Critical Soviet Design: Senezh studio and the utopian imagination in late socialism A thesis submitted in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Tom Cubbin The Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies The School of Language and Cultures The University of Sheffield Supported by the Wolfson Foundation December 2016 1 Abstract This is the first academic study of the socialist critical design practice known as artistic projecteering [khudozhestvennoe proektirovanie], developed at the Central Experimental Studio of the Soviet Union Artists between 1964 and 1991 (commonly referred to as Senezh studio). While some Soviet designers saw their practice as ‘applied science,’ Senezh studio was established to develop practical and theoretical tools for overcoming technocratic tendencies in Soviet design. The aim of the studio’s founders was to create a space for design that would not be subsumed by the constraints of technology or economics, or the bureaucracy of Soviet central planning. Senezh studio was tasked with creating new design methodologies that could be applied following the transition to communism to produce a material environment that would maximise the creative and collaborative potential of humankind. During the 1970s, however, the failures of the Soviet Thaw became apparent and designers at the studio worked on critical projects that highlighted how the government’s treatment of citizens, urban heritage and the environment were materially manifest in daily life. The projects produced at Senezh came to reflect the aspirations, hopes and anxieties of the Soviet cultural intelligentsia during and after the ‘Thaw’ of the 1960s. Based on archival research, extensive interviews and analysis of images in private collections – this dissertation engages Mannheim and Ricoeur’s theories of utopia to show how experimental design projects reflected changing relationships towards communism, ideology, history and the state. 2 Contents Note on Transliteration and Translation - 6 Acknowledgements - 7 List of illustrations - 8 Glossary - 11 Introduction - 13 Structure and research questions - 21 Artistic projecteering and the language of socialist design - 26 Research methodology - 29 Literature review - 32 Chapter 1 – Utopias and Late Socialism - 51 Marxism and utopia - 54 Utopias and Soviet history - 56 Constitutive utopias - 59 Utopia, time and historical consciousness - 66 Off-Modern - 75 Chapter 2 – Senezh Studio and the Politics of Design During the Soviet Thaw - 78 Technical aesthetics as a ‘science’ of design - 81 Theories of design in art and architecture - 92 Foreign influences - 100 From chaos to harmony - 106 The production art of the future - 116 Objects of the future – 123 Conclusion – Two utopias? - 132 Chapter 3 – Artistic projecteering and the formation of a critical practice 1965- 1971 - 135 From composition to unity - 136 Pedagogy and process - 155 Industrial policy and labour - 165 Open form - 173 Sites of experimentation - 180 Conclusion - 190 Chapter 4 - Postmodern Propaganda? Semiotics, environment and the historical turn 1972 – 1983 - 192 Abandoning industrial design - 194 Redefining visual agitation - 201 Conservation of architectural heritage - 212 Retrospectivism, memory and history - 222 Theatricalization - 227 Conclusion: Postmodern Propaganda? - 234 Chapter 5 - The Afterlife of Optimism - 238 Environment and the ‘museification’ debate - 239 ‘Projectivism’ and design - 242 Icons of the future - 251 Democracy underground - 255 Maiakovskii square as a theatre of future urbanity – 265 Conclusion - 281 Conclusion - 284 Bibliography 5 Note on Transliteration and Translation The transliteration of Russian words and names in this dissertation is based upon the system used by the US Library of congress. All translations from Russian are my own, unless otherwise indicated. 6 Acknowledgements It would have not been possible to write this thesis without the support of the many creative people who worked at Senezh during their careers. The best-informed witness to the studio is its former administrative director Natalia Titova, who was instrumental in protecting the studio during the Soviet period. She has helped to fill many gaps in my knowledge and has put me in contact with many inspiring individuals. Evgenii Asse, Sergei Kashirov, Igor El’chenko, Vladimir Sokolov, Evgenii Golubtsev, Il’ia Artemenov and Ihor Prokopenko have all kindly answered my questions too. Sadly, none of the studio’s major protagonists: Evgenii Rozenblium, Karl Kantor and Mark Konik are still alive. I am extremely grateful to their family members Vladimir Dukhelskii and Mila Konik for assistance in locating materials. Special thanks go to my supervisors Susan E. Reid and Florian Kossak for their constructive feedback and criticism. Many others have provided me with insightful feedback, comments and encouragement along the way including David Crowley, Andres Kurg, Yulia Karpova, Mari Laanemets, Jane Sharpe, Irina Sandomirskaia, Serguei Oushakine, Katherine Zubovich-Eady, Tom Rowley, Anatoly Pinksy, Gabrielle Oropallo, Paul Stirton, Daria Bocharnikova, Almira Ousmanova. For their moral support and guidance, I would also like to thank Grace-Lees Maffei, Kjetil Fallan, Jeremy Aynsley and Sarah Teaseley. I would also like to express thanks to the Wolfson Foundation, whose generous funding has enabled me to undertake extensive travel in order to conduct my research and present work at conferences. 7 List of illustrations All illustrations refer to photographs of work or individuals, unless otherwise stated Image 1 Constructing paper models at Senezh studio, still from documentary film, 1979 Image 2 Artists, designers and consultants at Senezh studio, 1965 Image 3 Electrostatic painting device, I. Nemogai (Minsk), Senezh studio, 1964 Image 4 Work-station for assembling radio-components, G. Troshkin and A. Golubev, project drawing, Senezh Studio, 1964. Image 5 A map of design offices in the USSR, still from documentary film, 1977 Image 6 Meeting at Senezh studio’s Moscow headquarters during ICSID, Moscow 1975 Image 7 Nomenklatura of on a range of family incomes, project diagram, VNIITE 1972 Image 8 A machine for various domestic tasks, V. Pletnev and F. Gorpostaev, Senezh studio, late 1960s Image 9 Advertisements for ‘disappearing objects’ featured in the catalogue accompanying the exhibition ‘Industrial Design USA,’ ephemera, 1967. Image 10 Aluminium foil, disposable cutlery, disposable furniture and a disposable dress featured in the catalogue accompanying the exhibition ‘Industrial Design USA,’ ephemera, 1967. Image 11 Composition and colour exercises on display at Senezh studio, year unknown. Image 12 Exercises exploring light and shadow in three dimensions on display at Senezh studio, year unknown. Image 13 Atom, Mir group, Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, photograph of performance, Moscow, 1967. Image 14 Exercises exploring the compositional properties of an interior for a Tupolev-144 supersonic jet. M. Konik, E. Rozenblium, S. Bulatov and V. Kataev. Senezh studio, 1968. Image 15 Designs for a Tupolev-144 supersonic jet. M. Konik, E. Rozenblium, S. Bulatov and V. Kataev. Senezh studio, 1968. Image 16 Development of a project for a machine used in the production of curds. E. Maziuk, N. Zhukov and V. Metelev. Senezh studio, 1968. Image 17 Ergonomics laboratory at VNIITE, still from documentary film, 1977 8 Image 18 Design for an open form system for the purification of oxygen. V. Stepanov, Senezh studio, 1968. Image 19 Mokick S50 basic model, Fahrzeugwerke Simson Suhl, GDR, Karl Clauss Dietel and Lutz Rudolph, 1967. Image 20 Development of betatron project (right) with final model (left), S.Bulatov and Iu. Volkov, Senezh Studio, 1968-1972. Image 21 Project for a video telephone, L. Burman, Ia. Zlatopol’skii, E. Kashkovskii, Senezh Studio, 1968. Image 22 Designs for street furniture on Krasnyi prospekt, S. P. Evladov, A. I. Skvortsov, V. A. Stepanov, P. A. Milovanov, A. C. Ugrimov, S. S. Mosienko and A. I. Tairov, Senezh studio in Novosibirsk, still from black and white documentary film, 1971 Image 23 Documentation of visual agitation at KamAZ, Nabarezhnye Chelny, Evgenii Rozenblium, mid 1970s. Image 24-25 Visual agitation for KamAZ Auto Plant. I Arkhipov, R. Safiulin, N. Boboshko, E. Timokhin, M. Berdnikov, I. Savin, V. Desiatkov, M. Mukhamedianov, G. Ivanov, V. Nikolaev, V. Babeev. Project led by E. Rozenblium. Consultants: A. Bokov and A. Televich. Senezh Studio, 1974. Image 26 Photograph of a wooden house in the process of demolition, Naberezhnye chelny c.1974. Image 27 'Museification' of Naberezhnye chelny city centre. Project led by E. Rozenblium, Senezh Studio c. 1978. Image 28 'Museification' of Naberezhnye chelny city centre. Project led by E. Rozenblium, Senezh Studio c. 1978. Image 29 'Museification' of a housing district in Tol’iatti, Senezh Studio, 1977. Image 30 Tatiana Nazarenko, Moscow Evening, Oil on Canvas, 1978, State Tret’iakov Gallery, Moscow. Image 31 A stage for mass festivals at the Kolomna Kremlin. N. Glushich, G. Glushich, G. Kats, A. Borin, L. Kozachenko, V. Shevchuk. Consultants: A. Bokov, V. Gudkov and V. Egorov. Project led by E. Rozenblium, Senezh Studio, 1982 Images 32-33 New microdistrict in Kolomna. V. Trifonov, F. Iatsik, N. Balalaeva, A. Petrosian, N. Telegina, A. Berdianskikh. Consultants: A. Bokov, V. Gudkov and V. Egorov Project led by E. Rozenblium, Senezh Studio, 1982. 9 Image 34 Elements of visual agitation in Kolomna. Sh. Sakiev, S. Anadurdyev, I. Maksimov, L. Aksenova, V. Erofeev. Consultants: