, according to the number of squares – black, red and white, the black period, the colored period, and the white period. The latter denotes white forms painted white. All three stages took place between the years 1913 and 1918. These periods were constructed according to a purely planar development, and the main economic principle lay at the basis of their construction – of how to convey the power of tactics or of apparent dynamic rest by means of a single plane.’ Kazimir Malevich (in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989; p69-70)

The black period is characterized by the radical change that Suprematism brought to the artistic scene of Europe, the introduction to the true form of art. We recognize the pure geometric form of the plane, square, circle and cross as the main figures on the canvas (Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989; Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013; Lodder, 2003). The purpose of the red period is to extent the individual breakthrough to the public, to make Suprematism a great artistic movement. In this period the complexity of the composition increases, and there is an experimental attitude towards the use of color, material, and technique (figure 2.6) (Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013; Lodder, 2003; Hoeningswald, 1997). In the final phase of Suprematist painting, color is reduced to only white. The Suprematist form is composed out of form and texture (Hoeningswald, 1997). In these late-Suprematist paintings, like (figure 2.7), the composition finds its desired dynamic character. Then, after the exhibition of White on White, Malevich abandoned painting to explore other possibilities to creative art that have been opened up by the liberation of objective perception (Lodder, 2003; Malevich, 1959). Malevich concludes his book of The Non-Objective World (1959) with the statement, ‘The artist (the painter) is no longer bound to the canvas (picture plane) and can transfer his compositions from canvas to space’ (p100).

Figure 2.5 Black Square by K. Malevich (1915), Tretyakov Gallery, Figure 2.6 Red Square: Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in 2 Dimensions by K. Malevich (1915). State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg Figure 2.7 : White on White by K. Malevich (1918), , New York City

12 13 CHAPTER 3 Architectural Drawings of Kazimir Malevich

Malevich concludes The Non-Objective World (1959) with the statement on how the Suprematist movement has freed the art of its former practicality that limited the creative process, now new possibilities within art lay open to be explored. Thereby, the painter is no longer bound to the canvas and is able to transfer his composition into space.

Suprematist Architecture

When Malevich exhibited his monolithic compositions White on White in 1917-1918, it seemed that the ultimate translation of the Suprematist form – the square, circle and cross – was accomplished (Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013; Malevich, 1959). Nonetheless, the principles of Suprematism were not limited to the plane picture, his devotion shifted to the exploration of Suprematism beyond the canvas and theoretical research (Beeren, Joosten & Veneman- Boersma, 1989). By suggestion of El Lissitzky, Malevich starts teaching in 1919 at the art school in Vitebsk, founded by . In order to teach the principles of Suprematism, he introduces a new type of art education in which all forms of art are integrated into a universal system. UNOVIS, or Affirmer of the New Art, is founded on the base of collectivity in the creative process – many of its members like , El Lissitzky and Chashnik would be of great importance for the Soviet art (Beeren, Joosten &Veneman-Boersma, 1989). As Malevich had declared the death of painting in 1920, the purpose of the new collective was to restructure the world according to the principles of Suprematism, with an emphasis on the development of the plastic form. The collective not only produced a wide range of everyday products, but also speculated on how the principles of Suprematism would transform the built environment (Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013; Wisotzki & Freifeld, 1990). Malevich himself mainly focused on his theoretical work during his time in Vitebsk; ‘I will describe in writing all that I see in regard to the infinite expanse of man’s skull’ (Malevich in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989, p162). It is this period that the Suprematist form enters the domain of space; the square becomes a cubic, and the cubic becomes the principal form of Suprematist architecture (Tates, Rutten & Imanse, 2013). This translation to the spatial sphere is only natural when we consider Malevich’s interest in the universal character of the world order, and therefore requiring a deeper understanding of the city’s arrangement. Which is ultimately defined in the relation between man and the universe (Volchock, 2018). To shape the man-made world to the principles of Suprematism would mean an environment, as defined by Bliznakov (1976), which would evoke specified sensations and feelings and thus continuously better their users. Its architecture, with absolute, eternal aesthetic values, would be composed out of pure, enduring geometric forms, volumes and planes. Malevich was aware that in order to create such a three-dimensional work, the study and knowledge of technology and construction was required. While the emphasize of Suprematist architecture was placed on the spatial arrangement, he did consider the buildings’ components of materiality, structure, and aspects of comfort and safety. There was no longer to be spoken of ‘composing’, yet it came to ‘constructing’ the build form (Beeren, Joosten &Veneman-Boersma, 1989; Wisotzki & Freifeld, 1990). The non-objective approach of architecture could only be constructed after the liberation of utilitarian functions of life, functions that do not belong to art. Suprematist architecture is a form of art, and therefore it is created to purely pursuit beauty. Indeed, Malevich recognizes that there are structures to serve the function of life, while these forms are created by utilitarian functions they cannot be perceived as art.

14 15 ‘The form of art and the form of utilitarian functions are quite different. From the comparison we see that the forms like art will be valued today, whilst the other will merely have the value of human imperfection. Thus all that is created by art remains for ever, and neither time nor new types of social relations can alter it.’ Kazimir Malevich (in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989)

Therefore art, and architecture, are not to be polluted with the influence of economic, political, religious and utilitarian phenomena. In fact, this is what Malevich sees as the main problem of the twentieth century art and thus architecture, art becomes subject to the economic and political gain. The architect was a puppet to utilitarianism, and thereby obstructed the movement of new architecture and new artistic form (Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989). The architect had forgotten that the real aim of life is to create art, as after all, history had taught that the persistence of the architectural monument is without function (Heynen, 2014). Nonetheless, in his essay Painting and the Problem of Architecture of 1928 (published in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989), he recognizes that the architectural form of architects like Theo van Doesburg, , Gerrit Rietveld and Walter Gropius was on the track to become the Suprematist architectural form. The new architecture was under the influence of ‘plane painting’, or the plane element, and therefore resembles earlier stages of Suprematist painting. The impression of the architectural form remained two-dimensional, and reminded of the element of the square. Suprematist architecture is created as ‘architecture as such’ (Bliznakov, 1976); defined in its pure form without a utilitarian purpose. The architecture would be the means to restructure the urban environment in pursuit to integrate art in everyday life. Though Malevich’s architectural structures remained theoretical, they do convey his vision for the future (Wisotzki & Freifeld, 1990).

The Architectural Form

The form of Suprematist architecture is constructed out of the pure form, the cubic. The architectural drawings and models that Malevich constructed over the twenties carried a strong emphasis on the composition of the geometric elements; forms, volumes, and planes (Bliznakov, 1976; Wisotzki & Freifeld, 1990). The arkhitektony (figure 3.1), a plaster structure with an undefined scale, comes closest to the vision of the spatial form of Suprematist architecture (Cohen, 1984). The arkhitektony reminds of the architectural object, either as a building or a complex. Nonetheless, it remains undefined in what it is – or could be. It has no function, and does not imply a use of space: it merely defines the form of the object itself. A range of these structural compositions was produced, and are roughly categorizable in horizontal, like figure 3.1, and vertical models. The vertical orientated arkhitektony (figure 3.2) especially lacks in the dynamic sensation – which is the primary (additional) element of the Suprematist paintings – and resembles more of a ‘Monument to the land of the Soviets’ (Lodder, 2003). Which is remarkable, as Malevich’s main criticism on contemporary architecture was the impure influence of economics and politics. The horizontal arkhitektony retains more of the dynamic element, nonetheless it lacks in the spatial ambiguities and the textural characteristics of Suprematist painting Figure 3.1 Arkitektony Alpha by K. Malevich (original 1923, reconstruction by P. Penderson, 1989), Musée National d’Art Moderne, Centre Pompidou, (Lodder, 2003). The structure appears more like an experimental compositional model, then Figure 3.2 Zeta Arkhitekton by K. Malevich (before april 1927), formerly in the collection of Helena and they resemble the qualities of a built structure, though, that might be what the artist was Szymon Syrkus, Warsaw. Lost. Figure 3.3 Photomontage of Suprematist Architecture by K. Malevich (1926), published in Praesens, Warsaw aiming for as they are specifically left without scale and ambiguous in their reading. In 1926,

16 17 Malevich published a photomontage where the Suprematist arkhitektony or building is portrayed in the context of the American high-rise city (figure 3.3), indicating a sense of scale. Nonetheless, the montage is ambiguous in its perspective and the projection of the object against the background, leaving an open interpretation to the form of Suprematist architecture.

The Architectural Drawing

Malevich not only captured his utopian desire of restructuring the environment to the Suprematist principles in the creation of the arkhitektony, but also in drawing. His first experimental drawings of the spatial Suprematist structure were created in 1916 (figure 3.4), the period when he was still concerning himself with the expression of Suprematism on the painted canvas. Although the Suprematist composition of figure 3.3 is rather abstract, later architectural drawings of his planits (future houses), produced after his move to Vitebesk, are more suggestive of the architectural object.

The drawing of Future Planity for Earth Dwellers (figure 3.5) is constructed of paper and graphite pencil with the dimensions of 44x30.8 (Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989). The drawing has a structured composition of the Suprematist forms. The composition is centred around an axis, which implies a directionality or movement and reminds of the Suprematist additional element. Although the composition appears to be symmetrical at first glance, when looked more closely we see subtle differentiations within the composition of the different elements – still the ‘symmetrical’ appearance unifies the elements of the composition. The drawing does not implicate a scale to the object, however with the various dimensions of the cubic elements we can read a suggestive scale of the architectural object in its entirety. Similar to the Suprematist paintings, there is no application of shadow. The composition is formed by contrasting planes of white and black. Yet, probably due to the chosen perspective of the projection, there is a spatial component introduced to the drawing. It is noticeable that the invention of the airplane, and thereby the “possibility” of interplanetary flight, influences the dynamics and projection of his work (Kovtun & Douglas, 1981; Wisotzki & Freifeld, 1990). The aerial projection of the architectural object would not be perceptible from a grounded perspective, and in the same image we can see that Malevich was aware of this himself. On the left side and along the bottom he draws the elevations of the project in planar view. The planar compositions of the elevation and plan lack the dynamic element, they seem rather static. Alongside these planar projections is a compact inscription:

‘Planit Suprematism in the structures of form “a F” 2 group. Material is white frosted glass, concrete, steel, iron, electric heating, planit has no chimneys. Planit is painted predominantly black and white and in exceptional cases red. Depends on the fall or rise in the dynamic condition of the city or state. The Planit must be universally tangible for the earth dweller. He can be everywhere – on top or inside the house, can live equally well inside or on the roof of the planit. The planit system enables it to be kept clean, it can be washed without any appliances, each of its volumes is a low-growth floor, although pedestrian access is like climbing the stairs. The walls are heated as well as the ceilings and floor.’

Figure 3.4 Table no. 3. Spatial Suprematism by K. Malevich (1916), location unknown Kazimir Malevich (in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989, p 252) Figure 3.5 Future ‘Planity’ (Houses) for Earth Dwellers (People) by K. Malevich (1923-24), Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam

18 19 The inscription, along with the given title of Future Planity for Earth Dwellers, describes the function of the architectural object: housing for the earth dweller. This brings an interesting ambiguity to the drawing as for example the need for (modern) heating is described, the composition further misses all the characteristics of the house: a door and windows. In 1927 Malevich wrote ‘Non-Objective art stands without windows and doors, like a pure sensation, in which life, like a homeless tramp, desires to spend the night. An opening of apertures is required’ (Lodder, 2003, p543). Arguably, in the perspective of non-objectivity the door and windows are redundant, as they fulfil only a utilitarian function and do not contribute to the pure form that Suprematist architecture is. Despite this, Malevich does concern himself with the specification of heating, which is to be completely integrated in the planar elements of the architecture. The contentious abandonment of the chimney lays in its utilitarian function as well, as the integration of it would pollute the pure composition of the architecture. The inscription also suggests an awareness of the environmental conditions by the author. The colour usage – which refers back to his painting in its simplicity of the three colours of black, red and white – would be in reaction to the conditions of the urban environment. Nonetheless, the architectural drawing of the object is positioned in an isolated environment. The inscription also demonstrates that Malevich was aware of contemporary techniques and materiality, as well as its maintenance. The inscription suggests a use of the spatial composition, although this stays rather cryptic which is understandable as the aim of Suprematist architecture is to create art. The consideration of utilitarian use would create an impure architecture and only pure architecture will persist through time, as the demand for new types by social changes will not alter it (Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989). Thus, indicating that the spatial quality of Suprematist architecture will adapt to the needs of society, as its form is pure. Therefore, the Suprematist structure is constructed without a purpose, and may be used by man as is described underneath Modern Buildings (figure 3.6), constructed of paper and graphite pencil (36 x 53.5).

‘Suprematism. View of the planit from above. Built without any purpose, but which may be used by the earth dweller for his own purposes.’ Kazimir Malevich (in Beeren, Joosten & Veneman-Boersma, 1989, p 252)

Modern Buildings differentiates in two aspects from the other drawings that are analysed in this paper. Firstly, the drawn structure is composed of (which seem to be) two architectural objects which unite in their composition by the directionality of form. The drawings Future Planity for Earth Dwellers and The Pilot’s ‘Planit’ (figure 3.7) rather show the composition of one architectural object that is formed in its symmetry. The composition of the Modern Buildings is more complex in its configuration of singular elements, which are centred around the two main cubic forms. The assemble, and conscious placement, of the elements result in an entirety of the composition with a dual directionality. Secondly, Malevich includes three human figures in the composition of the drawing which indicate a clear objective of scale. The inclusion of the human figure is unique, as Malevich prefers to leave his architectural projections uninhabited. After all, the architectural form defines the object, not its use or occupancies.

Figure 3.6 Modern Buildings by K. Malevich (1923-24), Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam

20 21 The final drawing that will be discussed in this paper is The Pilot’s ‘Planit’, paper and graphite pencil (30.5 x 45). Like the previous drawings the buildings’ composition has a clear directionality to it. Combined with the aerial perspective, the building appears dynamic and suggests a movement forward. Unlike the previous discussed designs, this structure is composed out of elements that are placed perpendicular. In this composition we almost recognize a direct translation of the buildings subject, the plane, with its main body and wings. Secondly, the architectural drawing introduces the spatial plane to the Suprematist style. The planar elements of the roof are extending the lines of the cubic form, introducing a linearity to the composition. Somehow the introduction of the plane element, combined with the aerial view, strengthens the connotation of the plane; it seems to catch air underneath the wings and take off into space itself. The connotation of the object is of course in contrast with the Suprematist principle of the non-objective representation.

In conclusion, the drawings and arkhitektony provide an insight in Malevich’s experiments of the spatial composition of Suprematist architecture. He therefore concerned himself with the utilitarian prospects of mortal life, but seems rather selective in the elaborative execution of it in his designs. Form and composition are the leading objectives in the construction of Suprematist architecture, the utilitarian use – and its figurative form and scale – are subordinate to it. As after all, Suprematist architecture is to be the manifestation of non- objective art in the spatial world.

Figure 3.7 The Pilot’s ‘Planit’ (house) by K. Malevich (1924), Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam

22 23 CHAPTER 4 Discussion and Conclusion

Kazimir Malevich, and his non-objective perspective on the world, has had a great influence on the progression of the artistic form in the twentieth century. Malevich’s painted canvasses are today to be found in renowned art institutes around the globe, and his theoretical manifesto on non-objectivity is included in most writings about form evolution in the twentieth century. In Malevich’s pursuit to transfer the principles of Suprematism to the dimension of space, he focused on the creation of non-objective everyday objects and the built environment. The built manifestation of Suprematism ultimately resided in the utopian desire of an environment where all objects would originate in the objective of beauty. As for the purpose of this thesis, to discover why the architectural designs by Malevich were not constructed, the analysis of three architectural drawings of the period 1923-24 has provided insight in the expression of Suprematist thinking in the ‘built’ object. However, we are only able to speculate on the question why these structures were never erected to spatial objects.

Firstly, the argument could be made that the principles of Suprematism and the sole purpose of architecture contradict each other. Architecture is the phenomenon of a physical object that derives from society’s need for shelter. The architectural object therefore is subject to utilitarianism and social relations. In contrast, Malevich sees the influence of political, economic, religious, and utilitarian phenomena on art as a disease to it. In his view, architecture solely serves the pursuit of beauty, and therefore is not subject to matters of society and time. In the Suprematist architectural drawings this contradiction is captured on paper; the planits are constructed to be dwellings, yet they fall short in the characteristic elements of the house. The architectural object is merely created by the planar elements of the house – the floor, walls and the roof – and together construct the Suprematist form of the cubic. The architectural object is reduced to its pure form. Nonetheless, in Malevich’s drawings and writings it is apparent that he did concern himself with the practical questions of constructing architecture in the sense of materiality and technique, suggesting the exploration of realization by the artist. In pursuit of construction, the matters of characteristic elements and utilitarianism would have taken overhand and polluted the pure form of the architectural object. The contradiction of the principles of architecture and Suprematism may have obstructed the realization of Suprematist architecture.

In addition, it is arguable that the architectural object of Malevich was not constructed, not as a result of a sensible matter, but as a principal choice. Perhaps the Suprematist architecture was only created as a theoretical provocation to his contemporaries and to explore the limits of Suprematism. The architectural object in the drawings, as well as the arkhitektony, is represented as an isolated structure. There is no indication of environmental characteristics or scale included, yet from his theoretical writings we are able to distillate that the Suprematist structures were in reaction to the changing cityscape and were themselves envisioned in this context. The city would develop over time into an urban setting that facilitates only the Suprematist structure. Thus, the city would not be affected by changes of society and time, and would merely be characterized by art. This utopian perspective on the city, is reflected in the projection of the architectural object in the aerial view. The dynamic appearance of the buildings from the sky is distant

24 25 and does not relate to how man would perceive the structure in reality. So, the suggestive expression of the drawings seems to serve a higher pursuit that is beyond the human experience, and is in line with Malevich’s utopian perspective on the future city. The pursuit of Suprematism within the domain of architecture would thus only function as an academic exploration of the utopian city, and therefore could only exist on paper.

To conclude, the exploration of Malevich’s architectural object within the domain of the built environment is depicted as a natural progression of his search for the pure form of Suprematism. The transition of the additional element from the canvas to space has manifested itself in the architectural drawing. As to why these compositional structures have not been constructed, remains an open-ended issue on which we can only reflect. Whether the origin of this issue resides in the execution of the design, the utopian pursuit of the city or perhaps another cause altogether continues to be open for further discussion. Nonetheless, by introducing a new perspective on the existing literature of Kazimir Malevich and Suprematism, the thesis is of value for the understanding of Suprematist architecture and the progression of architectural form in the twentieth century. As for now, Suprematist architecture remains to exist as a plane projection on paper and stands to inspire artists and architects.

Figure 4.1 Kazimir Malevich in his Atelier, retrieved march 2021 from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/12/27/ kosten-restauratie-eerst-betalen-dan-mogelijke-malevich-terug-a1586293

26 27 BIBIOGRAPHY

Barnett, V. E., Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Amsterdam (Netherlands). Stedelijk Museum, & Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt. (1992). The Russian Presence in the 1924 Venice Biennale. In The Great Utopia (pp. 466–473). New York, United States of America: Guggenheim Museum.

Beeren, W. A. L., Joosten, J. M., & Veneman-Boersma, L. (1989). Kazimir Malevich nederlands/engels (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam tentoonstellingscatalogus editie, Vol. 727). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.

Bliznakov, M. (1976). Soviet Union: The Constructivist Movement in Architecture. p 208-209

Cohen, J. (1984). AMERICA: A SOVIET IDEAL. AA Files, (5), 32-40. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29543378

Frampton, K. (2020). . New York, United States of America: Thames & Hudson.

Gombrich, E. H., & Houtzager, M. E. (1996). Eeuwige schoonheid / druk 21. Houten, Nederland: Gaade.

Heynen, H. (2014). “Dàt is architectuur”: sleutelteksten uit de twintigste eeuw (Dutch Edition) (pp. 165 - 176). Rotterdam, The Nether¬lands: NAI Uitgevers/Publishers Stichting.

Hoeningswald, A. (1997). Kazimir Malevich’s Paintings: Surface and Intended Appearance. Studies in the , 57, 108-125. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42622258

Kovtun, E. F. and Douglas, C. (1981). Kazimir Malevich. Art Journal, 41 (3), 234-241. Retrieved December 10, 2020, https://www.jstor.org/stable/776564

Lodder, C. (2003). Kazimir Malevich. New York. The Burlington Magazine, 145(1204), 541-543. Retrieved December 10, 2020, from http://www. jstor.org/stable/3100777

Malevich, K. (1959). The Non-Objective World. Chicago, United States of America: Paul Theobald and Company. (English version, Original was printed in German 1927)

Tates, S., Rutten, B., & Imanse, G. (2013). Kazimir Malevich en de Russische Avant-Garde (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam tentoonstellings¬catalogus editie, Vol. 906). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Idea Books.

Volchok, Y. (2018). The Notion of “High” and commitment to excellence in contemporary . History and project: looking into future. E3S Web of Conferences, 33, 01015. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183301015

Wisotzki, P., & Freifeld, S. (1990). Kazimir Malevich Teaching Packet. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art. FIGURE BIBIOGRAPHY

TITLE PAGE [Photo]. (1924). Kazimir Malevich in his Atelier. Retrieved from https://www. nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/12/27/kosten-restauratie-eerst-betalen-dan- mogelijke-malevich-terug-a1586293

CHAPTER 1 figure 1.1 Koolhaas, R., & Vriesendorp, M. (1972). The City of the Captive Globe Project [Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.moma.org/collection/ works/104696

CHAPTER 2 figure 2.1 Malevich, K. (1913). Cow and Violin [Painting]. In Kazimir Malevich (tentoonstellingscatalogus 1989 ed., p. 92). figure 2.2 Malevich, K. (1913b). Futurist Strongman [Drawing]. In Kazimir Malevich (tentoonstellingscatalogus 1989 ed., p. 239). figure 2.3 Malevich, K. (1915). Suprematism: Large Black Trapezium and Red Square among Rectangles and Lines [Drawing]. In The Burlington Magazine (1204th ed., p. 542). figure 2.4 Malevich, K. (1915b). Suprematistism [Painting]. In Kazimir Malevich (tentoonstellingscatalogus 1989 ed, p. 137). figure 2.5 Malevich, K. (1915a). Black Square [Painting]. In Kazimir Malevich (tentoonstellingscatalogus 1989 ed., p. 9). figure 2.6 Malevich, K. (1915b). Red Square: Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in 2 Dimensions [Painting]. In Kazimir Malevich (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 1989 ed., p. 133). figure 2.7 Malevich, K. (1918). Suprematist Composition: White on White [Painting]. In Kazimir Malevich en de Russische Avant-Garde (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 2013 ed., p. 107).

CHAPTER 3 figure 3.1 Penderson, P. (1989). Arkitektony Alpha [Photo]. In Kazimir Malevich en de Russische Avant-Garde (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 2013 ed., p. 134). figure 3.2 Malevich, K. (before april 1927). Zeta Arkhitekton [Photo]. In Kazimir Malevich (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 1989 ed., p. 128). figure 3.3 Malevich, K. (1926). Photomontage of Suprematist Architecture [Photomontage]. In AA Files (5th ed., p. 36). figure 3.4 Malevich, K. (1916). Table no. 3. Spatial Suprematism [Drawing]. In Kazimir Malevich (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 1989 ed., p. 251). Malevich, K. (1923). Future ‘Planity’ (Houses) for Earth Dwellers (People) figure 3.5 [Drawing]. In Kazimir Malevich (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 1989 ed., p. 252). figure 3.6 Malevich, K. (1923b). Modern Buildings [Drawing]. In Kazimir Malevich (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 1989 ed., p. 253). figure 3.7 Malevich, K. (1924). The Pilot’s ‘Planit’ [Drawing]. In Kazimir Malevich (Tentoonstellingcatalogus 1989 ed., p. 253).

CHAPTER 4 figure 4.1 [Photo]. (1924). Kazimir Malevich in his Atelier. Retrieved from https://www. nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/12/27/kosten-restauratie-eerst-betalen-dan- mogelijke-malevich-terug-a1586293