5 A new production culture and non-commodities After­the­two­turns­in­Soviet­material­and­visual­culture­–­the­Khrushchev- era­aesthetic­turn and­the­mid-1960s­anti-functionalist­turn – Soviet­mate- rial­culture­became­a­site­of­great­plurality­and­diversity,­otherwise­rarely­ associated­ with­ the­ Brezhnev­ era.­ Whereas­ VNIITE­ theorists­ explored­ the­possibilities­of­flexible­and­user-sensitive­systemic­designing,­as­the­ preceding­chapter­has­discussed,­the­critics­and­practitioners­of­decora- tive­art­chose­self-reflection­as­their­foremost­professional­strategy. This­choice­had­two­important­consequences.­First,­decorative­artists­ gravitated­further­towards­more­complex­forms.­While­between­the­late­ 1950s­and­early­1960s­applied­artists­expected­the­Artists’­Union­to­facil- itate­the­production­of­‘simple­and­neat­objects’,1­and­critics­saw­‘beauty­ in­simplicity’,2­a­new­view­was­expressed­beginning­around­1963­that­now­ ‘everything­is­much­more­complicated’.3­By­the­1970s,­the­complexity­of­ material­objects­became­not­only­undeniable­but­also­welcome.­Evaluating­ the­ 1970­ All-Union­ Decorative­ Art­ Exhibition­ in­ Moscow,­ dedicated­ to­ Lenin’s­100th­birthday,­the­editorial­team­of­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR noted­ the­ exhibition­ artists’­ skill­ in­ solving­ ‘complex,­ and­ sometimes­ deliberately­ complicated­ tasks’.4­ If­ at­ this­ point­ 1960s­ neodecorativism­ was­often­still­seen­by­critics­as­a­creative­laboratory­for­mass-produced­ objects,­1970s­decorative­art­affirmed­the­social­value­of­complex­designs,­ hardly­adoptable­for­mass­production.­Simplicity­lost­its­status­as­a­univer- sal­value­in­socialist­material­culture­and­ceased­to­be­a­necessary­charac- teristic­of­a­comradely­object. The­increasing­distance­from­mass­production­was­motivated­by­the­ professional­ambition­to­elevate­decorative­art­to­the­level­of­philosoph- ical­exploration,­to­make­it­a­forum­for­discussing­the­universal­human­ condition­like­any­other­field­of­art.­As­in­the­early­1950s,­artists­working­ with­ceramic,­glass,­textiles­and­other­materials­demanded­that­they­be­ Yulia Karpova - 9781526139863 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/05/2021 01:25:37PM via free access KARPOVA 9781526139870 PRINT.indd 159 20/01/2020 11:10 160 Comradely objects ­recognised­as­proper­artists.­This­time,­however,­their­argument­did­not­ hinge­on­the­indispensability­of­the­objects­they­designed­to­people’s­daily­ lives,­but­on­the­rich­potential­of­the­material­to­express­complex­ideas­–­ the­ artists­ proposed­ a­ non-utilitarian­ materiality.­ A­ ceramic­ artist­ could­ now­be­like­a­sculptor­or,­even­better,­a­painter;­ceramics­were­more­pow- erful­and­eloquent­than­the­traditional­materials­of­fine­art.­This­new­argu- ment­ echoed­ contemporary­ discussions­ of­ decorative­ arts­ and­ crafts­ in­ the­United­Kingdom.­According­to­Judy­Attfield,­professional­craftspeople­ often­rebranded­their­work­as­‘applied­art’­or­‘decorative­art’­in­the­1970s,­ hoping­to­gain­public­acceptance­for­their­work­as­art.­‘To­those­critics­ who­saw­craft­as­a­retreat­from­innovation,­modernism­and­progressive­ design,­the­bid­was­to­elevate­its­status­by­redefining­craftwork­as­a­“crea- tive”­art­and­“craftspeople”­as­designer-makers­with­the­right­of­entry­into­ the­circle­of­respectability­enjoyed­by­fine­artists.’5­Although­this­ambition­ remained­unrealised,­British­decorative­arts­did­achieve­some­prestige­as­ a­middle-class­profession­through­the­growth­of­degree­courses­on­ceram- ics,­ woodwork,­ plastics,­ jewellery­ and­ metalwork.­ In­ the­ Soviet­ Union,­ however,­the­decorative­artist­did­not­want­a­middle-class­status­–­officially­ still­non-existent­in­Soviet­society­–­but­rather­yearned­to­enter­the­intelli- gentsia­and­take­part­in­its­traditional­role­as­an­educated­sub-community­ cultivating­ critical­ attitudes­ in­ society.­ While­ not­ openly­ criticising­ the­ Soviet­system­and­not­taking­the­dissident­path,­decorative­artists­in­the­ Brezhnev­era­navigated­the­muddy­waters­of­late­socialist­cultural­policy­ in­order­to­make­a­difference­in­Soviet­aesthetics­and­consumer­culture­ through­their­mastery­of­materials.­They­attempted­to­make­their­objects­ say­more­than­the­official­vision­of­decorative­art­allowed.­They­aspired­to­ create­much­more­than­just­commodities. This­ chapter­ examines­ the­ development­ of­ non-utilitarian­ objects­ in­ the­ changing­ political,­ economic­ and­ social­ climate­ of­ the­ Brezhnev­ era.­ It­ begins­ by­ examining­ the­ mass­ redefining­ of­ Soviet­ material­ and­ visual­culture­at­a­time­when­many­once­considered­rigid­lines­blurred:­ between­ arts,­ between­ types­ of­ objects­ and­ between­ modes­ of­ creative­ work.­ Further,­ this­ chapter­ addresses­ a­ recurrent­ and­ painful­ problem,­ first­clearly­formulated­by­the­Russian­avant-garde:­the­role­of­the­artist­in­ industry­and­mass­production.­The­first­section­will­focus­on­an­interview­ series­conducted­by­the­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR team­in­1973­with­art- ists,­engineers­and­administrators­at­several­Soviet­factories­that­produced­ household­objects.­Then,­proceeding­to­the­mid-1970s,­this­chapter­will­ discuss­design­professionals’­investigation­of­the­messages­that­‘talkative’­ objects­conveyed­to­exhibition­viewers­and­to­everyday­users.­Finally,­the­ chapter­will­outline­the­case­of­a­Leningrad­group­of­ceramic­artists,­One­ Composition,­active­from­1977­to­1986,­as­they­exemplify­the­major­inquir- ies­and­preoccupations­in­decorative­art­of­the­Brezhnev­era­–­most­of­all,­ its­anti-commodity­stance. Yulia Karpova - 9781526139863 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/05/2021 01:25:37PM via free access KARPOVA 9781526139870 PRINT.indd 160 20/01/2020 11:10 A new production culture and non-commodities 161 Celebrating clashes From­the­mid-1960s,­the­All-Union­exhibitions­of­decorative­art­became­ forums­for­lively­professional­debates­about­the­social/economic­respon- sibility­of­artists­as­much­as­about­the­aesthetic­criteria­of­art.­The­1968­ exhibition­prompted­a­clash­of­opinions­between­artists­and­critics:­while­ some,­ such­ as­ Iurii­ Gerchuk,­ sensed­ the­ imminent­ crisis­ of­ decorative­ art,­others­–­for­example,­Nonna­Stepanian,­Liudmila­Kramarenko,­Kirill­ Makarov­and­Boris­Smirnov­–­attempted­to­reclaim­the­value­of­decora- tion­in­post-industrial­society.­The­professional­community­of­decorative­ art­specialists­welcomed­this­clash­as­clearly­being­a­positive,­productive­ development,­and­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR repeatedly­propagated­this­ idea.­At­the­roundtable­of­the­1968­exhibition,­Belarusian­designer­and­ critic­Oleg­Surskii­refuted­some­of­his­colleagues’­worries­that­the­recon- sideration­of­aesthetic­ideals­brings­chaos­and­harm­to­art: Probably,­what­is­happening­is­a­very­deep­insight­into­a­certain­new,­sharper,­ probably­more­extravagant­aesthetic­pattern.­We­are­learning­subtleties­that­ we­have­missed­in­a­crystal-clear­system­[of­modernist­aesthetics].­In­the­cur- rent­disarray­and­vacillation,­we­can­notice­new­connections,­a­new­structure,­ and­new­artistic­possibilities.6 By­ the­ next­ All-Union­ decorative­ art­ exhibition,­ held­ in­ the­ spring­ of­1970­in­the­premises­of­the­USSR­Academy­of­Arts­and­dedicated­to­ Lenin’s­100th­birthday,­perpetual­confusion­and­indecision­were­broadly­ recognised­ as­ legitimate­ facts­ of­ Soviet­ artistic­ life,­ mostly­ due­ to­ the­ policy­of Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR. Reporting­on­the­1970­exhibition,­ one­editorial­in­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR deliberately­addressed­pro- fessionals­of­different­persuasions,­believing­that­a­‘clash­of­opinions­will­ help­with­clarifying­the­crux­of­the­matter’.7­Notably,­these­professionals­ included­both­critics­and­artists,­whose­view­on­the­future­of­decorative­art­ varied­according­to­their­different­positions­in­relation­to­it.­With­regard­ to­ decorative­ artists­ who­ were­ active­ from­ the­ late­ 1960s­ to­ the­ 1980s,­ their­attitude­to­critical­concepts­and­debates­ranged­from­the­indulgent­ (‘let­them­talk­their­talk,­while­we­do­the­actual­work’)­to­the­sceptical­and­ even­dismissive.8­However,­during­the­1970s,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR often­gathered­artists­and­critics­together­by­publishing­their­opinions­in­ one­section­of­the­journal,­or­in­person­at­roundtables.­In­the­long­dis- cussion­of­the­1970­exhibition­that­occupied­the­majority­of­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR’s­September­issue,­the­artists’­words­appeared­on­the­very­ first­pages,­before­giving­way­to­the­critics.­This­contraposition­signalled­ the­radicalisation­of­the­post-Stalin­aesthetic­regime­of­arts,­based­not­only­ on­equalising­different­arts,­but­on­the­constant­tension­and­clash­between­ different­ opinions­ in­ search­ of­ new­ material­ forms­ and­ new­ symbolic­ meanings. Yulia Karpova - 9781526139863 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 10/05/2021 01:25:37PM via free access KARPOVA 9781526139870 PRINT.indd 161 20/01/2020 11:10 162 Comradely objects Several­participants­in­the­1970­exhibition­expressed­their­views­on­ the­ urgent­ practical­ and­ conceptual­ problems­ of­ Soviet­ decorative­ art­ and­the­mass­production­of­household­goods­in­response­to­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR’s interviews.­Iurii­Zhul’ev,­the­head­artist­of­the­Vosstanie­ glass­factory­in­Chudovo,­Novgorod­oblast’,­contributed­to­the­exhibition­ with­his­utilitarian­services­–­clean­forms,­easily­reproducible,­intended­ for­everyday­use.­Though­a­‘man­of­industry’,­he­nonetheless­admitted­to­ being­susceptible­to­fashion,­‘like­all­artists’,­and­driven­towards­creating­