kazimir(malevich:(suprematism(andnon;objectivity(in ... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Nikolaos Bogiatzis
Kazimir Malevich: Suprematism and Non-‐Objectivity in Revolutionary Times
Contents
Introduction … 1
Chapter One – Suprematism as Abstract Revolution … 4
Chapter Two – Malevich as Theorist … 23
Chapter Three – Malevich, the State and the Revolution … 38
Conclusion … 50
References … 53
Bibliography … 59
Illustration List … 63
1
Kazimir Malevich: Suprematism and Non-‐Objectivity in Revolutionary Times
Introduction
‘In the year 1913, trying desperately to free art from the dead weight of the real world, I
took refuge in the form of the square’ (Malevich cited in Tate, no date: online).
This is a dissertation about Kazimir Malevich, and more specifically, his abstract style of
Suprematism and his theory of non-‐objectivity. Moreover, it is a dissertation about the
historical conditions under which Malevich’s work and theory occurred. I am especially
interested in exploring the philosophy behind his abstraction and its relation with
modernity. Furthermore, I look to the characteristics of his theory and investigate his views
on the Revolution and the Soviet State in particular.
Malevich was born in Kiev, Ukraine in 1878 to Polish immigrants. He studied at the Kiev
School of Drawing and graduated in 1896 (The State Tretyakov Gallery, 2016: online). In
1902 he moved to Moscow and the following year he entered the School of Painting,
Sculpture and Architecture. He started painting Post-‐Impressionist landscapes and by 1909
he was painting peasant subjects; from 1912 to 1914 his style shifted from Cubism to Cubo-‐
Futurism and his subject-‐matter were still lifes and figures (Alley, 1981: online). In 1915 he
introduced his system of Suprematism, as he presented his Black Suprematic Square and
other abstract works at the 0.10 exhibition in Petrograd. By ‘Suprematism’, Malevich meant
his abstract art that was characterised by basic geometric forms like squares, rectangles,
circles and lines which were painted in a limited range of colours (Tate, no date: online). His
first personal exhibition was held in Moscow in 1919-‐1920 and seven years later his work
2
was exhibited internationally in Poland and Germany. After his return from Germany he was
arrested for three weeks and his last personal exhibition was held at the Tretyakov Gallery
in 1928. In the last decade of his life, Malevich returned to figurative painting which was
almost realist in style but a black square was still part of his signature (The State Tretyakov
Gallery, 2016: online).
Malevich began to teach his theory as early as 1918 at the first and second Svomas, the new
art schools in Moscow. He worked in Vitebsk from 1919 until 1921 where he formed
UNOVIS (The Union of the New Art). When UNOVIS was closed, he moved to Petrograd’s
INKhUK (Institute of Artistic Culture) where he taught until its closure in 1926. He then
became a professor at the Art History Institute and taught there until 1929 (Oxford Art
Online, 2016: online).
My dissertation deals with a critical period of modernity in Russian and then Soviet society;
a period when the excitement for the coming of the October Revolution in 1917 was
followed by instability and antagonism for the supremacy in the terrain of political ideology
and also of the artistic field. Which art would represent better the forming of the new social
reality and the communist ideal? Malevich’s Suprematism and theory of non-‐objectivity was
developed in the midst of this critical period and played an important part. Consequently, I
look to Suprematism and the nature of its abstraction, I analyse Malevich’s theory of non-‐
objectivity and its stages, and finally I focus on his views about the Revolution and the Soviet
State and their relation to his art.
The first chapter considers Suprematism in relation to modernity and investigates the
former’s stages and nature. I argue that Malevich’s views reflected modernity’s aspirations
3
and his Suprematism derived from the emotional excitement about modern life and the
Revolution. Moreover, I argue that Malevich’s work tried to ‘meet’ the latter; his Black
Square was the artistic testament about the rupture with the past and the nature of
Suprematism reflected his absolute views about art’s independence.
The second chapter delineates Malevich’s theory of non-‐objectivity and his approach
towards Cubism, Futurism, Cubo-‐Futurism and Constructivism. Furthermore, it investigates
the conditions under which Suprematism could grow and explores his views about the
independence of art. I argue that Malevich was self-‐contradictory, as on the one hand he
stressed the importance for a new art in relation to modernity, but on the other hand he
taught about an ‘art for art’s sake’ and its aesthetic utility and value apart from everyday
life. Moreover, I argue that his theory of non-‐objectivity reflected his psychology and that
his approach to art and to life tended to be more idealist than materialist.
The third chapter considers Malevich’s relationship with the Revolution and the State. I
argue that Malevich’s idealism survived only for a short period after the Revolution when
the Soviet State tried to establish itself and it could not survive longer, as Malevich’s theory
of non-‐objectivity did not comply with Lenin’s or the State’s ideas about art in post-‐
revolutionary Russia.
4
Chapter One
Suprematism as Abstract Revolution
‘…in art it is not always a case of evolution, but sometimes also of revolution’ (Malevich
cited in Andersen, 1971:94).
(Fig. 1)
Malevich’s White on White 1918 series is the point of arrival in Suprematism’s journey
under the shade of modernity (Fig. 1). In that journey, Malevich did not have the support of
any critic and consequently he had to justify and defend his work (Andersen, 1971:9). His
5
rejection of classicism and his support of new art was one of the most interesting stories in
modernism as the former led him to create an artistic and theoretical ‘alogism’ towards
‘reason’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:12). In this chapter I will focus on Suprematism in relation to
modernity; I will take into account the social conditions of that historical period, examine
the stages of Suprematism and its ongoing process and finally investigate Suprematism’s
nature under the context of abstraction in art.
In 1919 Malevich wrote On New Systems in Art; there he stressed the importance of his
Suprematist square which he defined as ‘the absolute expression of modernity’ (Malevich
cited in ibid.:83). Furthermore, he claimed that he denounced the aesthetic element in art
and that he embraced the economic one, as Malevich considered it a necessity of his epoch
(ibid.:84). That was a brave approach even in post-‐revolutionary Russia, where academism
and the old aesthetic values were still prevailing. Malevich wrote about the ‘suppressors’ of
art; the critics, collectors and art connoisseurs, who despite the Revolution were still
influential and prohibited new art to flourish (Malevich cited in ibid.:49). On the other hand,
he saw art as part of nature’s evolutionary and mechanical process and he denounced the
past, as the modern world dealt with the new technological achievements and consequently
needed new artistic approaches. In the age of the automobile, the train and the aeroplane,
technology opened new possibilities and art had to walk in accordance with that; Malevich
was influenced by the Futurist ideas and claimed that as life developed, ‘a new art, medium
and experience are necessary…’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:89). Cubism and Futurism with their
non-‐objective elements left behind the old forms of classicism, but for Malevich only
Suprematism achieved pure abstraction in an absolute and revolutionary way (ibid.:29-‐41).
Malevich also claimed that the Revolution and capitalism’s overthrow had already started
6
the creation of a ‘proletarian culture’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:50). The role of the Bolsheviks
in that period, especially in the years 1919-‐1920 was crucial, as they tried to establish a new
economic and social pattern in a place where illiteracy and agrarianism were still present,
despite modernity’s advancements. Clark stresses that War Communism, the political and
economic system of 1918 to 1921 during the Russian Civil War, was extreme and utopian
(Clark, 1999:9). Furthermore, he highlights that in the same year On New Systems in Art was
written, Bolshevik revolutionaries Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky in The ABC
of Communism had welcomed inflation as a blow to bourgeoisie’s wealth and some of their
comrades were also aiming at the abolition of money (ibid:258). I claim that there was a
strong belief that under communism human culture would reach new heights (Bukharin,
Preobrazhensky, 1969:121), and argue that Malevich’s views were in accordance with the
social conditions for the establishment of a revolutionary regime also in the artistic field. As
the Bolsheviks aimed to overthrow Tsarism, Malevich aimed to overthrow old forms of art
and establish a new art that would come in accordance with modernity. Clark describes his
views as ‘the voice of modernist wisdom’ (1999:235).
In addition, what is interesting about Malevich’s ideas is the placing of art and economy
under the same social context. Malevich painted in the age of the aeroplane and the train;
he understood his art as a synonym to his epoch and he strove for centralisation and a
holistic culture of a universal modern movement (Andersen, 1971:88). He believed that in
modern times an old art can not participate in the new conditions, in the same way that an
old economic system is not able to function. The tempo of life and the new constructions
and discoveries have to correspond with new artistic forms.
7
In the epoch of the technological advancement, Malevich sought not the imitative, but
speed and movement. This is why he embraced Futurism from its first steps in Russia and
also attended the First All-‐Russian Congress of Futurists in 1913 (Harrison, 1994:234).
However, it is the same beauty of speed and modern life that quickly drove him away from
Futurism and made him seek new relationships with nature and life through a superior art
form. Three years later, he declared: ‘Yesterday we, with heads proudly raised, were
defending Futurism. Now with pride we spit on it’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:27).
Malevich claimed this in 1916, while he was giving a public lecture at Petrograd which was
published in the book From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism. The New Realism in
Painting (ibid.:240).
In addition, it was the opposition of academism, the disavowal of provincialism and the
embrace of a modernised world that led him from Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism, as
Harrison notes (1994:231). Iron, steam and electricity were the driving engine for an art of
modernity that Malevich sought to establish. However, he was aware of the danger of
representation; if a painting of nature or a painting of Venus were going to be substituted
by a painting of an aeroplane or an automobile, imitative art and reason were still present.
On the other hand, Malevich sought the abandonment of subject-‐matter and the defeat of
reason. He claimed that: ‘A work of the highest art is written in the absence of reason’
(Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:17). Suprematism is the next stage after Cubism and
Futurism where the artist produces ‘purely plastic painting’ (ibid.:29). Overall, what
Malevich argued was that Suprematism was ‘the beginning of a new culture…the new
realism in painting’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:37).
8
Building upon Malevich’s claim, I try to look further in the social conditions of that period;
had imitative art lost its influence or was it modernity’s aspirations that drove artists to pure
abstraction? It is stated by Meyer Schapiro that abstract art is related with similar attempts
in literature and philosophy and we can not consider the former as solely an aesthetic
product; it also consists of modern culture’s psychological conditions (Schapiro, 1982:202). I
side with Schapiro and argue that Malevich’s Suprematism derives from the emotional
excitement about modern life and the Revolution. It is a product of his epoch and of his
particular geographical location and its social context, that is why his abstract art is different
from the abstraction of other artists like Piet Mondrian’s art, as I will claim later on my
dissertation. Moreover, these psychological conditions had an ideological origin; a large
amount of society like the poor peasantry and the industrial proletariat suffered under the
oppressive Tsarist government and the old aristocracy. As Borchardt-‐Hume notes, what
started as a protest for bread led to the Tsar’s abdication in March 1917 and to the October
Revolution the same year (2014:25). Malevich’s Suprematism evolved under these tensed
social conditions and I believe that it was strongly influenced by them. Next, I will examine
Suprematism’s characteristics and its colour stages until the final stage of its movement
which is the white square.
The word ‘Suprematism’ has its roots in the Latin word ‘suprem’ which means dominance
and superiority (Tsantsanoglou, Charistou, 2013:11). Malevich wanted to stress the
dominance of colour and form over the other components of the picture (ibid.). He wrote
about the three phases of Suprematism: the first phase included the colours of the rainbow
and the other two included the black and, ultimately, the white colour (Andersen,
1976:112). By choosing white, Malevich tried to attack and dominate the imitative painting
9
of colourful and natural subject-‐matter. However, it claimed that all started ‘unconsciously’
(Malevich cited in Harrison et al., 1994:236) and it was part of a collaboration between him
and three of his friends, the writers Aleksei Kruchenykh and Velimir Khlebnikov, and the
artist and composer Mikhail Matyushin (Borchardt-‐Hume, 2014:24). The origins of
Suprematism can be found in this Futurist grouping.
In the end of 1913 they presented the opera Victory over the Sun; the style was modern and
anti-‐naturalistic (Harrison, 1994:234). Malevich designed the sets and costumes and in Act
2, Scene 5, a dark square prevailed over the element of nature which was the sun (ibid.).
The overall plot of the opera was an act of creating a counter-‐narrative to enlightenment
reason, to religious salvation and to Tsarist hegemony. The Strongmen of the Future would
imprison the sun and technology would triumph over nature (Borchardt-‐Hume, 2014:24).
Malevich and his friends wanted to challenge the status-‐quo through avant-‐garde theatre. It
was also the period in which he saw the potential of Futurism as a dynamic new form of art,
and Victory’s irrationality set the frame for the building of his theory about non-‐objectivity
and the domination of the square. Suprematism was coming and it would be the first
systematic school of abstract painting in modernism. However, Malevich’s theoretical
support of his art would be problematic, as he came from a working class background and
received little education as a young boy (Gray, 1971:163). The understanding of his writing
is a demanding process. In the next chapter of my dissertation, my intention is to investigate
his work as a theorist and explore some of his most significant and sometimes incoherent
thinking. My next task in this chapter is to investigate the ongoing process of Suprematism.
10
From Victory’s backcloth of the white and black square (Fig. 2) to the Black Suprematic
Square (Fig. 3), Gray explains there is a period that we can not define with certainty
(1971:160).
(Fig. 2)
11
(Fig. 3)
The State Tretyakov Gallery dates the Black Square to 1915 (The State Tretyakov Gallery,
2016: online). However, we should bear in mind that Malevich did not always exhibit his
most revolutionary works immediately (Gray, 1971:160). From 1913 his artistic production
moved towards Suprematism, and in December 1915 he exhibited thirty-‐nine totally
abstract works at 0.10: The Last Futurist Exhibition and established his new system (Lodder,
1993:82). I believe that what started unconsciously, progressed as a conscious artistic
project; Malevich wrote about a ‘purely plane development’ that happened between 1913
and 1918 (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:123). Later, in 1920, he claimed that
Suprematism had three stages according to the number of red, black and white squares.
These stages were the coloured, black and white periods (ibid.). He continued his analysis of
12
Suprematism by highlighting that the forms were geometric, dynamic and part of a holistic
system (ibid.) It will be useful to focus on 0.10 as this can help us understand better
Malevich’s ideas (Fig. 4).
(Fig. 4)
What we can see in the above picture are geometric forms which varied in colour, against a
white background. Some of them are suggestive of a dynamic movement. Malevich claimed
in his manifesto that accompanied the exhibition that he ‘set free the consciousness of
colour’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:40) and made clear that the latter defined the development
of Suprematism. As I mentioned earlier, From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism was
Malevich’s attempt to engage modernity’s social conditions with a new, revolutionary art.
He considered the coloured geometric forms and their dynamic movement as ‘the pure art
13
of painting’ against the ‘old realism’ of imitating nature (Malevich cited in Lodder, 1993:17-‐
18). Furthermore, anything that signified the hegemony of the old should be replaced by the
birth of the new; I am referring here to the Black Square (Fig. 3) which is placed at the top
corner of the room at 0.10: The Last Futurist Exhibition (Fig. 4), like an icon which is placed
in a Christian Orthodox home. Malevich claimed: ‘The square is a living royal infant’
(Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:38).
I assume that the former statement added more excitement to the art circle which was
interested in Malevich’s Suprematist abstraction, and I believe that the presentation of
thirty-‐nine exclusively abstract works was already a significant art statement in pro-‐
revolutionary Russia. Malevich did not compromise and insisted on exhibiting only his
Suprematist work, despite the opposition of his antagonist Vladimir Tatlin who considered it
amateur (Gray, 1971:206). However, Malevich’s absolute abstraction was a success and
after the exhibition he gave an open lecture called: On the movements reflected in the
exhibition ‘0.10’ and on Cubism and Futurism; after that lecture the term ‘Suprematism’ was
established (ibid.:207-‐209).
Looking again at 0.10 and then at Black Square, I agree with what Andrei Nakov described as
a lengthy, artistic procedure (Nakov, 2013); Suprematism was a lengthy process where each
of 0.10’s paintings was an organic element in the Suprematist line and its three moments,
which consisted of the colours of the rainbow succeeded by black and, finally, by white
colour. Malevich must have painted each one having in mind a certain movement and a
certain colour combination. That procedure led to the static Black Square which symbolised
the beginning of the new art (Tsantsanoglou, Charistou, 2013:11). Building upon Schapiro’s
14
idea that abstract art is a product of modern culture’s psychological conditions, I would
argue that Malevich’s Black Square comes in accordance with the social context of Russian
modernity; a society which, sooner or later, would have to face a new beginning and a
mixed state of euphoria and desperation (Clark, 1999:287). Moreover, as Borchardt-‐Hume
highlights (2014:25), it reflects the hardships and civil unrest in the Russian Empire from the
beginning of the 20th century: the defeat and casualties of the First World War, the poverty
of the agrarian and industrial workers and the tension between ethnic and religious
communities and the central administration. The Black Square derives from all the above. In
my third chapter, I will focus on Malevich’s approach towards the new conditions dictated
by the revolutionary regime. In the final section of this chapter, I will continue the
Suprematist journey and I will contextualise it within modernist abstraction.
15
16
(Fig. 5)
After 0.10, Malevich added more colours to his works and introduced more shapes. In
Suprematist Painting of 1916-‐1917 (Fig. 5), different colour-‐tones of pink and grey
interrelate with brown, red, blue, green and white and there is a sense of movement
between elements of different shapes. The cut-‐out grey circle at the bottom of the painting
gives a sense of solid ground, whilst the two green and blue Suprematist elements at the
top seem to move into space. Malevich claimed that we should sense the contrasts that are
created between the different colours and forms (Andersen, 1971:138). However, I will try
and read his works after 0.10 alternatively; did he sense that he should silence his critics
with shifting to a more utilitarian art like Architekton Gota (Fig. 6)? Did he want to reach a
point of using Suprematism in material production, so as to be in accordance with the new
needs of the Soviet society?
I argue that as the social conditions in Russia moved towards a rupture with the past
through the Revolution, his painting rushed to coincide with these revolutionary conditions.
What started with the implementation of colour turned into the Black Square (Fig. 3) and
the apheretic art of the White on White series (Fig. 1). The Black Square was the rupture
with art’s past. The white stage was the point of arrival in Suprematism’s journey. After that
stage, there was ‘the grandiose, static state of complete rest, an element of the non-‐
objective’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:337). As Borchardt-‐Hume claims, Malevich’s
artistic revolution was in accordance with the social revolution (2014:26). I believe that
Malevich was excited about what happened in the social terrain and wanted to respond
accordingly. Probably he thought that Revolution would have brought social rest, however,
the Revolution did not bring the latter; it was a period where new beginnings were needed
and after 1918 Malevich focused on his theoretical work for reasons I will explore in the
17
second chapter of my dissertation. At the end of 1919 in an exhibition called From
Impressionism to Suprematism, Malevich summed up his work and exhibited 153 paintings;
that was Suprematism’s end (Gray, 1971:240). During the 1920s he was occupied with the
implementation of his system in architecture (Fig. 6).
18
(Fig. 6)
19
Malevich believed that the new architecture of the West followed the same logic with his
architectural formulae and it was ‘closely linked with the problem of artistic form’ (Malevich
cited in Andersen, 1971:16). However, his projects called ‘architektons’ did not serve as
plans for future buildings and urban constructions but mainly as proofs that the artist is the
ideal person for planning the new civil life (Harrison, 1994:244). I would argue that
Malevich’s stance is self-‐contradictory; whilst he declares that art can not be applied in
utilitarian functions and must stay independent from economic and political factors, he also
claims that art has to be present in everyday life because only in this way life can be
beautiful (Andersen, 1971:14, 18). I am stressing this because I believe that in those critical
times the everyday was ‘absorbed’ by the economic and the political circumstances and
Malevich’s search for beauty was a retreat from reality’s priorities. This contradiction is an
element of Malevich’s temperament; I assume that the former makes his art more
interesting not only to the art historians but even to his students in Vitebsk School of Art
which later became UNOVIS (Harrison, Wood, 2003:300). Malevich’s character and beliefs,
his self-‐contradictions and his lack of formal education (Chlenova, 2014:69) made his works
look like riddles needing to be solved and, consequently, more interesting and stimulating.
Schapiro (1982:186) highlighted the exclusion of the forms of nature in abstract art and
stressed the importance of the latter’s qualities in an unhistorical universalising context.
Earlier, I mentioned his claims about modern culture’s psychological conditions and how the
philosophy of art was put into practice in the artists’ lives (ibid.:202); I sided with him, as I
referred to Malevich’s emotional excitement about modernity. However, when Schapiro
writes particularly about Malevich, he implies that the latter conceived art as a private
realm and he charges him with conflicts and insecurity (ibid.:203). Whilst I am inclined to
20
agree with Schapiro about Malevich’s conflicts due to the self-‐contradictions that I
mentioned earlier, I do not agree with the former’s views about the latter’s insecurity. I
believe that Malevich was absolute and firm on his views about art as an end in itself,
because he considered both the materialistic and the spiritual approach to life inadequate
to modernity (Andersen, 1971:214). He claimed that: ‘The arts are not there to serve
religious or political aims, but stand above this, they are non-‐objective’ (Malevich cited in
Andersen, 1976:51); new art for him was ‘an independent ideological superstructure
outside other contents and ideologies’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:223). I believe that this is an
‘art for art’s sake’ argument. Although the last quote reflects Schapiro’s ideas about the
nature of abstract art, I would propose that it is more a case of absoluteness and not
insecurity that makes Malevich’s Suprematist works differ from other abstract works of the
same period. Malevich relies on colour as being the catalyst for the new realism in art
(Cullinan, 2014:119). He is convinced of colour’s existence as an independent structure and
confident enough to introduce Suprematism as a definitely holistic system (ibid.).
Consequently, his work derives not from insecurity but from a firm belief for the importance
and prevalence of colour. However, Malevich talks about realism but his work still remains
abstract.
I will further my argument by looking into the work of another artist that Schapiro also
wrote about, Piet Mondrian. Mondrian wanted an art of ‘pure relations’ (Mondrian cited in
Schapiro, 1982:235) and created some abstract works that were made under a firm
philosophical context. In 1917, Mondrian painted Composition with Lines (Fig. 7).
21
(Fig. 7)
The vertical lines on the left and on the right and the horizontal lines at the top and at the
bottom are creating a rounded space. Inside that space there are many bars, most of them
single, whilst others are interrelating with each other. The black colour mixes with the white
background in such a way that a visual contrast is created; Schapiro wrote about the
painting’s mysterious and fascinating unity (ibid.:249). I will add that it has also a
symmetrical elegance and point to Mondrian’s claims that the way he painted the vertical
and horizontal lines was driven by intuition (ibid:250).
Now, I am looking again at the Black Square (Fig. 3); my first impression is the latter’s
consistency. Clark uses the word ‘hardness’ (Clark, 1999:285). I agree with his point, but I
insist on calling it ‘absoluteness’ and argue that it derives from Malevich’s belief about the
independence of art that I mentioned above. Whilst Mondrian was searching for an
intellectual absolute (Schapiro, 1982:257), Malevich firmly believed that he had found it in
Suprematism. This is why, as Borchardt-‐Hume highlights (2014:24), instead of gradually
simplifying representational structures like Mondrian did, Malevich rather invented a new
painterly language of radical nature which was made of shapes and colours. However, I
22
stress that Malevich still relied on an engagement with Cubism and Futurism to develop his
Suprematism, until he reached the stage of the Black Square.
In conclusion, Suprematism reflected modernity’s aspirations and derived from Malevich’s
resistance towards the old forms of art and his quest for pure abstraction. Moreover,
Suprematism relied on colour and it was the product of his emotional excitement for
modern life and the Revolution which is reflected on his texts From Cubism and Futurism to
Suprematism. The New Realism in Painting (Andersen, 1971:19-‐41), On New Systems in Art
(ibid.:83-‐119) and Contemporary Art (Andersen, 1976:195-‐219). In this artistic procedure,
the Black Square signified the rejection of the old and the arrival of the new, both in art and
in society. For Malevich, the White on White series brought Suprematism to its final point of
rest and non-‐objectivity. Overall, Suprematism’s nature reflected Malevich’s absolute and
firm views about art as an end in itself.
23
Chapter Two
Malevich as Theorist
‘I see the plan of human existence in the non-‐objective, and I deduce the idea of the non-‐
objective from art’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:185).
In this chapter I will focus on Malevich’s theory and philosophy of art. Before I examine
Malevich’s non-‐objectivity, I will write about the way he approached Cubism, Futurism and
their most significant representatives; I believe that this helps to understand better the
process that led Malevich to claim that he achieved pure non-‐objectivity with his
Suprematist system. I will begin with Cubism and discuss its five stages, and then I will look
into his views about Constructivism and its origin and write about the different views he had
with the Constructivists. I will subsequently look into Malevich’s approach to Futurism and
his claims about the intermediate stage of Cubo-‐Futurism and the former’s elements, and
continue with his theory of non-‐objectivity and its foundational concepts. Furthermore, I
will explore the conditions under which Malevich proposes Suprematism could grow, and I
will look into Malevich’s views about art’s independence and the social and personal
conditions that shaped his thinking.
From 1918 until the end of his life in 1935, Malevich wrote about the nature of art and
taught his artistic method. He also analysed modern art and some of its artists’ ways of
painting (Gray, 1971:167). His teaching in Vitebsk started in 1919 and in UNOVIS (The Union
of the New Art) he applied his Suprematist methodology (Harrison, Wood, 2003:300).
Cubism and Futurism were included in his basic themes of teaching; this shows his approval
for Suprematism’s predecessors. Other notable facts about the educational programme at
24
UNOVIS were the teaching about the refutation of science and the importance of the artistic
collective (ibid.:301-‐302). After he left UNOVIS in 1921, Malevich moved to Petrograd where
he joined the new branch of INKhUK (Institute of Artistic Culture); there he became head of
FTO (Formal-‐Technical Department) (Rudenstine, 1981:251).
Malevich considered Cubism and Futurism as new art forms that were free from the art
object. He acknowledged Paul Gauguin’s creativity as the latter used colours, but not in a
purely imitative form. Gauguin deformed the visible, and for Malevich that revealed ‘an
excess of creative power’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:118). However, he was critical
of Gauguin’s inability to rely only on colour and considered Gauguin’s primitivism a step
forward from the conservative academic art but not subversive enough (ibid.:91).
Similarly, Paul Cèzanne’s small displacements of form were welcomed as a progressive step;
the physical presence of the object was reduced, whilst its weight and painterly content
were increased (ibid.:110-‐111). Malevich defended Cèzanne against the negative criticism
he received and in the work of the latter he discerned signs of art’s independence. He even
put him in the forefront of those artists that ‘have freed painting from the state of three
dimensional illusion’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:24). However, similar to the case of Gauguin,
Malevich stressed Cèzanne’s inability to produce a purely painterly construction (ibid.:98).
As Malevich stressed the importance of Cèzanne’s art, he also highlighted Van Gogh’s work;
his paintings had the element of dynamic action, power and movement in the texture of
colour (ibid.:109-‐110). Malevich believed that Cubism and Futurism were the evolutionary
process of an art which was gradually moving away from imitation and was distancing itself
from anything old. Malevich took Cèzanne’s art as the starting point for the development of
the new art that he embraced and he tried to classify the latter’s stages; he concluded that
25
Cubism had five (ibid.:49), and its most significant characteristics were: the absence of any
academic requirements, the disintegration of the art object, the lost significance of space,
the forming of a pictorial sensation, the inability to define the name of an artwork because
of its non-‐objectivity, the insignificance of spatial depths, the element of pictorial contrast
and the appearance of the plane and the principle of collage (ibid.:31-‐50). In his analysis of
the fourth stage of Cubism which defined as ‘Spatial Cubism’ (ibid.:56), Malevich stressed its
application in sculpture. He also highlighted Pablo Picasso’s Construction (Fig. 8) as the point
of departure for Constructivism (ibid.:61).
(Fig. 8)
Malevich also mentioned Vladimir Tatlin’s importance in the development of Russian
Constructivism and distinguished between two groups: ‘Obmokhu’ (The Society for Young
Artists), and another group of individual artists like Tatlin, P. Miturich, L. Popova, L. Bruni, N.
Udaltsova and I. Klyun (ibid.:75-‐76). He claimed that their artistic form lasted only from
26
1912 to 1919 and coincided with Cubism’s painterly, non-‐objective path. However, their
non-‐objectiveness was limited and some of them had to either turn to objective painting or
to the construction of objects; this latter tendency was called ‘Utilitarian Functionalism’
(ibid.:77).
I am stressing here that in 1920 the Constructivist ideas were already predominant inside
the important art institutions such as The Institute of Artistic Culture in Moscow (ibid.:255).
Earlier, I highlighted Malevich’s turn of interest into architecture and teaching during the
1920s; I claim that this turn happened because of the pressure he experienced from the
predominant artistic trends in post-‐revolutionary Russia. As I have already mentioned in the
first chapter, Tatlin strongly opposed Malevich’s abstraction in 0.10 exhibition of 1915. On
the other hand, Malevich stressed the influence of Cubism in Tatlin’s Monument to the Third
International (Fig. 9).
27
(Fig. 9)
28
Malevich believed that Tatlin was primarily referring to the materials of his work, iron and
glass, and secondarily to their functions. However, Tatlin used these materials symbolically
to express the qualities of the new social order (Edwards, Wood, 2004:365). For Malevich,
Monument was a work based on Cubism, where ‘no utilitarian function ever played a
predominant part, but only a painterly one’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:79).
Looking at Monument, I do not side with Malevich and question his interpretation of Tatlin’s
work; what I see is a construction with a utilitarian use. Tatlin clearly described it as: ‘A
union of purely artistic forms (painting, sculpture and architecture) for a utilitarian purpose’
(Tatlin cited in Gray, 1971:225). Moreover, it was intended to be an administrative and
propaganda centre for the Communist Third International (Comintern) and to promote the
communist ideal (Edwards, Wood, 2004:365).
Furthermore, what Malevich did, was to separate the new art which he considered ‘pure’
from the applied art. He defended the former’s existence and claimed that it would be a
mistake if Constructivism would be the only art form alive under the Soviet State, as he
considered the new art experimental and highlighted its value (Andersen, 1971:80).
Malevich opposed academism and the old forms of art through the purity of modernism’s
abstraction and he supported an independent art with aesthetic utility (ibid.:83).
The rupture between Malevich’s Suprematism with the Constructivists’ work happened in
April 1919 in the 10th State Exhibition called Non-‐Objective Creation and Suprematism
(Nakov, 1986:72). Artists like Liubov Popova, Varvara Stepanova and Aleksandr Rodchenko
opposed the metaphysics of White on White; Rodchenko directly challenged Malevich with
his Black on Black series (Fig. 10). In his works, Rodchenko eliminated colour in order to
focus on the material quality of the painting’s surface and challenged Malevich’s idealistic
29
approach. The latter found himself marginalised and by the summer of the same year he
announced that he would focus on his theoretical work (ibid.:112).
(Fig. 10)
Malevich’s process towards his theory of non-‐objectivity continues with his views on
Futurism. Malevich acknowledged the poet Filippo Tomasso Marinetti, the painters
Giacomo Balla, Gino Severini, Ardengo Soffici, Carlo Carrà, Luigi Russolo, Francis Picabia and
the sculptor Umberto Boccioni as the most important Futurists, and highlighted the element
of the dynamic movement in that new form of art (Andersen, 1971:85-‐86). Futurism did not
30
represent the physical appearance of things but their function and dynamism, which was
the basis and formula of all Futurist works. He claimed that there was an intermediate
stage, the ‘Cubo-‐futurist’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:95), where the Cubist elements were still
present influencing the artwork’s appearance while Futurism’s dynamic element was
weakened. Furthermore, Malevich stressed the importance of how the dynamic movement
was portrayed in a Futurist work and concluded by highlighting that what mattered in
Futurism was the ‘dynamic sensation’ and in Cubism the ‘painterly sensation’, respectively
(Malevich cited in ibid.:100).
The art historical narrative of Malevich is interesting because it helps us understand better
his approach to new art and why he considered his Suprematist system the most
progressive, and revolutionary, stage of it. However, he analysed the work of the Cubists
and Futurists in a formalist manner and he did the same for Suprematism (Harrison,
1994:244). Moreover, his narrative shows his willingness to see art as an entity in itself;
although he stressed the need for a new art under the new conditions of modernity, he
wanted the former to move independently and under no authority (Andersen, 1976:51).
I am also thinking about Malevich’s critique on the critics, collectors and art connoisseurs
and I find some similarities with his formalist teaching and approach of new art; his search
for the pure artistic sensation was a constant declaration for an ‘art for art’s sake’, isolated
from the new social reality. Malevich highlighted the importance of colour and he described
himself as a colourist several times after the Revolution (Clark, 1999:271). This insistence on
colour and on art’s superiority over any materialist or spiritual hegemony had undoubtedly
formed a provocative narrative in those times. Next, I am going to investigate this narrative
which is reflected in his theory of non-‐objectivity.
31
Malevich believed that art, science and religion were in a constant battle with each other as
they tried to display their superiority: Humans believe in something as they search for the
good and the truth. Those who do not believe have nothing; in nothingness exists non-‐
objectivity. He also claimed that he investigated the origins of art and he found the latter in
tranquillity (Andersen, 1976:12-‐16). These two concepts, nothingness and tranquillity, were
foundational in Malevich’s theory.
Moreover, he argued that the development of an artistic culture presupposed its
independence from any external factor. Thus, he claimed: ‘If I cannot isolate it [artistic
culture] from all the influences, I cannot say that this is an artistic phenomenon (Malevich
cited in ibid.:17). Furthermore, he believed in the truth of the unconscious and its ‘stimuli’
(Malevich cited in Groys, 1992:17); he considered reality as illusory and claimed that the
artist through the negation of imitative painting and the adoption of the painterly could
prove it. However, what the artist could see were only reflections of the true nature, so any
attempt to depict it was fruitless. As Malevich argued:
All phenomena are rejections or acceptances, the latter we can call practical,
spiritual, artistic, the essence of which will be the imagining of non-‐existent facts
(Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:33).
In addition, he claimed that art’s independence relied on colour; every other aspect that
influenced the artistic creativity like every day life and historical events or objects were not
based on the essence of art and, consequently, they could not be part of it (ibid.:38).
Malevich saw a division between the art that was being produced to express an idea or to
justify a cause and the art that stood above any idea or reason; the former was a
propagandist tool and was temporal whilst the latter was independent, timeless and non-‐
objective (ibid.:50-‐51). Furthermore, he criticised the ‘concretists’, the people who saw life
32
under a material and practical context, as not able to perceive art’s non-‐objectivity. On the
other hand, the ‘abstractionists’ were relying on pure research for non-‐objectivity in the arts
and sciences and consequently they could find it (Malevich cited in ibid.:50). Another
important element of Malevich’s theory is how he responded to the concept of progress; he
considered it inappropriate with art, as the latter was an abstract observation of the world
and it was moving outside the former and highlighted that he did not want progress but rest
(ibid.:57).
Reflecting on these three elements of Malevich’s theory, nothingness, tranquillity and rest,
one could argue that he tried to escape from reality: most of his work in The World as Non-‐
Objectivity must have been established by the end of 1925, when at the same period the
social conditions in the Soviet State were anything but tranquil; the workers were
disappointed with Bolshevik policies and adopted drunkenness and apolitical views whilst
they were realising that, despite being named the ruling class, they could not even have
their wages on time (Brovkin, 1998:217). Malevich was already marginalised by the
Constructivists in Petrograd, where he could only be able to teach his art theory to a small
artistic circle (Nakov, 1986:77). Consequently, when he wrote about nothingness and
tranquillity and claimed that he wanted rest, I argue that Malevich’s theory was reflecting
his psychological condition. Malevich sought artistic independence as a getaway from
everyday reality and found the latter in abstraction; his system of Suprematism was a whole
discipline of colour:
…in it [Suprematism] truly exist all disciplines of colour, light, form, construction, and
it can be subjected to research or analysis, which was impossible in past stages of
painting (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:82).
33
Malevich placed Suprematism in a metaphysical dimension as the latter did not accept any
manifestation of the material world or any knowledge that can be derived from it. The
development of Suprematism was happening through colour; the point of arrival was black
and white. In the black stage there was still hope for a manifestation which permitted
human imagination. The last stage of the white quadrangle was the stage of pure non-‐
objectivity. In that stage, painting achieved to leave the subconscious and enter the stage of
consciousness (ibid.:83). Through that colour process, Malevich escaped everyday reality
rather than be part of it.
Moreover, Malevich wrote about the existence of two different philosophies, the first was
optimistic about the future and the acquisition of knowledge whilst the second was
sceptical. He said that Suprematism clearly sided with the second as it held no hopes and
did not believe that culture, knowledge and science would reveal the essence of the world.
This is what differentiated Suprematism from Cubism, which on the other hand believed in
them (ibid.:88). He found that colour defined the cultural level, consciousness and
knowledge of a person and argued that Suprematism was the discipline that researched the
problem of colour systematically for the first time (ibid.:102-‐103). Furthermore, he linked
the implementation of colour with the psychological state of the artist and its changes, and
he claimed that she used the element of colour according to her sensation (Andersen,
1971:126-‐127).
In Suprematism, sensation played the most important part as it determined the colour and
the form; next came contrast. Malevich claimed that forms disappear and alter, whereas
sensations do not; what mattered were the latter (ibid.:137-‐138). As early as 1915 he also
claimed that he had transformed himself to the zero of form (Bowlt, 1976:118). Moreover,
34
Malevich demarcated the terrain of Suprematism and stressed that it could not be
developed under rural conditions; it was connected with the urban centres where usually
new technologies appear and it coexisted with modernity’s new environment. It belonged
to ‘the dynamic power-‐circuit of the town’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:193).
It is important here to note how Malevich placed his Suprematist system inside the context
of modernity and mapped it in the urban environment, whilst at the same time he sought
art’s independence from any external factor. I believe it was a strange relationship in a
period when the artistic project moved into the aesthetico-‐political terrain (Groys, 1992:21).
In the building of the new communist society, every existing art movement tried not only to
be present but to shape artistically this new beginning, having the leading role. Decisions
had to be made about the politics of the new art (ibid.), and Malevich’s firm and strong
beliefs initially led to his marginalisation by the Constructivists in the small provincial town
of Vitebsk on December 1919, and three years later in Petrograd (Nakov, 1986:74-‐76).
I believe that Malevich’s marginalisation and his working conditions are reflected in his
theory of non-‐objectivity when he wrote about the empty space as a place where humans
can find asylum and have rest, and when he claimed that Suprematism was that artistic
place (Andersen, 1976:271, 275).
Moreover, his self-‐contradictory character is evident again when he isolated art from
technology and highlighted that with the former came rest whilst with the latter
utilitarianism. Furthermore, he argued that Suprematism should grow in the urban
environment where modern technology grows and there is dynamic movement, but on the
other hand he claimed that: ‘For art everything is weightless, without movement’ (Malevich
cited in ibid.:277). I argue that through his self-‐contradiction, Malevich adopted more of an
35
idealistic rather than a materialistic approach to art and to life. Consequently, he found art’s
essence and beauty in its static character and believed that art prevailed over technology
because it could achieve the state of eternal rest (ibid.:278-‐279). Malevich considered non-‐
objectivity a philosophy of life and an intellectual state of mind; it was the alternative to
religion and science which relied on the conscious and the rational. On the other hand, non-‐
objectivity was based on the unconscious and the irrationality of its art. As Groys notes
(1992:17), the importance of the Suprematist artist lie in the fact that she was the only one
who was able to control and modify the unconscious stimuli she received because she knew
the laws of pure form. I believe that the thought and theory of Malevich would be too
idealistic to be accepted by the Soviet State. Moreover, I claim that his idealism at some
point turns into mysticism, where the artist is supposed to be the only equipped interpreter
of a higher truth that lies outside everyday life. Some of his works also directly implied that
(Fig. 11).
36
(Fig. 11)
In addition, what is evident in his theory is the intention to put art not only in an
independent realm outside any kind of authority, but to also place it in an authoritarian role
itself. Malevich sought perfection; the word ‘Suprematism’ which implies dominance and
superiority defines the latter’s authoritative aspirations (ibid.:31). However, when Malevich
put the artist in the highest social rank he programmed Suprematism’s marginalisation.
37
In conclusion, Malevich tried to establish a philosophy of art and life which would be
independent from any external factor; non-‐objectivity was a utopian state of mind which
relied on the artistic project of Suprematism. As Malevich tried to put his art in an
authoritarian role, everyday life and its socioeconomic conditions left him behind. In the
following chapter I will focus on Malevich’s relationship with the Revolution and the Soviet
State.
38
Chapter Three
Malevich, the State and the Revolution
‘And in life however we build a state, once it is a state then, ipso facto, a prison is formed’
(Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:53).
In this chapter I will look at the relationship between Malevich and the State and will
explore it within the context of the October Revolution 1917. I will specifically investigate
his views on art and its position inside the social context and I will also look at how he
defined art’s function. Moreover, I will analyse Malevich’s views on the process of
Revolution and consider if there is any political thinking in his work. Next, I will focus on his
approach towards ideology, his shift between idealism, materialism and utopianism and the
nature of his libertarianism. Furthermore, I will investigate the characteristics of his ideology
of art and his views on the similarity between the State and religion, and the difference
between materialistic communism and spiritual religious communism. I will also focus on his
views about Lenin and, finally, I will compare Malevich’s views with those of the former.
Malevich and his relationship with the State and the Revolution is complicated; whilst he
was longing for the communist cause to prevail, he put art in an independent frame and
alienated it from anything external. He stressed that ‘art cannot be applied to or combined
with utilitarianism resulting from human economic relations’ (Malevich cited in Andersen,
1971:14). Furthermore, he highlighted that by ‘stressing social and class motives we have
completely disregarded the artist’s painterly nature’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:122). Malevich
believed that when art would be free from any socioeconomic factor it could then become
39
the content of life; I claim that when he tried to put art in life praxis by negating any
influence of the latter in artistic creation, he became contradictory. He also stressed:
Our contemporaries must understand that life will not be the content of art, but
rather that art must become the content of life, since only thus can life be beautiful
(Malevich cited in ibid.:17-‐18).
Clark (1999:237, 431) refers to the rare moments when the artists and the people in power
have the same intentions; in the case of Russian avant-‐garde it happened until Lenin put all
cultural production under the authority of the Russian Communist Party in 1920 (Harrison,
Wood, 2003:403). I would argue that Malevich’s idealism could not survive for a longer
period than it did; it happened because the social circumstances in Russia were ambiguous
and included fear and excitement, apocalypse and utopia, chaos and rationality at the same
time (Clark, 1999:242). Once the Revolution would stand firm on its feet, reality would
demand the construction of the new communist narrative. I believe that Malevich’s idealism
could not have the leading role in this construction, as he was trying to keep art at distance
through non-‐objectivity. While Malevich stressed that the Revolution ‘smashed the chains
of capitalist slavery’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:49), at the same time he taught and
practiced a theory that intended to be ‘groundless’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:54) and
independent from everyday life.
In 1918, Malevich dreamt about new art under anarchism (ibid.:55). He wrote for the
journal Anarkhiya which was published by a faction of anarchists; the journal ceased
publication in April the same year as the Bolsheviks raided the headquarters of the
anarchists and the latter dissolved (ibid.:244). Clark (1999:286) claims that Malevich had
placed himself in the nihilist and libertarian camp. Andersen writes that it was not so much
40
a political engagement as an attempt to oppose conservatism inside the artists’ union
(Andersen, 1971:244). Having read Malevich’s seven contributions in Anarkhiya written
between March and April 1918, I would argue that they are a declaration of libertarianism
which derives from Malevich’s will for a new art free from the forms of the past.
Consequently, he criticised the efficiency of the Revolution as he wrote:
A year of revolution has passed already, and what have all the theatrical
commissions and art departments done for art? Nothing (Malevich cited in ibid.:56).
Similarly, he supported an architecture which would be based on new forms and in
modernity’s advancements like the engines, electricity, iron, concrete and cement. He
declared:
The avant-‐garde of revolutionary destruction is marching over the whole wide world,
life is being cleaned of its old mould, and on the square of the fields of revolution
there should be erected corresponding buildings (Malevich cited in ibid.:63).
I understand Malevich’s libertarianism as a response not to put art under any kind of
authority and as a refusal on an implemented life pattern by the State. Malevich
distinguished between the temporal and the timeless art; the former served propaganda
and practicality and the latter was pure and authentic. He sided with the ‘pure abstract art’
(Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:50). Moreover, he was against the ‘ideological
enlighteners’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:72), as he claimed that they blinded people instead of
helping them to find the truth. Therefore, Malevich did not want to put art under the
constraints of ideology. However, Malevich’s idealism shifted to materialism when he
claimed that the Revolution did not involve colour; production in the factories involved the
making of new products such as cars and the labour was orientated in utilitarian
41
constructions rather than colour forms (ibid.:103-‐104). Nevertheless, he eliminated the
political element again:
…it is obvious that colour disappears in the end from political groupings, because
political groupings too will disappear into the future (Malevich cited in ibid.:145).
I see Malevich’s approach as self-‐contradictory; whilst he longed and supported the
revolutionary change, he did not want to put the political context in the leading role, as it
kept the latter for art.
Moreover, Malevich believed in the capability of the masses to receive new art eagerly but
he also stressed the importance of the Suprematist artist to control and modify the
unconscious stimuli and the artist’s exclusiveness to interpret the laws of pure form. He
wanted the Suprematist artist to move out of any authoritarian control and he aimed for a
totally independent art. Furthermore, as early as 1920, he clearly stated that he was not
content with a kind of materialism which fights only for survival and does not look to
conquer everything (Clark, 1999:278-‐279). I believe that Malevich’s views, because of their
ambiguity, were problematic towards the revolutionary State which needed to establish its
hegemony during the 1920s in all fields of life, including culture. It also explains why
Malevich found himself marginalised in the same period. Malevich saw the artist as a genius
who was exclusively interpreting non-‐objectivity and he believed that civic material life
could not do without the artistic intervention (Andersen, 1976:299). Malevich was in search
of Utopia, a land where the ideal, non-‐objectivity, would prevail; he dreamed like a
materialist but taught like an idealist. For Clark, Malevich found Marxism problematic
(1999:267). I agree with Clark and would also claim that Malevich was thinking and writing
as a libertarian; he supported the communist ideal but not under the authoritarian umbrella
42
of the State. He, moreover, was critical of the new revolutionary State that embraced
classicism and did not favour non-‐objectivity, which he considered ‘a revolutionary
phenomenon in art’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:211). Therefore, he linked non-‐
objectivity with the communist, classless society but at the same time he opposed the
State’s approach to art. In Suprematism’s white square, Marxist art historian Francis
Klingender saw the decay of capitalism (Harrison, Wood, 2003:438-‐439). I see Malevich’s
will for art’s primacy as contrary to the social context of the Revolution.
Malevich tried to establish an ideology of art, since he claimed that the latter was exploited
by other ideologies; in 1924 he distinguished between ‘practical ideology, religious ideology,
and the ideology of art’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:221). He believed that the
labourers followed practical ideology and the artists followed the ideology of art (ibid.). In
times when artists like Tatlin and Rodchenko who I mentioned in the second chapter
produced utilitarian work, Malevich claimed that ‘the artists establish their own line
[and]…also wish to take their own path and not serve any ideology’ (Malevich cited in
ibid.:222). Moreover, Malevich attacked the political and religious leaders who used art as
an ideological tool for propaganda towards the masses and claimed that visual arts are
under their service. Furthermore, he was critical of the State’s use of art as a means of
illustration and considered the ideology of art as a totally independent path based on its
own culture:
Sooner or later, therefore, art must step out and go along its own path, following its
own immediate culture, and can no longer serve as the expression of, or propaganda
for other ideas, ‘The publicity department of art is closed’ as its epoch is beyond
ideas (Malevich cited in ibid.:236).
43
I stress that it would be very difficult for Malevich to establish non-‐objectivity in times when
the task was to build a communist society. This was reflected even in artistic initiatives like
the 1922 Declaration by AKhRR (Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia), in which
they claimed that they would realistically depict the life of the revolutionaries, the Red
Army, the workers and the peasants. Moreover, they believed that abstraction was
disgracing the Revolution (Wood, 1999:259). Apart from AKhRR, the Constructivists were
also contesting Malevich’s Suprematism; their approach was the practical application of art
to life for the service of the newly communist State. In their programme of 1921, they made
clear that they wanted to move their artistic explorations towards ‘laboratory work’ (Lodder
cited in Edwards, Wood, 2004:361). Having already ousted Malevich in 1919 as I mentioned
in the previous chapter, by the beginning of 1921 they also managed to take control of the
Institute of Artistic Culture in Moscow (Nakov, 1986:115). The AKhRR and the
Constructivists served more fittingly the post-‐revolutionary communist narrative.
On the other hand, Malevich negated art which functions as a mirror of the State, society or
religion and called for an abstract art, an art ‘as such’ (Malevich cited in Andersen,
1976:241). Malevich believed that non-‐objectivity is compatible with the building of the
communist society and he considered art as pure research into forms that would be
appropriate for the new, communist epoch (Wood, 1999:200). However, he stressed:
Dynamism, the radio, electricity are elements of our new sensations. But this does
not mean that, for art, dynamism will be the contents inasmuch as in it are
expressed practical ideas (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:262).
I would argue that Malevich sided with modernity’s advancements but kept his art at
distance from post-‐revolution’s everyday life and that affected in his marginalisation.
44
It is also important to focus on Malevich’s views about religion and the State as this will help
us approach better his firmness about the independence of art. Malevich saw no difference
between the function of religion and the function of the State. Even under revolutionary
conditions, the latter could not escape from its totalising structures which resemble those of
the former. He stressed: ‘It is obvious that the state cannot go any way other than by the
law of God’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:315). He used the example of Lenin’s death and he
compared it with the death of Christ to argue about the construction of a metaphysical
image which encouraged spiritualism and not scientific materialism and he claimed that:
The new kingdom of earth-‐dwellers is in Communism, with Leninism as its spiritual
aspect, but neither can be a purely materialistic kingdom, this is impossible while
spirit and matter exist, for they are not steam and engine (Malevich cited in
ibid.:320).
Once more, Malevich pointed to modernity and negated any religious exaltation even if,
now, it was Lenin who took the place of Christ under the new regime. Malevich highlighted
that Leninism had been ritualised; he claimed that whilst Lenin encouraged action and
taught people how to be materialists, the Soviet State had introduced a life pattern instead.
Malevich is critical of both kinds of hegemony, spiritual and political, as falsely implied by
the State. However, it is important to highlight here that he is not polemical of communism;
I stress that Malevich is in search of the latter in accordance with non-‐objectivity. In his
Appendix: From the Book on Non-‐Objectivity written between 1922-‐1925 he wrote:
I imagine that Lenin did not say a single word about ritual or ceremony in his own
name…Nonetheless a life pattern is being built, the Lenin life pattern, the life pattern
of the Leninist – not of the proletariat without life pattern, the non-‐objectivist
(Malevich cited in ibid.:321).
45
I believe that Malevich is not against the State but against the implementation of a pattern.
Consequently, he distinguished between communism which is materialist, and the false
implementation of communism which is religiously spiritual; he believed that the latter was
practiced under the new regime. However, I stress that Malevich’s approach becomes elitist
again as he claimed that ‘it is a historical mistake to consider the artist as one with the
factory, with industry and with everyday life’ (Malevich cited in ibid.:330). The
independence of art that Malevich was teaching at UNOVIS was an independence based on
art’s superiority over everyday reality; thus, it was idealistic. Malevich’s theory of non-‐
objectivity was no less spiritual than the State’s implementation of a life pattern that he
argued for; his icon’s metaphysics, I am referring to 0.10’s Black Square and its placement
on the top-‐right corner like the placing of a religious icon in a Russian Orthodox domestic
space (Shukaitis, 2016:123), supports my argument.
It is a fact that after the Revolution, the Communist Party needed symbols to confer
meaning to the everyday struggle towards the building of the communist society. As a
result, the representation of Lenin started during his active years and expanded after his
death in 1924. The creation of Lenin Corners, rooms or parts of rooms with Lenin’s portraits
and books, was the Bolshevik response to the traditional icon corner (Lodder, 2004:376).
The Lenin Corners also existed in the Workers’ Clubs (Fig. 12) which promoted communism
and collective values and were used by the proletariat as places of relaxation and
communication.
46
(Fig. 12)
Malevich opposed the idea of the icon and claimed: ‘The icon is counter-‐revolutionary to
scientific materialism…’ (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:346). This was also written during
the period 1922-‐1925. However, whilst he was critical about the State’s ideology, he did the
same with his system of non-‐objectivity; he treated Suprematism as dogma and his theory
as life pattern. I would argue here that his philosophy of art resembled the spiritual religious
communism that he rebuked.
In addition, Malevich adopted the rhetoric of the Revolution and tried to be in accordance
with Leninism. In 1919 he declared:
47
I have torn through the blue lampshade of colour limitations, and come out into the
white; after me comrade aviators sail into the chasm -‐ I have set up semaphores of
Suprematism (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1971:122).
Consequently, Malevich’s ideas were not opposing the State as an organised community
living under a political structure and revolutionary government; what he opposed was the
methods that the State imposed. Nevertheless, at the same time he tried to emphasise his
political credentials, Malevich also put his art at distance from any political hegemony. I
would propose that his self-‐contradiction made his relationship with the State and the
Revolution ambiguous.
At this point, it is useful to focus on Lenin’s views on art and culture as he became involved
in a dispute about the nature of culture after the Revolution. This happened in 1920 when
the idea of ‘proletarian culture’ was supported by Proletcult, an organisation that Lenin
considered a threat for the Communist Party (Harrison, Wood, 2003:402); according to this
idea, the proletariat should substitute bourgeois culture by a new culture of the working
class. Lenin stressed that all modern history experience and revolutionary struggle of the
proletariat since the appearance of the Communist Manifesto should be taken into account
(ibid.). Moreover:
Marxism has won its historic significance as the ideology of the revolutionary
proletariat because, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the
bourgeois epoch, it has, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of
value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought
and culture (Lenin cited in ibid.:402).
48
Lenin noted that further work should be based on this basis and opposed any plans and
ideas for the invention of a brand of culture that would act independently of the Soviet
authorities and the Russian Communist Party (ibid.:403).
Lenin’s views on the matter were firm and clear from 1905 when he wrote about the
autonomy of art and literature; he insisted on their implication in modern life and the class
struggle and stressed the importance of the Party discipline (ibid.:140). His words sounded
prophetic as he warned about the fortunes of those individual elements and trends that
would not subordinate in the Party programme, its resolutions and its rules: ‘We have
sound stomachs and we are rock-‐like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements’
(Lenin cited in ibid.:140). Furthermore, he encouraged the interaction between past and
present experience and set the task of uniting all cultural production under the Party rules
(ibid.:140-‐141). Later, in 1918 and in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, Lenin
claimed that the lifting of the educational and the cultural level of the masses would result
in the raising of labour’s productivity and he attributed the former to the Soviet form of
organisation (Lenin, 1969:416). Similarly, he consistently reminded the need for the Party’s
primacy and he noted that only by acquiring the knowledge of the bourgeoisie can the
technical achievements of communism be possible (ibid.:627).
Consequently, one could argue that whilst Malevich’s idea about engine, steam and
modernity’s advancements was in line with Lenin’s views, his idea about leaving aside the
art of the past and substitute it with non-‐objective art did not comply with Lenin’s views on
art and culture. When Lenin (cited in Harrison, Wood, 2003:140) wrote about ‘inconsistent
elements’, one could propose that he might refer to cases such as Malevich’s ideology of
49
art. Malevich sought to distinguish between Lenin and Leninism in vain, as his theory of non-‐
objectivity acknowledged no Party rules and tried to place art out of this world (Shukaitis,
2016:123-‐124). I claim that he had the opportunity to put Suprematism under the service of
State propaganda but he rejected it…
I witnessed a conversation of a socialist who was quite sure that the red flag meant
the blood of the labourer, my point of view was otherwise, I think that if the blood of
the labourer were blue or green then the revolution would still have taken place
under the red flag (Malevich cited in Andersen, 1976:145).
Revolution for Malevich meant the primacy of colour, the square and abstraction; true art
was liberation and it should never serve a cause. On the other hand, socialist realism could
fittingly do so; the rise of Stalinism after Lenin’s death in 1924 would embrace the former as
the officially acceptable artistic style (Shukaitis, 2016:122).
In conclusion, Malevich’s theory of non-‐objectivity survived only for a short period after the
Revolution as he opposed any kind of political hegemony over art; his libertarianism was
based on the aestheticisation of Suprematism and his disagreement about the life pattern
dictated by the State. Although Malevich supported the communist ideal, his theory of art
did not comply with Lenin’s or the State’s ideas about art in post-‐revolutionary Russia and,
consequently, he found himself artistically marginalised.
50
Conclusion
Suprematism was the reflection of modernity’s conditions in Russia; looking to the chaos
and longing for a new start and a new social reality, Malevich was excited about modern life
and its technological achievements. He believed that the epoch of engine, steam and
electricity needed a new art. Therefore, influenced by Cubism and Futurism, Malevich
wanted to achieve pure abstraction as the absolute expression of modernity. In a tensed
historical period, whilst the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution of 1917 tried to
establish communism, Malevich tried to establish Suprematism and his theory of non-‐
objectivity, which he considered revolutionary and the representative of the new
proletarian culture. Consequently, his art challenged anything old and gradually tried to
achieve abstraction at its highest level. Malevich made art in accordance with modernity’s
aspirations and, moreover, strongly influenced by Russia’s social context. Furthermore,
Malevich’s work and thought ‘met’ the social upheaval and the search of the communist
ideal through the process of Suprematism. The intensity in the use of colour and the
movement of the geometrical forms, the rectangles and the triangles, the circles and the
squares, the icon of the Black Square and, finally, Suprematism’s last stage of the White on
White series, were all products of the Russian society’s conditions and its revolutionary shift
towards a new ideology. Malevich’s Black Square symbolised the rupture with the past,
whilst the white colour was the last destination of Utopia and rest; he believed that society
after the Revolution would act accordingly. However, even if Malevich’s Suprematism
reflected the social context, it also reflected his absolute views about art as an end in itself.
Malevich’s theory of non-‐objectivity and his philosophy of art acknowledged the progressive
nature of Cubism, Futurism, Cubo-‐Futurism and Constructivism and artists like Gauguin,
51
Cèzanne, Van Gogh, Picasso, Picabia and Tatlin. Malevich wanted art to move away from the
object and rely on colour. He searched for the pure artistic sensation and his judgment on
the art forms of the past revealed a formalist approach. Moreover, I understand his
interpretation of Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International as an attempt to justify his
views on art’s independence and the value of abstract art. Malevich supported an ‘art for
art’s sake’ which was independent from any materialist or spiritual hegemony. He
distinguished between art which was used for propaganda and art that stood above any
idea or reason and sided with the latter, as his theory of non-‐objectivity relied on colour,
nothingness, tranquillity and rest. Malevich’s most philosophical text, The World as Non-‐
Objectivity of 1925, presented those views and reflected his psychological condition. I
believe that Malevich’s views were self-‐contradictory and utopian; while he was excited
about modern technology and dynamic movement, he was also in search of rest.
Furthermore, he mapped Suprematism in the dynamic urban environment while he was in
search of tranquillity. Moreover, he did not aim only for an independent art but also for an
art with an authoritarian role. As Malevich tried to put his theory of non-‐objectivity into
practice, the reality of everyday life and its socioeconomic conditions left him behind.
I stress that after the October Revolution of 1917 there was an urgency for the construction
of a new life praxis and the State tried to promote communism and the collective values.
Lenin pointed to the past and present experience, the Soviet form of organisation and the
primacy of the Communist Party. On the other hand, Malevich pointed to the supremacy of
art and, as he unfolded his theory of non-‐objectivity, his materialism was overshadowed by
a libertarian and oppositional approach towards any political or religious hegemony over
art. Malevich believed that non-‐objectivity could coexist with the Revolution and
52
communism and claimed that the new society should move to the terrain of art. However, I
claim that as the post-‐revolutionary socioeconomic conditions demanded an art strongly
committed to the State’s implemented life pattern, that did not comply with Malevich’s
views about art’s independence. Accordingly, the Soviet State needed an art that would
serve as an ideological tool for propaganda; the work of the Constructivists, AKhRR and,
after 1924, socialist realism, served the State narrative more fittingly. However, I propose
that we should not interpret Malevich’s views as hostile to the State or Lenin; Malevich
supported and also used the language of the Revolution but did not agree with the
implementation of a life pattern or Leninism as a religious dogma. Consequently, as his
theory of art did not comply with Lenin’s or the State’s ideas about art in post-‐revolutionary
Russia, it could not survive for a longer period. Malevich proposed that ‘…we should not
examine Suprematism, but merely sense the contrasts that are created in it…’ (Malevich
cited in Andersen, 1971:138). If that is only the case, he succeeded.
53
References Alley, R. (1981) Kazimir Malevich 1878-‐1935. Tate. [Online] [Accessed on 20th November 2016] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/kazimir-‐malevich-‐1561 Andersen, T. (1971) ‘Malevich on New Art’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 9-‐16. Andersen, T. (1971) ‘Notes’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 239-‐257. Borchardt-‐Hume, A. (2014) ‘An Icon for a Modern Age’ In Borchardt-‐Hume, A. (ed.) Malevich. London: Tate Publishing, pp. 24-‐29. Bowlt, J. E. (1976) ‘Nonobjective Art’ In Bowlt, J. E. (ed.) Russian Art of the Avant-‐Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-‐1934. New York: The Viking Press, pp. 85-‐158. Brovkin, V. (1998) ‘Conclusion’ In Brovkin, V. (ed.) Russia after Lenin: Politics, Culture & Society, 1921-‐1929. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 213-‐224. Bukharin, N.; Preobrazhensky, E. (1969) ‘Communism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ In Bukharin, N.; Preobrazhensky, E. (eds.) The ABC of Communism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 113-‐137. Chlenova, M. (2014) ‘Language, Space and Abstraction’ In Borchardt-‐Hume, A. (ed.) Malevich. London: Tate Publishing, pp. 66-‐70. Clark, T. J. (1999) ‘God Is Not Cast Down’ In Clark, T. J. (ed.) Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, pp. 225-‐297. Clark, T. J. (1999) ‘Notes’ In Clark, T. J. (ed.) Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, pp. 409-‐442. Cullinan, N. (2014) ‘Colour Masses’ In Borchardt-‐Hume, A. (ed.) Malevich. London: Tate Publishing, pp. 118-‐121. Gray, C. (1971) ‘1912-‐14’ In Gray, C. (ed.) The Russian Experiment in Art 1863-‐1922. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 131-‐184. Gray, C. (1971) ‘1917-‐21’ In Gray, C. (ed.) The Russian Experiment in Art 1863-‐1922. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 219-‐243. Groys, B. (1992) ‘The Russian Avant-‐Garde: The Leap over Progress’ In Groys, B. (ed.) The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-‐Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond. Princeton, New Jersey; Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. 14-‐32.
54
Harrison, C. (1994) ‘Abstraction’ In Harrison, C.; Frascina, F.; Perry, G. (eds.) Primitivism, Cubism, Abstraction: The Early Twentieth Century. New Haven & London: Yale University Press; The Open University, pp. 184-‐264. Klingender, F. (2003) ‘Content and Form in Art’ In Harrison, C.; Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory 1900-‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. New ed. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 437-‐439). Lenin, V. I. (1969) ‘Speech Delivered at an All-‐Russia Conference of Political Education Workers of Gubernia and Uyezd Education Departments, November 3, 1920’ In Lenin, V. I. (ed.) Selected Works: A One-‐Volume Selection of Lenin’s Most Essential Writings. London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 623-‐630. Lenin, V. I. (1969) ‘The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government’ In Lenin, V. I. (ed.) Selected Works: A One-‐Volume Selection of Lenin’s Most Essential Writings. London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 401-‐431. Lenin, V. I. (2003) ‘On Proletarian Culture’ In Harrison, C.; Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory 1900-‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. New ed. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 402-‐403. Lenin, V. I. (2003) ‘Party Organisation and Party Literature’ In Harrison, C.; Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory 1900-‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. New ed. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 138-‐141. Lodder, C. (1993) ‘Catalogue’ In Lodder, C. (ed.) Russian Painting of the Avant-‐Garde. Edinburgh: Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, pp. 73-‐89. Lodder, C. (1993) ‘Russian Avant Garde Art: From Neoprimitivism to Constructivism’ In Lodder, C. (ed.) Russian Painting of the Avant-‐Garde. Edinburgh: Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, pp. 11-‐22. Lodder, C. (2004) ‘Soviet Constructivism’ In Edwards, S.; Wood, P. (eds.) Art of the Avant-‐Gardes. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; The Open University, pp. 359-‐393. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘A Letter to the Dutch Artists’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 183-‐187. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Aesthetics’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 107-‐123. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘An Analysis of New and Imitative Art (Paul Cèzanne)’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 19-‐30.
55
Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘An Attempt to Determine the Relation Between Colour and Form in Painting’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 124-‐146. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Cubo-‐futurism’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 85-‐94. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Dynamic and Kinetic Futurism’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 95-‐106. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism. The New Realism in Painting’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 19-‐41. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘From “Secret Vices of the Academicians”’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 17-‐18. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘God is Not Cast Down’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 188-‐223. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘New Art and Imitative Art (Picasso, Braque)’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 31-‐55. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Non-‐Objective Creation and Suprematism’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 120-‐122. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘On New Systems in Art’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 83-‐119. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Painting and the Problem of Architecture’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 7-‐18. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Reply’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 52-‐54. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Spatial Cubism’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 56-‐61. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘Suprematism. 34 Drawings’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 123-‐164. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘The Constructive Painting of Russian Artists and Constructivism’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 74-‐84.
56
Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘The Problems of Art and the Role of Its Suppressors’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 49-‐50. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘The Question of Imitative Art’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, pp. 165-‐182. Malevich, K. S. (1971) ‘To the New Limit’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting, p. 55. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/41 The Philosophy of the Kaleidoscope’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 11-‐33. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/42 Non-‐Objectivity’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 34-‐146. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/45 An Introduction to the Theory of the Additional Element in Painting’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 147-‐194. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/46 Contemporary Art’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 195-‐219. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/47 New Art’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 220-‐269. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/48 The World as Non-‐Objectivity’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 270-‐290. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘I/49 The World as Non-‐Objectivity’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 291-‐314. Malevich, K. S. (1976) ‘Appendix: From the Book on Non-‐Objectivity’ In Andersen, T. (ed.) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum, pp. 315-‐358. Nakov, A. B. (1986) ‘Art into Life: The Dramatic Evolution’ In Nakov, A. B. (ed.) Avant-‐Garde Russe. London: Art Data, pp. 52-‐101.
57
Nakov, A. B. (1986) ‘Chronology’ In Nakov, A. B. (ed.) Avant-‐Garde Russe. London: Art Data, pp. 111-‐117. Nakov, A. B. (2013) Kazimir Malevich: Reception and Contemporary Interpretation and Mis-‐Interpretation. Presentation at the State Museum of Contemporary Art, Thessaloniki, 19th November. Oxford Art Online (2016) Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich. [Online] [Accessed on 20th November 2016] http://www.oxfordartonline.com/public/page/Benezit_free_Malevich Rakitin, V. (1981) ‘The George Costakis Collection’ In Rudenstine, A. Z. (ed.) Russian Avant-‐Garde Art: The George Costakis Collection. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 78-‐499. Schapiro, M. (1982) ‘Mondrian: Order and Randomness in Abstract Painting’ In Schapiro, M. (ed.) Modern Art: 19th & 20th Centuries (Selected Papers, Vol. II). New York: George Braziller, pp. 233-‐261. Schapiro, M. (1982) ‘Nature of Abstract Art’ In Schapiro, M. (ed.) Modern Art: 19th & 20th Centuries (Selected Papers, Vol. II). New York: George Braziller, pp. 185-‐211. Shukaitis, S. (2016) ‘Icons of Futures Past’ In Shukaitis, S. (ed.) The Composition of Movements to Come: Aesthetics and Cultural Labor after the Avant-‐Garde. London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 121-‐137. Tate (no date) Suprematism. [Online] [Accessed on 23d November 2016] http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-‐resources/glossary/s/suprematism The State Tretyakov Gallery (2016) Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich. [Online] [Accessed on 20th November 2016] http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/author/_id/154 The State Tretyakov Gallery (2016) Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich: Black Suprematic Square. [Online] [Accessed on 23d September 2016] http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/image/_id/378 Tsantsanoglou, M.; Charistou, A. (2013) ‘Suprematism’ In Tsantsanoglou, M.; Charistou, A. (eds.) The Costakis Collection at the State Museum of Contemporary Art. Thessaloniki: State Museum of Contemporary Art, p. 11. Tumarkin, N. (1983) ‘Political Ritual and the Cult of Lenin’. Human Rights Quarterly, 5(2) pp. 203-‐206. UNOVIS (2003) ‘Programme of a United Audience in Painting of the Vitebsk State Free Workshops’ In Harrison, C.; Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory 1900-‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. New ed. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 300-‐302.
58
Wood, P. (1999) ‘Conclusion: For and against the Avant-‐Garde’ In Wood, P. (ed.) Varieties of Modernism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; The Open University, pp. 257-‐272. Wood, P. (1999) ‘The Avant-‐Garde in the Early Twentieth Century’ In Wood, P. (ed.) Varieties of Modernism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; The Open University, pp. 183-‐203.
59
Bibliography Alley, R. (1981) Kasimir Malevich 1878-‐1935. Tate. [Online] [Accessed on 20th November 2016] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/kazimir-‐malevich-‐1561 Andersen, T. (1971) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. I. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting. Andersen, T. (1971) K. S. Malevich: Essays on Art 1915-‐1933 Vol. II. 2nd ed. London: Rapp & Whiting. Andersen, T. (1976) K. S. Malevich: The World as Non-‐Objectivity: Unpublished Writings 1922-‐25 Vol. III. Copenhagen; Amsterdam: Borgens Forlag; Stedelijk Museum. Angela Grauerholz (no date) 2003/2004 Documentation. [Online] [Accessed on 23d November 2016] http://angelagrauerholz.com/archives-‐installations/2003-‐2004/documentation/ Barr, A. H. Jr. (1975) Cubism and Abstract Art. New York; London: Museum of Modern Art; Secker & Warburg. Borchardt-‐Hume, A. (2014) Malevich. London: Tate Publishing. Bowlt, J. E. (1976) Russian Art of the Avant-‐Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-‐1934. New York: The Viking Press. Bukharin, N.; Preobrazhensky, E. (1969) The ABC of Communism. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Brovkin, V. (1998) Russia after Lenin: Politics, Culture & Society, 1921-‐1929. London; New York: Routledge. Clark, T. J. (1999) Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Despagnès-‐Tremblay, A. (2005) Illustrations. Universitè Laval. [Online] [Accessed on 21st October 2016] http://theses.ulaval.ca/archimede/fichiers/23115/apb.html Edwards, S.; Wood, P. (2004) Art of the Avant-‐Gardes. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; The Open University. Gray, C. (1971) The Russian Experiment in Art 1863-‐1922. London: Thames and Hudson. Groys, B. (1992) The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-‐Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond. Princeton, New Jersey; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
60
Guggenheim Bilbao (2016) Kazimir Malevich: Architecton Gota. [Online] [Accessed on 28th September 2016] https://www.guggenheim-‐bilbao.es/en/works/architekton-‐gota/ Hadjinicolaou, N. (1978) Art History and Class Struggle. London: Pluto Press.
Harrison, C.; Frascina, F.; Perry, G. (1994) Primitivism, Cubism, Abstraction: The Early Twentieth Century. New Haven & London: Yale University Press; The Open University. Harrison, C.; Wood, P. (2003) Art in Theory 1900-‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. New ed. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell. Hauser, A. (1968) The Social History of Art Vol. 4: Naturalism, Impressionism, The Film Age. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hauser, A. (1999) The Social History of Art Volume IV: Naturalism, Impressionism, The Film Age. 3d ed. London; New York: Routledge. Hötte, D. W. (2014) Utopia 1900-‐1940: Visions of a New World. Rotterdam: nai010 Publishers. Lenin, V. I. (1969) Selected Works: A One-‐Volume Selection of Lenin’s Most Essential Writings. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Lodder, C. (1983) Russian Constructivism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Lodder, C. (1993) Russian Painting of the Avant-‐Garde. Edinburgh: Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art. Mariborchan (2016) Alain Badiou: Fifteen Theses on Contemporary Art. [Online] [Accessed on 9th September 2016] http://mariborchan.si/text/articles/alain-‐badiou/fifteen-‐theses-‐on-‐contemporary-‐art/ Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) (2016) Aleksandr Rodchenko: Non-‐Objective Painting no. 80 (Black on Black) 1918. [Online] [Accessed on 25th November 2016] https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78848 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) (2016) Kazimir Malevich: Suprematist Composition: White on White 1918. [Online] [Accessed on 16th September 2016] http://www.moma.org/collection/works/80385?locale=en Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) (2016) Kazimir Malevich: Suprematist Painting 1916-‐17. [Online] [Accessed on 28th September 2016] http://www.moma.org/collection/works/80387?locale=en Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) (no date) Vladimir Tatlin: Model for Pamiatnik III Internatsionala (Monument to the Third International). [Online] [Accessed on 21st October
61
2016] http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/?work=226 Nakov, A. B. (1976) Kasimir Malevich. London: The Tate Gallery. Nakov, A. B. (1986) Avant-‐Garde Russe. London: Art Data. Osborne, P. (2001) From an Aesthetic Point of View: Philosophy, Art and the Senses. London: Serpent’s Tail. Oxford Art Online (2016) Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich. [Online] [Accessed on 20th November 2016] http://www.oxfordartonline.com/public/page/Benezit_free_Malevich Ranciére, J. (2006) The Politics of Aesthetics. London; New York: Continuum. Rudenstine, A. Z. (1981) Russian Avant-‐Garde Art: The George Costakis Collection. London: Thames and Hudson. Sandler, I.; Newman, A. (1986) Defining Modern Art: Selected Writings of Alfred H. Barr, Jr. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Schapiro, M. (1982) Modern Art: 19th & 20th Centuries (Selected Papers, Vol. II). New York: George Braziller. Shukaitis, S. (2016) The Composition of Movements to Come: Aesthetics and Cultural Labor after the Avant-‐Garde. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Tate (no date) Suprematism. [Online] [Accessed on 23d November 2016] http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-‐resources/glossary/s/suprematism The Biennale of Sydney (2016) Lunchtime Lecture: Malevich and the Black Square: 100 Years on. [Online] [Accessed on 23d September 2016] https://www.biennaleofsydney.com.au/20bos/events/lunchtime-‐lecture-‐malevich-‐and-‐the-‐black-‐square-‐100-‐years-‐on/ The Charnel-‐House (2012) The “arkhitektons” and “planets” of Suprematism. 22nd November. [Online] [Accessed on 30th August 2016] https://thecharnelhouse.org/2012/11/22/the-‐arkhitektons-‐and-‐planets-‐of-‐kazimir-‐malevich-‐and-‐his-‐students-‐nikolai-‐suetin-‐and-‐iakov-‐chashnik-‐mid-‐1920s-‐with-‐commentary-‐by-‐aleksei-‐gan/ The State Tretyakov Gallery (2016) Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich. [Online] [Accessed on 20th November 2016] http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/author/_id/154
62
The State Tretyakov Gallery (2016) Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich: Black Suprematic Square. [Online] [Accessed on 23d September 2016] http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/image/_id/378 The Stedelijk Museum Journal (2013) 0,10 Exhibition. 23rd October. [Online] [Accessed on 25th September 2016] http://journal.stedelijk.nl/en/010-‐exhibition/ The Stedelijk Museum Journal (2016) Malevich. [Online] [Accessed on 27th October 2016] http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/press/press-‐images/malevich Trivium Art History (2016) Piet Mondrian: Composition with Lines (Composition in Black and White). [Online] [Accessed on 2nd October 2016] http://arthistoryproject.com/artists/piet-‐mondrian/composition-‐with-‐lines-‐composition-‐in-‐black-‐and-‐white/ Tsantsanoglou, M.; Charistou, A. (2013) The Costakis Collection at the State Museum of Contemporary Art. Thessaloniki: State Museum of Contemporary Art. Tumarkin, N. (1983) ‘Political Ritual and the Cult of Lenin’. Human Rights Quarterly, 5(2) pp. 203-‐206. Wood, P. (1999) The Challenge of the Avant-‐Garde. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; The Open University. Wood, P. (2004) Varieties of Modernism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; The Open University.
63
Illustration List (Fig. 1): Malevich, K. (1918) Suprematist Composition: White on White. Oil on canvas, 79.4 x 79.4cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York. (Fig. 2): Malevich, K. (1913) Set Design for the Opera Victory over the Sun. Pencil on paper, 21.5 x 27.5cm, St. Petersburg State Museum of Theatre and Music, St. Petersburg. (Fig. 3): Malevich, K. (1915) Black Suprematic Square. Oil on canvas, 79.5 x 79.5cm, The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow. (Fig. 4): The Stedelijk Museum Journal (2013) 0,10 Exhibition. 23rd October. [Online] [Accessed on 25th September 2016] http://journal.stedelijk.nl/en/010-‐exhibition/ (Fig. 5): Malevich, K. (1916-‐1917) Suprematist Painting. Oil on canvas, 97.8 x 66.4cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York. (Fig. 6): Malevich, K. (1923) Architekton Gota. Plaster, 85.3 x 56 x 52.5cm, Russian State Museum, St. Petersburg. (Fig. 7): Mondrian, P. (1917) Composition with Lines. Oil on canvas, 1804 x 1804mm, Kröller-‐Müller Museum, Otterlo. (Fig. 8): Picasso, P. (1913) Construction. Universitè Laval. [Online] [Accessed on 21st October 2016] http://theses.ulaval.ca/archimede/fichiers/23115/apb.html (Fig. 9): Tatlin, V. (1920) Model for Pamiatnik III Internatsionala (Monument to the Third International). Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). [Online] [Accessed on 21st October 2016] http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/?work=226 (Fig. 10): Rodchenko, A. (1918) Non-‐Objective Painting no. 80 (Black on Black). Oil on canvas, 81.9 x 79.4cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York. (Fig. 11): Malevich, K. (1920-‐1922) Mystic Suprematism (red cross on black circle). Oil on canvas, dimensions unknown, The Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam. (Photograph: Nikolaos Bogiatzis). (Fig. 12): Rodchenko, A. (1925) The Reading Room of the USSR Workers’ Club. Angela Grauerholz. [Online] [Accessed on 23d November 2016] http://angelagrauerholz.com/archives-‐installations/2003-‐2004/documentation/