Figurative Art in Soviet Russia circa 1921 - 1934: situating the realist- anti-realist debate in the context of changing definitions of proletarian culture. Jacqueline Nolte Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts at the University of Cape Town. University of Cape Town March 1994 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town ~ .. ,-.,,­ i ',/ ., .·f 7 fv1AY J .... ., ..... I.,_,., ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this dissertation is due to the financial aid rendered by The Centre for Science Development and the University of Cape Town Research Council. I wish to extend my thanks to Sandra Klapper for her dedicated and patient supervision of this dissertation. I am indebted to Evelyn Cohen for initiating me into the discipline of History of Art and for encouraging me to persevere in this field of study. I am grateful also to Helen Bradford for allowing me to participate in the Russian Revolution Honours Course in the department of History and Economic History at UCT. Acknowledgements are also due to the professional service rendered by the staff of the inter-library loan department of UCT and UCT slide librarian Alex d'Angelo. I wish, finally, to thank Antoinette Zanda for her friendship and support. iii ABSTRACT Figurative art in Soviet Russia circa 1921-1934: situating the realist - anti-realist debate in the context of changing definitions of proletarian culture. In this dissertation I demonstrate that in many Western and Soviet texts the work of so­ called formalist leftists and figurative artists are viewed as diametrically opposed to one another. I argue against the perpetuation of this polemic and the assumptions that inform this view. These assumptions are that the leftists produced self-referential works indicative of an anti-realist philosophy and that figurative artists produced social commentaries informed by a philosophy of realism which led 'inevitably' to Socialist Realism. Although a few recent texts warn against oversimplifying this debate, none go far enough in deconstructing the view that there were two groupings diametrically opposed to one another. In fact, many simply repeat the argument as it was articulated in the twenties and thirties, which is to ignore the possibility of a critical analysis of the theoretical principles and constraints informing the debates current at that time. Categorising leftists as anti-realist and figurative artists as realist is not satisfactory firstly because neither the leftists nor the figurative artists existed as homogenous groupings and secondly because many figurative artists (the so-called realists) in fact challenged the idea of a coherent world order existing external to the art work. Nevertheless there are artists from both these categories who asserted the importance of an objective world that was external to and a primary determinant of the art work. In this dissertation I demonstrate that these figurative artists often shared the same ideological goals with leftists. Instead of working with the idea of viewing artists of the twenties and thirties as realist or anti­ realist, figurative or so-called formalist, I discuss their philosophical and stylistic choices in relation to the political and economic project of the period, namely the empowerment of the proletariat and the attempt to foster a proletarian culture. Chapter One of the dissertation begins with an overview of theories of realism which were crucial to the development of Soviet art in the twenties and early thirties. These were Marxist theories of realism espoused by G. Plekhanov, V. Lenin, L. Trotsky and A. JV Lunacharsky. I discuss these theories in . relation to the political project of the protagonists and their arguments for either a classless or a proletarian culture. Chapter Two is given over to establishing the political project of the so-called formalists, their institutional status and theoretical claims. I discuss the adaptation of their theories of realism in relation to the political and economic pressures to increase industrial output. I consider their definitions of realism in the context of political and economic arguments for technical expertise and arguments for and against the assimilation of pre-revolutionary art forms. Chapter Three describes the constitution of various figurative groups in the twenties and early thirties, their status in the face of attacks from leftists, and their diverse claims to realism. As in Chapter Two the production of artists is located within the context of socio-political and economic developments. Here I focus on the effect of political developments which occurred after the death of Lenin, the ways in which these informed figurative artists' claims to objective analysis and the impression that this created of their being committed to the realist project. Chapter Four tests and disputes these claims to objectivity through a careful visual analysis of selected works from groups discussed in Chapter Three. The formal operations of works which both reinforce and contradict Marxist notions of realism are discussed. The decision to analyse only figurative works is informed by the belief that it is the absence of detailed analyses of figurative work produced between circa 1921 and 1934 that has led to misrepresentations and oversimplifications of the work of this period. In the Conclusion to the dissertation I argue that these misrepresentations have been informed by refusals, both conscious and unconscious, to acknowledge the dialogue and mutually beneficial exchanges which occurred between formalists and Marxists, not only in the area of clearly articulated theoretical exchange, but also in the less perspicuous area of practical production. This dialogue was characterised by an attempt to regard the image as a sign and to concede its importance as a specific contiguity of elements whose arrangement could elicit non-habitual, and therefore revolutionary, perspectives of the world. The shared area of interest between Marxist Realists and 'formalists' pertained not only to the radical project of challenging modes of perception but also to a realization that the recognition or dis-ease elicited by these configurations was contingent on culturally or socially specific codes of convention. V TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................ ABSTRACT . Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS . v GLOSSARY .................................................... vii INTRODUCTION . ix CHAPTER ONE MARXIST THEORIES OF REALISM IN RELATION TO POLITICAL ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A PROLETARIAN CULTURE. 1 Georgy Plekhanov . 2 Lev Trotsky . 8 Anatoly Lunacharsky . 16 Vladimir Lenin . 28 CHAPTER 1WO LEFTISTS POSITION THEMSELVES IN OPPOSITION TO EASEL ARTISTS AND FIGURATIVE REALISM. 41 Introduction . 41 A. The pre-1921 context . 43 B. Theories of Productivism as the new 'proletarian culture' in INKhUK, Narkompros and Proletkult (1921-1924). 52 C. Socio-political factors which informed the status of the so-called formalists in the visual arts sector. 64 CHAPTER THREE THE STATUS OF FIGURATIVE ART IN RELATION TO THE CHANGING SOCIO-POLITICAL EVENTS BE1WEEN 1921 AND 1934 . 81 Introduction . 81 A. 1921-1923: Easel art groups react to leftists criticisms (The Makovets, NOZh, Bytie and AKhRR). 86 B. The impact of the NEP debates on the status of figurative art. 94 C. The Discussional Show 1924. 99 D. Objectivity and scientific analysis remain the hallmark of most figurative groups after the Discussional Exhibition. 105 E. 1927-1931: The proletarian culture debate assumes a more militant tone with the formation of October, AKhR and RAPKh. ......... 115 F. Increased role of the state in the consolidation of art groups and the promotion of Socialist Realism after the cultural revolution. 127 VI CHAPTER FOUR A VISUAL ANALYSIS OF FIGURATIVE ART PRODUCTION BE1WEEN 1921 AND 1934. 139 A Figurative groups working in the style of pre-revolutionary realism and Russian Cezannism: Makovets, Bytie, NOZh and OMZh........ 143 B. Modernist figurative groups formed in response to the 1924 Discussional Show: Association of Three, Projectionists, Concretists and OST............................................... 154 C. From Symbols to Types: Filinov, The Four Arts and The Circle of Arts. ................................................ 175 D. Traditionalists and leftists share a didactic platform: AKhRR, AKhR, October and RAPKh. 199 CONCLUSION ................................................. 229 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 247 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ....................................... 265 VII GLOSSARY AKhR Association of Artists of the revolution. Established in 1928. Previously known as AKhRR. AKhRR Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia. Established in 1922. Renamed AKhR. Bolshevik A group within the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party (RSDLP). It was led by Lenin after a split at the 1903 RSDLP congress. In 1918 it became the Russian Communist Party and in 1925 the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. FOSKh Federation of Associations of Soviet Artists in the Spatial Arts. Established in 1931. Glavpolitprosvet Central Committee of Political Enlightenment. Established