Skip to main content

Full text of "Amazons of the avant-garde : Alexandra Exter ... [et al.]"

See other formats


OF  THe 


amazons 

avanT- 

carDe 


s 


40  M 


% 


exTer 

Gone  Har  ova 

popova 

rozanova 

STepanova 

uDaLTsova 


|j       \              K^KI 

'-  *    m         "^  '      "    m 

m    1  * 

1  m^Mk/ 

-ail  3 

■f  Si 

frgftC\S  I 

1  ^^^.^1             ' '      ^^^             .^^1 

"•^fc*^                       , 

amazons 

OFTHe 

avairr-GarDe 

aLexanDra  exTer, 
naTaLia  GoncHarova, 
liubov  popova,  OLGa  rozanova, 
varvara  STepanova,  anD 
naDezHDa  UDaLTSova 

eDneD  by  jOHn  e.  bowlt  anD  maTTHew  dtutt 


GuggenheimMUSEUM 


amazons  of  THe  avarrr-GarDe:  aLexanDra  exier,  naiana  GoncHarova, 
liubov  popova,  OLGa  rozanova,  varvara  STepanova,  anD  naDezHDa  UDaLTSova 

Curated  by  John  E.  Bowlt,  Matthew  Drutt,  and  Zelfira  Tregulova 

Deutsche  Guggenheim  Berlin,  July  10— October  17,  1999 

Royal  Academy  of  Arts.  London.  November  10. 1999-February  6,  2000 

Peggy  Guggenheim  Collection,  Venice,  February  29-May  28,  2000 

Guggenheim  Museum  Bilbao.  June  12-September  3.  2000 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum,  New  York,  September  14,,  2000— January  10,  2001 


This  exhibition  is  made  possible  by  Deutsche  Bank    ' 


The  operations  and  programs  of  the  Peggy  Guggenheim 
Collection  are  made  possible  by  the  support  of  the 
Peggy  Guggenheim  Collection  Advisory  Board,  the 
Regione  Veneto,  Alitalia,  and: 


INTHAPHES^    COLLEZIONE   GUGGENHEIM 
Aermec  Leo  Burnett 

Arclinea  Lubiamigu 

Automotive  Products  Italia  Luciano  Marcato 

Banca  Antoniana  Popolare  Veneta     _,..._.  .     . 

Paiiadio  rinanziana 
Barbero 1891 

Rex  Built-in 
Bisazza 

Booz-Allen  &  Hamilton  Italia  " 

Darmani  Swatch 

Gretag  Imaging  Group  WeUa 

Gruppo  3M  Italia  Zucchi-Bassetti  Group 

management  by  Bondardo  Communicazione 


©  2000  The  Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Foundation,  New  York. 
All  rights  reserved.All  works  of  art  by  Natalia  Goncharova 
©  aooo  Artists  Rights  Society  (ARS),  New  York/ADAGP,  Paris. 
All  works  of  art  by  Varvara  Stepanovaare  reproduced  with  the 
permission  of  the  Rodchenko-Stepanova  Archive,  Moscow. 
All  works  of  art  by  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  ©  Estate  of  Nadezhda 
Udaltsova/  Licensed  by  VAGA  New  York,  NY. 

Guggenheim  Museum  Publications,  1071  Fifth  Avenue,  NY,  NY  1012 

ISBN  0-89207-225-3 

Printed  in  Germany  by  GZD 

Design:  DesiGn/wriTinG/researcH 

Cover:  Liubov  Popova,  Composition  with  Figures,  1913  (plate  28) 


conTenTS 


i3    inTroDUdion 

Matthew  Drutt 

20   women  of  Genius 

John  E.  Bowlt 

39    six  (anD  a  Few  more)  russian  women 
of  rae  avam-GarDe  TOGeTHer 

Charlotte  Douglas 

59    BeTween  old  anD  New,  russia's  moDern  women 

Laura  Engelstein 

75    GenDer  TrouBLe  in  rae  amazonian  KinGDoni: 

Turn-OF-THe-cenTurY  represenTaTions  of  women  in  russia 

Olga  Matich 

95    DressinGupanD  DressmGDOwn: 
THe  body  of  rue  avam-GarDe 

Nicoletta  Uisler 

109  creauve  women,  creauve  Men,  anD  paraDiGms  of 
creanviTY:  why  Have  mere  Been  creaT  women  arTisTS? 

Ekaterina  Dyogot 

i3i  aLexanDra  exTer 

Essay  by  Georgii  Kovalenko 

155  naTana  GoncHarova 

Essay  by  Jane  A.  Sharp 

185   LIUBOVPOPOVa 

Essays  by  Natalia  Adaskina  and  Dmitrii  Sarabianov 

ai3  OLGa  rozanova 

Essay  by  Nina  Gurianova 

241  varvara  STepanova 

Essay  by  Alexander  Lavrentiev 

271  naDezHDa  UDarrsova 

Essay  by  Vasilii  Rakitin 

298  DocumenTS 

348  LIST  OF  PLaTeS/BIBLIOGraPHY 


THe  soLomon  r. 
GUGGenHeim  FOunDanon 


Honorary  TrusTees 
in perpeTuiTY 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim 
Justin  K.  Thannhauser 
Peggy  Guggenheim 

Honorary  cHairman 

Peter  Lawson-Johnston 

CHairman 

Peter  B.  Lewis 

vice-presiDems 

Wendy  L-J.  McNeil 
John  S.  Wadsworth,  Jr. 

vice-presiDem 
anD  Treasurer 

Stephen  C.  Swid 

Diredor 

Thomas  Krens 

secreTary 

Edward  F.  Rover 

Honorary  TrusTee 

Claude  Pompidou 

TrusTees  ex  officio 

Dakis  Joannou 
Benjamin  B.  Rauch 


TrusTees 

Giovanni  Agnelli 
JonlmanolAzua 
Peter  M.  Brant 
Mary  Sharp  Cronson 
Gail  May  Engelberg 
Daniel  Filipacchi 
Martin  D.  Gruss 
Barbara  Jonas 
David  H.  Koch 
Thomas  Krens 
Barbara  Lane 
Peter  Lawson-Johnston 
Peter  Lawson-Johnston  II 
Samuel  J.  LeFrak 
Peter  B.  Lewis 
Wendy  L-J.  McNeil 
Edward  H.  Meyer 
Frederick  W.  Reid 
Richard  A.  Rifkind 
Denise  Saul 
Terry  Semel 
James  B.  Sherwood 
RajaW.  Sidawi 
Seymour  Slive 
Stephen  C.  Swid 
John  S.  Wadsworth,  Jr. 
Cornel  West 
John  Wilmerding 
William  T.  Ylvisaker 


Diredor  EmeriTus 

Thomas  M.  Messer 


peGGY  GUGGenHeim  coLLecTion 
aDvisory  BoarD 


presiDem 

Peter  Lawson-Johnston 

vice-presiDenT 

The  Earl  Castle  Stewart 

Hononary  CHairman 

Claude  Pompidou 

Honorary  co-CHairman 

H.R.H  The  Grand  Duchess  of 
Luxembourg 

Honorary  memBer 

Olga  Adamishina 

raeniBers 

Luigi  Agrati 

Steven  Ames 

Giuseppina  Araldi  Guinetti 

Maria  Angeles  Aristrain 

Rosa  Ayer 

Marehese  Annibale  Berlingieri 

Alexander  Bernstein 

Patti  Cadby  Birch 

Davide  Blei 

Mary  Bloch 

Wilfred  Cass 

The  Earl  Castle  Stewart 

Claudio  Cavazza 

Fausto  Cereti 

Sir  Trevor  Chinn 

Franca  Coin 

Isabella  del  Frate  Eich 

Rosemary  Chisholm  Feick 

Mary  Gaggia 

David  Gallagher 

Danielle  Gardner 

Patricia  Gerber 

Marino  Golinelli 

Christian  Habermann 


Jacques  Hachuel  M. 
Gilbert  W.  Harrison 
W.  Lawrence  Heisey 
William  M.  Hollis.  Jr 
Guglielmo  La  Scala 
Samuel  H.  Lindenbaum 
June  Lowell 
Cristian  Mantero 
Achille  Maramotti 
Valeria  Monti 
Luigi  Moscheri 
Raymond  D.  Nasher 
Christina  Newburgh 
Giovanni  Pandini 
Annelise  Ratti 
Benjamin  B.  Rauch 
Richard  A.  Rifkind 
Dodie  Rosekrans 
Nanette  Ross 
Miles  Rubin 
Aldo  Sacchi 
Sir  Timothy  Sainsbury 
Denise  Saul 
Evelina  Schapira 
Hannelore  Schulhof 
James  B.  Sherwood 
Riki  Taylor 

Roberto  Tronchetti  Provera 
Melissa  Ulfane 
Leopoldo  Villareal  F. 
Nancy  Pierce  Watts 
Ruth  Westen  Pavese 

emeriTus  memBers 

Enrico  Chiari 
William  Feick,  Jr. 
Evelyn  Lambert 
Jacques  E.  Lennon 
Umberto  Nordio 
Anna  Scotti 
Kristen  Venable 


peGGY  GUGGenHeim 
coLLecnon  FamiLY 
commiTTee 

David  Helion 

Fabrice  Helion  "f 

Nicolas  Helion 

Laurence  and  Sandro  Rumney 

Clovis  Vail 

Julia  Vail  and  Bruce  Mouland 

KaroleP.B.  Vail 

Mark  Vail 


OLGa  rozanova 

Non-Objective  Composition  (Flight  of  an  Airplane),  1916 
Oil  on  canvas,  118  x  101  cm 
Art  Museum,  Samara 


preFace 


THomas  Krens 


The  Guggenheim  Museum  has  a  distinguished  history  in  collecting  and  presenting 
the  art  of  the  Russian  avant-garde.  In  1929,  Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  met  Vasily 
Kandinsky  in  his  Bauhaus  studio,  beginning  a  relationship  that  would  result  in  this 
pioneering  Russian  abstract  painter  becoming  closely  associated  with  the  museum's 
permanent  collection.  Masterpieces  by  Russians  Marc  Chagall,  Natalia  Goncharova. 
Mikhail  Larionov,  El  Lissitzky,  and  Kazimir  Malevich  were  acquired  by  the  museum 
early  on,  and  remain  some  of  our  most  treasured  works. 

Over  the  years  we  have  mounted  many  exhibitions  devoted  to  Russian  artists, 
with  no  fewer  than  nineteen  since  1945  devoted  to  Kandinsky  alone.  Other  Russian 
masters  honored  by  the  Guggenheim  include  Malevich  (1973),  Chagall  (1975  and 
1993),  and  Naum  Gabo  (1986).  In  1981,  the  Guggenheim  organized  Art  oftheAvant- 
Garde  in  Russia:  Selections  from  the  George  Costakis  Collection-,  a  sweeping  survey,  it 
resulted  in  two  publications  that  remain  central  to  the  scholarship  on  the  subject.  In 
1992,  we  presented  The  Great  Utopia:  The  Russian  and  Soviet  Avant-Garde,  1915—1932. 
which  remains  the  most  comprehensive  investigation  of  the  subject  to  date. 

It  is  within  this  context  that  we  are  pleased  to  organize  another  historic  exhibi- 
tion of  Russian  art.  Amazons  of  the  Avant- Garde  is  a  model  of  scholarship  and  cura- 
torial acumen.  It  brings  together  distinguished  masterpieces  of  the  period, 
including  many  not  shown  in  the  West  since  they  were  created.  This  is  the  first  trav- 
eling exhibition  organized  for  the  Deutsche  Guggenheim  Berlin.  Following  Berlin 
and  the  Royal  Academy,  the  presentation  of  the  exhibition  at  the  Peggy  Guggenheim 
Collection  offers  an  ideal  setting  for  understanding  the  achievements  of  these 
artists  against  a  background  of  works  by  other  Russians  as  well  as  by  the  Parisian 
Cubists  in  Peggy  Guggenheim's  collection,  and  by  the  Italian  Futurists,  magnifi- 
cently represented  in  the  Gianni  Mattioli  Collection. 

Curators  John  E.  Bowlt,  Matthew  Drutt,  and  Zelfira  Tregulova  deftly  organized 
this  project,  and  I  am  grateful  to  them  for  their  cooperation  and  hard  work.  We  are 
indebted  to  the  lenders  to  this  exhibition,  not  only  because  they  allowed  us  to  bor- 
row their  treasured  works,  but  because  they  have  made  important  contributions  to 
the  scholarship  of  this  publication.  Finally,  I  am  deeply  grateful  to  Dr.  Rolf-E. 
Breuer,  Spokesman  of  the  Board  of  Managing  Directors  of  Deutsche  Bank,  for  his 
ongoing  support  of  the  collaboration  between  our  institutions.  I  am  thankful  for 
Deutsche  Bank's  enthusiasm  for  the  project  as  well  as  its  sponsorship  of  the  tour. 


LenDers  to  THe  exHiBiTion 


Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Art  Museum.  Samara 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum,  New  York 

Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art  Museum 

Moderna  Museet,  Stockholm 

Elena  Murina  and  Dmitrii  Sarabianov,  Moscow 

MuseoThyssen-Bornemisza,  Madrid 

Museum  Ludwig,  Cologne 

Museum  of  History  and  Architecture,  Pereiaslavl-Zalesskii 

Museum  of  Private  Collections, 

Pushkin  State  Museum  of  Fine  Arts.  Moscow 
Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg 
National  Art  Museum  of  Ukraine,  Kiev 
National  Gallery  of  Canada,  Ottawa 
National  Museum  and  Gallery,  Cardiff 
Private  Collection 

Private  Collection,  Courtesy  Gallery  Gmurzynska,  Cologne 
Regional  Art  Museum,  Ulianovsk 
Regional  Picture  Gallery,  Vologda 
Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 
Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 
Staatsgalerie,  Stuttgart 
State  Art  Museum  of  Bashkkortostan.  Ufa 
State  Museum  of  History,  Architecture,  and  Art,  Smolensk 
State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  of  Tatarstan,  Kazan 
State  Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Nizhnii  Tagil 
State  Picture  Gallery,  Perm 
State  Radischev  Art  Museum,  Saratov 
State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 
State  Unified  Art  Museum,  Kostroma 
Carmen  Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection 
Vasnetsov  Regional  Art  Museum,  Kirov 
Yale  University  Art  Gallery,  New  Haven 


sponsor's  STaTemeriT 


Dr.  roLF-e.  Breuer 


Today,  at  the  opening  of  a  new  century,  the  innovative  achievements  of  the  Russian 
avant-garde  are  comprehensively  documented.  Yet,  one  aspect  has  so  far  received 
scant  attention  —  namely  the  strong  participation  of  female  artists  in  this  move- 
ment. Never  before  had  women  in  art  played  such  an  active  and  shaping  role  in  the 
development  of  an  art  project.  We  are  therefore  pleased  to  be  able  to  present  in 
Amazons  of  the  Avant- Garde  more  than  seventy  paintings  and  works  on  paper  by  six 
Russian  female  artists. 

Deutsche  Bank's  relationship  with  Russia  has  a  long  tradition.  And  it  is  cer- 
tainly not  by  chance  that  from  the  time  of  our  business  incorporation  we  embarked 
on  a  series  of  important  cultural  exchanges,  beginning  in  1977,  with  the  first  pre- 
sentation in  the  West  (in  Diisseldorf)  of  the  Costakis  Collection  of  Russian  avant- 
garde  art.  Following  our  sponsorship  of  several  exhibitions  in  the  1980s,  the 
Cultural  Foundation  of  Deutsche  Bank  continued  its  involvement  in  this  field  by 
supporting  the  landmark  1995-96  exhibition  Berlin-  Moscow/Moscow  -Berlin.  In 
1997,  we  presented  a  large  exhibition  in  Moscow  of  works  by  Georg  Baselitz;  it  was 
the  first  time  works  from  our  own  collection  were  shown  in  Russia. 

Five  of  the  artists  in  the  present  exhibition  (all  but  Goncharova)  were  repre- 
sented in  the  First  Russian  Art  Exhibition  of  1932  at  the  Galerie  van  Diemen,  Unter 
den  Linden  21,  Berlin,  just  a  few  steps  from  the  present-day  site  of  the  Deutsche 
Guggenheim  Berlin  (where  this  exhibition  was  first  shown  in  July,  1999)-  The  1922 
exhibition  was  the  first  overview  in  the  West  of  the  art  of  the  Russian  avant-garde; 
the  Russian  pavilion  of  the  XIV  Venice  Biennale  in  1924  was  the  last  (and,  because 
many  of  the  more  advanced  paintings  were  shipped  to  Venice  but  not  exhibited, 
somewhat  half-hearted)  international  exhibition  of  this  art  until  the  1960s. 

It  is  extraordinarily  appropriate  therefore  that  Amazons  of  the  Avant- Garde 
should  be  presented  both  in  Berlin  and  Venice,  and  we  are  proud  that  Deutsche 
Bank  has  made  this  possible.  We  wish  the  exhibition  as  much  success  and  critical 
attention  in  Venice  (as  well  as  Bilbao  and  New  York,  where  it  will  travel  subse- 
quently), as  it  enjoyed  in  Berlin  and  London— for  art  provides  not  only  pleasure, 
but  also  intellectual  stimulation. 


acKnowLeDGmeriTs 


We  have  been  very  fortunate  to  work  with  a  large  network  of  associates,  all  of  whom 
have  contributed  invaluably  to  this  project.  Foremost,  we  thank  Nicolas  V.  Iljine, 
European  Representative  of  the  Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Foundation,  for  his  stead- 
fast support  and  advice  throughout  the  exhibition.  It  was  he  who  suggested  the  idea 
for  this  project,  and  his  enthusiasm  and  passion  combined  with  his  experience  and 
diplomatic  skills  made  him  a  critical  member  of  our  team. 

"We  would  also  like  to  express  our  deepest  gratitude  to  Pavel  Khoroshilov,  Deputy 
Minister  of  Culture  of  the  Russian  Federation,  who  also  stood  at  the  beginning  of  the 
curatorial  process,  proposing  its  special  focus,  taking  a  personal  interest  and  assist- 
ing us  far  beyond  his  call  of  duty. 

We  are  most  grateful  to  our  Russian  colleagues,  whose  help  with  this  exhibition 
was  indispensable.  At  the  Ministry  of  Culture  of  the  Russian  Federation  Department 
of  Museums:  Vera  Lebedeva,  Director,  and  Anna  Kolupaeva,  Deputy  Director.  At  the 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow:  Valentin  Rodionov,  Director-,  Lidia  Iovleva,  Deputy 
Director  of  Academic  Research;  Natalia  Avtonomova,  Head  of  the  Department  of 
Twentieth-Century  Art;  Tatiana  Gubanova  of  the  International  Department;  Alia 
Lukanova,  Liudmila  Bobrovskaia  and  Tatiana  Mikhienko,  Curators  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Twentieth-Century  Art;  Natalia  Kobliakova  and  Elena  Churakova  of  the 
Department  of  Restoration.  At  the  State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg:  Vladimir 
Gusev,  Director;  Evgenia  Petrova,  Deputy  Director  of  Academic  Research.  At  the 
State  Pushkin  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Moscow:  IrinaAntonova,  Director.  At  the 
"Rosizo"  State  Museum  Exhibition  Center,  representing  16  Russian  regional  muse- 
ums: Oleg  Shandybin,  Director;  Victoria  Zubravskaia.  Head  of  the  Exhibition 
Department.  Furthermore,  we  thank  Faina  Balakhovskaia  for  her  archival  research, 
coordination  of  loans  from  Russian  regional  museums  and  assistance  with  curatorial 
issues:  Ekaterina  Drevina  for  granting  access  to  the  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  archive;  and 
Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  Varvara  Rodchenko  for  their  generous  help  with  artworks 
and  documents  from  the  Rodchenko -Stepanova  Archive.  We  also  extend  our  grati- 
tude to  AlikiKostaki  in  Athens,  Norman  W.  Neubauer,  Philippa  Delancey,  and  the 
Hellenic  Republic  Ministry  of  Culture  for  their  assistance  with  loans  from  Art  Co. 
Ltd.  (the  George  Costakis  Collection). 

For  their  scholarly  contributions,  we  are  deeply  grateful  to  the  catalogue's 
authors:  Natalia  Adaskina,  Charlotte  Douglas,  Ekaterina  Dyogot,  Laura 
Engelstein,  Nina  Gurianova,  Georgii  Kovalenko,  Alexander  Lavrentiev,  Olga 


acKiiowLeDcmenTS 


Matich,  Nicoletta  Misler,  Vasilii  Rakitin,  Dmitrii  Sarabianov,  and  Jane  A.  Sharp. 

Special  mention  goes  to  our  colleagues  at  the  Royal  Academy  of  Arts,  London.  In 
particular,  we  thank  Norman  Rosenthal,  Secretary  of  Exhibitions,  and  Simonetta 
Fraquelli,  Curator,  for  their  support.  Philip  Rylands,  Deputy  Director  of  the  Peggy 
Guggenheim  Collection  in  Venice,  was  central  to  the  early  stages  of  organizing  this 
project.  We  also  thank  Dr.  Ariane  Grigoteit  and  Friedhelm  Hutte.  curators  of  the 
Deutsche  Bank  Collection;  Svenja  Simon,  Gallery  Manager,  and  Sara  Bernshausen, 
Gallery  Assistant,  both  of  the  Deutsche  Guggenheim  Berlin. 

The  expertise  of  different  staff  members  at  the  Solomon  R.  Guggenheim 
Museum  was  indispensahle.  The  leadership  of  Thomas  Krens,  Director,  and  Lisa 
Dennison,  Deputy  Director  and  Chief  Curator,  must  be  recognized  for  nurturing  the 
exhibition.  We  are  most  grateful  to  Vanessa  Rocco,  Project  Curatorial  Assistant,  who 
managed  all  aspects  of  this  endeavor.  Luz  Gyalui,  curatorial  intern,  provided  valuable 
assistance.  Marion  Kahan,  Exhibition  Program  Manager,  oversaw  the  transport  of 
loans.  Thanks  must  be  given  to  our  liaisons  with  Deutsche  Guggenheim  Berlin,  Paul 
Pincus,  Director  of  International  Planning  and  Operations,  and  Anne  Leith, 
Planning  and  Operations  Manager.  Also  helpful  were:  Max  Hollein,  Executive 
Assistant  to  the  Director;  Scott  Gutterman,  Director  of  Public  Affairs;  Ben  Hartley, 
Director  of  Corporate  Communication  and  Sponsorship;  Jane  DeBevoise,  Deputy 
Director  for  Program  Administration;  Karen  Meyerhoff,  Director  of  Exhibition  and 
Collection  Management  and  Design;  Sean  Mooney,  Exhibition  Design  Manager  and 
Alexis  Katz,  Architectural  CAD  Coordinator;  Jessica  Ludwig,  Chief  Graphic 
Designer/Exhibition  Design  Coordinator-,  and  Gail  Scovell.  General  Counsel,  Julie  L. 
Lowitz,  Associate  General  Counsel,  and  Maria  Pallante.  Assistant  General  Counsel. 

For  the  catalogue  design,  we  thank  J.  Abbott  Miller  and  Santiago  Piedrafita  of 
Design/Writing/Research.  Anthony  Calnek,  Director  of  Publications,  Elizaheth  Levy, 
Managing  Editor/Manager  of  Foreign  Editions,  Esther  Yun,  Assistant  Production 
Manager,  Meghan  Dailey,  Assistant  Editor,  and  Liza  Donatelli,  Editorial  and 
Administrative  Assistant,  were  integral  to  every  step  of  producing  this  publication. 
We  are  grateful  to  David  Frankel.  Stephen  Robert  Frankel,  Jennifer  Knox-White,  and 
Tim  Mennel.  We  would  also  like  to  extend  our  deep  thanks  to  Elizabeth  Franzen, 
Manager  of  Editorial  Services,  for  her  skillful  management  and  organization. 

We  further  thank:  Barbara  Lyons  of  Harry  N.  Abrams,  Inc.,  Simon  Taylor at  Art 
Resource;  J.  Frank  Goodwin  for  his  translations  from  the  Russian;  Aneta  Zebala  for 
photography  in  Los  Angeles;  and  Mariia  Zubova.  We  appreciate  the  input  of  Jared 
Ash,  Dimitri  P.  Dourdine-Mak.  Krystyna  Gmurzynska,  Alexandra  Ilf.  Gerard  Lob, 
Nikita  D.  Lobanov-  Rostovsky,  Nina  Lobanov-Rostovsky,  Ira  Menshova.  and  Alik 
Rabinovich.  Finally,  and  most  importantly,  we  extend  our  deepest  thanks  to  all  of  the 
lenders  to  the  exhibition. 

—John  E.  Bowlt,  Matthew  Drutt.  Zelfira  Tregulova 


Tama  na  BucTaBK*  ^yrypacTOBB  «TpanBaft  B.». 

H*HT0    0    JPAMBA*     B\ 

(Kk  arwpwTiw  tyTypMcnmecMOft  MCrasiw). 


(Tie.  a  wtyp"). 


figure  i.  anonymous 

Types  at  the  "  Tramway  V"  Exhibition  of  Futurists,  caricature  published  in  the 
newspaper  Golos  Rusi  (Petrograd).  1915.  The  drawing  shows  (left  to  right)  Ksenia 
Boguslavskaia.  Alexandra  Exter,  Vladimir  Tatlin.  Ivan  Puni,  and  Olga  Rozanova  at 
the  Tramway  K  exhibition.  Courtesy  of  Puni-Archiv,  Zurich. 


imroDucTion 


maTTHew  dtutt 


Amazons  of  the  Avant- Garde  is  modest  in  scale  yet  ambitious  in  scope.  It  marks  a 
departure  from  previous  endeavors  that  have  taken  a  broad  view  of  the  Russian 
avant-garde,  mapping  the  breadth  of  its  interdisciplinary  activities  through  an 
encyclopedic  array  of  artists.1  The  exhibition  celebrates  the  evolution  of  modern 
Russian  painting  from  the  1900s  through  the  early  1930s  exemplified  by  six  artists 
who  were  at  the  center  of  that  history:  Alexandra  Exter,  Natalia  Goncharova,  Liubov 
Popova,  Olga  Rozanova,  Varvara  Stepanova,  and  Nadezhda  Udaltsova.  Despite  its 
tight  focus,  Amazons  of  the  Avant- Garde  has  been  a  challenging  undertaking.  Some 
five  years  of  planning  and  research  have  brought  together  more  than  seventy  care- 
fully selected  paintings  and  drawings  from  international  public  and  private  collec- 
tions. Many  of  the  works  have  been  lent  by  Russian  institutions,  some  appearing 
in  the  West  for  the  first  time  since  the  early  twentieth  century. 

The  narrower  path  charted  by  this  exhibition  is  not  taken  at  the  expense  of 
the  complexity  of  the  art  or  its  milieu.  Rather,  it  allows  that  complexity  to  fall  under 
close  examination.  The  present  publication  is  more  than  a  catalogue-,  it  is  a  collec- 
tion of  interpretive  essays  and  primary  documents  that  delves  deeply  into  its  sub- 
ject and  offers  a  range  of  viewpoints.  New  research  has  concentrated  directly  on 
the  paintings  and  drawings.  Because  a  number  of  them  were  originally  exhibited 
without  dates  and  under  generic  names  or  simply  as  "untitled,"  questions  of 
provenance  have  attended  many  of  the  works  throughout  their  history.  However, 
after  extensive  investigation  in  Russian  archives,  and  with  the  assistance  of 

i3 


niTroDUCTion 


colleagues  at  the  different  lending  institutions,  more  precise  titles  and  dates  have 
been  assigned  to  several  key  works.  Some  of  these  adjustments  represent  a  subtle 
refinement  of  previous  scholarship,  while  others  may  necessitate  a  reexamination 
of  a  given  artist's  stylistic  evolution.  In  cases  where  questions  remain,  we  have 
retained  the  currently  accepted  information  and  follow  it  with  a  newer  suggestion 
in  brackets.  This  invaluable  documentation,  along  with  a  careful  scrutiny  of  prove- 
nance and  exhibition  history  for  each  work,  has  been  assembled  with  the  assis- 
tance of  scholars  Faina  Balakhovskaia.  Liudmila  Bobrovskaia,  Nina  Gurianova. 
Alexander  Lavrentiev,  Alia  Lukanova,  and  Tatiana  Mikhienko. 

The  first  section  of  the  book  consists  of  six  essays  on  a  range  of  subjects.  In 
some  cases,  these  contributions  depart  from  the  subject  at  hand,  offering  histori- 
cal background  and  insight  into  topics  inspired  by  this  enterprise  that  make  the 
book  an  extension  of  the  exhibition  rather  than  merely  its  companion.  How  and 
why  such  a  great  number  of  women  artists  became  so  prominent  during  a  relatively 
confined  period  are  questions  that  recur  throughout  this  volume .  Through  an 
investigation  of  art  criticism,  artistic  practice,  and  the  art  market  in  early  twenti- 
eth-century Russia,  John  E.  Bowlt  considers  the  conceptual  and  historical  context 
in  which  this  question  is  posed.  His  essay,  "Women  of  Genius,"  reflects  on  the 
ambivalence  and  enthusiasm  alternately  directed  toward  female  artists  in  Russia 
from  the  turn  of  the  century  through  the  early  1930s.  Bowlt  also  demonstrates  that, 
by  the  1910s,  the  women  were  quite  firmly  a  part  of  the  Russian  art  world,  and  that 
without  them,  future  avant-garde  trajectories  would  have  been  impossible.  Women 
artists  regularly  participated  in  key  exhibitions  and  wrote  for  major  publications, 
and  in  many  cases  their  contributions  formed  the  foundations  for  pioneering  con- 
ceptual developments  of  the  period. 

In  her  essay,  Charlotte  Douglas  looks  closely  at  the  personal  and  professional 
lives  of  Russian  women  artists,  describing  the  dynamic  of  camaraderie  and  inde- 
pendence that  operated  between  them,  their  position  in  the  European  avant- 
garde,  and  their  involvement  within  Russian  artistic  circles.  Douglas  reminds  the 
reader  that  painting  was  but  one  facet  of  their  creative  output  (which  also  included 
stage  and  textile  design  among  other  disciplines)  and  touches  upon  the  complex 
amalgam  of  indigenous  traditions  and  foreign  influences  that  informed  the  art  and 
writings  of  the  six  artists. 

The  roots  of  their  confidence  and  prominence  may  be  better  understood  when 
considered  against  the  intricate  historical  fabric  of  Russia.  In  her  essay  "Between 
Old  and  New:  Russia's  Modern  Women,"  Laura  Engelstein  provides  a  comprehen- 
sive foundation  for  understanding  the  social,  historical,  and  political  conditions 
that  gave  rise  to  the  "new  woman"  in  Russia.  The  country's  labyrinthine  culture 
and  politics  are  laid  bare  as  the  author  charts  the  ebb  and  flow  of  female  political 
economy  from  the  eighteenth  through  the  early  twentieth  century.  Engelstein 


H 


maTTHew  dtutt 


moves  deftly  between  high  and  low  culture,  sociology  and  cultural  history,  and  eco  - 
nomics  and  politics,  considering  elements  as  varied  as  the  palace  intrigues  of  the 
tsarist  period  to  the  fashion  trends  that  made  women  appear  more  masculine  long 
before  the  Russian  Revolution  proclaimed  the  sexes  equal. 

Olga  Matich's  essay  may  be  viewed  as  building  upon  Engelstein's  historical 
framework.  The  problematic  relationship  between  power  and  sexuality  —  one 
implicit  in  the  title  of  this  exhibition  —  is  traced  through  a  close  reading  of  Russia's 
fin-de-siecle  cultural  landscape  and  the  question  of  gender  identity.  The  essay 
investigates  the  ways  in  which  women  were  depicted  in  the  visual,  literary,  and 
performing  arts,  and  in  particular,  how  they  represented  themselves.  While 
primarily  concerned  with  examples  from  Symbolist  art,  literature,  and  theater, 
Matich's  ideas  provide  another  lens  through  which  the  viewer  might  look  at  the 
works  in  this  exhibition.  The  notion  of  self-presentation  is  taken  up  by  Nicoletta 
Misler  in  "Dressing  Up  and  Dressing  Down:  The  Rodyof  the  Avant- Garde,  "which 
examines  the  impact  Exter,  Goncharova,  Popova.  Rozanova,  Stepanova,  and 
Udaltsova  had  on  fashion  and  design.  "Dressing  Up  and  Dressing  Down"  is  another 
reminder  that  painting  was  part  of  a  larger  ideological  and  artistic  structure,  and 
that  significant  avant-garde  practices  of  the  period  went  beyond  painting. 

Finally,  Ekaterina  Dyogot's  analysis  of  male  and  female  creativity,  and  the 
dynamics  of  gender,  recognition,  and  exclusion  in  Modernism,  is  a  sensitive  yet 
pointed  discussion  of  the  close  personal  and  professional  partnerships  that  the 
artists  in  this  exhibition  shared  with  their  male  contemporaries.  Dyogot  demon- 
strates how  those  relationships  presented  both  means  for  empowerment  and 
obstacles  to  the  artists'  maintaining  their  independence. 

This  volume  also  includes  biographical  essays  profiling  each  artist,  written  by 
leading  scholars  —  Georgii  Kovalenko  (Exter),  Jane  A.  Sharp  (Goncharova),  Natalia 
Adaskina  and  Dmitrii  Sarabianov  (Popova),  Nina  Gurianova  (Rozanova),  Alexander 
Lavrentiev  (Stepanova),  and  Vasilii  Rakitin  (Udaltsova).  These  contributions  offer 
critical  insight  into,  and  new  information  about,  specific  works  and  shed  further 
light  on  the  artists'  respective  biographies.  Some  adjustments  to  the  chronologies 
of  the  artists'  activities  have  also  been  made:  thus,  the  information  here  may  in 
some  cases  differ  from  that  in  previous  publications.  Such  changes  have  been  made 
only  after  careful  consideration  of  recently  discovered  information.  The  reproduc- 
tions that  follow  each  of  these  essays  are  arranged  chronologically:  however,  this  is 
not  meant  to  suggest  that,  within  a  given  year,  one  painting  definitely  preceded  or 
followed  another;  and,  further,  certain  works  have  been  arranged  according  to 
stylistic  considerations. 

The  final  part  of  the  book  contains  a  selection  of  original  writings  by  the  artists 
themselves.  These  documents  not  only  provide  insight  into  the  critical  thinking 
and  aesthetic  concerns  of  each  artist,  but  also  reveal  their  personal  struggles,  high- 


'5 


niTroDUCTion 


lighting  both  their  affinities  and  their  fierce  competitiveness.  While  several  of 
these  primary  sources  have  previously  appeared  elsewhere,  most  have  been  newly 
translated  from  Russian  and  published  here  for  the  first  time.  Every  attempt  has 
been  made  to  preserve  the  original  spirit  of  these  tracts,  diary  entries,  and  letters. 
The  polemical  writing  of  the  avant-garde  demonstrates  its  support  of  radical  cul- 
tural production  and  provides  commentary  on  the  relationship  between  these 
artists'  work  and  the  art  of  the  past.  These  selections  are  as  fascinating,  revelatory, 
and  central  to  the  history  of  the  avant-garde  as  the  works  of  art  themselves. 

i.     The  Great  Utopia:  The  Russian  and  Soviet  Avant-Garde.  7975  —  1933,  organized  by  the  Solomon  R. 
Guggenheim  Museum  in  1992,  has  become  the  exemplar  of  this  approach. 


eDiTonaL  noTe 


eDnoriaL  noie 

The  transliteration  of  the  Russian  used  in  this  book  modifies  the  Library  of 
Congress  system,  so  that  the  Russian  soft  and  hard  signs  have  either  been  omitted 
or  indicated  with  an  "i"  (e.g.,  Grigoriev).  This  system  is  also  used  throughout  the 
footnotes  and  where  bibliographical  references  involve  Russian- language  sources. 
Since  this  book  is  meant  for  the  lay  reader  as  much  as  for  students  and  scholars,  we 
have  avoided  the  academic  transliteration  systems  that  can  render  a  familiar  name 
unrecognizable  (e.g.,  whereby  "Chekhov"  becomes  "Cexov").  Many  Russian  artists 
and  writers  spent  time  in  Europe  or  the  United  States  and  often  their  names 
received  various,  even  contradictory,  transliterations  from  the  original  Russian 
into  the  language  of  their  adopted  home.  For  the  sake  of  uniformity,  names  have 
been  transliterated  in  accordance  with  the  system  described  above,  except  when  a 
variant  has  been  long  established  and  widely  recognized,  such  as  Alexandre  Benois 
instead  of  Alexandr  Benua,  and  El  Lissitzky,  rather  than  Lazar  Lisitsky. 

Dates  referring  to  events  in  Russia  before  January  1918  are  in  the  Old  Style.  If  a 
given  date  falls  during  the  nineteenth  century,  it  is  twelve  days  behind  the  Western 
calendar;  if  it  falls  between  1900  and  1918,  it  is  thirteen  days  behind. 

Finally,  the  city  of  St.  Petersburg  was  renamed  Petrograd  in  1914;  Leningrad  in 
1934;  and  then  St.  Petersburg  again  in  1993.  However,  both  Petrograd  and 
Petersburg  continued  to  be  used  freely  in  common  parlance  and  publications  until 
1924.  As  a  general  rule,  Petrograd  has  been  retained  here  to  denote  the  official 
name  of  St.  Petersburg  from  1914—24.  —J.E.B. 


>7 


mg  "ww  "WW  "WW  '"WW  '"WW  '"#»^%»^%»^%»^%^ 
w  "mm  "ww  1M1$^^ 

b  JM1L  J*£»  hL  JlifyNlL  #«C  #«%#«« 

%..  §kiM„„  $uM„  M<«M.  JteJL  M«nM„  HkM.  M«M,   tk/M.   M<«M  ik/M.  MM,  Mm.    mm.    mtM.    ma : 


figure  2.  Varvara  Stepanova  and  Liubov  Popova.  photographed  by 
Alexander  Rodchenko,  Moscow.  1924. 


women  of  Genius1 


JOHIl  e.  BOWLT 


The  triumph  of  the  Russian  avant-garde  is  unthinkable  without  the  participation 
of  the  six  women  in  this  exhibition,  each  of  whom  contributed  directly  to  its  devel- 
opment. Benedikt  Livshits,  the  Cubo-Futurist  poet  and  friend  of  Alexandra  Exter 
and  Olga  Rozanova.  was  the  first  to  describe  them  as  "real  Amazons,  Scythian 
riders." 3  The  bold  diapason  of  aesthetic  ideas  represented  by  the  original  and  daz- 
zling works  in  this  exhibition  —  from  Natalia  Goncharova's  evocation  of  traditional 
Russian  culture  in  Mowers,  1907—08  (plate  14)  to  Liubov  Popova's  hard -edge 
abstraction  in  Construction,  1930  (plate  38),  from  Exter's  Simultanism  in  City.  1913 
(plate  3)  to  Varvara  Stepanova's  visual  poetry  of  1918  (plates  55—64),  and  from 
Rozanova's  non-objectivity  compositions  (see  e.g.  plates  49—53)  to  Nadezhda 
Udaltsova's  Suprematist  ornaments  (e.g.  plates  86—89) —  documents  the  stylistic 
history  of  the  Russian  avant-garde.  For  all  the  accomplishments  of  the  "other 
avant-garde"  in  Europe  and  the  United  States,  an  analogous  exhibition  that 
defines  entire  movements  in  such  a  decisive  and  comprehensive  manner  through 
the  work  of  women  artists  could  hardly  be  undertaken  for  French  Cubism.  Italian 
Futurism,  or  German  Expressionism.  Obviously,  this  is  not  to  deny  the  merits  of 
Hannah  Hoch,  Marie  Laurencin,  Benedetta  Marinetti,  Gabriele  Miinter,  Sophie 
Tauber-Arp,  or  their  numerous  colleagues,  but  their  total  contribution  still  pales 
before  the  pictorial  splendor  of  the  work  of  these  six  Russian  avangardistki. 
Perhaps  Vladimir  Bekhteev,  a  friend  of  Goncharova,  and  Georgii  Yakulov.  a  friend 
of  Sonia  Delaunay.  Exter.  and  Rozanova,  had  this  strength  and  energy  in  mind 


women  of  Genius 


when,  at  the  height  of  the  avant-garde,  each  painted  his  own  version  of  the  allegor- 
ical Battle  of  the  Amazons? 

Certainly,  the  idea  of  grouping  together  a  number  of  important  Russian 
women  artists  and  assembling  their  works  into  an  exhibition  is  not  new:  in  i883 
Andrei  Somov,  Curator  of  Paintings  at  the  Hermitage  in  St.  Petersburg  and  father 
of  the  fin-de-siecle  artist  Konstantin  Somov,  published  a  long  article  about  the 
"phenomenon"  of  nineteenth- century  Russian  women  painters  and  engravers*; 
in  his  1903  history  of  Russian  art,  Alexei  Novitsky  included  a  special  section  on 
Russian  women  artistsS;  in  1910  the  St.  Petersburg  journal /Ipoilon.  (Apollo)  organ- 
ized an  exhibition  of  Russian  women  artists  in  its  editorial  offices:  and  in  the  late 
1910s  —  remarkably  in  the  wake  of  World  War  I  —  the  Russian  press  gave  increasing 
space  to  the  role  of  women  artists  and  writers,  both  conservative  and  radical.  More 
recently  there  have  been  many  exhibitions  and  publications  concerned  with 
Russian  women  artists,  all  of  which  have  posed  the  complicated  question  as  to  why 
these  women  were  able  to  live,  work,  and  play  in  such  an  unrestricted  manner  in 
such  an  apparently  restricted  society  as  Imperial  Russia.  In  1976—77  Linda  Nochlin 
and  Ann  Sutherland  Harris  organized  the  impressive  Women  Artists  /^o— 7950  — 
shown  at  the  Rrooklyn  Museum,  the  Los  Angeles  County  Museum  of  Art.  and  the 
University  of  Texas  at  Austin  —  which  placed  Exter,  Goncharova,  Popova,  and 
Udaltsova  in  a  rich  panorama  that  started  with  Levina  Teerline  and  ended  with 
Dorothea  Tanning.  The  first  exhibition  to  concentrate  on  the  women  of  the 
Russian  avant-garde,  however,  was  Kiinstlerinnen  der  russischenAvantgarde Women  - 
Artists  of  the  Russian  Avant-  Garde  iqio—3o,  organized  by  the  Galerie  Gmurzynska. 
Cologne,  in  1979-80;  this  exhibition  and  its  catalogue  remain  a  cornerstone  in 
current  research  on  the  history  of  the  Russian  avant-garde.  Exhibitions  that  fol- 
lowed—such as L'altra  meta  dell'avanguardia  1910— 194,0,  organized  by  Lea  Vergine 
and  shown  at  the  Comune  di  Milano,  Milan,  in  1980,  and  L 'Avant- Garde  au 
Feminin-.  Moscou,  Saint-Petersbourg,  Paris  (1907—1930),  organized  by  Valentine  and 
Jean-Claude  Marcade  and  shown  at  Artcurial,  Centre  d'Art  Plastique 
Contemporain,  Paris,  in  1983  —  added  to  the  basic  sources  presented  in  the 
Galerie  Gmurzynska  exhibition,  reinforcing  the  already  powerful  position  of 
women  in  histories  of  Russian  art.  Subsequent  publications  by  Miuda  Yablonskaya 
(Women  Artists  of  Russia's  New  Age-.  7900—7935  [1990])  and  BeatWismer  (KaroDame. 
Konstruktive,  konkrete  und  radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1914  bis  heute  [1995])  have 
expanded  our  knowledge  of  the  subject  still  further. 

Amazons  of  the  Avant -Garde  concentrates  on  studio  paintings  at  the  expense  of 
the  applied  arts  in  which  the  six  women  also  excelled,  including  designs  for  books, 
textiles,  fashion,  ceramics,  and  the  stage.  Inevitably,  the  focus  reconfigures  the 
total  silhouette  of  their  artistic  careers,  communicating  some  of  the  truth  but  not 
the  whole  truth,  and  inviting  us  to  assume  that  studio  painting  was  their  most 


J0H11.  e.  BOWLT 


important  activity  (though  ultimately,  it  probably  was).  Space  limitations,  avail- 
ability of  major  works,  and  the  exhibition's  complex  itinerary  (four  venues 
in  as  many  countries)  also  dictates  its  scope  and  prompts  an  emphasis  on  the  dra- 
matic achievements  of  Cubo  -  Futurism  and  Suprematism  rather  than  a  loose  sur- 
vey of  the  life  and  work  of  each  respective  artist;  for  the  same  reasons,  early  and 
late  works  are  missing  from  the  exhibition,  lacunae  that  are  to  be  regretted,  given 
the  strong  commitment  of  these  women  to  Impressionism,  Symbolism,  and  the 
return  to  order—  in  the  form  of  European  "Neo-Classicism"  or  Soviet  Socialist 
Realism  — in  the  1920s  through  the  1940s.  Ultimately,  the  selection  of  works  was 
driven  by  the  effect  of  the  whole  rather  than  that  of  the  parts,  and  the  idea  of  creat- 
ing an  applied-arts  section  or  of  including,  say,  six  early  and  six  late  paintings 
paled  before  the  vision  of  an  iconostasis  of  iconoclastic  paintings. 

Dedicated  to  their  art,  these  six  women  rarely  formulated  or  championed  par- 
ticular social  and  political  ideologies,  although  Goncharova,  certainly,  had  strong 
opinions  about  traditional  perceptions  of  women  and  the  need  for  them  to  raise 
their  voices,  as  she  demonstrated  in  her  "Open  Letter"  (see  Documents  section). 
While  the  force  of  their  pictorial  experimentation,  their  "career-mindedness," 
and  their  often  unorthodox  behavior  might  be  interpreted  as  a  protest  against  the 
status  quo,  we  should  be  wary  of  imposing  later  political  constructs  upon  them. 
They  supported  the  idea  of  cultural  renewal  and  rejected  what  they  considered  to 
be  outmoded  aesthetic  canons,  but  apart  from  Goncharova's  "Open  Letter"  their 
private  statements  contain  few  concrete  references  to  the  role  of  women  vis-a-vis 
that  of  men  in  Russian  society.  In  fact,  their  relationships  with  their  male  col- 
leagues—Alexander Drevin,  Mikhail  Larionov,  Kazimir  Malevich,  Alexander 
Rodchenko,  Vladimir  Tatlin.  and  Alexander  Vesnin  among  them  —  seem  to  have 
been  remarkably  harmonious,  collaborative,  and  fruitful,  except  perhaps  in  the 
case  of  Rozanova  and  poet  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  whose  romance  was  rocked  by 
emotional  and  sentimental  tempests. 

At  the  same  time,  the  ostensible  ethical  and  social  freedoms  of  these  women 
cannot  be  regarded  as  typical  of  the  conditions  in  Russia  just  before  the  October 
Revolution.  They  lived  and  worked  within  a  small  circle  of  relatives  and  friends 
and.  however  genuine  their  passion  for  national  Russian  culture  (such  as 
Goncharova's  fascination  with  rural  ritual  and  folklore) ,  they  had  little  to  do 
with  the  "real"  Russia  — the  peasants,  urban  workers,  and  revolutionaries  — pre- 
ferring to  mix  with  the  gilded  youth  of  Moscow's  bohemia  or,  paradoxically,  with 
the  rich  and  powerful  of  St.  Petersburg.6  It  is  also  wrong  to  conclude  that,  if  these 
Amazons  enjoyed  the  respect  of  their  advocates,  friends,  and  lovers,  all  Russian 
men  were  just  as  unbiased  and  as  unpatronizing  in  their  assumptions  about 
women.  The  traditional  attribution  of  the  qualities  of  ingenuousness,  infantility, 
and  innocence  to  women  certainly  continued  through  the  1910s:  women  were 

23 


women  of  Genius 


still  expected  to  avert  their  gaze  from  "male  shame"  in  statues  that  were  considered 
too  explicit, 7  and  reviewers  remarked  that  young  ladies  found  the  new  art  to  be 
amusing  (whereas,  presumably,  sensible  citizens  did  not).8  When  one  male 
reporter  declared  of  Goncharova's  1913  retrospective  that  the  "most  disgusting 
thing  is  that  the  artist  is  a  woman,"  9  he  was  expressing  not  only  sexist  shock  at 
the  fact  that  these  overpowering  Neo-Primitivist  and  Cubo- Futurist  paintings 
were  made  by  a  woman,  but  also  a  profound  despair  at  the  need  to  suspend  disbe- 
lief and  invent  a  new  critical  language  that  would  accommodate  this  implied  dis- 
placement of  criteria. 

The  Romantic  attitude  toward  women  and  women  artists  as  carriers  of  grace, 
beauty,  and  gentility  —  supported  by  critics  such  as  Fedor  Bulgakov10  —  quickly 
gave  way  to  the  newer  metaphor  of  the  creative  virago  and  the  militant  Amazon. 
This  inevitably  evoked  direct  political  associations  with  the  so-called  "Moscow 
Amazons"  of  the  1870s  — women  of  the  All- Russian  Social  Revolutionary 
Organization  who  had  believed  in  violence,  even  assassination,  as  a  real  political 
instrument.11  At  the  beginning  of  World  War  I,  some  Russians  were  asking  why  this 
Amazonian  detachment  could  not  be  trained  for  military  purposes:  "Why  can  a 
woman  be  a  doctor,  an  engineer,  or  an  aviator,  but  not  a  soldier?  "  asked  Vasilii 
Kostylev  in  an  article  entitled  "Our  'Amazons'"  in  the  Moscow Zhurnal  dlia  khoziaek 
(Journal  for  Housewives).13  Other  authors  were  perturbed  by  what  they  saw  as  the 
consequent  "incurable  disease  of  dichotomy,  a  disease  that  has  appeared  together 
with  the  so-called  woman  question,  a  dichotomy  between  the  behests  of  reason 
and  the  profound  essence  of  the  purely  female  nature."13  Such  questions  were  dis- 
cussed in  the  many  lectures  on  the  "woman  question"  that  were  held  in  Moscow 
and  St.  Petersburg.  "Fables  and  Truth  about  Woman,"  presented  by  the  actress 
Alexandra  Lepkovskaia  at  the  Polytechnic  Museum,  Moscow,  on  February  17, 1914, 
and  its  accompanying  debate  can  be  perceived  as  a  summary  of  the  new  attitude 
toward  women  as  an  artistic  force  in  Russian  society  at  that  time.  She  argued  that 
the  myth  of  woman  as  an  enigmatic  and  mysterious  creature  had  led  men  to  the 
"most  contradictory  inferences  and  opinions,"  [+ but  that  equal  rights  would  cancel 
this  image  and  a  collective  physiognomy  would  emerge,  cleansed  of  "low  inten- 
tions and  impure  passions."  !5  Such  thoughts  may  have  seemed  progressive  to  some 
of  Lepkovskaia's  respondents,  but  for  the  avant-garde  poets  and  painters  David 
Burliuk  and  Vladimir  Mayakovsky,  Lepkovskaia's  speech  was  merely  the  "per- 
fumed, boudoir  logic  of  philistines,"  for  neither  man  nor  woman  enjoyed  real 
creative  freedom,  except  in  the  bedroom.16 

The  strong  contribution  of  women  artists  to  Modern  Russian  art  was  soon 
noticed  by  critics  outside  Russia.  Hans  Hildebrandt,  for  example,  emphasized 
the  role  of  women  artists  in  both  studio  painting  and  design  in  his  Die  Frau  als 
Kunstlerinn  (1928),  '7  and  most  of  the  early  surveys  of  Russian  Modernism  draw 


jonn.  e.  BOWLT 


attention  to  this  fact.  Writing  in  1916,  for  example,  Mikhail  Tsetlin.  a  friend  of 
Goncharova,  claimed  that  "women  have  bequeathed  to  Humanity's  Treasury  of  Art 
incomparably  more  than  might  be  supposed.  It  is  they  who  have  been  the  unseen, 
unknown  collaborators  of  art.  It  is  they  who  made  the  lace,  embroidered  the  mate- 
rials, wove  the  carpet.  They  raised  the  artistic  level  of  life  by  their  aesthetic  aspira- 
tions." l8  This  plea  for  public  and  professional  recognition  of  the  anonymous 
artistic  labor  carried  out  by  countless  women  as  they  sewed,  stitched,  and  knitted 
is  echoed  in  the  attention  that  the  Amazons  gave  to  the  applied  arts,  especially 
haberdashery.  Malevich  acknowledged  his  debt  to  this  forgotten  tradition  when 
he  declared,  in  describing  the  clothes  and  fabrics  produced  by  Ukrainian  peasant 
girls,  that  "art  belonged  to  them  more  than  to  the  men. "  '9 

The  intention  of  Amazons  of  the  Avant- Garde  is  not  to  imply  that  Exter, 
Goncharova,  Popova,  Rozanova.  Stepanova,  and  Udaltsova  supported  a  single  artis- 
tic style,  a  single  cultural  tradition,  or  a  single  political  ideology.  On  the  contrary, 
just  as  the  Russian  avant-garde  was  a  collective  of  disparate  avant-gardes,  so  these 
artists  were  of  different  philosophical  schools  and  had  different  social  aspirations 
and  aesthetic  convictions.  Here  are  six  personalities,  often  in  conflict,  that  do  not 
constitute  a  homogeneous  unit  (even  if  Kruchenykh  identified  all  modern  Russian 
women  as  "half  cats,  combinations  of  tinplate  and  copper,  domestic  stuff  and 
machines").30 

Inevitably,  this  exhibition  raises  the  often- asked  question  of  why  the  women 
artists  of  the  Russian  avant-garde  were  ready,  willing,  and  able  to  play  such  a  pri- 
mary role  in  the  development  of  their  culture.  There  have  been  many  attempts  to 
grapple  with  this  issue  and  to  expose  the  underlying  causes  for  the  freedoms  that 
Exter,  Goncharova,  and  Stepanova  in  particular  enjoyed  —  in  artistic  belief,  in 
everyday  behavior,  in  geographical  movement,  and  in  sentimental  relationships. 
Rut  no  critical  commentary  seems  to  be  comprehensive  or  satisfactory,  in  part 
because  the  criteria  that  may  function  when  applied  to  Europe  and  the  United 
States  fail  when  applied  to  Russia.  That  many  women  artists  "were  dismissed  as 
acolytes,  seldom  published  their  theories  and  allowed  male  colleagues  to  be  their 
spokesmen" 21  may  be  true  of  the  Western  predicament,  but  certainly  not  of  the 
Russian  Amazons.  Similarly,  their  creative  energy  cannot  be  explained  by  an 
alleged  acceptance  of  the  "initial  support  of  the  revolutionary  forces,"22  because 
these  artists  produced  most  of  their  avant-garde  work  before  1917  and  at  that 
point,  at  least,  were  not  especially  committed  to  raw  political  change.  In  many 
respects  the  Russian  Amazons  run  counter  to  Western  assumptions  concerning 
the  creative  freedom  of  women  artists  and  writers.  If  the  Russian  avant-garde  can 
be  accepted  as  a  creative  polemic  between  the  two  masculine  poles  of  Malevich 
(composition)  and  Tatlin  (construction),  then  Exter,  Goncharova,  Popova. 
Rozanova,  Stepanova,  and  Udaltsova  can  be  accommodated  easily  between  these 


25 


women  of  Genius 


two  poles  and  regarded  as  their  strongest  missionaries.  Malevich  referred  to 
Udaltsova  as  the  "best  Suprematist,"  and  invited  her,  not  Ivan  Kliun  or  Rodchenko, 
to  teach  with  him  at  Vkhutemas;  and  when,  in  an  issue  of  Sinii  zhurnal  (Blue 
Journal),  he  stated  that  he  hoped  "all  artists  would  lose  their  reason,"  Exter 
promptly  seconded  his  motion.23 

Judging  from  circumstantial  evidence,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  profes- 
sional jealousy  between  the  male  and  the  female  factions  in  general  or  between 
partners  in  particular  (Ksenia  Boguslavskaia  and  Ivan  Puni.  Goncharova  and 
Larionov,  Popova  and  Alexander  Vesnin,  Rozanova  and  Kruchenykh,  Udaltsova  and 
Drevin).  They  painted  and  exhibited  together,  cosigned  manifestos,  illustrated  the 
same  books,  spoke  at  the  same  conferences,  and  seemed  almost  oblivious  of  gender 
differences  and  gender  rivalry.  Women  were  not  discriminated  against  in  the  prin- 
cipal exhibitions,  such  us  Jack  of  Diamonds,  The  Donkey's  Tail,  Target,  o.io,  and 
Tramway  V,  and  in  some  cases  the  number  of  female  participants  was  equal  to  or 
even  greater  than  the  number  of  men.  (Six  of  the  thirteen  participants  in  The  Store 
exhibition  and  three  of  the  five  1x15x5  =  25  were  women.)  Larionov  not  only  encour- 
aged Goncharova  to  paint  and  experiment  with  Cubism  and  Rayism.  but  he  also 
played  a  practical  role  in  the  organization  of  her  one-person  shows  in  1913  and 
1914,  gave  her  "exactly  half  the  huge  hall"  24  at  The  Donkey's  Tail  exhibition  in  1913, 
and  intended  to  devote  the  exhibition  to  follow  No.  4,  of  1914  —  that  is.  No.  5  —  to 
another  retrospective  of  her,  not  his,  paintings.  qs  True,  in  his  Manifesto  to  Woman 
of  September  1913,  Larionov  stated  that  he  hoped  women  would  "soon  be  going 
around  with  breasts  totally  bare,  painted  or  tattooed"  and  that  some  would  turn  up 
like  this  at  Goncharova's  Moscow  venue  (which  does  not  seem  to  have  happened), 
but  to  be  fair,  he  also  distributed  the  onus  of  fashion,  for  he  wanted  men  to  shave 
asymmetrically,  show  their  legs  painted  or  tattooed,  and  wear  sandals.26  How  differ- 
ent is  this  apparently  serene  and  mutual  respect  from  the  attitude  that  the  Italian 
Futurists  advocated,  with  their  explicit  championship  of  masculinity  and  their 
"scorn  for  woman." 2"  Not  that  the  women  associated  with  Futurism  accepted  this 
position,  as  they  demonstrated  in  their  Manifesto  della  Donna  futurista  of  191?: 
"Women,  for  too  long  diverted  between  morals  and  prejudices,  turn  back  to  your 
sublime  instinct:  to  violence  and  cruelty." 28  As  we  can  sense  from  Goncharova's 
Letterto  Filippo  Tommaso  Marinetti,  the  Russian  Amazons  may  well  have  subscribed 
to  this  same  view,  even  if  Popova  did  dedicate  her  Italian  Still-Life,  1914  (plate  39) 
"to  the  Italian  Futurists." 

While  Larionov  helped  Goncharova  with  practical  advice,  their  mutual  friend 
Ilia  Zdanevich  produced  an  outrageous  fictional  biography  for  her,  delivering  this 
as  a  lecture  in  St.  Petersburg  in  March  1914,  to  coincide  with  her  one-person  show 
there.  According  to  this  fantasy,  Goncharova  met  Claude  Monet  and  Paul  Cezanne, 
lived  in  a  nunnery,  and  traveled  in  the  East  and  to  Madagascar  to  meet  the  bushmen 


jonn.  e.  bowlt 


before  going  on  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  India,  Persia,  Armenia,  and  returning 
to  Russia  via  Odessa. 29  But  on  other  occasions  Zdanevich  also  did  much  to  explain 
the  importance  of  Goncharova's  painting,  her  attitude  toward  Cubism  and 
Divisionism,  and  her  integration  of  East  and  West,  and  urban  and  rural  cultures.30 
The  St.  Petersburg  physician,  painter,  and  protector  of  the  avant-garde  Nikolai 
Kulbin  supported  Zdanevich,  reasoning  that  the  Realist  works  of  Ilia  Repin  had 
once  seemed  as  "savage"  as  the  paintings  of  Goncharova  did  then.3'  Malevich  was 
just  as  amenable  to  his  female  colleagues,  inviting  Popova.  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova 
to  play  major  organizational  and  editorial  roles  in  his  unpublished  journal 
Supremus,  while  Kruchenykh  became  Rozanova's  diligent  student  as  he  composed 
his  abstract  collages  for  Vselenskaia  voina  (Universal  War)  in  1916  (see  fig.  97). 

How  can  the  cultural  prominence  and  social  tolerance  of  the  Amazons  be 
explained?  One  answer  to  this  question  is  to  be  found  in  the  tradition  of  compara- 
tive freedom  that  Russian  women  artists  had  been  enjoying  toward  the  end  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  In  1871,  for  example,  the  Imperial  Academy  of  Arts  in  St. 
Petersburg  began  to  admit  women  students,  welcoming  thirty- young  ladies  during 
that  academic  year,  while  the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and 
Architecture  quickly  followed  suit.  These  measures  contributed  directly  to  the 
formation  of  the  first  generation  of  professional  Russian  women  painters  in 
the  1880s,  which  included  the  silhouettist  Elizaveta  Bern  (to  whom  Elizaveta 
Kruglikova  was  much  indebted),  Ekaterina  Krasnushkina,  Alexandra  Makovskaia 
(sister  of  the  celebrated  pompiers  Konstantin,  Nikolai,  and  Vladimir),  Olga  Lagoda- 
Shishkina  (wife  of  the  landscapist  Ivan  Shishkin).  and  Emiliia  Shanks,  all  of  whom 
painted  or  etched  in  a  competent,  if  not  brilliant,  manner.  The  legendary  Mariia 
Bashkirtseva  also  belongs  to  this  new  generation  of  women  artists,  even  though  she 
spent  most  of  her  short  creative  life  in  France.32 

The  kind  of  narrative  and  didactic  Realism  that  distinguished  Russian  art  and 
literature  in  the  1880s  and  1890s  was  soon  replaced  by  a  concern  with  decorative 
and  aesthetic  demands,  an  impulse  that  informed  the  development  of  the  move- 
ment known  as  Neo- Nationalism  or  the  Neo- Russian  style,  with  its  emphasis  on 
the  applied  arts  and  industrial  design.  Russian  women  were  largely  responsible  for 
the  rapid  expansion  of  this  movement,  stimulating  the  restoration  of  Russian  arts 
and  crafts,  such  as  weaving,  embroidery,  wood  carving,  and  enameling.  For  exam- 
ple, a  principal  stimulus  of  the  diverse  cultural  achievements  at  Abramtsevo, 
Sawa  Mamontov's  art  retreat  near  the  Orthodox  center  of  Zagorsk,  and.  indeed, 
to  the  preservation  and  conservation  of  Russian  antiquities  in  general,  came  from 
Mamontov's  wife,  Elizaveta  Mamontova.  By  drawing  attention  to  the  Russian 
applied  arts.  Mamontova,  together  with  the  artists  Natalia  Davydova.  Elena 
Polenova,  and  Mariia  Yakunchikova,  restored  and  appraised  an  entire  cultural 
legacy  and  helped  to  build  a  platform  upon  which  famous  designers  such  as  Leon 


27 


women  of  cenms 


Bakst  and  Goncharova  would  launch  the  spectacular  success  of  Russian  stage, 
book,  and  fashion  design  in  the  1910s  and  1930s. 

In  this  respect,  the  parallel  accomplishments  of  the  artist,  collector,  and 
patroness  Princess  Mariia  Tenisheva  deserve  particular  praise.  Beginning  in  the 
late  1890s  Tenisheva  welcomed  many  distinguished  artists,  including  Nicholas 
Roerich  and  Mikhail  Vrubel,  to  her  art  colony,  Talashkino.  near  Smolensk.  As  the 
Mamontovs  had  done  to  Ahramtsevo,  Tenisheva  collected  traditional  arts  and 
crafts,  established  workshops,  designed  and  constructed  a  church,  and  financed 
her  own  intimate  theater.  A  talented  enameler  and  historian  of  the  discipline,33 
Tenisheva  promoted  the  patterns  and  leitmotifs  of  local  Russian  ornaments,  inte- 
grating them  with  the  sinuosity  of  Western  Art  Nouveau,  a  striking  combination 
that  was  well  in  evidence  in  the  Talashkino  section  at  the  Paris  World's  Fair  in  1900. 

Natalia  Dobychina  ran  Russia's  foremost  private  art  gallery,  the  Art  Bureau, 
between  1911  and  1919. 34  Situated  on  the  field  of  Mars  in  St.  Petersburg,  the  Art 
Bureau  became  a  focus  of  contemporary  artistic  life,  presenting  many  exhibitions 
and  promoting  numerous  styles,  from  the  extreme  right  to  the  extreme  left. 
Dobychina  herself  was  a  no-nonsense  manager  who  "dealt  with  the  artistic 
Olympuses  of  both  capitals  as  she  would  with  her  household  menagerie.  "3s  While 
profitting  from  fashionable  painters  such  as  Bakst,  Alexandre  Benois,  and  Somov, 
she  did  not  hesitate  to  indulge  in  more  provocative  ventures.  For  example,  the  Art 
Bureau  sponsored  the  Goncharova  retrospective  in  1914  and  0.10  the  following 
year;  included  works  by  Chagall.  Exter.  Rozanova,  and  other  radicals  in  its  regular 
surveys;  and  supported  soirees  that  included  musical  performances  and  poetry 
declamations.  True,  Dobychina  was  a  merchant  for  whom  material  investment  was 
perhaps  more  important  than  aesthetic  commitment,  but,  nevertheless,  she  can 
be  regarded  as  one  of  several  important  Russian  patronesses  or  "facilitators"  of  the 
Modernist  era  whose  activities  exposed  and  publicized  new  ideas  about  painting, 
poetry,  and  music.  Moreover,  she  stood  up  for  her  rights,  protesting  vociferously, 
for  example,  when  "twelve  paintings  offending  the  religious  feeling  of  visitors" 
were  removed  from  the  Goncharova  show  by  the  civic  authorities.36 

The  Amazons  of  the  avant-garde  were  distinguished  by  a  similar  champi- 
onship of  the  new,  as  well  as  by  a  common  sense  and  organizational  spirit  often 
lacking  in  their  male  colleagues.  They  expressed  this  synthetic  talent  not  only  in 
their  disciplined,  analytical  paintings,  but  also  in  their  ready  application  of  ideas 
to  functional  designs  such  as  books,  textiles,  and  the  stage. 

Goncharova  turned  her  very  life  into  a  work  of  art,  painting  her  face  and 
bosom,  challenging  the  public,  and  exhibiting  paintings  that  the  Moscow  censor 
deemed  sacrilegious.  "How  great  that,  instead  of  Leon  Bakst,  you  will  become 
Russia's  ambassador,"  declared  Zdanevich,  in  a  letter  to  Goncharova  just  before 
she  left  Russia  for  Paris,  having  been  invited  there  by  Diaghilev  to  design  sets  and 


JOHn.  e.  BOWLT 


costumes  for  his  Ballets  Russes.3?  Obviously,  personal  interaction  with  the  public, 
whether  provincial  philistines  or  Parisian  balletomanes,  was  of  vital  importance 
to  her,  and  the  performance  of  her  life  generated  the  most  diverse  responses. 
The  reviews  of  her  1914  St.  Petersburg  retrospective  indicate  just  how  provocative 
Goncharova,  as  a  woman  artist,  had  become  by  then.  On  the  one  hand.  Viktor 
Zarubin  saw  in  her  paintings  "the  disgusting,  cross-eyed,  crooked,  green  and  red 
mugs  of  peasants,"38  while  on  the  other,  Georgii  Vereisky  spoke  of  her  "magnifi- 
cent gift  of  color"3?;  Yakov  Tugendkhold  steered  a  middle  course  between  violent 
censure  and  unmitigated  praise,  in  one  review  identifying  Goncharova  as  a 
"woman  who  lacks  the  ability  and  tenacity  to  bring  things  to  their  logical  comple- 
tion and  who  flitters  from  one  easy  victory  to  the  next,"*0  and  in  another  referring 
to  her  trials  and  tribulations  as  the  "concentrated  biography  of  the  whole  of  con- 
temporary Russian  art."*1  In  some  sense  Tugendkhold  was  right,  for  before  she 
went  to  Paris  and  devoted  her  energies  to  stage  design,  Goncharova  worked  rapidly 
and  impulsively,  assimilating  and  refracting  the  most  diverse  aesthetic  concepts. 
She  left  the  "huge  strength  of  Russia"  for  a  "dry  and  pale  Europe"*2  in  1914,  at  the 
apex  of  her  career,  before  she  had  fully  developed  her  interpretation  of  Rayism  and 
abstract  painting,  which  she  left  for  her  fellow  Amazons  Exter,  Popova,  and 
Rozanovatodo. 

Although  Exter  lived  for  extended  periods  in  France  and  Italy,  she  maintained 
constant  contact  with  the  avant-garde  in  Moscow,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Kiev,  and 
from  the  outset  was  an  important  intermediary  between  French  Cubism  and 
Simultanism  and  between  Italian  Futurism  and  Russian  Cubo- Futurism, 
Suprematism,  and  Constructivism.  As  early  as  1908,  her  paintings  at  David 
Burliuk's  Link  exhibition  in  Kiev  stimulated  a  response  that  was  typical  of  preju- 
dices then  and  now:  "Mr.  Exter  has  daubed  his  canvas  with  unrelieved  blue  paint, 
the  right  corner  with  green,  and  signed  his  name."*3  While  intended  as  a  dispar- 
agement, this  review  emphasizes  both  the  ultimate  "transsexuality"  of  the  Russian 
avant-garde  and  the  real  accomplishment  of  Exter's  artistic  system  —  that  is,  her 
almost  physical  love  of  color  and  paint.  Even  if  tinged  by  the  formal  restraints  of 
French  Cubism  and  the  linear  dynamics  of  Italian  Futurism,  Exter's  paintings 
manifest  an  extraordinary  sensitivity  to  color  and  hence  to  the  new  concept  of  stu- 
dio painting  as  an  independent  exploration  of  color  consonance,  dissonance, 
rhythm,  and  arhythmicality.  As  a  follower  of  Suprematism  from  1916  on,  the  "very 
bold"  Exter**  painted  non-objective  works  that  depended  exclusively  on  spectral, 
planar  contrasts  for  their  effect. 

Certainly,  Exter  was  an  accomplished  studio  painter,  but  her  interest  in  picto- 
rial construction  and  three-dimensional  spatial  resolution  also  brought  her  to  the 
medium  of  the  stage.  Yet  unlike  many  other  artists  —  especially  those  who  worked 
for  Diaghilev's  Ballets  Russes,  such  as  Bakst  and  Goncharova  —  Exter  was  drawn 


29 


women  of  Genius 


less  to  the  illustrative  or  narrative  functions  of  set  and  costume,  regarding  the  lat- 
ter, for  example,  as  a  "living  moving  relief,  a  living  colored  sculpture."  +5  It  was  the 
whole  idea  of  material  construction,  of  space  as  a  component  of  the  composition, 
that  attracted  her,  as  is  manifest  in  her  designs  for  Alexander  Tairov's  1916  pro- 
duction of  Thamira  Khytharedes  and  costumes  for  Yakov  Protozanov's  1924  film 
Aelita  (fig.  84).  In  her  stage  designs,  Exterde- emphasized  ornament,  employed 
colored  lights  for  dynamic  effect,  and  attempted  to  transfer  the  kinetic  element  of 
Suprematist  painting  —  the  intersection  and  collision  of  colored  geometric  units  — 
to  the  stage.  It  is  easy  to  understand  why  she  was  so  drawn  to  the  cinema,  with  its 
kinetic  denominator,  its  continuous  interfusion  of  planes  and  volumes,  and  its 
formal  definitions  via  gradations  of  light.  Exter  also  tried  to  transmit  this  sensa- 
tion of  malleable  space  to  her  other  design  enterprises  —  marionettes,  clothes, 
interiors,  and  books,  all  of  which  can  be  regarded  as  architectural  exercises  in  the 
combination  of  volume,  color,  and  tactility.  As  her  Kiev  student  Alexander  Tyshler 
said:  "In  her  hands,  a  simple  paper  lampshade  turned  into  a  work  of  art. " *6 

Like  Exter,  Rozanova  was  well  aware  of  Italian  Futurism,  although  unlike  Exter, 
she  did  not  travel  in  Italy  and  did  not  have  an  Italian  companion  (Exter  and 
Ardengo  Soffici  were  close  friends).  In  her  careful  application  of  the  Italian 
Futurist  evocation  of  mechanical  speed,  explosivity,  and  mobility,  Rozanova  fol- 
lowed the  same  path  as  Malevich  (as  in  his  Knife -Grinder,  1912;)  and  Kliun  (as  in  his 
Ozonator.  1913—14),  and  her  concurrent  writings  suggest,  she  regarded  Futurism  to 
be  a  key  phase  in  the  artistic  evolution  toward  Suprematism.  Rozanova  expressed 
this  impulse  not  only  in  her  vivid,  dynamic  paintings,  but  also  in  what  Yurii 
Annenkov  described  as  the  "black  plumes  of  her  drawing. "  +?  She  used  these 
"plumes"  to  decorate  some  of  the  most  radical  books  of  the  Cubo- Futurists,  espe- 
cially those  of  Kruchenykh,  including  Vzorval  (Explodity,  1913),  Vozropshchem 
(Let's  Grumble,  1913),  and  Telile  (1914);  her  drawings  for  these  projects  inspired 
Kruchenykh  to  call  her  the  "first  woman  artist  of  St.  Petersburg.  "48 

Rozanova's  visual  deductions  were  calculated  and  formal,  and  she  avoided 
the  puns  and  puzzles  that  Goncharova  applied  to  her  Futurist  paintings,  such  as 
Bicyclist,  1913—13  (fig.  54).  In  their  force  lines  and  collisions.  Rozanova's  evoca- 
tions of  the  city  in  works  such  as  Man  on  the  Street  (Analysis  of  Volumes) ,  1913,  and 
Fire  in  the  City  (Cityscape),  1914  (plate  43)  bringto  mind  Exter's  parallel  experi- 
ments, as  in  Cityscape  (Composition) ,  ca.  1916  (plate  8).  This  process  of  deduction 
led  Rozanova  to  her  remarkable  Suprematist  pieces  of  1916  on.  As  a  leading  advo- 
cate of  a  nonfigurative  art  form,  she  had  no  sympathy  with  those  who  remained 
behind:  "Only  the  absence  of  honesty  and  of  a  true  love  of  art  provides  some  artists 
with  the  affrontery  to  live  on  stale  cans  of  artistic  economics  stocked  up  for  years, 
and,  year  in  year  out,  until  they  are  fifty,  to  mutter  about  what  they  had  first  started 
to  talk  about  when  they  were  twenty.  "49  Rozanova  was  consistent  and  rational  in 

3o 


J0HI1.  e.  BOWLT 


her  methodology,  whether  she  was  working  on  paintings,  drawings,  or  book 
designs.  Her  premature  death  in  1918,  said  Annenkov,  left  "one  less  world  in  the 
universe."  5°  Kliun  wrote:  "Her  ever-searching  soul,  her  exceptionally  developed 
sense  of  intuition  could  never  compromise  with  the  old  forms  and  always  protested 
against  all  repetition,  whether  in  everyday  life  or  in  art.  51 

If  Rozanova  traced  her  pictorial  discipline  to  Italian  Futurism,  Popova  and 
Udaltsova  saw  French  Cubism  as  their  main  stylistic  laboratory.  Not  interested  in 
messianic  philosophy  or  narrative  anecdote,  they  regarded  painting  as  painting. 
Even  before  their  apprenticeship  to  Henri  Le  Fauconnier  and  Jean  Metzinger  in 
Paris,  they  accepted  the  aesthetic  principles  of  one  of  their  first  Moscow  teachers, 
KonstantinYuon,  for  whom  the  important  elements  in  painting  were  "architecture 
because  of  its  definiteness,  contrast,  precision,  and  constructiveness  . . .  light 
because  of  its  peculiar  magical  force  . . .  space  because  of  its  ability  to  transform, 
to  universalize,  to  absorb  everything  tangible. "52  Popova'sand  Udaltsova's  tenure 
at  La  Palette  reinforced  these  basic  assumptions,  for  they  were  now  encouraged 
to  perceive  the  object  only  in  terms  of  form,  texture,  and  coloration,  to  break  the 
object  into  facets  and  to  reassemble  it,  and  to  apply  extraneous  details  of  collage 
and  verbal  language  in  order  to  enhance  the  composition.  A  comparison  of 
Popova's  Guitar,  1915  (plate  3o)  and  Udaltsova's  Guitar  Fugue,  1914-15  (plate  77) 
demonstrates  how  diligently  and  mechanically  these  two  women  learned  their 
Cubist  lessons. 

French  Cubism,  of  course,  had  an  impact  on  many  Russian  artists,  from  Robert 
Falk  to  Malevich,  from  Vera  Pestel  to  Tatlin,  but  Udaltsova  was  perhaps  its  most 
faithful  practitioner.  More  than  Popova,  who  "didn't  understand  much  of  what  Le 
Fauconnier  was  saying,  "53  Udaltsova  assimilated  the  formulae  that  Le  Fauconnier 
and  Metzinger  were  teaching:  she  accepted  the  Cubist  vocabulary  of  guitars,  vio  - 
lins,  and  nudes,  repeated  the  restrained  color  schemes,  and  applied  the  faceting 
and  foreshortening  with  fluency  and  ease.  For  Udaltsova,  form,  structure,  and 
composition  were  the  essence  of  studio  painting,  and  she  explored  the  Cubist  style 
precisely  as  an  exercise  in  analysis  and  "deconstruction,"  sometimes  distributing 
Cyrillic  characters  to  provide  a  Russian  identity,  as  inNew,  1914—15  (plate  79). 

Like  Popova,  Udaltsova  was  aware  of  Italian  Futurism,  and  her  representation 
of  rapid  movements  through  space  in  Seamstress,  1913—13  (plate  74)  —  as  in 
Goncharova's  concurrent  The  Weaver  (Loom  +  Woman),  1913—13  (plate  31)  —  tell  us 
that  she  was  aware  of  Umberto  Boccioni  in  particular.  With  their  repeated  lines, 
articulations,  and  dynamic  trajectories,  Udaltsova's  larger  canvases  of  the  mid- 
1910s,  such  as.4t  the  Piano,  1915  (plate  76)  come  close  to  Popova's  works  (such  as 
Traveling  Woman,  1915  [plate  33]),  and  they  already  contain  the  linear  emanations 
and  collisions  that  she  applied  to  her  decorations  for  fabrics  and  accessories  of 
1916-18.  Udaltsova's  infrequent  sallies  into  Suprematist  painting  are  also  distin- 


women  of  Genius 


guished  by  an  emphasis  on  purely  formal  resolutions  rather  than  by  the  cult  of 
color  that  we  associate  with  Malevich  and  Rozanova  —  in  spite  of  her  assertion  that 
the  "artists  of  today  have  arrived  at  the  fundamental  principle  of  painting:  color 
(color-painting). "54  Indeed,  Udaltsova's  role  in  the  promotion  of  the  Suprematist 
cause  and  the  Supremus  circle  seems  to  have  been  more  that  of  a  theoretical  custo  - 
dian  than  that  of  a  visual  producer-,  while  she  welcomed  "the  freedom  of  pure  cre- 
ativity," 55  she  maintained  her  Cubist  system,  and  her  modest  Suprematist 
compositions  in  watercolor  and  gouache  can  hardly  compete  with  her  major  Cubist 
oils,  such  asKitchen,  1915  (plate  84).  It  is  surprising,  therefore,  that  Udaltsova 
made  an  abrupt  turn  toward  a  kind  of  narrative  Expressionism  in  the  early  1930s, 
producing  figurative  works  —  portraits  and  landscapes  —  that  rely  upon  new  struc- 
tures beneath  heavy  impasto  and  pulsating  texture.  After  years  of  Cubist  asceti- 
cism, Udaltsova  suddenly  discovered  the  density  and  consistency  of  paint. 
Pursuing  a  restrained  table  of  color,  Udaltsova  and  her  husband,  Drevin,  came  to 
share  a  common  vocabulary  and  style,  and  by  the  1930s  they  were  painting  in  a  very 
similar  manner. 

The  formal  discipline  that  Popova  acknowledged  in  French  Cubism  was  a  clear 
inspiration  to  her  architectonic  paintings  of  1916  on,  although  again  it  may  have 
been  Yuon  who  suggested  the  denotation  to  her,  for  he  maintained  that  Modern  art 
had  returned  to  the  "forgotten  culture  of  the  statics  of  form,  i.e..  painterly  archi- 
tectonics." 56  In  any  case,  Popova's  architectonic  paintings  are  important  for  two 
reasons  in  particular:  they  are  laboratory  experiments  in  texture,  weight,  color 
density,  and  rhythm;  and  they  are  a  modular  series  of  exercises  that  both  intercon- 
nect organically  and  seem  to  anticipate  Popova's  wider  application  of  their  forms 
to  textile  designs  and  book  covers  in  the  early  1930s.  After  all,  these  two  qualities 
prompted  Popova  and  her  colleagues  to  organize  5" x 5  =  35  in  1931,  andVsevolod 
Meierkhold  to  recognize  Popova's  potential  as  a  stage  designer  as  soon  as  he  saw 
her  contributions  to  that  exhibition. 

Like  Popova,  Stepanova  explored  numerous  stylistic  formulae  —  from  Art 
Nouveau  to  Suprematism  —  before  reaching  her  interpretation  of  Constructivism, 
but  her  importance  lies  primarily  in  her  theoretical  and  practical  contributions  to 
early  Soviet  culture.  She  was  an  active  member  of  Inkhuk  and  Lef,  taught  at 
Vkhutemas,  and  participated  in  the  radical  exhibitions  of  1919—31,  such  as  Tenth 
State  Exhibition:  Non-Objective  Creativity  and  Suprematism,  Nineteenth  State 
Exhibition,  and^a^  =  35.  Stepanova's  writings  indicate  a  vigorous  curiosity  and 
bold  provocativeness  that  questioned  and  undermined  conventional  attitudes 
toward  the  fine  arts,  especially  the  established  hierarchies  of  "high"  and  "low," 
fine  and  applied.  Her  participation  in  the  ongoing  debate  at  Inkhuk  on  construc- 
tion ("centripetal"  form)  versus  composition  ("centrifugal"  form),  her  ideas  on 
texture,  tectonics,  and  rhythm,  her  immediate  recognition  of  utilitarian  design  as 

32 


J0HI1.  e.  BOWLT 


the  only  legitimate  extension  of  abstract  painting,  and  her  commitment  to  book 
and  textile  design  as  primary  elements  of  the  new  Soviet  "look"  make  Stepanova 
one  of  the  most  uncompromising  and  aggressive  champions  of  Soviet 
Constructivism. 

As  Stepanova  herself  asserted,  she  owed  much  to  her  husband  Rodchenko, 
and  her  artistic  career  cannot  be  understood  without  reference  to  his  concurrent 
inventions.  But  it  would  be  misleading  to  regard  her  as  merely  a  student  or 
apprentice;  rather,  Stepanova  and  Rodchenko  —  like  Goncharova  and  Larionov  — 
should  be  accepted  as  an  artistic  team  that  functioned  by  interchange  and  interac- 
tion rather  than  by  dominance  and  subservience.  As  a  result,  Stepanova's  and 
Rodchenko's  respective  artworks  are  often  similar  in  conception  and  medium, 
because  they  tended  to  share  the  same  work  space,  fulfill  the  same  commissions, 
use  the  same  materials,  and  visit  with  the  same  friends  (among  them  the  film- 
maker Esfir  Shub  and  her  husband,  Alexei  Gan;  Vladimir  Mayakovsky  and  Osip 
and  Lilya  Brik;  and  Popova  and  Alexander  Vesnin).  The  formal  parallels  are  espe- 
cially striking  in  their  collages  and  linocuts  of  1918— 20  (which  often  contain  frag- 
ments from  the  same  postcards  and  newspapers)  and  in  their  propaganda  albums 
of  the  1930s. 

Even  so,  Stepanova's  aesthetic  and  emotional  approaches  to  the  artistic 
process  were  very  different  from  Rodchenko's,  for  she  did  not  share  his  enthusi- 
asm for  minimal  painting,  the  non-  objective  three  -  dimensional  construction, 
or  even  photography  (not  that  she  avoided  these  mediums  altogether).  Rather, 
Stepanova  advocated  the  primacy  of  the  handmade  or  machine-made  object,  advo- 
cating a  public  art  that  could  communicate  and  benefit  its  audience,  such  as  book 
and  stage  design,  textiles,  andprozodezhda  (professional  clothing),  even  if  her  (and 
Popova's)  projects  for  industrial  production  underwent  substantial  changes  at  the 
hands  of  the  factory  collective. 5?  Perhaps  this  is  why  Stepanova  emphasized  the 
human  figure,  even  in  what  she  saw  as  her  most  radical  paintings,  such  as  Dancing 
Figures  on  White,  1920  (plate  65),  for  if  these  moving  figures  are  streamlined  and 
robotic,  they  still  relate  to  a  world  of  people  working,  playing,  and  dancing. 

Symptomatic  of  Stepanova's  outreach  program  was  her  reinvention  and 
manipulation  of  verbal  and  visual  language,  in  the  combinations  of  phonic  and 
semiotic  systems  that  she  constructed  in  her  graphic  or  visual  poetry  of  1917—19. 
In  her  application  and  exploration  of  a  transrational  order  of  neologisms,  as  in 
RtnyKhomle,  Stepanova  was  paying  homage  to  the  Cubo-  Futurist  zaum  poetry 
practiced  by  Velimir  Khlebnikov  and  Kruchenykh  well  before  the  Revolution  and 
investigated  also  by  avant-garde  painters,  including  Pavel  Filonov,  Malevich.  and 
Rozanova.58  In  fact,  some  of  Stepanova's  graphic  designs  are  intended  as  illustra- 
tions of—  or,  rather,  as  complements  to  —  Kruchenykh's  zau?n  poetry  (such  as 
"Gly-Gly,"  see  figs.  72,  102).  Ingivingvisualshapeto  Kruchenykh's  and  her  own 

33 


women  of  cenius 


"words  at  liberty,"  Stepanovawas  creating  an  Esperanto  that  was  universally 
(in)comprehensible  in  the  same  way  that  a  baby's  babbling  or  a  dog's  barking 
might  be.  The  phonemes  that  Stepanova  assembled  in  jazzy,  kinetic  compositions  — 
"sherekht  zist  kigs  mast  kzhems  usdr  azbul  gaguch  chirguza,"  and  so  on  — elicit  a 
savage  primal  sound  from  the  dawn  of  civilization.  Hers  is  a  linguistic  and  visual 
Neo-Primitivism,  consistent  in  its  incomprehensibility,  whose  harsh  and  bewil- 
dering sounds  —  like  a  battle  cry,  a  warning  sign,  or  a  siren  —  force  us  to  listen  and 
to  look.  These  miniature  syntheses  of  transrational  verse  and  non- objective  paint- 
ing are  among  Stepanova's  most  audacious  experiments  in  communication,  and 
they  undoubtedly  prepared  the  way  for  her  more  celebrated  applications  of  color 
to  word  in  the  form  of  her  stage  designs  for  Meierkhold's  1922  production  of  The 
Death  ofTarelkin  and  Vitalii  Zhemchuzhnyi's  Evening  of  the  Book  (1924)  • 

After  the  October  Revolution,  the  world  of  monumental  propaganda  and  agit- 
design  attracted  many  women  artists.  Sofia  Dymshits-Tolstaia,  wife  of  the  writer 
Alexei  Tolstoy  and  a  student  of  Tatlin,  helped  with  the  decoration  and  illumination 
of  Moscow  for  the  first  anniversary  of  the  Bolshevik  coup.  Pestel,  Udaltsova,  and 
Elizaveta  Yakunina  also  contributed  to  the  decoration  of  the  city  streets  and 
squares.  Beatrisa  Sandomirskaia,  then  a  Cubist  sculptress,  designed  a  concrete 
statue  of  Robespierre  for  Lenin's  Plan  of  Monumental  Propaganda,  but  it  was 
promptly  destroyed  by  a  grenade  allegedly  thrown  by  counterrevolutionaries.  In 
some  respects,  the  activities  of  the  Blue  Blouse  theaters  in  the  mid-  1920s  can  also 
be  regarded  as  an  extension  of  agit- design,  and  Nina  Aizenberg's  simple,  workaday 
costumes,  like  Tatiana  Brum's,  must  have  appealed  to  the  proletarian  audiences. 

But  if  women  artists  had  been  at  the  very  center  of  the  Russian  avant-garde, 
they  retired  to  the  periphery  of  its  countermovements,  Heroic  and  Socialist 
Realism,  in  the  late  1920s  and  1930s.  Many  accepted  the  doctrine  of  Socialist 
Realism  and  extended  its  directives  in  their  works,  among  them  Serafima 
Riangina's  painting  Higher!  Ever  Higher! ,  1984,  and  Mukhina's  enormous  statue 
Worker  and  Collective  Farm  Woman  on  top  of  the  Soviet  Pavilion  at  the  Paris  World's 
Fair  in  1937  (fig.  10).  But  these  statements  were  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule, 
for,  by  force  of  circumstances,  the  female  Socialist  Realists  followed  rather  than 
led,  illustrated  rather  than  dictated.  Their  artistic  victories  were  secondary  and 
their  works  distant  from  the  radicalism  of  Exter,  Goncharova,  Popova,  Rozanova, 
Stepanova,  and  Udaltsova.  Soviet  women  artists  operated  in  a  very  different  ambi- 
ence from  the  women  of  the  avant-garde,  for  the  matriarchy  of  the  Amazons  was 
now  replaced  by  a  new  hierarchical  patriarchy,  in  which  the  male  artist  —  whether 
Iosif  Brodsky  as  Stalin's  court  painter  or  Alexander  Gerasimov  as  president  of  the 
Academy —  was  again  the  person  of  privilege  and  power.  But  there  is  a  historical 
and  mythological  consistency  in  this  volte-face:  after  all,  the  Amazons  had  been 
the  female  warriors  who  had  warred  against  the  Greeks,  the  robust  outsiders  who 

34. 


J0HI1.  C  BOWLT 


had  threatened  and  undermined  the  precise  boundaries  of  a  classical  civilization. 
Obviously,  with  the  abrupt  return  to  order  and  the  new  classicism  of  Soviet  art, 
such  vandalous  viragos,  "primitive  and  childish,"  59  could  no  longer  be  tolerated  — 
and  they  were  not. 

i .    "Women  of  Genius"  is  the  translation  of  Genialnye  zhenshchiny,  the  title  of  an  anonymous  book 
on  Mariia  Bashkirtseva,  Eleonora  Duze,  Sofia  Kovalevskaia,  and  other  Russian  women  (St. 
Petersburg:  Vecherniaia  zaria.  ca.  1900). 

2.  Benedikt  Livshits,  Polutoraglazyi strelets  (Leningrad:  Izdatelstvo  pisatelei  v  Leningrad,  1933),  p. 
143;  Benedikt  Livshits,  The  One  and  a  Half- Eyed  Archer,  trans.  John  E.  Bowlt  (Newtonville,  MA: 
Oriental  Research  Partners.  1977),  pp.  128-29. 

3.  Bekhteev's  Battle  of  the  Amazons,  1914-15,  is  in  a  private  collection  in  Paris;  Yakulov's  painting  of 
the  same  title  (1912)  is  in  the  collection  of  the  State  Picture  Gallery,  Erevan. 

4.  Andrei  Somov,  "Zhenshchiny-khudozhnitsy."  in  Vestnik  iziaschnykh  iskusstv  (St.  Petersburg: 
i883),  vol.  1,  pp.  356-83,  489-524. 

5.  Alexei  Novitsky,  htoriia  russkogo  iskusstva  (Moscow:  Mamontov,  1903),  vol.  2,  pp.  514—32. 

6.  The  relationship  between  the  Russian  avant-garde  and  the  "establishment"  was  an  intricate  and 
ambivalent  one.  While  artists  such  as  David  Burliuk,  Goncharova.  and  Larionov  wanted  to  "shock 
the  bourgeoisie,"  they  also  relied  upon  it  for  material  support,  promotion,  and  camaraderie.  This 
is  indicated  not  only  by  the  fact  that  pillars  of  the  establishment  looked  after  the  interests  of  the 
avant-garde  (for  example,  the  leading  Moscow  lawyer  Mikhail  Khodasevich  defended 
Goncharova  against  accusations  leveled  by  the  Moscow  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  1909),  but  also  by 
the  fact  that  avant-garde  artists  often  had  themselves  photographed  next  to  the  rich  and  the 
titled. 

7.  According  to  Valentin  Kurdov,  even  in  1 9 18  the  "naturalistic  details"  of  Stepan  Erzia's  Liberated 
Man  caused  women  to  cover  their  faces  and  the  local  authorities  to  remove  the  statue.  Kurdov, 
Pamiatnye dniigody  (St.  Petersburg:  Arsis,  1994),  p.  15. 

8.  Boris  Lopatin,  "Futurizm-suprematizm"  (1915),  in  Herman  Berninger  and  Jean-Albert  Cartier. 
Pougny  (Tubingen:  Wasmuth,  1972).  p.  56. 

9.  Quoted  by  Mikhail  Larionov  in  his  review  of  Goncharova's  one-day  exhibition  at  the  Society  of 
Free  Aesthetics,  Moscow,  March  24, 1909,  at  the  opening  of  which  three  of  her  pictures  were 
"confiscated"  on  grounds  of  "pornography":  "Gazetnye  kritiki  v  roli  politsii  nravov,"  Zolotoe  runo 
(Moscow),  nos.  11-12  (1909,  appeared  spring  1910),  p.  97. 

10.  See,  for  example,  Fedor  Bulgakov,  Venera  iApollon  (St.  Petersburg:  Suvorin,  1899),  and 
Zhenshchinaviskusstve($>t.  Petersburg:  Suvorin,  1899). 

11.  See  Richard  Stites,  The  Women's  Liberation  Movement  in  Russia  (Princeton:  Princeton  University 
Press,  1978),  p.  141. 

12.  Vasilii  Kostylev,  "Nashi '  ama.zonki,'"  Zhurnal  dlia  khoziaek  {Journal  for  Housewives)  (Moscow),  no. 
19  (October  1, 1914),  p.  24. 

i3.  Genialnye  zhenshchiny,  p.  2. 

14.  Quoted  in  "Skazkiipravdaozhenshchine,"i?on.neeutro  (Moscow),  February  18,  1914. 

15.  Ibid. 

16.  Quoted  in  "Disput  0  zhenshchine,"  Russkie  vedomosti  (Moscow),  February  18,  1914. 

17.  Hans  Hildebrandt,  Die Frau  als Kunstlerin  (Berlin:  Mosse,  1928). 

18.  Amari  [Mikhail  Tsetlin],  "Natalia  Goncharova,"  in  Winifred  Stephens,  ed..  The  Soul  of  Russia 


35 


women  of  Genius 


(London:  MacMillan,  1916),  p.  76. 
1 9 .  Kazimir  Malevieh,  "Glavy  iz  avtobiografii  khudozhnika. "  in  Vasilii  Rakitin  and  Andrei 

Sarabianov,  eds.,  N.  I.  Khardzhiev.  Stati  ob  avangarde  (Moscow:  RA,  1997),  vol.  1,  p.  114. 
30.  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  0  zhenskoi  krasote  (Baku:  Literaturno-izdatelskii  Otdel  politotdela  Kasflota, 

1930),  unpaginated. 
ai.  Donna  Stein.  "The  Turbulent  Decades."  in  Stein,  et  al..  Women  Artists  in  the  Avant-Garde: 

1970—1930,  exh.  cat.  (New  York:  Rachel  Adler  Gallery.  1984).  unpaginated. 

22.  Rebecca  Cunningham,  "The  Russian  Women  Artist/Designers  of  the  Avant-Garde,"  Theatre 
Design  and  Technology  (London),  spring  1998,  p.  50. 

23.  Malevich's  and  Exter's  statements  accompanied  a  photograph  captioned  "Paskha  u  futuristov" 
(Easter  with  the  Futurists)  in  Sinii  zhurnal  (Petrograd),  no.  12  (Marcli2i,  1915).  p.  9. 

24.  Varsanofii  Parkin,  "Oslinyi  khvost  i  mishen."  in  Parkin  et  al.,  Oslinyi  khvost  i  mishen  (Moscow: 
Mmnster,  1913)  p.  55. 

25.  Mikhail  Larionov,  letterto  Ilia  Zdanevich,  1914,  State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg, 
Manuscript  Section  (call  no.:  f.  177,  ed.  khr.  88,1.12.  verso) .  In  the  same  letter  Larionov  writes 
that  the  exhibition  after  that,  No.  6,  would  be  devoted  to  Rayism. 

26.  "Manifest  k  muzhchine  i  manifest  k zhenshchine,"  Stolichnaia  molva  (Moscow),  no.  327 
(September  15.  1913).  p.  5. 

27.  Filippo  Tommaso  Marinetti.  "Manifesto  of  Futurism"  (1909),  in  Charles  Harrison  and  Paul 
Wood,j4rt  in  Theory  lyoo-iggo  (Oxford:  Blackwell,  1992),  p.  147. 

28.  Valentine  de  Saint-Point,  "Manifesto  della  Donna  futurista"  (1912),  in  Lea  Vergine  et  al.,  L'altra 
meta  deU'avanguardia  1910-7940,  exh.  cat.  (Milan:  Comune  di  Milano,  1980),  p.  78. 

29.  Ilia  Zdanevich,  "N.  S.  Goncharovaivsechestvo"  (October  1913),  lecture  delivered  on  March  3i, 
1914;  State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg,  Manuscript  Section  (call  no.:  f.  177,  ed.  khr.  15, 11. 1. 
19,22,  26). 

30.  See  Ilia  Zdanevich,  untitled  lecture  on  the  occasion  of  Goncharova's  retrospectives  in  Moscow 
and  St.  Petersburg;  State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg.  Manuscript  Section 

(call  no.:  f.  177,  ed.khr.  24). 
3i.  Nikolai  Kulbin,  "Garmoniia,  dissonans  i  tesnye  sochetaniiaviskusstve  izhizni,"  in  Ilia  Repinet 
al..  Trudy  Vserossiiskogo  Sezda  khudozhmkov  v Petrograde  1911-1912  (St.  Petersburg:  Golike  and 
Vilborg,  1914),  vol.  1,  p.  39. 

32.  For  further  information  on  Bashkirtseva's  involvement  in  the  movement  for  women's  rights,  see 
Colette  Cosnier,  Marie  Bashkirtseff:  Un portrait  sans  retouches  (Paris:  Horay.  1885),  pp.  215—30.  I 
would  like  to  thank  Tatiana  Mojenock  for  providing  me  with  this  information. 

33.  Tenisheva  wrote  a  dissertation  on  the  subject  of  enameling,  which  was  published  as  Emal  1  inkrus- 
tatsiia  (Prague:  Seminarium  Kondakovianum,  1930). 

34.  During  the  1910s  Dobychina  also  conducted  a  busy  correspondence  with  Russian  artists  both  at 
home  and  abroad,  including  Marc  Chagall.  Exter,  Vasily  Kandinsky.  Kulbin.  Larionov,  and 
Rodchenko;  see  Russian  State  Library,  Moscow,  Manuscript  Section 

(call,  no.:  f.  420,  op.  i3,  ed.  khr.  60).  Apart  from  an  anonymous  article,  "Slavazhizni," 
Muzykalnaia  zhizn  (Moscow),  no.  3  (1993),  p.  3o,  little  else  has  been  published  on  Dobychina. 

35.  Livshits.  The  One  and  a  Half -Eyed  Archer,  p.  116. 

36.  "Udaleniekartinsvystavki,"Den  (St.  Petersburg).  March  17,  1914;  unpaginated  copy  in  Russian 
State  Library,  Moscow,  Manuscript  Section  (call,  no.:  f.  420,  0. 1,  ed.  khr.  32). 

37.  Ilia  Zdanevich,  undated  letter  to  Natalia  Goncharova.  State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg, 
Manuscript  Section  (call,  no.:  f.  177,  ed.  khr.  57, 1.  7). 


36 


JOHn.  e.  BOWLT 


38.  Viktor  Zarubin,  "Futurizm  i  koshchunstvo,"  Severnyi  listok  (St.  Petersburg),  March  16,  1914; 
unpaginated  copy  in  Russian  State  Library,  Moscow,  Manuscript  Section  (call  no.:  f.  430,  0. 1,  ed. 
khr.  32). 

39.  G.  V.  [GeorgiiVereisky],  "Vystavka  Goncharovoi,"  Teatri  iskusstvo  (St.  Petersburg),  no.  15  (April 
i3, 1914),  p.  339. 

40.  YakovTugendkhold,  "Vystavka  kartin  Natalii  Goncharovoi, "Apollon  (St.  Petersburg),  no.  6 
(1913),  p.  71. 

41.  YakovTugendkhold,  "Sovremennoe  iskusstvo  i  narodnost/'Set'emje zapiski  (St.  Petersburg). 
November  1913,  p.  153. 

4a.  Natalia  Goncharova,  letter  to  Sergei  Bobrov,  February  i3, 1917,  Russian  State  Archive  of 

Literature  and  Art,  Moscow  (call  no.:  f.  2554,  op.  1,  ed.  khr.  28, 1.  5). 
43.  Savenko,  quoted  inAlexei  Filippov,  "0  vystavkakh,"  V 'mire  iskusstv  (Kiev),  nos.  2—3  (1908),  p.  3o. 
44. 1.  Chuzhanov,  "Vystavki,"  Vmire  iskusstv  (Kiev),  nos.  14-16  (1908),  p.  21. 

45.  "Kostiumy  i  dekoratsii  Alexandry  Exter,"  Teatr-iskusstvo-ekran  (Paris),  January  1925,  p.  19. 

46.  Quoted  in  Olga  Voronova,  V.  I.  Mukhina  (Moscow:  Iskusstvo,  1976),  p.  43. 

47.  Yurii  Annenkov,  "Teatr  chistogo  metoda"  (ca.  1920),  Russian  State  Archive  of  Literature  and  Art, 
Moscow  (call,  no.:  f.  2618,  op.  1,  ed.  khr.  14,  L.  173). 

48.  Quoted  inVeraTerekhinaetal.,  OlgaRozanova  1886-1918,  exh.  cat.  (Helsinki:  Helsinki  City 
Museum,  1992),  p.  36. 

49.  Olga  Rozanova,  "Osnovy  novogo  tvorchestva  i  prichiny  ego  neponimaniia,"  Soiuz  molodezhi  (St. 
Petersburg),  March  1913,  p.  20;  translated  in  John  E.  Bowlt,  The  Russian  Avant- Garde:  Theory  and 
Criticism,  n)oz-n)3^,  (London:  Thames  and  Hudson,  1988),  p.  109. 

50.  Annenkov,  "Teatr  chistogo  metoda." 

51.  Ivan  Kliun,  untitled  essay,  inPervaia  Gosudarstvennaia  vystavka.  Katalog posmertnoi  vystavki  kartin. 
etiudov,  eskizov i  risunkov  O.V.  Rozanovoi,  exh.  cat.  (Moscow:  Kushnerev,  1919),  p.  III. 

52.  Konstantin  Yuon, Avtobiografua  (Moscow:  GAKhN,  1926),  p.  46. 

53.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  quoted  in  Voronova,  V.  1.  Mukhina.  p.  27. 

54.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  untitled  article  forSu.prem.us  (1917). 
55-  Ibid. 

56.  Yuon,  Avtobiografiia,  p.  24. 

57.  David  Aronovich,  "Desiat  let  iskusstva,"  Krasnaianov  (Moscow)  11  (November  1927),  p.  236. 

58.  For  examples  of  this  experimental  poetry  and  commentary  on  it,  see  Jutta  Hercher  and  Peter 
Urban,  eds. ,  Erstens,  Zweitens,  vol.  I:  "Dichtungen  russischer  Maler"  (Hamburg:  Material -Verlag. 
1998). 

59.  The  critic  Osip  Beskin  used  these  terms  in  his  description  of  Udaltsova's  painting;  see  Beskin, 
Formalizm  v  zhivopisi  (Moscow  and  Leningrad:  Vsekokhudozhnik,  1933),  p.  9. 


3? 


figure3.naTaua  GoncHarova 

Self-Portrait  with  Yellow  Lilies,  1907 
Oil  on  canvas,  77  x  58.2  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 


six  (anD  a  Few  more) 
russian  women  of  THe 
avanT-GarDe  TOGeTHer 


CHanoTTe  DoiiGLas 


In  Natalia  Goncharova's  Self- Portrait  with  Yellow  Lilies,  1907  (fig.  3.  plate  i3)  the 
painter  stands  before  a  wall  chock-full  of  work,  holding  a  bouquet  of  tiger  lilies. 
She  confronts  the  viewer  without  pretense,  withholding  nothing,  directly  and 
openly  pleased  with  the  paintings  behind  her.  We  see  her  plain,  her  hair  held 
close  to  her  head  by  a  scarf.  The  feminine  ruffle  on  her  sleeve  is  countered  by  the 
awkward,  muscular  right  hand  emerging  from  it.  a  powerful  hand,  which  seems 
only  temporarily  to  have  exchanged  the  painter's  brush  for  orange  flowers. 

Goncharova  gives  us  here  a  splendid  image  of  the  women  of  the  Russian  avant- 
garde:  like  the  artist  looking  out  at  us  from  Self -Portrait  with  Yellow  Lilies,  most  of 
these  women  were  vital  and  direct,  hardworking,  competitive,  and  uncompromis- 
ing in  their  view  of  themselves.  As  the  subject  of  an  exhibition  they  would  seem  the 
ideal  group  —  women  artists  who  lived  in  the  same  time  and  place,  who  knew  each 
other,  and  whose  art  is  substantial  enough  to  merit  the  attention  of  even  a  male- 
privileged  history. 

Yet  in  looking  at  this  exhibition  the  viewer  should  be  cautious,  for  the  show 
raises  certain  interpretive  questions.  On  what  basis  can  we  treat  these  six  artists 
as  a  "group"?  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  considered  themselves  a  separate 
category  —  "female  artists"  —  and  in  fact  they  would  certainly  have  considered 
such  a  distinction  a  form  of  marginalization.  Their  letters,  diaries,  and  memoirs, 
as  far  as  we  know  them,  reveal  little  consciousness  of  gender  identity,  at  least  in 
terms  of  their  art.1 


39 


six  (anD  a  Few  more)  russian  women 


Perhaps  the  best  reason  for  isolating  these  women  from  their  male  colleagues 
is  to  enable  us  to  consider  in  detail  their  striking  successes  and  the  centrality  of 
their  work  in  their  time,  which  seem  so  unusual  in  the  experience  of  the  rest  of  the 
Western  art  world.  Why,  we  want  to  ask  —  for  our  own  sake  —  these  women  at  this 
time  in  this  place?  It  is  an  interesting  historical  question.  Even  so,  we  should  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  artists  themselves  would  have  felt  it  artificial  to  single 
them  out,  and  quite  beside  the  point.  They  accepted  and  worked  almost  completely 
within  the  male  exhibition-and-sales  paradigm,  and  they  considered  themselves 
artists  first,  zealous  participants  in  a  great  aesthetic  revolution.  In  this,  a  gendered 
identity  seems  to  have  played  hardly  any  role  at  all. 

But  the  viewer  should  take  care  not  to  judge  these  women  —  their  identities  as 
modern  artists  or  their  summary  artistic  merit  —  on  the  basis  of  paintings  alone. 
As  we  view  the  exhibition  we  should  remember  that  in  no  case  did  their  artistic 
record  consist  only  of  painting;  like  many  of  their  vanguard  peers,  they  responded 
to  the  demands  and  interests  of  their  times  with  a  variety  of  artistic  forms.  True 
Modernists,  who  felt  they  could  and  should  change  the  look  of  the  world  at  large, 
they  were  stage  designers,  sculptors,  photographers,  and  designers  of  books,  tex- 
tiles, and  clothing.  Therefore,  I  include  here  the  activities  of  Alexandra  Exter, 
Natalia  Goncharova,  Liubov  Popova,  Olga  Rozanova,  Varvara  Stepanova,  and 
Nadezhda  Udaltsova  beyond  their  engagement  with  the  tradition  of  studio  art. 

An  important  question  is  how  the  women  interacted.  Did  they  know  and  iden- 
tify with  one  another?  Did  they  work  together?  Share  artistic  or  other  interests? 
Have  similar  experiences?  Influence  each  other?  Most  shared  a  social  class.  Of  the 
six  artists  in  the  exhibition,  four  were  financially  and  socially  secure.  In  their 
artistic  activities  Goncharova,  Exter,  Udaltsova,  and  Popova  exercised  the  self- 
assuredness  of  the  urban  middle  class;  their  male  counterparts,  by  contrast,  were 
more  likely  to  be  less  well  off  and  from  the  provinces.  The  friends  and  connections 
of  the  women  undoubtedly  offered  certain  advantages  —  in  the  reception  of  their 
exhibitions,  in  publicizing  their  work,  and  in  the  recruiting  of  potential  patrons. 

Goncharova  was  the  oldest.  A  year  older  than  Exter,  four  years  older  than  Sonia 
Delaunay,  five  years  older  than  Udaltsova  and  Rozanova,  she  served  as  a  role  model 
and  set  the  stage  for  the  others.  Behind  the  deceptively  demure  exterior  that  looks 
out  at  us  from  old  photographs  of  her  was  a  delightfully  irreverent,  sexy  woman, 
passionately  outspoken  about  artistic  matters.  Goncharova  sometimes  favored  an 
extremely  low  decollete,  sported  trousers  on  occasion,  and  without  any  thought 
of  marriage  lived  openly  with  the  painter  Mikhail  Larionov.  Her  exuberance  and 
directness  scandalized  society,  and  she  often  outraged  critics  and  official 
guardians  of  public  morals,  who  expectantly  examined  her  art  for  evidence  of  hid- 
den meanings.  Such  attention  more  than  once  hindered  the  progress  of  her  career. 

Goncharova's  connection  with  future  members  of  the  avant-garde  dates  from 


40 


CHanoTTe  DOucLas 


1906,  when  she  was  associated  with  the  Symbolist  journal  Zolotoe  runo  (The  Golden 
Fleece)  and  also  met  the  future  impresario  Sergei  Diaghilev,  who  facilitated  her 
entry  into  the  Russian  section  of  the  Paris  Salon  d'Automne.  The  next  year  she 
joined  a  group  of  Symbolist  painters,  Venok-  Stephanos  (a  coupling  of  the  Russian 
and  Greek  words  for  "wreath").  With  Larionov;  Aristarkh  Lentulov;  Liudmila, 
David,  and  Vladimir  Burliuk;  Goncharova  exhibited  Impressionist  still  lifes  and 
landscapes  in  December  1907  at  the  gallery  of  the  Stroganov  Art  Institute  in 
Moscow,  an  exhibition  that  moved  to  St.  Petersburg  the  following  spring.  Ayear 
later,  in  November  1908,  she,  the  Burliuks,  and  other  colleagues  from  Venok- 
Stephanos  joined  with  Exter,  a  graduate  of  the  Kiev  Art  Institute,  to  produce  an 
exhibition  in  Kiev  that  brought  together  young  artists  from  Russia  and  Ukraine. 
Appropriately  called  Zveno  (The  Link),  this  exhibition  was  one  of  the  first  to  unite 
key  participants  in  the  future  avant-garde.  Here,  for  the  first  time,  works  by 
Goncharova  appeared  with  those  of  Exter. 

The  Link  had  significance  beyond  the  presence  of  these  two  major  women 
artists;  it  created  an  important  connection  between  the  Art  Nouveau— inspired 
arts-and-crafts  movement  in  Russia  (associated  with  Mariia  Tenisheva's  school  in 
St.  Petersburg)  and  the  fledgling  Russian  and  Ukrainian  avant-garde.  Over  the 
next  ten  years,  this  early  connection  was  to  condition  the  association  of  applied- art 
and  avant-garde  styles.  The  number  of  women  artists  in  The  Link  is  remarkable:  of 
a  total  of  twenty-six  artists,  eleven  were  women.  The  group  from  St.  Petersburg,  led 
by  Liudmila  Burliuk,  included  Agnessa  Lindeman  and  Erna  Deters,  already  recog- 
nized for  their  Art  Nouveau  embroidery,  and  Natalia  Gippius,  a  sculptor  and  one 
of  the  three  talented  sisters  of  the  flamboyant  and  well-known  Symbolist  poet 
Zinaida  Gippius.  Other  participants  included  the  graphic  artist  Mariia  Chembers 
(recently  married  to  the  artist  Ivan  Bilibin)  and  Evgenia  Pribylskaia,  like  Exter  a 
graduate  of  the  Kiev  Art  Institute.  Pribylskaia  soon  began  to  direct  workshops  in 
the  Ukrainian  village  of  Skoptsy  that  produced  women's  handwork,  reviving  tradi- 
tional patterns  and  producing  new  folk  designs.2  In  The  Link  Exter  showed  still 
lifes,  pointillist  scenes  of  Western  Europe,  and  embroidery,  an  art  form  in  which 
she  also  had  a  strong  interest.  From  this  time  on  she  regularly  exhibited  embroi- 
dery and  designs  for  embroidery  alongside  her  painting.  In  succeedingyears,  she 
organized  a  group  of  women  to  produce  abstract  embroidery  for  avant-garde 
artists,  including  Sofia  Karetnikova,  Popova,  Rozanova,  and  Kazimir  Malevich.3 

Both  Exter  and  Goncharova  pursued  an  active  exhibition  schedule  with  avant- 
garde  groups  in  the  major  cities.  Unlike  Goncharova,  who  early  in  her  career  had 
personal  and  professional  friendships  with  a  variety  of  established  artists,  Exter 
from  the  first  was  drawn  primarily  to  the  developing  avant-garde.  After  her  gradu- 
ation from  the  Kiev  Art  Institute  and  subsequent  marriage  to  Nikolai  Exter,  a 
prominent  Kievan  lawyer,  she  threw  her  energies  into  a  life  of  art  both  at  home  and 


41 


six  (aiiD  a  Few  mom  nissian  women 


abroad.  The  actress  Alisa  Koonen  describes  in  her  memoirs  how  different  in 
nature  and  appearance  the  two  women  were,  Goncharova  seeming  very  Russian, 
Exter  more  Western.  But  they  were  similarly  militant,  she  notes,  when  the  conver- 
sation turned  to  questions  or  principles  of  art. 4 

Exter  was  part  of  The  Salon,  an  exhibition  of  Russian  and  Western  artists  that 
opened  in  Odessa  in  December  1909,  moved  to  Kiev  in  February  1910,  and  then 
on  to  St.  Petersburg  and  Riga.  Although  Goncharova  was  not  initially  among  the 
exhibitors,  she  managed  to  be  added  to  the  show  when  it  reached  St.  Petersburg. 
In  the  spring  of  1910,  both  women  took  part  in  the  inaugural  show  of  the  Union  of 
Youth,  an  association  of  progressive  artists  in  St.  Petersburg. 5  The  Union,  which 
included  the  female  artists  Elena  Guro,  Anna  Zelmanova,  and,  from  1911, 
Rozanova,  had  wide-ranging  interests,  following  German  developments 
especially.6  The  direct  emotion,  economy  of  means,  and  bright  color  of  painters 
such  as  Erich  Heckel,  Ernst  Kirchner,  Max  Pechstein,  and  Kees  van  Dongen  (a 
Dutch-born  artist  who  exhibited  with  Die  Brucke)  particularly  appealed  to  them. 
Up  until  1913,  when  many  Russian  painters  began  to  develop  styles  inspired  by 
Cubism  and  Futurism,  the  German  painters  were  an  important  source  of  inspira- 
tion for  this  wing  of  the  avant-garde.  Both  Exter  and  Goncharova  were  also  repre- 
sented in  the  December  1910  exhibition  of  the  Moscow  Jack  of  Diamonds,  an 
ad -hoc  exhibition  group  organized  late  that  year. 

Goncharova  would  not  travel  abroad  until  1914,  but  Exter  was  a  consummate 
traveler,  and  beginning  in  1908  she  lived  abroad  for  months  at  a  time.  Her  fre- 
quent travels  between  Russia  and  the  West  —  Switzerland,  France,  Italy  —  provided 
subjects  for  the  Post-Impressionist  studies  of  the  Swiss  countryside  and  the  Paris 
streets  that  she  brought  to  exhibitions  in  Kiev  and  St.  Petersburg.  It  was  Exter  who 
was  often  responsible  for  the  Russian  avant-garde's  almost  instantaneous  infor- 
mation about  the  contents  of  the  most  recent  Paris  shows,  or  about  the  latest  dis- 
cussions on  Cubism.  In  Paris  she  worked  at  the  studio  of  Carlo  Delvall,  at  the 
Academie  de  la  Grande  Chaumiere,  and  maintained  her  own  studio  as  well.  She 
came  to  know  everyone  —  Guillaume  Apollinaire,  Georges  Braque,  Fernand  Leger, 
Pablo  Picasso,  Ardengo  Soffici  —  and  was  readily  accepted  in  Western  exhibitions. 
During  her  time  in  Paris,  Exter  also  met  Sonia  Delaunay,  who  moved  in  the  same 
circles.  Delaunay  too  had  been  born  in  Ukraine,  but  as  a  child  she  had  been 
adopted  by  a  wealthy  aunt  and  uncle  and  was  then  brought  up  in  St.  Petersburg. 
After  her  marriage  to  Robert  Delaunay,  she  maintained  a  household  in  Paris  that 
was  particularly  welcoming  to  Russian  and  Ukrainian  artists,  who  visited  the 
Delaunays  and  sometimes  stayed  with  them  for  lengthy  periods. 

After  the  first  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhibition  closed,  in  January  of  1911,  several 
of  its  organizers  filed  the  documents  necessary  to  incorporate  the  "Jack  of 
Diamonds"  as  an  official  artists'  organization."  Goncharova  and  Larionovwith- 


42 


CHarLOire  DOUGLas 


drew,  however,  sensing  their  lack  of  control  of  the  group,  and  instead  began  plans 
for  a  new  organization  that  would  emphasize  their  particular  interests,  and  in 
which  they  would  clearly  be  the  leaders.  David  Burliuk  and  Lentulov  took  over  as 
the  organizers  of  the  Jack.  Neither  Goncharova,  Exter,  nor  for  that  matter  any  other 
woman  was  among  the  signatories  of  the  Jack's  registration  papers. 

Exter  sent  seven  works  to  the  second  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhibition,  which 
opened  late  in  January  1912.  The  show  also  included  the  German  artist  Gabriele 
Miinter  and  other  contributors  to  the  contemporaneous  second  exhibition  of  the 
Blaue  Reiter  group  in  Munich.  In  connection  with  the  Moscow  exhibition,  Burliuk 
arranged  evenings  of  lectures  and  debates,8  and  toward  the  end  of  the  first  of  these, 
as  audience  members  were  participating  in  a  discussion,  Goncharova  made  a  dra- 
matic entrance  and  objected  loudly  to  the  artist  Nikolai  Kulbin's  characterization 
of  her  as  a  member  of  the  Jack  of  Diamonds.  In  fact,  she  declared,  she  belonged  to 
the  "Donkey's  Tail"!  The  audience  burst  into  laughter.  "There  is  no  reason  to  laugh 
at  the  name.  First  see  the  exhibition  when  it  opens  —  then  laugh.  To  laugh  now  is 
ignorant." 9  Goncharova  then  gave  a  long  disquisition  on  the  origins  of  Cubism  and 
its  relation  to  primitivism,  and  claimed  to  have  been  the  first  Russian  Cubist.  She 
also  criticized  the  Jack  of  Diamonds  for  artistic  conservatism,  excessive  theorizing, 
and  weakness  of  subject  matter.  A  few  days  later  she  repeated  her  accusations  in 
long  letters  sent  to  several  newspapers. 

Goncharova's  performance  was  smart  publicity:  a  month  later,  when  The 
Donkey's  Tail  group  exhibited  for  the  first  time,  at  the  Moscow  Institute  of 
Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture,  there  was  great  anticipation.  The  exhibi- 
tion, a  combined  show  with  fifteen  members  of  the  Union  of  Youth,  included  some 
half  a  dozen  women,  most  notably  Rozanova.  Goncharova  was  the  only  woman  in 
The  Donkey's  Tail  section  of  the  show,  but  this  was  compensated  for  by  the  size  of 
her  contribution  — she  exhibited  fifty- four  works. 

The  alliance  of  The  Donkey's  Tail  and  the  Union  of  Youth  brought  Goncharova 
and  Rozanova  into  many  of  the  same  exhibitions.  Rozanova  had  sent  eight  works 
to  the  Union  of  Youth  section  of  The  Donkey's  Tail  exhibition  that  March,  and 
Goncharova  participated  in  The  Donkey's  Tail  section  of  the  Union  of  Youth's 
December  show  in  St.  Petersburg.  Both  artists  contributed  strong  paintings,  yet 
radically  different  ones:  Goncharova  was  then  pursuing  an  interest  in  peasant 
themes  and  naive  art,  while  Rozanova's  style  was  quick  and  expressive,  and  her 
subjects  were  urban. 

Goncharova  and  Larionov  introduced  Rayism  (sometimes  known  as 
Rayonism),  their  new,  near-abstract  style  of  painting,  at  The  Target  exhibition  in 
March  1913.  Anecdotal  history  says  that  the  Rayist  Manifesto,  though  written  by 
Larionov,  had  been  instituted  by  Goncharova.10  At  the  same  time,  Goncharova  was 
preparing  a  solo  exhibition,  a  survey  of  her  works  from  the  preceding  ten  years. 

43 


figure 4.  mananne  wereFKin 

[MariannaVerevkina] 

Self  -  Portrait  1 ,  1910 

Tempera  on  cardboard.  51  x34  cm 

Stadtische  Galerie  im  Lenbachhaus,  Munich 


44 


CHarLOTTe  DoucLas 


Opening  in  fall  1913.  the  show  presented  a  staggering  760  artworks  in  a  variety  of 
media  and  styles  —  oils,  pastels,  tempera,  primitive.  Rayist,  Cubo- Futurist, 
Egyptian."  The  following  spring,  250  of  the  works  went  to  St.  Petersburg  for 
another  solo  show.  The  exhibitions  were  a  highlight  of  the  season,  and  impressive 
enough  to  reverse  critical  opinion  of  the  avant-garde  in  general  and  Goncharova  in 
particular.  Goncharova,  Diaghilev  wrote,  "has  all  St.  Petersburg  and  all  Moscow  at 
her  feet."12 

The  years  1913  to  1914  were  also  successful  in  terms  of  exhibitions  abroad  for 
Goncharova,  and  for  Exter  as  well.  Both  had  good  contacts  in  Western  Europe.  Exter 
through  the  French,  the  Italians,  and  many  Russians  living  in  Paris.  Goncharova 
through  Vasily  Kandinsky.  Diaghilev.  and,  in  London,  the  artist  Boris  Anrep.  For 
these  two  years  Exter  led  an  active  life  divided  between  Russia  and  Western  Europe, 
contributing  to  at  least  sixteen  exhibitions  in  Kiev.  Moscow.  Paris.  Brussels,  and 
Rome.  In  March  1912.  she  was  exhibiting  at  the  Salon  des  Independants  in  Paris, 
and  in  October  half  a  dozen  of  her  works  could  be  seen  in  the  same  city  at  the  Section 
d  'Or  exhibition  at  the  Galerie  de  la  Boetie.  While  Exter' s  work  was  on  view  at  the 
Salon  des  Independants.  Goncharova  was  exhibiting  at  the  Hans  Goltz  gallery  in 
Munich,  the  second  Blaue  Reiter  exhibition:  that  same  year,  she  also  showed  in 
Berlin  (at  Der  Sturm)  and  in  London,  in  the  Second  Post-Impressionist  Exhibition. 
which  opened  in  October  at  the  Grafton  Galleries.'3  In  April  1913.  works  by 
Goncharova  and  Marianne  Werefkin  (Marianna  Verevkina)  were  shown  at  the  Post- 
Impressionism  exhibition  in  Budapest,  and  both  artists,  as  well  as  Delaunay  and 
Miinter.  took  part  in  the  first  Herbstsalon,  which  opened  in  Berlin  in  September. 
Exter  and  Delaunay  appeared  together  at  the  March  1914  Salon  des  Independants 
show:  a  month  later  Exter  and  Rozanova,  along  with  Kulbin  and  Ar chip enko.  sent 
work  to  Rome  for  an  exhibition  at  the  Galleria  Futurista. 

Such  frequent  exposure  gave  Goncharova  and  Exter  currency  as  members  of  the 
Western  art  world  as  well  as  the  Russian  one.  Most  certainly,  their  reception  abroad 
influenced  their  later  decisions  to  emigrate.  The  younger  women  artists  were  less 
well-known  in  the  West;  in  fact,  with  the  exception  of  Rozanova's  single  entry  in  the 
Rome  exhibition.  World  War  I  and  subsequent  political  upheavals  prevented  them 
from  showing  their  work  in  Western  Europe  for  the  next  eight  years. 

Goncharova  and  Exter  began  their  careers  unknown  to  one  another:  Popova  and 
Udaltsova  were  close  friends  from  their  student  days.  Together  with  several  other 
young  women  artists  —Vera  Mukhina,  Vera  Pestel.  Liudmila  Prudkovskaia 
(Udaltsova's  sister),  and  Sofiia  Karetnikova  (born  Til)  —  they  now  formed  an 
alliance  of  female  artists,  which  had  its  beginnings  in  Moscow's  studio  schools. 

Private  studios  were  crucial  to  the  history' of  Russian  art.  For  a  major  part  of  the 
future  avant-garde,  they  were  places  of  incubation,  places  where  aspiring  artists  in 


45 


six  <anr>  a  tew  mum  nissian  wrimcii 


their  late  teens  and  early  twenties  —  middle  -  class  women  in  particular  —  not  only 
got  to  know  one  another  but  found  common  purpose,  supported  and  inspired  one 
another,  and  developed  into  mature  artists.  Between  1905  and  1908,  Udaltsova 
(her  last  name  was  then  still  Prudkovskaia) ,  her  sister  Liudmila,  Popova,  Pestel, 
and  Mukhina  attended  the  Moscow  school  run  by  the  talented  artist  Konstantin 
Yuon  and  his  colleague  Ivan  Dudin.'*  (Udaltsova  and  Pestel  arrived  first,  in  1905 
and  1906  respectively,  and  were  followed  in  1908  by  Liudmila  Prudkovskaia, 
Popova,  and  Mukhina.) '5  At  the  school  Popova  became  a  close  friend  of 
Prudkovskaia,  and  the  two  sometimes  spent  summers  together.  When  the  urbane 
Hungarian  artist  Karoly  Kiss  arrived  in  Moscow  (from  Munich,  in  1909)  and 
opened  a  studio  school,  Udaltsova,  Pestel,  and  Karetnikova  immediately  trans- 
ferred to  his  tutelage.'6 

The  women  were  an  intense  and  energetic  group.  Yuon  was  a  great  admirer 
of  the  Post-Impressionists,  and  his  students  were  au  courant.  They  attended 
Moscow  and  St.  Petersburg  exhibitions,  read  the  latest  journals,  and  studied  Post- 
Impressionism  as  it  became  possible  to  see  it  in  Russian  exhibitions  and  private 
collections.  They  were  well  acquainted  with  Sergei  Shchukin's  famous  collection;'? 
Udaltsova  was  particularly  attracted  to  Gauguin.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
women  developed  together  during  this  period,  provoking  and  influencing  one 
another.  Mukhina,  for  example,  credits  Popova  with  deepening  her  basic  aesthetic 
understanding: 

It  was  Popova,  who  first  began  to  reveal  to  me  the  essence  of  art.  Until 
then  I  conveyed  only  what  I  saw.  But  if  an  artist  conveys  only  what  s/he 
sees,  s/he  is  a  naturalist.  One  has  to  convey  what  one  feels  and  knows. 
She  made  me  understand  that.  She  taught  me  to  look  at  color,  at  the  rela- 
tionship of  colors  in  the  Russian  icon,  for  example.  Everything  new 
touched  her.  She  loved  to  talk  about  a  work  of  art.  I  began  to  see.  '8 

Even  early  in  their  lives  and  careers  these  artists  were  far  from  untraveled 
provincial  young  women;  while  still  teenagers  they  had  been  exposed  to  the  sights 
and  major  museums  of  Western  Europe.  In  1904,  when  she  was  just  fifteen, 
Mukhina  had  traveled  throughout  Germany;  Pestel  traveled  to  Italy  and  Germany 
in  1907;  Udaltsova  in  1908  went  to  Berlin  and  Dresden;  Popova  had  gone  with 
her  family  to  Italy  in  1910.  So  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  Yuon's  former  students 
assembling  on  their  own  in  1913  for  the  winter  season  in  Paris.  Popova,  Pestel, 
Udaltsova,  and  Karetnikova  left  Moscow  for  Paris  late  in  191?.  (Liudmila 
Prudkovskaia  missed  the  trip  because  she  was  ill.)  The  women  stayed  at  a  pension 
run  by  one  Madame  Jeanne,  where  Exterwas  already  living.'1' Their  apparent  free- 
dom, which  may  seem  to  us  somewhat  surprising,  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that 

46 


figure  5-  Iza  Burmeister  with  Vera  Mukhina.  Paris.  1912—13. 

three  of  the  four  —  Udaltsova,  Pestel,  and  Karetnikova  — were  by  that  time  already 
married.20  They  were  young  matrons  of  means,  and  marriage  afforded  them  a  cer- 
tain independence:  not  only  did  their  reputations  no  longer  require  very  close 
supervision,  but  it  was  assumed  that  a  married  woman  had  the  social  protection  of 
her  husband.  Perhaps  equally  important,  it  was  common  for  women  of  propertied 
families  to  receive  their  inheritance  and  investment  income  upon  their  marriage. 
For  the  sake  of  propriety,  as  well  as  to  help  the  women  with  domestic  chores,  the 
unmarried  Popova  brought  along  on  the  trip  her  former  governess.  Adelaida  Dege. 

Popova.  Karetnikova.  and  Udaltsova  enrolled  at  La  Palette,  where  Henri 
Le  Fauconnier,  Jean  Metzinger.  and  Andre  Dunoyer  de  Segonzac  gave  lectures  and 
weekly  criticism.  There  the  artists  acquired  the  basis  of  the  Cubist  construction 
that  would  mark  their  mature  work.  Strangely  enough,  however,  they  had  not  made 
the  trip  with  this  in  mind.  Udaltsova  would  remember,  "Our  intention  had  been  to 
work  with  Matisse,  but  his  school  was  already  closed,  so  we  went  over  to  Maurice 
Denis's  studio.  But  there  we  ran  into  an  Indian  with  feathers  sitting  against  a  red 
background  and  we  fled.  Someone  then  told  us  about  La  Palette,  the  studio  of 
Le  Fauconnier.  We  went  there  and  immediately  decided  that  it  was  what  we 
wanted." 2I  They  studied  the  work  of  Picasso.  Renaissance  artists  at  the  Louvre,  and 
applied  art  at  the  Musee  Cluny;  and  they  made  the  obligatory  visit  to  Gertrude  Stein. 

Mukhina  also  came  to  Paris  at  this  time,  and  studied  sculpture  with  Emile- 
Antoine  Bourdelle  at  the  Academie  de  la  Grande  Chaumiere.22  Under  Popova's 
influence  she  took  time  from  her  sculpting  at  Bourdelle's  to  learn  Cubist  drawing 
at  La  Palette:  "Popova  talked  a  lot  about  the  Cubists,  praised  them,  and  grew  quite 
excited.  Behind  it  you  could  feel  something  great.  I  was  bothered  by  the  question, 
whence  and  why?  Why  do  people  think  in  a  certain  way?"  -3  In  the  spring  of  1913. 
Popova  and  Udaltsova  returned  to  Moscow:  but  first  Popova  and  Mukhina  made  a 
brief  trip  to  Palus,  in  Brittany,  to  take  advantage  of  Madame  Jeanne's  summer 
accommodations.  They  were  accompanied  by  Boris  Ternovets  —  another  resident 
of  Madame  Jeanne's,  and  Mukhina's  fellow  student  at  Bourdelle's. 2+ 

Udaltsova  would  not  return  to  Paris.  Her  mother  died  in  September  1913.  and 
she  was  left  with  the  care  of  her  younger  sisters,  including  Liudmila,  who  was  by 


4: 


figure  6.  naTaLia  GoncHarova 

Curtain  design  for  LeCoqd  'Or,  1914 
Watereolor  on  paper,  53.3x73.7  cm 


that  time  seriously  ill.  Popova,  however,  was  back  in  Paris  by  mid-April  the  next 
year,  to  join  Mukhina  and  sculptor  Iza  Burmeister  on  a  tour  of  France  and  Italy. 25 
The  three  women  traveled  to  Nice.  Menton,  Genoa,  Naples,  Paestum,  Florence, 
and  Venice,  and  spent  two  weeks  in  Rome,  everywhere  sketching,  painting,  and 
exploring  Gothic  and  Renaissance  architecture. 

While  they  were  away,  Goncharova  arrived  in  Paris  to  attend  the  gala  opening 
of  LeCoqcTOr  at  the  Opera.  It  was  her  first  time  in  the  city,  and  the  spectacular  sets 
and  costumes  she  had  created  for  this  ballet -opera  were  a  dazzling  success.  They 
were  her  first  theater  designs;  the  commission  had  been  a  direct  result  of  her 
ambitious  1913  retrospective.  Within  a  month  after  the  opening  oiLeCoq  d  Or,  an 
exhibition  of  more  than  fifty  of  Goncharova's  paintings,  along  with  a  smaller  num- 
ber of  works  by  Larionov,  opened  at  the  Galerie  PaulGuillaume.-6Apollinaire,  in 
his  catalogue  essay,  called  her  art  "a  revelation  of  the  marvelous  decorative  free- 
dom that  has  never  ceased  to  guide  Oriental  painters  amid  their  sumptuous  trea- 
sure of  forms  and  colors.  "2"  Apparently  Goncharova  chose  not  to  go  to  London  with 
the  company  to  attend  the  English  premiere  at  the  Theatre  Royal  in  Drury  Lane.28 
At  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  she  and  Larionov  were  taking  a  holiday,  and  her  boldly 
orchestrated  move  into  the  Western  art  world  was  cut  short  by  their  hasty  depar- 
ture for  home. 

The  wartime  isolation  of  Russian  artists  had  an  enormous  effect  on  avant- 
garde  art  there;  now  denied  any  possibility  of  travel  and  any  firsthand  knowledge  of 
Western  art  activities,  their  aesthetic  lives  seemed  to  concentrate  and  intensify. 
During  the  disastrous  military  campaigns  of  1915  and  1916,  women  made  signifi- 
cant innovations  in  artistic  style  and  character.  With  the  exception  of  Goncharova, 
who  suddenly  left  for  Switzerland  in  response  to  a  summons  from  Diaghilev,  and 
Stepanova,  who  had  not  yet  penetrated  avant-garde  artistic  life  in  Moscow,  the 
women  showed  together  for  the  first  time  in  the  Tramway  F  exhibition,  which 
opened  in  Petrograd  early  March  1915.  Exter,  Popova,  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova 
exhibited  their  very  personal  varieties  of  Cubo- Futurist  work.  The  following 


48 


CHarLOTTe  DOUGLas 


figure  i-  Olga  Rozanova,  Ksenia 
Boguslavskaia,  and  KazimirMalevich 
seated  in  front  of  Malevich's 
Suprematist  paintings  at  the  o.w 
exhibition,  Petrograd,  1915. 


December,  Pestel,  Popova,  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova  were  four  of  the  six  women  in 
the  historic  o.w  exhibition  in  Petrograd,  and  in  February,  Exter,  Pestel,  Popova, 
and  Udaltsova  were  shown  in  the  storefront  space  of  The  Store  in  Moscow.  Surely  a 
habitual  gallery-goer,  by  this  time,  might  mistakenly  have  consolidated  them  into 
a  female  "group."  a9 

World  War  I  was  an  impetus  to  work  in  applied  art.  Rural  villages  were  hit 
extremely  hard  by  the  war,  and  women  attempted  to  lessen  the  burden  through  the 
production  and  sale  of  handwork.  At  the  same  time,  the  design  of  fabric  by  profes- 
sional artists  also  increased.  In  November  of  1915,  when  the  Exhibition  of 
Contemporary  Decorative  Art  opened  at  the  Lemercier  Gallery  in  Moscow,  it  showed 
forty  items  designed  by  Exter;  embroidery  by  Ksenia  Boguslavskaia;  embroidered 
pillows  and  scarves  by  Boguslavskaia's  husband,  Ivan  Puni;  four  handbags  and 
eleven  designs  for  embroidery  and  other  items  by  Georgii  Yakulov  (who  may  have 
been  inspired  to  take  up  this  work  by  his  prolonged  visit  with  the  Delaunays  in 
Paris  two  years  previously,  just  when  Sonia  was  working  on  her  Simultanist  cloth- 
ing); and  handwork  by  Natalia  Mikhailovna  Davydova  and  Evgenia  Pribylskaia. 
Malevich  contributed  designs  for  two  scarves  and  a  pillow.  Most  of  the  needlework 
was  done  by  the  women  from  Skoptsy  and  Verbovka. 

At  the  Exhibition  of  Industrial  Art  in  Moscow  in  late  1915— early  1916,  avant- 
garde  designs  appeared  together  with  the  Symbolist  and  Style  Moderne  work  of 
the  Abramtsevo  and  Talashkino  art  colonies.  These  included  Art  Nouveau  fabric 
designs  by  Lindeman  and  others;  Abramtsevo's  Art  Nouveau  and  neo-folk  dishes, 
vases,  and  ceramic  mythological  creatures;  and  dress  designs,  pillows,  lamp- 
shades, handbags,  and  decorative  applique  by  Pribylskaia,  Exter,  and 
Boguslavskaia.  The  catalogue  points  out  the  artists'  ambitious  plans  to  produce 
wallpaper,  printed  textiles,  and  book  endpapers. 

In  Russia,  1916  was  a  difficult  year,  and  the  means  for  producing  cloth  became 
increasingly  unavailable.  Handwork  was  still  possible,  however,  and  throughout 
1916  and  1917  the  avant-garde  continued  to  create  designs  for  needlecraft. 


49 


figure  8.  Act  I  of  Romeo  and  Juliet, 
Chamber  Theater,  Moscow,  1951,  with  sets 
and  costumes  designed  by  Alexandra  Exter. 


Hundreds  of  handwork  designs  appeared  in  1916,  produced  by  virtually  every 
member  of  the  avant-garde.  Several  major  exhibitions  included  this  work.  After 
the  0.10  show  closed  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  Davydova,  Pestel,  Popova, 
Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova  joined  Malevich  in  an  attempt  to  propagate  Suprematism 
through  a  journal  they  called  Supremus.  This  periodical  was  never  published, 
falling  victim  to  the  war  and  finally  to  the  February  Revolution,  but  a  section  on 
applied  Suprematism  was  planned  for  it,  and  here  the  women  intended  to  publish 
designs  featuring  embroidered  Suprematist  logos. 

In  winter  1917,  Davydova  organized  the  Second  Exhibition  of  Decorative  Arts  of 
the  Verbovka  group.  It  opened  at  the  Mikhailova  Art  Salon  in  central  Moscow  on 
December  6  in  the  midst  of  massive  strikes  and  demonstrations  and  stringent 
rationing  of  bread.  The  artists  from  the  earlier  Verbovka  show  were  now  joined  by 
the  new  Suprematists  Pestel,  Popova,  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova.  The  sewing  was 
done  by  the  village  women.  Of  the  four  hundred  items  shown,  many  of  the  fabric 
designs  were  based  on  the  visual  vocabulary  developed  in  the  Supremus  Society, 
being  translated  from  painting  or  collage.  This  exhibition  was  followed  by  the 
Contemporary  Art  show,  which  opened  before  the  end  of  the  year  with  an  entire 
section  of  embroidery,  and  by  the  Decorative -Industrial  Exhibition,  which  included 
porcelain  and  embroidered  items.  The  Verbovka  group  made  another  appearance 
in  Moscow  in  1919  at  a  joint  exhibition  of  the  Free  Art  Workshops  (Svomas)  and 
several  other  applied-art  organizations,  showing  avant-garde  fabric  decorations, 
pillows,  scarves,  and  handbags. 

During  World  War  I  the  Russian  theater  was  a  malleable  refuge  from  the  real 
world,  which,  as  the  German  offensive  intensified,  became  increasingly  depress- 
ing and  deadly.  In  the  progressive  theater,  two  great  directors,  Alexander  Tairov 
and  Vsevolod  Meierkhold,  supplied  competing  aesthetics  and  objectives,  and  in 
1915  and  1916  — the  darkest  years  of  the  war  — the  work  of  Exter,  Goncharova, 
Mukhina,  and  Popova  contributed  much  to  Tairov's  brilliant  new  Chamber  Theater 


5° 


figure  9.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 
Romeo  in  a  Mask,  costume  design  for 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  ca.  1920 
Gouache  on  paper,  38.5x81.5  cm 
Private  collection,  Moscow 


in  Moscow.  Though  relatively  small,  the  theater  offered  an  opportunity  to  create 
environments  out  of  costumes,  sets,  and  lighting;  and  at  a  time  when  war  and  revo- 
lution were  creating  great  privation,  it  gave  major  scope  to  the  artists'  vision. 

Theater  continued  to  be  a  major  site  of  artistic  innovation  into  the  1920s.  At  a 
time  when  the  avant-garde  no  longer  saw  painting  alone  as  a  viable  artistic  option, 
theater  afforded  a  way  to  communicate  directly  with  a  new  "democratic"  audience 
on  topics  of  immediate  social  relevance.  At  the  same  time,  it  offered  artists  a  wide 
scope  for  invention.  Between  1917  and  1934,  Exter,  Goncharova,  Popova,  Mukhina, 
and  Stepanova  produced  hundreds  of  designs  for  theatrical  costumes  and  sets.  Not 
all  the  projects  were  realized,  of  course,  and  when  a  production  was  proposed,  it 
was  not  always  clear  from  the  beginning  who  would  be  the  chosen  artist.  Both  Exter 
and  Popova  worked  extensively  on  Romeo  and  Juliet  for  the  Chamber  Theater;  and 
while  Stepanova  designed  The  Death  ofTarelkin  for  Meierkhold's  studio,  Exter 
designed  the  same  play  for  the  studio  of  the  Moscow  Art  Theater.  The  artists  worked 
in  close  partnership  with  singers,  actors,  dancers,  and  directors,  and  in  the  result- 
ing productions  the  visual  element  assumed  a  prominent,  often  primary  role. 

Exter  returned  to  Moscow  from  ayear-and-a-half-long  interlude  in  Kiev  dur- 
ing fall  1920,  and  to  the  shock  of  many  she  married  again.  Georgii  Nekrasov  was  a 
minor  actor  four  years  her  senior;  old  friends  considered  him  beneath  her  station 
in  life,  and  added  responsibility  for  her  in  a  difficult  time.  But  Nekrasov  proved  a 
faithful  mate,  supportive  of  her  art,  and  helpful  in  practical  ways.  For  the  Chamber 
Theater,  Exter  took  up  a  project  she  had  dropped  three  years  earlier:  decor  for 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  which  she  had  last  worked  on  in  the  less  complicated  days  of  the 
summer  of  1917.  Popova  too  began  to  develop  ideas  for  the  play,  both  women 


51 


six  (and  a  few  more)  russian  women 


responding  to  Tairov"s  interpretation  of  Shakespeare's  tragedy  in  purely  theatrical 
terms,  as  the  clash  of  ancient  elemental  forces,  rather  than  as  a  historically  based 
psychological  drama.  Indeed,  Tairovhad  cautioned  against  too  much  verisimili- 
tude .  The  characters  don't  have  to  be  young  or  old,  he  said;  "women  can  substitute 
for  men,  and  vice  versa." 3o  The  two  sets  of  designs,  though  very  different  from  one 
another,  suggest  that  the  two  women  were  well  aware  of  each  other's  sketches  and 
developed  ideas  back  and  forth  in  competition. 

It  was  Exter's  designs  that  were  produced.  On  May  17, 1921,  the  curtain  rose 
on  Romeo  and  Juliet  to  reveal  an  elaborate  Italianate  decor  (see  fig.  8);  while  making 
no  detailed  reference  to  any  specific  period  or  place,  the  artist  hoped  to  convey  a 
feeling  she  remembered  from  her  visits  to  Venice  and  Florence.  Popova's  water- 
colors  for  Romeo  and  Juliet  show  similar  scrolling,  but  the  space  is  more  clearly 
articulated;  where  Exter's  designs  are  colorful  and  exuberant,  Popova's  are  precise 
and  restrained.  Exter's  figures  are  the  result  of  her  work  on  rhythm  and  motion 
with  Bronislava  Nijinska  and  Tairov,  Popova's  are  reminiscent  of  her  Cubo- 
Futurist  painting  of  1915  and  1916  (see  fig.  9).  Exter's  set  became  an  active  player 
in  the  plot  of  the  play,  as  Popova's  schematic  and  revolving  construction  would  be 
the  next  year  for  Meierkhold's  production  of  Fernand  Crommelynck's  The 
Magnanimous  Cuckold  in  1933. 

Stepanova  too  would  work  in  the  theater.  The  youngest  of  the  six  women,  she 
was  also  unlike  most  of  them  in  that  she  came  from  a  working-class  background-, 
while  she  was  growing  up,  her  mother  had  worked  as  a  maid.  After  marrying 
Dmitrii  Fedorov,  a  young  architect,  Stepanova  had  spent  three  years  at  the  very 
reputable  Kazan  art  school.  Here  she  began  to  write  poetry,  work  as  an  artist,  and 
exhibit.  In  the  spring  of  1914  she  returned  to  Moscow,  without  finishing  her  art 
education,  and  began  to  support  herself  by  working  as  a  seamstress,  typist,  and 
bookkeeper  in  a  hardware  store.  At  the  same  time,  she  continued  to  study  art.  at 
the  Yuon/Dudin  school  and  at  the  school  of  Mikhail  Leblan.  In  1916,  having  left  her 
husband,  she  began  to  live  with  Alexander  Rodchenko,  a  similarly  impoverished 
young  artist  with  whom  she  had  fallen  in  love  at  the  Kazan  art  school.  They  would 
remain  a  couple  for  the  rest  of  their  lives. 

Even  after  moving  to  Moscow,  Stepanova  drew  and  wrote  in  an  Art  Nouveau 
style  influenced  by  English  artist  Aubrey  Beardsley.  She  was  introduced  to  avant- 
garde  art  only  in  1916,  but  she  progressed  quickly;  her  works  on  paper  from  1917 
and  1918  might  be  considered  a  last  bright  spark  of  Russian  Cubo- Futurism.  She 
also  began  to  write  "transrational"  or  "non- objective"  poetry,  and  to  produce  some 
of  the  most  delightful  and  successful,  and  at  the  same  time  radical  and  abstract, 
artist's  books.  Her  move  into  book  graphics  followed  the  path  of  Sonia  Delaunay 
and  Rozanova,  but  her  work  is  distinctive  in  its  own  right. 

The  October  Revolution  did  away  with  the  private  shops  and  offices  in  which 


5? 


CHarLorre  DouGLas 


Stepanova  had  made  her  living,  but  the  various  art  institutions  established  by  the 
Soviet  government  provided  her  with  a  new  means  of  livelihood.  Soon  after  the 
Revolution,  she  took  on  administrative  duties  as  a  deputy  director  of  the  Literature 
and  Art  Subsection  of  IZO  Narkompros.  At  the  same  time,  she  served  on  the 
Presidium  for  the  Visual  Arts  of  the  artists'  professional  union,  Rabis.  Between 
1930  and  1935  her  position  on  the  arts  faculty  at  the  Academy  for  Social  Education 
gave  her  an  opportunity  to  work  out  her  artistic  ideas  with  students.  When  Inkhuk 
was  formed,  in  1920,  she  was  one  of  its  founding  members,  and  served  as  academic 
secretary  during  its  organizational  phase. 

Popova,  Stepanova,  and  Udaltsova  took  leading  roles  in  the  Inkhuk  discussions 
of  the  social  significance,  purpose,  and  "laws"  of  art.  The  two-part^o^  =  25  exhibi- 
tion in  September  and  October  1931  demonstrated  their  conclusions.  The  exhibi- 
tion's title  was  indicative:  on  one  level  it  meant  that  five  artists  —  Exter,  Popova, 
Stepanova,  Alexander  Vesnin,  and  Rodchenko  —  contributed  five  works  for  each 
show,  but  the  mathematical  equation  also  gave  notice  of  practical  aims.  These 
shows  were  to  be  the  artists'  concluding  statements  in  painting  and  graphics;  they 
were  meant  to  be  mined  for  their  utilitarian  ideas. 

Udaltsova  did  not  take  part;  she  had  given  birth  to  a  son  just  weeks  earlier.3' 
There  was  also  another  reason,  however:  she  strongly  disagreed  with  the 
Constructivists'  resolution  to  abandon  easel  painting  in  favor  of  more  practical  art 
forms.  In  fact,  Udaltsova  and  artist  Andrei  Drevin  left  Inkhuk  and  spent  the  next 
years  painting  in  a  productive  new  style,  in  search  of  a  way  out  of  the  formal  and 
theoretical  dead  end  that  seemed  to  them  inherent  in  Constructivism. 

After  the  defining 5"  a; 5  =  25  exhibitions,  Exter,  Popova,  and  Stepanova  began  to 
expand  Constructivist  principles  onto  the  stage.  This  move  coincided  with  the  cul- 
mination of  the  avant-garde's  withdrawal  from  psychologically  oriented  theater 
influenced  by  the  introduction,  by  Meierkhold  and  others,  of  techniques  borrowed 
from  the  circus,  vaudeville,  popular  reviews,  and  film.  Meierkhold  and  sympa- 
thetic critics  defended  the  new  theater  as  a  move  away  from  the  elitism  of  the  pre- 
Revolutionary  stage,  an  appeal  to  the  public  through  genuinely  democratic  forms. 

The  close  relationship  between  Popova  and  Stepanova  was  cemented  by  the 
work  both  did  for  Meierkhold's  theater.  Their  productions  played  in  close  proxim- 
ity. Popova's  set  for  The  Magnanimous  Cuckold,  with  its  slides  and  ladders,  revolv- 
ing doors  and  large  rotating  wheels,  made  its  debut  at  Meierkhold's  Free  Studio  at 
the  State  Higher  Theatrical  Workshops  on  April  25, 1922.  The  collapsing  furniture 
and  turning  human  "meat  grinder"  that  Stepanova  invented  for  The  Death  of 
Tarelkin  appeared  on  November  24,  at  the  GITIS  Theater;  and  from  November  28 
to  December  3, 1922,  the  two  productions  played  alternate  evenings  in  a  double 
bill.  Both  Popova  and  Stepanova  were  listed  as  "constructors"  of  their  respective 
creations. 


53 


figure io. vera  icnaTievna  muKHina 

The  Worker  and  the  Collective  Farm  Woman,  1987 
Stainless  steel,  24  meters  high 

Goncharova  had  left  Russia  during  the  war,  well  before  the  Revolution,  and  did 
not  return  when  she  might  have.  Exter  remained  in  Russia  while  her  mother  was 
still  alive,  and  while  she  could  eke  out  a  living;  she  prudently  left  for  Paris  in  1924, 
when  the  nature  of  the  Soviet  regime,  her  art,  and  her  origins  put  her  in  jeopardy. 
In  Western  Europe  the  careers  of  both  women  ultimately  foundered.  Karetnikova, 
Pestel,  Popova,  Rozanova,  Stepanova,  Udaltsova  at  first  threw  themselves  into 
artistic  work  under  the  stringent  conditions  of  the  Revolution  and  the  Russian 
Civil  War,  but  with  varying  results.  Rozanova  and  Popova  died  in  1918  and  1934 
respectively,  of  diseases  brought  on  by  war,  revolution,  and  the  collapse  of  the 
country's  infrastructure.  Udaltsova  survived,  but  her  father  did  not;  he  was  shot  by 
revolutionary  functionaries  in  September  1918.  Her  sister,  Liudmila,  died  three 
weeks  later,  the  result  of  her  long  illness;  and  Udaltsova's  husband,  Drevin  was 
executed  in  1938  as  an  "enemy  of  the  people." 

As  the  1930s  proceeded,  the  post- Revolutionary  avant-garde  gradually  lost  its 
ascendancy,  first  falling  victim  to  the  political  fundamentalism  of  younger  artists 
and  their  own  ready  abandonment  of  fine  art.  By  the  late  1930s  and  early  1930s, 
economic  and  political  pressures  and  physical  threat  did  away  with  almost  all  inno- 
vation in  the  arts.  In  the  end,  women  were  exposed  to  the  same  random  and  harsh 
fates  of  so  many  at  the  time.  In  the  late  1930s  and  early  '3os  Stepanova  did  pho- 
tomontage for  books  and  journals  extolling  the  state.  During  the  Stalinist  terror 
she  turned  to  painting  landscapes  and  still  lifes.  She  and  Udaltsova  lived  quietly  in 


54 


CHarLOTTe  DOUGLas 


Russia,  publicly  playing  down  their  involvement  with  the  avant-garde  and  keeping 
their  thoughts  to  themselves  and  their  intimates.  Of  the  other  women  mentioned 
in  this  essay.  Mukhina  was  recognized  by  the  regime  for  her  sculpture  The  Worker 
and  Collective  Farm  Woman,  which  stood  atop  the  U.S.S.R.  Pavilion  at  the  Paris 
World's  Fair  in  1987,  but  she  and  her  son  were  briefly  arrested,  and  her  husband. 
Alexei  Zamkov.  a  physician,  was  imprisoned  and  exiled.  Karetnikova  was  arrested 
in  the  1930s  and  sent  to  Siberia;  her  husband  and  son  were  also  arrested  and  died 
in  captivity.  When  she  heard  about  the  death  of  her  son.  Karetnikova  committed 
suicide. 

Is  Russian  art  history,  as  seen  from  the  point  of  view  suggested  by  the  lives  and 
practices  of  these  women  artists,  sharply  different  from  the  male  experience?  Not 
very.  They  participated  in  the  same  historic  exhibitions,  sought  the  same  kinds 
of  success.  Perhaps  greater  weight  should  be  given  to  their  work  in  stage  design: 
Exter.  Goncharova.  Popova.  and  Stepanova  are  all  responsible  for  notable  innova- 
tions in  the  theater.  And  textile  design  plays  a  greater  role  in  their  artistic  profiles 
than  in  the  male  paradigm.  Collectively,  they  had  more  experience  in  Western 
Europe  than  the  men  in  the  movement,  although  it  is  clear  that  their  greatest 
opportunities  came  at  home,  during  World  War  I  and  the  Russian  Civil  War.  While 
friendly  with  one  another  to  varying  degrees,  they  could  also  be  bitterly  competi- 
tive —  a  circumstance  in  which  they  are  also  no  different  from  their  male  counter- 
parts. In  fact,  if  we  now  see  these  women  as  belonging  to  a  different  category  from 
the  men,  it  is  because  we  are  accustomed  to  seeing  male  artists  as  the  norm,  and 
women  as  somehow  deviant  from  it.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  same  attitude 
initially  held  true  in  regard  to  the  women  themselves,  but  such  comments  became 
rarer  with  time,  as  society  was  inundated  by  war  and  revolution.  Perhaps,  as  they 
wished,  we  should  simply  consider  them  superb  artists. 

1.  The  letters  and  diaries  of  various  Russian  women  artists  have  now  been  published,  usually  bv 
their  families.  Most  of  the  published  versions  have  omissions  and  ellipses,  however,  and  are 
generally  not  forthright  about  the  basis  of  such  exclusions.  After  1991.  there  was  little  reason  to 
omit  the  artists'  expressions  of  their  political  sentiments,  but  Russians  are  still  apt  to  be  reticent 
about  publishing  anything  of  a  personal  or  sexual  nature,  or  political  views  that  might  be  embar- 
rassing to  families  or  living  persons. 

2.  After  the  Russian  Revolution.  Evgenia  Pribvlskaia  would  organize  the  crafts  section  of  the  1 925 
Exposition  Internationale  desArts  Decoratifs  et  Industriels  Modernes.  in  Paris. 

3.  On  embroidery  and  the  Russian  avant-garde,  see  Charlotte  Douglas.  "Suprematist  Embroidered 
Ornament. "  Art  Journal  (New  York)  34.  no.  1  (April  1995).  pp.  42-45. 

4.  Alisa  Koonen.  Stmnitsr zhizni  (Moscow:  Iskusstvo.  1975).  p.  225. 

5.  The  show  included  a  number  of  other  women,  among  them  Mariia  Chembers.  Elizaveta 
Kruglikova.  Anna  Ostrumova-Lebedeva.  and  Marianne  Werefkin.  Non- Russian  women  included 
Marie  Laurencin.  Gabriele  Miinter.  and  Maroussia  (Lentovska). 


55 


six  (anD  a  Few  more)  russian  women 


6.  Elena  Genrikhovna  Guro  (1877—1913)  was  a  writer,  poet,  and  painter;  she  died  at  an  early  age,  of 
leukemia.  Anna  Zelmanova  exhibited  extensively  in  Russia  before  the  Revolution,  then  later  lived 
in  the  United  States.  She  died  in  1948. 

7.  G.  G.  Pospelov,  "Stranitsa  istorii  'Moskovskoi  zhivopisi,'"  Iz istorii russkogo  iskusstva  vtoroi 
polovinyXIX-nachaloXXveka  (Moscow:  Iskusstvo,  1978),  p.  92. 

8.  David  Burliuk  spoke  on  "Cubism  and  Other  New  Directions  in  Painting,"  and  Nikolai  Kulbin  on 
"Free  Art  as  the  Basis  of  Life." 

9.  Benedikt  Livshits,  Polutoraglazyi strelets:  stikhotvoreniia. perevody,  vospominaniia  (Leningrad: 
Sovetskii  pisatel,  1989),  p.  363. 

10.  Mikhail  Larionov  himself  did  not  inspire  confidence  about  his  work.  Composer  Igor  Stravinsky, 
who  knew  the  couple  well,  said  of  Larionov,  "He  made  a  vocation  of  laziness,  like  Oblomov,  and 
we  always  believed  that  his  wife  did  his  work  for  him."  Igor  Stravinsky  and  Robert  Craft, 
Conversations  with  Igor  Stravinsky  (Berkeley  and  Los  Angeles:  University  of  California  Press, 
1980),  p.  99. 

11.  The  exhibition  was  held  in  the  Art  Salon  at  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka,  Moscow. 

12.  Sergei  Diaghilev,  quoted  in  Mary  Chamot,  "The  Early  Work  of  Go ncharova  and  Larionov," 
Burlington  Magazine  (London),  June  1955,  p.  172. 

i3.  Goncharova  sent  three  major  works  to  the  "Second  Post -Impressionist  Exhibition":  The 
Evangelists,  A  Street  in.  Moscow,  and  Tlie  Grape  Harvest. 

14.  Vera  Mukhina  also  worked  in  the  studio  run  by  the  sculptor  Nina  Sinitsyna.  KonstantinYuonwas 
a  member  of  the  Union  of  Russian  Artists  and  active  in  the  Society  of  Free  Aesthetics.  He  and 
Ivan  Dudin  opened  their  studio  for  classes  in  1900. 

15.  The  women  were  at  Yuon's  in  the  followingyears:  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  1905-08,  Vera  Pestel 
1906—07,  LiubovPopova  and  Liudmila  Prudkovskaia  1908—09,  Mukhina  1908-11. 

16.  Karoly  Kiss  was  born  in  Arad  (now  Romania)  on  October  24,  i883;  he  died  in  Nagybnya  (now  Baia 
Mare,  Romania)  on  May  3o,  1953.  He  studied  at  Nagybnya,  Munich,  and  Budapest,  and  his  name 
is  listed  among  students  at  the  Nagybnya  free  school  for  1902  and  1903.  In  1904  he  was  among 
Hollosy's  students  in  Munich.  During  World  War  I,  Kiss  was  interned  in  Moscow  for  four  years  as 
an  enemy  alien.  After  returning  home,  he  withdrew  to  Vilgos,  near  Arad,  and  in  1931  he  settled  at 
the  artist's  colony  in  Nagybnya.  See  Jeno  Muradin.  Nagybnya.- A festotelep miiveszei  (Miskolc, 
Hungary,  1994).  The  author  thanks  Katalin  Keseru  and  Oliver  Botar  for  pointing  out  this  infor- 
mation. 

17.  Sergei  Shchukin,  a  Moscow  industrialist,  was  collector  of  an  extraordinary  number  of  works  by 
Gauguin,  Matisse,  and  Picasso,  among  others,  before  World  War  I.  His  collection  now  forms  the 
core  of  the  Post- Impressionist  holdings  of  the  Hermitage  in  St.  Petersburg  and  the  Pushkin 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts  in  Moscow.  He  opened  his  mansion  to  local  artists  and  students  for  study 
on  Sundays. 

18.  Mukhina,  quoted  in  OlgaVoronova,  "Umolchaniia,  iskazheniia,  oshibki.  KbiografiiV.  I. 
Mukhinoi."  Iskusstvo  (Moscow),  no.  11  (1989),  p.  20. 

19.  Madame  Jeanne  catered  to  her  Russian  clientele  by  serving  Russian  food. 

20.  Udaltsova  had  been  married  in  October  1908,  to  Alexander  Udaltsov. 

21.  Udaltsova,  "Moi  vospominaniia.  Moiakhudozhestvennia  zhizn,"  inEkaterina  Drevina  andVasilii 
Rakitin,  Nadezhda  Udaltsova.-  Zhizn  ru.sskoi  kubistki.  Dnevniki.  stati.  vospominaniia  (Moscow:  RA, 
1994),  p.  10. 

22.  Other  young  women  from  Moscow  at  Emile-Antoine  Bourdelle's  school  included  Iza  Burmeister, 
Sofia  Rozental,  and  Nadezhda  Krandievskaia.  On  the  many  Russian  students  at  Bourdelle's  see 


56 


CHarLOTTe  DoucLas 


Alexandra  Shatskikh,  "Russkie ucheniki  Burdelia,"  in  Sovetskaia skulptura  (Moscow),  no.  10 
(1986):  311-34. 

23.  Mukhina,  quoted  inVoronova,  "Umolehaniia.  iskazheniia,  oshibki:  KbiografiiV.  I.  Mukhinoi," 
p.  19. 

24.  The  trip  was  made  in  May.  Boris  Ternovets  was  a  young  sculptor  from  Moscow;  after  the 
Revolution  he  became  the  director  of  the  Museum  of  the  New  Western  Art.  He  had  moved  to  Paris 
in  February,  from  Munich,  where  he  had  been  a  student  of  Simon  Hollosy.  See  L.  Aleshina  and 
NinaYavorkaia,  eds.,  B.  N.TernovetS:  Pisma.  Dnevniki.  Stan (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhmk,  1977), 
p.  58. 

25.  Iza  Burmeister,  also  from  Moscow,  was  a  sculptor  and  friend  of  Mukhina  at  Bourdelle's.  They 
remained  in  Paris  after  Udaltsova  and  Popova  returned  to  Moscow. 

26.  Le  Coq  d'OrpTemiered  on  May  24,  1914.  The  exhibition  was  open  from  June  17  —  80. 

27.  Guillaume  Apollinaire,  quoted  in  Leroy  C.  Bruenig,  ed.,ApollinaireonArt  /pos-rp/S (New  York: 
Viking,  1972),  p.  4i3. 

28.  The  premiere  was  on  15  June,  1914. 

29.  Other  women  in  The  Store  show  were  Sofia  Tolstaia  (later  Dymshits-Tolstaia)  and  Marie  Vassilieff 
(Vasileva). 

30.  Alexander Tairov,  quoted  in  Georgii  K.OYalenko.AlexandraBxteriMoscov/:  Galart,  1993),  from 
Pavel  Markov,  ed.,A.  Tairov,  Zapiskirezhissera:  Stati.  Besedr.  Bechi.  Pisma  (Moscow:  VTO.  1970), 
pp.  287-88. 

3i.  Udaltsova's  and  Alexander  Drevin's  son  Andrei  was  born  on  August  26, 1921. 


57 


figure  11.  Anonymous  18th-  century  artist,  Empress  Catherine  II  of  Russia- 
Oil  on  canvas,  85.8  x  68  cm 
Portraitgalerie.  Schloss  Ambras,  Innsbruck,  Austria 


BeTween  old  anD  new: 
russia's  moDern  women 


Laura  eriGeLSTein 


The  artists  featured  in  this  exhibition  came  of  age  in  turn- of- the- century  imperial 
Russia.  When,  in  1917,  the  autocracy  collapsed  under  the  strain  of  war  and  social 
unrest,  they  had  already  launched  important  artistic  careers.  How  surprising,  it 
would  seem,  for  an  old  regime  that  clung  to  the  values  and  public  institutions  of  a 
preindustrial  time,  inhibiting  both  the  free  expression  of  ideas  and  the  free  activ- 
ity of  its  subjects,  to  have  presided  over  the  emergence  of  a  vital  modernist  culture. 
Even  more  surprising,  perhaps,  that  women,  in  such  circumstances,  should  have 
played  so  prominent  a  role  in  the  production  of  artistic  modernity.  Yet  Russian 
women  in  some  ways  benefited  from  the  mixture  of  traditionalism  and  innovation 
that  characterized  the  old  order  in  its  encounter  with  the  modern  world. 

Peter  the  Great  (r.  1683—1735)  was  not  the  first  Russian  ruler  to  appropriate 
elements  of  European  culture  and  statecraft  to  enhance  the  power  and  welfare  of 
the  realm.  Yet  Russians  came  to  associate  his  dramatic  program  of  state -driven 
cultural  change  with  the  onset  of  the  modern  age.  When  Peter  "opened  the  window 
to  Europe,"  in  Alexander  Pushkin's  phrase,  the  emperor  inaugurated  a  new  era  for 
women  as  well.  Court  ladies,  he  declared,  were  to  begin  appearing  in  public  along- 
side their  men.1  Rejecting  tradition,  even  in  the  matter  of  succession.  Peter  had  his 
wife  Catherine  crowned  empress.  Whether  he  intended  her  to  rule  in  her  own  right 
was  unclear,  but  after  his  death  she  occupied  the  throne  for  two  years,  and  female 
monarchs  ruled  Russia  for  most  of  the  rest  of  the  eighteenth  century,  culminating 
in  the  reign  of  Catherine  the  Great  (r.  1763—1796),  who  rose  to  power  by  conniving 


59 


russia'S  muiiern  women 


in  the  murder  of  her  husband,  Peter  III  (r.  1763).  Among  her  other  notable  actions, 
she  appointed  a  woman  as  president  of  the  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences  and  was 
herself  the  first  patron  of  the  St.  Petersburg  Academy  of  Arts  after  its  official 
incorporation  in  1764. 

Paul  I  (r.  1796—1801),  Catherine's  resentful  son,  changed  the  law  of  succession 
to  exclude  women.  The  monarchs  who  followed  him  invented  a  new  traditionalism, 
asserting  their  masculinity  on  the  parade  ground  and  advertising  their  devotion  to 
family  life.-  High-born  ladies  continued,  however,  to  play  a  role  in  court  politics. 
The  Tver  salon  of  Ekaterina  Pavlovna  (1788—1818),  the  sister  of  Alexander  I 
(r.  1801—1835),  attracted  the  leading  conservatives  of  the  period.  In  the  opposite 
political  direction,  the  forward-looking  bureaucrats  who  shaped  the  Emancipation 
and  Great  Reforms  of  the  1860s  discussed  their  plans  in  the  drawing  room  of 
Grand  Duchess  Elena  Pavlovna  (1807—1873),  a  woman  of  culture,  intellect,  and 
wide- ranging  interests,  who  used  her  fortune  to  sponsor  artists,  scholars,  and 
intellectuals,  as  well  as  contributing  to  policy  debates.3  Such  figures  were  an 
exceptional  handful  even  within  the  country's  tiny  educated  elite,  which  comprised 
less  than  3  percent  of  a  population  of  135  million  at  century's  end.  Ordinary  women 
were  restricted  in  their  public  roles  by  convention,  limited  education,  and  exclu- 
sion from  civil  service. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century,  the  vast  majority  of  Russians  still 
lived  in  the  countryside,  where  patriarchy  was  the  backbone  of  communal  life. 
Households  and  villages  were  run  by  senior  males.  Compared  to  peasant  wives 
and  daughters,  husbands  and  sons  had  greater  mobility  and  wider  access  to  urban 
life,  schools,  and  other  avenues  of  cultural  improvement.  Among  the  peasantry, 
29  percent  of  men  could  read,  against  a  mere  10  percent  of  women.  Ry  1913,  only 
31  percent  of  the  somewhat  better- off  female  factory  workers  were  literate. 4  It  is 
not  surprising,  then,  that  critics  of  the  regime  cited  the  peasant  woman's  lot  as  the 
emblem  of  all  that  was  unjust  and  outmoded  about  the  traditional  social  order. 

The  theme  of  women's  oppression  had  a  pedigree  dating  back  to  the  genera- 
tion of  the  184,0s,  when  philosopher  Alexander  Herzen  (1813—1870)  wrote  elo- 
quently of  the  damage  inflicted  on  the  privileged  as  well  as  the  dispossessed  by  the 
operation  of  absolute  power.  He,  and  later  Nikolai  Chernyshevsky  (1828—1889), 
used  the  theme  of  women's  subordination  to  symbolize  the  problem  of  hierarchy 
and  domination  in  the  polity  at  large.  Rejecting  patriarchal  mores  and  bourgeois 
moralism  alike,  they  advocated  equality  of  the  sexes  and  freedom  of  sexual  expres- 
sion as  intrinsic  to  the  project  of  social  transformation.  In  the  1860s,  the  genera- 
tion that  came  of  age  after  the  Great  Reforms  proudly  rejected  established  values  in 
the  name  of  science  and  social  change.  Young  women  cropped  their  hair,  wore  dark 
clothing,  and  spent  their  time  reading  —  preferably  philosophical  tomes.  Some 
followed  the  lead  of  Vera  Pavlovna,  the  heroine  of  Chernyshevsky's  novel  What  Is  to 

60 


I  aur.i  i-ni.cl  s  icm 


Be  Done?  (i863),  entering  marriages  of  intellectual  convenience  or  menages  a  trois 
and  running  workshops  for  lower-class  women.  Advocacy  of  women's  rights 
became  a  hallmark  of  the  emergent  intelligentsia. 5 

These  attitudes  evolved  into  the  fervent  Populism  of  the  1870s,  as  educated 
young  people,  including  numerous  women,  dispersed  to  the  villages,  preaching 
popular  self-liberation.  When  the  resolutely  patriarchal  common  folk  spurned  all 
talk  of  revolution,  the  radicals  resorted  to  violent  means.  Vera  Zasulich 
(1849—1919)  achieved  celebrity  by  shooting  a  public  official  for  having  mistreated 
a  political  prisoner.  Acquitted  by  a  jury  in  1878,  Zasulich  was  applauded  as  a  symbol 
of  resistance  to  oppression.  Among  those  involved  in  the  assassination  of 
Alexander  II  (r.  1855—1881),  Sofia  Perovskaia  (1853—1881),  a  general's  daughter, 
became  the  first  woman  executed  for  a  political  crime.6 

As  the  Populists  tried  unsuccessfully  to  mobilize  a  popular  following,  the  vil- 
lage life  they  wanted  to  preserve  was  increasingly  threatened  by  industrial  devel- 
opment, the  growth  of  cities,  and  cultural  change.  Market  forces  created  new 
opportunities  for  peasant  women  but  also  eroded  their  moral  stature.  While  some 
found  work  in  textile  mills  or  as  domestic  servants,  others  trafficked  in  abandoned 
babies  or  in  their  own  bodies,  to  the  distress  of  Populists  and  moral  reformers 
alike.'  By  the  1890s  an  exploited  working  class  had  joined  the  impoverished  peas- 
antry at  the  bottom  of  the  social  pyramid.  In  this  context,  nostalgic  agrarianism 
seemed  increasingly  out-of-date.  Embracing  capitalism  as  a  necessary  stage  on  the 
way  to  socialist  revolution,  Marxists  displaced  Populists  in  the  ideological  ranks. 
The  campaign  for  class  justice  now  left  little  room  for  the  cause  of  sexual  equality. 

The  woman's  issue  had  never  been  the  monopoly  of  radicals  and  young  people, 
however.  Calls  for  women's  education,  professional  opportunity,  and  civil  rights 
came  from  a  range  of  figures  in  state  service,  high  society,  and  the  cultural  elite. 
In  the  wake  of  the  Crimean  War  (1854—1856),  the  educator  and  physician  Nikolai 
Pirogov  (1810—1881)  endorsed  the  training  of  women  as  nurses.  In  the  1870s,  the 
Ministry  of  War,  under  Dmitrii  Miliutin  (1816-1913).  admitted  women  to  its  med- 
ical academy.  Post- Reform  doctors  and  lawyers  went  to  the  countryside  not  to  stir 
revolt  but  to  serve  in  the  newly  instituted  local  courts  or  work  for  the  newly  created 
organs  of  rural  self-  administration  (the  zemstvos) .  They  bemoaned  the  abuse  of 
peasant  wives  at  their  husbands'  hands  and  decried  the  laws  that  made  divorce  and 
even  legal  separation  difficult  to  obtain.  Eager  to  transform  the  autocracy  into  a 
modern  regime  through  incremental  change,  jurists  pressed  for  the  liberalization 
of  divorce  and  women's  inheritance  rights.8 

Yet  for  all  the  public's  litany  of  complaints,  and  despite  the  turbulent  forces 
unleashed  by  the  regime's  own  program  of  economic  advancement,  the  tsars 
remained  staunchly  conservative.  Both  Alexander  III  (r.  1881-1894)  and  Nicholas 
II  (r.  1894-1917)  turned  to  the  pre-Petrine  age  for  myths  of  old-style  autocratic 

61 


figure  12.  Zinaida  Ivanova.  Vera  Mukhina.  and 
Alexandra  Exterat  Fontenay-aux-Roses.  France,  1937. 


rule,  while  the  use  of  domestic  life  as  an  emblem  of  public  virtue  reached  its 
incongruous  apogee  in  the  Victorian  idyll  of  Nicholas  and  Alexandra  (1873—1918) , 
even  as  the  autocracy  entered  its  final  decline.?  Yet  while  the  monarchs  clung  to 
symbols  of  tradition  and  resisted  political  change,  preferring,  for  example,  to 
sponsor  the  canonization  of  saints  than  grant  religious  toleration,  the  cultural 
atmosphere  was  alive  with  innovation  —  in  music,  theater,  poetry,  prose,  the 
applied  and  fine  arts,  and  the  new  technology  of  cinema. 

The  six  artists  in  this  exhibition  are  products  of  this  contradictory  time. 
They  represent  a  single  generation  and  belong  to  roughly  the  same  social  milieu. 
Five  (save  Varvara  Stepanova)  were  born  in  the  1880s,  none  into  impoverished 
families.  The  girls  all  started  life  in  the  provinces  and,  having  learned  their  craft 
in  the  art  schools  of  Moscow,  St.  Petersburg.  Kiev,  and  Kazan,  pursued  their 
careers  in  Moscow.  Alexandra  Exter,  Liubov  Popova,  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  and 
Natalia  Goncharova  had  been  to  Europe  before  1914.  Three  of  the  six  women 
married  fellow  artists,  with  whom  they  sometimes  collaborated.  For  all  of  them, 
the  crucial  years  were  those  that  spanned  the  revolutions  of  1905  and  1917.  The 


6a 


[.aura  enceLSTem 


group's  fate  neatly  illustrates  the  possible  consequences  of  the  Bolshevik  victory. 
Exter  and  Goncharova  emigrated;  the  others  remained  —  Rozanova  and  Popova 
quickly  succumbing  to  illness,  and  Stepanova  and  Udaltsova  surviving  into  the 
Khrushchev  years. 

For  purposes  of  framing  this  generation,  then,  we  must  investigate  their  for- 
mative experiences  both  culturally  and  in  terms  of  their  career  opportunities  as 
women.  What  were  women  doing  on  behalf  of  their  sex?  What  were  they,  simply, 
doing?  What  models  of  self -fashioning  did  they  encounter?  If  the  "new  people" 
of  the  1860s  created  a  style  for  the  radical  bluestocking  of  mid-  century,  what  was 
the  prototype  for  the  so-called  New  Woman  of  the  1910s,  a  figure  as  noticeable  on 
Russian  city  streets  as  she  was  in  Berlin  or  London? 

In  nineteenth- century  Europe  and  the  United  States  women  were  excluded 
from  political  life.  In  Russia  before  the  1905  revolution,  the  only  elections  were 
local;  the  few  qualified  women  voted  by  male  proxy.  After  1905,  the  czar  created  a 
national  assembly  (the  Duma)  based  on  a  restricted  male  franchise.  But  despite 
the  limited  role  for  women  in  public  affairs,  they  managed  to  exercise  their  social, 
intellectual,  and  creative  ingenuity.  Their  activities  can  be  divided  into  three 
spheres:  social  causes;  education  and  the  professions;  and  culture. 

Women  were  prominent  in  philanthropy,  not  because  charity  was  seen  as  a 
peculiarly  feminine  concern,  but  because  Orthodox  Christian  values  infused 
public  life,  and  despite  its  firm  patriarchalism,  the  Church  allowed  considerable 
latitude  for  female  spiritual  initiative.  With  its  sanction,  women  had  begun  found- 
ing their  own  religious  communities  in  the  late  eighteenth  century,  and  by  1917 
there  were  more  than  two  hundred,  with  members  from  every  social  rank. 
Founders  of  high  station  used  their  wealth  and  contacts  in  pursuing  spiritual  goals, 
but  some  of  humbler  stock  rose  to  leadership  on  the  strength  of  moral  dedication. 
Typically,  the  communities  performed  a  number  of  charitable  services,  such  as 
sheltering  orphans,  caring  for  elderly  women,  running  schools  for  girls,  hospitals, 
and  handicraft  workshops.  Their  leaders  were  venerated  for  their  devotion  to  spir- 
itual ideals,  but  they  were  also  resourceful  entrepreneurs,  skilled  in  the  politics  of 
patronage.10 

Private  charity  remained  an  important  sphere  of  public  activity,  because  the 
state  did  not  assume  the  burden  of  poor  relief  or  social  welfare.  The  imperial 
womenfolk  set  the  example.  To  aid  the  victims  of  the  war  against  Napoleon, 
Alexander  I's  wife  Elizabeth  (1779-1826)  founded  the  Women's  Patriotic  Society, 
which  went  on  to  provide  schooling  for  girls.  Even  Nicholas  I  (r.  1825-1855), 
suspicious  of  any  independent  social  activity,  tolerated  philanthropic  enterprises, 
to  which  his  own  mother,  Maria  Fedorovna,  lent  her  support.  "Founding a 
charitable  association,"  writes  historian  Adele  Lindenmeyr,  "became  virtually  part 
of  the  job  description  for  the  wives  of  high-ranking  state  officials."  "  Even  after  the 

63 


russias  moDern  women 


Great  Reforms,  elite  women  continued  to  focus  on  charity  and  social  improve- 
ment. Grand  Duchess  Elena  Pavlovna,  for  example,  founded  a  semireligious 
nursing  community  during  the  Crimean  War.  After  her  husband  was  assassinated 
in  1905,  Grand  Duchess  Elizaveta  Fedorovna  (1864— 1918),  the  tsarina's  sister 
(later  murdered  along  with  the  imperial  family),  devoted  herself  to  religious  life 
and  founded  a  charitable  order  for  women.  Less  exalted  women  helped  establish 
lying-in  hospitals  and  sponsored  the  training  of  midwives.  The  Church  had  always 
promoted  almsgiving,  but  industrial  poverty  demanded  a  more  systematic 
response,  such  as  the  guardianships  of  the  poorthat  flourished  in  the  1890s.  But 
even  when  philanthropy  became  relatively  depersonalized,  women  continued  to 
participate  in  charitable  projects  and  institutions.12 

It  was  one  thing  for  society  matrons  and  industrialists'  wives  to  volunteer  their 
time  and  efforts;  to  enter  the  professions,  however,  women  needed  access  to 
higher  education.  In  the  1860s,  liberals  such  as  Konstantin  Kavelin  (1818—1885) 
and  Mikhail  Stasiulevich  (1836—1911)  urged  admitting  women  to  the  universities, 
but  the  Ministry  of  Education  kept  them  out.  Women  seeking  specialized  medical 
training  went  to  Europe  instead.  Sofia  Kovalevskaia  (1850— 1891),  the  first  woman 
to  receive  a  doctorate  in  mathematics,  studied  abroad.  Inthe  1870s,  Russian  med- 
ical institutes  began  admitting  women;  though  excluded  again  from  188a  to  1897, 
women  continued  to  flock  to  the  profession.13 

Although  women  were  allowed  only  briefly,  between  1906  and  1908,  to  attend 
university  on  an  equal  basis  with  men,  they  were  able  to  study  in  special  advanced 
courses  first  offered  to  women  in  the  1870s,  on  the  urging  of  the  feminist 
Nadezhda  Stasova  (1832—1897)  and  others,  by  distinguished  professors  in  Moscow 
and  St.  Petersburg.1*  By  1910.  similar  courses  had  been  created  in  ten  other  cities, 
and  in  1911  female  graduates  in  St.  Petersburg,  Moscow,  Kiev,  and  Kazan  were 
allowed  to  sit  for  state  examinations.  By  1914,  women  constituted  3o  percent  of 
students  in  institutions  of  higher  learning,  which,  however,  enrolled  well  under 
1  percent  of  the  population.  In  these  rarefied  ranks,  women  made  considerable 
progress.  In  1894.  the  Russian  Academy  of  Sciences  elected  Countess  Praskovia 
Uvarova  (1840—1934),  an  archaeologist,  as  its  first  woman  member.  About  40 
percent  of  the  very  small  number  of  people  (4  percent  of  the  urban  labor  force) 
listed  as  professionals  and  semiprofessionals  in  the  1902  Moscow  city  census  were 
women.  By  1910,  they  constituted  about  7  percent  of  physicians  and  10  percent  of 
pharmacists.  By  1906.  St.  Petersburg  could  boast  two  female-owned  pharmacies, 
one  sponsored  by  the  Society  for  the  Preservation  of  Women's  Health.  The  inter- 
section of  social  concern,  women's  rights,  and  professional  self-assertion  is  evi- 
dent in  the  career  of  Mariia  Pokrovskaia  (1852— ?) ,  a  public-health  physician  who 
became  an  outspoken  opponent  of  regulated  prostitution  and  the  founder  of  a 
feminist  journal,  Zhenskii  vestnik  (Women's  Herald) ,  and  apolitical  association,  the 

64 


Laura  enGeLSTein 


Women's  Progressive  Party.  By  191a,  women  constituted  a  majority  of  school 
teachers.  Directly  connected  to  affairs  of  state,  the  legal  profession  was  the  least 
hospitable  to  women's  ambitions.  Only  after  1906  was  it  possible  forwomento 
study  law  in  Russia,  but  they  were  not  authorized  to  plead  in  court.'5 

The  revolution  of  1905  had  unleashed  some  of  these  changes  as  part  of  a  gen- 
eral widening  of  the  public  sphere  and  of  opportunities  for  political  and  civic 
engagement.  Although  peasants  and  laborers  had  joined  the  social  movement, 
the  protest  had  gotten  its  start  among  landowners,  professors,  physicians,  lawyers, 
bankers,  industrialists,  and  self-proclaimed  feminists,  pressing  for  involvement 
in  political  life,  protection  of  the  law,  and  a  social  policy  designed  to  smooth  the 
transition  to  modernity.  The  concessions  wrested  from  the  regime  achieved  some 
of  these  goals.  Women  did  not  win  the  vote  and  were  disappointed  in  their  bid  for 
equal  rights,  but  they  continued  to  mobilize  in  support  of  social  causes  (poverty, 
prostitution,  public  health,  temperance).  They  linked  up  with  international 
women's  associations  and  organized  a  massive  congress  (1908),  which  included 
many  professionals  and  a  vocal  delegation  of  socialists;  in  1913.  feminists  held  a 
conference  on  the  subject  of  women's  education.'6 

Even  though  in  these  years  women's  professional  gains  were  significant  and 
their  political  gains  few,  the  condition  of  women  continued  to  impress  contempo- 
raries as  a  bellwether  of  the  nation's  cultural  achievement.  As  mid-century  moder- 
ates and  radicals  had  measured  social  injustice  by  the  intensity  of  women's 
oppression  —  burdened  by  poverty,  patriarchy,  and  the  moral  double  standard  —  so 
at  century's  end  conservatives  saw  the  nation's  decline  (or  impending  doom)  in 
the  measure  of  women's  emancipation.  The  archreactionary  Duma  deputy 
Vladimir  Purishkevich  (1870—1920)  inveighed  against  jews  and  educated  women, 
whose  presence  in  public  life  he  feared  would  open  the  floodgates  to  social  and 
moral  chaos.1? 

Purishkevich's  anxiety  only  reflected  the  temper  of  the  times.  Indeed,  the 
sober  business  of  women's  rights  was  a  good  deal  less  fascinating  than  the  erotic 
glitter  of  the  so-called  sexual  question  that  captivated  public  opinion  in  the  1890s 
and  survived  the  upheaval  of  1905.  Throughout  the  period,  newspapers,  maga- 
zines, professional  congresses,  and  bourgeois  drawing  rooms  buzzed  with  the  hot 
topics  of  the  day:  divorce,  abortion,  and  regulated  prostitution;  syphilis,  mastur- 
bation, and  white  slavery.  Those  of  a  scholarly  bent  could  find  cause  for  alarm  in 
the  thick  volumes  published  by  physician  and  criminologist  Praskovia  Tarnovskaia 
(1848-1910),  adapting  fashionable  theories  of  criminal  anthropology  to  the  study 
of  Russian  prostitutes  and  female  thieves.  Tarnovskaia  belonged  to  the  Society  for 
the  Protection  of  Women,  founded  in  1901  on  the  British  model  to  combat  the 
international  prostitution  trade.  Two  thirds  of  the  three  hundred  delegates  to  the 
Society's  1910  congress  were  female,  including  two  dozen  physicians.  This  organi- 

65 


russia's  mooern  women 


zation  demonstrated  how  women's  charitable  impulses  had  converged  with  their 
professional  goals,  both  mobilized  in  the  interests  of  civic  amelioration.'8 

This  kind  of  feminism,  as  its  radical  critics  pointed  out,  did  not  intend  to 
remake  the  social  order.  It  was,  however,  committed  to  the  common  good,  not 
merely  to  personal  self- improvement.  It  was  able  to  combine  the  religious  impulse 
behind  philanthropy  with  a  secular  concern  for  cultural  uplift  (education,  public 
health,  vocational  training) .  The  same  tension  between  self- realization  and  self- 
sacrifice,  so  central  to  the  intelligentsia  ethos  of  mid-century,  found  classic 
expression  in  the  writings  of  Lev  Tolstoy  (1838—1910).  Public  debate  on  the  sexual 
question  can  reasonably  be  said  to  have  opened  with  the  appearance  of  Tolstoy's 
novella  The  Kreutzer Sonata  (1889— 91),  which  castigated  male  lust,  female  sensual- 
ity, and  the  ideal  of  the  liberated  woman  in  equally  fervid  terms.  Even  when  sancti- 
fied by  the  marital  bond,  Tolstoy  declared,  sexual  indulgence  signified  the 
partners'  capitulation  to  their  lowest  animal  urges.  The  wife  in  Tlie  Kreutzer  Sonata 
is  murdered  by  a  husband  driven  mad,  readers  were  led  to  believe,  by  her  treach- 
erous sexual  charms.  (Both  the  novella  and  the  novel^lnna  Karenina  [1877]  were 
adapted  to  the  screen  in  1914,  bringing  their  highly  charged  plots  to  a  broad  urban 
audience.)  Reassured  perhaps  by  Tolstoy's  moralizing,  while  excited  by  his  hot- 
blooded  description  of  the  passions  he  denounced,  female  readers  flooded  him 
with  letters  recounting  their  personal  desires  and  torments.  '9 

Christian  philosopher  Vasilii  Rozanov  (1856-1919),  for  his  part,  contributed 
to  the  sexual  debate  with  fervent  advocacy  of  divorce  reform  (which  would  have 
allowed  him  to  obtain  one),  while  celebrating  sexual  intimacy  and  procreation  as 
spiritual  gifts.  Rozanov  joined  Tolstoy  in  scorning  the  modern  bluestocking  as  a 
distortion  of  true  womanhood,  yet  he  extolled  the  charms  of  old-style  patriarchal 
domesticity,  all  the  while  embracing  the  modern  opportunity  to  discourse  about 
sex.  Like  Tolstoy,  he  too  received  letters  from  readers  testifying  to  the  public's 
hunger  for  self-reflection  and  self- revelation. 

For  the  same  reason,  theatergoers  —  male  and  female  —  flocked  to  watch 
Henrik  Ibsen's  frustrated  heroines  writhe  in  the  tentacles  of  Victorian  morality.20 
In  Ibsen's  dramas  of  thwarted  female  selfhood,  the  characters  on  stage  represented 
the  New  Woman's  conflict  between  devotion  to  others  and  to  herself.  The  actresses 
who  portrayed  them,  by  contrast,  embodied  the  New  Woman's  bold  ideal  of  the  cre- 
ative personality.  Vera  Komissarszhevskaia  (1864— 1910),  who  played  Hedda,  was 
the  most  charismatic  of  a  string  of  prominent  actresses  who  made  their  mark  in 
these  years.  A  few  of  them  also  went  backstage  to  run  the  show.  In  close-ups  on  the 
silent  screen,  Vera  Kholodnaia  (1898—1919)  radiated  pathos  and  glamour.21 

For  all  its  distance  from  classical  literature  and  serious  theater,  commercial 
culture  also  focused  on  the  cultivation  of  the  self,  particularly  for  women.  If 
dreams  of  stardom  did  not  come  true,  readers  could  empathize  with  the  fictional 

66 


Laura  enceLSTem 


heroines  depicted  in  novels  such  as  the  wildly  successful  Keys  to  Happiness 
(1911—13),  a  six-volume  potboiler  written  and  marketed  with  commercial  savvy 
by  Anastasia  Verbitskaia  (1861— 192(8),  who  also  wrote  the  scenario  for  the  film 
version  that  appeared  in  1913.  Verbitskaia  made  a  career  not  only  as  the  author  of 
boulevard  prose  but  as  a  literary  entrepreneur.  Her  stories  dramatized  the  dilem- 
mas of  modern  womanhood,  torn  between  the  desire  for  love  and  the  urge  to  self- 
expression.  Alexandra  Kollontai  (18721—1952;),  the  Social  Democratic  feminist, 
writing  in  1913,  hailed  these  boulevard  heroines  as  portraits  of  the  actual  "new 
women"  who  populated  the  workplaces,  lecture  halls,  and  shops  of  the  prewar 
cities:  Gainfully  employed,  self-confident,  ambitious,  they  were  the  center  of 
their  own  dramas,  not  the  object  of  men's.33 

Laws  and  conventions  may  have  impeded  a  young  woman's  path  to  indepen- 
dence, but  the  times  encouraged  creative  ambition.  Verbitskaia's  readers  might 
have  honed  their  girlhood  fantasies  by  devouring  the  eighty  or  so  serialized  tales 
published  by  Lidiia  Charskaia  (1875-1987)  between  1902;  and  1918.  These  stories 
depicted  girls  of  boarding-school  age  in  familiar  settings  (dormitories  and  class- 
rooms) and  exotic  locales  (Siberia,  the  Caucasus).  Passionate  fans  sent  Charskaia 
endless  letters,  expressing  their  sense  of  identification  with  both  characters  and 
author.-3  Another  popular  work,  the  diary  of  Marie  Bashkirtseff  (1858—1884), 
recorded  the  brief  life  of  a  young  Russian  woman  who,  living  in  Paris,  dreamt  as 
much  of  art  as  of  love.  Translated  in  1889  from  the  original  French,  its  inwardness 
and  self- involvement  earned  it  awide  readership,  especially  among  women.  24 

Women  were  not  excluded  from  the  best  training  in  the  fine  arts,  but  their 
opportunities  for  recognition  expanded  only  after  a  new  generation  of  painters  had 
challenged  the  authority  of  the  imperial  academies  and  private  patronage  offered 
an  alternative  to  official  sources  of  support. 35  Some  female  artists,  like  the  six 
exhibited  here,  were  able  to  develop  their  talents  and  pursue  distinctive  careers. 
Others  took  their  first  steps  not  as  solo  practitioners  but  as  sponsors  and  shapers 
of  socially  oriented  production.  Like  the  charity  matrons  with  whom  they  worked, 
they  used  acceptable  forms  of  female  activity  to  propel  themselves  into  the  public 
and  creative  domains. 

Such  opportunities  often  evolved,  as  in  philanthropy,  as  an  outgrowth  of  fam- 
ily-centered life.  The  tight-knit  clans  of  the  merchant  elite,  in  which  Popova,  for 
example,  was  raised,  were  active  in  social  and  cultural  affairs.  Their  proverbial 
patriarchalism  seems  not  to  have  prevented  their  daughters  from  being  educated 
at  home  and  exercising  their  talents.  For  example,  textile  magnate  Pavel  Tretiakov 
(18321—1898),  who  used  his  considerable  art  collection  as  the  core  of  the  national 
picture  gallery  that  still  bears  his  name,  was  married  to  a  woman  from  the 
Mamontov  clan,  which  also  devoted  itself  to  patronage  of  the  arts.  Two  of  the 
Tretiakov  daughters  married  sons  of  the  Botkin  family,  whose  fortunes  derived 

67 


s — -V 


figure  i3.  Workshop  on  the  Abramtsevo  Estate. 

from  the  tea  trade.  The  brothers  became  physicians  and  art  connoisseurs, 
demonstrating  the  convergence  of  commercial,  cultural,  and  professional 
interests  in  the  urban  elites  of  the  day.  Alexandra  Botkina  (1867—1959), 
Tretiakov's  older  daughter,  was  an  amateur  photographer  and  salon  hostess, 
who  sat  on  the  gallery's  board  of  directors  and  welcomed  celebrated  artists  and 
performers,  including  ballerina  Tamara  Karsavina  (1885—1978)  and  poet 
Zinaida  Gippius  (1869—1945),  into  her  drawing  room.36 

The  arts -and -crafts  movement  is  where  women  came  into  their  own,  both 
as  entrepreneurs  and  artists.  As  a  symbol,  in  historian  Wendy  R.  Salmond's 
words,  "of  tradition  reconciled  to  progress,  of  vernacular  Russian  forms 
integrated  . . .  with  the  dominant  Western  style,"  the  new  aestheticized  folk 
art  perfectly  represents  women's  own  position  between  tradition  and  change. 
It  also  provided  the  conduit  to  women  artists'  engagement  with  Modernism, 
an  outcome,  as  Salmond  notes,  "of  this  long  tradition  of  women's  work  in  the 
kustar  [handicraft]  arts."2? 

It  is  in  this  context  that  we  encounter  some  of  the  artists  featured  in  this 


68 


Laura  eriGeLSTein 


exhibition.  The  vernacular  revival  had  its  roots  in  the  1870s,  in  the  aftermath 
of  serfdom,  when  peasants  were  struggling  with  the  economic  hardship  cre- 
ated by  the  terms  of  emancipation  and  beginning  to  suffer  the  impact  of  social 
change.  Populists,  labor  economists,  agronomists,  and  philanthropists  wor- 
ried about  the  human  and  cultural  damage  that  might  ensue.  One  of  the  strate- 
gies devised  for  cushioning  the  villages  against  the  effects  of  industrial  growth 
and  urban  culture  was  to  reinforce  the  declining  tradition  of  peasant  crafts.28 

The  various  rescue  missions  launched  in  pursuit  of  this  goal  also 
depended  on  familial,  professional,  and  commercial  ties.  In  this  context, 
women  were  instrumental  in  reshaping  the  image  of  the  folk  tradition,  pre  - 
serving  its  primitivist  cachet,  while  adapting  it  to  a  demanding  market.  The 
first  folk-revival  workshop  was  created  by  Elizaveta  Mamontova  (1847—1908), 
daughter  of  a  silk  manufacturer  and  the  wife  of  Sawa  Mamontov  (1841-1918), 
who  made  a  fortune  in  railroads  and  devoted  his  life  to  supporting  the  arts. 
After  founding  a  school  and  a  hospital  on  their  Abramtsevo  estate,  Elizaveta 
opened  a  joinery  workshop  in  1876.  To  train  the  artisans  in  the  lost  art  of 
peasant  crafts  and  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  products,  she  enlisted  the 
services  of  Elena  Polenova  (1850—1898),  who  left  her  personal  signature  on 
the  modernized  handicrafts  that  were  sold  in  Moscow  shops  (often  mn  by 
merchants'  wives  and  society  matrons)  and  achieved  wide  popularity  in 
America  and  Europe.2? 

Polenova's  background  demonstrates  the  classic  combination  of  the 
themes  sounded  here.  Her  father  was  a  distinguished  archaeologist,  her 
mother  wrote  and  illustrated  children's  books,  and  her  brother  was  an  accom- 
plished painter.  After  volunteering  as  a  nurse  during  the  war  with  Turkey 
(1877—78),  Polenova  attended  medical  courses,  then  taught  drawing  in  a 
charitable  school  for  girls,  before  taking  classes  in  watercolor  and  ceramics. 
As  director  of  the  Abramtsevo  workshop  from  188510  1890,  she  forged  a  deco- 
rative style  from  folk  motifs  that,  in  Salmond's  words,  attempted  "to  mend  the 
thread  connecting  Russia's  past  and  present."  She  was  praised  by  Vladimir 
Stasov  (1824— 1906)  aspart  of  "that  generation  of  new  Russian  women  who  . . . 
have  a  keen  sense  of  our  national  character."  In  reconciling  continuity  and 
innovation,  women  of  the  commercial  classes  behaved  in  much  the  spirit  of 
their  culture -minded  husbands  and  fathers,  who  invested  the  profits  from 
enterprises  that  were  reshaping  the  face  of  Russia  in  the  production  and 
preservation  of  cultural  goods  meant  to  honor  tradition  and  further  progress 
at  the  same  time.  This  was  the  case  of  Mariia  Yakunchikova  (1864-1952),  born 
a  Mamontov,  who  married  a  textile  magnate  and  created  the  Solomenko  work- 
shop, which  specialized  in  designer  embroidery.  The  outlook  also  typifies 
Princess  Mariia  Tenisheva  (1867—1928),  the  wife  of  a  gentry  industrialist,  who 

69 


russia's  moDern  women 


joined  with  Sawa  Mamontov  in  bankrolling  Sergei  Diaghilev's  (1872—1929)  jour- 
nal, Mir  iskusstva  (The  World  of  Art),  which  first  appeared  in  1898.  She  also  created 
her  own  craft  workshop  at  her  Talashkino  estate.30 

The  artists  who  designed  for  the  handicraft  workshops  took  the  basic  vocabu- 
lary of  folk  art  and  fashioned  a  design  grammar  legible  to  the  urban  consumer.  A 
similar  combination  of  primitive  and  modern  was  at  work  in  the  painting  by 
Mikhail  Larionov  (1881—1964)  and  Goncharova  during  this  period  and  in  the  styl- 
istic eclecticism  of  the  European-oriented  World  of  Art  school.  For  all  its  contribu- 
tion to  developing  a  modern  decorative  aesthetic,  however,  the  handicraft 
movement  never  abandoned  its  social  goals.  During  World  War  I,  Alexandra  Exter, 
on  behalf  of  the  Kiev  Handicraft  Society,  convinced  her  St.  Petersburg  colleagues 
(including  Popova,  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova)  to  help  produce  useful  decorated 
goods.  The  three  were  by  then  associated  with  the  Supremus  group  of  Kazimir 
Malevich  (1878—1935);  Exter  dubbed  them  the  "folk  futurists."3' They  continued 
into  the  Soviet  future,  when  the  relation  between  old  and  new  was  inverted. 
Whereas  old-regime  traditionalism  had  left  room  for  cultural  innovation,  the  ide- 
ology of  progress  would  enforce  artistic  conformity  and  create  a  traditionalism  of 
its  own,  but  not  before  the  Modern  had  ushered  in  the  new  age  and  its  New  Women. 

1.  See  Lindsey  Hughes,  "Peter  the  Great's  Two  Weddings:  Changing  Images  of  Women  in  a 
Transitional  Age,"  in  Women  in  Russia  and  Ukraine,  ed.  and  tr.  Rosalind  Marsh  (Cambridge: 
Cambridge  University  Press,  1996),  pp.  31-44.  Quote  from  Pushkin's  poem  "The  Bronze 
Horseman." 

2.  See  Richard  S.  Wortman,  Scenarios  of  Power:  Myth  and  Ceremony  in  Russian  Monarchy  (Princeton: 
Princeton  University  Press,  1995),  vol  1,  pp.  62—66:  idem,  "Images  of  Rule  and  Problems  of 
Gender  in  the  Upbringing  of  Paul  I  and  Alexander  I,"  in  Imperial  Russia  1700—1977,  ed.  Ezra 
Mendelsohn  and  Marshall  S.  Shatz  (DeKalb.  IL:  Northern  Illinois  University  Press,  1988),  pp. 

58-75- 

3.  See  Alexander  M.  Martin.  Romantics,  Reformers.  Reactionaries:  Russian  Conservative  Thought  and 
Politics  in  the  Reign  of  Alexander  I  (DeKalb.  IL:  Northern  Illinois  University  Press,  1997).  pp. 
91-109:  W.  Bruce  Lincoln,  In  the  Vanguard  of  Reform:  Russia's  Enlightened  Bureaucrats  iSaj— 1S61 
(DeKalb.  IL:  Northern  Illinois  University  Press.  198a).  pp.  148-62:  Lina  Bernstein.  "Women  on 
the  Verge  of  a  New  Language:  Russian  Salon  Hostesses  mthe  First  Half  of  the  Nineteenth 
Century."  in  .Russia.  Women,  Culture,  ed.  Helena  Goscilo  and  Beth  Holmgren  (Bloomington: 
Indiana  University  Press.  1996),  pp.  209—24. 

4.  See  Jane  McDermid  and  Anna  Hillyar.  Women  and  Work  in  Russia  i88o—ig3o:AStudyin  Continuity 
through  Change  (London  and  New  York:  Longman,  1998),  pp.  35,  68;  Rossiia  igi3god-.  Statistiko- 
dokumental'nyi  spravochnik,  ed.  A.  P.  Korelin  (St.  Petersburg:  Rossiiskaia  akademiia  nauk, 
Instirut  Rossiiskoi  istorii,  1995).  pp.  17.  23.  219,  221,  223,  827. 

5.  The  classic  account  is  Richard  Stites,  The  Women's  Liberation  Movement  in  Russia:  Feminism, 
Nihilism,  and  Bolshevism,  i86o-iq3o  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1978);  see  also 
Barbara  Alpern  Engel,  Mothers  and  Daughters-.  Women  of  the  Intelligentsia  in  Nineteenth-Century 
Russia  (Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press,  1983). 


70 


Laura  eriGeLSTem 


6.  See  Five  Sisters:  Women  Against  the  Tsar,  ed.  and  tr.  Barbara  Alpern  Engel  and  Clifford  N. 
Rosenthal  (New  York:  Knopf,  1975):  Vera  Broido,  Apostles  into  Terrorists:  Women  and  the 
Revolutionary  Movement  in  the  Russia  of  Alexander  II  (New  York:  Viking,  1977):  Stites,  Women's 
Liberation,  pp.  138-54;  Jay  Bergman.  Vera  Zasulich:  A  Biography  (Stanford:  Stanford  University 
Press,  1983):  Vera  Figner.  Memoirs  of  a  Revolutionist,  intro.  Richard  Stites  (DeKalb.  IL:  Northern 
Illinois  University  Press,  1991), 

7.  See  Barbara  Alpern  Engel,  Between  the  Fields  and  the  City-.  Women,  Work,  and  Family  in  Russia. 
1861-1914  (Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press,  1994):  Rose  L.  Glickman.  Russian  Factory 
Women:  Workplace  and  Society,  1880-1914,  (Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press.  1984);  David 
L.  Ransel,  Mothers  of  Misery:  Child  Abandonment  in  Russia  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press, 
1988):  Laurie  Bernstein,  Sonia's  Daughters:  Prostitutes  and  Their  Regulation  in  Imperial  Russia 
(Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press,  1995). 

8.  For  an  overview,  see  Stites,  Women's  Liberation-,  also  Laura  Engelstein,  The  Keys  to  Happiness-. 
SexandtheSearchforModernityinFin-de-SiecleRussia  (Ithaca:  Cornell  University  Press,  1993); 
William  G.  Wagner,  Marriage,  Property  and  Law  in  Late  Imperial  Russia  (Oxford:  Oxford  University 
Press,  1994):  idem.  "The  Trojan  Mare:  Women's  Rights  and  Civil  Rights  in  Late  Imperial  Russia," 
in  Civil  Rights  in  Russia,  ed.  Olga  Crisp  and  Linda  Edmondson  (Oxford:  Clarendon  Press,  1989), 
pp.  65-84. 

9.  SeeWortman.  Scenarios,  vol.  1,  pp.  149-51;  idem,  "Moscow and  Petersburg:  The  Problem  of 
Political  Center  in  Tsarist  Russia,  1881-1914,"  in  Bites  of  Power:  Symbolism.  Ritual,  and  Politics 
Since  the  Middle  Ages,  ed.  SeanWilentz  (Philadelphia:  University  of  Pennsylvania  Press,  1985), 
pp.  244^71;  idem,  "Nikolai  i  obrazsamoderzhaviia,"  in  Re formyili  revoliutsiia? Rossiia  1861—10.17 
(St.  Petersburg:  Nauka.  1992).  pp.  i8-3o;  and  idem.  "Publicizing Nicholas  II  in  1913,"  inSelfand 
Story  in  Russian  History,  ed.  Laura  Engelstein  and  Stephanie  Sandler  (Ithaca:  Cornell  University 
Press,  2000). 

10.  See  Adele  Lindenmeyr,  Poverty  Is  Not  a  Vice:  Charity,  Society,  and  the  State  in  Imperial  Russia 
(Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1996),  p.  15;  Brenda  Meehan,  Holy  Women  of  Russia: 
The  Lives  of  Five  Orthodox  Women  Off er  Spiritual  Guidance  for  Today  (San  Francisco:  Harper,  1993). 
pp.  13-14,  and  passim;  Gregory  L.  Freeze,  "Bringing  Order  to  the  Russian  Family:  Marriage  and 
Divorce  in  Imperial  Russia,  1760- 1860,"  Journal  of  Modern  History  62  (1990),  pp.  709—46. 

11.  Lindenmeyr.  Poverty,  p.  116. 

12.  See  Lbid.,  pp.  97, 125—26, 151;  Catriona  Kelly,  "Teacups  and  Coffins;  The  Culture  of  Russian 
Merchant  Women,  1850-1917,"  in  Women  in  Russia  and  Ukraine,  pp.  55—77. 

i3.  See  Stites,  Women's  Liberation,  pp.  85—86, 166-76;  Natalia  Pushkareva,  Women  in  Russian  History:-. 
From,  the  Tenth  to  the  Twentieth  Century,  tr.  and  ed.  Eve  Levin  (Armonk:  M.  E.  Sharpe,  1997), 
pp.  209-12:  Sofya  Kovalevskaya,  A  Russian  Childhood,  tr.  and  ed.  Beatrice  Stillman  (New  York: 
Springer,  1978);  Ann  Hibner  Koblitz.yl  Convergence  of  Lives-.  Sofia  Kovalevskaia.  Scientist.  Writer. 
Revolutionary  (Boston:  Birkhauser,  1983). 

14.  See  Christine  Johanson.  Women's  Struggle  for  Higher  Education  in  Russia.  1855-igoo  (Kingstonand 
Montreal:  McGill- Queen's  University  Press,  1987). 

15.  Seeflossua  ia.i3god.  pp.  346-47;  James  McClelland,  "Diversification  in  Russian-Soviet 
Education,"  in  The  Transformation  of  Higher  Learning.  i86o—ig3o:  Expansion.  Diversification.  Social 
Opening,  and  Professionalization  in  England.  Germany.  Russia,  and  the  United  States,  ed.  Konrad  H. 
Jarausch  (Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.  1983).  pp.  184. 187;  Joseph  Bradley.  "Moscow: 
From  Big  Village  to  Metropolis,"  in  The  City  in  Late  Imperial  Russia,  ed.  Michael  F.  Hamm 
(Bloomington:  Indiana  University  Press,  1986),  p.  2i;  Nancy  Mandelker  Frieden.  Russian 


71 


russia's  moDern  women 


Physicians  in  an  Era  of  Reform  and  Revolution.  1856-1905  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press, 
1981),  p.  323;  Linda  Edmondson,  Feminism  in  Russia,  1900—1917  (Stanford:  Stanford  University 
Press,  1984),  p.  147;  M ary  Schaeffer  Conroy,  "Women  Pharmacists  in  Russia  before  World  War  L 
Women's  Emancipation,  Feminism,  Professionalization,  Nationalism,  and  Class  Conflict,"  in 
Women  and  Society  in  Russia  and  the  Soviet  Union,  ed.  Linda  Edmondson  (Cambridge:  Cambridge 
University  Press,  1992),  p.  48;  Engelstein,  Keys  to  Happiness,  pp.  192—93,  223—25;  Stites,  Women's 
Liberation,  pp.  202-3,  225—26;  Pushkareva,  Women  in  Russian  History,  211;  McDermid  and  Hillyar, 
Women  and  Work,  71-76;  Christine  Ruane,  Gender,  Class,  and  the  Professionalization  of  Russian  City 
Teachers,  i860— 1914  (Pittsburgh:  University  of  Pittsburgh  Press.  1994). 

16.  See  Edmondson,  Feminism,  pp.  189— 50;  idem,  "Women's  Rights,  Civil  Rights,  and  the  Debate 
Over  Citizenship  in  the  1905  Revolution,"  in  Women  and  Society,  pp.  77—100;  Constructing  Russian 
Culture  in  the  Age  of  Revolution:  1881-194,0.  ed.  Catriona  Kelly  and  David  Sheperd  (Oxford:  Oxford 
University  Press,  1998),  pp.  193—211. 

17.  See  Engelstein,  Keys  to  Happiness,  p.  3i3. 

18.  See  ibid.,  pp.  69—70, 137—54,  2^1- 

19.  See  ibid. ,  pp.  218-21,373-74;  Engelstein,  "'Kreitserova  sonata'  LvaTolstogo,  russkiifin-de-sekl 
i  voprosy  seksa,"  in  Kulturologicheskiezapiski,  vol.  3:  Erosvkulture  (Moscow:  Gosudarstvennyi 
institut  iskusstvoznaniia.i997),pp.  30-44;  Peter  Ulf  Mailer,  Postiude  to  "The Kreutzer Sonata"-. 
Tolstoj  and  the  Debate  on  Sexual  Morality  in  Russian  Literature  in  the  1890s,  tr. 

John  Kendal  (Leiden:  E.  J.  Brill,  1988). 

20.  See  Engelstein,  Keys  to  Happiness,  pp.  299-333. 

2i.  See  Osip  Mandelstam,  "The  Noise  of  Time."  in  The  Prose  of  Osip  Mandelstam .  tr.  andintro. 
Clarence  Brown  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1965),  p.  123  (and  in  general  for  the 
mood  of  the  period);  Catherine  A.  Schuler,  Women  m  Russian  Tlieater:  Tlie  Actress  in  the  Silver  Age 
(London  and  New  York:  Routledge.  1996);  Louise  McReynolds,  "The  Silent  Movie  Melodrama: 
Evgenii  Bauer  Fashions  the  Hero(in)ic  Self."  in  Self  and  Story. 

22.  See  Engelstein,  Keys  to  Happiness,  pp.  399—404;  Jeffrey  Brooks,  When  Russia  Learned  to  Read: 
Literacy  and  Popular  Literature,  1861—1911  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1985),  pp. 
153-60;  Beth  Holmgren,  "Gendering  the  Icon:  Marketing  Women  Writers  in  Fin-de-Siecle 
Russia,"  inRussia.  Women.  Culture,  pp.  321—46.  See  also  Constructing  Russian  Culture,  pp.  n3— 25. 

23.  See  Susan  Larsen,  "Girl  Talk:  Lidiia  Charskaia  and  Her  Readers,"  inSelfand  Story-,  Beth 
Holmgren,  "Why  Russian  Girls  Loved  Charskaia,"  Russian  Review  54:1  (1995),  pp.  91-106. 

24.  See  Charlotte  Rosenthal,  "The  Silver  Age:  Highpoint  for  Women?,"  in  Women  and  Society ,  pp. 
34-36,  44-45;  Russia  Through  Women's  Eyes-.  Autobiographies  from  Tsarist  Russia,  ed.  Toby  W. 
Clyman  and  Judith  Vowles  (New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press,  1996),  p.  41 ;  also  Catriona  Kelly,  A 
History  of  Russian  Women's  Writing,  182,0-1992  (Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press,  1994).  pp. 
155-56  (dates  slightly  off).  Eve  Le  Gallienne  wrote  about  the  character  Hedda  Gabler,  that  "there 
is  a  lot  of  Marie  Bashkirtseff  in  her":  Henrik  Ibsen,  Hedda  Gabler,  preface  by  Eve  Le  Gallienne 
(New  York:  New  York  University  Press,  1955),  p.  8. 

25.  See  Alison  Hilton.  "Domestic  Crafts  and  Creative  Freedom:  Russian  Women's  Art,"  inRussia, 
Women,  Culture,  pp.  347-76. 

26.  Muriel  Joffe  and  Adele  Lindenmeyr,  "Daughters,  Wives,  and  Partners:  Women  of  the  Moscow 
Merchant  Elite,"  in  Merchant  Moscow:  Images  of  Russia 's  Vanished  Bourgeoisie,  ed.  James  L.  West 
andluriiA.  Petrov  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1998),  pp.  95-108.  Also,  more  gener- 
ally, JohnO.  Norman,  "Pavel  Tretiakov  and  Merchant  Art  Patronage,  1850-1900"  and  John  E. 
Bowlt,  "The  Moscow  Art  Market,"  in  Between  Tsar  and  People:  Educated  Society  and  the  Quest  for 


72 


Public  Identity  in  Late  Imperial  Russia,  ed.  Edith  W.  Clowes.  Samuel  D.  Kassow,  and  James  L.  West 
(Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1991),  pp.  93-128;  Jo  Ann  Ruckman,  The  Moscow 
Business  Elite:  A  Social  and  Cultural  Portrait  of  Two  Generations,  184,0-1905  (DeKalb,  IL:  Northern 
Illinois  University  Press,  1984);  Serebriann  vek  v  fotografiiakh  A.  P.  Botkinoi,  ed.  E.  S.  KhokhJova 
(Moscow:  Nashe  nasledie,  1998)  (thanks  to  Stephen  Kotkin  for  this  source). 

27.  Wendy  R.  SalmondMrts  and  Crafts  in  Late  Imperial  Russia  (Cambridge:  Cambridge  University 
Press,  1996),  pp.  3,  i3. 

28.  Lewis  H.  Siegelbaum.  "Exhibiting  Kustar  Industry  in  Late  Imperial  Russia/Exhibiting  Late 
Imperial  Russia  in  Kustar  Industry,"  in  Transforming  Peasants:  Society,  State,  and  the  Peasantry. 
i86i-ic/3o,  ed.  Judith  Pallot  (Rasingstoke:  Macmillan,  1998).  pp.  37-63. 

29.  Salmond./lrtsand  Crafts,  chapter  i;  John  E.  Bowlt,  The  Silver  Age,  Russian  Art  of  the  Early  Twentieth 
Century,  and  the  "World  of  Art"  Group  (Newtonville,  MA:  Oriental  Research  Partners,  1979), 

pp.  3o-39- 

30.  Salmond,-4rts  and  Crafts,  pp.  53,  48  (quotes):  Bowlt,  Silver  Age,  pp.  39-4.6. 
3i.  Salmond,/lrts  and  Crafts,  p.  184. 


73 


figure  14.  Varvara  Stepanova  drawing  textile  designs, 
photographed  by  Alexander  Rodchenko,  1 924- 


Germer  TrouBLe  in  THe 
amazonian  KinGDom: 
Turn-OF-THe-cenTurY 
represenTaTions  of 
women  in  russia 


OLGa  maTicH 


Questions  of  sex  and  gender  informed,  if  not  pervaded,  European  culture  of  the 
late -nineteenth  and  early  twentieth  centuries.  The  destabilization  of  gender  in 
an  age  obsessed  with  female  power  and  its  threat  to  men  characterized  the  lives 
and  work  of  many  artists  and  writers.  The  desire  to  veil  what  became  known  as  the 
"phallic  woman"  existed  alongside  the  wish  to  unveil  her  "phallic  power."  Those 
obsessed  with  society's  physical  health  pathologized  the  ambiguities  of  female 
sexuality.  The  demonization  of  women  posed  a  challenge  to  the  strongest  among 
them,  resulting  in  an  eruption  of  female  creativity,  based  in  part  on  women's  phan- 
tasmic  power.  This  liberating  burst  of  energy  exposed  female  desire  and  gender 
ambiguity,  reflecting  what  Elaine  Showalter  calls  fin-de-siecle  "sexual  anarchy." ' 

In  Russia,  women  poets  and  artists  were  also  experimenting  with  gender  at 
the  turn  of  the  twentieth  century.  Cross-voicing  in  poetry  and  cross-dressing  in 
public  characterized  the  (self-)  representation  of  some  of  the  more  radical  creative 
women  of  the  time.  The  destabilization  of  gender  typified  not  only  their  art,  but 
also  the  way  they  exhibited  their  bodies,  and  it  informed  their  subjectivity  in  a 
totalizing  way.  This  essay  focuses  on  the  visual  and  poetic  representations  of 
"sexual  anarchy"  embodied  by  three  Russian  women  —  Zinaida  Nikolaevna  Gippius 
(1869-1945),  Ida  Lvovna  Rubinstein  (1885-1960),  and  Elizaveta  Sergeevna 
Kruglikova  (1865-1941)  —who  invested  their  creativity  in  the  act  of  unveiling  their 
gender  ambiguity.  Their  literary,  performative,  and  artistic  strategies  reflected  the 
desire  to  cross  gender  boundaries  by  challenging  the  presumed  impermeability  of 

75 


cenDer  irouBLe  in  rae  amazoman  KinGDom 


male  difference.  Although  some  of  the  visual  representations  discussed  in  this 
essay  were  crafted  by  men,  my  claim  is  that  these  powerful  women  imposed  their 
self-image  on  these  male  artists.  Such  a  relationship  between  artist  and  female 
model  may  have  been  normalized  by  the  "feminization"  of  fin-de-siecle  artistic 
sensibility.  This  feminization  contributed  directly  to  the  cultural  ambience  out 
of  which  the  subsequent,  even  more  radical,  generation  of  women  emerged. 

The  six  avant-garde  artists  featured  in  this  exhibition  also  treated  the  human 
figure  in  terms  that  blurred  gender  boundaries.  But  unlike  their  older  sisters, 
they  tended  not  to  invest  themselves  personally  in  a  gender-bending  subjectivity; 
accordingly,  references  here  will  be  almost  exclusively  to  their  artistic  output,  not 
to  their  public  personas  and  personal  lives.  The  connotations  of  gender  ambiguity 
were  quite  different  for  the  women  of  the  avant-garde.  Their  goal  was  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  new  "man"  (chelovek  in  Russian,  a  noun  referring  to  both  men  and 
women),  who  was  an  androgyne  of  sorts.  Instead  of  referring  to  gender  trouble, 
the  avant-garde  androgyne  was  frequently  modeled  on  the  African  mask,  which 
had  also  inspired  the  representation  of  the  human  face  in  the  European  avant- 
garde.  This  unisex  figure  was  stylized,  not  pathologized  or  sexualized,  a  condition 
that  may  well  be  associated  with  Natalia  Goncharova's  Neo-Primitivist  works. 

A  common  term  for  gender  destabilization  in  the  European  fin  de  siecle  was 
androgyny,  which  had  a  variety  of  connotations:  it  represented  an  aesthetic  ideal, 
but  it  also  served  as  a  euphemistic  substitute  for  lesbianism  and  homosexuality. 
The  figure  of  the  androgyne  reflected  castration  anxiety,  a  key  trope  of  Western 
European  Decadence.  This  figure  of  indeterminate  gender  was  considered 
"degenerate"  (a  term  popularized  by  Max  Nordau's  book  Degeneration  [1892]2) 
or  pathological,  because  it  undermined  reproductive  health  and  the  continuity 
of  the  race. 

By  contrast,  the  androgyne  of  Russian  Symbolism  of  the  1890s  to  1910s,  as 
defined  by  the  idealist  philosopher  Vladimir  Soloviev,  was  a  Platonic  spiritual 
hybrid  that  heralded  the  desired  transfiguration  of  the  body.  It  transcended 
gender  difference  by  reference  to  Platonic  androgyny,  a  philosophical,  not  an 
aesthetic  or  pathological,  concept.  Instead  of  fixating  on  the  androgyne  as  a  figure 
of  castration  anxiety,  some  Russians  focused  on  its  apocalyptic,  or  Utopian, 
antiprocreationism,  resulting  —  according  to  Soloviev  and  his  followers  —  in  an 
immortalized  body.  The  Utopian  goal  was  the  transcendence  of  the  death-dealing 
natural  cycle,  in  which  birth  inevitably  leads  to  death.  The  Platonic  Utopian 
androgyne  prefigured  the  end  of  time  exalted  by  the  early  Russian  Modernists  of 
the  Symbolist  generation.  It  marked  the  beginning  of  the  awaited  collective  Utopia, 
which  would  include  bodily,  not  just  social,  change.  The  ideology  of  Utopian 
Symbolists  and  the  subsequent  Utopian  avant-garde  focused  not  on  castration,  an 
individual  fear,  but  on  the  collective  transfiguration  of  life.3  This  is  abroad  gener- 

76 


oLGa  m alien 


alization  regarding  the  Russian  view  of  the  coming  end  and  naturally  has  many 
exceptions,  such  as  Goncharova's  apocalyptic  Maiden  on  the  Beast,  1911  (see  fig.  89 
for  the  later  woodcut  version) .  The  image  invokes  the  whore  of  Babylon,  a  phallic 
woman,  even  though  Goncharova  emphasized  the  maternal  stomach  and  breasts, 
underscoring  the  role  of  the  female  as  procreatrix. 

The  most  celebrated  gender-bending  woman  of  the  Symbolist  generation  was 
Zinaida  Gippius,  who  preached  Soloviev's  vision  of  Utopian  androgyny.  A  major 
poet,  prose  writer,  critic,  religious  thinker,  and  salon  hostess,  she  remains  nearly 
unknown  in  the  West.*  Gippius's  cross-gendered  literary  persona  revealed  itself 
in  her  metaphysical  poetry,  whose  lyrical  "I"  was  grammatically  masculine  when 
expressing  itself  in  the  past  tense  and  in  personal  adjectives.  (Russian  grammar 
has  three  genders:  masculine,  feminine,  and  neuter.)  In  the  desire  to  scramble 
her  gender,  Gippius  wrote  much  of  her  poetry  in  the  male  voice,  yet  signed  it  as  a 
woman;  as  a  critic,  she  appeared  under  the  male  pseudonym  Anton  the  Extreme. 

Just  as  provocative  and  more  flamboyant  than  Gippius's  refined  poetry  and 
prose  was  her  self- representation  in  life  and  in  the  arena  of  Symbolist  "life- 
creation"  (zhiznetvorchestvo) ,  which  had  among  its  goals  the  redefinition  of  gender, 
even  of  physiology.  Despite  her  Utopian  agenda,  however,  her  public  persona  was 
that  of  a  phallic  woman.  The  verbal  portraits  of  Gippius  by  contemporaries 
describe  her  in  Decadent  terms.  They  emphasize  her  flat-chested,  narrow-hipped 
body,  green  mermaid  eyes,  serpentine  sting,  and  bright  red  mouth,  which  is  asso- 
ciated with  La  Gioconda's  ambiguous  smile  as  well  as  the  phallic  woman's  blood- 
thirstiness.  Andrei  Bely  5  wrote  a  stylized,  grotesque  portrait  of  Gippius,  invoking 
the  name  of  the  misogynistic  English  artist  Aubrey  Beardsley  in  describing  her 
seductively  demonic  emaciated  figure: 

Z.  Gippius  is  just  like  a  human-sized  wasp,  if  she  is  not  the  skeleton  of  a  "seductress" 
(the  pen  of  Aubrey  Beardsley);  a  lump  of  distended  red  hair . . .  ,•  powder  and  luster 
from  a  lorgnette . . .  ,•  the  flame  of  a  lip . . .  -.from  her  forehead,  like  a  beaming  eye. 
dangled  a  stone;  on  a  black  cord,  a  black  cross  rattled  from  her  breastless  bosom 
legs  crossed:  she  tossed  back  the  train  of  her  close-fitting  dress-,  the  charm  of  her  bony, 
hip-less  skeleton  recalled  a  communicant  deftly  captivating  Satan.6 
White  was  Gippius's  favorite  color.  Symbolist  poet  Valerii  Briusov  noted  in 
his  diary  that  she  asked  him  once  whether  white  could  be  worn  in  Moscow  for  all 
occasions,  claiming  that  her  skin  was  allergic  to  other  colors. :  Gippius  posed  for 
photographers  dressed  in  white  and  declaimed  her  poetry  in  public  wearing  white 
gowns  with  gauze  wings  at  the  shoulders.  A  full-length,  frontal  photograph  of  the 
beautiful  young  Gippius  presents  her  in  a  demure  long  white  dress  with  a  train 
carefully  draped  in  front,  in  the  conventional  style  of  the  time;  on  a  long  chain 
hangs  her  ever-present  lorgnette  (the  female  dandy's  monocle),  which  she  would 
bring  to  her  haughty,  nearsighted  eyes  in  conversation  (fig.  15).  Gippius  appar- 


77 


figure  15.  Zinaida  Gippius,  photographed  by  Otto  Renar,  Moscow,  ca.  1900. 


78 


OLGa  maTicH 


ently  lived  a  celibate  life,  and  the  white  dresses  were  symbolic  of  her  virginity. 
During  the  first  ten  years  of  her  marriage  to  Dmitrii  Merezhkovsky,  she  sometimes 
sported  a  single  braid  as  an  emblem  of  her  chastity.  In  considering  Gippius  as  a 
seductress  of  the  Russian  fin  de  siecle,  we  have  to  bear  in  mind  this  paradoxical 
sexuality,  informed  as  it  was  by  self-conscious  chastity  and  spiritual  androgyny. 
(How  different  was  this  behavior  from  the  no-nonsense  sexuality  of  the  Amazons!) 

Another  facet  of  Gippius's  public  image  was  that  of  a  self-styled  Cleopatra,  a 
prototype  of  the  modern  femme  fatale.  A  forehead  pendant  was  one  of  the  accou- 
trements of  Gippius's  Cleopatrine  costume,  and,  staging  herself  as  St.  Petersburg's 
Egyptian  queen,  she  would  sometimes  receive  guests,  especially  young  male 
acolytes,  reclining  on  a  sofa  in  her  apartment.  Olga  Rozanova's  Portrait  of  a  Lady  in 
Pink  (Portrait  of  Anna  Rozanova,  the  Artist's  Sister) ,  1911—13  (plate  42)  comes  to  mind 
here,  for  it  also  displays  a  seductive  woman  reposing  on  a  sofa.8 

Gippius's  Cleopatrine  image  included  a  cigarette  holder  and  perfumed  ciga- 
rettes, which  modernized  the  figure  of  the  ancient  queen.  The  visual  representa- 
tion of  women  smokingwas  rare  at  the  time,  for  not  only  was  it  emblematic  of 
mannishness,  but  it  was  also  considered  a  sign  of  lesbian  sexuality.  Havelock 
Ellis  wrote  in  1895  that  the  "pronounced  tendency  to  adopt  male  attire"  and  the 
"pronounced  taste  for  smoking"  characterized  sexually  inverted  women. 9  Anna 
Akhmatova,  who  was  soon  to  become  the  reigning  queen  of  the  Russian  Silver 
Age,  was  a  smoker,  but  this  fact  did  not  enter  her  public  portrait.  The  habit  was 
also  downplayed  in  descriptions  of  Alexandra  Exter,  a  heavy  smoker.  Some  years 
later,  photographic  portraits  of  Varvara  Stepanova  —  many  of  them  taken  by  her 
husband,  Alexander  Rodchenko,  Russia's  leading  avant-garde  photographer  — 
typically  featured  a  cigarette  between  her  lips  or  fingers  (see  fig.  14).  In  this 
case,  however,  smoking  was  not  a  signpost  of  gender,  but  of  affiliation  with  the 
working  class.10 

In  a  1907  caricature,  Gippius  is  represented  in  profile,  sheathed  in  a  tight- 
fitting  white  dress  with  a  fashionable  train  forming  a  flared  bottom  and  a  pocket 
containing  a  pack  of  cigarettes  (fig.  16) .  A  cigarette  between  her  lips,  she  holds  a 
lorgnette  in  one  hand,  while  from  the  other,  like  a  pendant,  hangs  a  sinister  spi- 
der. Her  face  is  dwarfed  by  her  large  coiffure,  and  she  casts  a  small  black  shadow 
behind  her.  She  is  phallic,  but  not  mannish  —  an  image  projected  not  only  by  the 
cigarette  she  holds  in  her  mouth,  but  also  from  the  profile  view.  According  to 
philosopher  and  mathematician  Pavel  Florensky,  the  profile  signifies  power  in 
contrast  to  the  frontal  view;  it  is  a  destabilizing  facial  angle  that  connotes  forward 
movement."  While  Florensky  does  not  address  the  question  of  gender,  his  inter- 
pretation explains  why  the  profile  might  have  held  appeal  for  women  like  Gippius. 

Leon  Rakst's  famous  1906  full-length  portrait  of  Gippius  displays  a  tall  figure 
reclining  in  a  chair,  presenting  herself  as  a  dandy.  She  wears  tight  knee-length 


79 


Germer  TrouBLe  in  THe  aniazonian  KinGDoni 


(y«lo<i3roino|\i'04Ej|<jw&a/ifrt> 


figure  16.  miTTICH 
[Dmitrii  Dmitrievich  Togolsky] 
Caricature  ofZmaida  Gippius,  1907 


pants  (Gippius  was  known  to  sport  culottes  as  well) .  Her  long  legs  are  artfully 
crossed  and  her  hands  are  in  her  pockets,  gestures  marked  as  male.  Her  face, 
framed  by  a  head  of  thick  red  hair  and  a  filmy  white  jabot,  is  appropriately  pale; 
languid  eyes  are  disdainfully  averted  from  the  viewer's  curious  gaze;  a  sensuous 
mouth  displays  an  ironic,  Gioconda-like  smile.12  Accordingto  John  Bowlt,  "The 
remarkable  portrait  (which  [Gippius]  did  not  like)  reveals  at  once  the  contradic- 
tions of  this  extraordinary  personality  —  her  refinement  and  her  affectation,  her 
maliciousness  and  her  frailty." l3  Most  important,  the  image  reveals  a  Wildean 
dandy,  a  turn-of-the-century  aristocratic  transvestite  who  subverts  the  binary 
system  of  gender.  According  to  Charles  Baudelaire,  the  dandy  was  the  most  privi- 
leged of  the  male  gender  because  he  was  artfully  self- constructed:  thus  the  appro- 
priation of  the  dandy  look  by  women  reveals  a  desire  to  outdo  men  in  the  act  of 
self-presentation.1* 

Gippius  undoubtedly  participated  in  the  construction  of  her  own  image  in  this 
portrait  by  Bakst.  She  was  not  a  passive  female  model,  but  the  cocreator  of  the  rep- 
resentation, thus  blurring  the  relation  between  model  and  artist.  Since  the  dandy 
by  definition  chooses  his  or  her  visual  embodiment,  the  power  relation  between 
model  and  artist  in  this  case  had  to  be  fluid.  Moreover,  one  simply  cannot  imagine 
the  willful  and  capricious  Gippius  submitting  to  Bakst's  personal  vision.^ 

Gippius's  sex  life  and  sexual  preferences  corresponded  to  the  discursive  fluid- 
ity of  her  gender  boundaries,  a  fluidity  that  was  not  only  a  matter  of  dress  but  also 


80 


OLGa  maTicH 


of  psychology.  Like  so  many  fin- de-sieele  men  and  women,  Gippius  had  difficulty 
inhabiting  her  body,  and  this  difficulty  was  perhaps  due  to  her  gender  indetermi- 
nacy. In  a  passage  from  her  diary  of  love  affairs,  we  can  see  that  this  blurring  of 
genders  was  not  only  a  strategy  to  destabilize  social  convention  and  transform  life, 
but  it  was  also  a  source  of  deep  personal  anxiety: 

I  do  not  desire  exclusive  femininity,  just  as  I  do  not  desire  exclusive  masculinity. 

Each  time  someone  is  insulted  and  dissatisfied  within  me-,  with  women,  my 

femininity  is  active,  with  men  — my  masculinity.  In  my  thoughts,  my  desires,  in 

my  spirit  —  I  am  more  a  man-,  in  my  body  —  I  am  more  a  woman.  Yet  they  are  so 

fused  together  that  I  know  nothing.  '6 

Gippius  lived  in  a  celibate  marriage  with  Merezhkovsky  for  fifty-four  years.  He 
was  sexually  attracted  to  women,  but  not  to  his  wife.  Meanwhile,  Gippius  had  mul- 
tiple triangulated  "love  affairs"  with  both  men  and  women,  which  in  all  likelihood 
—  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  men  —  were  sexually  unconsummated.  She  clearly  priv- 
ileged the  male  gender,  however,  and  her  favorite  men  were  homosexual.  In  1898, 
Gippius  and  Merezhkovsky  stayed  in  Taormina  at  the  villa  of  Franz  von  Gloeden, 
the  well-known  homosexual  artist  and  photographer.  She  wrote  in  her  diary  about 
one  of  the  other  guests.  "I  like  the  illusion  of  possibility  —  as  if  there  were  a  tinge  of 
bisexuality;  he  seems  to  be  both  woman  and  man." '?  It  was  at  Von  Gloeden's  villa 
that  Gippius  met  a  musician,  Elizabeth  von  Overbeck,  with  whom  she  was  reputed 
to  have  had  a  lesbian  relationship,  although  she  never  referred  to  it  herself. 
Gippius  flaunted  her  attraction  to  homosexual  men,  but  not  to  women.  The  great 
love  of  her  life  was  Dmitrii  Filosofov,  Diaghilev's  cousin  and  lover  and  cofounder 
of  the  first  Modernist  art  journal  in  Russia,  Miriskusstva  (World  of  Art).  After  part- 
ing from  Diaghilev.  Filosofov  lived  with  Gippius  and  Merezhkovsky  in  a  chaste 
menage  a  trois  for  fifteen  difficult  years.'8  The  supposed  function  of  this  arrange- 
ment was  a  Utopian  transfiguration  of  life  based  on  a  nonprocreative  triple  union. 

Gippius  masterminded  her  erotic  life  on  both  the  phantasmic  and  real-life 
levels.  Even  though  her  public  persona  resembled  the  figure  of  the  Decadent 
androgyne,  her  poetry  and  philosophical  essays  focused  on  spiritual  androgyny 
and  its  function  in  the  awaited  transfiguration  of  life.  In  other  words,  Gippius's 
persona  revealed  a  fundamental  split  between  the  imaginary  Utopian  androgyne 
and  the  one  that  resembled  the  Decadent  phallic  woman.  "While  this  split,  which 
was  rooted  in  her  sexuality  and  her  body  (there  were  persistent  rumors  that 
Gippius  was  a  hermaphrodite),  was  the  source  of  a  deep  anguish,  it  was  also  the 
source  of  Gippius's  creativity  and  subversive  experimentation  with  gender. 

If  Cleopatra  was  a  prominent  prototype  of  the  femme  fatale  in  Russia,  the 
reigning  cpieen  of  European  Decadence  was  Salome.  In  the  words  of  Carl  Schorske, 
"Salome  [was]  the  fin  de  siecle"s  favorite  phallic  woman."  '9  Her  dance  of  the  veils 
liberated  the  female  performer,  while  it  both  liberated  and  threatened  her  audi- 


GenDer  TrouBLe  in  THe  amazoman  KincDom 


ence.  The  destabilization  of  traditional  gender  roles  that  this  dance  represented 
empowered  women  and  those  men  whose  self-  identity  departed  from  the  image  of 
the  conventional  phallic  male.  Exposing  female  desire  —  which  included  decapita- 
tion, or  castration,  of  the  male  — Salome's  unveiling  reflected  male  fear  of 
women's  sexuality  and  of  the  uncertainties  of  gender  difference.  Salome  was  the 
symbol  of  both  the  epoch's  "sexual  anarchy"  and  the  castrating  female.  In  Russia, 
the  Salome  craze  was  initiated  by  the  publication  in  Russian  of  Oscar  Wilde's 
eponymous  play  in  1904  by  the  Symbolist  poet  Konstantin  Balmont:  it  was 
reprinted  five  times  in  the  following  four  years.  In  1907,  Konstantin  Stanislavsky's 
Moscow  Art  Theater  applied  to  the  theatrical  censor  for  permission  to  stage 
Salome,  without  success.  Several  theaters,  including  provincial  ones,  did  manage 
to  perform  abbreviated  versions  of  the  play  in  that  and  the  following  year,  but  none 
of  these  productions  made  theatrical  history. 

The  Russian-born  Ida  Lvovna  Rubinstein,  who  became  a  notorious  Salome  on 
the  European  stage,  put  together  her  own  Salome  production  in  St.  Petersburg  in 
1908.  The  daughter  of  a  rich  banker,  she  commissioned  some  of  the  most  exciting 
Russian  theatrical  talent  of  the  time:  Vsevolod  Meierkhold  as  director,  Bakst  as  set 
and  costume  designer.  Alexander  Glazunovas  composer,  and  Michel  Fokine  as 
choreographer.  However,  the  performance  apparently  never  reached  the  public,  as 
it  was  banned  shortly  before  opening  night.  But  Salome's  costume  and  dance  of  the 
veils  migrated  into  Diaghilev's  1909  production  of  Cleopatre,  which  was  one  of  the 
biggest  hits  of  the  Ballets  Russes's  first  Paris  season  (see  fig.  17). 2°  Salome  became 
Cleopatra  in  this  production,  as  if  the  two  were  fundamentally  the  same. 
Describing  Rubinstein's  appearance  onstage,  Jean  Cocteau  gave  a  compelling 
Orientalist  depiction  of  Cleopatra  unwinding  her  veils.  Using  Art  Nouveau  images, 
he  rendered  the  unveiling  of  Cleopatra's  corpse  from  layers  of  history  and  nature-, 
his  description  contrasts  her  sepulchral  image  with  the  living  veils,  which  gradu- 
ally unwound  to  reveal  the  destabilizing  femme  fatale  of  the  European  Decadence: 
From  within  [the  casket]  emerged  a  kind  of  glorified  mummy,  swathed  in  veils. . . . 
The  first  veil . . .  was  red  wrought  with  lotuses  and  silver  crocodiles,  the  second  was 
green  with  all  the  history  of  the  dynasties  in  gold  filigree  upon  it,  the  third  was  orange 
shot  with  a  hundred  prismatic  hues. . . .  the  twelfth  [veil],  was  of  indigo,  and  under 
[it]  the  outline  of  a  woman  could  be  discerned.  Each  of  the  veils  unwound  itself  in  a 
fashion  of  its  own:  one  [resembled]  the  peeling  of  a  walnut,  [another]  the  airy- 
detachment  of  petals  from  a  rose,  and  the  eleventh . . .  came  away  all  in  one  piece 
like  the  bark  of  the  eucalyptus  tree.  The  twelfth  veil . . .  released  Madame  Rubinstein, 
who  let  it  fall  herself  with  a  sweeping  circular  gestured' 
The  performance  launched  Rubinstein's  reputation,  not  at  home  but  in  Paris, 
where  she  was  considered  an  exotic  figure  who  spoke  French  with  a  heavy 
Russian  accent. 


83 


figure  17.  Ida  Rubinstein,  wearing  costume  designed  by 
Leon  Bakst,  in  Cleopatre,  Paris,  1909. 


The  best-known  production  of  Salome  in  Russia  appeared  in  1908  in  the 
Theater  of  Vera  Kommissarzhevskaia,  who  was  herself  a  famous  actress. 
Rubinstein  —  then  still  an  aspiring  actress  and  dancer  —  had  tried  hard  to  get  the 
lead  in  the  production,  but  had  failed.  The  play's  director,  Nikolai  Evreinov,  an 
experimental,  androgynous  figure  of  the  Russian  theater  (and  a  friend  of  Exter, 
Goncharova,  and  Rozanova) ,  received  permission  to  stage  the  play,  but  he  also 
failed  to  bring  Salome  to  a  major  Russian  stage.  In  a  preemptive  attempt  to  avoid 
the  outrage  of  Russian  Orthodox  institutions,  Evreinov  removed  the  biblical  names 
from  the  play  and  replaced  them  with  generic  ones.  He  also  excised  the  play's  most 
provocative  scene,  which  fetishizes  the  phallus,  in  which  Salome  addresses  the 
head  of  the  Raptist  in  an  erotic  monologue;  instead,  she  spoke  her  words  into  the 
opening  of  a  cistern,  at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  the  saint's  corpse. 

The  play's  dress  rehearsal,  on  October  27,  became  legend.  St.  Petersburg's 
governing  and  cultural  elite  attended  the  event,  including  the  vice-mayor,  mem- 
bers of  the  State  Council  and  State  Duma  (among  them  the  reactionary  anti-Semite 
Vladimir  Purishkevich).  and  writers  such  as  Fedor  Sologub.  Leonid  Andreev.  and 
Alexander  Rlok,  the  premier  poet  of  Russian  Symbolism,  whose  poetry  was 
inspired  by  the  figure  of  the  veiled  woman.22  (Evreinov's  Salome  was  Natalia 
Volokhova,  Rlok's  dark  muse.)  The  day  after  the  dress  rehearsal,  several  hours 
before  opening  night,  Evreinov's  production  was  banned,  creating  a  furor  in  the 
Russian  press. 


83 


cermer  TrouBLe  in  rae  amazonian  KinGDom 


Audience  members  at  the  play's  dress  rehearsal  had  witnessed  Nikolai 
Kalmakov's  stylized  set  and  costume  designs,  which,  like  Evreinov's  production 
as  a  whole,  were  self-consciously  erotic.  A  costume  design  for  Salome  (signed  with 
Kalmakov's  trademark  stylized  phallus)  depicts  a  female  figure  who  appears  to  be 
naked,  but  turns  out  to  be  wearing  a  body  stocking  with  red  nipples  on  her  small 
androgynous  breasts  to  symbolize  her  nudity.  In  the  performance  itself,  Salome 
was  draped  in  white  veils  of  innocence,  slipping  out  of  them  during  the  dance. 

The  dance  in  Evreinov's  production  was  suggestively  seductive  but  not  explicit, 
with  nakedness  rendered  symbolically,  and  the  removal  of  Salome's  final  layer 
took  place  on  a  darkened  stage.23  Kalmakov's  sets  had  been  influenced  by 
Beardsley  24;  echoing  Beardsley's  image  of  Wilde  in  the  "Woman  in  the  Moon," 
the  huge  moon  on  the  set  contained  the  imprint  of  a  woman's  naked  body.  "Look 
closely  at  [the  moon],"  wrote  a  reviewer  in Birzhevye  vedomosti  (Stock-Exchange 
News),  "and  you  will  discern  in  it  the  silhouette  of  a  naked  woman."  25  According  to 
some  sources,  the  main  set  for  the  first  act  was  in  the  shape  of  female  genitalia.36 
If  this  is  true,  the  female  genitals  would  have  invoked,  at  least  in  some  members 
of  the  audience,  the  image  of  the  vagina  dentata,  a  fantasy  image  that  had  inspired 
fear  as  well  as  desire  in  the  fin-de-siecle  male  imagination,  especially  in  Europe. 

The  theatrical  ban  of  Wilde's  Salome  in  Russia  was  lifted  in  1917,  shortly  after 
the  February  Revolution.  But  by  then  the  new  society  was  no  longer  so  interested 
in  the  hothouse  gender-bending  and  sexual  experimentation  that  had  fascinated 
Rubinstein  and  Evreinov.  Times  had  changed;  politics  and  social  revolution  were 
the  dominant  concerns.  Still,  the  famous  production  of  Salome  directed  by  Tairov 
and  performed  at  the  Chamber  Theater  in  Petrograd  the  year  the  ban  was  lifted 
was  reminiscent  of  the  ill-fated  earlier  productions.  This  was  especially  true  of 
the  set  and  costume  designs  by  Exter.  Despite  its  dynamism,  her  architectonic  set, 
which  prefigured  Constructivist  decor,  was  reminiscent  of  Kalmakov's  spectacle, 
as  was  her  angular  yet  billowing  costume  for  Salome;  her  Amazonian  Salome  was 
still  modeled  on  the  Decadent  phallic  woman.  Exter's  stage  design  of  the  1 9 1  os  in 
general  had  an  affinity  with  Evreinov's  Symbolist  Salome  production  and  also  with 
Bakst's  Salome  and  Cleopatre. 

Rubinstein,  the  best-known  Russian  Salome  abroad,  turned  not  only  to  Salome 
but  also  to  the  ancient  cultures  of  Egypt,  Greece,  and  Rome  for  artistic  inspiration. 
Of  Russian-Jewish  origin,  she  was  a  mime  more  than  a  dancer.  After  she  left 
Diaghilev's  company,  she  formed  her  own  in  1911,  and  was  its  star.  Tall,  very  thin, 
exotically  beautiful,  eccentric,  expensively  and  flamboyantly  dressed,  Rubinstein 
had  a  chiseled  aquiline  profile  (evident  in  her  archly  posed  photographs  and  por- 
traits) that  evoked  Egyptian  wall  painting  or  Greek  bas-reliefs  and  vases.  Describing 
her  as  Cleopatra  in  1909,  Prince  Peter  Lieven  refers  to  Rubinstein's  "marvellous 
Eastern  profile  . . .  that  seemed  to  have  descended  from  an  Egyptian  bas-relief."2? 

84 


left: 

figure  i8.vaLenTin  serov 

Portrait  of  Ida  Rubinstein,  1910 
Tempera  on  canvas,  147  x  a33  cm 
State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg 

figure  19.  aLexei  raDaKOv 

Caricature  of  Ida  Rubinstein,  1912 

In  an  age  that  revived  Orientalism  and  popularized  Decadent  emaciation, 
Rubinstein  cultivated  a  look  that  was  both  Oriental  and  corpselike.  She  was  an 
independent,  liberated  woman  whose  tastes  were  bisexual.  Her  affairs  with  Italian 
poet  Gabriele  D'Annunzio  and  Romaine  Rrooks,  a  lesbian  American  artist  who 
lived  in  Paris,  were  common  knowledge.  She  inspired  several  famous  homosexual 
artists,  including  Raron  Robert  de  Montescruiou,  Vaslav  Nijinsky,  and  Cocteau. 

The  removal  of  exotic  layers  of  clothing  to  reveal  the  naked  body  characterized 
the  performative,  as  well  as  the  phantasmic,  image  of  Europe's  femme  fatale,  and 
according  to  Alexandre  Renois.  artistic  designer  for  the  Rallets  Russes,  Rubinstein 
would  sometimes  strip  naked  in  public  to  create  a  special  artistic  effect.28  In  fact, 
there  exist  several  paintings  and  photographs  of  Rubinstein  in  the  nude.  Valentin 
Serov,  Russia's  leading  portrait  artist  of  the  turn  of  the  century  and  a  professor  at 
the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture,  cradle  of  Moscow's 
avant-garde,  painted  her  in  the  nude  in  1910  (fig.  18).  The  portrait  — intended  as 
a  poster  for  the  Rallets  Russes's  1910  Paris  season  — was  controversial,  despite 
Serov's  concealment  of  the  genital  area  by  the  angle.  Rubinstein's  anorexic  sepul- 
chral figure,  the  blue  draping,  the  green  veil  that  covers  her  left  leg,  and  the  rings 
on  her  fingers  and  toes  correspond  to  the  vision  of  Cleopatra  as  an  unveiled 
mummy  in  Diaghilev's  ballet. 

Serov's  portrait  was  parodied  by  Alexei  Radakovin  1912  (fig- 19)-  The  pose 
and  veils  in  Radakov's  version  remain  the  same,  but  the  body  is  highly  stylized; 
Radakov  reduced  the  already  limited  lines  in  Serov's  portrait  even  further,  so  that 
Rubinstein  appears  as  no  more  than  a  stick  figure.  The  representation  suggests  the 
image  of  a  match  girl:  Rubinstein's  torso  is  a  matchbox  slightly  open  at  the  top, 
her  limbs  are  burnt  matches  breaking  at  the  joints,  and  her  Medusa-like  head  is 
impaled  on  a  lit  match,  with  funnels  of  smoke  in  the  shape  of  giant  spiraling  curls. 
Viewed  in  reference  to  Salome,  the  figure  suggests  self-immolation.  Though 


85 


figure 20.  romame  BrooKS 

LeTrajet  (The  Voyage),  ca.  1911 
Oil  on  canvas,  115.2  x  191.4  cm 
National  Museum  of  American 
Art,  Smithsonian  Institution, 
Washington,  D.C.,  Gift  of  the  artist. 


intended  as  a  caricature,  the  representation  evokes  contemporaneous  abstract 
human  forms  in  which  lines  have  been  reduced  to  a  minimum,  such  as  Stepanova's 
unisex,  degendered  stick  figures.  True,  Stepanova's  reductionism  derived  from  the 
avant-garde's  quest  for  a  universal  common  denominator  — the  human  machine  in 
motion  —  but  there  is  still  a  bond  between  her  stick  figures  and  Radakov's  depic- 
tion of  Rubinstein. 

There  are  also  two  nude  portraits  of  Rubinstein  by  Rrooks.  The  better-known 
one,  entitled  Le  Trajet  (The  Voyage),  ca.  1911  (fig.  20),  depicts  an  emaciated  white 
female  corpse  lying  prone  on  what  appears  to  be  a  bed,  against  a  black  backdrop.  It 
is  an  androgynous  and  almost  abstract  representation  of  the  Decadent  dead 
woman,  a  figure  whose  power  was  fetishized  during  the  fin  de  siecle.  Even  though 
women  are  sometimes  "deformed"  in  Cubist  representations,  the  female  corpse  as 
an  emblem  of  power  was  not  the  subtext  of  these  works. 

Rubinstein's  charisma  was  based  not  only  on  her  sepulchral  image  and  her 
androgynous  roles.3?  She  was  also  a  woman  of  high  fashion  who  displayed  and 
advertised  leading  couturiers'  dresses.  In  1913,  for  example,  she  appeared  on  the 
cover  of  the  French  theater  and  fashion  magazine  Comoedia  Rlustre  wearing  a  beau- 
tiful Worth  gown  (fig.  21).  According  to  the  Russian-born  couturier  Erte  [Roman 
deTirtoff].  Rubinstein  launched  the  1913  vogue  for  "walking  slinkily  a  la  leopard" 
after  her  appearance  in  D'Annunzio's  La  Pisanella.  in  which  she  "walked  a  leopard 
on  a  long  chain." 3o  Writers  and  artists  at  the  turn  of  the  century  perceived  women's 
fascination  with  wild  cats  as  an  expression  of  the  femme-fatale's  beastliness. 

Even  though  the  incarnation  of  Rubinstein  as  a  cross-gendered  exotic  figure 
was  accomplished  primarily  by  male  stage  and  fashion  designers,  the  impetus  for 
these  representations  came  from  her.  She  selected  the  artists  with  whom  she 
worked,  and  financed  productions  with  the  ultimate  goal  of  staging  her  provocative 
androgynous  persona.  She  was  an  artiste  fashioning  her  own  success.  Her  image  of 
an  exotic,  elegantly  dressed  femme  fatale  was  an  emblematic  female  construction 


86 


OLca  mancH 


figure  21  ■  De  la  Gandara's  portrait  of 
Ida  Rubinstein,  reproduced  on  the 
front  cover  of  Comoedia  Rlustre  (Paris) . 
no.  18  (June  20. 1913). 


of  the  time,  and  her  liberating  figure  could  not  have  gone  unnoticed  by  women 
artists  such  as  Goncharova  and  Rozanova. 

Graphic  artist  Elizaveta  Sergeevna  Kruglikova  is  considerably  less  known  than 
Gippius  or  Rubinstein.  Her  self-  representation  in  art  and  in  life  was  androgynous 
as  well,  but  in  contrast  to  these  other  two  women's  seductive,  albeit  phallic,  per- 
sonas,  hers  was  self-consciously  mannish.3'  A  professional  New  Woman, 
Kruglikova  represented  a  different  aspect  of  female  sexual  anarchy.  Cross-dress- 
ing in  her  case  lacked  a  spiritual  or  titillating  subtext:  rather,  it  was  a  sign  of  les- 
bianism and  followed  the  conventions  of  a  "butch"  code,  which  included  smoking. 
Anna  Petrovna  Ostroumova-Lebedeva  (1871—1944),  an  important  member  of  the 
World  of  Art  group  as  a  painter  and  graphic  artist,32  painted  Kruglikova  in  1925, 
showing  her  dressed  in  work  clothes  and  holding  a  cigarette.  True,  the  portrait  was 
painted  after  the  Revolution,  at  a  time  when  Stepanova  and  other  women  were  rep- 
resented at  work  and  smoking.  We  can  conclude  that  Kruglikova's  sexual  identity 
was  less  slippery  than  Gippius's  or  Rubinstein's;  furthermore,  unlike  Gippius,  she 
did  not  hide  her  lesbian  orientation,  and,  unlike  Rubinstein,  she  was  not  an  exhi- 
bitionist. Kruglikova's  masculine  style  included  participation  in  male  sports,  such 
as  long-distance  cycling  and  mountain  climbing.  Benois  described  the  artist  and 
her  girlfriend,  Mademoiselle  Sellier,  cyclingfrom  Paris  to  Brittany  around  1905, 
wearing  special  cyclist  trousers  that  were  still  considered  to  be  rather  shocking  in 
provincial  France.33 


87 


cenDer  TrouBLe  in  THe  amazonian  KinGDom 


H 1  fr£Bk  ^^  W^ 

ff^ 

s— SHT.—J^^^J  Jm 

7  cJMHHDl 

LuTXI 

wir  ^* 

figure  22. 

eLizaveTa  KruGLiicova 

Printing  an  Etching.  Self- Portrait,  1915 
Linocut,  9.6x16  cm 
State  Russian  Museum, 
St.  Petersburg 


Kruglikova  went  to  Paris  to  study,  as  did  many  of  her  contemporaries  (includ- 
ingyounger  avant-garde  women  artists  such  as  Liubov  Popova  and  Nadezhda 
Udaltsova,  who  went  in  1912).  Kruglikova  arrived  in  Paris  in  1895  and  had  her  first 
solo  exhibition  there  only  seven  years  later.  She  shared  a  studio  with  another 
Russian  artist,  Alexandra  Davidenko,  in  Montparnasse,  which  was  an  important 
gathering  place  for  Russian  and  French  bohemian  artists.  The  creator  of  masterful 
monotype  engravings  and  silhouettes,3*  Kruglikova  made  many  self-portraits,  the 
best  of  which— executed  in  profile  — display  the  process  of  work.  Like  her  younger 
avant-garde  sisters  Popova  and  Stepanova.  Kruglikova  worked  in  the  sphere  of 
mass  culture  at  the  newspaper  Novoe  vremia  (New  Time),  which  was  widely  read  at 
the  turn  of  the  century.  In  a  painted  self-portrait  of  1906,  Kruglikova  represents 
herself  bent  over  a  machine  tool,  wearing  the  large  masculine  gloves  used  by  work- 
ers during  the  printing  process.  A 1915  engraving  shows  her  printing  an  etching 
(fig.  zz) ,  an  image  of  female  physical  labor  that  would  serve  as  a  prototype  for  the 
Soviet  redefinition  of  women's  work.  (Kruglikova's  1923  propaganda  poster  for 
women's  literacy  was  a  well-known  example  of  early  Soviet  agitprop. )35  Similarly. 
Popova  and  Stepanova  designed  working  clothes  in  a  unisexual,  Constructivist 
mode  in  the  early  1920s  (see  fig.  75).  Stepanova  was  known  for  her  unisex  sports 
costumes  that  transformed  the  body  by  means  of  the  dynamic  use  of  geometric 
design,  while  her  self- caricature  The  Constructor  Stepanova.  192?,  represents  a 
strong,  mannish  figure  wearing  a  dress.  Goncharova  also  portrayed  women  (and 
men)  at  work,  although  these  tend  to  be  peasants,  not  industrial  workers. 

Kruglikova  made  portraits  of  other  new  women.  For  example,  around  1915,  she 
made  a  silhouette  of  Nadezhda  Dobychina,  owner  of  the  celebrated  St.  Petersburg 
Art  Rureau  and  sponsor  of  avant-garde  exhibitions,  including  Goncharova's  one- 
woman  exhibition  of  1914  and  o.  jo  the  following  year.  Thus  many  works  by  Exter, 
Goncharova,  Popova,  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova  passed  through  her  hands. 


88 


oixa  mancH 


Kruglikova's  image  of  Dobychina  shows  her  scrutinizing  a  painting  on  an  easel, 
hands  in  her  pockets  with  a  cigarette  between  her  lips.  It  is  a  masculinized  image 
focusing  on  the  subject's  professional  life,  which  is  typically  rendered  by  means 
of  conventional  male  props. 

Kruglikova's  strongest  artworks  are  her  black  silhouettes  against  white  back- 
grounds. Her  self-portraits  in  this  mode  evoke  the  fin-de-siecle  figure  of  the 
Wildean  dandy.  She  presented  herself  dressed  in  a  frock  coat,  elaborate  dress 
shirt,  and  bow  tie;  her  hair  is  bobbed,  and  the  profile  masks  her  gender.  Unlike 
the  engravings  that  picture  her  at  work,  the  self- representations  as  a  dandy  aes- 
theticize  her  mannishness.  In  a  silhouette  of  1921 ,  which  seems  late  in  its  allusion 
to  the  figure  of  the  dandy.  Kruglikova  depicted  herself  cutting  out  a  silhouette 
surrounded  by  the  tools  of  her  trade,  a  long- established  convention  of  artists' 
self-  representation  that  was  appropriated  widely  by  both  male  and  female  artists.36 
Udaltsova's  Cubist  Self- Portrait  with  Palette,  1915  (plate  80),  for  example,  also 
represents  the  artist  with  her  professional  tools. 

The  form  of  the  silhouette  revived  at  the  turn  of  the  century  differs  from  its 
late-eighteenth-century  model  in  that  it  features  men  and  women  in  profile 
instead  of  the  conventional  realist  en  face.  The  emphasis  on  the  profile  —  and  the 
silhouette  —  had  historical  forebears  in  ancient  Egyptian,  Greek,  and  Roman  art. 
Miriskusstva,  which  was  launched  in  1898,  not  only  featured  silhouettes,  but  also 
Egyptomania  and  a  fascination  with  ancient  Greek  beauty.  The  preference  for  pro- 
file or  frontal  representation  in  any  era  depends  on  the  conception  of  individual 
character  that  predominates  at  that  time.  The  art  of  stylization  typically  has  little 
interest  in  the  more  intimate  individualized  frontal  portrait.  For  example, 
Pisanello's  and  Boticelli's  fifteenth-century  profile  portraits  of  young  women, 
with  their  unusually  long  necks  and  tautly  pulled-back  hair,  express  a  distant  styl- 
ized beauty,  reflecting  the  profile's  inherent  remoteness  and  affinity  to  abstract 
figurative  design.  With  the  increase  of  psychological  portraiture  during  the  High 
Renaissance,  artists  began  to  paint  their  models  in  three-quarter  view  and  later 
in  full  face.3?  In  full-length  female  nudes  painted  en  face,  the  subjects  assumed  the 
power  of  the  gaze,  staring  provocatively  at  the  viewer.  Frontal  representations  of 
women  were  characteristic  also  of  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
the  powerful  female  gaze  left  traces  in  works  produced  by  the  avant-garde,  includ- 
ing Goncharova's  Self -Portrait  with  Yellow  Lilies,  1907  (plate  i3) .  Although  the 
androgynous  face  in  Stepanova's  Neo-PrimitivistSeif- Portrait.  1930  (plate  71), 
looks  angrily  at  the  viewer,  its  source  is  not  the  fin-de-siecle  image  of  female 
power,  but  rather  the  African  mask. 

After  the  prevalence  of  frontal  views  in  the  nineteenth  century,  the  profile 
reemerged  at  the  end  of  the  century  in  stylized,  rather  than  psychological,  portraits 
in  both  painting  and  photography.  In  the  context  of  an  age  that  liberated  women 

89 


cenDer  TrouBLe  in  THe  amazonian  KinCDom 


and  emphasized  nonprocreative  sexual  indeterminacy,  the  facial  profile  offered 
women  more  possibilities  of  crossing  the  strictures  of  gender  boundaries.  This  was 
especially  true  if  the  subject  had  what  is  called  a  strong  profile,  and  Rubinstein, 
Gippius.  and  Kruglikova  all  did.  Avant-garde  artists  continued  the  fashion  for  pro- 
file views,  especially  in  Cubist  representations,  such  as  Popova's  Lady  with  Guitar, 
1915  (plate  32). 

While  the  avant-garde's  break  with  Symbolism  was  radical,  marking  a  point  of 
rupture,  the  production  of  the  six  women  artists  in  this  exhibition  does  not  neces- 
sarily reflect  a  total  break  with  the  past.  Several  of  them,  including  Rozanova, 
began  as  Symbolists,  before  quickly  turning  to  Cubism  and  geometric  abstraction; 
even  Stepanova,  the  most  "un- Decadent"  of  the  six  artists,  was  known  to  express 
herself  in  a  Beardsleyian  or  Decadent  style. 39  Exter,  Popova,  and  Stepanova  all 
designed  stylish  dresses  and  hats  for  women,  not  just  unisexual  workers'  garments 
and  sports  clothes,  and  Goncharova  designed  gowns  for  Nadezhda  Lamanova. 
Moscow's  queen  of  haute  couture,  and  lavish  sets  for  the  Ballets  Russes.  Although 
these  examples  represent  only  fragments  of  their  work,  they  reflect  the  fact  that 
these  radical  Amazons  also  expressed  themselves  in  the  fashionable  artistic  mode 
of  the  turn  of  the  century.  Yet  while  the  figurative  paintings  of  these  six  artists  can 
certainly  be  considered  androgynous,  they  are  not  gender-bending;  they  do  not 
reveal  the  same  kind  of  gender  destabilization  as  do  the  lives  and  works  of  the 
three  women  discussed  in  this  essay.  Furthermore,  the  work  of  Exter,  Goncharova, 
Popova,  Rozanova.  Stepanova,  and  Udaltsova  does  not  display  the  characteristic 
fin-de-siecle  ambivalence  toward  the  problematized  female  body. 

1.     Elaine  Showalter,  Sexual  Anarchy:  Gender  and  Culture  at  the  Fin  de  Steele  (New  York:  Viking.  1990). 
3.    Max  Nordau,  Degeneration  (New  York:  Howard  Fertig,  1968).  The  German  original,  Entartung, 
appeared  in  189a:  it  was  first  translated  into  English  in  1895. 

3.  For  the  Russian  notion  of  the  androgynous  ideal,  see  Olga  Matich.  "Androgyny  and  the  Russian 
Religious  Renaissance,"  inAnthony  Mlikotin.  ed..  Western  Philosophical  Systems  in  Russian 
Literature  (Los  Angeles:  University  of  Southern  California,  n.d.).  pp.  165-76. 

4.  The  novels  of  her  husband,  Draitrii  Merezhkovsky.  especially  The  Romance  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci 
(1901),  were  very  popular  throughout  Europe.  Merezhkovsky's  Leonardo  was  the  main  source  of 
Sigmund  Freud's  psychoanalytic  essay  on  the  artist. 

5.  Andrei  Bely  wrote  Petersburg  (1915),  considered  the  most  important  novel  of  early  Russian 
Modernism. 

6.  Alexander  Lavrov,  ed.,.4ndrei.  Bely:  "Nachalo  veka"  (Moscow:  Khudozhestvennaia  literatura, 
1990),  p.  194. 

7.  I.  Briusova  and  N.  Ashukin.  eds.,  Valera  Briusov.  "Dnevniki  1S91— 1910"  (Moscow:  Sytnikov,  1927). 
p.  109. 

8.  For  a  discussion  of  the  Cleopatra  myth  in  Russian  culture,  especially  as  embodied  by  Gippius,  see 
Olga  Matich,  "Zinaida  Gippius'  Personal  Myth,"  in  Boris  Gasparov.  Robert  P.  Hughes,  and  Irma 
Paperno,  eds.,  Cultural  Mythologies  of  Russian  Modernism:  From  the  Golden  Age  to  the  Silver  Age 


90 


OLGa  mancH 


(Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press,  1992).  pp.  52— 72.  There  is  a  curious  parallel  herewith  a 
photograph  of  the  poet  Anna  Akhmatova  in  which,  adopting  a  "Cleopatra"  pose,  she  lies  serpent  - 
like  on  a  divan;  for  a  reproduction,  see  Krystyna  Rubinger,  ed.,Kiinsterlerinnen  derrussischen 
Avantgarde,  ;aio-;a3o  (Cologne:  Galerie  Gmuszynsk.  1979).  p.  15. 

9.  Havelock  Ellis,  "Sexual  Inversion  in  Women,"  in  Alienist  and  Neurologist  (St.  Louis:  1895),  vol.  18, 
no.  2,  pp.  152-54;  as  quoted  in  Marjorie  Garber,  Vested  Interests-.  Cross -Dressing  and  Cultural 
Anxiety  (New  York:  Routledge,  1992),  p.  155. 

10.  In  a  late-nineteenth-century  photographic  self-portrait,  the  American  Frances  Benjamin 
Johnston  "posed  herself  in  a  'male'  manner.  [Sitting  in  profile,]  elbow  out,  mannish  cap  on  her 
head,  tankard  in  one  hand  and  cigarette  in  the  other,  she  leans  forward  with  the  calf  of  one  leg 
resting  on  the  thigh  of  the  other"  (Frances  Borzello,  Seeing  Ourselves:  Women's  Self- Portraits 
[London:  Abrams,  1998],  p.  115).  A  cigarette  figures  prominently  in  a  photograph  by  Paul  Nadar 
of  the  elegantly  dressed,  liberated  Lucie  Delarue-Mardus,  lover  of  Natalie  Barbey  and  member 
of  the  prewar  sisterhood  of  Europe's  gender-benders.  (See  William  Howard  Adams,  AProust 
Souvenir:  Period  Photographs  by  Paul  Nadar  [New  York:  TheVendome  Press,  1984],  p.  121.) 

11.  IgumenAndronikand  M.  Trubachev,  eds.,  Pavel  Florensky.  "Analizprostranstvennostiivremeni 
vkhudozhestvenno-izobrazitelnykhproizvedemiakh"  (Moscow:  Progress,  1993),  pp.  146—71. 

12.  Bakst's  portrait  of  Gippius,  which  was  commissioned  by  Nikolai  Riabushinsky,  publisher  of  the 
Symbolist  journal  Zolotoe  runo  (Golden  Fleece)  and  one  of  the  first  collectors  of  the  early  avant- 
garde,  was  displayed  in  Paris  and  London  and  at  a  controversial  exhibition  of  women's  portraits 
sponsored  by  the  journaMpoUon  (Apollo)  that  was  held  in  St.  Petersburg  in  1910. 

i3.  John  E.  Bowlt,  The  Silver  Age:  Russian  Art  of  the  EarlyTwentieth  Century  andthe  "World  of  Art"  Group 
(Newtonville.  Mass.:  Oriental  Research  Partners,  1982),  pp.  223—24- 

14.  Within  the  lesbian  beau  monde  of  Paris,  such  well-known  artists  and  writers  as  the  Marquise 
de  Belbeuf,  Romaine  Brooks,  Radclyffe  Hall,  and  UnaTroubridge  dressed  in  high  transvestite 
(or  dandy)  style;  the  latter  two  even  sported  a  monocle.  In  London,  Vita  Sackville-West  also  fash- 
ioned herself  as  a  dandy. 

15.  A  self-styled  dandy  who  loved  artifice,  Bakst  was  infatuated  with  Gippius  and  her  heady  theology 
of  sex.  Asa  teacher  or  as  a  colleague,  he  was  in  touch  with  many  of  the  members  of  the  avant- 
garde,  and  his  sensual  designs  for  Sergei  Diaghilev's  production  of  Cleopatre,  performed  by  the 
Ballets  Russes  in  Paris  in  1909,  surely  informed  Exter's  sets  and  costumes  for  Alexander  Tairov's 
production  of  Salome  in  Petrograd  in  1917. 

16.  Zinaida  Gippius,  "Contesd'amour,"  inTemira  Pachmuss,  ed.,  Between  Paris  and  St.  Petersburg-. 
Selected  Diaries  of  Zinaida  Hippius  (Urbana:  University  of  Illinois  Press,  1975),  p.  77. 

17.  Ibid.,  p.  74. 

18.  Like  Gippius,  Romaine  Brooks  did  not  consummate  her  marriage.  She  entered  into  a  "white" 
marriage  with  John  Ellingham  Brooks,  a  homosexual  dilettante  pianist.  During  the  1910s,  she 
developed  an  amorous  relationship  with  American  artist  Natalie  Clifford  Barney,  which  lasted 
until  Brooks's  death.  Similar  marital  arrangements  characterized  the  personal  lives  of  the 
Bloomsbury  group. 

19.  Carl  Schorske,  Fin-de-Siecle  Vienna:  Politics  and  Culture  (New  York:  Vintage  Books,  1981),  p.  224. 

20.  Diaghilev's  ballet  was  first  performed  in  St.  Petersburg  in  1908.  It  was  revised  and  renamed  for 
the  Paris  performance,  although  there  is  some  debate  over  the  original  title.  Some  scholars 
believe  that  it  was  titled  Une  Nuit  d  'Egypte  and  was  based  on  an  1 845  story  of  the  same  name  by 
Theophile  Gautier,  while  others  claim  that  it  was  titled  Egyptian  Nights  and  was  based  on 
Pushkin's  unfinished  eponymous  society  tale  of  the  i83os.  Emblematic  of  the  Cleopatra  myth  in 


9' 


cenuer  irouBLe  in  THe  amazonian  KinoDom 


Russian  culture,  in  both  stories  the  Egyptian  queen  offers  to  exchange  anight  of  love  for  a  young 
man's  life.  Both  texts  were  revived  at  the  turn  of  the  century-,  they  fascinated  not  only  ballet 
artists  but  also  Russian  Symbolist  poet  Valerii  Briusov,  who  completed  Pushkin's  Egyptian  Nights 
by  rendering  the  tale  inverse.  For  a  discussion  of  Cleopatre  in  the  context  of  the  Ballets  Russes 
and  its  history,  see  Deborah  Jowitt,  "The  Veils  of  Salome,"  in  Time  and  Dancing  Image  (New  York: 
William  Morrow,  1988),  pp.  105-15. 

21.  JeanCocteau,  "Cleopatre,"  in  Arsene  Alexandre, ed.,  The  Decorative  Art  of  Leon  Bakst  (New  York: 
Dover,  197a),  pp.  29—80.  This  is  a  reprint  of  an  exhibition  catalogue  originally  published  by 
the  Fine  Art  Society  of  London  in  1913,  which  features  Bakst's  ballet  designs  and  commentary 
by  Cocteau. 

22.  "Na  generalnoi  repetitsii,"  Birzhevye  vedomosti  (St.  Petersburg),  October  28,  1906,  p.  3  ("Okolo 
rampy"  [title  of  newspaper  column]). 

23.  M.  Veikone,  "Teatr  Komissarzhevskoi,"  Teatr  i  iskusstvo  (St.  Petersburg),  no.  44  (1908),  p.  764. 

24.  Evreinov  published  a  monograph  on  Beardsley  in  1912. 

25.  VasiliiR.,  "Na  gneralnoi  repetitsii  'Tsarevny, '"  Birzhevye  vedomosti ,  October  28, 1908,  p.  3 
("Okolo  rampy"). 

26.  Nikita  Lobanov-  Rostovsky,  "A  Bargain  on  Marche  aux  Puces:  The  Pictures  of  Nicolai  Kalmakov," 
in  A.  Flegon,  Eroticism  in  Russian  Art  (London:  Flegon  Press,  1976),  p.  3o6.  (Lobanov- Rostovsky 
is  a  major  collector  of  Russian  stage  design  [1900-1930] .) 

27.  Prince  Peter  Lieven,  The  Birth  of  Ballets -Russes  (London:  Allen  and  Urwin:  1936,  p.  97). 
Rozanova's  Amazonian  Queen  of  Spades,  from  her  Playing  Cards  series,  is  similarly  evocative  of 
representations  of  women  in  Egyptian  art-,  the  Queen's  head  appears  in  profile,  while  her  body  is 
portrayed  frontally.  The  queen  of  spades  as  the  female  symbol  of  demonic  evil  power  in  Russian 
cultural  mythology  dates  to  Pushkin's  eponymous  novella  of  i833. 

28.  Natalia  Alexandrova,  ed.,AlexandrBenua:  Moi  vospommaniia  (Moscow:  Nauka,  1990),  vol.  2, 
p.  471. 

29.  Rubinstein's  most  overtly  androgynous  role  was  that  of  St.  Sebastian  in  D'Annunzio's  The 
Martyrdom  of  Saint  Sebastian  (1911). 

30.  Quoted  in  Michael  de  Cossart,  Ida  Rubinstein  (1885-10.60):  A  Theatrical  Life  (Liverpool:  Liverpool 
University  Press,  1987),  p.  57. 

3i.  There  were  also  more  conventional  models  of  femininity  at  the  turn  of  the  century.  For  example, 
Olga  Glebova-Sudeikina,  a  charming  and  graceful  actress,  artist,  and  poet,  performed  unam- 
biguously feminine/female  roles  on  the  stage  and  in  St.  Petersburg  cabarets,  where  she  is 
reputed  to  have  danced  provocatively  on  tables.  She  also  made  beautiful  embroideries.  Art 
Nouveau  puppets,  and  fine  ceramic  statuettes.  Glebova  married  artist  Sergei  Sudeikin,  who 
designed  the  sets  and  costumes  for  Diaghilev's  production  of  The  Tragedy  of  Salome  in  Paris  in 
1913.  Sudeikin  was  bisexual:  his  most  important  homosexual  affair  was  with  poet  Mikhail 
Kuzmin,  who  styled  himself  as  a  dandy  and  wore  makeup.  Later  Glebova  participated  in  another 
homoerotic  triangle,  with  Kuzmin  and  Vsevolod  Kniazev.  It  was  also  rumored  that  she  had  an 
amorous  relationship  with  Akhmatova.  This  kind  of  overlapping  bisexual  triangulation  was 
characteristic  of  erotic  life  in  the  Petersburg  hothouse  at  the  turn  of  the  century.  On  Glebova- 
Sudeikina,  Sudeikin,  and  their  friends,  see  John  E.  Bowlt,  ed.,  The  Salon  Album  of  Vera  Sudeikin - 
Stravinsky  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1990). 

32.  In  her  time,  Ostroumova-Lebedeva  was  the  most  important  female  member  of  the  World  of  Art 
association.  She  was  close  to  the  group's  journal,  Mir  iskusstva.  She  was  one  of  its  retrospectivists 
that  reappropriated  the  images  of  eighteenth-century  St.  Petersburg.  For  information  on 


9« 


OLca  maTicH 


Ostroumova-Lebedeva,  see  Mikhail  Kiselev,  GrafikaA.  P.  Ostroumovoi-Lebedevoi  (Moscow: 
Iskusstvo,  1984),  and  Elena  Poliakova,  Gorod  Ostroumovoi-Lebedevoi  (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozh- 
nik,  1983). 

33.  See  Alexandrova,  ed.,  Alexandr  Benua,  vol.  2,  p.  433. 

34.  See  Alexandre  Benois,  introduction  in  Parizh  nakanune  voiny  v  monotipiiakh  E.  S.  Kruglkovoi 
(Petrograd:  Union,  1918).  The  book  includes  poems  about  Paris  by  Viaeheslav  Ivanov,  Fedor 
Sologub,  and  Kruglikova's  close  friends  Konstantin  Balmont  and  Maximilian  Voloshin.  It  was 
rumored  that  at  one  time  Kruglikova  was  in  love  with  the  androgynous  Voloshin.  On  Kruglikova. 
see  Petr  Kornilov,  comp.,  Elizaveta  Sergeevna  Kruglikova.  Zhizn  i  tvorchestvo.  Sbornik  (Leningrad: 
Khudozhnik  RSFSR,  1969),  and  E.  Grishina,  E.  S.  Kruglikova  (Leningrad:  Khudozhnik  RSFSR. 
1989). 

35.  On  female  images  in  Soviet  poster  art.  see  Victoria  Bonnell,  Iconography  of  Power:  Soviet  Political 
Posters  under  Lenin  and  Stalin  (Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press,  1997).  pp.  65—185. 

36.  See,  for  example,  the  self-portraits  by  Mariia  Bashkirtseva.  Born  in  Russia,  Bashkirtseva  studied 
and  worked  in  France;  she  died  in  1884  at  the  age  of  twenty-six.  See  Colette  Cosnier,  Marie 
Bashkirtseff.  Un portrait  sans  retouches  (Paris:  Horay,  1985),  and  Journal  de  Marie  Bashkirtseff 
(Paris:  Mazarine,  1980). 

37.  Atechnical  explanation  forthe  early  Renaissance  preference  forthe  profile  is  also  possible, 
which  suggests  that  painting  naturalistic  representations  of  the  frontal  view,  especially  of  the 
model  looking  out  at  the  viewer,  was  simply  too  difficult  at  the  time. 

38.  S.  Stepanova,  "The  Poetics  of  Creativity,"  in  Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  John  E.  Bowlt,  Varvara 
Stepanova:  The  Complete  Work  (Cambridge,  Mass.:  MIT  Press.  1988),  pp.  14-17. 


93 


figure  23.  Alexandra  Khokhlova  modeling  a  dress  designed 
by  Nadezhda  Lamanova,  ca.  1934. 


DressinGUPanD 
DressmGDOwri: 

THe  BODYOFTHe 

avanT-GarDe 


nicoLCTTa  miSLer 


The  paintings  of  the  Russian  avant-garde's  women  artists  include  numerous 
images  of  objects  and  tools.  While  these  images  may  be  strategically  masked  in 
Cubist  disassembling  and  dislocation  or  in  the  alogical  fragmentation  and  dissoci- 
ation of  zaum  (transrational  language),  they  remind  us  that  these  protagonists 
did  not  completely  renounce  their  female  occupations  or  the  particularly  female 
creativity  that  such  occupations  entail. 

For  example,  the  hated/beloved  sewing  machine  is  the  emphatic  presence  in 
Nadezhda  Udaltsova's  Cubist  work  Seamstress,  1912—13  (plate  74).  while  the  spools 
of  thread,  fabric  remnants,  lace,  and  trinkets  that  a  good  housewife  would  never 
throw  away  grace  Olga  Rozanova's  near- Sup rematist  Work  Box,  1915  (fig.  66).  The 
loom  figures  prominently  in  Natalia  Goncharova's  The  Weaver  (Loom  +  Woman), 
1915-13  (plate  2,1).  although  in  this  case  it  indicates  an  escape  from  the  four  walls 
of  domesticity,  toward  a  Futurist  machine.  According  to  Alexander  Lavrentiev, 
Varvara  Stepanova.  despite  her  loud  statements  in  support  of  industrial  garments, 
loved  to  sew  her  own  clothes  and  would  occasionally  assume  the  classic  female 
role,  sewing  the  revolutionary  overalls  designed  by  her  husband.  Alexander 
Rodchenko.  The  same  Stepanova  who  filled  her  canvases  with  severe  robotic  man- 
nequins plays  coyly  with  a  string  of  pearls  (the  quintessence  of  the  bourgeois  ladv) 
in  photographs  taken  by  Rodchenko  in  1928  (see  fig.  24). 

These  Amazons  —  so  revolutionary  in  their  art  and  politics  —  did  not  wish  to 
give  up  embroideries  or  purses  and  evening  bags  (the  most  feminine  of  objects). 


95 


figure  24.  Varvara  Stepanova,  photographed  by 
Alexander  Rodchenko.  1928. 

In  fact,  some  of  Stepanova's  handbags,  along  with  many  of  her  other  personal 
items,  have  been  kept  religiously  by  her  family.  At  least  one  of  Alexandra  Exter's 
handbags  has  also  survived,  despite  the  vicissitudes  of  revolution  and  emigration. 
Rozanova  made  several  designs  for  Futurist  handbags,  as  did  Udaltsova  and  Ksenia 
Boguslavskaia,  wife  of  IvanPuni  (see  fig.  25).1  In  the  collage  entitled  Toilette, 
1914—15  (fig.  26),  Boguslavskaia  assembled  dressing-table  objects,  includinga 
powder  compact,  cuttings  from  fashion  magazines,  and  a  medicine  bottle,  rather 
as  Rozanova  did  in  the  interior  of  Work  Box.  Although  Liubov  Popova  does  not  seem 
to  have  fallen  into  the  temptation  of  creating  a  Suprematist  evening  bag  for  herself, 
she  did  have  a  weakness  for  female  bric-a-brac;  this  is  manifest  in  the  colored 
feathers  and  gloves  of  Subject  from  a  Dyer's  Shop,  1914  (fig.  27).  Popova  also  carved 
out  her  own  modest  feminine  territory  with  the  Suprematist  embroidery  designs 
that  she  made  forthe  Verbovka  women's  enterprise.2  But  male  avant-garde  artists, 
from  Malevichto  Puni,  also  designed  or  made  handbags  and  embroideries.3 
Malevich  said:  "My  mother  used  to  do  different  kinds  of  embroidery  and  lace  - 
making.  I  learned  that  art  from  her  and  also  did  embroidery  and  crochet."* 

Handbags  are  not  only  symbolic  autonomous  objects  but  are  also  accessories, 
and  nearly  all  the  women  artists  who  concern  us  here  designed  fashionable  cos- 
tumes and  clothing.  For  example,  in  her  1913  Moscow  retrospective,  Goncharova 
showed  numerous  contemporary  costume  and  embroidery  designs,  some  of 
which  couturier  Nadezhda  Lamanova  acquired  for  her  fashion  salon.  Exter  theo- 
rized about  the  significance  of  contemporary  dress, 5  and  Popova  and  Stepanova 
tried  to  explain  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  the  prozodezhda  (overalls  for  specific 
activities  such  as  sports  or  the  theater).6  But,  again,  costume  theory  and  design 
were  not  restricted  to  women,  for  even  the  philosopher  Pavel  Florensky  hastened 
to  emphasize  the  importance  of  women's  fashion:  "Ladies'  fashions  are  one  of 
the  most  subtle  regents  of  any  culture.  It  is  enough  just  to  glance  at  a  woman's 
dress,  to  understand  the  dominant  spirit  and  tone  of  the  entire  culture  in  which 
such  a  fashion  is  permissible."'? 

96 


far  left: 

figure  25.  Scarf,  handbag  (?).  and  pillow 
designed  by  Ksenia  Boguslavskaia  at  the 
World  of  Art  exhibition,  Petrograd,  1916. 

figure 26.  Ksenia  BOGUSLavsKaia 

Toilette.  1914—15  (destroyed) 

Oil  and  collage  on  canvas,  42  x  33  cm 


From  a  practical  point  of  view,  male  avant-garde  artists  also  had  something 
to  say  about  the  new  clothing—  from  Vladimir  Tatlin's  mass-produced  garments8 
to  Rodchenko's  overalls.  Ippolit  Sokolov,  radical  advocate  of  the  Constructivist 
movement  and  its  clothing,  declared  unambiguously  that  the  "style  of  the  U.S.S.R. 
is  the  straight  line!"  Emil  Mindlin  observed  that  the  new  style  was  an  arrangement 
of  horizontal  and  vertical  lines,  like  the  architecture  of  the  Parthenon,  and  thus  the 
collarless  peasant  shirt  (tolstovka)  promoted  by  Constructivist  designers  could,  in 
fact,  be  regarded  as  a  new  Parthenon. 9  This  reductionist  statement,  a  broader  indi- 
cation of  the  puritanism  and  asceticism  that  pervaded  post- Revolutionary  avant- 
garde  ideology,  was  the  extreme  result  of  the  obvious  repression  of  the  body  and 
its  physiological  functions,  which  can  be  identified  with  the  later  avant-garde.10 
Strangely  enough,  this  was  even  more  evident  in  the  female  contingent  of  the 
avant-garde.  Certainly,  they  did  not  reject  their  everyday  female  identity,  as  we 
can  sense  from  their  cult  of  the  evening  bag  and  the  dressing  table,  but  the  very 
essence  of  female  identity  — the  recognition  and  depiction  of  the  female  body  — 
engendered  ambiguous  and  by  no  means  homogeneous  interpretations.  In  fact, 
the  female  body  seemed  to  disappear  within  the  spacious,  if  clumsy,  geometric 
volumes  of  the  new  style,  at  least  in  the  case  of  Exter,  Popova,  and  Stepanova. 

Awareness  of  the  body  is  awareness  of  one's  own  body,  and  if  we  look  at  our  six 
Amazons,  we  see  that  at  least  four  of  them  (excluding  the  tall,  thin  Goncharova  and 
the  petite  Rozanova)  could  hardly  have  been  reduced  to  the  movement  of  a  single 
line.  Rather,  their  solid,  squarish  bodies  were  compatible  with  the  radical  simpli- 
fication of  the  prozodezhda,  designs  that  almost  banished  sexuality  and  eroticism. 
In  Popova's  Composition  with  Figures,  1913  (plate  28),  the  solid,  tubular  figures 
resemble  Popova  herself,  whose  female  form  seemed  to  presage  the  ideal  Soviet 
female  body,  in  opposition  to  the  androgynous  silhouette  of  the  Symbolist  hero- 
ines. Popova's  Portrait  of  a  Lady  (Plastic  Design),  1915,  presents  an  image  so  scarcely 
female  that  it  seems  to  be  a  direct  extension  of  the  jug  in  her  Jug  on  Table.  Plastic 
Painting  of  the  same  year  ( plate  34) . 


97 


THe  body  of  THe  avanT-carDe 


figure  27.  UUBOV  POPOVa 

Subject  from,  a  Dyer's  Shop,  1914 

Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  89  cm 

The  Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York, 

The  Riklis  Collection  of  McCrory  Corporation 


98 


nicoLeTTa  misLer 


The  parenthetical  denotation  of  "plastic"  in  the  title  of  Popova's  work  brings 
to  mind  the  plastic  dance  (plastika)  so  popular  in  Moscow  at  that  time,  a  form  of 
dance  that,  through  its  promotion  of  the  liberation  of  the  body,  elicited  a  positive 
response  among  the  female  population.  What  was  the  relationship  between  this 
kind  of  artistic  expression  —  plastic  dance  —  which  is  female  in  essence,  and  the 
painters  in  our  exhibition,  whose  oeuvres,  incidentally,  contain  many  references 
to  dance  and  who  often  worked  as  set  and  costume  designers  for  the  performing 
arts?  Good  Amazons  all,  they  removed  this  feminine  plasticity  from  their  dis- 
course in  order  to  concentrate  on  the  more  austere  battle  for  new  form;  and  if  they 
did  concern  themselves  with  dance  and  movement,  it  was  a  robotic  or  eccentric 
dance  to  which  they  turned.  The  spare  mannequins  in  Stepanova's  Dancing  Figures 
on  White,  1920  (plate  65)  and  Five  Figures  on  a  White  Background,  1920  (plate  66) 
are  the  antithesis  of  soft  or  acrobatic,  nude  plastic  dancing,  which  achieved  its 
widest  popularity  just  after  the  Revolution,  and  they  were  painted  just  before  the 
cult  of  nudity  onstage  and  in  dance  that  took  place  in  Moscow  in  1922.  This  was  the 
year  in  which  the  demonstrations  Evenings  of  the  Denuded  Body,  directed  by  Yurii 
Ars,"  and  Evenings  of  the  Liberated  Body,  directed  by  Lev  Lukin,  were  performed.  It 
was  also  the  year  of  Kasian  Goleizovsky's  manifesto  of  the  naked  body  onstage12  and 
his  production  of  The  Faun,  in  which  Boris  Erdman  reduced  the  costumes  to  short 
skirts  and  loincloths  with  fringes.'3 

But  the  Amazonian  reaction  to  Goleizovsky's  presentation  was  prudish,  if 
not  restrained.  Popova,  for  example,  avoided  the  hot  issue  of  The  Faun's  nudity 
altogether:  "After  all,  how  truer  is  the  equipment  and  deckwork  of  the  crew  of  a 
warship.  . . .  Why  do  the  Pierrots  gesticulate  and  pose  under  red  lamps  (as  in 
Goleizovsky's  set)?"  '4  In  contrast,  the  critical  reactions  for  and  against  these 
manifestations  of  performance  nudity  were  more  explicit:  "Eroticism  or 
Pornography?"  and  "This  Pornography  Must  Stop!"  are  among  the  titles  of  such 
articles.  Indeed,  the  body  that  seemed  to  epitomize  sensuality  in  early  Soviet  dance 
was  not  the  female  body,  but,  above  all,  the  abstractly  elegant  male  body  of  the 
dancer  and  mime  Alexander  Rumnev,  in  all  its  provocative  homosexual  beauty. '5 
Rumnev's  elongated  lines,  emphasized  by  the  muscular  stretching  of  his  angular 
poses,  also  became  the  preferred  subject  of  the  celebrated  photographers  of  the 
time,  including  Nikolai  Svishchev-Paola,  who  forced  his  model  into  statuary  poses 
and  excruciating  contortions.'6  The  vociferous  complaints  in  the  Soviet  press 
about  pornography  and  the  free  dance  of  naked  bodies  replicated  criticisms 
directed  at  Goncharova  a  decade  before.  In  her  primitive  nudes,  such  as  Pillars  of 
Salt,  1908  (plate  15),  Goncharova  expelled  the  eroticism  of  the  fin-de-siecle  plas- 
tic dancers  with  their  Dionysian  ecstasies,  but  the  censors  now  saw  an  exposition 
of  the  darkest,  most  disturbing  and  aesthetically  disagreeable  aspects  of  feminin- 
ity: procreation  and  the  female  power  that  this  expresses. '? 


99 


thc  body  of  THe  avanT-carDe 


figure  29.  Itta  Penzo  in  Joseph  the  Beautiful,  1926, 
photographed  by  Nikolai  Vlasievsky. 


nicoLeiTa  misLer 


Curiously  enough,  the  feminine -homosexual  body  that  the  Free  Dance  of  the 
1930s  manifested  onstage  was  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  image  of  the  new,  maternal 
Soviet  woman  that  coalesced  in  monumental  forms  in  painting,  sculpture,  and 
costume  design.  This  contrast  was  reflected  in  the  avant-garde's  puritanical  nega- 
tion of  the  body  as  an  erotic  instrument,  so  different  from  the  explicit  exhibition- 
ism of  the  nude  dancers  of  the  1930s.  The  latter  flaunted  a  decadence  that  derived 
from  the  Symbolist  era,  summarized  in  Valentin  Serov's  nude  portrait  of  the  her- 
maphroditic Ida  Rubinstein  (fig.  18). l8  Florensky,  in  his  interpretation  of  the 
archaeological  statuette  of  the  Knossos  Snake  Charmer  as  a  Symbolist  femme 
fatale,  seems  to  have  had  in  mind  the  icon  of  the  naked  Rubinstein  with  green 
cloth  coiling  like  a  serpent  around  her  slender  ankle:  "On  the  dancer's  neck  is  a 
collar. . . .  Two  intertwined  snakes  form  her  belt,  the  head  of  one  in  front  of  her 
body  and  its  tail  around  her  right  ear.  The  head  of  a  third  snake  rises  above  the 
tiara.  Rut  fear  not,  these  are  imaginary  terrors,  no  more  terrifying  than  ladies' 
boas,  muffs,  and  winter  hats  trimmed  with  the  snarling  jaws  of  polecats  and  other 
wild  beasts. ...  I  fancy  the  snakes  of  our  bayaderes  are  equally  harmless."'9  In  the 
same  essay,  Florensky  juxtaposed  the  snake  charmer  with  another  archaeological 
image,  the  pagan  Russian  stone  maiden  (kamennaia  baba),  which  Goncharova  had 
accepted  as  an  artistic  and  ideological  model  of  femininity  for  her  primitive 
"pornographic"  paintings.30  For  Goncharova,  the  square,  three-dimensional  stone 
maidens  were  images  of  female  fertility,  engrossed  in  their  lapidary  bodies  and 
deprived  of  any  appeal  (sex  appeal,  in  particular)  toward  the  external  world.-1  The 
naked  bodies  of  these  statues  carry  a  clear  physical  charge,  but  it  is  the  physicality 
of  procreation,  not  of  eroticism  and  seduction. 

Rubinstein  was  not  the  only  woman  in  fin-de-siecle  Russia,  of  both  the  bour- 
geoisie and  the  intelligentsia,  who  wished  to  free  herself  from  her  clothing  and 
reappropriate  her  body.  Isadora  Duncan's  early  performances  in  Moscow  and 
St.  Petersburg,  beginning"  in  1904,  had  a  lasting  effect  on  this  movement,  particu- 
larly after  the  opening  of  her  school  in  Moscow  in  October  1931 .  Duncan  not  only 
freed  the  feet  of  dancers  from  the  constrictions  of  ballet  shoes  (resulting  in  the 
Russian  name  for  her  young  followers,  bosonozhki  —  literally,  barefoot  ones),  but 
she  also  loosened  their  corsets  and  their  female  forms.  The  dancer  Olga  Desmond 
also  introduced  the  concept  of  total  nudity  in  her  Evenings  of  Beauty  in  1908,  — 
albeit  without  the  artistic  legitimacy  of  Duncan's  references  to  the  classical  world. 
In  1911,  playwright  and  theater  director  Nikolai  Evreinov  defended  the  importance 
of  artistic  nudity  in  an  illustrated  book,  Nagota  na  stsene  (Nudity  on  Stage),  and  in 
1933  advocated  the  feminine  game  of  fashion  in  the  magazine  Atelie  (Atelier), 
praising  the  significance  of  chic,  which  he  claimed  distinguished  a  Parisienne 
from  a  lady  of  Rerlin  or  Petrograd.*3 

Duncan  surrounded  herself  with  young  girls  dressed  in  short  tunics,  seeking 


thc  body  of  THe  avanT-carDe 


in  their  childlike  spontaneity  a  primitive,  inner  expressiveness.  Her  interest  coin- 
cided with  analogous  research  being  conducted  immediately  after  the  Revolution, 
not  in  the  field  of  dance,  but  in  the  area  of  infantile  sexuality. '-+  These  studies  took 
place  in  the  Nursery  Laboratory,  established  in  May  1921  within  the  Department  of 
Psychology  of  the  State  Psycho -Neurological  Institute  in  Moscow  (where  art  histo- 
rianAlexei  Sidorov  directed  a  Department  of  Experimental  Aesthetics).  2S  The 
Institute  became  the  nucleus  of  Ivan  Ermakov's  Psychoanalytic  Institute,  founded 
the  following  year.  Indeed,  the  birth  of  psychoanalysis  in  Russia  is  closely  linked 
with  the  new  approach  to  the  visual  arts  encompassing  experimental  dance  —  and 
thus  corporeal  expression  and  communication  —  as  well  as  the  philosophy  of  art 
and  "pure  visibility."  Vasily  Kandinsky  was  one  of  the  promoters  of  this  new  aes- 
thetic, which  took  into  account  the  "inexpressible"  disturbances  of  the  psyche. 
Stepanova  seems  to  have  been  acknowledging  Kandinsky's  notion  of  the  spiritual 
in  art  when  she  stated,  "As  yet  non-objective  creativity  is  just  the  dawning  of  a 
great  new  epoch,  of  a  time  of  great  creativity  hitherto  unseen,  destined  to  open  the 
doors  to  mysteries  more  profound  than  science  and  technology." 26 

On  the  basis  of  these  different  but  converging  fields  of  interest,  the  body  in  its 
psychophysical  entirety  became  the  subject  of  a  complex  interdisciplinary  line  of 
research  undertaken  by  Kandinsky  before  he  emigrated  from  Russia  in  1921.  He 
approached  the  body  as  an  entity  capable  of  communicating  or  expressing  inner 
emotions,  like  a  living  artifact,  in  all  its  beauty,  male  and  female.  A  primary  advo- 
cate of  this  approach  was  Sidorov,  who  studied  both  dance  and  the  graphic  work 
of  German  Expressionism,  an  art  movement  with  which  he  wished  to  associate  the 
work  of  Exter  and  Rozanova.2?  He  wrote:  "In  painting—  our  eye;  in  music  —  our  ear; 
in  architecture  —  our  perception  of  space;  in  dance  —  the  body  is  the  material  of 
art.  Precisely  the  body  in  and  of  itself. .  . .  Recause  it  is  in  the  body  that  analysis 
must  be  rooted,  at  least  starting  with  the  problem  of  the  role  of  costume  and  nudity 
in  the  art  of  dance."28 

The  complex  dialectic  of  dressed/undressed  left  a  deep  imprint  on  current 
ideas  about  Russian  costume,  both  for  the  stage  and  for  everyday,  and  the  subject 
was  a  favorite  topic  of  discussion,  particularly  among  critics  of  a  more  Symbolist 
persuasion.  Sidorov,  who  considered  the  "naked  body  to  be  the  static  principle  of 
dance,"29  concluded  that  "we  are  for  nudity  onstage,"  because  nudity  allowed  the 
public  to  decodify  a  living  mechanism  in  the  movement  of  even  the  slightest  mus- 
cle, which  is  why  he  felt  that  the  costume  ought  to  be  reduced  to  body  makeup.30 
Still,  the  erotic  "body  as  such"  is  absent  from  the  work  of  the  six  women  artists  in 
this  exhibition,  both  before  and  after  the  Revolution,  even  if  they  did  have  some- 
thing to  say  about  body  makeup.  Goncharova  gave  an  audacious  performance  in 
the  movie  Drama  in  the  Futurists'  Cabaret  No.  i3, 1913,  appearing  with  her  breasts 
and  face  painted,  and  Exter  decorated  the  bodies  of  the  dancers  in  a  1935  ballet  in 


figure 3o.  aLexanDra  exTer 

Set  design  for  Dramballet  Studio's  unrealized 
production  of  Alexander  Skriabin's  Ballet  Satanique,  1932 
Gouache  and  pencil  on  paper.  48.7  x  55.1  cm 
Bakhrushin  State  Theater  Museum,  Moscow 


"epidermic  costumes."  "Strip  away  the  colored  rags  that  are  called  costumes  from 
the  dancer,  rags  that  until  now  have  had  only  aesthetic  significance,"  urged  one 
critic.  "Rejecting  aestheticism,  we  also  reject  costumes  of  this  type.  We  must  dress 
the  dancer  in  overalls,  which  allow  the  body  to  move  freely." 3l  Alternative  stan- 
dards of  dress  were  also  represented  by  Stepanova's  functional  and  unsexy  sports 
tunics  (sportodezhda) ,  Popova's  very  proper  summer  dresses  and  autumn  coats, 
and  the  uniform  bodysuits  that  Exter  designed  for  the  unrealized  Ballet  Satanique 
in  19??  (fig.  3o). 

Exter  was  very  concerned  with  the  body  and  its  costume,  whether  for  dance, 
theater,  or  informal  wear.  Disregarding  the  erotic  aspect  of  clothing,  she  was 
always  mindful  of  rhythm  and  movement:  "Materials  that  give,  for  example,  any 
type  of  silk  . . .  make  it  possible  to  create  garments  for  movements  (i.e.,  for  dance) 
and  to  devise  more  complicated  shapes  (circles,  polygons).  This  type  of  costume 
'constructed'  on  the  dynamic  movement  of  the  body,  must  itself  be  'mobile'  in  its 
components." 3a  Exter  applied  her  theory  to  the  sets  and  costumes  she  designed  for 


io3 


THe  body  of  in  e  a\  aiiT-GarDe 


figure  3i.LIUBOVPOPOVa 

Woman  in  a  Yashmak,  1922 

Costume  design  for  Vsevolod  Meierkhold's  unrealized 

production  of  S.  Polivanov's  77ie  Priest  ofTarquinia,  1922 

Pencil  on  paper,  35.1  x  22  cm 

Private  collection,  Moscow 


the  Chamber  Theater  in  Moscow,  especially  for  the  1921  production  of  Romeo  and 
Juliet  (see  fig.  8).  The  form  of  the  body,  male  or  female,  vanished  in  the  "Cubo- 
Baroque"  volutes  of  her  costumes.33  This  was  also  true  of  Popova's  sets  and  cos- 
tumes for  her  own  Romeo  and  Juliet  project  in  1930,  and  even  more  so  for  the 
unstaged  Priest  ofTarquinia  the  following  year,  where  the  female  figures  were  swal- 
lowed up  by  the  dynamic  folds  of  theirveils  (fig.  3i). 

Exter,  Popova,  and  Stepanova,  in  particular,  all  favored  a  neutral  approach  to 
the  body,  which  is  linked  to  Constructivism  and  to  their  support  of  biomechanics, 
whereby  the  human  body  is  a  tool  to  be  disciplined  on  the  basis  of  rhythmic- 
mechanical  criteria.  For  Constructivist  theoretician  Alexei  Gan,  husband  of  film- 
maker Esfir  Shub,  the  human  body  had  to  become  a  total  technological  tool.3+  The 
primary  model  chosen  to  interpret  his  Constructivist  movements  was  the  actress 
Alexandra  Khokhlova,  whose  long,  thin  body  gave  her  top  model  status  (Lamanova 
hired  her  to  model  clothes)  (see  fig.  ?3)  and  fascinated  Rodchenko,  who  captured 
her  image  in  the  1926  film  Hie  Journalist.3^  Gan's  biomechanical  interpretation 
of  the  body  was  supported  by  Petr  Galadzhev  —  an  artist  who  had  studied  with 
Rozanova  at  the  Moscow  Stroganov  Institute  in  the  1910s  — who  illustrated  how  to 
rationalize  and  standardize  actions  (such  as  a  telephone  conversation)  onstage  or 
in  everyday  life  (see  fig.  3?).  His  projects  for  Gan  and  for  Popova's  and  Stepanova's 
prozodezhda  eliminated  gender  identity.  Stepanova  approached  the  same  theme  — 
the  analysis  of  the  gesture/rhythm  and  all  its  possible  variations  —  in  her  Figures, 
which  Lavrentiev  rightly  advised  to  "read"  not  separately,  but  as  a  sequence. 


104 


nicoLeiTa  misLer 


•CynbCa> 


xuaaa   seiner  icccu.i 


TpexnonbHaR  nHpwweCHan 
napTMTypa. 


figure  3a.  PeiT  GaLaDZHeV 

Three  renderings  of  dancers  illustrating  Alexei  Gan's  article  "Kino-tekhnikum"  in 
Zrelishcha  (Moscow),  no.  to  (1922),  pp.  10—11.  Left  to  right:  Destiny.  An  Experimental 
Production.  Kliokhlova  Posing;  Tripartite  Lyrical  Score.  Phone  Conversation.  Komarov 
Posing;  and. Axial  Movements.  Board.  Stick  and  Rope.  Khokhlova  Posing. 


Exter,  along  with  Lamanova,  Evgeniia  Pribylskaia,  and  sculptor  Vera  Mukhina, 
was  a  moving  spirit  behind  the  periodical  Atelie,  which  published  a  single  issue,  in 
19^3.  Mouthpiece  of  the  Moscow  Atelier  of  Fashions,  it  contained  discussions  of 
haute  couture  and  elegant  color  plates,  implying  that  high  fashion  was  now  for 
everyone.  (The  Atelier  even  indulged  in  private  commissions,  a  far  cry  from  the 
egalitarian  spirit  of  the  Revolution.)  Soon  enough,  however,  the  theme  of  the  stan- 
dardized female  body  was  taken  up  by  Soviet  fashion,  which  went  on  to  develop  the 
precocious  ideas  of  Popova  and  Stepanova.  Popova  often  designed  her  textiles  in 
relation  to  the  shape  of  the  clothes,  utilizing  the  principles  of  optical  illusion  in 
order  to  facilitate  the  passage  from  the  two-dimensional  surface  of  the  material  to 
the  three-dimensional  volume  of  the  human  figure.36  But  it  was  precisely  the 
extreme  desire  to  rationalize  the  figure  of  the  new  Soviet  woman  that  led  to  a  nega- 
tion of  the  body  as  an  expression  of  concrete,  psychological,  and  sexual  individual- 
ity—a  process  that  had  begun  with  the  artists  of  the  avant-garde. 


Handbag  designs  by  Rozanova  and  Udaltsova  are  illustrated  in  Larisa  Zhadova.  Malevich  and 

Suprematism  in  Russian  Art  7910-1930  (London:  Thames  and  Hudson.  1982),  p.  3?.  Others  by 

Rozanova  are  reproduced  in  Vera  Terekhina  et  al.,  Olga  Rozanova  1886— 1918,  exh.  cat.  (Helsinki: 

Helsinki  City  Museum,  1992),  nos.  111  and  112.  Some  of  Boguslavskaia's  embroideries,  including 

a  Suprematist  piece,  were  included  in  the  World  of  Art  exhibition  in  Petrograd 

in  1916;  they  are  reproduced  in  Stolitsa  i  usadba  (Petrograd),  no.  56  (April  15,  1916).  p.  23. 

See  Dmitrii  Sarabianovand  Natalia  Adaskina,  Liubov  Popova  (New  York:  Abrams.  1990).  pp.  272, 


ios 


THe  body  of  THe  avanT-oarDe 


294-97.  See  also  Charlotte  Douglas,  "Sfx  (and  a  Few  More)  Russian  Wo  men  of  the  Avant-  Garde," 
in  this  publication. 

3.  See  Douglas,  "Six  (and  a  Few  More)  Russian  Women  of  the  Avant-Garde." 

4.  Kazimir  Malevich,  "Glavy  iz  avtobiografii  khudozhnika,"  Vasilii  Rakitin  and  Andrei  Sarabianov, 
eds..  N.  I.  Khardzhiev.  Stati  ob  svangarde  (Moscow:  RA.  1997).  vol.  1,  p.  114. 

5.  Alexandra  Exter,  "On  the  Structure  of  Dress"  (1923).  Lydia  Zaletova  et  al..  Revolutionary- Costume: 
Soviet  Clothing  and  Textiles  of  the  1930s  (New  York:  Rizzoli,  1989),  p.  171;  "Sovremennaia  odezhda," 
Krasnaianiva  (Moscow),  no.  21  (May  27,  1923),  p.  3i. 

6.  See  Varvara  Stepanova,  "Today's  Fashion  is  the  Worker's  Overall"  (1923),  Zaletova  et  al., 
Revolutionary  Costume ,  pp.  173-74. 

7.  Pavel  Florensky.  "The  Stratification  of  Aegean  Culture."  Nicoletta  Misler,  ed..  Pavel  Florensky: 
Writings  on  An  (Philadelphia:  Pennsylvania  State  University,  forthcoming);  originally  published 
in Bogosloovsku  vestnik  (Moscow)  2,  no.  6  (1913). 

8.  See,  for  example,  Anatolii  Strigalev  and  Jurgen  Harten,  eds..  Vladimir  Tatlin,  exh.  cat.  (Cologne: 
Du  Mont,  1993),  p.  i3i,  figs.  io3— 06. 

9.  Evgenii  Mindlin,  "0  priamoi,  ob  evoliutsii  pidzhaka  i  0  stile  v  RSFSR."  Zrelishcha  (Moscow),  no.  8 
(1922).  p.  10. 

10.  On  the  subject  of  the  body,  sexuality,  and  Russian  women,  see  Jane  Costlow,  et  al.,  Sexuality  and 
the  Body  in  Russian  Culture  (Stanford.  Calif.:  Stanford  University  Press.  1993). 

11.  See  Evgenii  Kan,  "Telo  i  odezhda," Zrelishcha  (Moscow),  no.  7  (1922),  p.  16. 

12.  Kasian  Goleizovsky,  "Obnozhennoe  telo  na  stsene,"  Teatristudia  (Moscow),  nos.  1-2  (1922), 
pp.  36-38. 

i3.  See  Elizaveta  Souritz,  Soviet  Choreographers  (Durham,  N.C.:  Duke  University  Press,  1990), 

PP-  !  73-75- 

14.  Liubov  Popova,  "On  a  Precise  Criterion."  Sarabianov  and  Adaskina,  Liubov  Popova ,  pp.  38o-8i. 

15.  See  Militsa  Ullitskaia,  "Po  khoreograficheskim  kontsertam,"  Sovetskoe  Iskusstvo  (Moscow), 
nos.  8-9  (1926),  pp.  59-60. 

16.  See  Anatolii  Fomin,  Svetopis  N.  I.  Svishchova-Paola  (Moscow:  Iskusstvo,  1964). 

17.  See  Nicoletta  Misler,  "Apocalypse  and  the  Russian  Peasantry:  The  Great  War  in  Natalia 
Goncharova's  Primitivist  Paintings,"  Experiment  (Los  Angeles),  no.  4  (1997).  pp.  62—76. 

18.  See  Olga  Matich's  "Gender  Trouble  in  the  Amazonian  Kingdom:  Turn  -of -the-  Century 
Representations  of  Women  in  Russia"  in  this  publication. 

19.  Pavel  Florensky.  "The  Stratification  of  Aegean  Culture." 

20.  For  example,  Stone  Maiden,  Still-Life  (Packages  and  Stone  Maiden),  and  Still-life  (Stone  Maiden  and 
Pineapple)  (all  works,  1908);  see  VystavkakartinNataliiSergevnyGoncharovoi,  exh.  cat.  (Moscow: 
Art  Salon,  1913),  nos.  67, 155,  and  245. 

21.  Florensky,  "The  Stratification  of  Aegean  Culture." 

22.  See  Nicolai  Evreinov,  Nagota  na  stsene  (St.  Petersburg:  Typography  of  the  Maritime  Ministry, 
1911). 

23.  Nicolai  Evreinov,  "Oblik  parizhanki  1923  g,"Atelie  (Moscow),  no.  1  (1928),  pp.  7-8. 

24.  See  Alexander  Etkind,  Eros  nevozmozhnogo.  Istonia psikhoanaliza  v  Rossii  (St.  Petersburg:  Meduza. 
1993);  and  N.  Penezhko  et  al.,Shekhtel,  Riabushnsky,  Gorky  (Moscow:  Nalsedie,  1997). 

25.  See  Alexei  Sidorov,  "Lichnoe  delo,"  inRGALI  [RossiiskiiGosudarstvennyi  arkhiv  literatury 
i  iskusstva]  (inv.  no.  f.941,  op.  10,  ed.  khr.  189,1.1). 

26.  Varvara  Stepanova,  "Non-Objective  Creativity"  (1919),  in  Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  John  E. 
Bowlt,  eds.  Varvara  Stepanova:  The  Complete  Work  (Cambridge:  MIT  Press,  1988).  p.  169. 


106 


nicoLeTTa  misLer 


27.  SeeAlexei  Sidorov,  Russkaiagrafikazagodyrevoliutsii,  1917-1922  (Moscow:  Dompechati,  1923); 
reprinted  in  Alexei  Sidorov,  0  masterakh  zarubezhnogo,  russkogo  i  sovetskogo  iskusstva.  Izbrannye 
trad/  (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1985),  p.  278. 

28.  Alexei  Sidorov,  "Ocherednye  zadaehi  iskusstva  tantsa,"  Teatristudiia,  nos.  1-2  (1922),  p.  16. 

29.  Inna  Chernetskaia,  "Plastika  i  analiz  zhesta  (Diskussiia.  Protokol  No.  6  Zasedaniia. 
Khoreograficheskaia  sektsiia  RAKhN  10/12/1923),"  in  RGALI  [Rossiskii  gosudarstvennyi  arkhiv 
literaturyi  iskusstva]  (inv.  no.  941,  op.  17,  ed.  khr.  2, 1.  14,). 

30.  Alexei  Sidorov,  "Boris  Erdman,  khudozhnik  kostiuma,"z7re/ishc?ia  (Moscow),  no.  4,3  (1923), 
pp.  4-5. 

3i.  Frank  [Vladimir  Fedorov] ,  "Ektsentricheskiibalet  (vporiadke  diskussii).  Mysli  o  tantse  v 
postanovke  Lukina,"  Ernutazh  (Moscow),  no.  9  (1922),  p.  7. 

32.  Exter,  "On  the  Structure  of  Dress,"  p.  171. 

33.  YakovTugendkhold,,4£e:ra.ndra  Exter  (Berlin:  Zaria,  1922),  p.  26. 

34.  SeeAlexei  Gan,  "Kino-tekhnikum,"£rmitazh  (Moscow),  no.  10  (1922),  pp.  10-11. 

35.  See  Daniel  Girardinet  al.,  La  Femme  enjeu:  Alexandr  Rodtchenko  (Annecy:  La  Petite  Ecole,  1998), 
pp.  128. 

36.  See  Elena  Murina,  "Tkani  Liubovi  Popovoi,"  Dekorativnoe  Iskusstvo  SSSR  (Moscow),  no.  8  (1967), 
pp.  24-27. 


107 


figure  33.  Left  to  right:  Anton  Lavinsky,  Olga  Rodchenko 
(Alexander  Rodchenko's  mother).  Alexander  Vesnin, 
Liuhov  Popova.  Nikolai  Sobolev,  and  Varvara  Stepanova 
(in  foreground),  photographed  by  Alexander  Rodchenko. 
Moscow,  1924- 


creaTive  women, 
creaTive  men,  anD 
paramGms  of  creaTiviTY: 
why  Have  THere  Been 
GreaT  women  arTisTS? 


eKaierina  dyogot 


Why  have  there  been  great  women  artists?  Thus  we  might  rephrase  the  classic 
question  posed  by  Linda  Nochlin  in  19711  when  considering  the  Russian  avant- 
garde.  Although  French  Surrealism  was  one  of  the  most  tolerant  twentieth- century 
cultural  movements  in  its  attitude  toward  female  artists,  women  artists  signed 
none  of  the  Surrealists'  declarations,  were  absent  from  group  portraits,  and  cre- 
ated their  major  works  outside  the  movement.  Yet  the  situation  was  quite  different 
in  Russia.  Within  the  avant-garde,  men  welcomed  their  women  colleagues  as  allies 
and  accomplices,  perhaps  also  at  times  as  rivals,  but  always  as  equals;  women 
artists  were  held  in  high  regard.  (Even  before  the  October  Revolution,  Alexandra 
Exter  and  Natalia  Goncharova  achieved  notoriety  in  Russia,  while  Liubov  Popova 
and  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  emerged  as  Cubists  in  Paris  [fig.  34],  an  accomplishment 
unattained  by  the  men  of  their  circle.)  The  avant-garde  in  Russia  was  in  dire  need 
of  bolstering  its  ranks,  and  women  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity.  Women 
artists  even  wrote  and  published  theoretical  texts,  violating  the  final  taboo  of 
logocentrism. 

For  the  past  twenty  years,  feminist  criticism  has  been  expanding  the  history  of 
twentieth- century  art.  Certain  women  artists  — among  them  Hannah  Hoch,  Frida 
Kahlo,  Kate  Sage,  and  Sophie  Tauber-Arp  —  have  been  removed  from  the  familial 
and  sexual  biographies  of  their  male  partners,  while  the  traditionally  female  roles 
of  "muse,"  "silent  partner,"  and  portrait  object  have  been  elevated  to  the  status 
of  artistic  contributions.2  Yet  within  the  Russian  avant-garde,  the  women  artists 


109 


figure 34.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 
Portrait  of  a  Philosopher,  1915 
Oil  on  canvas.  35.5  x  26.7  cm 
Private  collection.  Moscow 


erased  the  gendered  aspects  of  creativity,  partly  because  they  saw  themselves  as 
artists  "in  general."  (Although  the  women  of  French  Surrealism  also  saw  them- 
selves this  way,  no  one  doubts  that  their  art  is  explicitly  gendered.)3  At  the  same 
time,  Russian  women  artists  felt  a  common  identity  and  solidarity  with  one 
another;  Goncharova  served  not  only  as  a  stylistic  source  for  Olga  Rozanova,  but  also 
as  a  role  model,  while  Rozanova,  in  turn,  served  as  a  model  for  Varvara  Stepanova. 

The  first  women  to  take  their  place  in  the  history  of  Russian  art  were  con- 
nected to  male  artists  by  blood:  Elena  Polenova  was  the  sister  of  Vasilii  Polenov  and 
Maria  Yakunchikova  was  the  sister  of  his  wife,  while  Zinaida  Serebriakova  was  the 
daughter  of  sculptor  Evgenii  A.  Lanceray,  the  sister  of  painter  Evgenii  E.  Lanceray, 
and  the  niece  of  Alexandre  Renois.  The  women  artists  of  the  next  generation,  how- 
ever, were  almost  all  involved  in  artistic  and  sexual  relationships  with  male  artists. 
Yet  there  is  not  a  single  study  that  analyzes  the  partnerships  of  Goncharova  and 
Mikhail  Larionov,  Elena  Guro  and  Mikhail  Matiushin,  Stepanova  and  Alexander 
Rodchenko,  or  Udaltsova  and  Alexander  Drevin,  and  one  usually  finds  only  passing 
remarks  that  Rozanova  was  the  wife  of  poet  and  theorist  Alexei  Kruchenykh 


eKarenna  dyooot 


(although  they  were  never  officially  married),  that  Exter  is  rumored  to  have  been 
the  lover  of  Ardengo  Soffici,  or  that  more  than  professional  concerns  and  a  com- 
mon studio  at  Vkhutemas  connected  Popova  and  Alexander  Vesnin.  These  part- 
nerships were  often  formed  after  or  during  a  woman's  first  marriage  when  her 
husband  was  less  than  her  intellectual  equal.*  The  ideology  of  an  equal  marriage, 
became  common  in  educated  circles  in  Russia  in  the  1860s,  and  this  peculiarity 
should  be  considered  —  along  with  institutional,  sociological,  historical,  artistic, 
and  biographical  factors5  —  in  any  attempt  to  explain  the  presence  of  "great 
Russian  women  artists"  in  the  1910s  and  1920s. 

How  did  these  unions  between  great  artists  function?  What  kinds  of  cultural 
and  aesthetic  constructions  of  masculine/feminine  creativity  were  established? 
The  Modernist  drama  of  binarity,  in  which  the  Other  is  encoded  automatically  as 
unconscious,  natural,  and  feminine,  now  unfolds. 

Even  if  twentieth- century  Russian  women  artists  were  more  visible  than  their 
Western  counterparts,  we  should  not  ignore  issues  of  exclusion  and  exploitation. 
But  gender- oriented  criticism  is  not  an  expose  of,  or  a  defense  against,  sexual 
harassment  in  art  history,  and  it  should  not  be  used  to  police  an  artist's  life  or  aes- 
thetic system.  In  attempting  to  reverse  one  of  the  alleged  repressions  of 
Modernism,  are  we  not  concurring  that  the  repressed  Other  is  feminine?  Would 
it  not  be  more  beneficial  to  question  the  codification  of  whatever  is  repressed  as 
"natural"  (although  nature  itself  is  also  repressive)  and,  consequently,  as  femi- 
nine? Should  Modernism  really  be  "refashioned  around  such  figures  as  Sonia 
Delaunay"6  (who  created  more  forms  than  ideas),  as  many  feminist  critics 
demand?  More  to  the  point,  to  what  extent  can  we  reject  a  dominant  paradigm? 
Is  there  an  advantage  to  taking  an  anthropological  approach  to  art?  Wouldn't 
women  become  banners  for  anti-Modernist  revenge,  as  they  did  in  Soviet  criti- 
cism, which  extolled  women  for  their  "emotionality"  (that  is,  their  failure  to  grasp 
art  as  an  idea),  "subtlety"  (incapacity  for  radical  innovation),  and  "wise  aspiration 
to  overcome  destructive  excesses"? 

GoncHarova  anD  Larionov:  THe  career  of  me  OTHer 

To  be  a  woman  artist  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  was  no  easy  task. 
The  catastrophic  overproduction  of  nudes  in  the  preceding  decades  (though  fewer 
were  produced  in  Russia  than  in  Europe)  had  caused  women  to  be  equated  with  the 
art  object,  and  since  Modernism  despised  the  object's  passivity  and  understood 
innovation  in  terms  of  medium  and  "device"  (to  use  the  Russian  formalists'  term) 
—  both  of  which  were  associated  with  the  phallus  and  logos)  —  it  simply  could  not 
favor  the  feminine.  In  the  1913  manifesto  Slovo  kak  takovoe  (The  Word  as  Such) , 
Kruchenykh  spoke  with  irony  of  "feminine"  criteria  applied  to  language  ("clear, 
melodious,  pleasant,"  and  so  on),  while  observing  that  "first  and  foremost  Ian- 


figure 35.  naTaLia  GoncHarova 

Portrait  of  Mikhail  Larionov,  1913 
Oil  on  canvas,  105x78  cm 
Museum  Ludwig,  Cologne 


exaTerma  dyogot 


guage  must  be  language  and  if  it  has  to  remind  us  of  something,  then  better  the  saw 
or  the  poisoned  arrow  of  the  savage." "  The  saw,  as  a  symbol  of  a  violent  (and  virile) 
intervention  in  nature,  appears  in  both  Kazimir  Malevich's  Cubo-Futurist  paint- 
ings and  Vasily  Kandinsky's  theoretical  writings.  Describing  the  painting  process, 
the  latter  observed  in  1918:  "At  first,  it  stands  there  like  a  pure,  chaste  maiden, 
with  clear  gaze  and  heavenly  joy  —  this  pure  canvas  that  is  itself  as  beautiful  as  a 
picture.  And  then  comes  the  imperial  brush,  conquering  it  gradually,  first  here, 
then  there,  employing  all  its  native  energy,  like  a  European  colonist,  who  with  axe, 
spade,  hammer,  and  saw  penetrated  the  virgin  jungle  where  no  human  foot  had 
trod,  bending  it  to  conform  to  its  will."8 

But  while  any  fin-de-siecle  Russian  artist  would  have  perceived  the  Freudian 
aspect  of  Kandinsky's  tirade  with  the  joy  of  an  accomplice,  the  second, 
"Eurocentric"  aspect  would  have  been  received  differently.  Living  in  a  country 
whose  intellectuals  often  engaged  in  discussion  about  its  tragic  (or  perhaps  fortu- 
nate) dissimilarity  to  rational  Europe,  the  Russian  artist  would  have  tended  to 
identify  with  Kandinsky's  "virgin  jungle."  Russian  Futurism  was,  indeed,  fervently 
nationalistic.  Consequently,  if  the  Modernist  identification  of  women  with  objects 
might  have  made  Russian  women  artists  uneasy,  then  the  association  of  women 
with  the  Other  (the  mysterious,  the  unconscious,  the  archaic)  was  likely  to  have 
been  a  comfortable  position,  since  Russian  philosophy  favored  the  Other.  To  early 
twentieth- century  Russian  audiences,  women  embodied  Russian  art,  and  for  a 
while  Goncharova  filled  this  role  with  her  peasant  Primitivism.9 

Due  to  her  economic  independence  and  higher  social  status  (she  belonged  to 
the  old  nobility) ,  Goncharova  was  able  to  develop  her  relationship  with  Larionov 
(who  had  a  much  humbler  background)  on  an  equal  footing.  They  met  in  1900  as 
students  at  the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture,  and 
from  then  on  their  creative  partnership  never  faltered.  It  was  Larionov  who  ori- 
ented Goncharova  toward  painting  (when  they  met  she  was  still  studying  sculp- 
ture) ;  he  pointed  out  —  in  accordance  with  the  stereotype  of  the  "feminine"  —  that 
her  strength  lay  in  subtle  coloring  and  not  in  powerful  form.  But  while  Larionov 
ceded  first  place  to  Goncharova  in  everything,  as  memoirists  unanimously  con- 
tend, she  once  slapped  someone  for  calling  her  "Madame  Larionova." '°  Her  par- 
ticipation in  artistic  debates,  the  many  references  to  her  in  newspapers,  as  well  as 
her  ready  social  adaptability  and  personal  independence  during  their  years  as  emi- 
gres in  France  (their  familial  relationship  ended  —  apparently  on  the  initiative  of 
Goncharova  —  although  they  remained  a  creative  tandem)  enhanced  her  image  as 
an  Amazon. 

The  roles  in  Goncharova's  and  Larionov's  artistic  union  were  well  defined. 
Larionov  was  a  legend  among  Russian  artistic  circles,  but  Goncharova  enjoyed 
greater  media  and  commercial  success."  She  was  an  indefatigable  "picture- 

u3 


creaTive  women.  creaTive  men 


figure 36.  naTaLia  ooncHarova 

Apple  Trees  in  Bloom,  1913 
Oil  on  canvas,  105  x  84.5  cm 


maker,"  contributing  almost  eight  hundred  works  to  her  Moscow  retrospective 
in  1913,  but  Larionov  nonetheless  reproached  her  for  not  working  hard  enough.12 
Larionov's  commitment  to  painting  was  less  absolute,  for  he  also  assumed  other 
key  roles,  which  Goncharova  never  took  upon  herself:  institutional  organizer, 
theoretician  (with  the  support  of  Ilia  Zdanevich),  and  inventor  of  radical  ideas 
(including  Rayism,  Rayist  theater,  and  face  painting).  The  imperative  of  theory 
compelled  Larionov  to  act  not  only  as  the  pioneer  of  a  new  movement  with  diligent 
students  such  as  Mikhail  Le-Dantiu,  but  also  as  the  discoverer  of  objectively  exist- 
ing tendencies  who  saw  his  insights  confirmed  in  the  work  of  naive  artists  such  as 
Georgian  painter  Niko  Pirosmanashvili.  Goncharova's  fiery  individualism  placed 
her  in  the  company  of  these  naive  artists,  as  an  unconscious  ally  of  Larionov  rather 
than  a  student  of  his  theories. 

For  Goncharova's  1913  retrospective,  Zdanevich  delivered  a  special  lecture 
entitled  "Natalia  Goncharova  and  Everythingism,"  repeating  more  or  less  what 
Larionov  had  declared  at  TJie  Target  exhibition  a  few  months  before. 
Everythingism.  as  he  defined  it,  lay  not  in  the  eclectic  diversity  of  appropriation, 
but  in  the  principle  of  positive  and  uncritical  acknowledgment,  as  opposed  to  the 
criticism  of  Western  Modernism.  Marina  Tsvetaeva  associates  Goncharova  with  the 
"Russian  genius  who  appropriates  everything"  and  with  the  ethics  of  nature,  since 
"Goncharova  embraced  the  machine  as  nature  does." l3  A  parallel  to  Everythingism 
is  found  in  the  views  of  poet  Benedikt  Livshits,  a  member  of  the  same  circle,  who 
debated  Filippo  Tommaso  Marinetti  during  the  Italian's  visit  to  St.  Petersburg  at 


114 


eKaTerma  dvogot 


the  beginning  of  1914.  Livshits  believed  that  Russia's  anti -Western  essence  lay  in 
"our  inner  proximity  to  material,  our  exceptional  sensation  of  it,  our  inborn  ability 
to  transubstantiate,  which  removes  all  intermediary  links  between  material  and 
creator. "  '4  If  the  sense  of  national  identity  in  Russia  was  based  on  the  notion  of 
"unconditional  unification"  as  opposed  to  European  individualism,  this  opposi- 
tion paralleled  the  social  construction  of  the  "feminine"  and  the  "masculine."  '5 
Indeed,  the  gender  aspects  of  this  dichotomy  did  not  escape  the  attention  of  the 
Russian  Futurists.  Livshits,  for  example,  spoke  ironically  of  Marinetti's  "one 
hundred  horse-power  phallic  pathos." l6 

The  Russian  avant-garde's  xenophobic  campaign  helped  elaborate  a  strategy 
whereby  the  East  as  Other  was  not  only  rehabilitated,  but  also  promoted  as  the 
"grand  narrative"  out  of  which  European  Modernism  had  grown.  The  East,  in  this 
view,  already  contained  the  West.  The  "feminine"  also  had  to  demonstrate  its  uni- 
versality and  self-sufficiency.  Goncharova  synthesized  both  ideas,  asserting  that 
the  "Scythian  stone  maidens,  the  Russian  painted  wooden  dolls  . . .  are  made  in 
the  manner  of  Cubism."1-  Like  the  painted  dolls,  the  "stone  maidens"  to  which 
Goncharova  referred  —  effigies  created  by  the  nomads  of  the  Russian  steppes  —  are 
not  representations  specifically  of  women,  but  anthropomorphic  representations 
in  general.  Thus  Goncharova's  picture  of  the  world  was  distinctly  matriarchal,  as 
her  painting  Boys  Bathing  (Direct  Perception) ,  1911,  (Leonard  Hutton  Galleries, 
New  York),  with  its  gender  reversal,  suggests.  Larionov's  Soldier  Cycle  and  Venuses, 
which  he  began  after  Goncharova  had  staked  out  her  matriarchal  territory,  might 
be  seen  as  an  attempt  at  an  ironic  construction  of  a  "masculine"  world. 

Guro  ariD  maTiusHiri:  THe  moTHer  reFemmizeD 

Elena  Guro  had  not  only  an  earthly  destiny  awaiting  her,  but  also  a  fantastic 
posthumous  one.  Through  the  efforts  of  Mikhail  Matiushin  (her  husband),  many 
artists  came  to  identify  Guro  with  nature  as  a  source  of  creative  power.  Matiushin's 
attitude  toward  Guro  included  a  very  strong  element  of  spiritual  fetishism.  "Intoto 
she  is  perhaps  a  sign,"  he  wrote  in  Troe  (The  Three,  1913),  an  anthology  dedicated  to 
her  memory.18  During  Guro's  lifetime.  Matiushin  published  her  books,  translated 
and  annotated  esoteric  literature,  and  composed  music  for  her  plays.  He  began  to 
emerge  as  an  outstanding  artist  and  inventor  of  original  spatial  theories  only  after 
her  death.  (The  day  after  she  died,  on  April  ^3, 1913,  he  resigned  from  the  orches- 
tra in  which  he  had  played  violin  for  thirty  years  to  devote  himself  to  art.)  '9  At  the 
beginning  of  the  1920s,  he  established  the  Elena  Guro  Commune,  whose  partici- 
pants, mainly  the  Ender  family,  not  only  staged  performances  of  her  plays,  but 
also  communicated  with  her  through  spiritualist  seances.20  In  other  words,  Guro 
participated  in  the  construction  of  a  collective  body,  in  which  Matiushin  perceived 
the  creative  subject  of  the  future. 


"5 


creative  women,  crea-rive  men 


Matiushin  first  sawGuro  inYanTsionglinsky's  St.  Petersburg  studio  in  1900. 
He  recalled:  "Elena  Guro  was  drawing  the  spirit  of  'genius'  (from  plaster).  I  have 
never  seen  such  unity  between  the  creator  and  the  subject  under  observation. " '-' 
Without  question.  Matiushin  was  implying  in  this  passage  that  Guro  herself  was  a 
genius.  He  expressed  the  cultural  construct  of  the  unity  between  subject  and  object 
not  as  "feminine"  or  as  "Russian."  but  as  a  definition  of  creativity  itself—  some- 
thing that  the  Symbolists,  especially  poet  and  philosopher  Vladimir  Soloviev, 
identified  with  "love."  22  Guro's  pronouncement  that  the  "poet  is  the  one  that  gives 
life,  not  the  one  that  takes  it  away"23  is  crucial;  she  opposed  her  art  to  the  reduc- 
tionist line  of  Modernism  (which  by  that  time  was  moving  rapidly  toward 
Malevich's  Black  Square.  1915),  and  was  among  those  who  were  searching  for  an 
alternative.  For  that  reason,  she  approached  abstraction  not  through  analysis  but 
through  an  absence  of  violence,  a  weakening  of  energy.  As  Matiushin  noted,  Guro 
made  her  ink  drawings  with  a  brush,  never  with  a  pen  so  that  she  would  not  scratch 
or  dig  into  the  object.2*  Her  favorite  color  was  green,  which  both  Kandinsky  and 
Malevich  despised,  not  so  much  for  its  "natural"  quality  as  for  its  mediocre,  non- 
radical character  (due  to  its  reconciliation  of  yellow  and  blue) . 

Guro's  timid  abstractions  would  not  be  as  noteworthy  as  they  are  were  it  not  for 
the  gendered  narration  of  the  move  from  Symbolism  to  abstraction  that  appears 
in  her  prose,  in  which  the  central  mythologem  is  the  incorporeal  son.  In  her  main 
work,  the  poem  "Bednyi  rytsar"  (Poor  knight),  the  youth  appears  before  the  hero- 
ine, who  recognizes  him  as  her  own  son;  she  experiences  his  incorporeality  and 
independence  of  logos  (she  cannot  recall  his  name)  as  both  tragedy  and  grace. 25 
This  many-sided  motif  can  be  read  in  the  context  of  Symbolism  and  the  biological 
procreativeness  in  "life -creation,"  which  Futurism  transformed,  in  Marinetti's 
novel  Mafarka- Futurist  (1910),  into  a  myth  about  the  birth  of  a  "mechanical  son" 
by  a  human  being.  Whereas  Guro,  whose  work  carries  a  moral  and  aesthetic  prohi- 
bition on  negation,  spoke  of  a  son  who  is  disembodied,  this  motif  appears  in 
Malevich's  work  as  the  gaping  absence  of  a  "living,  regal  infant"  (as  Malevich 
called  his  Black  Square).'-6 

Guro's  work  inspired  not  only  the  "pantheistic"  Matiushin,  but  also  people 
who  were  much  more  distant  from  the  ideal  of  nature.  These  included  Kruchenykh, 
whom  Guro  impressed  with  her  thoughts  on  linguistics.  Speaking  of  the  mecha- 
nisms of  repression  she  sensed  so  keenly,  Guro  wrote  in  a  chapter  entitled 
"Offended  Words"  in  her  literary  diary:  "I  am  aware  that  I  avoid  these  words  faint- 
heartedly and  feel  like  a  criminal,  because  it  is  precisely  I  who  should  work  to  lib- 
erate them.  What  am  I  to  do?  There  are  words  that  receive  no  affection  and  glory 
through  belief  in  their  heroism.  In  literature,  it  seems  to  me,  such  is  the  entire 
feminine  gender,  which  has  been  deprived  by  its  lack  of  independence,  and  which 
proved  unable  to  value  the  purity  of  loneliness. . .  .  What  can  be  done  so  that  they 


EKarenna  dyogot 


cease  to  be  words  of  insignificance?"  -"  Kruchenykh's  "transrationality"  provided 
an  answer  to  this  question:  destroy  the  hierarchical  system.  His  projected  struc- 
ture for  a  transrational  language  allowed  for  a  "lack  of  agreement  in  case,  number, 
tense  and  gender  between  subject  and  predicate,  adjective  and  noun."38  A  case  in 
point  is  the  subtitle  Tsvetnaia  klei  (Colored  Glue)  for  Kruchenykh's  Vselenskaia  voina 
(Universal  War) ,  an  album  of  collages  made  under  the  influence  of  Rozanova. 29 
(An  outstanding  monument  to  the  Russian  avant-garde,  it  was  published  in 
January  1916.  coinciding  with  the  0.70  exhibition,  at  which  Malevich' s  Black  Square 
was  shown.)  The  lack  of  grammatical  agreement  between  the  Russian  words  for 
"colored"  and  "glue"  ("colored"  takes  the  feminine  form,  while  "glue"  is  mascu- 
line) served  to  create  not  only  an  absurd  semantic  unity,  but  also  an  atmosphere 
of  total  freedom  in  the  selection  of  gender  identities.  One  manifestation  of  this 
entropic  democratism  was  the  "shifting"  identity  of  Kruchenykh  himself.  In  his 
Cubo-Fururist  opera  Victory  Over  the  Sun,  he  declared,  "Everything  became  mascu- 
line," and  a  number  of  words  lose  their  feminine  ending.  Kruchenykh  devised  the 
feminine  word  "euy"  from  the  vowels  of  his  surname  to  replace  "lily,"  which  he 
felt  had  been  "raped"  through  overuse,30  and  used  it  as  the  mark  of  his  publishing 
enterprise. 

rozanova  anD  KrucHenYKH:  unconDiironaL  FreeDom 

It  appears  that  Kruchenykh  tried  to  develop  his  collaboration  with  Rozanova  on  a 
similarly  androgynous  basis.  They  met  in  1913  (Kruchenykh  formulated  the  con- 
cept of  "transrationality"  in  the  context  of  their  romance) ,  and,  soon  after, 
Rozanova  began  to  illustrate  nearly  all  of  Kruchenykh's  books,  including  Utinoe 
gnezdyshko  durnykh  slov  (Duck's  Nest  of  Bad  Words,  1913)  (fig.  37),  TeLiLe  (1914) 
(fig.  67),  and  others.  Their  collaborative  works,  which  are  striking  for  their  com- 
plete synthesis  of  representation  and  text,  led  Rozanova  to  take  up  "transrational" 
poetry  and  Kruchenykh  to  take  up  collage. 

In  the  preface  to  Vselenskaia  voina  (Universal  War),  which  Kruchenykh  com- 
posed independently  of  Rozanova.  he  accorded  her  primacy  in  non-objectivity, 
remarking  that  "now  several  other  artists  are  developing  [this] ,  including  Malevich, 
Puni  and  others,  who  have  given  it  the  nonexpressive  appellation  'Suprematism.'"31 

In  summer  1915,  Russia  witnessed  the  creation  of  not  one,  but  two  equally 
influential  versions  of  non-objective  aesthetics.  One  (Suprematism)  was  devel- 
oped by  Malevich,  the  other  (The  Word  as  Such)  by  Kruchenykh.  Working  at 
Malevich's  dacha  in  Kuntsevo,  Kruchenykh  presumably  would  have  passed  along 
information  about  Malevich's  activities  to  Rozanova.  Malevich  was  busy  with  the 
problem  of  the  "zero  of  forms"  as  a  radical  "conflagration"  of  the  visible  world,  and 
the  shift  to  a  qualitatively  new  level  ("beyond  zero").  "I  think  that  Suprematism  is 
the  most  appropriate  [title] ,"  Malevich  wrote  to  Matiushin  while  searching  for  a 


creaTive  women,  creanve  men 


'       jiM.rl. «»«««».  <r„,„ 


figure 37.  OLGa  rozanova 

Illustrations  for  Alexei  Kruchenykh's 
Utinoe gnezdrshko  durnykh  slov .  St.  Petersburg.  1913 
Watercolor  and  lithograph.  91  x  67  cm 
Collection  of  Luce  Marinetti.  Rome 


EKaTenna  dyogot 


name  for  the  new  art,  "since  it  designates  dominion." 3s  In  Kruchenykh's  theory 
of  "the  word  as  such,"  the  motif  of  liberation  and  "loosening  up"  — in  contrast  to 
Malevich's  tense,  commanding  "grasp"  —  plays  a  substantial  role. 

Kruchenykh's  theory  and  its  manifestation  in  Rozanova's  work  grew  out  of  a 
concern  shared  by  many  artists  and  theoreticians  of  the  Russian  avant-garde:  the 
question  of  how  to  reduce  form  without  placing  it  under  the  drastic  and  repressive 
submission  of  the  artist's  conscious  will  (for  which  French  Cubism  and  Italian 
Futurism  were  criticized) .  While  Malevich  brought  this  latent  Cubist  violence  to 
its  extreme  conclusion  in  his  Black  Square,  Guro,  Matiushin.  and  Pavel  Filonov 
chose  an  intrinsic  prohibition  of  Minimalism  and  reduction  (which  is  sometimes 
compulsive  in  Filonov's  overcrowded  paintings).  Rozanova  was  the  only  artist  who 
simplified  forms  in  a  radical  way  without  emphasizing  the  means  of  doing  violence 
to  them.  In  her  1917  essay  "Cubism,  Futurism,  Suprematism,"  she  wrote: 
"Figurative  art  has  been  born  of  a  love  for  color."33  Unlike  Malevich.  Rozanova 
preferred  the  word  "color"  to  the  word  "paint," 3*  favoring  the  end  over  the  means 
and  surpassing  the  violence  of  the  latter  in  the  notion  of  "love,"  a  concept  that 
Malevich  often  excised. 3s  Rozanova  appears  to  have  followed  Platonic,  Romantic, 
and  Symbolist  traditions  by  using  this  term  to  refer  to  the  blending  of  the  subject 
with  the  object,  of  the  means  with  the  end.  She  wrote,  "Futurism  provided  art  with 
a  unique  expression,  the  fusion  of  two  worlds,  the  subjective  and  the  objective."36 

In  her  extraordinary  late  paintings  of  1917-18  (plates  53—54),  Rozanova 
blurred  the  boundaries  between  figure  and  ground,  eventually  removing  them 
altogether,  along  with  representation  as  the  demonstration  of  power  (which  is  still 
evident  in  Malevich's  Black  Square).  She  was  the  only  artist  who  proved  able  to 
develop  Suprematism  (even  to  create  an  alternative  to  it)  without  staining  its  aes- 
thetic purity  with  too  much  emotion,  lyricism,  or  intimacy,  and  her  contribution  to 
the  Russian  avant-garde  was  truly  unique.  Rut  her  late  paintings  also  derive  from 
her  understanding  of  Kruchenykh's  theories  of  1918—15,  which  were  oriented 
toward  the  radical  deconstruction  of  binary  pairs.  ("We  started  seeing  'here'  and 
'there,'"  he  wrote. )3?  Kruchenykh  and  Rozanova  searched  for  "transrational"  areas 
where  these  binaries  could  be  challenged  and  then  effaced,  not  in  the  silence  of 
Malevich's  eternal  "nothing,"  but  in  unstable  syntheses.  (This  is  reminiscent  of 
objectives  later  articulated  by  Andre  Rreton  in  the  Surrealist  manifestos.)  One 
such  area  was  male/female  erotic  relationships;  another  was  collaborative  ven- 
tures. The  book,  with  its  simultaneity  of  image  and  word,  served  as  the  place  for  the 
"transrational"  meeting  of  representation  and  text.  Many  enthusiastic  lines  have 
been  written  about  the  brilliant  publications  of  Kruchenykh  and  Rozanova,  for 
whom  the  book  appeared  to  be  less  a  form  of  collaboration  between  poet  and  artist 
than  an  artistic  form  with  a  completely  new  structure  of  subject-object  relations.  It 
served  as  a  replacement  for  the  picture,  in  which  the  woman  was  always  the  object 


119 


figure 38.  OLGa  rozanova 

Decorative  Motif ,  1917 

Watercolor,  pencil,  and  india  ink,  24.8  x  17  cm 

The  Judith  Rothschild  Foundation 


and  the  man  the  subject  (or  the  object  was  always  a  woman  and  the  subject  a  man); 
rather,  it  proved  to  be  a  field  of  "dual  subjectivity." 

Neither  Rozanova  and  Kruchenykh's  collaborative  partnership  nor  their  per- 
sonal relationship  was  free  of  problems,  it  seems.  "I  have  been  asked  how  much 
you  pay  me  for  my  illustrations  of  your  books  and  why  I  keep  silent  about  it," 
Rozanova  wrote  to  Kruchenykhin  1914.  "I  am  told  you  are  exploiting  me,  making 
me  illustrate  prints  and  stitch  your  books. ...  A  notary  has  a  secretary  who  is  usu- 
ally his  mistress.  You  think  I  can  be  both  your  mistress  and  illustrator  of  your 
books."38  In  his  memoirs,  Kruchenykh  acknowledged  that  he  handwrote  his  own 
texts  in  his  early  lithographic  books  extremely  unwillingly,  and  that  he  did  so  only 
because  he  was  short  of  cash  to  pay  an  artist  to  do  it;39  after  1913,  it  was  Rozanova 
who  undertook  this  task.  Kruchenykh  also  asserted,  moreover,  that  he  handwrote 
the  texts  for  Starinnaia  liubov  (Old-time  love)  himself,  although  according  to  the 
text  of  his  and  Velimir  Khlebnikov's  manifesto  Bukva  kak  takovaia  (The  Letter  as 
Such,  1913),  it  was  Larionovwho  did  so.4°  While  Bukva  kak  takovaia  ascribes  the 
utmost  significance  to  handwriting  as  an  expression  of  the  poet's  emotional  state 
and  is  emphatic  that  the  text  should  not  be  typeset,  it  expresses  a  curious  indiffer- 
ence toward  the  question  of  who  should  handwrite  the  text  in  a  collaborative  book  — 
the  author  or  the  artist.  In  the  books  themselves  the  artist  is  always  credited,  but 
they  do  not  indicate  who  handwrote  the  text.  Perhaps  coauthorship  in  this  case  can 
be  understood  not  as  collaboration,  but  as  a  kind  of  musical  performance  by  the 


eKaTerma  dyogot 


artist,  who  unconsciously  identified  with  the  poet  in  illustrating  the  text. 
Kruchenykh's  remark  that  Rozanova  "was  helpless  in  practical  affairs  . . .  a  sensi- 
tive child -like  woman.  This  is  both  a  great  merit  and  a  shortcoming"  *'  brings  to 
mind  the  Surrealists'  notion  of  the  "femme-enfant,"  the  more  so  since  the  Russian 
transrationalists  also  hoped  to  enter  the  space  of  the  unconscious  through  contact 
(of  a  nonsexual  kind)  with  naive  little  girls.*2  Apparently,  Kruchenykh  was  not  free 
from  perceptions  of  women  as  doors  into  the  unconscious. 

As  Nina  Gurianova  has  pointed  out,  Kruchenykh  often  finished  Rozanova's 
verses,  and  sometimes  signed  them  with  two  signatures.*3  While  he  was  in  Tbilisi 
publishing  his  "autographic"  books  in  1917—18,  he  sent  her  the  sketch  of  a  visual 
poem,  which  she  colored  before  he  made  more  changes,  and  he  occasionally  used 
such  works  in  his  books  with  no  reference  to  her.  What  does  this  mean? 
Exploitation?  A  radical  attitude  to  the  problem  of  authorship?  Is  it  a  peculiarity  of 
the  creative  personality  of  Rozanova  herself?  Or  does  it  point  to  the  irreducibility 
of  the  power  relations  between  word  and  representation,  in  which  privilege  always 
belongs  to  the  text? 

STepanova  anD  roDCHenKO:  peoPLe  anD  thiiigs 

From  the  1920s  on,  Stepanova  and  Rodchenko  were  considered  an  artists'  couple 
who  represented  the  egalitarian  ideals  of  independence,  comradeship,  and  joint 
professional  success.  The  reality  was  less  idyllic.  Among  the  many  roles  that 
Stepanova  filled  in  the  artistic  sphere  —  artist,  author  of  declarations,  creator  of 
new  artistic  structures,  agitator  for  the  new  art  —  her  function  as  a  recording  device 
for  Rodchenko's  numerous  ideas  was  especially  important.  Without  her  diary 
notes,  in  which  the  pronoun  "I"  refers  sometimes  to  her,  sometimes  to  him,  the 
ideas  of  1919—21  (at  least)  would  have  been  lost.  Later  on,  Stepanova  assumed  yet 
another  role  —  as  "manager"  of  their  book  designs,  prompting  her  daughter, 
Varvara,  to  compare  her  to  "a 'robot'  secretary."**  In  a  strange  way,  this  image 
recalls  Stepanova's  paintings  from  1919— 21,  with  their  representations  of  "mecha- 
nized" men. 

In  1915,  Rodchenko  recorded  in  his  diary  a  prophecy  of  his  creative  path:  "I 
shall  make  things  live  like  souls  and  souls  like  things."  *s  In  the  late  1910s  and  early 
1920s,  he  devoted  himself  mainly  to  "things,"  working  on  "non-objective  sub- 
jects" full  of  vitalistic  Romanticism,  such  as  luminescent  abstractions  and  archi- 
tectural and  mobile  constructions.  Stepanova  devoted  herself  to  the  opposite  task 
of  making  things  from  souls,  a  more  radical  but  less  rewarding  task.  ^1919,  she 
abandoned  her  brilliant  visual  poetry  in  order  to  draw  miniature  figures,  as  if  to 
fulfill  a  duty  of  dehumanizing  the  body.  In  their  first  joint  photograph.  Street 
Musicians,  1920,  Rodchenko  and  Stepanova  appear  against  a  background  of  these 
drawings.  Although  the  photograph  was  made  in  the  style  of  her  art  —  their  poses 


far  left: 

figure  39.  varvara 
STepanova 

Caricature  of  Alexander 
Rodchenko, 1923 
India  ink  on  paper, 
23.5  x18  cm 
Private  collection 

figure  40.  varvara 
STepanova 

Self- Caricature,  1922 
India  ink  on  paper, 
33.5x17.5  cm 
Private  collection 


are  reminiscent  of  her  figures  —  Stepanova  nonetheless  appears  to  be  passive  and 
dependent  in  the  photograph.  She  is  different  in  later  photographs  made  by 
Rodchenko  on  his  own,  but  she  still  seems  to  submit  to  the  idea  of  answering  to 
him  with  great  enthusiasm:  she  appears  as  a  woman  laborer  in  a  kerchief  (one  of 
her  designs),  a  saleswoman  at  the  State  Publishing  House  store,  or  a  living  adver- 
tisement for  one  of  Rodchenko's  logo  designs.  Stepanova's  pseudonym,  "Varst,"  is 
striking  not  so  much  for  its  lack  of  a  feminine  ending,  but  rather  because  it  allowed 
her  to  speak  of  herself  in  the  third  person  ("Varst's  works"), 

The  demand  for  both  independence  and  dependence  that  defined  Stepanova's 
work  in  the  context  of  her  relationship  with  Rodchenko  derived  from  a  variety  of 
sources,  among  them  social  reality,  personal  characteristics,  and  feelings 
(Stepanova's  letters  and  diaries  demonstrate  her  boundless  devotion  to  her  hus- 
band) .  Rut  what  is  most  interesting  in  terms  of  her  work  is  the  role  played  by  the 
duality  of  the  Constructivist  aesthetic  program.  The  key  problem  in  Constructivism 
concerned  the  object,  which  supplanted  the  obsolete  conception  of  the  painting. 
Invariably,  the  painting  became  associated  with  a  woman,  and  frequently  a  prosti- 
tute. (Malevich  referred  to  it  as  a  "plump  Venus.")  To  the  Constructivists,  the  pic- 
ture was  always  pornographic:  regardless  of  what  it  represented;  it  appealed 
shamelessly  to  the  sexuality  of  the  viewer  and  thirsted  to  be  purchased.  In  one  of 
his  first  photographs,  made  in  1924,  Rodchenko  depicted  Lef  member  Anton 
Lavinsky  with  a  small  photograph  of  a  nude  model  in  the  background.  Having 
Lavinsky  turn  away  from  the  nude,  Rodchenko  opposed  the  objectified  body  with 
the  face  of  a  new  creator,  a  new  subject.  Woman  had  to  cease  to  be  a  thing,  a  com- 
modity, the  object  of  a  picture.  Visiting  Paris  in  1925,  Rodchenko  found  the  cult  of 
woman  as  thing  and  the  invincibility  of  the  picture  distasteful.  (Among  the  first 
things  that  he  saw  were  dirty  postcards.)  He  wrote  from  there:  "Light  from  the  East 
bears  a  new  attitude  toward  man,  toward  woman,  and  toward  things.  Things  in  our 
hands  should  also  be  equal,  should  also  be  our  comrades."  46 


eKaTerma  dyogot 


According  to  this  line  of  thought,  thing  and  woman  should  be  creators  them- 
selves. The  border  between  subject  and  object  is  removed  not  so  much  by  the 
strength  of  love  for  the  subject  (as  in  Symbolism,  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of 
aesthetic  resolutions  of  the  1900s  and  1910s)  as  by  the  strength  of  the  object's  pos- 
itive response.  Constructivist  design  was  also  devoted  to  the  production  of  a  cer- 
tain substance  of  a  positive  nature,  a  certain  functional  readiness  to  act.  This  was 
embodied  in  Stepanova's  studies  for  athletic  costumes;  the  figures  in  these  studies 
are  usually  shown  with  legs  spread  wide  apart,  and  the  costumes  often  have  dia- 
mond -  shaped  patches  in  the  area  of  the  knees  so  that  the  closing  and  opening  of 
the  legs  would  constitute  the  outfit's  main  visual  effect.  There  was  something 
erotic,  of  course,  in  this  demonstration  of  independence  and  sexual  openness,  but 
Constructivism  did  not  so  much  deny  this  quality  as  fail  to  recognize  it,  since  this 
eroticism  was  virtually  a  side  effect  of  the  primary  goal,  which  was  to  abolish 
alienation  in  the  structure  of  the  thing- commodity,  picture -commodity,  body- 
commodity.  This  was  intended  to  create  a  new  space  of  total  freedom  and  com- 
radeship, a  "new  way  of  life,"  a  goal  that  Sergei  Tretiakov  — a  member,  with 
Rodchenko,  of  the  Lef  group,  which  advocated  Constructivism  — proclaimed  as 
the  primary  task  of  the  new  art. 4? 

There  was  a  problem  that  the  Lef  group  did  not  fully  understand,  however:  the 
lack  of  distinction  between  the  aesthetic  product  and  the  role  played  in  the  "new 
way  of  life"  by  personal  relations.  ^1927,  an  essay  in  Novyi  Lef  (New  Left)  stated 
that  "like  true  lovers,  Lef  and  reality  preserve  the  inventive  freshness  of  their  rela- 
tionship," 48  meaning  that  the  group  had  still  not  broken  with  its  former  lover,  aes- 
thetics. On  exactly  which  territory  the  new  lovers  could  meet,  however,  was  not 
clear.  Many  of  the  works  created  by  the  Lef  group  at  that  time  (including  exhibition 
designs  and  book  covers)  became  standard  fare,  just  a  way  of  making  ends  meet.  It 
is  characteristic  that  it  was  mostly  women,  including  Stepanova,  who  pursued  this 
kind  of  activity  as  a  job,  remaining  loyal  to  the  single  medium  they  chose.  The  ele- 
ments of  the  erotic  and  the  accidental  in  forms  of  the  "new  way  of  life"  (often 
recalling  the  Surrealist  circle)  took  the  place  of  the  anarchic  creative  substance  of 
1918  to  1921.  During  the  1920s,  the  gatherings  of  the  Lef  group  proceeded  like 
seances  or  maniacal  games  of  Chinese  mah-jongg.  Stepanova's  neighbor  and  col- 
league Elizaveta  Lavinskaia  asserted  that  the  circle  made  a  practical  study  of  the 
possibilities  of  freedom  from  property  relations:  "Varvara  Stepanova  pretended  to 
be  a  saint,  she  picked  out  mistresses  for  Rodchenko  herself,  and  then  fell  into  hys- 
terics. . . .  Of  course,  all  of  them  [the  Lef  circle]  removed  themselves  from  art,  pro- 
faned and  defiled  the  very  concept  of  love!"  w 

Inher  memoirs,  written  in  1948.  Lavinskaia  connected  the  "new  way  of  life" 
as  practiced  by  the  Erik-  Mayakovsky  family  (Osip  Brik,  Lili  Brik.  and  Vladimir 
Mayakovsky)  to  the  destruction  of  art.  primarily  of  the  studio  painting.  After  all, 

123 


creaTive  women,  creanve  men 


the  painting  opposed  aesthetic  and  sexual  promiscuity  with  its  own  uniqueness  — 
which  the  Lef  group  censured  as  the  basis  of  fetishism  —  and  with  the  exclusive 
character  of  its  own  subjective-objective  relations.  Despite  this,  Constructivism 
was  not  at  all  free  from  fetishism:  in  studying  Rodchenko's  letters  from  Paris  as 
well  as  the  socialist  object  theory  of  Lef  theoretician  Alexander  Bogdanov, 
Christina  Kiaer  writes  of  the  deeply  fetishistic  character  of  the  Constructivist  the  - 
ory  of  the  object. 5°  If  the  Constructivists  were  slow  to  realize  that  their  projects  for 
the  objects  of  the  "new  way  of  life"  were  not  so  functional,  but  rather  carried  an 
enormous  potential  of  desire,  then  their  work  on  advertisements  in  the  mid-  19250s 
soon  confirmed  it.  The  mark  of  desire  within  Constructivism  is  apparent  in 
Stepanova's  work  for  the  motion  picture  Alienation  (1926),  in  which  the  walls  of  the 
bizarre,  expensive  hairdresser's  shop  where  the  villains  spend  their  time  are  deco  - 
rated  with  her  designs  for  the  Young  Communist  League. 51  In  his  1928  photographs 
of  Stepanova,  in  which  she  appears  on  a  bed  in  a  tightly  fitting  sweater,  Rodchenko 
embellishes  her  image  with  an  erotic  fetish:  one  of  the  most  striking  photographs 
shows  her  with  closed  eyes,  caressing  her  face  with  a  long  string  of  beads. 

In  1927—38,  Rodchenko  launched  a  photographic  experiment  to  study  and  re- 
eroticize  the  passive  object,  evident  in  his  still  lifes  with  glass  objects  reproduced 
in  the  eleventh  issue  of  Novyi  Lef,  in  1928.  Aesthetically,  he  was  prepared  for  the 
dramatic  love  story  that  he  lived  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  1980s  with  Evgeniia 
Lemberg,  the  long-unidentified  figure  in  Rodchenko's  Young  Woman  with  a  "Leica" 
Camera,  1984.5-  The  nude  photographs  he  took  of  Lemberg  while  they  were  staying 
together  in  the  Crimea  (which  until  recently  remained  unknown)  change  our 
impression  of  him.  The  assumption  that  an  object  is  always  an  object  of  desire  — 
and  one  that  pays  with  the  distortion  of  its  image  —  led  Rodchenko  to  his  dramatic 
photographs  of  human  bodies  on  the  beach  (taken  during  the  same  trip  to  the 
Crimea),  his  circus  photographs  during  the  1980s,  and  his  Surrealist  abstractions 
made  in  1984.  The  personal  is  always  the  aesthetic  after  all. 

1.     Linda  Nochlin,  "Why  Have  There  Been  No  Great  Women  Artists?"  (1971).  in  Nochlin, 
Women,  Art,  and  Power  and  Other  Essays  (New  York:  Harper  &  Row,  1988),  pp.  145-78. 

3.    See,  for  example.  Whitney  Chadwick,  Women  Artists  and  the  Surrealist  Movement  (Boston:  Little, 
Brown,  1985);  Whitney  Chadwick  and  Isabelle  de  Courtivron,  eds..  Significant  Others:  Creativity 
and  Intimate  Partnership  (London:  Thames  &  Hudson,  1993);  and  Renee  Riese  Hubert,  Magnifying 
Mirrors:  Women.  Surrealism,  and  Partnership  (Lincoln:  University  of  Nebraska  Press,  1994)- 

3.  See  Hubert,  Magnifying  Mirrors ,  p.  a3. 

4.  Popova's  husband,  Boris  von  Eding,  died  in  1918,  a  year  after  they  were  married.  In  1903,  Exter 
married  the  lawyer  Nikolai  Exter,  who  did  not  hinder  his  wife's  lengthy  trips  to  Paris,  Moscow, 
and  St.  Petersburg,  or  her  friendship  with  members  of  the  avant-garde;  in  sum,  he  "did  not 
interfere  in  her  life."  (A.  Koonen,  quoted  in  Georgii  Kovalenko,  Alexandra  Exter  [Moscow:  Galart, 
1993] ,  p.  180.)  Udaltsova,  who  married  in  1908,  wrote  ten  years  later  that  her  husband  "did  not 


124 


eKarenna  dyogot 


assist  at  all ...  in  .. .  [her]  hard  and  difficult  life."  (Ekaterina  Drevina  and  Vasilii  Rakitin,  eds., 
Nadezhda  Udaltsova:Zhiznrusskoikubistki.  Dnevniki,  stati,  vospominaniia  [Moscow:  RA,  1994]. 
p.  49.)  Stepanova  married  architect  Dmitrii  Fedorovin  1913,  split  with  him  in  1915,  but  still 
carried  his  surname  in  1925.  She  entered  into  official  marriage  with  Rodchenko  during  World 
War  II. 

5.  Access  to  accurate  biographical  information  is  often  difficult  in  these  cases,  as  the  children  of 
these  couples  —  having  lived  to  see  the  acknowledgment  of  their  parents'  work  after  many  years 
of  persecution  and  oblivion  in  the  U.S.S.R.  —tend  to  be  extremely  selective  in  choosing  the  facts 
from  their  personal  lives  with  which  to  acquaint  the  reader.  Any  approach  to  the  present  topic 
requires  a  thorough  familiarity  with  the  archives. 

6.  Chadwick  and  Courtivron,  eds..  Significant  Others,  p.  33. 

7.  Herbert  Eagle  and  Anna  Lawton,  eds.,  Russian  Futurism  through  its  Manifestoes,  19 12-1 928  (Ithaca: 
Cornell  University  Press,  1988),  p.  61. 

8.  Vasily  Kandinsky,  "Reminiscences/Three  Pictures"  (1913),  in  Kenneth  C.  Lindsay  and  Peter 
Vergo,  eds.,  Kandinsky:  Complete  Writings  on  Art  (New  York:  De  Capo  Press,  1994),  pp.  373-73. 

9.  Marina Tsvetaeva  referred  to  Goncharova  as  "Old  Russia"  in  "Natalia  Goncharova  (Zhizn  i 
tvorchestvo),"  in  Georgii  Kovalenko,  ed.,  Natalia  Goncharova,  Mikhail  Larionov.  Vospominaniia 
sovremennikov  (Moscow:  Galart,  1995),  p.  53. 

10.  A.  Krusanov,  Russkii avangard:  i^o^-ic/3^.  Istoricheskii  ohzorvtrekh  tomakh.  Tom  uBoevoe desi- 
atiletie  (St.  Petersburg:  Novoe  literaturnoe  obozrenie,  1996),  p.  i33. 

11.  Ballet  master  Michel  Fokine,  who  was  distant  from  new-art  circles,  referred  to  them  as 
"Goncharova  and  her  co-worker  M.  F.  Larionov."  "Protivtechema,"  in  Kovalenko,  ed.,  Natalia 
Goncharova,  Mikhail  Larionov,  p.  119.  On  the  commercial  success  of  Goncharova's  1913  Moscow 
retrospective  (Larionov  never  had  a  comprehensive  show  in  Russia) ,  see  Krusanov,  Russkii  avan- 
gard,  1907-1932,  pp.  126-27. 

12.  See  "A  Conversation  with  Alexandra  KorsakovaG  904-1990),  "Heresies  (New  York),  no.  26 
(1992),  p.  93. 

i3.  Tsvetaeva,  "Natalia  Goncharova  (Zhizn  i  tvorchestvo),"  in  Kovalenko,  ed.,  Natalia  Goncharova, 
Mikhail  Larionov ,  pp.  34,  81. 

14.  Benedikt  Livshits,  The  One  and  a  Half- Eyed  Archer,  trans.  John  E.  Bowlt  (Newtonville,  Mass.: 
Oriental  Research  Partners,  1977),  p.  208. 

15.  See  Nancy  Chodorow,  The  Reproduction  of  Mothering:  Psychoanalysis  and  the  Sociology  of  Gender 
(Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press,  1978). 

16.  Livshits,  The  One  and  a .Half- Eyed  Archer,  p.  197. 

17.  Krusanov,  Russkii  avangard:  1907-1932,  p.  64. 

18.  Quoted  in  Alexander  Oeheretiansky,  Dzherald  Yanechek,  and  Vadim  Kreid,  labytyi  avangard: 
Rossiia.  PervaiatretXXstoletiia.  Sbomik  spravochnykh  i  teoreticheskikh  materialov  (New  York  and 
St.  Petersburg:  n.p.,  1993),  p.  46. 

19.  Vasilii  Rakitin  and  Andrei  Sarabianov,  eds.,  JV.  I.  Khardzhiev.  Stati  ob  avangarde  (Moscow: 
RA,  1997),  p.  168. 

20.  Elena  Guro.- Poet i khudoxhnik.  i8ff-ipi3,  exh.  cat.  (St.  Petersburg:  Mifril,  1994),  p.  52. 

21.  Quoted  in  Rakitin  and  Sarabianov,  eds.,  N.  J.  Khardzhiev,  p.  152. 

22.  See  Olga  Matich,  "The  Symbolist  Meaning  of  Love:  Theory  and  Practice,"  Irina  Paperno  and  Joan 
Delaney  Grossman,  eds. ,  Creating  Life:  The  Aesthetic  Utopia  of  Russian  Modernism  (Stanford: 
Stanford  University  Press,  1994),  pp.  24-50.  The  relationship  between  Guro  and  Matiushin  has 
much  in  common  with  the  Symbolists'  notion  of  "spiritual  marriage. " 


125 


creanve  women,  creaTive  men 


23.  Elena  Guro,  Nebesnye verbliuzhata  (Rostov-na-Donu:  Rostov  University,  1993),  p.  53. 

24.  Rakitin  and  Sarabianov,  eds..  N.  I.  Khardzhiev,  p.  155. 

25.  Guro,  Nebesnye  verbliuzhata,  p.  189. 

26.  Jean-Claude  Marcade  demonstrates  the  iconographic  similarity  between  a  ig3o  self-portrait  by 
Malevich  and  Mother-and-Child  icons,  apart  from  the  significant  absence  of  the  child  in 
Malevich's  work.  Jean-Claude  Marcade,  Malevitch  (Paris:  Nouvelles  Editions  Franchises,  1990). 
p.  266. 

27.  Guro ,  Nebesnye 'verbliuzhata.  p.  3i. 

28.  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  "New  Ways  of  the  Word,"  in  Eagle  and  Lawton.  eds. ,  Russian  Futurism  through 
Its  Manifestoes,  p.  73. 

29.  From  the  standpoint  of  gender,  Vselenskaia  voma  is  a  unique  monument  in  the  history  of  world 
art,  since  it  was  long  attributed  to  a  woman  on  the  basis  that  a  man  was  thought  to  be  incapable 
of  creating  such  a  work.  On  the  authorship,  see  Gerald  Janacek,  The  Look  of  Russian  Literature: 
Avant-garde  Visual  Experiments  iyoo—ic/3o  (Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1984,),  pp. 
100-102;  and  Juliette  R.  Stapanian,  "Universal  War  and  the  Development  of  'Zaum':  Abstraction 
Toward  a  New  Pictorial  and  Literary  Realism,"  Slavic  and East  European  Journal 29 ,  no.  1  (1985), 
pp.  34-35.  n.  2. 

30.  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  "Declaration  of  the  Word  as  Such,"  in  Eagle  and  Lawton,  eds.,  Russian 
Futurism,  p.  67. 

3i.  Quoted  in  Nina  Gurianova,  "SuprematismandTransrational  Poetry,"  Elementa  (Yverton, 

Switzerland)  1  (1994).  p.  369.  Gurianova  has  demonstrated  that  Kruchenykh  was  referring  here 
to  Rozanova's  abstract  collages. 

32.  "Pisma  K.  S.  Malevicha  k  M.  V.  Matiushinu,"  in  Evgenii  Kovtun  et  al.,  Ezhegodnik Rukopisnogo 
otdela  Pushkinskogo  doma  na  1974 g (Leningrad:  Nauka,  1976),  p.  187. 

33.  Olga  Rozanova,  "Cubism,  Futurism.  Suprematism,"  in  From  Paintingto  Design:  Russian 
Constructivist  Art  of  the  Twenties,  exh.  cat.  (Cologne:  Galerie  Gmurzynska,  1981),  p.  100. 

34.  See  Nina  Gurianova,  "Suprematism  i  tsvetopis,'"  inViacheslavIvanov,  ed.,Avangardvkrugu 
evwpeiskoi  kultury  (Moscow:  RADIKS,  1993),  pp.  142-58. 

35.  Kazimir  Malevich,  "Izgnanie  prirody,  liubvi  i  iskrennosti  iz  predelovtvorchestva,"  in  Alexandra 
Shatskikh,  ed.,  Kazimir  Malevich.  Sobranie  sochinenii  v  $tt.  (Tom  u  Stati.  manifesty.  teoreticheskie 
sochineniia  i  drugie  raboty.  1913-1929)  (Moscow:  Gileia,  1995),  p.  82. 

36.  Rozanova,  "Cubism,  Futurism,  Suprematism,"  p.  io3. 

37.  Kruchenykh,  "New  Ways  of  the  Word."  in  Eagle  and  Lawton,  eds.,  Russian  Futurism,  p.  75. 

38.  Quoted  in  Olga  Rozanova.  1886-1918,  exh.  cat.  (Helsinki:  Helsinki  City  Museum,  1992),  p.  37. 

39.  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  Our  Arrival:  From,  the  Bistory  of  Russian  Futurism.  (Moscow:  RA,  1995),  p.  46. 

40.  See  Russian  Futurism.,  p.  64. 

41.  Quoted  in  Olga  Rozanova.  1886—1918,^.  117. 

42.  See  John  E.  Bowlt,  "Esoteric  Culture  and  Russian  Society."  Maurice  Tuchman,  ed.,  The  Spiritual  in 
Art:  Abstract  Painting.  /8i?o-iip8j  (Los  Angeles:  Los  Angeles  County  Museum  of  Art:  New  York: 
Abbeville  Press,  1986),  p.  178. 

43.  Gurianova,  "Suprematism  and  Transrational  Poetry,"  p.  377. 

44.  Quoted  inVarvara  Rodchenko,  "Life  and  Art,"  in  Lavrentiev  and  Bowlt,  eds.,  Varvara  Stepanova. 
p.  162. 

45.  Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  Varvara  Rodchenko,  Alexander  Rodchenko.-  Opytydlia  budushchego 
(Moscow:  Grant,  1996).  p.  41. 

46.  Ibid.,  p.  151. 


126 


47-  Sergei Tretiakov,  "Otkuda  ikuda?"  /^/'(Moscow),  no.  16  (1924).  pp.  192-203. 

48.  Viktor  Pertsov,  "Grafik  sovremennogo  LEFa,"  Novja /^/"(Moscow),  no.  1  (1927),  p.  17. 

49.  Elizaveta  Lavinskaia,  "Vospominaniia  o  vstrechakh  s  Maiakovskim,"  in  Maiakovskii  v  vospomina- 
niakh  rodnykh  idruzei  (Moscow:  Moskovskii  rabochii,  1968).  p.  353. 

50.  Christina  Kiaer,  "Rodchenko  in  Paris,"  October  (New  York),  no.  75  (winter  1996).  pp.  3-35.  an^ 
"Boris  Arvatov's  Socialist  Objects."  October,  no.  81  (summer  1997).  pp.  105-18. 

51.  See  the  photograph  illustrated  in  Lavrentiev  and  Bowlt.  eds..  Van'araStepanova,\>.  100. 

52.  Judging  from  Rodchenko's  diaries  and  letters  (see  Lavrentiev  and  Rodchenko,. Alexander 
Rodchenko) ,  he  was  deeply  in  love  with  Lemberg  and  was  considering  leaving  Stepanova  for  her, 
but  Lemberg  died  in  a  train  accident  in  the  summer  of  1934.  . 


8^i!|l!!W%3l|II!^|||IS^3^ 


ijp' 


«Msa  .nfK  J&fS  .aSSe  aaJJ#&  iaife 


{v 


MK 


_L'.:.'; 


,.,,,;: 


;  IS 


uiiyiiy^^ 


--.:} 


% 


m 


1  S;i^' 


«.  * 


figure  41 .  Alexandra  Exter,  ca.  1912. 


aLexanDra 
exTer 


Georcn  KovaLenKO 


Alexandra  Alexandrovna  Exter  (1885-1949)  is  one  of  the  brightest  stars  in  the 
firmament  of  the  Russian  —  or  perhaps  we  should  say,  Ukrainian  —  avant-garde. 
Born  in  Ukraine,  Exter  grew  up  in  Kiev,  attended  art  school  there,  and  developed 
a  strong  interest  in  national  Ukrainian  culture.1  Although  in  the  early  1900s  Exter 
moved  frequently  between  St.  Petersburg,  Moscow,  Venice,  and  Paris,  she  always 
returned  to  Kiev  — to  her  studio,  her  family,  and  her  home,  at  least  until  she  left 
for  good  in  1920.  The  city  of  Kiev  was  an  important  motif  in  her  paintings;  and  in 
her  conversations  and  correspondence  as  an  emigre  toward  the  end  of  her  life, 
she  continued  to  evoke  the  memory  of  the  city  of  heryouth.2 

In  the  late  nineteenth  and  early  twentieth  centuries,  the  Ukrainian  city  of  Kiev 
was  very  different  from  Russia's  Moscow  and  St.  Petersburg.  Kiev  was  distant  and 
insulated  from  the  cultural  mainstream  of  Russia  and  the  West,  although  Exter. 
at  least,  did  all  she  could  to  transplant  new  and  experimental  ideas  directly  onto 
Ukrainian  soil.  Thanks  in  no  small  degree  to  her  advocacy,  artists  and  intellectuals 
in  Kiev  were  able  to  discover  and  appreciate  trends  such  as  Neo-Primitivism  and 
Cubism.  For  example,  Exter  helped  organize  two  avant-garde  exhibitions  in  Kiev, 
The  Link  (1908)  and  The  Ring  (1914).  There  was  also  Vladimir  Izdebsky's  first 
international  Salon,  which  traveled  from  Odessa  to  Kiev  in  1910  and  in  which 
Exter  played  an  important  organizational  role.3  Here  the  Ukrainian  public  saw, 
for  the  first  time,  examples  of  the  latest  trends  in  French,  German.  Russian,  and 
Ukrainian  art  —  including  David  Burliuk's  and  Mikhail  Larionov's  Neo-Primitivist 

i3i 


figure  42.  Exter  (seated  in  center)  and  her  students  in  Kiev, 
1918—19,  in  front  of  a  panel  painting  by  Pavel  Tchelitchew, 
who  is  seated  next  to  Exter.. 


compositions,  Vasily  Kandinsky's  Improvisations,  and  Exter's  first  response  to 
French  Cubism.  The  Salon  was  a  major  artistic  event,  bringing  the  art  of  Giacomo 
Balla,  Maurice  Denis,  Albert  Gleizes,  Alfred  Kubin,  Marie  Laurencin,  Henri  Le 
Fauconnier,  Henri  Matisse,  Jean  Metzinger,  Gabriele  Miinter,  and  many  other 
European  artists  to  the  attention  of  the  Kiev  public. 

In  the  early  1910s  Kiev  emerged  rapidly  as  a  center  of  intense  intellectual  and 
literary  exploration.  Not  surprisingly,  the  Exter  household  welcomed  many  well- 
known  and  accomplished  men  and  women  of  the  time,  including  artists;  Exter  was 
especially  close  to  the  painter  Alexander  Bogomazov+  and  the  sculptor  Alexander 
Archipenko.5  However,  she  discovered  even  deeper  intellectual  common  ground 
with  philosophers  such  as  Nikolai  Berdiaev  and  Lev  Shestov,  poets  such  as  Anna 
Akhmatova,  IvanAksenov,  Benedikt  Livshits,  and  Vladimir  Makkoveiskii,  musi- 
cians such  as  Pavel  Kokhansky,  Genrikh  Neigauz,  and  Karol  Szymanovsky,  and 
patrons  and  cognoscenti  such  as  the  Khanenko  and  Tereshchenko  families.  It 
was  in  Kiev  also  that  Exter  cultivated  an  abiding  interest  in  Ukrainian  folk  culture, 
which  she  studied,  promoted,  and  exhibited,  often  incorporating  indigenous 
iconographic  references  into  her  own  studio  work. 

Between  1918  and  1930,  in  the  wake  of  war  and  insurrection,  Kiev  became  a 
city  of  violence  and  devastation.  Stranded  in  Kiev  and  thus  isolated  from  Europe, 
Moscow,  and  St.  Petersburg,  Exter  worked  harder  than  ever  before,  and,  despite 
the  chaos  and  confusion  of  the  ever-shifting  conditions  produced  by  revolution 
and  counterrevolution,  Exter  helped  maintain  Kiev  as  a  major  center  for  artistic 


ceorcn  KovaLenxo 


experiment.  Her  studio  there  brought  together  not  only  artists  and  writers,  but  also 
theater  directors  and  choreographers  such  as  Les  Kurbas,  Konstantin  Mardzhanov, 
and  Bronislava  Nijinska.  Above  all,  Exter  nurtured  an  entire  generation  of  aspiring 
painters  who  came  to  her  for  lessons  and  advice  —  some  of  whom,  such  as 
Alexander  Khvostenko-Khvostov,  Vadim  Meller,  and  Anatolii  Petritsky,  would 
achieve  solid  reputations  as  designers  for  the  Soviet  stage. 

Exter  first  went  to  Paris  in  the  fall  of  1907,  just  as  Cubism  was  evolving  into 
a  distinct  and  sophisticated  style,  and  she  was  quick  to  understand  its  potential. 
However,  Exter  did  not  study  Cubism  in  formal  classes,  as  her  Russian  colleagues 
Liubov  Popova  and  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  did  under  Jean  Metzinger  and  Henri  Le 
Fauconnier.  Instead,  she  learned  about  Cubism  through  personal  contact  with 
its  inventors,  for  by  the  end  of  1907,  poet  and  critic  Guillaume  Apollinaire  and 
painter  Serge  Ferat  had  introduced  her  to  Picasso,  Braque,  and  poet  Max  Jacob, 
and  shortly  thereafter  she  met  both  Fernand  Leger  and  Ardengo  Soffici.  In  the 
clear,  lucid  principles  of  the  Cubism  of  Braque  and  Picasso,  Exter  found  partial 
answers  to  the  problems  of  the  correlation  of  volume  and  surface,  texture  and 
form,  composition  and  rhythm.  But  she  found  it  difficult  to  accept  what  the  Cubists 
were  saying  about  color  or  how  they  were  applying  it  (or  not  applying  it) ,  because 
to  Exter  color  was  everything— it  was  the  alpha  and  omega  of  the  art  of  painting. 
In  Braque's  and  Picasso's  still  lifes  of  1911-1?,  the  object  and  its  environment  are 
interdependent,  whereas  in  Exter's  they  are  clearly  separate  and  almost 
autonomous,  active  and  energetic  in  their  own  right.  Decorative  surfaces  approach 
the  objects,  surrounding  and  dominating  them.  Exter  removes  figuration,  while 
retaining  a  definite  order.  The  result  is  the  construction  of  a  Cubist  style  that 
touches  every  object  and  every  form,  but  it  is  a  Cubist  style  distinguished  by  a 
remarkable  vitality  of  color,  deriving  more  from  the  rich  traditions  of  the 
Ukrainian  decorative  arts  than  from  the  sober  conventions  of  Braque  and  Picasso. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Exter  was  responsible  for  introducing  the  term 
"Cubo- Futurism"  into  the  Bussian  lexicon,  for  she  happened  to  be  in  Paris  in 
October  1913,  just  as  Marcel  Boulangerwas  coining  and  promoting  the  term.6At 
any  rate,  Exter  employed  "Cubo- Futurism"  on  many  occasions,  trying  to  adapt  it 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  Russian  artistic  environment  which  until  that  point  had 
preferred  the  impetus  of  Gleizes,  Metzinger,  and  Le  Fauconnier.  Aware  of  both 
Cubism  and  Futurism  from  her  trips  to  Paris  and  Milan,  Exter  tried  to  combine 
both  tendencies  in  a  stylistic  amalgam  that  she  tailored  to  Bussian  and  Ukrainian 
subject  matter.  Thus,  she  could  render  an  Italian  city  in  a  Cubist  and  even 
Simultanist  manner  (she  was  acquainted  with  the  Delaunays  in  Paris),  while  also 
including  references  to  the  colorful  patterns  of  Ukrainian  Easter  eggs. 

In  the  mid  1910s,  Exter  painted  many  cityscapes,  often  nocturnal,  such  as  City 
at  Night,  1915  (fig.  43)  and  Florence,  1914-15  (fig.  44).  These  are  not  mere  render- 

i33 


aLexarmra  exTer 


ings  of  urban  scenes,  but  fleeting  experiments  in  bold  and  dynamic  color  compo- 
sitions charged  with  the  energy  of  movement.  In  City  at  Night ,  for  example,  lumi- 
nous surfaces  pile  up,  slide  off,  collide,  and  combine  to  form  fantastic 
constructions.  The  light,  which  moves  from  the  concrete  to  the  conditional,  from 
the  cohesion  of  forms  to  their  individual  elements,  is  intensified  by  dazzling  colors 
and  fast  movement,  a  combination  that  brings  to  mind  the  concurrent  experi- 
ments of  Giacomo  Balla  and  Umberto  Boccioni.  However,  Exter  did  not  fully 
embrace  the  doctrine  of  Italian  Futurism,  even  if  the  first  Futurist  manifestos  and 
exhibitions  (such  as  those  in  Paris  in  191?)  coincided  with  her  own  aesthetic  ideas 
during  the  1910s,  and  often  the  Italian  statements  could  have  been  her  own:  "It  is 
essential  to  impart  a  dynamic  feeling,  that  is,  the  special  rhythm  of  every  object,  its 
inclination,  its  movement,  or.  shall  we  say,  its  inner  force.  .  .  .  Our  bodies  enter  the 
couches  we  sit  on,  and  the  couches  enter  us.  The  bus  rushes  toward  the  buildings 
it  passes  and,  in  its  turn,  the  buildings  rush  toward  the  bus  and  merge  with  it."? 

Although  Exter  acknowledged  the  value  of  Italian  Futurism,  she  did  not  follow 
blindly  and  was  not  especially  interested  in  the  vehicle  hurtling  through  space  that 
so  fascinated  Boccioni  and  his  colleagues.  Of  course,  movement  —  both  its  antici- 
pation and  actuality  —  was  very  important  to  Exter's  pictorial  philosophy,  and,  like 
the  Italians,  she  tended  to  ecniate  movement  and  rhythm.  It  is  in  the  rhythmic 
structures  of  her  painting  that  the  potential  for  movement  resides;  and  for  Exter  — 
as  for  Boccioni  —  rhythm  was  a  primary  component  of  movement.  Her  ideas  about 
rhythm  were  also  similar  to  those  of  radical  Moscow  critic  Nikolai  Tarabukhin,  who 
wrote  in  1916  (just  as  Exter  was  developing  her  theories):  "As  an  element  of  move- 
ment, rhythm  is  an  illustration.  .  .  .  Rhythm  presumes  stability,  on  the  basis  of 
which  its  free  impulse  unfolds."8 

Yakov  Tugendkhold.  a  strong  advocate  of  Exter's  oeuvre,  wrote  in  his  biography 
of  her  in  1933:  "[Exter's]  'non-objective'  works  produce  a  strange  and  unsettling 
impression.  The  gaze  of  the  viewer  .  .  .  searches  first  of  all  for  human  content, 
analogies,  and  suggestions  of  various  kinds  of  customary  concrete  images  — and  is 
about  to  turn  away  in  futile  disappointment.  .  .  .  However,  it  is  impossible  to  turn 
away,  foryou  begin  to  sense  the  enchantment,  cold  and  pure,  like  music,  of  these 
suspensions  and  declivities  of  multi-colored  forms  amidst  the  endless  space  of 
the  white  canvas.  .  .  .  This  is  no  portrait,  landscape,  or  still  life;  this  is  some  kind 
of 'world  in  the  clouds,"  in  which  abide  only  pure  concepts  of  painting,  concepts 
of  space  and  depth,  balance  and  movement.  "9  These  "pure  concepts  of  painting" 
inform  all  of  Exter's  art,  including  the  studio  paintings  and  the  stage  designs, 
especially  in  her  treatment  and  manipulation  of  color. 

Explosions  of  color  are  a  characteristic  feature  of  Exter's  painting.  If.  in 
Picasso's  painting,  form  often  absorbs  color,  Exter's  colors  overflow,  transcending 
the  laws  and  conventions  of  composition,  as  if  to  emphasize  that  the  intrinsic  laws 

134 


ceoron  KovaLeiiKo 


■f£2n    "Aii 

Ik 

*W        t^i 

i 

»  VI 

■BYf     ^*»           -a        \ 

■  k^SS/ 

m\             * 

feW^b   jd  &  ^BB  i 

1        Illi^l 

m    \ 

r 

■                                                                   ■■VjVjVJBb7                         -J0JBK&-. 

left: 

figure 43.  aLexanDra  exTer 

City  at  Night,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas.  88  x  71  cm 

State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 

below: 

figure 44.  aLexanDra  exTer 

Florence.  1914-15 

Oil  on  canvas.  91  x  78  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 


'35 


jfeA    [  i 


of  color  are  just  as  essential  as  those  of  any  other  entity.  Exter's  colors  tend  to 
"explode"  beyond  the  boundaries  of  a  given  form,  producing  liberated  and  almost 
independent  zones  of  color,  which,  however,  serve  as  reflections  of,  or  commen- 
taries on,  the  formal  shapes  within  the  painting. 

Exter  came  to  nonobjective  painting  gradually  and  consistently,  with  the 
Cubo-  Futurist  phase  already  containing  the  basic  elements  of  the  more  advanced, 
abstract  experiments  (as  in,  for  example,  Cityscape  (Composition) ,  ca.  1916 
[plate  8]).  She  gave  straightforward  names  to  her  non-objective  paintings,  such 
as  Composition:  Movement  of  Planes,  1917—18  (plate  10) ,  Non-Objective  Composition, 
1917  (plate  9),  and  Construction  of Color  Planes ,  1931  (plate  11).  Such  paintings  give 
the  impression  of  being  cool,  calculated  arrangements  of  forms  and  colors,  deter- 
mined by  the  logic  of  carefully  worked  out  aesthetic  principles  —  but  Exter's  tem- 
perament and  individuality  could  never  be  tamed  and  tempered  by  the  sobriety  of 
mere  logic  or  calculation.  True,  Exter  often  described  her  non-objective  composi- 
tions using  terms  from  physics  such  as  speed  and  acceleration,  vector  and  mass, 
energy  and  direction;  and,  as  in  the  world  of  physics,  her  non-objective  composi- 
tions are  never  static,  creating  an  almost  hypnotic  impression  of  constant  change 
and  evolution.  Yet  for  all  their  sophistication,  Exter's  abstract  paintings  seem  also 
to  derive  from  a  more  local,  domestic  source,  for  the  angularities  of  these  works 
bring  to  mind  the  zigzag  lines  of  flowers  in  Ukrainian  peasant  paintings:  certainly, 
her  triangles,  trapezoids,  and  rhomboids  suggest  an  immediate  affinity  with 
Ukrainian  ornament. 

Exter's  Cubo-Futurist  and  non-objective  experiments  marked  the  high  point 
of  her  artistic  career  —  and  she  applied  them  to  many  of  her  concurrent  activities, 
especially  her  work  for  Alexander  Tairov's  productions  at  the  Moscow  Chamber 
Theater:  Innokentii  Annensky's  Th.amira  Khytharedes  (1916),  Oscar  Wilde's 
Salome  (1917),  and  William  Shakespeare's  Romeo  and  Juliet  (1931)-  Critic  Abram 
Efros  described  Exter's  sets  for  Thamira  Khytharedes  as  a  "festive  parade  of 
Cubism"'0  —  an  apt  description,  inasmuch  as  Exter  was  the  first  to  bring  Cubism 


i36 


facing  page: 

figure  45.  Oscar  Wilde's  Salome,  produced 
at  the  Chamber  Theater.  Moscow,  with  set  and 
costume  designs  by  Exter.  1917. 

left: 

figure  46.  The  balcony  scene  in  William  Shakespeare's 
Romeo  and  Juliet,  produced  at  the  Chamber  Theater. 
Moscow,  with  set  and  costume  designs  by  Exter.  1921.. 


to  the  Russian  stage  and  to  demonstrate  how  Cubist  painting  could  respond  to 
the  discipline  of  theater.  In  fact,  Exter's  stage  designs  opened  a  new  era,  for  she 
no  longer  subordinated  the  set  and  costume  to  a  purely  utilitarian  function  but 
exposed  the  active  or  kinetic  element  so  as  to  complement  and  extend  the  action 
of  the  plot. 

With  its  vitality  of  color,  the  Tairov/Exter  Salome  production  was  also  "festive," 
although  it  was  the  evocation  of  colored,  volumetrical  space  and  the  extension  of 
that  space  beyond  the  proscenium  that  surprised  and  delighted.  Her  designs  for 
Romeo  and  Julie t  were  even  more  dynamic:  unpredictable  in  their  physical  contrast, 
interaction  of  mass,  and  convergence  and  divergence  of  line,  with  a  constant  inter- 
play of  forms,  colors,  light,  and  shade  in  which  the  space  itself  became  a  principal 
"character."  The  sets  were  integrated  with  the  intricate  system  of  curtains,  which 
fell  from  above  and  moved  apart  diagonally,  parallel  to  the  footlights,  dividing  or 
reducing  or  expanding  the  space  of  the  stage .  The  curtains  were  also  used  to  intro  - 
duce  each  episode  with  a  particular  color,  be  it  lemon,  violet,  orange,  or  crimson. 
We  can  understand  why  Efros  referred  to  this  Romeo  and  Juliet  as  a  "most  Cubist 
Cubism  in  a  most  Baroque  Baroque.""  Here  and  elsewhere,  Exter's  ideas  about 
costumes  were  no  less  radical,  for  she  insisted  on  the  need  for  the  costumes  to 
interact  organically  with  the  sets  or  backdrops,  so  that  their  planar  divisions  and 
volumetrical  interrelationships  would  correspond  to  the  equivalent  plastic  rela- 
tionships established  within  the  broader  space  of  the  stage. 

The  Tairov  productions  brought  Exter  widespread  recognition  as  a  stage 
designer,  and  thenceforth  the  performing  arts  continued  to  play  a  major  role  in 
her  career.  For  example,  she  collaborated  with  dancer  Elza  Kriuger  and  choreogra- 
pher Bronislava  Nijinska  in  Berlin  and  Paris;  the  focus  of  her  exhibitions  in  Berlin, 
London,  Paris,  and  Prague  in  the  1920s  was  on  her  work  for  the  theater,  the  ballet, 
the  movies,  and  marionettes;  and  in  the  1920s  she  taught  stage  design  at  Leger's 
art  school  in  Paris,  the  Academie  Moderne.  In  1980  she  published  a  set  of  experi- 
mental projects  for  the  stage  in  Alexandra  Exter-.  Decors  de  Theatre,  an  anthology  of 


,:>,- 


figure  47.  aixxanDra  exier 

Clothing  designs,  1923 
Illustration  accompanying  Exter's  article 
"Prostota  i  praktichnost  v  odezhde," 
in  Krasnaia  niva  (Moscow),  no.  21 
(May  27, 1923),  p.  3i 


designs  and  proposals  for  the  circus,  operettas  and  revues,  and  drama  (with  an 
introduction  by  Tairov) .  Well  after  she  emigrated,  Exter  found  solace  in  the  the- 
ater, creating  designs  for  costumes  and  sets  for  plays  by  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles, 
though  without  any  specific  commission  or  production  in  mind.  During  the  1980s 
Exter  also  returned  to  the  theme  of  the  commedia  deH'arte,  the  personages  of 
her  paintings  and  drawings  becoming  ballerinas  and  acrobats.  Even  her  ceramic 
designs  and  the  several  maquettes  that  she  made  for  editions  in  the  1980s  (most 
of  them,  unfortunately,  not  published)  carry  references  to  the  theater. 

Exter  was  an  important  member  of  the  international  avant-garde.  She  partici- 
pated in  the  major  Russian  exhibitions  such  as  Tramway  1^(1915)  and  The  Store 
(1916);  was  a  colleague  of  Natalia  Goncharova,  Liubov  Popova,  Olga  Rozanova,  and 
Nadezha  Udaltsova;  and  constantly  traveled  in  the  1910s,  serving  as  an  important 
link  between  Russia  and  France  and  Italy. 

Remembered  also  as  a  teacher,  Exter  molded  an  entire  school  of  younger 
Ukrainian  and  Russian  artists,  some  of  whom  became  well  known  in  Europe  and 
the  United  States,  such  as  Simon  Lissim  and  Pavel  Tchelitchew.  Her  talent  as  an 
artist  overflowed  into  many  related  fields,  including  interior  design  (as  in  the 
Kriuger  apartment  in  Berlin  in  the  1930s),  exhibition  design  (the  All -Union 
Agricultural  Exhibition  in  Moscowin  1938),  clothing  design  (forthe  Atelier  fashion 
house  in  Moscowin  1938),  book  design  (Ivan  Aksenov's  poetry),  and  movie-set 
design  (forthe  Martian  sequence  inYakov  Protazanov's  film  Aelita  in  1934).  An 
inspiration  to  many,  the  strangely  proper  Exter  was  regarded  as  the  ultimate 
arbiter  of  improper  taste,  praising  the  great  cathedrals  of  France,  yet  fascinated 
by  a  single  flower  on  a  Ukrainian  costume,  championing  the  complex  schemes  of 
Cubism  and  yet  welcoming  the  fresh  and  savage  art  of  the  Russian  avant-garde. 


i38 


figure  48.  aLexarmra  exTer  with 
Boris  GLaDKOv  anD  vera  muKHina 

Design  for  the  Izvestiia  Pavilion  at  the  All-Union 
Agricultural  Exhibition,  Moscow,  1933 


1.  Exter  was  born  in  Belostok  (now  Poland);  she  moved  with  her  parents  to  Kiev  when  she 
was  sixteen. 

2.  See,  for  example,  Exter's  letters  to  Vera  Mukhina  in  RGALI  (inv.  no.  2326,  op.  1). 

3.  It  was  Exter's  idea  to  organize  the  two  Salons  that  Izdebsky  financed  and  toured  in  1910  and  1911. 
For  information  on  these  two  Salons,  including  the  Kiev  venue,  see  Dmitrii  Severiukhin, 
"Vladimir  Izdebsky  and  His  Salons,"  Experiment  (Los  Angeles),  no.  1  (1995),  pp.  57—71. 

4.  The  Kiev  artist  Alexander  Konstantinovich  Bogomazov  (1880—19.30)  was  one  of  the  most  original 
members  of  the  Cubo  -  Futurist  movement.  Of  particular  interest  is  his  treatise  Painting  and  Its 
Elements.  For  information  on  Bogomazov,  see  Andre  B.  Nakov,  Alexandre  Bogomazov,  exh.  cat. 
(Toulouse:  Musee  d'Art  Moderne,  1991);  and  Dmitrii  Gorbachev's  Introduction  in  Alexander 
Bogomazov,  Zhivopis  ta  elementi  [Painting and  Its  Elements]  (Kiev:  Popova,  1996). 

5.  Exter  made  the  acquaintance  of  Archipenko  while  they  were  both  students  at  the  Kiev  Art 
Institute.  She  also  attended  Archipenko's  first  exhibition  in  Kiev  in  1906. 

6.  See  Giovanni  Lista.  "Futurisme  et  cubofuturisme,"  Cahiers  du  Musee  national  d'art  moderne 
(Paris),  no.  5  (1980),  p.  459. 

7.  Filippo  Tommaso  Marinetti,  "Futurizm,"  in  Genrikh  Tasteven.  ed.,  Futurizm  (Moscow:  Iris, 
1914),  pp.  143-44. 

8.  Nikolai  Tarabukin.  Opyt  teorii  zhwopisi  (Moscow:  Vserossiiskii  proletkult,  1923),  p.  39. 

9.  YakovTugendkhold,.4ie.Tandra£rterfcafcz/iii'opsets  1  khudozhmk  stsenr  (Berlin:  Zaria  1922),  p.  10. 

10.  Abram  Efros,  Khudozhniki  Kamemogo  teatra  (Moscow:  VTO,  1934),  p.  xxiv. 

11.  Ibid.,  pp.  xxxii-xxxiii. 


139 


aLexanDra  aLexariDrovna  exTer 

(nee  Grigorovich) 
(1882-1949) 


1882  Born  January  6,  Belostok,  near  Kiev. 

1892—99       Attends  the  St.  Olga  Women's  Gymnasium  in  Kiev. 

1901—03       Attends  the  Kiev  Art  Institute. 

1904  Marries  her  cousin.  Nikolai  Exter,  a  lawyer. 

1906—08       Reenrolls  in  the  Kiev  Art  Institute. 

1907  Begins  visiting  Paris  and  other  European  cities. 

1908  Takes  part  in  several  Kiev  exhibitions,  including  the  avant-garde  show 
The  Link.  Produces  her  first  book  illustrations. 

1909—14       Travels  and  lives  abroad  frequently.  Becomes  acquainted  with 

Apollinaire.  Braque.  Picasso.  Soffici.  and  many  other  members  of  the 
international  avant-garde. 

1910  Contributes  to  The  Triangle  and  Union  of  Youth  exhibitions  in 

St.  Petersburg. 

1910-11         Contributes  to  the  first  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhibition  in  Moscow. 

1912—13         Moves  to  St.  Petersburg.  Continues  to  contribute  to  major  exhibitions. 

1913—14        Lives  mainly  in  France. 

1915  Influenced  by  Malevich  and  Tatlin,  begins  to  investigate  non- 

objective  painting. 

1915—16        Contributes  to  the  exhibitions  Tramway  Fand  The  Store. 

1916—17        Begins  her  professional  theater  work  with  designs  for  Thamira 

Khytharedes  in  1916  and  Salome  in  1917.  both  produced  by  Alexander 
Tairov  at  the  Chamber  Theater,  Moscow. 

1918  Nikolai  Exter  dies. 

1918—19        Opens  her  own  studio  in  Kiev:  among  her  students  are  many  artists 
who  later  achieve  success,  such  as  Isaak  Rabinovich,  Pavel 
Tchelitchewr,  and  Alexander  Tyshler. 

1918—20       Works  intermittently  in  Odessa  as  a  teacher  and  stage  designer. 

1920  Moves  to  Moscow.  Marries  Georgii  Nekrasov,  an  actor.  Works  at  the 
Theater  of  the  People's  House. 

1921  Contributes  to  the  exhibition  $x$  =  25  in  Moscow. 

1921—22        Teaches  at  Vkhutemas.  Contributes  to  Erste  russische  Kunstausstellung 
at  the  Galerie  Van  Diemen  in  Berlin,  which  travels  to  the  Stedelijk 
Museum  in  Amsterdam  the  following  spring. 


140 


CHfOnOLOGY 


19^3  Turns  to  textile  and  fashion  design  for  the  Atelier  of  Fashions  in 

Moscow.  Is  a  member  of  the  design  team  for  the  Izvestiia  Pavilion  at 
the  All-Union Agricultural  Exhibition  in  Moscow.  Begins  work  on  the 
costumes  for  Yakov  Protazanov's  movie  Aelita. 

1924  Emigrates  to  Paris.  Contributes  to  the  Venice  Biennale.  Works  for 
Russian  ballet  companies  with  Leon  Zack  and  Pavel  Tchelitchew. 
Teaches  at  Fernand  Leger's  Academie  Moderne. 

1925  Contributes  to  the  Exposition  Internationale  desArts  Decoratifs  et 
Industriels  Modernes  in  Paris.  Continues  to  work  on  stage  design  and 
interior  design  (which  she  will  do  throughout  the  1920s  and  1930s); 
designs  costumes  for  seven  ballets  performed  by  Bronislava  Nijinska's 
Theatre  Choreographique. 

19^7  Exhibition  at  Der  Sturm,  Berlin. 

1929  Exhibition  at  Galerie  des  Quatre  Chemins,  Paris. 

1936  Illustrates  several  elegant  children's  books,  beginning  with  her  own 
Monjardin  (1936). 

1937  Exhibition  at  the  Musee  des  Arts  et  Metiers,  Paris. 
1949             Dies  March  17,  in  Paris. 


141 


142 


facing  page: 

plate  l.aLexanDra  exTer 

f/ir  lirul«e  (.SV'i  res)    1912 

Oil  on  canvas,  145  x  115  cm 

National  Art  Museum  of  Ukraine,  Kiev 

above: 

plate 2.  aLexarmra  exTer 

Composition  (Genoa).  1912—14 
Oil  on  canvas,  115.5x86.5  cm 
Museum  Ludwig,  Cologne 


143 


plate 3.  aLexanDra  exTer 

City,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  88.5x70.5  cm 
Regional  Picture  Gallery,  Vologda 


144 


plate4.  aLexarmra  exTer 

Stiff  Life.  ca.  1913 

Collage  and  oil  on  canvas.  68  x  53  cm 

MuseoThyssen-Bornemisza.  Madrid 


'45 


plate  5.  aLexanora  exTer 

Still  Life.  Bowl  of  Cherries,  1914 

Oil  on  canvas,  89  x  72  cm 

Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 


146 


plate 6.  aLexanDra  exTer 

Composition.  1914 

Oil  on  canvas.  90.7x72.5  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 


147 


plate  7.  aLexariDra  exTer 

Venice.  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  i^3  x  97  cm 

Moderna  Museet,  Stockholm 


148 


plate 8.  aLexarmra  exTer 

Cityscape  (Composition),  ca.  1916 

Oil  on  canvas,  1 17  x  88  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 


149 


above: 

plate 9.  aLexanDra  exTer 

Non- Objective  Composition,  1917 

Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  53  era 

Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art  Museum 

facing  page: 

plate  10.  aLexanDra  exTer 

Composition.  Movement  of  Planes .  1917—18 

Oil  on  canvas.  92.5  x  76.9  cm 

State  Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Nizhmi  Tagil 


15° 


W 


plate  1 1 .  aLexanDra  exTer 

Construction  of  Color  Planes .  1921 

Oil  on  canvas,  89  x  89  cm 

State  Radischev  Art  Museum,  Saratov 


!52 


plate  12.  aLexarmra  exrer 

Construction,  1922— 23 

Oil  on  canvas,  89.8  x  89.2  cm 

The  Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York. 

The  Riklis  Collection  of  McCrory  Corporation  (partial  gift). 


'53 


figure  49.  Natalia  Goncharova,  Paris,  ca.  1915. 


naTana 
GoncHarova 


jane  a.  SHarp 


naTaLia  GoncHarova:  Lives  of  THe  arnsT 

In  an  essay  that  remains  the  best  study  on  Goncharova  to  date,  poet  Marina 
Tsvetaeva  distinguishes  Goncharova's  biography,  her  "outer  life,"  from  her  cre- 
ative work  and  persona.  This  "inner  life"  cannot  be  distilled  into  a  narrative  of 
historical  and  personal  events,  for  it  is  shaped  through  the  agency  that  the  painter 
demonstrates  in  her  art.  Goncharova  transcends  rather  than  succumbs  to  "daily 
life"  (bp.  in  Russian).'  Today  it  is  less  difficult  to  argue  that  Goncharova  requires 
biographical,  historical  representation.  We  now  know  that  she  viewed  her  own  cre- 
ative practices  as  repetitive,  exhausting  work,  and  that  her  art  directly  engaged  the 
conditions  and  prejudices  of  everyday  life,  particularly  insofar  as  they  determined 
her  experiences  as  a  woman.  Indeed,  Tsvetaeva's  approach  is  somewhat  contradic- 
tory. Goncharova's  identity  as  an  artist  is  framed  by  two  poles  within  her  biogra- 
phy, i.e.,  her  life  in  Russia  and  her  life  as  an  emigre,  "after  Russia"  — the  point 
at  which  the  poet  reconnected  with  the  painter,  former  neighbors  who  met  each 
other  first  in  Moscow  but  became  friends  only  as  expatriates  in  Paris.2 

Natalia  Sergeevna  Goncharova  was  born  on  June  21. 1881  (the  same  year  as 
Larionov.  Picasso,  and  Leger)  in  the  village  of  Nagaevo,  in  the  Chern  district  of 
Tula  province.3  Goncharova's  immediate  family  were  politically  liberal  and  well- 
educated  members  of  the  rural  gentry.  Her  father,  Sergei,  an  architect  (graduate  of 
the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture),  designed  and  built 


'55 


naraua  conc-Harova 


their  Moscow  home  onTrekhprudnyi  Lane.  Goncharova  and  her  younger  brother, 
Afanasii,  were  raised  and  educated  primarily  by  their  mother  and  paternal  grand- 
mother in  family  homes  in  the  Orlov  and  Tula  provinces.  Goncharova  moved  to 
Moscow  in  1893  to  attend  the  Fourth  Women's  Gymnasium,  from  which  she  gradu- 
ated in  1898.  After  several  false  starts  in  history,  zoology,  botany,  and  medicine, 
Goncharova  finally  decided  on  a  career  as  a  sculptor  and  entered  the  Moscow 
Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture  in  the  fall  of  1901. 

Goncharova  experienced  the  contradictions  between  city  and  country  as  a  cri- 
sis in  her  life  —  one  that  places  her  work  within  the  continuum  of  European  (and 
Russian)  Modernism.  Bridges  between  workaday,  urban  Moscow  and  summer 
retreats  to  the  country  are  everywhere  apparent  in  her  art.  Photographs  of  the 
family  estate  show  her  playing  peasant,  dressed  in  local  clothing,  but  wearing  city 
shoes.  Agroup  of  three  early  self-portraits  reveal  her  interest  in  elite  masquerades 
as  well;  in  one,  she  depicts  herself  as  an  1 840s  gentlewoman  relaxing  at  home  in 
her  morning  dress;  the  others  focus  on  her  identity  as  a  painter  (see  Self-Portrait 
with  Yellow  Lilies ,  1907,  plate  i3).  In  these  paintings,  we  see  the  continuity  of 
"outer"  and  "inner"  lives  mapped  out  in  the  congruence  of  images  and  realities. 
Rural  Russia  emerges  complete  from  the  painter's  Moscow  studio.  Self-Portrait 
with  Yellow  Lilies,  one  painted  frame  abuts  and  is  contained  within  the  actual 
picture  frame  —  underscoring  the  self-  conscious  mastery  of  the  artist  and  to  expe  - 
riences  both  lived  and  imagined. 

russia:  POLOTniarm  zavoD 

Goncharova's  early  pastels  and  paintings  draw  on  her  rural  environs,  particularly 
the  family's  main  estate  in  Kaluga  province,  named  Polotnianyi  Zavod  in  reference 
to  the  paper  (formerly  textile)  factory  that  occupied  the  same  grounds  as  the  pala- 
tial dwelling.*  Descriptions  of  life  on  the  estate  suggest  a  blurring  of  boundaries  of 
class,  work,  leisure,  and  culture  that  may  be  associated  with  liberal  reform  efforts 
in  late -nineteenth-  and  early-twentieth- century  Russia.  The  estate's  owner, 
Dmitrii  Dmitrievich  Goncharov,  himself  a  talented  amateur  singer,  maintained  a 
"worker's"  theater  on  the  grounds  and  was  married  to  a  star  in  Sergei  Zimin's 
Moscow  opera  company.  Both  of  them  performed  and  invited  others  to  participate 
in  evenings  of  music  and  drama.  Among  the  more  celebrated  visitors  during 
Goncharova's  era  was  theater  critic  Anatolii  Lunacharsky  (later  Lenin's  Commissar 
of  Enlightenment). 5 

Given  the  frequent  travel  between  family  homes,  it  is  likely  that  Goncharova 
witnessed  some  of  the  theatrical  performances  at  Polotnianyi  Zavod,  although  she 
does  not  mention  them  in  any  of  her  autobiographical  sketches.  Instead,  what 
impressed  her  most  were  the  daily  activities  of  the  servants  and  peasants  who  lived 

!56 


rPHMACM    Bl>    MCKVCCTB'b. 


TeiTpi. 


*  .*<,»* 


Ha    ii  e  p  c  .i  o  m  h. 


figure50.  "Grimaces  inArt.  In  Connection  with  the  Project  for  a 
Theater  of  the  Futurists."  Photograph  of  Natalia  Goncharova 
(captioned  "Initial  makeup  for  an  actress  of  the  Futurist  theater") 
and  Mikhail  Larionov  (captioned  "Male  head  ornament  for  the 
stage  by  M.  Larionov")  (1913).  Reproduced  in  Teatr  v  karnkaturakh 
(Moscow),  no.  3  (September  21. 1913).  p.  9. 


on  the  property.6  Views  and  reconstructed  maps  of  the  estate  give  some  indication 
of  the  proximity  of  the  factory,  farming,  and  the  peasant  dwellings  that  stretch 
just  beyond  the  Sukhodrev  river  that  runs  through  the  estate.  A  series  of  inter- 
connected ponds,  artificially  maintained  with  supplies  of  fish  for  the  benefit  of 
the  local  population,  are  depicted  in  Goncharova's  fishing  cycle.  Her  farming 
cycle  and  a  number  of  gardening  images  can  also  be  identified  with  specific  land- 
scapes at  Polotnianyi  Zavod  during  the  years  1906—09  when  she  regularly  returned 
there  to  paint ." 

LiFe  jiito  arT:  THe  moscow  insTiTUTe  anD 
THe inDepenDenT  exHiBiTion 

Goncharova's  training  in  the  visual  arts  reflects  both  the  limits  of  official  art  insti- 
tutions—which at  the  turn  of  the  century  no  longer  segregated  male  and  female 
students,  but  denied  women  equal  rights  upon  completion  of  the  degree  —  and  the 
importance  of  independent  studios.  Goncharova's  claim  that  she  had  little  training 


■-- 


naraua  coticHarova 


HaTanbn  foHnapOBa. 


IlIapHcb  Maxa. 


1910-1911  r.r. 
flEKA6Pb    dHBflPb 


strum  BUCTABBH 

.,B»5H0Bblfl    B/U1ETV 


far  left: 

figure  51.  ITiaK  [Pavel  Petrovich  Ivanov] 

Natalia  Goncharova,  1914 

Ink  on  paper,  15  x  13.5  cm 

Courtesy  of  Dimitri  Dourdine-Mak.  Brussels 

left: 

figure  53.  naTana  GoncHarova 

(attributed  to) 

Cover  of  the  Jack  of  Diamonds 

exhibition  catalogue,  Moscow,  1910 


as  a  painter  is  belied  by  numerous  sources.  She  attended  the  Moscow  Institute  infre- 
quently following  her  receipt  of  a  small  silver  medal  for  sculpture  (1903— 04),  yet  she 
did  not  officially  withdraw  until  1909. 8  From  at  least  1908,  she  both  taught  and 
attended  classes  given  at  Ilia  Mashkov's  and  Alexander  Mikhailovsky's  studio  on  Malyi 
Kharitonevskii  Lane  in  Moscow. 9  It  was  here  that  she  studied  and  made  numerous 
sketches  of  the  male  and  female  nude,  completing  the  studio  exercises  that  would  have 
concluded  her  course  of  study  at  the  Moscow  Institute.  While  at  the  Moscow  Institute, 
Goncharova  had  met  Larionov;  soon  after  he  moved  into  the  Goncharov  house,  where 
together  they  maintained  a  studio  and  living  quarters.10  Clearly,  he  was  her  most 
important  instructor,  at  times  repainting  or  correcting  her  work."  Memoirs  of  col- 
leagues and  friends  underscore  the  reciprocity  of  their  relationship  and  the  central 
place  it  occupied  in  Moscow's  bohemian  circles.13 

The  Moscow  Institute  studios,  Larionov's  in  particular,  provided  Goncharova  with 
her  immediate  milieu:  the  cast  of  ever  shifting  participants  in  the  avant-garde  exhibi- 
tions organized  in  Moscow.  Following  the  January  1910  mass  expulsion  of  students 
from  Konstantin  Korovin's  portrait -genre  class  for  their  imitation  of  contemporary 
European  Modernist  painting,  a  group  consisting  of  Larionov,  Robert  Falk,  Petr 
Konchalovsky,  Alexander  Kuprin,  Mashkov  (expelled  the  year  earlier),  and  others 
formed  the  first  radical  Muscovite  independent  exhibiting  group,  which  Larionov 
named  the  Jack  of  Diamonds  —  a  provocative  title  that  evoked  associations  with  boule - 
vard  literature  and  the  identifying  pattern  on  prison  uniforms.  Goncharova  exhibited 
her  Primitivist  and  Cubist  paintings  in  that  group's  first  show,  which  took  place  in 
December  1910—1911,  and  was  prominently  reviewed  in  the  press.  She  dominated 
a  subsequent  exhibition.  The  Donkey's  Tail,  organized  by  Larionov  and  held  in 
March— April  191?,  with  more  than  fifty-five  of  her  paintings  in  the  first  hall  of  the 
gallery  space.  The  other  major  Moscow  shows  in  which  she  participated  were  The  Target 
(March-April  1913),  and  No.  4  (March— April  1914).  Larionov  may  be  credited  with 


158 


figure 53.  naTaua  GoncHarova 

Archistrategus  Michael,  1914 

Sheet  no.  7  in  album  of  lithographs,  Misticheskie  obrazy 

winy,  1914;  3^-5  x  24-^  cm 

Private  collection. 


promoting  her  career  over  his  own  in  these  exhibitions  and  with  arranging  her 
retrospectives  in  191.3  (Moscow)  and  1914  (St.  Petersburg).'3 

Quite  apart  from  Larionov's  efforts  on  her  behalf,  Goncharova  played  a  unique 
role  among  the  Russian,  specifically  Muscovite,  avant-garde.  She  put  into  practice 
many  of  the  aesthetic  programs  advanced  by  him  and  others.  Moreover,  her  oeuvre 
in  its  wide  -  ranging  dialogue  with  both  Eastern  and  Western  traditions  served  as 
a  catalyst  for  several  movements  and  manifestos,  and  she  pioneered  both  Cubo  - 
Futurism  (see  Airplane  over  a  Train,  1913,  plate  zz)  and  Rayism  (see  Yellow  and 
Green  Forest,  1913,  plate  24)  in  paintings,  publications,  and  exhibitions. 

Although  dating  Goncharova's  shifts  in  her  pre— World  War  I  style  remains 
problematic,  her  participation  in  the  exhibitions  mentioned  above  and  her  state- 
ments, including  the  catalogue  essay  for  her  Moscow  retrospective  (coauthored  by 
Larionovand  IliaZdanevich),  charted  the  course  for  the  Moscow  avant-garde's 
orientation  toward  both  Western  European  Modernism  and  the  visual  traditions 
of  the  East.  She  declared  in  a  press  interview  of  April  1910  to  be  inspired  by  the 
"sculptural  clarity"  of  Le  Fauconnier,  Picasso,  and  Braque,  but  her  first  "Cubist" 
works  are  dated  to  at  least  the  year  before.  By  191?  she  claimed  to  be  deriving  her 
Cubist  style  from  the  forms  of  Scythian  stone  statues  (kamennye  baby)  (see  Peasants 
Gathering  Grapes,  191?,  plate  19)  and  Russia's  popular  arts  — the  latter  familiar  to 
the  artist  from  childhood. '+  In  an  account  of  The  Donkey's  Tail  and  The  Target  exhi- 
bitions, author  Varsanofii  Parkin  (possibly  a  pseudonym  for  Larionov)  attributes 
to  Goncharova  the  decision  to  "fight  against  Cezanne  and  Picasso  and  not  Repin 
and  Raphael."  a  policy  that  was  perhaps  more  significant  as  a  polemical  tool  than  as 
actual  practice's 

Undoubtedly,  Goncharova's  oeuvre  inspired  the  theory  and  nationalist  rheto- 
ric of  Neo-Primitivism  as  it  was  publicized  by  Larionov,  Alexander  Shevchenko, 
and  Zdanevich  in  1913.  Drawing  on  the  formal  tradition  of  French  avant-garde 


'59 


naTaLia  coiiCHarova 


figure 54.  naTaLia  GoncHarova 

The  Bicyclist,  1912-13 

Oil  on  canvas,  78  x  105  cm 

State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 


jane  a.  sHarp 


painting  and  Russian  decorative  and  Byzantine  models,  this  theory  promoted 
dual  readings  of  images  and  the  assimilative  (rather  than  exclusionistic)  character 
of  Russian  national  identity.  The  hybrid  nature  of  Russian  Modernism  was 
manifested  most  dramatically  in  Goncharova's  religious  images.  Works  such  as 
The  Evangelists,  1911  (plate  17)  model  their  formal  effects  on  the  icon,  the  broad- 
sheet, and  the  Western  European  Modernists  Cezanne  and  Matisse.  The  fact  that 
such  eclectic  sources  within  her  work  can  be  traced  back  to  images  painted  and 
exhibited  much  earlier  (in  the  Golden  Fleece  exhibitions  of  1908—09,  for  example) 
has  been  one  of  the  justifications  for  antedating  Neo-Primitivism  as  a  movement 
and  a  style  to  those  years.'6 

The  last  avant-garde  movement  with  which  Goncharova  may  be  identified  in 
Russia  —  vsechestvo  (everythingism)  —was  an  extension  of  Neo-Primitivism. 
Zdanevich,  the  author  of  Goncharova's  first  biography  (as  the  pseudonymious 
Eli  Eganbiuri),  gave  two  lectures  on  her,  the  first  in  Moscow  on  November  5, 1913 
(the  closing  day  of  Goncharova's  Moscow  retrospective)  and  the  second  in  St. 
Petersburg  on  March  17, 1914,  a  few  days  after  the  opening  of  her  retrospective  in 
that  city. '?  Both  of  Zdanevich's  lectures  focused  on  her  deliberate  multiplicity  as  an 
artist  as  a  way  of  countering  the  hegemony  of  European  Modernist  movements  and 
art  criticism.  He  argues  that  it  is  futile  for  a  Russian  artist  to  seek  stable  referents 
within  Modernist  art  while  basing  one's  art  on  Russian  examples.  New  art  should 
aspire  to  heterogeneity:  diverse  cultural  traditions  (East  and  West)  and  period 
styles  (Cubism  and  Futurism)  maybe  assimilated  together.  In vsechestvo,  decora- 
tive and  ornamental  practices  that  are  continuous  in  Russia  and  the  East  are  pro- 
moted with  a  view  to  erasing  boundaries  between  origin  and  copy  —  Goncharova's 
modus  operandi. 

Goncharova's  voice  is  arguably  present  in  Zdanevich's  writings.  Among  her 
last  Russian  polemical  writings  (written  in  the  same  period  as  Zdanevich's  lec- 
tures) is  a  letter  she  drafted  in  1914  to  the  head  of  the  Italian  Futurist  movement, 
Filippo  Tomasso  Marinetti,  which  accused  the  Italians  of  generating  a  new 
academy  —  and  echoes  the  priorities  of  vsechestvo  to  be  free  and  untrammeled 
by  preordained  artistic  laws.  The  notion  of  European  Modernist  movements 
becoming  canonical  and  losing  their  radical  force  would  be  a  recurring  motif  in 
Larionov's  writings  from  the  1930s  to  the  1950s  on  the  history  of  Cubism  as  the 
new  academy.  As  emigres,  all  three  —  Goncharova,  Larionov,  and  Zdanevich  — 
would  continue  to  represent  their  activities  in  Moscow  as  a  decentering  of  Russia's 
European  legacy. 

Goncharova's  solo  exhibitions  of  1910, 1913,  and  1914  were  landmarks  in  the 
history  of  avant-garde  public  provocations,  polarizing  an  already  partisan  critical 
press.  Her  first  solo  exhibition  —  held  for  only  a  single  evening,  on  March  24, 
1910,  by  the  Society  of  Free  Aesthetics  in  Moscow  — made  her  uniquely  visible  as 

l6l 


naTaLia  concHarova 


an  artist;  it  led  to  her  trial  (with  several  members  of  the  Society)  for  pornography 
on  December  ?2,  iqio.'8  Her  religious  paintings  were  physically  removed  by  the 
police  from  several  exhibitions,  including  The  Donkey's  Tail  of  1912,  and  again 
at  the  St.  Petersburg  retrospective  in  March  1914,.  Denounced  as  the  work  of  an 
"anti-artist, "'9  a  blasphemous  counterpart  to  the  "Antichrist,"  her  religious  paint- 
ings were  temporarily  banned  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Censorship  Committee  of 
the  Holy  Synod. so 

Goncharova's  notoriety  as  a  radical  painter  was  paired  with  public  and  critical 
acclaim.  In  1913  the  acquisitions  committee  for  the  Tretiakov  Gallery  bought  their 
first  painting  by  Goncharova  after  the  extraordinary  success  of  her  Moscow  retro- 
spective.21 The  first  full-scale  retrospective  in  the  capital  to  show  the  work  of  an 
avant-garde  artist,  it  was  also  the  first  for  a  woman  artist  (sponsored  by  one  of 
Moscow's  first  art  dealers,  also  a  woman,  Klavdiia  Mikhailova)  and  contained  more 
than  760  works.  If  she  was  an  "anti-artist"  and  the  "suffragist  of  Russian  painting" 
she  was  also,  as  one  critic  put  it,  an  "overnight  sensation."  Nowhere  in  the  history 
of  Russian  Modernism  was  there  a  more  striking  collusion  of  the  disruptive  pro- 
motion of  "new"  painting  and  its  assimilation.  During  these  years,  Goncharova 
designed  textiles,  clothing,  and  wallpaper,  and  she  planned  to  publish  her  own 
broadsheets.  She  thus  initiated  an  interchange  between  fine  and  popular  arts  that 
became  the  focus  of  post -Revolutionary  avant-garde  projects.  When  Larionov  and 
Goncharova  left  Moscow  for  Paris  to  mount  their  set  designs  for  the  ballet  Le  Coq 
d  Or  (fig.  6;  with  music  by  Rimsky-Korsakovand  choreography  by  Michel  Fokine) 
for  Diaghilev's  Ballets  Russes,  Goncharova  was  at  the  peak  of  her  Russian  career. 
A  model  for  her  generation,  and  particularly  for  women  artists  such  as  Sofiia 
Dymshits-Tolstaia  and  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  (both  of  whom  wrote  about  the  posi- 
tive impact  that  Goncharova's  studio  visits  had  on  them),  she  had  demonstrated 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Russian  art  what  each  still  hoped  to  achieve.  — 

-aFTer  russia":  DiaGHnevs  commissions  anD  LiFe  in  emiGraTion 

Goncharova  and  Larionov  left  Moscow  for  Paris  on  April  29,  1914,  although  with 
the  last  phase  of  Larionov's  service  in  the  Russian  Imperial  army  falling  due,  both 
returned  to  Moscow  shortly  thereafter.23  Her  first  sets  for  Le  Coq  d  'Or  (painted  by 
both  Larionov  and  Goncharova)  were  spectacular  displays  of  color  and  simplified 
form  that  Parisian  viewers  appreciated  as  exotic  and  as  properly  Russian.  Based  on 
its  success,  the  productions  that  followed,  including  several  unrealized  ones,  such 
as  Liturgie  (1915),  continued  to  draw  on  Russia's  Byzantine  and  folk  heritage.  These 
sets  and  costumes  established  a  new  key  in  Russian  Orientalist  self- fashioning, 
which  forever  marked  Goncharova  as  a  Russian  artist  rather  than  a  transnational 
avant-garde  artist  of  the  time. 

16? 


jane  a.  sHarp 


Their  life  as  emigres  was  consumed  by  theater,  writing,  traveling,  as  well  as 
installing  (Larionov),  painting  (Goncharova),  and  waiting.  Letters  to  friends  over 
the  course  of  the  1920s  and  memoirs  written  in  the  Stalinist  era  underscore  how 
much  both  artists  longed  to  return  to  Russia.  Occasionally  finances  are  blamed,  at 
other  times  they  recognize  the  potential  dangers  that  awaited  them  as  former  lead- 
ers of  the  pre -Revolutionary  avant-garde.  In  1917—18  Goncharova  spoke  of  her 
excitement  over  the  Revolution  and  the  urgent  need  for  news  of  political  events, 
just  as  in  the  1930s  she  lamented  its  diabolical  about-face.  Her  level  of  political 
engagement  is  not  clear  during  the  pre -Revolutionary  period.  Rut  numerous  illus- 
trations for  the  Socialist  journal  Lepopulaire  in  Paris  (edited  by  Oreste  Rosenfeld 
and  Leon  Rlum),  suggest  that  Goncharova  was  sympathetic  to  leftist  politics  in 
Europe.  2+ 

In  Paris,  Goncharova  was  a  more  productive  painter  than  Larionov,  working  in 
cycles  (as  she  did  before  emigrating),  beginning  with  the  Spanish  women  in  the 
1910s  and  1920s  and  ending  with  her  exploration  of  space  motifs:  images  with 
planet-  and  meteor-shaped  forms  inspired  by  the  first  Russian  Sputnik  launch  in 
the  1950s.  Her  shifts  in  style  correspond  loosely  to  shifts  in  the  School  of  Paris  — 
her  paintings  in  the  1910s  and  1920s  move  from  a  Cubist  idiom  to  a  more  neoclas- 
sical treatment  of  the  figure.  It  is  clear,  too,  that  Goncharova  was  engaged  in 
repainting  earlier  images  either  by  adding  decorative  elements  to  the  surfaces  of 
pre -Revolutionary  works  or  by  repainting  whole  portions  of  the  canvas.  Obviously, 
this  has  further  compromised  the  historical  reconstruction  of  her  career,  a  project 
that  will  require  years  of  comparative,  collaborative  work  among  scholars. 

On  June  2, 1955,  after  decades  of  living  together  and  following  Larionov's 
stroke  (in  1951),  the  two  artists  married  in  Paris  so  as  to  ensure  each  the  benefits  of 
any  inheritance  following  their  death.  Nearly  paralyzed  with  rheumatoid  arthritis, 
Goncharova  died  first,  on  October  17, 1962. 

1.     Marina Tsvetaeva,  "Natalia  Goncharova  (zhizni  tvorchestvo),"  VoliaRossu  (Prague),  nos.  V— VI, 
VII,  VIII— IX  (1939);  republished  with  notes  and  introduction  by  Dmitrri  Sarabianov  in  Prometei 
(Moscow),  no.  1  (1969),  pp.  144-201  (all  further  citations  to  this  essay  by  Tsvetaeva  refer  to 
this  last  publication).  Unless  otherwise  noted,  all  translations  from  the  Russian  and  French  are 
my  own. 

3.    The  artist  and  the  poet  were  raised  in  Moscow  in  the  Tverskaia  district,  in  houses  Nos.  7  and  8. 
Trekhprudnyi  Lane,  and  first  met  when  Goncharova  was  asked  to  escort  Tsvetaeva  home  from  the 
school  that  they  attended  together  (in  different  classes);  Tsvetaeva,  "Natalia  Goncharova  (zhizn  i 
tvorchestvo),"  p.  154. 

3.    There  is  still  some  confusion  over  her  exact  birthplace:  her  certificate  of  christening  (Staryi 
Roskovels.  June  26,  1881),  indicates  that  her  father  was  "landowner  in  the  village  of  Nagaevo." 
However.  Tsvetaeva's  essay  gives  Goncharova's  birthplace  as  Lodyzhino,  also  in  Tula  province 
(Tsvetaeva.  p.  154).  Family  members  record  several  moves,  from  Lodyzhino  to  Luzhino  (where 
Goncharova  lived  for  seven  years),  and  then  to  Akatovo,  all  villages  on  the  border  of  Orlov  and 

i63 


naTaua  concHarova 


Tula  provinces.  A  copy  of  the  certificate  is  in  the  archives  of  the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting, 
Sculpture,  and  Architecture  (RGALI;  inv.  no.  f.  680,  op.  3,  ed.  khr.  i638,  p.  9). 

4.  The  estate  is  not  far  from  Lev  Tolstoi's  Yasnaia  Poliana  estate,  and  it  is  less  than  an  hour  from  the 
city  of  Kaluga.  During  the  Soviet  era,  much  of  the  interior  contents  were  deposited  in  the  city 
museum,  and  the  estate  itself  with  its  parks  and  ponds  was  transformed  into  a  sanatorium. 
Damaged  severely  during  Wo  rid  War  II,  it  is  now  a  shell  of  a  structure  and  has  recently  been  sold 
to  a  private  investor.  I  am  grateful  to  various  members  of  the  Goncharov  family  who  have  pro- 
vided much  of  the  information  published  here,  particularly  Igor  Glebovich  Goncharov  and 
Valentina  Alexandrovna  Zhilina,  a  restoration  architect  (and  Goncharova's  cousin)  who  was 
involved  with  plans  to  restore  Polotnianyi  Zavod. 

5.  Igor  Goncharov  has  stated  that  his  grandfather  was  a  social  democrat,  who  expressed  his  political 
sympathies  for  leftist  causes  by  supplying  Lunacharsky  with  free  paper  for  party  publications.  He 
introduced  an  eight -hour  work  day  at  Polotnianyi  Zavod  (in  the  1890s?);  Igor  Goncharov,  in 
interviews  with  the  author  in  June  1997.  The  theater  was  described  as  a  "worker's  theater"  during 
this  time;  seePushkinianakaluzhskoigubern.ii  (Tula:  Kommunar,  1990),  no.  2,  p.  36. 

6.  Ilia  Zdanevich,  Goncharova's  first  biographer,  underscored  the  significance  of  the  artist's  rural 
experiences  on  the  estate;  Eli  Eganbiuri  (pseudonym  for  Ilia  Zdanevich)  Natalia  Goncharova. 
Mikhail  Lanonov  (Moscow:  Miunster,  1913),  p.  i3. 

7.  Jane  A.  Sharp,  "L'exercice  de  la  repetition:  les  cycles  et  les  composition  serielles  de  Nathalie 
Gontcharova  de  1907-1911,"  in  Jessica  Boissel,  Nathalie  Gontcharova.  Michel  Lanonov,  pp.  178-87. 

8.  The  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture,  registration  form  for  Natalia 
Sergeevna  Goncharova,  RGALI  inv.  no.  f.  680,  op.  3,  ed.  khr.  i638,  p.  12..  She  is  registered  from 
the  fall  of  1901  (entering  as  an  auditor  in  the  "head  class")  through  1909  when  she  was  expelled 
for  nonpayment  of  tuition.  In  1908-09  she  was  registered  in  the  "drawing  from  nature  class." 
and  the  "sculpture  studio."  having  been  advanced  to  both  in  1906—07.  In  1903—04,  she  was 
awarded  the  "small  silver  medal  for  sculpture,"  but  because  she  was  only  an  auditor,  she  was  not 
able  to  claim  it.  She  also  passed  a  course  in  perspective.  Her  correspondence  with  the  school 
indicates  that  for  health  reasons  she  did  not  plan  to  attend  classes  in  1903—04  (letter  from 
Goncharova  to  the  Director  of  the  School,  dated  August  35, 1903,  p.  i3).  Her  registration  form 
also  indicates  her  class  status  (soslovie  )  as  "daughter  of  a  member  of  the  gentry. " 

9.  Gleb  Pospelov,  Bubnovyi  valet: primitiv  i gorodskoi folklor v moskovskoi zhivopisi  igw-xgodov 
(Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1990),  p.  27.  For  Goncharova's  participation  in  the  studio,  see 
Jane  A.  Sharp,  "Redrawing  the  Margins  of  Russian  Vanguard  Art:  Natalia  Goncharova's  Trial  for 
Pornography  in  1910,"  in  Jane  T.  Costlow,  Stephanie  Sandler,  and  Judith  Vowles,  eds.,  Sexuality 
and  the  Body  in  Russian  Culture  (Stanford:  Stanford  University  Press,  1993),  pp.  104—06. 

10.  Eganbiuri,  Natalia  Goncharova,  Mikhail  Lanonov,  p.  14. 

11.  Elena  Ovsiannikova,  "Iz  istorii  odnoi  illiustratsii."  Panorama  iskusstv  (Moscow),  no.  11  (1988), 
p.  348. 

12.  Georgii  Kovalenko,  ed. ,  Zhizn  khudozhnikov.  Natalia  Goncharova.  Mikhail  Lanonov  (Moscow: 
Galart,  1995),  pp.  io3— 16, 133—38. 

i3.  Vystavkakartin  Natalii  Sergeevny  Goncharovoi,  ia.oo-iai3.  Art  salon,  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka, 

Moscow,  September  3o— November  5,  1913;  Natalia  Goncharova,  io,oo—io,i3.  Art  Bureau,  63  Moika, 
St.  Petersburg,  March  15  -April  30, 1914. 

14.  See  "Beseda  s  N.  S.  Goncharovoi,"  Stolichnaia  molva  (Moscow),  no.  115,  April  5,  1910,  p.  3;  and 
"Pismo  N.  Goncharovoi."  Protiv  techeniia  (St.  Petersburg).  March  3,  1913,  p.  3. 

15.  Varsanofii  Parkin,  "Oslinyi  khvost  i  mishen,"  in  Mikhail  Larionovet  al.,  Oslmyi  khv ost  i  mishen 


164 


jane  a.  SHarp 


(Moscow:  Miunster,  1913),  p.  8a. 

16.  Although  the  dating  of  this  movement  has  varied  from  scholar  to  scholar,  use  of  the  term  in 
Russian  can  be  dated  to  igi3;  see  Jane  Ashton  Sharp,  "Primitivism.  'Neoprimitivism'  and  the  Art 
of  Natalia  Goncharova"  (Ph.D.  diss.,  Yale  University,  1992),  pp.  1—7,  203-07. 

17.  Several  variants  of  these  lectures  exist  in  draft  form  in  the  State  Russian  Museum,  Manuscript 
Division,  inv.  no.  f.  177,  op.  14,  ed.  khr.  24:  see  Elena  Basner,  "Nataliia  Goncharova  i  Ilia 
Zdanevich,  0  proiskhozhdenii  Vsechestva,"  in  Iskusstvo  Avangarda:  Yazyk  mirovogo  obsheheniia. 
materialy  mezhdunarodnoi  konferentsii.  December  10—11,  1992  (Ufa,  1993).  pp.  68-80. 

A  manifesto  written  by  Mikhail  Le  Dantiu  also  mentions  Goncharova:  "Zhivopis  vsekov,"  (signed 
manuscript,  dated  1914),  RGALI,  inv.  no.  f.  79a,  op.  1,  ed.  khr.  1. 11.  17-35,  35—36;  a  variant  was 
published  by  John  E.  Bowlt  in  Minuvshee  (Paris),  no.  5  (1988),  pp.  i83— 202. 

18.  Sharp.  "Redrawingthe  Margins,"  pp.  97—123. 

19.  Valentin  Songaillo,  0  vystavke  kartin  Natalii  Gonchawvoi  (Moscow:  Sablin,  1913),  p.  6. 

20.  See  Sharp  (1992).  pp.  383-g8. 

21.  Bouquet  and  a  Bottle  of  Paints  (Buket  i  flakon  krasok  ),  1909,  oil  on  canvas  (101  x  71.5  cm),  inv.  no. 
386i.  For  details  on  the  reception  of  the  exhibition,  see  Sharp  (1992),  pp.  370-83. 

22.  Sofiia  Dymshits-Tolstaia,  "Vospominaniia  khudozhnitsy,"  typescript  with  handwritten 
notations  by  the  artist,  dated  1950s,  located  with  the  artist's  family,  pp.  27,32:  Ekaterina  Drevina 
and  Vasilii  Rakitin,  eds.,  N.  Udaltsova,  Zhizn  russkoi  kubistki:  dnevniki,  stati.  vospominaniia, 
Moscow-.  RA,  1994.  pp.  3i-32. 

23.  In  an  undated  letter  to  Le  Dantiu,  Larionov  explains:  "Natalia  Sergeevna  and  I  finally  left  on  the 
29th.  I  was  held  up  a  bit  on  account  of  the  costumes."  State  Russian  Museum.  Manuscript 
Division,  inv.  no.  f.  135.  op.  7,  p.  2. 

24.  Jessica  Boissel,  "Catalogue  des  oeuvres";  Viviane  Tarenne,  "Le  populaire,"  in  Nathalie 
Gontcharova.  Michel  Larionov  (1995),  pp.  i38— 3g 


1'..-, 


naTaLia  serGeevna  GoncHarova 

(1881-1963) 


1881  Born  June  sji,  in  the  village  of  Nagaevo,  in  Tula  province. 

1893—98       Moves  to  Moscow  to  attend  school  there. 

1900  Meets  Mikhail  Larionov,  a  fellow  student,  who  encourages  her  to 
paint,  and  he  becomes  her  lifelong  companion. 

1901  Enrolls  at  the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and 
Architecture  to  study  sculpture. 

1906  Contributes  to  the  Russian  Section  at  the  Salon  d'Automne  in  Paris, 

but  does  not  accompany  Larionov  to  Paris. 
1906—07       Begins  to  work  in  Primitivist  style. 
1908—10       Begins  to  work  in  Cubist  style.  Contributes  to  the  three  exhibitions 

organized  by  Nikolai  Riabushinsky,  editor  of  the  journal  Zolotoe  runo 

(The  Golden  Fleece)  in  Moscow. 
1910  With  Larionov  and  others,  cofounds  the  Jack  of  Diamonds  group  and 

participates  in  the  group's  first  exhibition,  December  1910-January 

1911. 
1910  One-day  exhibition  of  Goncharova's  work  is  held  March  34,  at  the 

Society  for  Free  Aesthetics  in  Moscow.  Consequently,  she  was  tried 

and  acquitted  on  charges  of  pornography  for  exhibiting  nude  life 

studies. 
1913  Contributes  to  the  DerBlaue  Reiter  exhibition  in  Munich,  and  the 

Second  Post -Impressionist  Exhibition,  London,  organized  by  Roger  Fry. 
1913—14        The  Jack  of  Diamonds  group  splits  up  in  February  1913,  when  she  and 

Larionov  dissociate  themselves  from  David  Burliuk  and  the  others. 

She  participates  in  rival  exhibitions  organized  by  Larionov:  The 

Donkey's  Tail  (1913),  The  Target  (1913),  andiVo.  4  (1914). 
1913-13        Works  in  Cubo- Futurist  and  Bayist  styles. 

1913  Contributes  to  HerwarthWalden'sErster Deutscher  Herbstsalon, 
Berlin. 

1913—14        Major  retrospective  exhibitions  of  Goncharova's  work,  in  Moscow 
(1913)  and  St.  Petersburg  (1914). 

1914  Leaves  for  Paris  on  April  39  with  Larionov  to  mount  their  set  designs 
for  Sergei  Diaghilev's  ballet  production  of  Le  Coq  d'Or.  Galerie  Paul 
Guillaume  holds  a  joint  exhibition  of  both  artists'  work. 


166 


curonoLOGY 


1915  Returns  briefly  to  Moscow,  where  she  designs  Alexander  Tairov's 

production  of  Carlo  Goldoni's  R  Ventaglio  at  the  Chamber  Theater, 
Moscow. 

1917  Travels  with  Diaghilev's  company  to  Spain  and  Italy.  Settles  in  Paris 

with  Larionov. 

1920s  She  and  Larionov  collaborate  on  numerous  designs  for  Diaghilev  and 

other  impresarios. 

1920—21        Contributes  to  the  Exposition  Internationale  d'Art  Moderne  in  Geneva 
(which  also  includes  work  by  Larionov) . 

1922  Exhibits  at  the  Kingore  Gallery,  New  York  (which  also  includes  work 

by  Larionov). 

1920s— 3os    Continues  to  paint,  teach,  illustrate  books,  and  design  ballet  and  the- 
ater productions,  including  Boris  Romanov's  A  Romantic  Adventure  of 
an  kalian  Ballerina  and  a  Marquis  for  the  Chauve-Souris,  New  York 
d93i). 

1940s— 50s   Except  for  occasional  contributions  to  exhibitions,  Larionov  and 

Goncharova  live  unrecognized  and  impoverished.  However,  through 
the  efforts  of  Mary  Chamot,  author  of  Goncharova's  first  major  mono- 
graph, a  number  of  their  works  enter  museum  collections,  including 
the  Tate  Gallery  in  London,  the  National  Gallery  of  Modern  Art  in 
Edinburgh,  and  the  National  Art  Gallery  in  Wellington,  New  Zealand. 

1954  Goncharova  and  Larionov's  work  is  resurrected  at  Richard  Buckle's 
Diaghilev  exhibition  in  Edinburgh  and  London. 

1955  Goncharova  and  Larionov  are  married. 

1961  Arts  Council  of  Great  Britain  organizes  a  major  retrospective  of 
Goncharova's  and  Larionov's  works. 

1962  Dies  October  17,  in  Paris. 


167 


plate  13.  NaTaLia  concHarova 

Self -Portrait  with  Yellow  Lilies.  1907 
Oil  on  canvas.  77  x58.2  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallerv.  Moscow 


168 


plate  14.  naiaua  GoncHarova 

Mowers.  1907—08 

Oil  on  canvas,  98  x  118  cm 

Private  Collection,  Courtesy  Gallery  Gmurzynska,  Cologne 


169 


plate  15.  naTana  concHarova 

Pillars  of  Salt,  1908 

Oil  on  canvas,  80.5  x  96  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 


170 


plate  16.  naTaua  GoncHarova 

Apocalypse  (Elder  with  Seven  Stars)  ,1910 
Oil  on  canvas,  147  x  188  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


171 


172 


plate  17.  naiana  GoncHarova 

The  Evangelists  (in  Four  Parts) .  1911 

1)  In  Blue-,  3)  In  Red-,  3)  In  Gray.  4)  In  Green 

Oil  on  canvas.  204  x  58  cm  each 

State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 


173 


plate  18.  naTaua  concHarova 

Sabbath,  1912 

Oil  on  canvas,  137.5  x  11 8  cm 

State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  of  Tatarstan,  Kazan 


174 


plate  19.  naiana  concHarova 

Peasants  Gathering  Grapes,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas.  14.5  x  i3o  cm 

State  Art  Museum  of  Bashkkortostan.  Ufa 


'75 


above: 

plate  30.  naTaua  GoncHarova 

Electric  Lamp ,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas.  125  x  81.5  cm 

Centre  Georges  Pompidou, 

Musee  national  dart  moderne.  Paris 

facing  page: 

plate 3i.  naTaua  GoncHarova 

The  Weaver  (Loom  +  Woman),  1913—13 
Oil  on  canvas.  153.3  x  99  cm 
National  Museum  and  Gallery.  Cardiff 


176 


i?7 


plate  22.  naiaua  GoncHarova 

Airplane  overaTram,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  55  x  83-5  cm 

State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  of  Tatarstan,  Kazan 


178 


plate 23.  naTaua  Goncnarova 

Rayist  Lilies,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  91  X75.4,  cm 

State  Picture  Gallery,  Perm 


179 


plate  24.  naTaua  GoncHarova 

Yellow  and  Green  Forest,  1913 
Oil  on  canvas,  102  x  85  cm 
Staatsgalerie,  Stuttgart 


plate 25.  naiaLia  ooncHarova 

Cats  (rayist percep. [tion]  in  rose,  black,  andyellow).  1913 

Oil  on  canvas.  84.5  x  83.8  cm 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum.  New  York  57. 1484 


plate  36.naxaLia  GoncHarova 

Emptiness.  1913 

Mixed  media  on  canvas,  80  x  106  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


plate  27.  naxana  GoncHarova 

Composition,  1913-14 

Oil  on  canvas.  io3-5  x  97.2  cm 

Centre  Georges  Pompidou, 

Musee  national  d'art  moderne.  Paris 


i83 


IflTOB 


figure  55.  LiubovPopova  in  her  studio,  Moscow,  1919. 


np 


RP 


m 

IP 

% 

IB 


LIUBOV 

popova 


naTaua  aDasKina  anD  DmiTrii  saraBianov 


liubov  popova  anD  Her  coriTemporanes 

naTaLia  aDasKina 

"Man  is  a  really  remarkable  creature.  He  has  only  to  quit  working  and  all  life  comes 
to  a  halt,  cities  die  out.  But  as  soon  as  people  get  down  to  work,  however,  the  city 
lives.  What  a  terrible  force  is  human  labor! "  So  Popova  wrote  in  a  letter  to  her 
mother  from  Italy  on  the  eve  of  World  War  I.1 

The  image  of  Popova  that  we  are  attempting  to  recapture  here  would  not  have 
been  obvious  to  contemporaries  of  the  young  Popova.  Before  them  stood  a  smart, 
elegant,  independent  young  woman  of  a  high  station  and  with  the  right  upbringing, 
a  status  that  distinguished  her  from  many  artists  with  whom  she  worked  at  La 
Palette  in  Paris  (also  known  as  the  Academie  de  la  Palette)  or  at  the  Tower  in 
Moscow.  Alexander  Bodchenko,  for  example,  recalled  that  "Popova,  an  artist  from 
a  wealthy  background,  regarded  us  with  condescension  and  contempt,  since  she 
considered  us  unsuitable  company. . .  .  Later  on,  during  the  Bevolution,  she 
changed  greatly  and  became  a  true  comrade.  ...  At  the  Store  exhibition  she  left 
behind  a  fragrance  of  expensive  perfume  and  a  trace  of  beautiful  apparel."2 

Vera  Mukhina,  who  became  well  known  as  a  sculptor,  met  Popova  in  Moscow  at 
the  art  school  of  Konstantin  Yuon  and  Ivan  Dudin,  and  described  her  as  "tall,  well- 
proportioned,  with  wonderful  eyes  and  luxuriant  hair.  For  all  her  femininity,  she 
perceived  art  and  life  with  incredible  acuity.  She  embraced  Gauguin,  van  Gogh, 


'»5 


figure  56.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Preliminary  drawing  for  Portrait  of  a  Philosopher,  1915 

Pencil  on  paper, 

35.5x21  cm 

Private  collection.  Moscow 


and  Cezanne  one  after  the  other.  Once  interested  in  them,  she  began  to  study  them 
and  to  work  like  van  Gogh,  etc.  She  had  a  marvelous  sense  of  color  and,  in  general, 
a  great  talent."3 

In  the  Yuon/Dudin  studio,  Popova  also  befriended  Liudmila  Prudkovskaia  and 
her  sister,  Nadezhda  Prudkovskaia  (the  future  Udaltsova),  and  Alexander  Vesnin; 
Alexei  Grishchenko  and  Vera  Pestel  also  studied  there  at  one  time. 

For  Popova  the  period  between  Yuon's  studio  and  La  Palette  was  a  very  difficult 
one,  not  only  artistically,  but  also  psychologically.  She  felt  pulled  in  different 
directions:  her  enthusiasm  for  the  work  of  Mikhail  Vrubel  (1856— 1910), *  which 
was  natural  for  a  romantically  inclined  painter  such  as  Popova,  encouraged  her 
artistic  evolution  along  the  path  of  Cubism  and  analysis.  Popova  not  only  became 
interested  in  the  artistic  ideas  of  the  Symbolists,  but  also  attempted  to  assimilate 
the  lessons  of  contemporary  philosophers,  both  Russian  and  European.  No  doubt, 
her  younger  brother  Pavel  exerted  a  certain  influence  here,  for  he  was  a  profes- 
sional philosopher  and  very  close  to  Mikhail  Bulgakov.  Still,  reconciling  the  mysti- 
cism of  Symbolism  and  the  tense  spirituality  of  "Gothic"  forms  was  a  difficult  task. 
For  Popova,  accordingto  IvanAksenov.  this  stage  "nearly  drove  her  out  of  her 
mind"  and  "nearly  cost  her  her  life. "5  One  may  presume  that  the  mental  illness  of 
her  best  friend  at  that  time.  Liudmila  Prudkovskaia,  also  left  a  deep  imprint  upon 
her,  although,  fortunately,  new  circumstances  facilitated  her  escape  from  depres- 
sion —  not  least,  her  Paris  apprenticeship  with  Henri  Le  Fauconnier  and  Jean 
Metzinger  and  her  enthusiastic  embrace  of  Cubism. 

To  all  appearances,  Popova  possessed  a  strong  organizational  talent  and 


naTaua  aoasKina 


enjoyed  authority  among  her  colleagues.  Our  knowledge  of  the  Paris  season  of 
191?— 13,  when  Popova  was  working  under  Le  Fauconnier,  Metzinger,  and  Andre 
Dunoyer  de  Segonzac  at  La  Palette,  comes  mainly  from  the  diaries  of  Udaltsova, 
the  letters  of  Boris  Ternovets,  and  the  memoirs  of  Mukhina.  A  stern  Udaltsova 
remarks  that  Popova's  "sketches  are  not  bad,  except  that  all  her  figures  are  dis- 
tended. [December  15,  1913].  . . .  L.S.  is  much  bolder  than  I  am.  Metzinger  has 
already  praised  her  [January?,  1913]."''  In  photographs  of  that  time  we  see  a 
happy,  smiling  Popova  in  the  company  of  friends.  Probably  through  Mukhina. 
Popova  entered  the  circle  of  young  sculptors  —  students  of  Bourdelle  —  such  as  Iza 
Burmeister,  Nadezhda  Krandievskaia  (wife  of  writer  Alexei  Tolstoi),  Sofia 
Bozental,  Ternovets,  and  Alexander  Vertepov. 

Popova  first  visited  Italy  in  1910  with  her  family.  During  that  short  vacation 
she  became  interested  in  the  fifteenth-  and  sixteenth -century  masters,  but  by 
1914,  on  her  second  trip,  alongside  the  monuments  of  Classical  art  and  architec- 
ture, she  acquainted  herself  with  contemporary  Italian  Futurism,  to  which  some  of 
her  paintings  of  that  time,  not  least  Italian  Still  Life,  1914  (plate  29),  bear  witness. 
From  the  old  classical  models,  Popova  extrapolated  formal  structures  and,  as 
Mukhina  recalled,  "interpreted  Italy  very  passionately.  ...  At  that  time  she  was 
studying  the  interrelation  of  colors  in  an  attempt  to  determine  the  power  of  color 
and  its  weight."?  Nearly  a  decade  later,  this  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  painting 
became  the  foundation  of  Popova's  work  as  a  teacher  at  Vkhutemas,  on  which  she 
elaborated  in  her  papers  for  Inkhuk.  Popova's  trip  through  Italy  —  including  stops 
in  Rome,  Florence,  Venice,  Genoa,  Naples,  Capri,  Livorno,  Pisa,  Bologna,  and 
Padua  —  left  vivid  impressions.  By  1913—14,  Popova  was  beginning  her  profes- 
sional career  and,  in  February  1914,  made  her  debut  in  the  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhi- 
bition in  Moscow.  Both  before  her  trip  to  Paris  (in  1913— 13)  and  after,  she  worked 
in  various  independent  Moscow  studios  such  as  the  Tower  on  Kuznetskii  Most  and 
in  the  studio  at  37  Ostozhenka,  whose  strongest  supporter  was  Vladimir  Tatlin. 

Although  Popova  was  undoubtedly  much  influenced  by  Kazimir  Malevich.  the 
evolution  of  her  painting  reveals  a  personal  independence  and  a  lack  of  concern 
with  conventions.  Popova  participated  in  the  artistic  life  of  the  avant-garde,  and 
many  of  her  associates  have  left  recollections  of  the  "weekly  gatherings  on  art"  in 
her  apartment  on  Novinskii  Boulevard  during  the  winter  of  1914-15.^6  circle 
included  Popova's  old  friends  from  the  Yuon  school  and  Paris  such  as 
Grishchenko,  Pestel,  Ternovets,  Udaltsova,  and  Alexander  Vesnin;  and,  according 
to  Grishchenko,  even  Malevich  attended  the  meetings.  Art  historians  such  as  Boris 
von  Eding  (a  specialist  in  ancient  Russian  architecture,  and  later  Popova's  hus- 
band) and  Boris  Vipper,  philosopher  Pavel  Florensky,  and  others  also  joined  in 
the  discussions.  In  1915—16  Popova  took  an  eager  part  in  the  organization  of  the 
Supremus  group;  and  at  the  gatherings  at  Udaltsova's  apartment,  Popova  mixed 

187 


left: 

figure  57.  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's 

brother  and  the  sitter  for  her  painting 

Portrait  of  a  Philosopher )  and  Alexander  Vesnin, 

photographed  by  Alexander  Rodchenko 

in  Popova's  studio.  Moscow,  1924. 

facing  page: 

figure  58.  Posthumous  exhibition  of  Popova's  work. 

Moscow,  1924. 


with  many  other  participants  of  the  avant-garde  movement,  including  Alexandra 
Exter,  Kliun,  and  Rozanova;  poet  Alexei  Kruchenykh  and  critic  Aliagrov  (Roman 
Jakobson)  were  also  there.  In  addition,  avant-garde  exhibitions  brought  Popova 
closer  to  the  left  in  Petrograd,  too.  For  example,  she  was  a  frequent  visitor  to  what 
was  known  as  Apartment  No.  5,  the  home  of  the  artist  LevBruni  and  a  regular 
meetingplace  of  the  Petrograd  bohemia  in  1914—15. 

After  the  October  Revolution,  professional  artists  attached  to  IZO  Narkompros 
took  over  the  task  of  organizing  numerous  exhibitions,  helped  acquire  works  of  art 
for  the  state  depositories,  and  commissioned  new  work.  In  March  1918.  in  the 
midst  of  all  these  activities,  Popova  married  von  Eding,  and  in  November  she  gave 
birth  to  a  son.  To  save  themselves  from  starvation  during  the  summer  of  1919. 
Popova,  von  Eding,  their  son,  and  her  governess  and  friend,  Adelaida  Dege,  moved 
to  Rostov-  on-  Don.  But  there  von  Eding  contracted  typhoid  fever  and  died,  while 
Popova  herself  became  seriously  ill  with  typhoid,  which  caused  a  serious  heart 
complication.  In  November.  Popova  returned  to  cold  and  hungry  Moscow. 
Evidently,  her  leftist  friends  helped  her  to  withstand  the  rigors  of  that  time,  for  she 
managed  to  sell  works  to  the  State  Purchasing  Commission  and.  at  the  end  of  1930 
was  hired  by  Vkhutemas,  where  she  was  given  a  studio  in  the  Painting  Department 
to  share  with  her  good  friend  Alexander  Vesnin  (fig.  57).  During  the  last  three 
years  of  her  life,  Popova  investigated  new  genres  such  as  stage,  poster,  and  book 
design,  and  it  is  thanks  especially  to  her  efforts  that  the  Constructivist  approach 
began  to  be  applied  to  sets  and  costumes  for  the  theater.  Not  only  did  she  now 
become  a  professional  teacher,  but  she  also  managed  to  coordinate  the  loose  cur- 
ricula of  the  Painting  Department  at  Vkhutemas  into  a  methodical  introductory 
course.  Moreover,  Popova  now  put  the  theory  of  the  Productionists  into  practice, 
quickly  emerging  as  a  master  of  textile  design. 

Friends  and  students  recall  Popova  at  the  beginning  of  the  1920s  as  young, 
beautiful,  full  of  joie  de  vivre.  Boris  Rybchenkov,  for  example,  then  a  student  at 


- 


•" 


d !  3 


Vkhutemas,  wrote  that  the  "young,  amazingly  beautiful,  ever  cordial,  festively 
dressed  Liubov  Sergeevna  seemed  to  glow. . . .  She  believed  that  the  highest  form  of 
the  new  art  was  abstraction. . . .  Liubov  Sergeevna  tried  to  make  us  understand  the 
supreme  principles  of  constructing  something  beautiful,  free  from  the  reality  of 
the  surrounding  material  world. . . .  This,  it  appears,  also  prompted  Liubov 
Sergeevna  to  tame  her  own,  to  some  extent,  feminine  . . .  form  of  Suprematism."8 
The  transition  from  studio  painting  to  production  art  was  symptomatic  of  a  crisis 
in  the  arts,  but  Popova's  ideas  provided  some  solutions.  Another  reason  for 
Popova's  optimism  and  tenacity  was  the  unflagging  support  of  those  around  her, 
their  friendship,  and  love.  Sergei  Bobrov  dedicated  poetry  to  her,  while  Aksenov's 
articles  convey  a  deep  veneration,  tinged  perhaps  by  a  more  amorous  sentiment. 
Popova  was  in  close  contact  with  both  writers  within  the  publishing-  house  and 
bohemian  circle  called  Centrifuge. 

But  Popova's  closest,  most  important  friend  was  Alexander  Vesnin,  and  every- 
one knew  of  their  intimate  relationship.  Natalia  Vesnina,  the  wife  of  his  brother 
Viktor,  writes  in  her  memoirs  that  the  "younger  Vesnin  fell  in  love  with  this  gifted, 
beautiful  woman  as  a  young  man  and  preserved  his  feeling  for  her  throughout 
his  life,  even  though  she  married  another  man.  "9  In  the  summer  of  1933  Popova 
traveled  with  Vesnin  to  the  Caucasus.  Since  their  youth,  they  had  been  tied  by 
the  close  bonds  of  friendship  as  well  as  by  a  common  artistic  mission,  sharing 
a  studio  at  Vkhutemas,  and  collaborating,  for  example,  on  the  production  of 
Romeo  and  Juliet  that  the  Chamber  Theater  prepared  (but  did  not  produce)  and  on 
an  agitprop  event. 

In  the  catalogue  of  her  posthumous  exhibition,  Popova's  brother,  Pavel,  wrote: 
"Impetuous  and  passionate,  never  satisfied  with  what  had  been  achieved  and  for- 
ever aspiring  forward,  from  a  young  age  Popova  displayed  an  enthusiasm  for  revo- 
lutionary forms  and  movements  both  in  art  in  particular  and  in  the  basic 
orientations  of  life.  This  revolutionary  spirit  was  characteristic  of  her  steadfast 


189 


LIUBOV  popova 


leftism  in  all  spheres  of  activity.  "10  Aksenov  even  asserted  that  in  her  last  years 
Popova  regarded  her  artistic  work  as  a  "duty  and  a  social  obligation.""  Although 
Popova  did  not  emphasize  the  theme  of  social  service  in  her  own  theoretical  texts, 
she  did  underscore  the  need  to  unite  the  two  revolutions  —  the  artistic  and  the 
social.  Without  addressingthe  question  of  why  the  Russian  avant-garde  embraced 
the  ideology  of  production  art  (and  unconditional  acceptance  of  the  social  revolu- 
tion was  part  of  that),  we  should  remember  that  Popova  responded  enthusiastically 
to  the  demands  of  the  new  reality,  and  that  is  how  her  colleagues  at  Inkhuk.  those 
associated  with  the  journal  Lef(Left  Front  of  the  Arts),  and  those  in  Vsevolod 
Meierkhold's  theater  perceived  her  and  her  work  (fig.  61). 

1.  Quoted  from  Pavel  Popov  in  I.  S.  Popova:  Posmertnaia  vystavka  khudozhnika-konstruktora, 
catalogue  of  posthumous  exhibition.  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture,  Moscow,  1924,  p.  5. 

2.  Varvara  Rodchenko,  comp.,  A.  M.  Rodchenko:  Stati.  Vospominaniia.  Avtobwgraficheskie  zapiski. 
Pisma  (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik),  1983,  p.  85. 

3.  Quoted  in  Petr  Suzdalev,  Vera  Mukhina  (Moscow:  Iskusstvo,  1981),  p.  4,1. 

4.  Mikhail  Alexandrovieh  Vrubel  (1856—1910),  Russia's  primary  artist  of  the  fin  de  siecle,  shared 
the  Symbolists'  premise  that  the  world  of  appearances  was  but  a  mere  shadow  of  the  higher, 
cosmic  truth.  Correspondingly,  he  displaced  and  distorted  outward  forms  in  order  to  express 
the  intensity  of  his  inner  vision.  Artists  of  the  avant-garde  held  Vrubel  in  high  esteem,  even 
regarding  him  as  the  first  "Cubist." 

5.  Ivan  Aksenov,  "Posmertnaia  vystavka  L.S.  Popovoi,"  Zhizniskusstva  (Leningrad),  no.  5  (1925), 

P-5- 

6.  Diary  entries  by  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  for  December  15.  1912  and  January  2,  1913,  in  Ekaterina 
Drevin and  Vasilii  Rakitin,  eds.,  N.A.  Udaltsova Zhizn  msskoi  kubistki  (Moscow:  RA,  1994). 
pp.  19-21. 

7.  Quoted  in  Suzdalev.  Vera  Mukhina,  p.  85. 

8.  Boris  Rybchenkov.  "Rasskazy  B.  F.  Rybchenkova,"  in  Natalia  Tamruchi,  comp.,  Prostranstvo 
kartmy:  Sbomik  statei  (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1989),  pp.  298—94. 

9.  Natalia  Vesnina,  "Moi  vospominaniia  ob  arkhitektorakh  bratiakh  Vesninykh,"  Panorama  iskusstv 
(Moscow),  no.  8  (1985),  p.  169. 

10.  Pavel  Popov,  L.  S.  Popova,  p.  5. 

11.  IvanAksenov.  "Posmertnaia  vystavka,"  p.  5. 


190 


liubov  popova  anD  arnsTic  SYnTHesis 
DmiTrii  saraBianov 

During  her  brief  life,  Popova  moved  rapidly  from  realism  and  decorative 
Impressionism  through  Cubo- Futurism  and  Suprematismto  Constructivism.  She 
did  so  by  first  absorbing  the  general  principles  of  modern  European  art  and  then 
embracing  the  inventions  of  the  Russian  avant-garde.  But  Popova's  mature  work  of 
the  late  1910s  and  early  1930s  is  an  even  broader  synthesis,  for  it  reflects  the  most 
disparate  tendencies  —  an  interest  in  the  classical  art  of  the  West  (particularly  the 
Italian  Renaissance),  Russian  icons,  French  Cubism  (which  she  studied  in  Paris, 
under  Henri  Le  Fauconnier  and  Jean  Metzingerat  La  Palette  in  1913  and  1918), 
Italian  Futurism  (to  which  she  was  especially  drawn  during  her  1914  stay  in  Italy), 
and.  finally,  the  composite,  if  antithetical,  influences  of  the  two  pillars  of  the 
Russian  avant-garde  —  Kazimir  Malevich  and  Vladimir  Tatlin. 

Perhaps  the  most  surprising  component  of  this  synthesis  is  that  of  classical 
Italian  art.  As  a  rule,  Russian  artists  of  the  avant-garde  rejected  the  Italian  tradi- 
tion as  an  archaic,  pernicious  convention,  either  implicitly  or  explicitly.  Popova, 
though,  while  still  an  art  student,  traveled  to  St.  Petersburg  to  study  Italian  paint- 
ing in  the  Hermitage.  From  the  paintings  that  she  observed  there,  she  made  draw- 
ings —  both  skillful  copies  and  free  interpretations  —  that  included  biblical  figures 
in  Renaissance  rendering,  figure  compositions  with  strong  equilibrium,  and  the 
motif  of  the  arch  within  a  semi- tondo  frame.  Later,  when  planning  her  Italian  itin- 
erary (by  which  time  she  was  an  avant-gardist),  she  selected  cities  that  were  cele- 
brated for  their  collections  of  classical  art.  As  Popova  noted  in  her  diaries, 
Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  her  traveling  companion  in  the  1910s,  also  cultivated  a  deep 
interest  in  classical  painting. 

Popova  grew  up  in  an  enlightened  merchant  family  with  a  strong  interest  in 
art,  especially  Italian  Renaissance  painting,  and  her  understanding  of  the  struc- 
tural underpinnings  of  Renaissance  form  infuses  her  abstract  paintings  and  draw- 
ings from  1916  and  1917.  Distinctive  characteristics  of  these  works  include  a 
precise  sense  of  up  and  down,  a  frontality  in  the  construction  of  form,  and  a  strong 
awareness  of  foreground  or  surface.  Often  the  center  of  the  composition  is  fixed 
and  proportions  define  relationships,  whether  simple  or  multiple.  These  propor- 
tions are  based  on  a  numerical  correlation  that  seems  to  have  been  calculated  con- 
sciously and  deliberately  as  a  lucid,  plastic  expression  of  the  logic  of  intersecting 
parts;  there  is  nothing  of  the  enigma  or  mystery  of  Piet  Mondrian's  geometric 
compositions  here.  All  of  Popova's  works  express  the  anthropomorphic  spirit,  not 
because  the  forms  recall  human  figures,  but  because  the  creative  principles  them- 
selves are  human,  natural,  and  simple. 

How  does  this  affinity  for  Renaissance  form  relate  to  Popova's  parallel  interest 


191 


LIUBOV  popova 


in  ancient  Russian  art  —  two  completely  different  and  seemingly  incompatible 
styles?  Just  as  she  visited  St.  Petersburg  to  study  Italian  Renaissance  painting,  she 
traveled  to  the  ancient  cities  of  Kiev.  Novgorod,  Pskov,  Yaroslavl,  Rostov,  and 
Suzdal  and  studied  the  icon  paintings  there.  Using  her  distinct  sensibility  and  her 
own  inner  logic  as  a  guide.  Popova  discovered  the  roots  of  Ryzantine  and  Russian 
art,  and,  through  simple  color  comparisons  and  numerical  correlations,  found  a 
classical  logic  in  the  traditions  of  both  the  Renaissance  and  Old  Russia.  A  similar 
effect  can  be  seen  in  the  reduced  space  of  Popova's  PainterJj Architectonics,  1918 
(plate  37),  for  example,  in  which  flat,  geometric  forms  are  arranged  to  create  an 
impression  of  overlapping  layers,  thus  negating  the  conventional  linear  perspec- 
tive without  destroying  it  entirely. 

For  Popova,  Russian  icon  painting  and  Italian  Renaissance  painting  shared 
certain  principles,  though  on  an  abstract  level.  She  was  interested  not  only  in  the 
holy  images,  but  also  in  the  wooden  board  on  which  the  icon  was  painted,  which 
she  connected  with  Tatlin's  interest  in  the  icon  and  which  prompted  her  —  and 
Vladimir  Baranov-Rossine,  IvanKliun,  IvanPuni,  and  Olga  Rozanova,  as  well  as 
Tatlin  —  to  turn  to  the  painted  relief  as  a  new  medium.  From  1915  on,  Popova 
incorporated  "icon  boards"  in  her  series  of  Painterly  Architectonics-,  the  posthu- 
mous list  of  works  compiled  by  her  close  associates  Ivan  Aksenov  and  Alexander 
Vesnin  includes  examples  of  Painterly  Architectonics  subtitled  With  Yellow  Icon 
Board,  With  Black  Icon  Board,  and  With  Gray  Board,  and  some  of  her  Cubo-Futurist 
works  also  bear  traces  of  the  texture  of  the  icon  board. 

Popova  also  found  inspiration  in  nature  and  in  the  human  figure,  which 
underwent  complex  transformations  in  her  work  —  especially  the  motif  of  trees 
(compare  Popova's  treatment  of  trees  to  Mondrian's  concurrent  work  featuring 
this  motif)  and  that  of  the  female  nude.  The  latterworks  demonstrate  her  particu- 
lar affinity  for  Cuhist  principles  and  practice,  which  she  assimilated  rapidly  in 
Paris.  Her  Composition  with  Figures,  1913  (plate  28),  painted  after  her  return  to 
Moscow  — and  which  was  first  on  the  list  of  works  that  she  compiled  herself  — 
shows  the  influence  not  only  of  Le  Fauconnier  and  Metzinger,  but  also  of  Tatlin. 

Popova's  approach  changed  after  she  saw  such  prototypical  Cubo-Futurist 
paintings  as  Malevich's  The  Knife -Grinder,  1913,  and  Goncharova's  The  Bicyclist. 
1913—13  (fig.  54),  in  which  two  opposing  forms  of  energy  clash,  restraining  and  at 
the  same  time  encouraging  the  perception  of  the  object  and  its  environment  as 
merging  together.  Popova  began  to  experiment  with  this  emphasis  on  abstract 
rhythms  and  patterns,  creating  her  own  Cubo-Futurist  works  such  as  The  Pianist, 
1915  (plate  3 1),  Man  +  Air  +  Space,  Portrait  of  a  Philosopher,  1915,  and  the  two  ver- 
sions of  the  Traveling  Woman,  1915  (plate  33),  in  which  Popova  achieved  an  effec- 
tive balance  between  the  centrifugal  and  the  centripetal.  Such  paintings  also 
demonstrate  an  equivalence  of  body,  object,  and  empty  space,  and  pinpoint  an 


19a 


DmiTin  saraBianov 


figure  59.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 
Cubist  Cityscape.  ca.  1914 
Oil  on  canvas.  137.1  x  91.4  cm. 
Private  collection 


,93 


wnrEfflft 


figure  60.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Design  for  the  logo  of  the  Supremus  Society 

of  Artists,  1916—17 

India  ink  on  paper,  9  x  11  cm 

Courtesy  of  Krystyna  Gmurzynska,  Cologne 

important  divergence  from  French  Cubism.  Albert  Gleizes,  Metzinger,  and 
Picasso  (who  in  his  Cubist  works  of  1918—14  often  depicted  a  female  figure  in  a 
chair,  with  a  mandolin  or  a  guitar)  always  separated  the  figure  from  the  ground 
by  giving  it  an  emphatic  plasticity.  This  was  not  a  hard-and-fast  principle  for 
the  French  (Fernand  Leger  tended  to  ignore  it) ,  whereas  the  Russian  artists 
(Kliun,  Malevich.  Popova)  sometimes  carried  it  to  an  extreme.  In  this  respect, 
Malevich's  Knife -Grinder  must  have  been  an  ideal  model  for  Popova;  her  two 
versions  of  the  Traveling  Woman  (a.k.a.  The  Traveler)  show  a  similar  dissolution 
of  legibility  within  the  complex  rhythm  of  the  intricate  lines  and  forms,  with 
the  fragments  of  both  the  figure  and  its  surrounding  environment  almost  los- 
ing their  connection  with  reality.  The  result  is  a  kind  of  alogical  rebus,  so  that 
the  mimetic  purpose  becomes  secondary  and  the  painting  itself  verges  on 
non-objectivity. 

A  comparison  of  Gleizes's  Woman  at  a  Piano,  1914  and  Popova's  The 
Pianist,  1915  (plate  3i),  demonstrates  the  differences  between  the  French  and 
Russian  interpretations  of  Cubist  form  and  space.  Gleizes  observes  fundamen- 
tal rules  in  his  representation  of  the  scene,  reducing  his  foreshortening"  to  a 
nearly  absolute  flatness  (as,  for  example,  in  the  triangle  of  the  keyboard). 
Popova,  however,  gives  us  a  mostly  frontal  view  of  the  face,  while  showing  the 
hand  from  the  side,  in  profile,  and  the  keyboard  from  above,  with  a  layered 
array  of  sheet  music  floating  in  the  middle.  Within  a  year  she  would  be  making 
completely  non-objective  paintings  similar  to  this. 

Around  1914,  after  painting  in  a  Cubo-Futurist  manner  for  about  two 
years,  Malevich  began  to  work  in  a  completely  abstract  style  using  geometric 
forms,  which  he  called  Suprematism.  and  a  group  of  like-minded  artists 
formed  around  him  (which  included  Kliun,  Alexander  Rodchenko,  Rozanova, 
and  Nadezhda  Udaltsova).  Supremus  anticipated  the  goals  of  the  Parisian 
groups  Cercle  et  Carre  (1939)  and  Abstraction  (1981).  Not  surprisingly,  in  1916 
Popova  became  a  member  of  Malevich's  Supremus  group,  and  embraced 
Suprematism  in  her  synthetic  system  that,  in  turn,  prepared  her  for  the  next 
phase.  Constructivism,  which  was  closely  related  to  Suprematism.  In  the  late 
1910s,  Popova  was  discovering  new  forms:  just  as  Cubism  had  once  looked  for 
construction  in  the  human  figure  and  the  object,  so  now  Popova  subjected 


194 


figure  61.  Vsevolod  Meierkhold's 
production  of  Fernand  Crommelynck's 
The  Magnanimous  Cuckold.  Moscow,  1922. 


abstract  forms  to  reductive  analysis  by  revealing  their  constructive  foundations 
as  geometric,  plastic  units.  Instead  of  trapezoids  or  triangles,  which  once  com- 
prised the  living  matter  of  the  painting,  there  the  edge  of  the  painting  assumes 
major  importance,  becoming  virtually  the  foundation  of  the  composition,  replac- 
ing the  surface  as  the  principal  focal  element.  The  planes  have  become  stripes, 
totally  disconnected  from  reality,  and  now  simply  suspended  in  the  immense 
space  of  the  universe. 

A  dual  process  is  occurring  here.  As  Popova  undermines  the  Suprematist 
totality  with  Constructivist  analysis,  she  also  renews  the  synthesis:  her 
Spatial-Force  Constructions.  1931  (see  plates  39—41)  which  succeeded  the  Painterly 
Architectonics,  produce  the  impression  of  consonance  and  stability,  thanks  to  the 
interactive  energy  of  different  forms,  directions,  and  forces.  Now.  movement 
unfolds  not  in  real  space,  but  in  a  new.  unearthly  dimension  that  rejects 
Constructivism  in  favor  of  Suprematism.  Nevertheless,  the  same  interactions  of 
centrifugal  and  centripetal  still  lead  to  their  harmonious  union,  rather  like  the 
unity  of  static  and  dynamic  that  is  characteristic  of  Cubo  -  Futurism. 

To  a  considerable  extent,  Popova's  abstract  paintings  constituted  a  laboratory 
of  forms  that  prepared  her  for  the  richer  compounds  of  Constructivism  and 
Production  art  that  she  investigated  with  such  alacrity  after  the  October 
Revolution.  The  radical  accomplishments  that  we  associate  with  Popova's  stage, 
fashion,  and  book  designs  of  the  early  1920s,  while  public,  utilitarian,  and  often 
ideologically  inspired,  are  organic  extensions  of  her  studio  painting  of  several 
years  earlier.  Indeed,  without  the  rigorous  formal  explorations  that  Popova  pur- 
sued in  the  architectonic  and  spatial-force  compositions,  her  spectacular  works  of 
the  early  1920s  —  such  as  her  scenography  for  Vsevolod  Meierkhold's  interpreta- 
tion of  The  Magnanimous  Cuckold  in  1922  (fig.  61)  —would  have  been  impossible. 


"i- 


liubov  serGeevna  popova 

(1889-1924) 


1889  Born  April  24, 1889,  near  Moscow. 

1899  Receives  art  lessons  at  home.  Graduates  from  the  Arseniev 

Gymnasium. 
1907  Studies  under  Stanislav  Zhukovsky  at  his  studio. 

1908—09      Attends  the  art  school  of  Konstantin  Yuon  and  Ivan  Dudin.  Meets 

Alexander  Vesnin  there. 

1909  Travels  to  Kiev  in  autumn. 

1910  Travels  to  Italy  with  her  family,  and  is  especially  impressed  by  the 
work  of  Giotto  and  the  15th-  and  16th-century  masters.  That  summer, 
travels  to  Pskov  and  Novgorod  to  study  icons. 

1911  Makes  several  trips  to  ancient  Russian  cities. 

1912  Works  in  the  Moscow  studio  known  as  the  Tower,  with  Ivan  Aksenov. 
Viktor  Bart,  Alexei  Grishchenko,  Vladimir  Tatlin,  and  Kirill 
Zdanevich.  Visits  Sergei  Shchukin's  collection  of  modern  French  art. 

1912—13  Goes  with  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  to  Paris,  where  they  study  under  Henri 
Le  Fauconnier,  Jean  Metzinger,  and  Andre  Dunoyer  de  Segonzac  at  La 
Palette. 

1913  Meets  Alexander  Archipenko  and  Ossip  Zadkine.  After  spending  May 
in  Brittany  with  Vera  Mukhina  and  Boris  Ternovets,  returns  to  Russia 
and  again  works  closely  with  Tatlin,  Udaltsova,  and  Alexander  Vesnin. 

1914  Travels  to  France  and  Italy  again,  accompanied  by  Vera  Mukhina. 
1914—15        Her  Moscow  home  becomes  a  regular  meeting  place  for  artists 

(including  Grishchenko,  Vera  Pestel,  Ternovets,  Udaltsova,  Alexander 
Vesnin)  and  writers  (including  art  historian  Boris  von  Eding). 
1914—16        Contributes  to  several  exhibitions,  notably  the  two  Jack  of  Diamonds 
exhibitions  in  Moscow  (1914— making  her  professional  debut— and 
1916),  Tramway  V&na\o.io,  (both  in  Petrograd),  and  The  Store  in 
Moscow. 

1915  Begins  to  paint  in  a  non-objective  style,  most  notably  with  her  series 
of  Painterly  Architectonics . 

1916  Joins  the  Supremus  group. 

1917  Continues  her  series  of  Painterly  Architectonics  and  makes  textile 
designs  for  Natalia  Davydova's  enterprise  in  Verbovka. 


196 


CHTOnOLOGY 


1918  Marries  von  Eding.  Works  on  designs  for  Soviet  agitprop.  Gives  birth 
to  a  son  in  November. 

1919  Contributes  to  the  Tenth  State  Exhibition-.  Non-Objective  Creativity  and 
Suprematism .  Her  husband  dies  from  typhoid  fever. 

1919—21        Paints  more  advanced  non-objective  works. 

1920  Makes  stage  designs  for  Alexander  Tairov's  production  of  Romeo  and 
Juliet  at  the  Chamber  Theater.  Moscow.  Teaches  atVkhutemas.  where 
she  organizes  a  program  on  "color  discipline."  Joins  Inkhuk. 

1921  Contributes  to  the  exhibitions^  =  25  in  Moscow.  Becomes  active  as  a 
Constructivist.  designing  book  covers,  porcelain,  stage  sets,  and  tex- 
tiles. Makes  series  of  Spatial  -Force  Constructions.  Teaches  at  the  State 
Higher  Theater  Studios. 

1921—24        Designs  book  and  sheet-music  covers. 

1922  Creates  the  sets  and  costumes  for  Vsevolod  Meierkhold"s  production 
of  The  Magnanimous  Cuckold.  Contributes  to  the  Erste  russische 
Kunstausstellung  in  Berlin. 

1923  Designs  Meierkhold"s  production  of  Earth  on  End.  Moves  away  from 
painting  and  sculpture  and  becomes  completely  involved  with  pro- 
duction art. 

1923—24       Works  on  textile  and  dress  designs  for  the  First  State  Textile  Factory. 

1924  Dies  May  25,  in  Moscow.  A  large  posthumous  exhibition  of  her  work 
opens  in  Moscow  (December  21). 


•97 


lgt 


facing  page: 

plate  28.  LIUBOVPOPOVa 
Composition  with  Figures ,  1913 
Oil  on  canvas.  160  x  124.3  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow- 
above: 

plate  29.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 
Italian  Still  Life,  1914 
Oil,  plaster,  and  paper  collage  on  canvas. 
61.5x48  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 


199 


plate 3o.LIUB0V  POPOVa 
Guitar,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  83.5  X71  cm 
Collection  of  Elena  Murina  and 
Dmitrii  Sarabianov,  Moscow 


plate3i.LIUB0V  POPOVa 
The  Pianist.  1915 
Oil  on  canvas.  106.5  x  ^8-7 cm 
National  Gallery  of  Canada.  Ottawa 


above: 

plate 3s.  LIUBOVPOPOVa 

Lady  with  a  Guitar,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas.  107x71.5  cm 

State  Museum  of  History-,  Architecture,  and  Art.  Smolensk 


facingpage: 

plate  33.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Traveling  Woman,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas.  158.5  x  123  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costalds  Collection) 


2o3 


above: 

plate  34.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Jug  on  Table.  Plastic  Painting,  1915 
Oil  on  cardboard,  mounted  on  panel, 
59.1x45.3  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow, 
Gift,  George  Costakis 

facing  page: 

plate  35.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Birsk,  1916 

Oil  on  canvas,  106  x  69.5  cm 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum,  New  York, 

Gift,  George  Costakis  81.2822.1 


204 


2°S 


plate  36.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Painterly  Architectonics,  1917 

Oil  on  canvas,  107  x  88  cm 

Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art  Museum 


206 


plate  37.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Painterly  Architectonics,  1918 

Oil  on  canvas,  105  x  80  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 


plate38.LIUBOVPOPOVa 
Construction,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  106.8  x  88.7  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


208 


plate 39.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Spatial-Force  Construction.  1921 

Oil  with  marble  dust  on  plywood.  112.7  x  11--7  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 


209 


facing  page: 

plate  40.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Spatial-Force  Construction,  1921 

Oil  over  pencil  on  plywood,  124  x  82-3  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow, 

Gift,  George  Costakis 


above: 

plate  41.  LIUBOV  POPOVa 

Spatial -Force  Construction,  1921 

Oil  with  marble  dust  on  plywood,  71  x  64  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 


fj|t| 

mm| 

IB  '5 

% 

3 

Ml  ? 


figure  62-  Olga  Rozanova.  photographed  by  M.  P.  Koreneva  in  Vladimir,  ca.  1900. 


mm 

a 

if;  :  5 


MM 


OLGa 

Rozanova 


nina  Gurianova 


OLGa  rozanova:  exPLorinG  colot 

While  working  in  the  most  diverse  directions  and  styles,  Olga  Rozanova  always 
retained  her  artistic  individuality.  Consequently,  her  oeuvre  cannot  be  accommo  - 
dated  easily  within  the  sole  categories  of  Cubo  -  Futurism  or  Suprematism,  for  her 
paintings,  drawings,  and  designs  contain  a  strength  and  originality  that  pushes 
them  far  beyond  conventional  conceptual  boundaries.  Rozanova's  work  seems  to 
exist  within  a  compressed  time,  to  exist  as  a  single,  compact  entity;  and  this  is  no 
more  manifest  than  in  her  conscious  reliance  upon  color  correlations  as  being  the 
fundamental  element  in  composition.  Such  was  her  method  in  creating  her  early 
paintings,  when  she  worked  more  by  intuition,  and  also  in  her  later  art,  which  she 
based  on  a  rigorous  theory  of  color  interrelationships.  In  turn,  exploration  of  color 
became  the  distinguishing  feature  of  her  entire  artistic  process,  something  that 
today  —  both  in  theory  and  in  practice  —  helps  us  understand  more  clearly  the 
development  of  color  theory  in  twentieth-  century  abstract  painting. 

From  the  very  beginning  of  her  artistic  career,  Rozanova  tended  mostly  toward 
abstract  composition  based  on  dynamics,  interaction  of  color,  and  discordant  lin- 
ear rhythm.  She  passed  quickly  from  early  Neo-Primitivist  still  lifes  and  portraits, 
for  example.  Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  Pink  (Portrait  of  Anna  Rozanova,  the  Artist's  Sister), 
1911  (plate  43),  toward  a  new  Futurist  rhythmic  displacement  that  she  identified 
with  the  dissonance  of  the  industrial  city  —  manifest  in  the  paintings  that  she  con- 

2l3 


left:  figure  63.  OLGa  rozanova 

Illustration  for  Soiuz  molodezki  (St.  Petersburg), 

no.  3  (1913) 

Lithograph 

Institute  of  Modern  Russian  Culture.  Los  Angeles 

above:  figure  64.  OLGa  TOZanOVa 
Non-Objective  Composition,  1914—15 
Oil  on  canvas,  56  x  65  cm 
State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 


tributed  to  the  last  Union  of  Youth  exhibition  in  November  1913  (Landscape -Inertia, 
1913,  Dissonance,  1913,  and  Trajectoglyphs  of  Movements  of  the  Soul,  1913).  Indeed, 
the  latter  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  images  within  Boccioni's  series  of  Stati 
d'animo,  1911,  and  indicates  that  Rozanova's  primary  artistic  purpose  was  to  convey 
movement  —  if  not  the  external  and  the  visible,  then  the  internal  and  the  spiritual. 

Rozanova's  strongest  compositions  in  this  genre,  including  City  (Industrial 
Landscape),  1913  (Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center,  Slobodskoi),  The 
Factory  and  the  Bridge,  1913  (Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York),  Man  on  the  Street 
(Analysis  of  Volumes),  1913  (Museo  Thyssen-Bornemisza,  Madrid),  andFire  in  the 
City  (Cityscape),  1914  (plate  43)  are  characterized  by  rich  surface  treatment  and 
the  striking  application  of  black  lines  and  contours,  something  that  produces 
the  impression  of  a  shimmering,  quivering  texture;  in  turn,  this  takes  on  an 
autonomous  painterly  quality.  In  Man  on  the  Street  (Analysis  of  Volumes),  the  figures 
seem  to  expand  arbitrarily  and  the  composition  to  yield  to  a  dynamic  rhythm  that 
pulsates  throughout  the  work.  Rozanova  treats  the  theme  of  the  city  in  which  dis- 
parate elements,  objects,  and  forms  are  transformed  into  an  autonomous  organ- 
ism. Still,  unlike  the  Italian  Futurists.  Rozanova  approaches  the  city  and  the 
machine  with  caution,  but  she  endows  them  with  a  sense  of  mystery  and  danger. 
In  her  Futurist  urban  landscapes  of  1913—14,  the  "actors"  or  "characters"  are  the 
buildings,  streetlights,  and  factory  chimneys  in  which  human  figures,  if  they  are 
present,  dissipate  and  dissolve. 


214 


Nina  cunanova 


By  1915  the  Russian  avant-garde  was  developing  rapidly,  assimilating  many 
sytlistic  and  philosophical  concepts  and  forcing  reason  to  "burst  the  boundaries 
of  the  known."1  Rozanova's  paintings  at  the  0.10  exhibition  were  no  exception,  rep- 
resenting a  fusion  of  Cubo- Futurism  and  a  new  impetus  toward  abstraction  (which 
not  only  forced  her  to  search  for  a  new  painterly  style,  but  also,  as  she  herself  might 
have  said,  to  subordinate  this  style  to  a  new  aesthetic  psychology).  This  duality 
lends  a  special  attraction  to  the  novel  and  unpredictable  quality  of  her  1915  works, 
which  hover  on  the  boundary  between  objective  and  non-objective.  In  any  case, 
in  following  Rozanova's  works  through  the  exhibitions  of  1915,  we  cannot  help 
but  notice  a  metamorphosis  as  she  advances  from  the  Cubo -Futurist  portraits  of 
1913—14  or  the  dramatic  Fire  in  the  City  (Cityscape)  to  the  unprecedented  abstract 
reliefs  Automobile,  1915,  and  Bicyclist,  1915,  shown  at  o.  jo.2  The  Futurist  notions  of 
rhythm  and  dynamism  are  here  transformed  into  tight  Suprematist  shapes  (semi- 
sphere,  triangle,  rectangle)  enhanced  by  a  three-dimensional  solidity  of  form. 

In  this  respect,  the  Playing  Cards  series  of  1912(7)— 15  (see  plates  45—47), 
which  Rozanova  linked  with  her  color  linocuts  and  first  showed  in  April  1915  at  the 
Exhibition  of  Painting  of  Leftist  Trends  (DobychinaArt  Bureau,  Petrograd),  may  seem 
to  be  a  glance  back  to  the  Neo  -  Primitivism  of  Natalia  Goncharova  and  Mikhail 
Larionov.3  At  first,  the  Neo-Primitivists,  too,  had  been  attracted  by  playing  cards 
as  a  requisite  component  of  contemporary  urban  folklore:  the  signs  and  symbols 
of  playing  cards  continued  to  grace  dream  books,  picture  postcards,  and  the  latest 
fortune -telling  books.  Larionov  was  drawing  upon  all  these  connotations  when  he 
organized  the  controversial  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhibition  in  1910.4 

Thus,  Rozanova  was  observing  a  precedent  when  she  introduced  the  theme 
of  playing  cards  into  the  cycle  of  eleven  compositions,  perhaps  her  most  fanciful 
creation. i  Here  she  creates  a  formal  portrait  gallery  of  playing-card  queens,  kings, 
and  jacks  in  the  spirit  of  Malevich's  "alogism"  (Malevich's  own  term,  meaning 
"non-sense  realism"  or  "transrational  realism"6)  or  Lewis  Carroll's  paradoxes 
from  Beyond  the  Looking  Glass .  These  faces  and  figures  strike  us  by  the  sharp  con- 
trast of  bright  colors,  with  the  black- gray  grisaille  of  the  faces  and  hands  of  the 
half-alive  characters.  The  irony  of  the  subject  is  underscored  by  the  rough,  even 
crude  method  of  execution  that  brings  to  mind  a  hand-painted  photograph  or  a 
brightly  colored  postcard  sold  at  some  provincial  fair.  The  very  idea  of  composing 
such  a  group  and  the  very  manner  of  execution  go  well  beyond  the  conventions  of 
both  Neo- Primitivism  and  Cubo  -Futurism,  and  to  some  extent  anticipate  the  aes- 
thetics of  Pop  art.  The  process  whereby  playing  cards  turn  into  people  counterbal  - 
ances  the  reverse  transformation,  which  occurs  when  real-life,  historical 
personages  are  equated  with  playing-card  figures  as,  for  example,  in  the  special 
"historical"  decks  of  cards  popular  in  Russia,  Europe,  and  America  in  the  nine- 
teenth century. 


^5 


figure  65.  OLGa  rozanova 

Jack  of  Diamonds,  1912(?)— 15 
Oil  on  canvas,  80  x  69  cm 
Present  whereabouts  unknown 


What  one  might  refer  to  as  Rozanova's  local  color  and  lapidary  application, 
her  fragmentation  of  complex  forms  into  basic  geometrical  shapes,  their 
autonomy  emphasized  by  black  contour,  and  the  neutrality  or  virtual  absence 
of  background  have  much  in  common  with  Malevich's  proto-Suprematist 
sketches.  Four  Aces-.  Simultaneous  Representation,  for  example,  contains  only  the 
geometrized  "primal  element"  of  the  card  sign  — the  rhombus,  circle,  and 
cross.  Indeed,  Rozanova's  canvases  of  1914—15  anticipate  the  abstraction  of 
Suprematism.  as  in  Metronome ,  1915  (Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow),  Workbox, 
1915  (fig.  66),  Writing  Desk ,  1915  (Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg).  Pub 
(Auction),  1914  (plate  44),  or  The  "Moderne"  Movie  Theater  (In  the  Street),  1915 
(plate  48).  The  last  anticipates  her  later  style  of  color-painting,  manifest  in 
the  attention  to  translucent,  semitransparent  planes  and  in  the  fragments  of 
light-rays  against  a  colored  rainbow  spectrum.  Entirely  absent  here,  however, 
are  the  Futurist  intonations  of  dynamism  and  simultaneity;  compositions  such 
as  The  "Moderne" Movie  Theater  (In  the  Street)  bringto  mind  the  "alogical"  phase 
of  Malevich's  Cubo-Futurism  in  Lady  at  an  Advertisement  Column,  1914 
(Stedelijk  Museum,  Amsterdam).  Rozanova's  compositions,  however,  can  be 
seen  as  a  kind  of  hypothetical  "picture"  or  rebus.  The  isolated  sign  or  object, 
divorced  from  its  usual  context,  becomes  a  requisite  attribute  of  such  compo- 
sitions; the  irrational  laws  of  construction  of  such  painterly  texts  are  identical 
in  many  ways  to  those  governing  the  Russians'  zaum  (transrational  poetry) . 


216 


Nina  curianova 


Indeed,  one  of  Rozanova's  strongest  talents  was  her  ability  to  improvise  —  and 
the  malleability  of  her  graphic  art  suited  itself  perfectly  to  the  poetry  of  Alexei 
Kruchenykh,  inventor  and  theoretician  of  zaum.  In  1913,  he  and  Khlebnikov  pub- 
lished the  manifesto  Slovo  kak  takovoe  (The  Word  as  Such),  proclaiming  a  new  verbal 
form  in  a  language  lacking  a  determinate  rational  meaning.  The  close  personal 
relationship  between  Kruchenykh  and  Rozanova  resulted  in  a  fruitful  collaboration 
and  in  the  unique  style  of  the  Russian  Cubo- Futurist  book:  in  1913—14,  for  exam- 
ple, they  published  Te  li  le,  an  early  virtuoso  example  of  visual  poetry  in  which  line 
is  coequal  with  word,  and  color  with  sound. 

In  1915—16  Rozanova  and  Kruchenykh  created  a  new  version  of  the  avant-garde 
book  by  using  collages  made  from  colored  paper.  Rozanova  employed  this  tech- 
nique to  particular  advantage  in  her  designs  for  Zaumnaia gniga  (Transrational 
Gook),  1915,  by  Kruchenykh  and  Aliagrov  (pseudonym  of  Roman  Jakobson)  and 
Voina  (War),  1916  (designed  in  the  summer  of  1915),  which  contained  color 
linocuts,  collages,  and  a  collection  of  poetry  by  Kruchenykh. 

The  cover  of  Voina  is  the  first  Suprematist  experiment  in  book  design.  The 
majestic  simplicity  of  the  colors  (white,  blue,  and  black)  and  of  the  shapes  (rectan- 
gle, square,  circle,  and  triangle)  suggests  comparison  with  Malevich's  works  shown 
at  o.  jo,  although  there  was  not  a  single  painting  by  Rozanova  at  this  exhibition  that 
could  be  called  Suprematist."  This  apparent  incongruity,  however,  can  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  she  came  to  Suprematism  by  way  of  collage,  a  path  that 
was  predetermined  by  the  previous  evolution  of  her  art.  Rozanova  was  so  enthusi- 
astic about  transrational  poetry  that  she  began  to  compose  verse  herself,  albeit 
under  the  influence  of  Kruchenykh.  In  turn,  Kruchenykh  applied  himself  to  the 
visual  arts  and  under  Rozanova's  guidance  created  a  set  of  abstract  collages  for  his 
album  Vselenskaia  voina  (Universal  War),  1916.  In  the  preface  to  this  edition  he 
declared  transrational  (i.e.,  abstract)  painting  to  be  supreme,  affirming  that  the 
original  idea  had  been  Rozanova's. 

Throughout  Rozanova's  artistic  career,  color  remained  her  chief  concern. 
In  such  sophisticated  abstract  paintings  as  Non-Objective  Composition  (Right  of 
an  Airplane),  1916  (plate  49),  and  two  works  titled  Non-Objective  Composition 
(Suprematism) ,  1916  (plates  50,  51),  she  reveals  a  "discordant  concordance"  of 
interactive  colored  planes  to  create  her  own  variant  of  Suprematism  based  on  the 
dominant  role  of  color.  Malevich  appreciated  Rozanova's  painting  of  this  period, 
once  even  calling  her  the  "only  true  Suprematist."8  Nonetheless,  in  her  article 
"Cubism.  Futurism,  Suprematism"  —  much  of  which  was  devoted  to  color  in 
abstract  art  —  Rozanova  entered  into  a  dialogue  with  Malevich:  whereas  for  Malevich 
"paint  is  the  main  thing,  "9  for  Rozanova  all  abstract  art  is  born  of  a  "love  of  color."" 

The  two  words  "paint"  and  "color"  are  in  no  way  synonyms,  for  each  carries  the 
essence  of  Malevich's  and  Rozanova's  respective  approaches  to  abstract  art.  When 


217 


OLGa  rozanova 


Malevich  speaks  of  paint  as  the  most  important  element  in  Suprematism, 
he  has  in  mind  the  concrete  materiality  of  pigment  as  the  primary  means  of 
expression,  the  principal  instrument.  Even  when  he  uses  the  word  "color" 
in  his  writings  (the  "self-sufficient  components  in  painting  are  color  and  tex- 
ture")," he  still  means  "paint,"  with  all  its  materiality  and  the  texture  it  pro- 
duces when  applied  to  canvas.  In  contrast,  Rozanova  sees  the  essence  of  color 
to  lie  in  its  "non- materiality."1-  Color  is  no  longer  an  instrument,  but  a  uni- 
versal goal  that  the  artist  strives  to  reach  by  all  the  means  of  expression  at  his 
or  her  disposal.  According  to  Rozanova,  the  task  of  Suprematism  is  "to  create 
quality  of  form  in  connection  with  quality  of  color,"'3  not  vice  versa,  for  she 
considered  form  as  merely  deriving  from  color.  Later,  in  1917—18,  she  con- 
ceived of  the  notion  of  the  destruction  of  form  —  which  is  yet  another  impor- 
tant distinction  between  her  and  Malevich,  who  acknowledged  the  dominant 
role  of  the  painterly  form  as  such. 

This  significant  difference  between  Malevich  and  Rozanova  becomes  clear 
when  we  compare  two  analogous  paintings,  such  as  Malevich's  Suprematist 
Composition:  Airplane  Flying,  1915  (Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York),  and 
Non-Objective  Composition  (Right  of  an  Airplane).  Three  colors  figure  in  this 
work  by  Malevich  —  red,  yellow,  and  black  on  a  white  background,  symbolizing 
the  nothingness  of  metaphysical  space  — and  three  "floating"  forms  corre- 
spond to  these  colors:  a  rectangle,  a  square,  and  a  narrow  strip  stretched 
almost  into  a  line.  But  seventeen  colors  —  the  three  primary  colors,  their  com- 
plimentary colors,  and  eleven  mixed  colors  —  resound  in  Rozanova's  composi- 
tion. Color  variety  is  justified  by  a  corresponding  variety  of  painterly  forms. 
The  texture  of  the  painted  surfaces  is  variegated,  so  that  the  brushstrokes  and 
thinninglayers  of  paint  sometimes  come  through.  Numerous  geometrized 
shapes  consisting  of  interconnected  parts  of  triangles,  circles,  rectangles,  and 
other  segments  intersect  in  a  rhythmic  dissonance  that  seems  to  have 
exploded  and  distributed  them  with  enormous  centrifugal  force.  Three  large 
colored  planes  loom  in  the  background —  blue,  light  blue,  and  yellow  — united 
into  a  single  static  figure  (a  structure  reminiscent  of  Liubov  Popova's  Painterly- 
Architectonics  [plate  36])-,  and  they  seem  to  have  crowded  out  the  white  back- 
ground, which  remains  only  as  a  narrow  strip  along  the  edges  of  the  canvas. 
The  foreground  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  this  static  element  of  the  painting,  and 
the  dissonant  energy  here  is  the  principal  difference  between  her  works  and 
'Popova's  Architectonics,  which,  in  their  Utopian  equilibrium,  appear  to  over- 
come the  chaos  of  reality  and  to  restore  harmony.1* 

Unlike  Popova,  in  whose  works  color  emerges  with  the  plastic,  almost 
sculpted  form  of  her  Architectonics,  and  unlike  Malevich,  who  subordinates 
color  to  the  new  dimension  of  the  dominating  space,  Rozanova  achieves  aspe- 


figure  66.  OLGa  rozanova 

Workboz,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas  with  collage,  53  x  33  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 


cial  painterly  effect  through  contrast,  dissonance,  and  the  chance  harmony  of  vari- 
ous color  combinations  determined  by  rhythm,  dynamics,  and  emotion  (as  in  a 
musical  composition).  By  means  of  hyperbolic  color  and  a  metaphoric  combina- 
tion of  light  and  dark,  Rozanova  introduced  a  new  quality  into  the  geometry  of 
Suprematism.  The  result  embodies  her  idea  that  "it  is  the  properties  of  color  that 
create  dynamism,  engender  style,  and  justify  the  construction. "'5 

The  leitmotif  of  Rozanovas  Suprematist  compositions  is  the  rebirth  of  color, 
much  as  in  her  poetry  it  is  the  rebirth  of  sound  in  the  dissonant,  contrasting  com- 
binations of  light  and  dark,  heavy  and  light,  warm  and  cold,  harmonious  and 
atonal.  Her  Suprematist  works  have  the  same  compositional  completeness  and 
uniform  rhythm:  the  basic  color  combinations  are  reflected  endlessly  in  supple- 
mental, fragmentary  forms  that  fill  the  surrounding  space.  Her  Non-Objective 
Composition  (Suprematism),  1916  (plate  50),  for  example,  has  only  six  colors  (black, 
white,  yellow,  blue,  and  two  shades  of  gray),  but  they  are  complementary  opposites, 
the  white  triangle  against  the  gray  background  embodying  the  fullness  and  com- 
pleteness of  absolute  silence.  The  contrast  of  black  and  white  makes  for  the 
strongest  dissonance,  which  may  be  read  as  the  archetype  in  our  consciousness. 
With  its  yellow-gold  equivalent  of  lightning  scattered  overthe  cool  fragments  of 
blue,  the  color  composition  bends  to  a  displacement,  an  almost  Gothic  sweep.  This 
composition,  one  of  the  most  atectonic  in  construction  and  rhythmically  tense  and 
expressive,  might  be  called  an  example  of  "Romantic"  Suprematism. 


■■"' 


V 


/ 

OnMfo<fH/fie  tuy&'i urn.* I  J 
\U  Bit  iMtHA  // 

/~~cin.t/etn  H  nfK«t(( 
f/ 


5  e^Aofft  /titf\j\ 

Z  a  ntAHU-%  H*-  >; 


figure  67.  OLGa  rozanova 

Illustrations  for  Alexei 
Kruchenykh  and  Velimir 
Khlebnikov,  Te  li  le 
(St.  Petersburg:  1914) 
Institute  of  Modern  Russian 
Culture.  Los  Angeles 


Rozanova  created  a  number  of  expressive  abstract  works  that  were  rather 
different  from  the  initial  stage  of  Suprematism,  employing  simple  forms  (usually 
rectangles)  or  broad,  rich  planes  of  color  with  rough  outlines  that  seem  to  stick 
to  the  surface  of  the  canvas.  These  paintings  give  the  impression  of  a  solid,  heavy 
mass  of  color.  Such  is  the  spare,  abstract  composition  in  the  State  Russian 
Museum,  which  consists  of  a  dissonant  arrangement  of  red,  black,  and  yellow 
pastoge.  In  1917  Rozanova  wrote:  "I  have  found  a  new  way  of  investigating  color; 
if  it  is  not  at  variance  with  the  'transfigured'  method  then  it  can  be  used  in 
Suprematist  painting  as  well.  "l6 

Rozanova  concluded  her  own  color  theory  —  in  which  she  distanced  herself 
from  Malevich's  Suprematism  —  with  the  concept  of  color-painting  (tsvetopis). 
Several  of  her  paintings  carried  this  denotation  at  her  posthumous  exhibition 
within  the  First  State  Exhibition,  held  in  December  1918— January  1919. '7  The  Tenth 
State  Exhibition:  Non-Objective  Creativity  and  Suprematism  a  few  months  later  also 
demonstrated  a  clear  boundary  between  generic  Suprematism  and  Rozanova's 
color-painting,  the  exhibition  featured  color  compositions  by  Ivan  Kliun,  Mikhail 
Menkov,  Alexander  Rodchenko,  and  Alexander  Vesnin,  as  well  as  several  by 
Rozanova.  In  the  catalogue,  Malevich  remarked  on  the  problem  of  color,  repeating 
some  of  the  principles  he  had  formulated  in  his  1917  essay  on  color-painting. 

Rozanova's  article  "Cubism,  Futurism,  Suprematism"  expresses  her  ideas  on 
the  nature  of  color  and  its  function  in  abstract  art.  Referring  to  the  materialization 
of  the  "immaterial  essence  of  the  color,"  she  emphasizes  that  the  "texture  of  the 
material  hinders  the  pure  nature  of  color."18  This  passage  indicates  why  she  turned 
to  collages  of  materials  possessing  minimal  texture,  such  as  transparent  colored 
paper.  After  experimenting  with  various  transformations,  she  reached  her  ideal  — 
to  convey  the  immaterial  essence  of  color,  its  inner  energy,  and  luminosity  in 


•  BOKHA 


PUbBA0.P03AH0B0M 
CjlOBA  A.KPyHEHblX 


figure  68.  oLGa  rozanova 

Cover  for  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  Voina 

(Petrograd:  1916) 

Linocut,4ox3i  cm 

Courtesy  Galerie  Gmurzynska,  Cologne 


painting.  Here,  the  emphasis  switched  from  form  and  painterly  texture  to  the 
spiritual,  mystical  qualities  of  color  and  its  interconnection  with  light.  In  the  1916 
Non-Objective  Composition  (Suprematism)  (plate  50),  GreenStripe  (Color Painting ) , 
1917  (plate  54),  and  a  number  of  other  concurrent  paintings,  the  transparency  is 
so  great  that  the  effect  is  of  a  colored  ray  of  light  projected  on  the  white  background 
of  the  primed  canvas.  In  the  1917  compositions,  Rozanova  achieves  a  maximum 
luminosity  of  texture  through  a  transparent  color  glazing  applied  to  the  strongly 
reflective  white  ground. 

Green  Stnpe  is  surely  among  the  most  interesting  pieces  of  twentieth- century 
abstract  painting,  above  all  for  the  radiance  of  the  elusive,  palpitating  light  that 
envelops  the  translucent  green  column.  Moreover,  there  is  evidence  to  assume 
that  this  composition  was  part  of  a  triptych  that  also  included  Yellow  Stripe  (location 
unknown)  and  Purple  Stripe. "'The  effect  brings  to  mind  a  phototransparency  pro- 
jected onto  a  wall  or  the  experimental  painted  films  of  German  avant-gardists 
Hans  Richter  and  Viking  Eggeling  in  the  1930s.  In  his  "Posthumous  Word"  on 
Rozanova,  Rodchenko  wrote:  "Was  it  not  you  who  wanted  to  light  up  the  world  in 
cascades  of  color?  Was  it  not  you  who  proposed  projecting  color  compositions  into 
the  ether. . .  .You  thought  of  creating  color  through  light."20 

Suprematism  became  a  laboratory  whose  experiments  led  Rozanova  to  put  her 
innovative  ideas  into  seemingly  contrary  practices  —  by  creating  "color-painting" 
or,  as  she  put  it,  a  "painting  of  transfigured  color  far  from  utilitarian  goals"  —  and 
by  attempting  to  transform  the  everyday  into  a  "living  environment"  for  art,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  Suprematist  designs  for  women's  fashions,  handbags,  and 
embroideries.21  Perhaps,  after  all,  Rozanova  was  the  only  Suprematist  able  to  com- 
bine a  "cosmic"  disharmony  with  the  human  dimension,  and  the  spiritual,  mysti- 
cal and  mental  with  the  emotional,  intuitive,  and  sensual.  In  her  last  works  she 


OLca  rozanova 


found  —  consciously  or  intuitively  —  a  way  out  from  the  Suprematist  impasse.  If 
Malevich  perceived  a  new  religion  imbued  with  the  poetics  of  dehumanization  in 
the  uncompromising,  totalitarian  stance  of  his  innovation,  Rozanova  spoke  of  a 
new  humanized  beauty:  "Nevertheless,  we  do  believe  that  the  time  will  come 
when  for  many  our  art  will  become  an  esthetic  necessity,  an  art  justified  by  a  self- 
less aspiration  to  present  a  new  beauty  to  the  world."22  With  a  natural  elegance, 
Rozanova  combined  the  universality  and  severe  grandeur  of  theoretical 
Suprematism  with  a  more  local  dimension  of  beauty-,  she  tinged  the  spiritual  and 
the  mystical  with  emotion  and  irony  and  transmuted  the  "non-objectness" 
of  Suprematism  into  objects  of  art. 

i.    Vasilii  Katanian,  ed.,  V.V.  Mayakovsky:  Polnoe sobrame sochinenii  (Moscow:  GIKhL,  1955),  vol.  1, 
p.  397. 

S.    The  present  location  of  these  works  is  unknown,  and  they  are  presumed  lost.  For  a  black-and- 
white  reproduction  of  both,  seeOgonek  (Petrograd),  January  3, 1916,  p.  11.  The  George  Costakis 
collection  (Art  Co.  Ltd.)  contains  sketches  for  these  paintings. 

3.    That  Rozanova  made  this  series  of  linocuts  in  1914.  (which  she  then  incorporated  into  Zaumnaia 
gniga)  is  evident  from  a  letter  that  she  wrote  to  Andrei  Shemshurin  in  the  summer  of  1915 
(Manuscript  Department,  Russian  State  Library,  Moscow  [inv.  no.  f.  339,  op.  5,  ed.  khr.  14]).  In 
other  words,  the  linocuts  supposedly  preceded  the  paintings  on  the  same  theme. 

4..    John  Bowlt  has  explained  this  semantic  provocation  not  so  much  as  a  publicity  device  for  gener- 
ating mockery  and  confusion  as  a  method  for  transcending  the  contrived  borders  between  "high" 
and  "low."  See  John  Bowlt,  "A  Brazen  Can-Can  in  the  Temple  of  Art:  The  Russian  Avant- Garde 
and  Popular  Culture."  in  KirkVarnedoe  and  Adam  Gopnik,  eds..  Modern  Art  and  Popular  Culture: 
Readings  in  High  and  Low  (New  York:  Abrams,  1990),  pp.  1.35-58.  For  the  historical  derivation  of 
the  name  "Jack  of  Diamonds,"  including  its  connection  with  Poncon  duTerrail's  adventure  novel 
Rocambole,  le  club  des  valets  de  coeur  (which  everybody  —  "from  servants  to  artists"  —  was  reading), 
see  Gleb  Pospelov,  Bubnovyi  valet  (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1990),  pp.  99—100. 

5.  This  series  includes  Simultaneous  Representation  of  Four  Aces  (State  Russian  Museum, 

St.  Petersburg),  Simultaneous  Representation  of  the  Queen  of  Spades  and  the  Queen  of  Hearts 
(location  unknown).  Simultaneous  Representation  of  the  King  of  Hearts  and  the  King  of  Diamonds 
(Kustodiev  Picture  Gallery,  Astrakhan),  King  of  Spades  (location  unknown).  King  of  Clubs 
(plate  46),  Queen  of  Spades  (plate  47),  Queen  of  Hearts  (location  unknown).  Queen  of  Diamonds 
(Nizhnii-Novgorod  Art  Museum),  Jack  of  Hearts  (plate  45),  Jack  of  Diamonds  (location  unknown), 
and  Jack  of  Clubs  (Ivanovo  Art  Museum).  Rozanova  replaced  the  Queen  of  Hearts  and  Jack  of  Spades 
in  the  linocut  series  by  a  new  card  —  the  Jack  of  Hearts  —  in  the  painting  series. 

6.  Camilla  Gray.  The  Russian  Experiment  in  Art,  1863—1922  (London:  Thames  and  Hudson,  1963), 
pp.  291-92  n.  223. 

7.  See  the  letters  from  Rozanova  to  Alexei  Kruchenykh  [December  1915;  see  Documents  section]. 

8.  Kazimir  Malevich,  "Vystavka  profsoiuza  khudozhnikov-zhivopistsev:  Levaia  federatsiia  (molo- 
daiafraktsiia),"  in  Anarkhiia  (Moscow),  no.  89, 1918,  unpaginated. 

9.  Kazimir  Malevich,  "Ot  kubizma  i  futurizma  k  suprematizmu:  Novyi  zhivopisnyi  realizm"  (1916), 
in  Alexandra  Shatskikh  and  Andrei  Sarabianov,  eds.,  Kazimir  Malevich:  Sobranie  sochinenii,  5  vols. 
(Moscow:  Gileia,  1995),  vol.  1,  p.  50. 


Nina  cunanova 


10.  Olga  Rozanova.  "Cubism,  Futurism.  Suprematism,"  [see  Documents  section]. 

11.  Kazimir  Malevich,  "Ot  kubizma  i  futurizmaksuprematizmu,"  p.  41. 

12.  Olga  Rozanova,  "Cubism,  Futurism,  Suprematism."  [see  Documents  section]. 
i3.  Ibid. 

14.  Dmitrii  Sarabianov.  "Stankovaia  zhivopis  i  grafika  L.  S.  Popovoi."  in  I.  S.  Popova,  catalogue  of 
exhibition  at  the  State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow,  1990.  pp.  56-57. 

15.  Olga  Rozanova,  "Cubism,  Futurism,  Suprematism,"  [see  Documents  section]. 

16.  Olga  Rozanova,  letter  to  Andrei  Shemshurin  dated  February  18,  1917.  Manuscript  Department, 
Russian  State  Library,  Moscow  (inv.  no.  f.  339.  op.  5,  ed.  khr.  14). 

17.  Literally  translated,  "color-painting."  It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  Rozanova  coined  the  term 
"color- painting"  or  not.  Tsvetopis  (and  also  the  word  svetopis  —  "light  painting,"  or  photography) 
occurs  in  Khlebnikov's  manuscripts  of  the  1910s. 

18.  Olga  Rozanova,  "Cubism,  Futurism.  Suprematism,"  [see  Documents  section], 

19.  Purple  Stripe,  which  consisted  of  a  diagonal  purple  stripe  on  a  white  background,  was  in  the  col- 
lection of  the  Museum  of  Architecture  and  Art,  Rostovo-Yaroslavskii,  in  the  early  1920s. 
However,  inventory  records  indicate  that  the  painting  was  later  removed  from  the  collection  as 
"a  work  of  no  artistic  value,"  and  its  present  whereabouts  is  unknown. 

20.  Alexander  Rodchenko,  untitled  manuscript  on  Rozanova  in  the  Rodchenko-Stepanova  Archive, 
Moscow.  I  would  like  to  thank  Alexander  Lavrentiev  for  granting  me  access  to  this  document. 

21.  See  Charlotte  Douglas,  "Suprematist  Embroidered  Ornament, "  Art  journal  (New  York)  54.  no.  1 
(Spring  1995),  p.  42. 

22.  Olga  Rozanova.  "Cubism.  Futurism,  Suprematism,"  [see  Documents  section]. 


223 


OLGa  VLammirovna  rozanova 
(1886-1918) 


1886  Born  June  2,2  in  Melenki,  Vladimir  Province,  Russia. 

1896—1904  Attends  school  in  Vladimir-on-Kliazma. 

1904—10       Studies  at  the  art  school  of  KonstantinYuonand  Ivan  Dudin. 

1907  Audits  classes  at  the  Bolshakov  Painting  and  Sculpture  Institute  and  at 

the  Central  Stroganov  Industrial  Art  Institute,  both  in  Moscow. 

1911—13         Moves  to  St.  Petersburg  in  1911.  Attends  the  Zvantseva  Art  School.  In 
1912,  makes  the  acquaintance  of  Russian  Futurist  poet  Alexei 
Kruchenykh,  inventor  and  theoretician  of  zaum  ("transrational,"  or 
nonsense  realism).  Maintains  close  association  with  the  Union  of 
Youth,  contributing  to  first  Union  of  Youth  exhibition  in  St.  Petersburg 
(1913—13)  and  its  journal  in  1913. 

1913—15        Begins  to  illustrate  a  series  of  Cubo- Futurist  books,  including  Te  li  le 
(1914)  and Zaumnaia gniga  (Transrational  Gook-,  1915).  In  1914,  meets 
Marinetti  in  St.  Petersburg,  and  contributes  to  the  Prima  Esposizione 
Libera  Futurista  Internationale  in  Rome. 

1915  Creates  fashion  and  textile  designs,  some  of  which  she  contributes 

to  Women  Artists  for  the  Victims  of  War  in  Moscow.  Contributes  to 
Tramway  F  exhibition  in  March,  to  Exhibition  of  Painting  of  Leftist 
Trends  in  April,  and  to  0.70  in  December,  all  Petrograd.  Works  with 
Kruchenykh  on  the  album  Voina  (War-,  1916).  Moves  to  Moscow. 

1916—17        With  Kazimir  Malevich,  Mikhail  Matiushin,  Liubov  Popova,  Nikolai 
Roslavets,  and  others,  becomes  a  member  of  the  Supremus  group  and 
secretary  of  its  journal  (which  was  not  published) .  Contributes  to  the 
last  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhibition  (the  fifth),  which  opens  in  Moscow  in 
November  1916.  Contributes  poems  to  Kruchenykh's  Balos  (1917). 

1918  Helps  decorate  the  Moscow  streets  and  squares  for  May  Day.  Becomes 

a  member  of  IZO  Narkompros,  with  Alexander  Rodchenko  in  charge 
of  the  Art- Industry  Sub -Section  of  IZO.  Helps  organize  Svomas  in 
several  provincial  towns.  Publishes  in  the  newspaperylnarfchiia 
(Anarchy).  Acts  as  secretary  of  the  Leftist  Federation  of  the 
Professional  Union  of  Artists  and  Painters  and  contributes  to  its  first 
exhibition.  Contributes  to  Kruchenykh's  Exhibition  of  Moscow  Futurists 
in  Tiflis.  Dies  November  7,  in  Moscow.  Posthumous  exhibition  opens 


234 


ClirollOLOUY 


as  the  First  State  Exhibition  in  Moscow,  with  more  than  250  pieces. 
1919  Represented  at  the  Tenth  State  Exhibition:  Non-Objective  Creativity  and 

Suprematism. 
1922  Represented  at  the  Erste  russische  Kunstaustellung  in  Berlin. 


225 


plate 42.  OLGa  rozanova 

Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  Pink  (Portrait  of  Anna  Rozanova,  the 

Artist's  Sister),  1911 

Oil  on  canvas,  n3  x  189  cm 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg 


226 


plate 43.  oi.ca  rozanova 

Fire  in  the  City  (Citrscape).  1914 
Oil  on  metal.  71x71  cm 
Art  Museum.  Samara 


plate 44.  oLGa  rozanova 

Pub  (Auction),  1914 

Oil  on  canvas,  84  x  66  cm 

State  Unified  Art  Museum,  Kostroma 


228 


plate  45.  OLGa  Rozanova 

Jack  of  Hearts,  I9ia(?)-i5,  from  the  series  Playing  Cards 

Oil  on  canvas,  80  x  65  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 


229 


plate  46.  OLGa  rozanova 

King  of  Clubs,  1912c?.)— 15.  from  the  series  Playing  Cards 

Oil  on  canvas,  72  x  60  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 


23o 


piate47.oixa  rozanova 

Queen  of  Spades,  1 9iz(?)-i5.  from  the  series  Playing  Cards 
Oil  on  canvas,  77.5  x  61 .5  cm 
Regional  Art  Museum.  Ulianovsk 


z3i 


plate 48.  OLGa  rozanova 

The  "Modeme"  Movie  Theater  (In  the  Street) ,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas.  101  x  77  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 


23z 


plate  49.  OLGa  rozanova 

Non-Objective  Composition  (Flight  of  an  Airplane),  191^ 
Oil  on  canvas,  118  x  101  cm 
Art  Museum,  Samara 


233 


plate 5o.0LGa  rozanova 

Non-Objective  Composition  (Suprematism) ,  1916 

Oil  on  canvas,  go  x  74,  cm 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Ekaterinburg 


234 


plate 51.  oLGa  rozanova 

Non- Objective  Composition  (Suprematism >.  191 6 

Oil  on  canvas,  102  x  94  cm 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Ekaterinburg 


235 


plate  52.  oLGa  rozanova 

Color  Painting  (N on -Objective  Composition) ,  1917 

Oil  on  canvas,  62.5  x  40.5  cm 

State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg 


336 


237 


above: 

plate 53. OLGa  rozanova 

Non-Objective  Composition  (Color Painting), 
Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  64  cm 
Regional  Art  Museum,  Ulianovsk 


917 


facing  page; 

plate 54.  OLGa  rozanova 

Green  Stripe  (Color  Painting) ,  1917 

Oil  on  canvas,  71-5x49  cm 

Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 


238 


a39 


figure  69.  Varvara  Stepanova.  Moscow,  1916. 


varvara 
STepanova 


aLexanDer  LavrenTiev 


THe  "FrenzieD"  STepanova: 
BeTween  anaLYSis  anD  sYnTHesis 

Convinced  that  inventive  (analytical)  and  synthetic  (combinatory)  capabilities 
reflected  different  kinds  of  creative  thought.  Alexander  Rodchenko,  Varvara 
Stepanova's  husband,  used  to  divide  artists  into  two  groups,  analysts  and  synthe- 
sists.1  Rodchenko  classified  the  work  of  Kazimir  Malevich,  Olga  Rozanova.  and  his 
own  as  analytical,  and  regarded  that  of  Alexander  Drevin  and  Ivan  Kliun,  for  exam- 
ple, as  synthetic.  "Synthesists"  knowhowto  take  the  aesthetic  components  and 
potentially  useful  ideas  discovered  by  other  inventors  and  apply  them  to  specific 
fields  of  creativity  such  as  the  theater,  the  printing  arts,  and  design.  They  can 
assemble  a  new  style  out  of  the  many  possibilities  discovered  in  the  course  of  their 
own  experiments,  although,  of  course,  any  artist  is  bound  to  resolve  both  analytical 
and  synthetic  issues  —  and  Stepanova  was  no  exception. 

Rorn  in  1894.  Stepanova.  who  was  of  a  generation  later  than  the  pioneers  of 
the  avant-garde,  moved  rapidly  from  Impressionism  and  Cezannismto  Neo- 
Primitivism,  Cubism,  Futurism,  and,  finally,  Constructivism.  That  is  one  reason 
why  Stepanova  was  able  to  synthesize  easily  —  for  example,  she  integrated  non- 
objective  graphic  art  and  transrational  poetry,  geometric  abstraction  and  figures, 
and  combined  many  systems  in  her  work  for  the  theater,  printing,  and  design. 
In  the  late  1910s  and  early  1930s,  Stepanova  worked  closely  with  the  non- objective 


241 


varvara  srepanova 


SEHEP 


lull 

i  b-1i'  in  ■  1 


v»    »J    1  ■  *  / 


far  left: 

figure  70. varvara  STepanova 

Caricature  of  Alexander  Rodchenko  as  a  Clown,  1923 
Watercolor,  pencil,  and  photographic  collage, 

27-5  x  27-5  cm 
Private  collection 

left: 

figure 71. varvara  STepanova 

Self-Caricature  as  a  Clown.  1923 

"Watercolor,  pencil,  and  photographic  collage. 

34-5"25-5cm 
Private  collection 


painters,  even  though  she  had  had  no  real  Cubist  or  Futurist  training,2  and  in 
1917—18  she  experimented  with  non-objective  art  herself;  a  year  later,  however, 
she  turned  back  to  the  human  figure,  though  in  a  spare,  geometric  style.  Among 
the  earliest  artworks  by  Stepanova  that  have  come  down  to  us  is  a  printed  silk  book 
marker  (1909),  a  tempera  study  of  arose.  Another  composition,  a  fragment  of  a 
canvas  dated  191a  (when  she  was  studying  at  the  Kazan  Art  Institute),  depicts  two 
female  figures  in  luxurious  dresses  with  bright  stripes  of  colored  fabric  and  deco- 
rative sequins. 

Stepanova  cannot  be  understood  without  Rodchenko.  and  vice  versa.  They 
were  a  creative  team,  and  although  Stepanova  may  be  considered  Rodchenko's  stu- 
dent, she  guarded  her  independence  jealously  (figs.  70,  71).  Turning  to  the  past 
seemed  pointless  to  her,  for  during  the  1920s  the  artists  of  the  left  followed  only 
one  vector  —  the  future.  Rodchenko  wrote:  "Innovators  of  all  times  and  countries, 
inventors,  constructors  of  the  new,  the  eternally  new,  we  rush  into  the  infinity  of 
conquests."3  Rodchenko  and  Stepanova  met  in  Kazan  in  1914,  but  at  first  they 
expressed  their  sentiments  only  in  intimate  poems  and  letters.  The  inscription 
in  one  of  her  albums  of  verses  and  drawings  reads:  "King  of  my  reveries  and 
dreams  . . .  Verses  of  V.S.,  ^3  November.  1914."  The  "king"  is  Rodchenko.  This 
album  includes  an  elegant  portrait  of  Rodchenko  and  of  the  queen  herself,  sur- 
rounded by  flowers  and  two  moons.  The  style  is  that  of  Aubrey  Beardsley,  whose 
work  Rodchenko  and  Stepanova  knew  from  Russian  publications. 

The  Russian  Cubo- Futurists  (David  Burliuk,  Vasilii  Kamensky,  Velimir 
Khlebnikov,  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  Vladimir  Mayakovsky,  and  others)  tried  to  com- 
bine words  and  images  in  many  different  ways.  They  experimented  with  various 
typefaces  and  with  automatic  writing,  assumed  the  double  role  of  artist  and  writer, 
and  investigated  phonetic  experiments  with  alliteration  of  voiceless  and  voiced 
consonants.  Rozanova  was  especially  interested  in  stress  variation  and  rhythmic 
repetition,  as  demonstrated  by  this  example: 


242 


aixxanDer  LavrenTiev 


Zbrzhest  zdeban 

zhbzmets  etta 

zhmuts  dekhkha 

umerets 

ittera.4 
Stepanova,  however,  tried  to  unite  the  phonetic  texture  of  a  text  with  its 
written  texture.  In  her  non-objective  poetryyou  sometimes  sense  a  coarse  phonic 
texture  as  in"Shukhtazkhkon,"  and  other  times  a  delicate  melodic  texture,  as 
in'Tiantachiol": 

Afta  iur  inka 

nair  prazi 

Taveniu  lirka 

taiuz  fai 

0  male  totti 

0  le  maiaft 

izva  leiatti 

Ifta  liiard.5 
As  Stepanova  affirmed:  "I  am  connecting  the  new  movement  of  non- objective 
verse  as  sound  and  letter  with  painterly  perception  and  this  infuses  a  new  living, 
visual  impression  into  the  sound  of  verse. . . .  I  am  approaching  a  new  form  of  cre- 
ation. However,  in  reproducing  the  painterly  and  graphic  non-objective  poetry  of 
[my]  two  books—  ZigraAr  and  RtnyKhomle  [both  1918].  I  introduce  sound  as  a  new- 
quality  into  the  painting  of  the  graphic  element  and  thereby  increase  the  latter's 
possibilities  quantitatively."6 

The  variable  scale  of  the  letters  and  their  free  distribution  and  orientation  — 
all  this  deliberately  hindered  the  reading  of  the  text,  as  Kruchenykh  and 
Khlebnikov  explained  in  their  1913  brochure.  The  Word  as  Such.'  In  Stepanova's 
compositions,  color  plays  an  analogous  role:  some  letters  seem  to  be  close,  others 
far;  some  are  warm,  others  cold;  the  color  of  the  letters  and  forms,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  timbre  and  type  of  sound,  on  the  other,  make  for  a  complex  aural 
and  visual  interaction.  When  the  elements  of  color,  form,  sound,  and  sign  all 
appear  together,  the  result  is  equivalent  to  densely  layered  orchestration,  with  all 
the  components  perceived  simultaneously8  (see  plates  59—64),  rather  as  Blaise 
Cendrars  and  the  Delaunays  were  doing  with  their  Simultanism. 

Stepanova  contributed  eight  works  to  the  Fifth  State  Exhibition  in  1918—19:  four 
illustrations  to  Kruchenykh's  Gly-Gly  (fig.  72)  and  a  composition  of  letters  and 
abstract  forms  on  pages  pasted  into  her  handwritten  book  RtnyKhomle.  She  signed 
these  works  "Varst"  (i.e..  Varvara  Stepanova).  At  the  Tenth  State  Exhibition:  Non- 
Objective  Creativity  and  Suprematism  in  1919,  Stepanova  contributed  more  than 
thirty  illustrations  to  Gly-Gly  and  two  series  of  color  prints,  also  from  Zigra  At  and 


243 


far  left: 

figure  72.  varvara  sTepanova 

Illustration  for  Alexei  Kruchenykh's 

Gly-Gly,  1918 

Collage  and  india  ink  on  paper, 

15. 5X  11  cm 

Private  collection 

left: 

figure  73.  varvara  STepanova 

Rozanova  Dancing,  1918—19 
Collage,  15.5x11  cm 
Private  collection 


RtnyKhomle.  The  Gly-Gly  illustrations  are  visual  parodies  of  many  representatives 
of  the  Russian  avant-garde  arranged  on  medium- size  sheets  of  thin  white  card- 
board and  carrying  references  to  Malevich's  Black  Square,  Kliun's  Suprematism,  a 
musical  imitation  of  Mikhail  Matiushin,  the  painterly  planes  of  Popova,  and  a  very 
unstable  composition  called  Rozanova  Dancing  (fig.  ^3 ) .  But  the  same  year 
Stepanovawent  even  further  by  creating  a  completely  new  book  object  —  titled 
Gaust  chaba  —  in  a  press  run  of  fifty  copies.  She  wrote  the  verses  by  hand  on  sheets 
of  newspaper  in  large  black  letters  running  across  the  newsprint  and  made  non- 
objective  collages  on  some  of  the  pages. 

During  the  first  post-Revolutionaryyears,  Rodchenko  and  Stepanova  had  no 
permanent  apartment.  They  either  rented  a  room,  or  lived  in  the  Kandinsky  family 
house  or  at  the  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture,  where  in  1930  Rodchenko  had  been 
appointed  curator  of  the  collection  of  contemporary  art,  assisted  by  Stepanova  (the 
Museum  was  in  the  courtyard  of  14  Volkhonka  Street,  now  the  Museum  of  Private 
Collections,  which  includes  the  paintings  and  graphic  works  by  Rodchenko  and 
Stepanova) .  The  Tenth  State  Exhibition  was  a  watershed  in  the  artistic  careers  of 
Stepanova  and  her  colleagues  Drevin,  Popova,  Rodchenko,  and  Nadezhda 
Udaltsova. 

By  the  summer  of  1919,  Stepanova  was  emphasizing  a  formal  tendency  that, 
in  1931,  would  be  called  Contructivist.  She  had  moved  from  synthesis  to  analysis. 
In  her  linocuts  of  1919,  Stepanova  explored  the  expressive  possibilities  of  line  and 
combinations  of  geometric  forms.  From  the  fall  of  1919  through  1931,  she  pro- 
duced a  figural  series  of  paintings  and  graphic  compositions  using  a  stencil  and 
outlining  contours  with  a  ruler  or  a  compass.  The  head  is  always  a  circle,  while  the 
torso,  arms,  and  legs  are  rectangles.  In  her  compositions  of  the  1930s,  Stepanova, 
like  Rodchenko,  also  used  the  technique  of  the  semi- dry  brush,  something  that 
generated  a  homogeneous  color  texture  as  if  from  a  sprayer.  Unlike  a  spray  texture, 
however,  this  technique  was  more  malleable  and  allowed  the  artist  to  model  large 
and  small  forms.  In  several  drawings,  Stepanova  employed  another  tool  —  the 
toothed  wheel  dipped  in  paint  which  left  a  repeating  pattern  of  points  on  the 


244 


it 


far  left: 

figure  74.  Works  by  Stepanova  in 
the  studio  she  shared  with 
Alexander  Rodchenko.  Moscow,  1921 

left: 

figure  75.  varvara  STepanova 

Designfor  Sports  Clothing.  1924 
Gouache  and  india  ink, 
3o. 2x21. 7cm 
Private  collection 


paper.  This  little  wheel  was  nothing  more  than  a  standard  tailor's  tool  for  pressing, 
which  she  utilized  to  press  a  design  onto  fabric.  Stepanova,  who  knew  how  to  cut 
fabric,  sewed  dresses  for  herself  and  for  Rodchenko's  mother,  and  put  together 
the  Rodchenko  production  outfit.  Stepanova  regarded  any  medium  or  set  of  tools 
as  possessing  a  potential  for  some  creative  use,  whether  her  Corona  typewriter  (at 
one  time  Stepanova  earned  her  living  as  a  factory  accountant) ,  her  Singer  sewing 
machine  (which  to  this  day  still  works),  or  a  tailor's  instruments. 

In  her  paintings,  Stepanova  presented  a  universal  type  of  human  figure  with 
a  logical,  mechanized  structure  that  recalls  a  child's  Lego  constructions  or  her 
own  cardboard  dolls  for  the  cartoon  booklets  that  she  made  in  1926  for  Sergei 
Tretiakov's  verses  for  children,  i.e.,  Auto-Animals  (Samozveri).  She  first  showed 
the  Figures  series  at  the  Nineteenth  State  Exhibition  in  Moscow  (at  the  end  of  1920). 
where  Rodchenko  and  Stepanova  filled  an  entire  hall  with  their  paintings  and 
graphics.  The  catalogue  for  that  show  includes  twenty-one  oils  and  fifty-three 
graphic  pieces  by  Stepanova,  the  subjects  being  music,  sports,  and  even  the  ballet. 
The  exhibition  proved  to  be  an  important  one  for  Stepanova.  Vasilii  Kandinsky, 
playing  with  the  words  "Varvara"  and  "varvarism."  coined  the  term  "varvaric  art" 
for  some  of  the  works  she  was  making  at  that  time.  Some  observers  found  that 
Stepanova's  paintings  were  more  "masculine"  than  those  of  Rodchenko. 

By  1921.  many  Russian  artists  were  becoming  increasingly  interested  in  the 
notion  of  construction.  Karel  Ioganson,  Konstantin  Medunetsky,  Rodchenko. 
and  Georgii  and  Vladimir  Stenberg  made  their  first  free-standing  sculptures,  and 
Stepanova,  too,  demonstrated  her  own  understanding  of  the  Constructivist  idea. 
She  no  longer  simply  searched  for  schematic,  anatomical  principles,  but  tried 
to  convey  the  structural  nature  of  the  head,  the  torso,  and  the  figure  as  a  whole. 
Collector  and  commentator  George  Costakis  aptly  called  these  works  "robots."9 

Togetherwith  Rodchenko  and  the  otherthree  participants  inthe5^5  =  25 
exhibition,  Stepanova  announced  her  decisive  move  from  easel  painting  to 
production  art  in  September  1921.  Terms  such  as  "construction."  "production," 
"engineering,"  "technology."  and  "object"  predominated  in  their  discussions 


245 


ffiBEpr  QTKpHThE 


figure 76.  varvara  STepanova 

Poster  for  the  second  part  of  the 
525  =  25  exhibition,  Moscow,  1921 
Collage,  india  ink,  and  pencil  on  paper, 
36x4,4.5  cm 
Private  collection 


during  this  period.  The  first  part  oi$x$  =  25  consisted  of  painting,  while  the 
second  part  (which  opened  two  weeks  later)  consisted  mainly  of  graphic  works. 
Rodchenko  contributed  his  construction  projects  and,  as  an  example  of  practical 
fabrication,  several  designs  for  lamps,  Popova  designs  for  constructions,  and 
Stepanova  her  last  Figures  (plates  73,  73).  At  that  time,  Stepanova  was  teaching  art 
at  the  Krupskaia  Academy  of  Social  (Communist)  Education10  and  was  a  member 
of  its  Institute  of  Aesthetic  Education,  where  she  gave  particular  attention  to  chil- 
dren's art.  As  a  result,  Stepanova  moved  from  the  geometric  construction  of  form 
to  the  primitive  and  the  spontaneous.  Indeed,  some  of  her  figures  resemble 
totems,  although  once  during  an  Inkhuk  discussion,  Vladimir  Stenberg  called 
them  "tadpoles."11 

Afterja^  =  25,  Popova  and  then  Stepanova  joined  Vsevolod  Meierkhold's 
Theater  of  the  Revolution  as  stage  designers.  Constructivism  as  a  theory,  a 
practical  application,  and  a  Utopian  project  was  just  asserting  itself.  Rodchenko 
and  Stepanova  also  became  members  of  Inkhuk.  where  one  of  her  duties  was  to 
record  the  protocols  of  the  meetings  and  discussions,  and  they  also  took  part  in  the 
debates  around  the  journal  LefiLeft  Front  of  the  Arts).  What  Mayakovsky  once  said  of 
her  is  very  suggestive:  in  a  copy  of  his  book  Liubliu  (I  Love)  which  he  presented  to 
Stepanova,  the  poet  wrote:  "To  the  'Frenzied'  Stepanova  with  heartfelt  feelings."13 

1 .  Stepanova  recorded  Rodehenko's  thoughts  about  "synthesists"  and  "analysts"  in  an  entry  in  her 
diary  in  1919.  See  Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  Varvara  Rodchenko,  eds.,  Varvara  Stepanova:  Chelovek 
ne  mozhet  zhit  bez  chuda.  Pisma.  Poeticheskie  opyty.  Zapiski  khudozhnitsy  (Moscow:  Sfera,  1994). 
pp.  77-78,  89. 

2.  One  point  of  view  holds  that  together  with  the  Non-Objectivist  circle  of  artists  (Popova. 
Rodchenko.  Rozanova,  and  Udaltsova),  Stepanova  followed  Malevich  in  her  researches;  see 
Evgenii  Kovtun,  "Put  Malevicha,"  in  Malevich,  catalogue  of  exhibition  at  the  State  Russian 
Museum,  Leningrad  [St.  Petersburg],  1989,  p.  16.  This  assertion  needs  serious  qualification:  the 
Non-Objectivists  were  united  with  Malevich  in  their  refusal  to  imitate  nature,  but  they  did  not 
adhere  to  the  system  of  Suprematism. 

3.  Alexander  Rodchenko.  "Iz  manifesta  suprematistov  i  bespredmetnikov"  (1919),  in 


246 


aLexanrter  i.avrermev 


Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  Varvara  Rodchenko,  Alexander  Rodchenko:  Opyty  dim  budushchego 
(Moscow:  Grant,  1996),  p.  67. 

4.  Olga  Rozanova,  untitled  poem  dated  June  8,  1916.  Manuscript  in  the  Rodchenko-Stepanova 
Archive,  Moscow. 

5.  Varvara  Stepanova,  "Bespredmetnye  stikhi,  1918—1919,"  in  Rodchenko  and  Lavrentiev.  eds., 
Varvara  Stepanova,  pp.  4,1—47. 

6.  V.  Agrarykh  [a  one-time  pseudonym  of  Stepanova,  invented  as  a  kind  of  "non-  objective"  word], 
"0  vystavlennykhgrafikakh,"  in  X  Gosudarstvennaia  vystavka,  catalogue  of  exhibition,  Moscow, 
1919. 

7.  Quoted  in  Nikolai  Khardzhiev,  "Mayakovsky  i  zhivopis,"  in  Nikolai  Khardzhiev  and  Teodor  Grits, 
Mayakovsky:  Materialyi  issledovaruia  (Moscow:  Giz,  1950),  p.  38o. 

8.  Ibid. 

9.  Angelica  Zander  Rudenstine,  ed.,  Russian  Avant-  Garde  Art:  The  George  Costakis  Collection  (New 
York:  Abrams,  1981). 

10.  In  1931  the  Krupskaia  Academy  of  Social  (Communist)  Education  was  renamed  the  Krupskaia 
Moscow  Regional  Pedagogical  Institute. 

11.  Unpublished  typescript.  Rodchenko-Stepanova  Archive,  Moscow. 

13.  Mayakovsky  also  gave  Stepanova  a  copy  of  his  book  Votna  i  mir  (War  and  Peace) ,  in  which  he 
wrote  the  following  dedication:  "To  Comrade  Stepanova  in  memory  of  the  attack  on  Friche.  V. 
Mayakovsky."  Vladimir  Maximovich  Friche  (1870-1939)  was  a  Marxist  historian  of  literature 
and  art. 


247 


varvara  FeDorovna  STepanova 

(1894-1958) 


1894  Born  October  9,  in  Kovno  (Kaunas),  Lithuania. 

1910—14        Studies  at  the  Kazan  Art  Institute,  where  she  meets  Alexander 

Rodchenko.  Moves  to  Moscow.  Studies  under  Mikhail  Leblan,  Ilia 
Mashkov,  and  KonstantinYuon. 

1914  Attends  the  Stroganov  Art  Institute,  Moscow.  Gives  private  art 

lessons.  Exhibits  at  the  Moscow  Salon. 

1915—17        Works  as  an  accountant  and  secretary  in  a  factory.  Resumes  stud- 
ies with  Leblan  and  Yuon.  Begins  living  with  Rodchenko  in 
Moscow  (1916). 

1917  Experiments  with  non-objective  art  and  begins  to  create  experi- 
mental non-objective  visual  poetry. 

1918  Produces  non-objective  graphic  poems  such  as  ZigraAr  and  Rtny 
Khomle.  Contributes  to  the  First  Exhibition  of  Paintings  of  the  Young 
Leftist  Federation  of  the  Professional  Union  of  Artists  and  Painters  and 
the  Fifth  State  Exhibition.  Becomes  involved  with  IZO  NKP  (Visual 
Arts  Section  of  the  People's  Commissariat  for  Enlightenment). 

1919  Contributes  to  the  Tenth  State  Exhibition:  Non-Objective  Creativity 
and  Suprematism.  Illustrates  Alexei  Kruchenykh's  book  Gly-Gly. 
Begins  making  works  in  a  style  that  by  1931  came  to  be  known  as 
Constructivism. 

1920—33       Participates  in  discussions  and  activities  of  Inkhuk,  in  Moscow,  as 
a  member  and,  in  19250—31,  as  research  secretary. 

1921  Contributes  to  the  exhibition 5" x$  -  25. 

1920— 35       Teaches  at  the  Krupskaia  Academy  of  Social  (Communist) 
Education. 

1922  Makes  collages  for  the  journal  Kino-fot.  Designs  sets  and  costumes 
for  Vsevolod  Meierkhold's  production  of  Tlie  Death  ofTarelkin  at  the 
Theater  of  the  Bevolution.  Makes  series  of  linocuts  on  the  subject 
of  Charlie  Chaplin.  Contributes  to  Erste  russische  Kunstaustellung. 

1933-38        Closely  involved  with  the  journals  Lef  (Left  Front  of  the  Arts)  and 

Novyi  lef  (New  Left  Front  of  the  Arts). 
1934—35       Works  for  the  First  State  Textile  Factory  in  Moscow  as  a  designer, 

and  teaches  in  the  Textile  Department  of  Vkhutemas. 


24,8 


I'll  I'OIII \ 


192:5  Contributes  to  the  Exposition  Internationale  desArts  Decoratifs  et 

Industriels  Modernes  in  Paris. 
1936-33       Works  predominantly  as  a  book  and  journal  designer,  fulfilling 

major  government  commissions. 
1930S-50S    Continues  to  paint,  design,  and  exhibit. 
1941—43       Lives  in  Perm. 
1958  Dies  May  30,  in  Moscow. 


249 


plate 55.  varvara  STepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "RtnyKhonile,"  191E 
Watercolor  on  paper,  23.3  x  17.7  em 
Private  collection 


250 


0l?£  PAtl        S^R  MAMMA 

40  **5?wfc  t^^/ 


plate  56. varvara  sTepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "RtnyKhomle,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  s3.3  x  17.7  em 
Privale  collection 


251 


0  tiAJlli 


plate  57.  varvara  STepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "RtnyKhomle."  191 
Watercolor  on  paper,  ?3.3  x  17.7  cm 
Private  collection 


252 


plate 58.  varvara  STepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "Rtny  Khomle, "  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  23.3  x  17.7  cm 
Private  collection 


253 


plate 59. varvara  STepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  em 
Private  collection 


254 


plate  6o.varvara  siepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr."  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper.  18.8  x  16  cm 
Private  collection 


255 


plate  6i.varvara  STepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  cm 
Private  collection 


256 


plate  62.  varvara  STepanova 

Mustmtionforthepoem  "ZigraAr, "  191 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  cm 
Private  collection 


^57 


plate  63.  varvara  sTepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem.  "ZigraAr,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  cm 
Private  collection 


258 


plate  64.  varvara  STepanova 

Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr,"  191 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  cm 
Private  collection 


259 


plate  65.  varvara  STepanova 

Dancing  Figures  on  White.  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  107.5  x  x4^-5  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


260 


plate  66.  varvara  STepanova 

Five  Figures  on  a  White  Background,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  80  x  98  cm 
Private  collection 


plate  67.  varvara  STepanova 

Billiard  Players.  1920 

Oil  on  canvas.  68  x  129  cm 

Carmen  Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection 


262 


plate  68.  varvara  STepanova 

Plapng  Draughts.  1920 
Oil  on  plywood,  78  x  62  cm 
Private  collection 


263 


plate  69.  varvara  STepanova 

Trumpet  Player,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  70  x  57  cm 

Private  collection 


264 


plate 7o.varvara  STepanova 

Musicians,  1920 

Oil  on  canvas,  106  x  142  cm 

Museum  of  Private  Collections. 

Pushkin  State  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Moscow 


265 


plate  7i. varvara  STepanova 

Self '-  Portrait ,  1930 

Oil  on  plywood,  71  x  52.5  cm 

Museum  of  Private  Collections, 

Pushkin  State  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Moscow 


266 


267 


above: 

plate 72.  varvara  STepanova 

Figure  (Peasant),  1921 

Oil  on  canvas.  99.5  x  65.5  cm 

Private  collection 

facingpage: 

plate 73. varvara  STepanova 

Figure,  1921 

Oil  on  canvas,  125x71.5  cm 

Private  collection 


268 


269 


figure  77-  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  in  front  of  her  painting 

Restaurant  (plate  83),  1915.  Moscow. 


naDezHDa 
UDaursova 


vasiLii  RaKinn 


a  proFessionaL  painTer 

The  life  of  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  is  a  tragic  one.  Her  mother  died  when  Udaltsova 
was  twenty-seven  years  old;  she  suffered  from  a  psychological  breakdown  follow- 
ing the  painful  death  of  one  of  her  younger  sisters,  Liudmila  Prudkovskaia,  who 
was  also  an  artist;  her  father,  a  retired  general,  was  shot  by  the  Bolsheviks;  and  her 
husband,  fellow  artist  Alexander  Drevin,  was  arrested  and  shot  in  1938,  although 
she  fostered  the  hope  that  by  some  miracle  he  was  still  alive.  But  Udaltsova's  saving 
grace  was  art.  It  was  her  passion  and  her  guiding  light. 

Udaltsova  made  her  debut  as  a  professional  artist  at  the  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhi- 
bition in  Moscow  in  the  winter  of  1914,  together  with  her  friend  Liubov  Popova 
(fig.  78).  But  only  one  reviewer,  Alexei  Grishchenko,  an  artist  whom  they  knew 
from  various  Moscow  studios,  noted  their  contribution,  mentioning  that  while 
almost  the  entire  exhibition  moved  under  the  banner  of  Picasso,  these  two  young 
women  showed  an  enthusiasm  for  another  French  artist  —  Jean  Metzinger  —  and 
his  painting  Oiseau  bleu  (Blue  Bird). ' 

That  Udaltsova  and  Popova  were  exhibiting  alongside  Henri  Le  Fauconnier, 
who  had  sent  ten  works  to  Moscow,  was  not  mere  chance.  Through  Le  Fauconnier, 
Albert  Gleizes,  and  Metzinger,  they  had  studied  the  grammar  of  Cubism  at 
La  Palette  in  Paris  (also  known  under  the  more  respectable  name  Academie  de 
la  Palette) .  At  this  point,  the  two  women's  drawing  styles  were  very  similar  and 


271 


figure  78.  Group  photograph  taken  in  the  summer 
of  1915  at  Vlakhernskaia  Station,  near  Moscow. 
Left  to  right:  UdaJtsova,  unidentified  man, 
Varvara  Prudkovskaia  (Udaftsova's  sister), 
and  Liubov  Popova. 


demonstrated  that  they  had  assimilated  their  Cubist  lessons  well,  even  though 
their  paintings  relied  on  a  broader  and  more  universal  application  of  Parisian 
Cubism  (fig.  79). 

Cubism,  of  course,  was  not  just  another  "ism"  —  it  marked  an  entirely  new  era 
as  well  as  a  totally  new  way  of  making  and  perceiving  art.  However,  the  canon  of 
Cubism  did  not  hinder  the  expression  of  individuality.  Udaltsova,  for  example, 
accepted  Cubism  as  a  legitimate  phenomenon  that  was  linked  organically  to  the 
history  of  European  art  —  with  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  the  Middle  Ages,  Poussin  —  and 
with  the  environment  of  Paris  itself.  When  one  looked  at  the  "cubes  of  its  houses 
and  the  interweavings  of  its  viaducts,  with  its  locomotive  smoke  trails,  airborne 
planes  and  dirigibles,  [the  city]  seemed  to  be  a  fantastic  and  picturesque  display  of 
original  art.  The  architecture  of  the  houses  with  their  ocher  and  silver  tones  found 
their  embodiment  in  the  Cubist  constructions  of  Picasso."2  Of  course,  Picasso 
drew  on  many  other  traditions  and  sources  of  inspiration,  but  this  lyrical  interpre- 
tation of  Cubist  painting  tells  us  much  about  the  sensibility  and  character  of 
Udaltsova  herself. 

Udaltsova's  rendering  of  space  in  the  paintings  of  1914—15  often  resembles 
beehives  with  a  multitude  of  honeycombs,  a  reticulation  however,  that  does  not 
represent  a  mere  accumulation  of  forms  and  divisions  (see  At  the  Piano ,  plate  76; 
Guitar  Fugue,  plate  77,  and  New,  plate  79).  As  a  rule,  her  Cubist  and  post -Cubist 
pictorial  "constructions"  are  transparent  and  light;  unfortunately,  comparatively 
little  of  her  work  from  the  1910s  has  survived,  although  she  made  later  versions  of 
several  early  pieces. 

During  the  1930s,  the  Tretiakov  Gallery,  the  Russian  Museum,  and  the  various 
Museums  of  Artistic  Culture  displayed  the  works  of  Udaltsova  as  examples  of 
Cubism  —  and  justifiably  so.  Indeed,  Udaltsova's  paintings  are  perhaps  the  most 
organic  manifestation  of  Russian  Cubism  or  of  what  we  refer  to  conditionally 
as  Russian  Cubism,  the  history  of  which  has  yet  to  be  written.3  Skillfully  made, 
Udaltsova's  paintings  function  by  understatement  and  through  a  precise  expres- 


272 


vasiLii  RaKiTiri 


sion  of  her  intent,  and  are  characterized  by  a  pictorial  serenity,  a  Cubist  sfumato 
(see  The  Blue  Jug,  1915,  fig.  81).  Malevich  declared  that  the  absence  of  talent  among 
the  Cubist  painters  "testifies  to  its  complex  essence, "+  but  gradually  Udaltsova 
fathomed  the  laws  of  Cubism,  moving  from  analytical  compositions  toward  a  more 
plastic  synthesis. 

For  Udaltsova,  the  path  to  the  new  painting  culminated  in  the  non- objective. 
She  compared  what  she  was  doing  with  the  work  of  colleagues,  and  wondered  who 
was  right.  There  was  the  subtle  Vladimir  Tatlin,  for  example,  who  abandoned 
painting,  even  though  creating  a  work  out  of  iron  and  wood  might  not  be  much  dif- 
ferent from  "painting  a  sunny  landscape  or  the  portrait  of  a  girl."5  Udaltsova,  while 
in  Paris  in  her  mid-twenties,  and  sensing  the  Romantic  nature  of  Tatlin's  reliefs, 
understood  perfectly  well  that  he  was  not  a  Russian  Picasso.  Tatlin  recognized  the 
value  of  her  insight  into  his  work,  and.  in  fact,  the  text  in  the  promotional  booklet 
that  he  distributed  at  the  0.10  exhibition  in  December  1915  was  by  Udaltsova.6 
Although  Udaltsova  herself  did  not  construct  reliefs,  some  of  her  paintings  have 
much  in  common  with  the  plastic  works  of  Tatlin  —  for  example,  her  Self -Portrait 
with  Palette,  1915  (plate  80),  and  the  spiral  form  of  his  Monument  to  the  Third 
International,  1919.  Although  each  of  them  followed  a  distinct  path,  the  ultimate 
destiny  of  the  new  art  was  of  mutual  concern  to  them,  and  they  formed  a  united 
bloc  at  Tramway  V,  0.10,  and  The  Store,  disturbing  still  further  the  delicate  balance 
between  Malevich  and  Tatlin. 

Udaltsova  adhered  closely  to  her  aesthetic  principles,  even  though  she  was  not 
an  advocate  of  cool  and  rational  calculation.  The  various  versions  of  the  painting 
Restaurant,  1915,  for  example  (plates  83,  83;  fig.  80),  demonstrate  her  skill  in 
undertaking  a  sophisticated  game  of  form  and  lettering,  light  and  shade ,  relief  and 
plane,  while  remaining  firmly  committed  to  the  triumph  of  painting.  In  other 
words,  the  culture  of  painting  as  such  and  the  tradition  of  European  painting  in 
particular  were  of  extreme  importance  to  Udaltsova,  even  if  she  did  reexamine  and 
interpret  the  Russian  icon. 

War  and  revolution  disrupted  the  common  course  and  ready  interchange  of  the 
new  art,  although  for  the  Russians  the  isolation  proved  to  be  beneficial.  What  hap- 
pened to  their  painting  after  Cubism?  Certainly,  Udaltsova  was  among  the  first  to 
appreciate  Popova's  architectonic  paintings  (plates  36,  3?),  and,  even  if  she  was 
interested  in  the  plasticity  of  Suprematism  as  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of 
Cubism  and  Tatlin,  she  was  also  drawn  both  to  its  pure  color  and  to  its  decorative 
potential.  When  Natalia  Davydova  asked  her  to  make  textile  designs  for  the 
Verbovka  peasant  art  cooperative,  the  results  showed  the  influence  of  the  charis- 
matic Malevich  —  indeed,  Suprematism  seemed  an  ideal  style  for  the  applied  arts. 

In  the  winter  of  1916— 17,  Udaltsova  and  her  colleagues  began  referring  to 
themselves  not  as  Futurists  but  as  Suprematists,  and  started  to  work  on  a  new 

273 


journal,  Supremus  (which  never  appeared).  Udaltsova,  Vera  Pestel,  and  Popova  also 
applied  their  Suprematist  ideas  to  their  decoration  for  the  Club  of  the  Young  Leftist 
Federation  of  the  Professional  Union  of  Artists  and  Painters.  However,  Malevich, 
a  born  leader,  could  not  reconcile  himself  to  the  wide  range  of  opinions  within 
the  Supremus  circle,  even  if  he  did  welcome  Udaltsova's  works,  inviting  her  to 
co -direct  a  studio  at  Svomas."  They  had  every  intention  of  continuing  with  textile 
designs  and,  subsequently,  Udaltsova  did  teach  textile  design  at  Vkhutemas- 
Vkhutein  and  the  Textile  Institute  in  Moscow.  But  as  with  Suprematist  painting, 
decorative  art  never  became  her  primary  interest.  After  all,  Udaltsova  thought  in 
terms  of  rigorous,  abstract,  monumental  compositions;  Varvara  Stepanova  even 
referred  to  three  large  canvases  by  Udaltsova  called  Tectonic  Temples.8  Yet  at  exhibi- 
tions, Udaltsova  continued  to  include  her  earlier  works  from  1914—15,  because  she 
recognized  a  strong  link  between  her  present  and  her  past. 

With  fellow  artist  Alexander  Drevin  (whom  she  married  in  1919),  she  tried  to 
unite  with  Vesnin,  Stepanova,  and  Rodchenko  within  the  Association  of  Extreme 
Innovators  (Askranov).  The  attempt  failed,  but  she  continued  to  nurture  the  idea 
of  a  united  front  for  the  new  art,  and  in  1920  tried  again  with  the  Objectivists  at 
Inkhuk.y  However,  during  one  of  the  many  debates  in  that  group,  an  extreme  fac- 
tion declared  that  painting  was  not  consistent  with  the  goals  of  modernity  and 
should  be  abandoned,  in  response  to  which  Drevin,  Kandinsky,  Ivan  Kliun, 
Boris  Korolev,  and  Udaltsova  all  resigned.  But  unlike  many  of  her  avant-garde  col- 
leagues, Udaltsova  could  appreciate  the  work  of  artists  with  temperaments  contrary 
to  her  own  —  Rodchenko,  for  example  —  although,  in  general,  Constructivism  was 
not  her  cup  of  tea.  For  her,  painting  was  primary,  and  only  once,  with  Drevin  and 
their  students,  did  she  build  a  model  for  a  large  spatial  construction. 10  This  had 


274 





facing  page,  left: 

figure  79.  naDezHDa  UDaLTSOVa 

Seated  Figure,  Paris,  1913 
Pencil  on  paper,  26.6  x  20.5  cm 
Private  collection 

t.H    NIU   [I.IL'l'.   I  IL'lll 

figure  80.  naDezHDa  uDarrsova 

Restaurant,  1915  (first  version;  destroyed) 
Oil  on  canvas 

left: 

figure  81.  naDeZHDa  UDaLTSOVa 

The  Blue ]ug.  1915  (first  version;  destroyed) 
Oil  on  canvas 


been  patently  clear  at  the  exhibition  The  Store,  where  she  and  Popova  had  put  up 
a  handmade  poster  in  their  section,  reading,  "Room  for  Professional  Painters"  - 
clearly  a  polemical  challenge  to  Tatlin. 

Udaltsova's  experimental  paintings  attracted  attention  at  the  Erste  russische 
Kunstausstellung  in  Berlin  in  1922,  but  within  months  she  and  Drevinwere  moving 
away  from  abstract  art.  Udaltsova  began  to  paint  intense  Fauvist  landscapes  and 
portraits,  which  she  showed  at  the  Vkhutemas  Exhibition  of  Paintings  in  19^3  and 
then  at  the  Venice  Biennale  the  following  year.  She  appeared  to  be  moving  "back 
to  nature,"  and  finding  Constable  and  Corot  more  exciting  than  Modernism.  But 
appearances  are  deceptive.  If  the  Jack  of  Diamonds  artists  turned  toward  a  more 
trivial  kind  of  Realism,  Udaltsova  and  Drevin  (who  left  a  strong  imprint  on  her 
work)  presented  nature  as  a  grand  non-objective  painting,  as  a  vital  exercise  in 
plastic  values.  Painterly  intuition  became  both  subject  and  object,  while  painterly 
expression  and  inner  contemplation  formed  a  new  unity;  so  it  is  not  surprising 
that  their  art  failed  to  concur  with  the  schematic  canons  of  the  new  Realism  during 
the  1950s  and  early  1930s.  When  the  struggle  against  experimental  art  began  in 
earnest,  Udaltsova  and  Drevinwere  labeled  "formalists"  and  "cosmopolitanists," 
a  stigma  that  persisted  until  well  after  World  War  II. 

Udaltsova  did  not  accept  the  aesthetic  of  Socialist  Realism,  instead  continuing 
to  adhere  to  her  nonconformist  principles.  She  showed  her  best  works  —  portraits, 
trees,  still  lifes  —  not  at  public  exhibitions,  of  course,  but  in  the  privacy  of  her  stu- 
dio and  to  close  friends,  such  as  Alexander  Osmerkin  and  Robert  Falk,  and  on  one 
occasion  to  the  celebrated  writer  Ilya  Ehrenburg,  who  had  not  forgotten  his  own 
passion  for  the  avant-garde  and  for  Picasso  in  particular.  But  how  criteria  change! 
Rodchenko,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Constructivists  —  with  whom  Udaltsova  used 


275 


naDezHDa  uDairsova 


to  wrangle  so  furiously  over  the  destiny  of  painting—  once  wrote  to  Stepanova,  the 
champion  of  production  art:  "I  was  at  Udaltsova's  and  she  showed  me  this  painting. 
What  a  shame  you  haven't  seen  it.  A  really  great  piece."11 

i.  Alexei  Grishchenko,  "Bubnovyi  valet'.  Vpechatleniias  vystavki,"  in  Nov  (Moscow),  no.  22, 1914. 
pp.  9— 10.  Metzinger's  Oiseaubleu  is  now  in  the  collection  of  the  Musee  d'Art  Moderne  dela  Ville 
de  Paris. 

2.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova.  "Avtobiografiia,"  in  Veronika  Starodubova  and  Ekaterina  Drevina,  eds., 
Alexander  Drevm.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova.  Catalogue  of  exhibition  at  the  Union  of  Artists  of  the 
U.S.S.R.  (Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1991).  p.  91. 

3.  Artist  and  administrator  David  Shterenherg  wrote  in  his  preface  to  the  catalogue  of  the  Erste  rus- 
sische  Kunstausstellung  in  1923:  "Russian  Cubism  developed  independently.  Hence  the  impres- 
sion that  our  Cubist  artists  did  not  follow  a  common  scheme"  (Shterenberg.  "Zur  Einfuhrung," 
in  Erste  russische  Kunstausstellung  [Berlin:  Galerie  Van  Diemen,  1922].  p.  12).  Critic  Nikolai  Punin 
agreed:  "Cubism  in  Russia  and  Cubism  in  Paris  are  such  different  entities  that  they  may  even 
defy  comparison"  (1929;  quoted  in  Irina  Karasik,  comp.,  Muzei  v  muzee.  Russkii  avangard  iz  kollek- 
tsii  Muzeia  khudozhestvennoi  kultury  v  sobranii  Gosudarstvennogo  Russkogo  muzeia  [St.  Petersburg: 
Palace  Editions.  1998],  p.  397). 

4.  Kazimir  Malevich,  "Vystavka  professionalnogo  soiuza  khudozhnikov-zhivopistsev.  Levaia  feder- 
atsiia  (molodaia  fraktsiia)"  (1918);  quoted  in  Alexandra  Shatskikh.  ed..  Kazimir  Malevich. 
Sobranie sochmenii,  2  vols.  (Moscow:  Gileia,  1995),  vol.  1,  p.  119. 

5.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  Letter  to  Olga  Rozanova  (1917).  See  below. 

6.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  "Vladimir  Evgrafovich  Tallin,"  in  [anon.] ,  Vladimir Evgrafovich  Tatlin 
(Petrograd:  Zhurnal  dlia  vsekh,  1915),  unpaginated. 

7.  Characteristic  of  Malevich,  pioneer  and  polemicist  of  Suprematism,  is  the  fact  that  he  listed 
"Malevich,  Kliun,  Davydova,  Rozanova,  Menkov,  Yurkevich.  Udaltsova,  Popova,  et  al."  as  repre- 
sentatives of  Suprematism  (i.e.,  the  Supremus  circle),  but  "forgot"  about  Rodchenko  and 
Alexander  Vesnin.  who  were  not  members  of  his  group. 

8.  Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  Varvara  Rodchenko,  eds.,  Varvara  Stepanova:  Chelovek  ne  mozhet  zhit  bez 
chuda.  Pisma.  Poeticheskie  opyty.  Zapiski  khudozhnitsy  (Moscow:  Sfera,  1994),  p.  75. 

9.  Seethe  Popova  essay  in  this  catalogue,  n.  4. 

10.  The  spatial  model  for  a  rostrum  is  reproduced  in  Sergei  Luchishkin,  Ya  ochen  liubliu  zhizn 
(Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1988),  p.  58. 

11.  Varvara  Rodchenko,  ed.,  A.  M.  Rodchenko:  Stati.  Vospominaniia.  Avtobiograficheskie zapiski 
(Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik,  1982),  p.  122- 


376 


' 


figure  82.  Alexandra  Exter  in  front  of  Udaltsova's 
paintings  at  the  exhibition  The  Store,  Moscow,  1916. 
Among  the  works  visible  are  Restaurant  (plate  83) 
and  Violin  (State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow). 


377 


naDezHDa  anDreevna  iiDaLTSova 

(1885-1961) 


1885  Born  December  29,  in  the  village  of  Orel,  toVeraNikolaevna 

Udaltsova  (nee  Choglakova)  and  Andrei  Timofeevich  Prudkovsky. 

189a  The  Udaltsova  family  moves  to  Moscow. 

1905  Graduates  from  a  women's  school,  and  enrolls  in  the  art  school  of 

Konstantin  Yuon  and  Ivan  Dudin  in  September. 

1907  Meets  Vera  Mukhina,  Liubov  Popova,  and  Alexander  Vesnin  at  the 
Yuon/Dudin  school. 

1908  Visits  the  Shchukin  collection.  Travels  to  Berlin  and  Dresden  in 
May— June.  Fails  entrance  exam  for  the  Moscow  Institute  of  Painting, 
Sculpture,  and  Architecture. 

1910—11         Studies  at  various  private  studios,  including  the  Tower  (1911). 
1912—13        With  Popova.  studies  under  Henri  Le  Fauconnier.  Jean  Metzinger,  and 

Andre  Dunoyer  de  Segonzac  at  La  Palette  in  Paris. 
1913  Returns  to  Moscow,  and  works  inTatlin's  studio  on  Ostozhenka  Street, 

withAlexei  Grishchenko,  Popova,  Vesnin,  and  other  artists. 
1914,  Makes  her  debut  as  a  professional  artist  at  the  fourth  Jack  of  Diamonds 

exhibition  in  Moscow,  together  with  Popova. 
1915—16        Contributes  works  to  the  Futurist  exhibition  Tramway  Fin 

Petrograd,to  the  o.  w  exhibition  in  Petrograd,  and  to  the  exhibition 

The  Store  (1916)  in  Moscow. 

1916  Breaks  with  Tatlin.  Is  commissioned  by  Natalia  Davydova  to  design 
textiles.  Shows  works  at  an  exhibition  at  the  Unicorn  Art  Salon. 

1916—17        Contributes  to  the  last  Jack  of  Diamonds  exhibition.  That  winter,  she 
and  her  colleagues  begin  referring  to  themselves  as  Suprematists  and 
work  on  preparations  for  publishing  a  new  journal,  Supremus,  which 
never  appears. 

1917  Is  elected  to  the  Club  of  the  Young  Leftist  Federation  of  the 
Professional  Union  of  Artists  and  Painters.  Collaborates  on  the  deco- 
ration of  the  Cafe  Pittoresque.  Contributes  to  the  Second  Exhibition  of 
Contemporary  Decorative  Art. 

1918  Collaborates  with  Alexei  Gan,  Alexei  Morgunov,  Malevich,  and  Alexander 
Rodchenko  on  the  newspaperylnar/chiia  (Anarchy) .  Works  in  various 
institutions,  including  the  Moscow  Proletcult. 


278 


CHTOnOLOGY 


1918— 30       Teaches  at  Svomas,  codirecting  a  studio  at  Malevich's  invitation. 
1919  Contributes  eleven  pieces  from  1914—15  to  the  Fifth  State  Exhibition. 

Marries  Alexander  Drevin. 
1930—31        Member  of  Inkhuk. 
1930—30       Teaches  textile  design  at  Vkhutemas-Vkhutein,  and  at  the  Textile 

Institute  in  Moscow. 
1933  Contributes  to  the  Erste  russische  Kunstausstellung. 

1933—34        Begins  to  paint  Fauvist  landscapes  and  portraits,  some  of  which  she 

shows  at  the  Vkhutemas  Exhibition  of  Paintings  in  1933,  and  then  at  the 

Venice  Biennale  in  1934. 
1937—35        Contributes  to  many  national  and  international  exhibitions,  including 

joint  exhibitions  with  Drevin  at  the  Russian  Museum  in  Leningrad  in 

1938  and  in  Erevan  in  1934. 
1933—33        Contributes  to  Artists  of  the  RSFSR  Over  the  Last  Fifteen  Years  in 

Leningrad  and  Moscow,  and  is  criticized  for  formalist  tendencies. 
1938  Drevin  is  arrested  during  the  night  of  January  16—17. 

1945  Solo  exhibition  at  the  Moscow  Union  of  Soviet  Artists. 

1958  Contributes  to  a  group  exhibition  at  the  House  of  the  Artist  in  Moscow 

in  October. 
1961  Dies  January  35,  in  Moscow. 


279 


plate74-IlaDeZHDa  UDaLTSOVa 

Seamstress.  1912-13 

Oil  on  canvas,  71.5  x  70.5  era 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


plate75-  naDCZHDa  UDaLTSOVa 

Composition,  io,i3 

Oil  on  canvas,  111.5  x  *33  cm 

Museum  of  History  and  Architecture. 

Pereiaslavl-Zalesskii 


plate76.naDezHDa  UDaLTSova 

At  the  Piano,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  107  x  89  cm 

Yale  University  Art  Gallery, 

Gift  of  Collection  Societe  Anonyme 


plate 77. naoezHDa  UDausova 

Guitar  Fugue.  1914—15 
Oil  on  canvas.  70.3  x  50.4  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow. 
Gift.  George  Costakis 


283 


facing  page: 

plate78. naDezHDa  uDaursova 

Artist's  Model,  1914. 

Oil  on  canvas,  106  x  71  cm 

State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 

above: 

piate79. nacezHDa  UDai/rsova 

New,  1914-15 

Oil  on  canvas,  60  x  48  cm 

Vasnetsov  Regional  Art  Museum,  Kirov 


285 


plate 8o.naDezHDa  uDaLisova 

Self-Portrait  with  Palette. ,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  72  x  53  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


286 


plate  8i.naDezHDa  uDaLTsova 

RedFigure,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  70  x  70  cm 

Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 


387 


plate  Sz.  naDezHDa  uDaursova 

Study  for  Restaurant,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  53  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


288 


plate  83.  IiaDeZHDa  UDaLTSOVa 

Restaurant,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  184.x  116  cm 

State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg 


plate 84.  nanezHDa  uDarrsova 

Kitchen,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  161  x  165  cm 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg 


290 


]Hg 

■' 

- 

'  »t^b 

f: 

8rfB 

, 

i-li     ^B| 

' 

"-    ■ 

'  »  j^m 

■     inSI 

plate 85.  naDezHDa  UDaLTSova 

Painterly  Construction,  1916 
Oil  on  canvas,  109  x79  cm 
State  Tretialiov  Gallery,  Moscow 


291 


plate 86.  naDezHDa  uDansova 

Untitled,  1916 

Watercolor  on  paper.  48  x  40  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 


292 


* 


1 


plate 87.  naDezHDa  uDaLTsova 

Untitled.  1916 

Gouache  and  pencil  on  paper,  24.6  x  15.9  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 


293 


294 


facing  page: 

plate  88.  naDezHDa  UDausova 

Untitled,  1916 

Gouache  on  paper,  48  x  38.5 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

above: 

plate  89.  naDezHDa  UDarrsova 

Untitled,  1916 

Gouache  on  paper.  64  x  44.5  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 


295 


amis 


f3% 


*JGr-ZZi  OS»-£k  ^- 


e^A 


/ZZ<z^e**^C^r 


e^^se~*£&-^ 


rJo2c±**CS      <^<?    ^^    *^<3 


aC~0^ 


figure  83.  Handwritten  letter  from  Exter  to  Alexander  Rodchenko,  dated  April,  21, 1920. 
Private  collection.  (Translation  on  page  3o6.) 


aLexarmra 
exTer 


Letterto  Nikolai  Kulbin  (1913  -14)1 

...  I  am  now  rather  close  to 
Archipenko  and  I'd  like  to  help  him. 
Not  only  is  he  the  only  sculptor  that 
Russia  has.  but  he's  the  best  here,  too, 
even  if  he's  not  known  in  Russia.  He 
really  should  be  talked  about,  an  article 
really  ought  to  be  placed.  .  .  .  Judging  by 
the  mood  here,  I  feel  that  people  are 
expecting  [a  lot]  from  us  Russians,  so 
that's  why  we  should  try  to  attract 
somebody  like  Archipenko." 

An  Exhibition  of  Decorative  Designs 
by  Evgeniia  Prihylskaia  and  Ganna 
Sobachko  (1918)2 

Types  of  decorative  art  include,  among 
others,  designs  for  the  weaving,  sew- 
ing, and  printing  of  fabric  and  rugs.  An 
essential  characteristic  of  this  kind  of 
art  is  the  planar  resolution  of  forms  in 
vegetable,  animal,  and  architectural 
ornament.  A  decorative  composition 
itself  differs  from  a  painterly  composi- 
tion in  that  it  is  conditioned  by  the 
fundamental  requirements  of  rhythm— 
that  is,  by  the  repetitiveness  of 
colored,  silhouetted  forms  in  designs, 
for  example,  for  fabrics  in  which 
rhythm  may  be  freer  and  more  com- 
plicated. Asymmetrical  representa- 
tion, which  we  often  observe  in 
primitive  compositions,  could  also  be 


mentioned  as  a  simpler  kind  of  rhythm. 

Decorative  designs  must  submit  to 
the  technical  demands  of  their  future 
execution  and,  therefore,  only  designs 
for  the  embroidery  and  weaving  of  rugs 
may  be  resolved  more  freely  in  lines 
and  colors. 

When  we  turn  to  popular  art  and 
study  it  or  a  composition  deriving  from 
it.  we  see  that  the  traditional  approach 
had  been  purely  external.  Wary  of  los- 
ing "style,"  artists  feared  to  go  beyond 
the  conventional  form  and  also  chose 
that  particular  color  which  the  period 
in  question  had  created.  Intensity  of 
color,  characteristic  of  more  recent 
ethnic  groups,  particularly  the  Slavs, 
was  replaced  by  the  patina  of  the  time, 
which  seemed  correct  and  appealing 
since  it  recalled  the  good  old  days. 

However,  this  kind  of  approach 
may  certainly  not  be  regarded  as  work 
in  the  popular  style,  since  its  basis  in- 
cludes no  investigation  into  the  roots 
and  laws  of  color  and  line  composition. 

For  laws  governing  the  composition 
of  coloring  in  folk  art  we  may  point  to 
ancient  icons,  whose  initial  coloring 
achieves  maximum  tension  and  whose 
composition  possesses  an  inner  rhythm 
and  balance.  Examples  of  contemporary 
folk  creations  in  Slavic  art  also  reveal  a 
purity  and  intensity  of  color. 


-■•'■•' 


DocumenTS 


In  decorative  folk  art,  we  perceive 
the  development  of  the  laws  of  compo- 
sition, from  primitive  rhythm  (the  rug, 
clay)  to  dynamic  rhythm  (the  painted 
Easter  egg) . 

In  Search  of  New  Clothing  (1923)3 

Clothing  design  has  always  depended 
on  both  climactic  conditions  and  social 
structures  and  the  way  of  life  that  this 
may  generate.  Although  during  the 
early  stage  of  human  history  clothing 
design  was  also  the  product  of  a  collec- 
tive, unconscious  creativity,  nonethe- 
less, at  the  foundation  of  this  creativity 
always  lay  the  elements  of  a  certain 
conformity  and  expediency.  In  the 
sphere  of  clothing,  a  conscious  and 
individual  kind  of  art  appeared  only 
much  later. 

That  is  why  historical  shifts  them- 
selves have  always  occasioned  change 
and  sometimes  a  total  negation  of  ear- 
lier clothing  designs  that  failed  to  meet 
the  conditions  of  life.  [The  Great]  War 
of  1914  and  its  laws,  without  any  kind 
of  ideological  aspirations,  greatly 
transformed  the  form  and  color  of 
army  uniforms.  Clothing  evolved  from 
ostentatious  conventionality  to  designs 
dictated  by  expedient  necessity,  both 
in  active  military  service  and  in  passive 
defense.  The  demands  of  war  forced 
the  change  from  an  originally  cold, 
gray  color  to  a  defensive  camouflage 
color  that  blended  with  the  earth. 
Various  colored  stripes  and  conven- 
tional insignia  were  replaced,  and  the 
design  [of  the  uniform]  itself  was 
simplified.  This  was  expedient  and, 


therefore,  legitimate.  Only  the  civilian 
segment,  which  visited  the  front  occa- 
sionally, degenerated  and  distorted 
this  simple  working  military  uniform 
by  carrying  its  characteristic  features 
to  the  blatantly  absurd.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  uniform  of  the  Russian 
"land  hussar"  consisted  of  foreign 
jodhpurs  and  service  jacket,  which 
look  naturally  right  on  the  body  of  the 
athletic  European  —  but  not  trans- 
ferred onto  the  stocky  figure  of  the 
Russian,  who  lacks  any  sort  of  physical 
training. 

During  the  Civil  War,  a  diversity 
and  indeterminateness  of  color  domi- 
nated clothes  —  which  is  quite  under- 
standable from  a  psychological 
standpoint  inasmuch  as  life  had  devel- 
oped so  rapidly  and  the  forms  of  exis- 
tence had  been  destroyed  so  swiftly 
that  there  could  be  no  thought  of  creat- 
ing a  new  kind  of  clothing.  The  very 
idea  seemed  inessential  in  the  broader 
context  of  those  grand  elemental 
events.  Only  now.  after  emerging  vic- 
torious from  the  struggle.  Russian  life 
is  entering  the  path  of  conscious  work 
leading  toward  the  ideological  elabora- 
tion of  questions  in  everyday  life  and 
toward  the  external  look  of  the  human 
being—  clothing.  Where  tailoring  was 
once  dominated  by  a  single  "fashion," 
serious  investigations  and  scientific 
and  artistic  research  into  new  forms 
have  begun. 

The  most  important  achievement 
in  this  area  has  been  the  outfitting  of 
the  Red  Army.  .  .  . 

Clothing  white -collar  workers, 


3oo 


aLexarmra  exxer 


however,  has  proved  less  successful. 
The  design  remains  quite  unresolved, 
while  all  our  institutions  abound  in  the 
most  ill-assorted  kinds  of  clothing. 
This  is  a  problem  that  still  confronts 
artists  and  specialists  alike. 
Expediency,  practicality,  conformity  to 
each  special  field  —  these  are  the  foun- 
dations upon  which  professional  and 
Soviet  clothing  should  be  created. 
Form,  material,  and  color  —  these  are 
the  elements  from  which  this  should 
be  created.  In  the  interests  of  utility  in 
both  warm  and  cold  periods,  this 
clothing  should  be  constructed  from 
materials  of  different  thickness,  that 
is,  parts  should  be  able  to  be  removed 
from  the  outfit  without  violating  its 
general  meaning  and  logic.  The  color 
of  the  clothes  worn  by  a  given  number 
of  people  in  a  particular  space  should 
be,  convention  notwithstanding,  not 
neutral,  but  a  dark,  primary  color  —  no 
more  bureaucratic  coldness  and 
anonymity. 

Experiments  on  specific  "produc- 
tion clothing''  have  also  been  under- 
taken in  the  sphere  of  theatrical 
costume.  Here,  however,  there  is  still  a 
confusion  of  conceptions  between  the 
costume  of  the  theatrical  performer 
and  the  outfit  of  workers  in  other  areas 
of  production.  The  actor  [could  be] 
dressed  in  a  worker's  outfit,  whether  of 
a  mason  or  of  a  carpenter,  which  had 
no  real  connection  with  the  performer. 
Onstage,  we  have  seen  workers  of  some 
kind  of  unprecedented  "guild"  who 
had  never  existed  and  workers  who.  in 
spite  of  their  proletarian  aprons,  did 


figure  84.  Frame  from  the  movie. Aelita.  1924,  produced 
by  Yakov  Protazanov  with  costumes  by  Exter  and  sets  by 
IsaakRabinovich. 


not  honestly  labor,  but  rather  played 
and  jumped  without  soiling  their  outfit 
or  just  utilizing  their  apron  as  needed. 
In  other  theaters,  the  confusion 
reached  such  a  point  that  we  saw  the 
conventional,  painted,  theatrical  cos- 
tume, production  clothing,  and  modi- 
fiable costume  of  the  heroine.  It  has  to 
be  said  that  the  contemporary  special- 
ized costume  for  stage  performers  has 
still  not  been  discovered.  However, 
this  kind  of  production  clothing  has 
existed  for  centuries:  the  "tutu,"  i.e.,  a 
costume  constructed  according  to  the 
movement  of  the  body  during  a  classi- 
cal dance.  Ballet  shoes,  leg  tights, 
lightness  of  the  skirt,  flexibility  of  the 
torso  —  all  these  are  logically  con- 
nected with  the  dance  and  make  the 
"tutu"  the  production  clothing  of  clas- 


3oi 


DocumenTs 


4AlEPH6//r  ~  TEsCTP 


/v^JUKA-A  foPTEP  xyao^KHH k-ajkztep 


figure  85.  Poster  for  Alexander  Tairov's  production 
of  InnokentiiAnnensky'sTTiamira  Khytharedes. 
Chamber  Theater,  Moscow,  1916.  Bakhrushin  State 
Theater  Museum. 


sical  ballet.  Right  now,  when  the  the- 
ater is  studying  every  possible  kind  of 
movement  (physical,  emotional, 
tightrope  walking,  etc.),  the  theater 
should  base  its  production  clothing  on 
the  movement  of  the  actor's  body. 
Fundamental  laws  of  the  costume 
should  be  found  that,  of  course,  would 
allow  for  variations  and  changes  of  one 
kind  or  another.  .  .  . 

The  fundamental  condition  of 
contemporary  aesthetics  should  also  be 
observed:  respect  for  material.  In  this 
case,  the  material  is  fabric  and  we 
should  not  constrain  this  material  for 
the  sake  of  the  caprices  of  fashion,  but 
proceed  from  it.  That  is  the  condition 
of  the  new  costume.  It  should  be  incor- 


porated into  distinct  geometric  forms, 
one  or  two,  rarely  three.  Color  should 
emerge  from  the  design  itself.  The 
vivid  colors  so  characteristic  of  folk 
costume,  particularly  of  the  Slavs,  can- 
not be  preserved  completely  under 
urban  conditions;  but  to  reject  it  out 
of  hand  would  mean  to  follow  the  path 
of  European  civilization,  with  its 
homogenizing  spirit.  The  very  envi- 
ronment of  Russia  demands  color  — 
rich,  primary  colors,  moreover,  and 
not  mere  tones,  as,  for  example,  with 
the  diffused  color  of  France  (Germany 
dresses  more  brightly  and  more 
sharply  than  France  does). 

Simplicity  of  designs  and  respect 
for  material  are  dictated  not  only  by  the 
new  aesthetics,  but  also  by  the 
demands  of  life  itself. . . . 

The  Artist  in  the  Theater  (1919)* 

. .  .  In  preserving  the  flat  painted  deco- 
ration, designers  who  worked  in  the 
style  of  Rakst  were  unable  to  resolve 
the  most  crucial  problems  of  stage 
design.  The  ordinary  stage  with  its 
backdrop  and  curtains  was  fraught  with 
two  problems  of  plastic  discordance. 
First,  the  painted  perspective  and  vol- 
ume of  flat  decorations  could  not  work 
together  with  the  concrete  volume  of 
the  actor's  figure.  Second,  the  motion- 
less, painted  background  could  not 
enter  into  rhythmic  unity  with  the 
figures  moving  out  in  front.  Con- 
sequently, the  designers,  despite  their 
fanfare  of  colors,  never  achieved  the 
desired  harmony  and  wholeness  of  a 
single  and  common  impression.  The 


3oa 


aLexanDra  exTer 


architectural  decorations  of  [Gordon] 
Craig  and  [Adolphe]  Appia  came  much 
closer  to  resolving  the  fundamental 
plastic  problems  of  the  theater. 

Free  movement  is  the  fundamental 
element  of  the  theatrical  act.  The  bland 
contemporary  stage  must  be  enriched 
above  all  with  movement.  As  a  conse- 
quence, the  artist's  mission  is  to  give  as 
much  space  on  the  stage  to  the  dynamic 
powers  of  drama  as  possible  while  at 
the  same  time  keeping  them  under 
control.  The  artist  may  achieve  this 
mastery  over  the  dynamic  action  [only] 
through  architectonic  constructions.  It 
is  essential  to  make  a  clean  break  with 
the  painted  decoration  and  to  replace  it 
with  three-dimensional  forms  in  dif- 
ferent combinations.  The  fundamental 
guidelines  of  these  combinations 
should  be  calculated  so  that  the  essen- 
tial dramatic  movement  can  develop 
freely  with  them  in  accordance  with  the 
inner  rhythm  of  the  drama.  The  action 
can  be  moved  to  a  greater  height  by 
uniting  the  floor  of  the  stage  with  the 
upper  edge  of  the  stage  box  by  means  of 
platforms,  ladders,  and  bridges.  This 
will  give  the  actors  a  chance  to  display 
the  maximum  degree  of  dynamic 
action.  On  these  bridges  and  ladders, 
[they]  can  perform  short,  individual 
dramatic  scenes,  quick  in  tempo,  as  in 
some  of  Shakespeare's  dramas.5 

Dramas  that  differ  in  their  rhythm 
demand  different  methods  of  stage 
construction.  Thus  in  Innokentii 
Annensky's  Thamira  Khytharedes ,  sim- 
plified volumetric  forms  of  rocks  and 
cypresses  arranged  in  a  semicircular 


line  guided  the  movement  of  the 
Bacchic  translations.6  Only  architec- 
tonic constructions  assisted  by  volu- 
metric forms  may  blend  into  a 
harmonious,  plastic  whole  with  freely 
moving  figures.  Amidst  sets  that  are 
painted,  even  if  brilliantly  so,  such  a 
confluence  in  unthinkable. 

In  dramas  more  reserved  and  con- 
centrated, with  minimal  external 
movement,  such  as  Oscar  Wilde's 
Salome."  one  can  apply  the  method  of 
animating  certain  elements  of  the  set, 
in  this  case  consisting  of  colored 
planes  that  move  by  means  of  an  elec- 
tric current. 

Their  dynamism  should  conform 
strictly  to  the  action  in  the  drama.  The 
effect  of  moving  colored  planes  follows 
from  the  emotional  power  of  the  har- 
mony of  the  colors.  It  is  also  possible  to 
modulate  light.  With  this  method,  the 
light  in  the  auditorium  and  onstage 
increases,  weakens,  and  modulates  in 
color  and  intensity  according  to  the 
course  of  the  drama.  At  the  same  time, 
the  auditorium  and  stage  join  together 
as  if  in  one  common  atmosphere,  which 
strengthens  the  effect  of  the  drama 
significantly.  In  general,  all  these 
methods  serve  a  single  goal:  to  allow  the 
inner  rhythm  of  the  drama  to  manifest 
itself  within  the  movement  onstage. 

As  for  the  representational  side  of 
the  sets,  a  general  allusion  to  the 
nature  of  the  environment  in  which  the 
action  takes  place  should  suffice,  so 
that  the  actor  may  direct  all  the  atten- 
tion of  the  audience  to  the  dynamic 
action,  to  the  performance  of  his  body. 


3o3 


DocumenTS 


uonpocw  riHEHN/i 

5*5-25 

YJ\  KOTOPM5     B  OAMH    MIS 

ABToPW  £S£?fc 

figure  86.  Varvara  Stepanova,  Poster  for  the  5  3:5  =  25 
exhibition,  1931,  colored  india  ink  on  paper, 
36x44.5  cm.  Private  collection.  The  poster  reads: 
"Put  questions  and  opinions  about  the  exhibition 
$x$  =  25  in  the  box,  and  the  artists  will  respond  at  one 
of  the  scheduled  evenings." 

For  the  artistic  reproduction  of  a 
particular  period  onstage,  all  you  need 
to  do  is  to  capture  the  fundamental 
plastic  idea  of  its  style,  which  can  be 
embodied  quite  freely,  without  re- 
sorting to  the  copying  of  museum 
specimens.  One  can  observe  this 
fundamental  idea  most  easily  in  the 
architecture  and  ornamental  design  of 
a  given  period.  Thus,  for  example,  hav- 
ing utilized  a  pointed  arch  characteris- 
tic of  the  Medieval  Gothic,  you  can 
echo  it  in  the  costumes  and  stage  con- 
structions. In  this  way,  the  artist  can 
endow  style  with  a  totally  new,  unex- 
pected interpretation  while  preserving 
a  general  faithfulness  to  the  very  spirit 
of  the  period  in  question. 

For  the  costumes,  it  is  essential  to 


employ  the  same  principles  as  in  stage 
construction:  principles  of  dynamic 
action.  The  composition  of  the  cos- 
tume, its  form  and  color,  should  con- 
form strictly  to  the  character  of  the 
bearer's  movements.  This  is  fully 
attainable,  since  the  various  combina- 
tions of  form  and  color  may  either 
strengthen  or  weaken  the  effects  of  the 
movement  by  imparting  this  or  that 
tone  to  them.  When  studying  the  stage 
and  the  actor  as  a  plastic  whole,  more- 
over, it  is  difficult  to  agree  with  the  use 
of  costumes  made  of  "real"  material 
alongside  simplified,  conventional 
three-dimensional  sets.  Costumes 
should  be  painted  by  the  artist:  the 
folds  may  be  suggested  by  the  paint- 
brush, [and]  ornaments  may  be  pre- 
sented as  individual  fragments  and  in 
greatly  exaggerated  proportions,  so 
that  accidental  folds  and  intricate 
needlework  will  not  disrupt  the  clarity 
and  integrity  of  the  overall  impression. 
Only  under  such  conditions  may  the 
will  of  the  artist  be  observed  com- 
pletely and  the  necessary  unity 
achieved.  The  actor  in  a  "real"  costume 
on  the  conventional  stage  creates  a 
crude  dissonance.  .  .  . 

Artist's  Statement  in  the  Catalogue  of 
the  Exhibition 5  \ 5  =  qg(iy2,i)s 

These  works  form  part  of  a  general  plan 
of  experiments  on  color  which,  in  part, 
helps  to  resolve  the  issues  of  the  inter- 
relationship of  color,  its  mutual  ten- 
sion, rhythmic  development,  and 
transition  to  color  construction  based 
on  the  laws  of  color  itself. 


304 


aLexanDra  exTer 


Letter  to  Vera  Mukhina, 
(March  3, 1929)9 

Dearest  Vera, 

...  I  am  now  preparing  an  exhibition 
at  the  Quatre  Chemins  for  May  15. 10 1 
don't  know  what  will  happen  after  that! 
As  always  after  every  exhibition,  I  shall 
begin  to  paint  in  earnest,  because  I 
really  want  to,  and  anyway  I  do  want  to 
present  myself  as  an  active  painter. 
Morally  I've  grown  stronger  over  the 
past  year  and  I'm  no  longer  in  the 
confused  state  that  you  found  me  in 
last  summer.  Some  mornings  I  even 
feel  a  new  strength,  and  I  feel  that  once 
again  I  can  believe  in  my  powers.  I 
think  that  your  visit  exerted  a  profound 
influence  on  me. . . . 

I  suppose  that  the  heroes  of  the  sea- 
son are  de  Chirico  and  Rouault. 
Diaghilev  has  invited  both  of  them  to 
design  new  sets,  a  characteristic  nod  to 
the  latest  fashion.  I  understand  that  de 
Chirico  might  do  something  interest- 
ing, but  I  can't  imagine  what  Rouault 
can  do  for  the  stage.  Nothing,  obviously. 

However,  Utrillo  and  Modigliani 
have  vanished  from  gallery  windows. 
Hidden  away.  Concealed. 

Of  [current]  exhibitions,  I'm 
impressed  by  the  show  of  a  certain 
German,  Helmut  Kolle  .  . .  Made  a  deep 
impression  on  me  and  I,  too,  had  this 
desperate  desire  to  paint  people,  but 
without  psychological  [interpretation]. 
Our  discussions  last  summer  con- 
vinced me  and  made  it  clear  that  with 
every  fiber  of  my  being  I  protest 
against  psychology,  however  much  it 
might  be  the  thing  right  now.  You 


know,  Vera,  there's  something  very 
stubborn  in  me,  and  on  principle  I 
always  protest  energetically  whatever's 
"in,"  as  one  of  my  old  friends  says.  No 
doubt,  I've  left  behind  the  present,  but 
from  my  point  of  view  that's  better 
than  trying  to  pursue  what's  fashion- 
able, and  you  can  understand  that  like 
nobody  else.  After  all,  you,  too,  have 
always  protested  against  "fashion." 
Maybe  now  is  the  only  time  when  you 
and  your  tastes  have  coincided  with  the 
times,  but  Vera,  believe  me,  this  is  a 
moment  only.  It  will  pass,  and  once 
again  you  will  be  alone  in  art.  I've  been 
through  it  all  and  am  going  through  it 
again  now  in  the  deep  sense  of  losing 
stylistic  "collegiality,"  because  what  I 
believed  in  has  gone.  Turning  toward 
individuality  is  what's  left. 

A  propos  of  individuality  —  I 
looked  at  the  first  issue  of  the  Cahiers 
dart,  which  has  photographs  of  the 
contemporary  Moscow  sculpture  by  the 
Vesnin  brothers  and  others."  Well, 
with  documents  in  hand  I  can  show  you 
what's  been  borrowed,  and  from 
where,  or  downright  stolen  both  in  the 
idea  and  in  its  parts.  Nothing,  nothing 
original. . . . 

I'd  like  to  see  Russians  above 
everyone  else,  for  I'm  convinced  that 
Russians  are  the  strongest  and  most 
talented  people.  They're  strongest  in 
the  theater,  but  in  the  other  plastic  arts 
we  are  pathetic  and  clumsy  imitators, 
always  have  been,  but  maybe  one  day 
we  won't  be  like  that. 


3o5 


DocumenTS 


Letter  to  Vera  Mukhina 
(December^  194s)12 

My  dear, 

Late  last  night  I  found  out  that  I  might 
have  news  of  you.  I  got  so  worked  up 
that  my  heart  began  to  ache.  In  general, 
my  health's  not  good  .  . .  Pain  in  my 
heart,  cramps  in  my  hand,  very  weak, 
have  to  lie  down.  I  lie  around  the  whole 
day  just  by  myself  and  see  nothing  but 
the  inside  of  my  apartment.  .  .  . 

I  work  away  quietly,  but  joylessly, 
with  no  feelings.  Just  can't  finish  the 
commissions. ...  I  feel  really  bad, 
hopeless. . . .  Loneliness,  sickness, 
lack  of  will  power  and  energy,  work  that 
brings  no  joy  —  that's  all  I  have  left. 
Occasionally  there  are  days  when  I  feel 
more  serene,  but  then  I  again  fall  into  a 
depression.  Events  have  really  broken 
me  and  I  no  longer  want  to  live."'3 

Translation  of  figure  83:  Dear  Alexander 
Mikhailovich,  I  know  that  you're  angry,  but 
really  it's  not  entirely  my  fault.  I  was  asked 
to  go  by  the  Chamber  [Theater]  and  had  to 
stay  there  the  whole  day.  I'll  drop  by  after 
Romeo  [and  Juliet]—  if  you'll  replace  your 
anger  with  kindliness.  Alexander 
Mikhailovich.  I've  sent  in  half  the  commis- 
sion (sketch  for  Romeo  and 'Juliet) .  Best 
wishes,  Alexandra  Exter 

1 .    This  extract  was  published  in  Kolesnikov. 
"Alexandra  Exter  i  Vera  Mukhina"  (1989). 
p.  105:  translated  from  the  Russian  by  John 
E.  Bowlt.  Exter  sent  this  letter  from  Paris 
(where  she  was  living  in  1913—14,)  to  Nikolai 
Ivanovich  Kulbin  (1868—1917),  an  artist  and 
"Doctor  of  Russian  Futurism."  Kulbin  was  a 
a  leading  light  among  the  St.  Petersburg 
Cubo- Futurists,  writing,  lecturing,  and 


organizing  innovative  exhibitions  such  as 
The  Triangle  (St.  Petersburg,  1910),  to  which 
Exter  contributed.  The  letter  is  in  the 
Department  of  Manuscripts,  Russian  State 
Museum.  St.  Petersburg  (inv.  no.  f.  134.  ed. 
khr.  62). 

2 .  This  extract  was  published  in  Alexandra 
Exter,  "Vystavka  dekorativnykh  risunkov 
E.  I.  Pribylskoi  i  Ganny  Sobachko," 
Teatralnaia zhizn  (Kiev),  no.  9  (1918),  p.  18. 
Exter  was  personally  acquainted  with 
Evgeniia  Ivanovna  Pribylskaia  (1877-1948) 
and  Ganna  Sobachko  (1883—1965).  two 
Ukrainian  artists. 

3.  A.  E-r  [Exter],  "Vpoiskakh  novoi  odezhdy," 
Vserossuskaia  vystavka  (Moscow),  no.  2 
(1923),  pp.  16-18. 

4.  Exter's  thoughts  about  the  theater  were 
noted  down  by  her  student.  Filipp 
Goziason.  and  published  as  "Khudozhnik  v 
teatre.  Iz  besedy  s  Alexandroi  Exter."  in 
Odessku  listok  (Odessa),  no.  i3o.  September 
28, 1919.  p.  4-  Filipp  Osipovich  Goziason 
(1898-1978)  was  a  stage  and  book  designer 
who  spent  most  of  his  life  in  France. 

5.  Exter  designed  productions  of  several 
Shakespeare  plays,  such  as  Othello  and 
Merchant  of  Venice,  in  this  way.  Her  album  of 
pochoirs,j4tezand.ra  Exter:  Decors  pour 
Theatre  (Paris:  Quatre  Chemins.  1930:  with 
a  Preface  by  Alexander  Tairov)  includes 
designs  for  some  of  these. 

6.  Exter  designed  the  sets  and  costumes  for 
Alexander  Tairov's  production  of  Thamira 
Khylharedes  at  the  Chamber  Theater, 
Moscow,  in  1916. 

7.  Exter  designed  the  sets  and  costumes  for 
Alexander  Tairov's  production  of  Salome  at 
the  Chamber  Theater.  Moscow,  in  1917. 

8.  Alexandra  Exter,  untitled  statement  in  the 
catalogue  (unpaginated)  of  the  exhibition 
53:5-35.  held  at  the  All -Russian  Writers' 
Club,  Moscow,  in  September  1921.  Exter 
contributed  five  works  to  the  exhibition: 
Problem  of  Color  Contrasts,  Color  Tension,  and 
three  Color  Rhythms .  under  the  general  title 


3o6 


aLexanDra  exTer 


"Planar-  Color  Construction. "  A  second 
515  =  25.  with  the  same  artists  also  repre- 
sented by  five  works  each  (Exter,  Liubov 
Popova,  Alexander  Rodchenko.  Varvara 
Stepanova,  and  Alexander  Vesnin),  followed 
in  October. 

9.  This  extract  was  published  in  Kolesnikov, 
"Alexandra  Exter  i  Vera  Mukhina."  (1989). 
p.  108:  translated  from  the  Russian  by  John 
E.  Bowlt.  Living  as  an  emigre  in  Paris.  Exter 
maintained  a  regular  correspondence  with 
her  Soviet  friend  and  colleague  Vera 
Ignatievna  Mukhina  (1889-1953).  Mukhina 
was  a  sculptor  who  in  1987  achieved  instant 
fame  with  her  enormous  stainless-steel 
statue  of  a  worker  on  top  of  the  Soviet  pavil- 
ion at  the  Exposition  Internationale  desArts  et 
Techniques  dans  la  Vie  Moderne  in  Paris.  In 
spite  of  her  status  as  an  official  Soviet  artist. 
Mukhina  still  went  to  see  Exter  during  her 
visits  to  Paris  in  1928. 1987.  and  1945.  Exter 
and  Mukhina  had  first  collaborated  as 
designers  for  Alexander  Tairov's  Chamber 
Theater  in  Moscow  before  the  1917 
Revolution  and,  until  Exter's  departure  in 
1924.  continued  to  work  on  joint  projects 
such  as  dress  designs  for  the  Moscow 
Atelier  of  Fashions:  Mukhina  even  helped 
Exter  with  the  costumes  forYakov 
Protazanovs  movie^elita.  The  letter  is  in 
the  Russian  State  Archive  of  Literature 
and  Art.  Moscow  (inv.  no.  f.  2.326.  op.  1. 
d.khr.  254). 

10.  Exter's  exhibition  at  the  Quatre  Chemins 
gallery  in  Paris  consisted  of  fifty  stage 
designs  and  maquettes. 

11.  There  were  three  Vesnin  brothers, 
all  of  them  architects: 

Alexander  Alexandrovich  (1883-1959). 
Leonid  Alexandrovich  (1880-1933),  and 
Viktor  Alexandrovich  (1882-1950). 

12.  This  extract  was  published  in  Kolesnikov. 
"Alexandra  Exter  i  Vera  Mukhina."  (1989). 
p.  108;  translated  from  the  Russian  by  John 
E.  Bowlt.  The  letter  is  in  the  Russian  State 
Archive  of  Literature  and  Art,  Moscow 


(inv.  no.  f.  2826,  op.  1.  d.  kh  r.  254). 
i3.  Exter  was  in  ill  health  (she  had  a  serious 
heart  condition),  and  had  just  lost  her 
second  husband.  Georgii  Georgievich 
Nekrasov  (1878-1945). 


307 


■■■/-■' 

figure  87.  Part  of  manuscript  by  Goncharova  on  art  movements,  ca.  1914. 
Collection  of  the  Khardzhiev-Chaga  Cultural  Foundation,  Amsterdam  (Box  78). 


naTaLia 
GoncHarova 


Album  (1911?)1 

When  I  follow  the  path  of  Cezanne,  my 
works  satisfy  me  less  than  those  that 
derive  from  totally  different  artifacts 
such  as  icons,  the  Gothic  style,  and  so 
on.  Perhaps  this  is  because  of  a  lack  of 
talent  or  of  a  kinship  with  other  souls, 
and  this  terrifies  me  sometimes.  But  I 
am  taking  the  path  I  want.  Cezanne  and 
icons  are  of  equal  value,  but  the  works 
that  I  have  made  under  the  influence  of 
Cezanne  and  those  that  I've  made 
under  the  influence  of  icons  are  not. 
Corot  is  outstanding,  but  I  just  can't 
work  under  his  influence.  I'm  not 
European  at  all.  Eureka. 

A  church  mural  motif.  An  ocher 
background,  light  with  chrome.  In  the 
background,  pale  green,  yellowish 
branches  weave  together  around  the 
whole  cupola.  Many  of  the  branches 
hold  tiny  leaves,  like  those  of  a  dahlia 
(in  three  shades  of  green) .  The 
branches  have  flowers,  pink  (scarlet 
and  cinnabar)  with  white  lead  and 
chrome,  and  tiny  fruits,  yellow  and 
red.  The  branches  are  joined  to  blue 
trunks  with  little  transverse  strokes  of 
a  paler  color.  The  trunks  descend  a  lit- 
tle below  the  middle  of  the  church  win- 
dows. At  the  top  of  the  trunks  and  on 
the  branches  sit  peacocks  and  tiny, 
varicolored  birds.  The  trees  are  being 


watered  by  holy  figures  and  angels  with 
dark  faces  and  halos,  in  simple  clothes 
with  heavy  folds.  A  radiant  Christ,  a 
pole  axe  in  his  hand,  descends  from  a 
mountain  to  his  church  and  garden  in 
order  to  find  his  withered  tree.  Will  the 
Lord  not  let  me  paint  this?  Lord,  for- 
give me.  . . . 

Jealousy  is  based  on  sensuality  — 
that  is,  on  sexual  attraction  —  and  that 
attraction,  which,  for  no  reason  what- 
soever, draws  you  to  people  who  other- 
wise would  hold  no  interest  at  all,  is  a 
torturous  feeling.  It  would  be  interest- 
ing to  see  what  would  happen  if  the 
attraction  were  to  be  gratified  every 
time.  Perhaps  it  would  then  not  be 
aroused  so  often  and  would  not  always 
be  such  an  insoluble  issue,  would  not 
be  something  that  can  destroy  the  hap- 
piness of  an  entire  life  at  any  moment, 
destroy  the  love  that  we  value,  would 
not  set  all  hell  loose  without  giving 
anything  in  return.  Even  when  not  fol- 
lowed by  agonizing  consequences, 
jealousy  still  disturbs  your  life,  dis- 
turbs your  social  interaction  with  oth- 
ers. It  prevents  you  from  becoming 
close  to  those  of  the  opposite  sex  and 
often  drives  you  away  from  your  own 
friends.  Perhaps  I  alone  am  such  a 
corrupt  monster.  .  . . 

Others  argue  —  and  argue  with 


3og 


DocumeriTS 


TfyGTMHMMKU  Wl 

HOSMA 

AKpy^EHbixt 


figure  88.  Cover  and  illustrations  by  Goncharova 
for  Alexei  Kruchenykh,  Pustrnniki  (Moscow,  1913). 

me  —  that  I  have  no  right  to  paint 
icons.  I  believe  in  the  Lord  firmly 
enough.  Who  knows  who  believes  and 
how?  I'm  learning  how  to  fast.  I  would 
not  do  so  otherwise,  for  it  feeds  too 
many  rumors  that  tarnish  the  best 
feeling's  and  intentions.  People  say  that 
the  look  of  my  icons  is  not  that  of  the 
ancient  icons.  But  which  ancient 
icons?  Russian,  Byzantine,  Ukrainian, 
Georgian?  Icons  of  the  first  centuries, 
or  of  more  recent  times  after  Peter  the 
Great?  Every  nation,  every  age,  has  a 
different  style.  You  can  understand  the 
most  abstract  of  things  only  in  the 
forms  that  you  see  most  often,  and  also 
through  whatever  works  of  art  you've 
seen  —  that  is  consolidated  within 
some  kind  of  material,  through  an 
understanding  or,  rather,  recapitula- 
tion by  previous  artists.  Of  course, 
within  all  that  material  you  perceive 
only  what  resonates  with  you.  In  a  cer- 
tain sense,  everyone  is  color-blind  — 
hence  the  differences  we  see  in  artists 
of  the  same  period  and  even  in  the 
most  realist  of  artworks  by  different 
peoples,  whether  Russian.  Chinese,  or 


Persian,  etc.,  made  during  the  same 
period,  [or]  the  differences  between 
the  ancient  artworks  of  a  people  and 
later  ones  by  the  same  people.  That's 
the  point. 

Misha  has  written  me  the  following 
note  from  military  camp: 

"Do  drawings  of  the  sky  and  the 
clouds  in  pencil  and  watercolor.  Make 
them  both  literally  and  also  as  they 
might  appear,  in  all  cases  observing 
their  characteristics.  Do  this  simply  so 
as  to  seize  the  most  outstanding  char- 
acteristic at  a  given  moment.  In  this 
way,  no  one  drawing  will  resemble  the 
next,  just  as  it  happens  in  nature  that 
no  one  motif  resembles  another.  Do 
drawings  of  things,  the  landscape,  peo- 
ple just  as  they  appear  at  a  given 
moment  in  your  imagination;  fear 
absolutely  nothing,  no  deformity  of  any 
kind,  no  fabrication,  no  fantasy.  Try 
out  various  styles  and  methods, 
emphasizing  first  one  part,  then 
another,  now  movement,  now  the  very 
position  of  the  ob  j  ect  itself  in  space 
and  its  relationship  to  others.  Change 
them  according  to  your  imagination 
and  instinct,  urge  yourself  to  do  it  pre  - 
cisely  that  way  or  in  accordance  with 
the  idea  that  you  have  worked  out  con- 
sciously in  your  own  mind. 

"Study  the  sky  in  engravings  or 
other  kinds  of  pictures.  Study  the 
expression  of  faces,  too,  in  engravings, 
paintings,  and  in  life." 

I  rewrote  this  so  as  not  to  lose  it.  I 
will  try  to  recollect  what  he  said  and 
write  it  all  down: 

"It  is  not  to  an  artists  merit  to  find 


3io 


naTaLia  concHarova 


himself  and  then  to  keep  on  painting 
in  the  same  old  manner  and  with  the 
same  old  colors.  It  is  much  better  to 
keep  creating  new  forms  and  color 
combinations.  You  can  combine  and 
invent  them  forever.  For  example,  here 
is  what  you  can  do :  spread  green  and 
orange  pigments  over  a  clean,  primed, 
white  canvas,  and  draw  over  them  with 
black.  The  effect  will  be  the  same  as  in 
popular  prints  if,  whenever  passing  the 
brush  over  the  [orange]  each  time,  you 
use  a  new  brush  to  continue  the  line 
over  the  white  in  the  same  way  that 
black  lines  in  a  popular  print  are  cov- 
ered in  certain  places  by  green  and 
other  colors.  The  colors  set  off  the 
black  lines  while  they  cross  over  onto 
the  background  and  pass  from  one 
object  onto  another. 

"You  can  do  this  so  that  the  sur- 
faces of  the  objects  border  each  other, 
a  dark  surface  bordering  a  light  one, 
and  vice  versa,  so  that  they  are  not 
divided  by  lines  (as  in  Picasso's  works) 
or  so  that  they  border  each  other  with 
thin  lines.  Thus  the  thin,  hard  lines 
outline  an  object  which  is  of  the  same 
color  as  its  background.  In  the  sky,  you 
can  employ  the  same  methods  and 
apply  the  same  colors,  both  dark  and 
light,  bordering  them  with  various 
lines.  Generally  speaking,  a  line  that 
borders  an  object  can  be  darker  than 
[the]  object.  So  that  it  stands  out,  it  is 
best  to  avoid  broad  lines  and  use  them 
only  if  needed.  They  serve  as  a  kind  of 
extra  (third)  line,  which  can  be  used 
like  a  color  separating  two  objects.  You 
can  make  bright,  almost  white,  faces 


with  shades  of  black,  green,  blue,  or 
red  and  place  them  on  a  dark  back- 
ground. This  creates  a  very  strong, 
almost  tragic  impression,  like  the  fig- 
ure of  a  smoker  on  a  round  tobacco  tin. 
You  can  try  this  combination  on  objects 
in  the  environment:  surround  a  direct 
white  light  and  then  the  color  of  the 
object  itself  with  the  deepest  shade 
of  black. 

"Orange,  yellow,  and  red  create  the 
brightest  effect.  It  works  well  to  add 
blue  and  bright  green,  which,  when  in 
such  proximity,  become  particularly- 
bright.  It  is  better  to  work  on  some- 
thing that  takes  longer.  At  any  rate,  you 
have  to  give  it  some  thought. 

"You  can  begin  ahead  of  time, 
without  knowing  [where  you're  going] . 

"One  more  thing  I  forgot  to  write: 
you  can  combine  the  color  of  one  work 
with  the  style  of  another  and  thus  ere  - 
ate  a  piece  unlike  the  other  two. 

"Create  the  theme  of  a  work,  the 
combinations  of  colors,  and  the  man- 
ner or  style  separately.  Consequently 
and  inevitably,  observations,  and  both 
realistic  and  fantastic  forms,  will  flow 
into  the  work." 

Misha  asked  me  to  note  these 
things  down  and,  of  course,  I'll  do  that. 

For  the  moment  that's  all  I  can 
recall  of  what  Misha  told  me  yesterday 
and  three  days  ago.  I'll  write  down  what 
he  says. 

Letter  to  the  Editor  (1912)2 

Dear  Mr.  Editor. 

Since  the  unofficial  opponents  at  the 

debate  on  the  new  art  were  granted  no 


DocumenTS 


figure  89.  Maiden  on  the  Beast.  1914.  Sheet  no.  5  in 
Goncharova's  album  of  lithographs,  Misticheskie 
obrazyvoinr  (Moscow,  1914),  32.5x24.8  cm.  Private 
collection. 

more  than  five  minutes  to  respond 
(and  part  of  that  was  lost,  what  with  the 
noise  in  the  hall  and  onstage),  I  did  not 
have  the  chance  to  finish  what  I  had 
begun  to  say.  Consequently,  my  hum- 
ble request  is  that  you  print  the  follow- 
ing continuation  of  my  speech. 

During  the  course  of  his  speech, 
Mr.  Kulbin  showed  photographs  of  my 
paintings.  Spring  in  the  Countryside  and 
Spring  in  the  Town,  so  as  to  reinforce  his 
highly  confused  theories  about  our  ill- 
starred  modern  art,  especially  Cubism. 
Cubism  is  a  positive  phenomenon,  but 
it  is  not  altogether  a  new  one,  espe- 
cially as  far  as  Russia  is  concerned.  The 
Scythians  made  their  stone  maidens  in 
this  hallowed  style.  Wonderful  painted, 
wooden  dolls  are  sold  at  our  fairs. 


These  are  sculptural  works,  but  in 
France,  too,  it  was  the  Gothic  and 
African  figure  sculptures  that  served  as 
the  springboard  for  Cubist  painting. 
Over  the  last  decade,  Picasso  has  been 
the  most  important,  most  talented 
artist  working  in  the  Cubist  manner, 
whereas  in  Russia  it  has  beenyours 
truly.  I  do  not  renounce  any  of  my 
works  made  in  the  Cubist  manner.  At 
the  same  time,  I  just  cannot  accept  any 
kinship  with  the  flaccid  Jack  of 
Diamonds  group.  The  members  of  that 
venerable  institution  seem  to  think  it's 
enough  to  join  the  apologists  of  the 
new  art,  including  Cubism,  to  become 
an  artist  of  the  new  persuasion,  even  if 
they  lack  tone  in  color,  the  power  of 
observation,  and  artistic  memory. 
Their  mastery  of  line  is  pathetic,  and 
it's  not  worth  talking  about  their  tex- 
tures. Judging  by  their  paintings,  these 
artists  have  never  thought  about  this  or 
worked  on  it.  In  many  cases,  they  are 
hopeless  academics,  whose  fat  bour- 
geois faces  peep  out  from  behind  the 
terrifying  mugs  of  innovators.  This 
simply  confirms  that  pathetic  snails 
will  cling  to  any  ship.  Andrei  Bely  had 
some  good  things  to  say  about  this  in 
his  manifesto,  when  he  spoke  about 
decadent  literary  small-fry. 

It's  a  terrible  thing  when  a  formu- 
lation of  theory  begins  to  replace  cre- 
ative work.  I  assert  that  creators  of 
genius  have  never  created  theories,  but 
have  created  works  on  which  theories 
were  later  constructed;  and  after  that, 
works  — for  the  most  part  of  very  low 
quality  —  were  built  on  [those  theories] . 


3l2 


naTaua  GoncHarova 


What  can  be  said  about  particular 
individuals  can  also  be  said  of  entire 
cities  and  countries  at  a  certain 
moment  in  their  artistic  existence.  In 
Italy,  where  there  is  a  total  lack  of  con- 
temporary art.  Futurism  suddenly 
appeared,  i.e.,  the  art  of  the  future,  a 
mixture  of  Impressionism  and  emo- 
tionalism. As  a  theory,  Futurism  is  no 
worse  than  any  other,  but  where  can 
the  Italians  find  the  means  to  imple- 
ment it?  Germany  also  lacks  contem- 
porary painting  and  for  the  most  part 
has  borrowed  the  history  and  tech- 
niques of  her  neighbor,  France.  That 
even  the  slightest  theory  will  still  exist 
in  the  absence  of  a  single  popular  his  - 
tory  of  contemporary  art  is  confirmed 
by  the  great  toiling  away  at  [making] 
pictures  and  [applying]  paint,  even  on 
the  part  of  Signac  and  Cross. 

The  Cubist  Picasso  is  great  and,  in 
France  (above  all,  Paris),  stands  at  the 
very  center  of  contemporary  painting. 
In  this  respect,  the  destiny  of  the 
Russian  center  of  painting,  Moscow, 
coincides  with  that  of  Paris.  Both  cities 
are  besieged  by  foreign  theorists  with 
their  big  theories  and  little  accom- 
plishments. 

I  assert  that  religious  art  —  and  art 
that  exalts  the  state  —  was  and  will 
always  be  the  most  majestic,  and  this  is 
because  such  art,  first  and  foremost,  is 
not  theoretical,  but  traditional.  Hence, 
the  artist  could  see  what  he  was  depict- 
ing and  why,  and,  thanks  to  this,  his 
idea  was  always  clear  and  definite.  It 
remained  only  to  find  the  perfect  and 
most  well-defined  form  so  as  to  avoid 


any  misunderstanding.  Please  note 
that  I  have  in  mind  not  academic  train- 
ing (since  I  consider  academism  to  be  a 
transient  phenomenon),  but  rather  the 
eternal  successive  connection  that 
Cezanne  had  in  mind  and  that  creates 
genuine  art.  In  contradistinction  to 
what  was  said  at  the  debate  yesterday, 
therefore,  I  assert  that  what's  depicted 
is,  was,  and  will  be  important,  and  that 
how  it's  depicted  is  also  important. 

I  assert  that  there  can  be  an  infi- 
nite number  of  forms  to  express  an 
object  and  that  they  can  all  be  equally 
beautiful,  independent  of  the  theories 
that  coincide  with  them.  It  was  said  at 
the  debate  that  contemporary  art  is 
renouncing  beauty  as  it  advances 
toward  ugliness.  I  assert  that  this  opin- 
ion seriously  undermines  the  meaning 
of  beauty,  ugliness,  and  art  as  phenom- 
ena, which  in  this  case  have  their  own 
laws  and  do  not  coincide  with  life. 
Ugliness  in  art  is  whatever  is  weak  in 
technique,  texture,  line,  color,  and 
distribution  of  form  and  color  masses. 

Accept  my  assurances  of  deep 
respect. 

Open  Letter  (1913?)3 

What  can  I  say  about  women  that  has 
not  already  been  said  a  thousand 
times?  To  repeat  all  of  the  good  and 
idiotic  things  that  have  been  said  about 
my  sisters  a  thousand  times  already  is 
infinitely  boring  and  useless,  so  I  want 
to  say  a  few  words  not  about  them,  but 
to  them:  Believe  inyourself  more,  in 
your  strengths  and  rights  before 
mankind  and  God.  believe  that  every  - 


3i3 


DocumenTS 


figure  90.  Goncharova  in  front  of  her  painting, 
Spanish  Ladies.  1920,  Paris 

body,  including  women,  has  an  intel- 
lect in  the  form  and  image  of  God,  that 
there  are  no  limits  to  the  human  will 
and  mind,  that  a  woman  should  not 
only  carry  within  herself  thoughts 
about  heroism  and  great  deeds,  but 
should  also  search  for  a  hero  and  cre- 
ator among  her  male  colleagues  in 
order  to  create  heroes  and  creators  in 
her  daughters  and  sons.  Remember, 
too,  that  when  one  colleague  is  base, 
lazy,  and  stupid,  another  ends  up  wast- 
ing half  of  his/her  effort  struggling 
with  that  person,  leaving  only  one  half 
for  the  rest  of  life. 

Letter  to  Filippo  Tommaso  Marinetti 
(1914)  + 

Monsieur  Marinetti, 
Our  country  is  a  beautiful  country.  It  is 
bigger  and  younger  than  yours.  Italy 
used  to  be  a  beautiful,  young  matron 
[sic] ,  then  a  beautiful,  fifty-year  old 
courtesan,  and  then  a  beautiful  beggar- 
woman.  Being  a  beggar-woman  after 
such  a  beautiful  career  means  the  end, 
even  if  one  has  a  Futurist  son  or 


daughter.  Our  country,  of  which  you 
are  a  guest,  is  still  a  child.  For  her 
everything  is  in  the  future  as  [illegible] . 
[She  is]  a  fantastic,  but  not  exotic, 
creature  [whom]  Europe  may  exploit, 
but  can  never  comprehend. 

Woman  is  [illegible] .  They  are 
mother- men  and  formally  are  women- 
men-lovers,  but  as  with  the  worker, 
there  is  no  need  to  despise  them.  In 
Russian,  the  word  chelovek  [human 
being]  designates  the  human  beings  of 
both  sexes.  Which  concerns  human 
relationships  and  our  own  nationality. 
As  for  the  new  color  [painting] ,  I  can 
tell  you  that  a  dozen  years  ago  art  in 
Russia  abandoned  the  museums 
[while]  our  grandparents  were  [still] 
sketching  life  around  them.  For  the  old 
and  fragile  nerves  of  Italy  and  Europe, 
Futurism  is  very  much  for  the  nerves 
[sic] ,  whereas  for  Russia,  however,  it 
hardly  exists-,  it  is  a  new  academicism, 
one  with  a  Romantic  character.  You  see 
very  well  that  I  am  right.  .  .  . 

Letter  to  Boris  Anrep  (1914)5 

Dear  Boris  Vasilievich, 
Thank  you  very  much  for  the  letter  and 
the  invitation,  and  for  thinking  of  me. 
If  everything  works  out,  I'll  be  in  Paris 
on  business  this  spring.6 

Why  do  you  write  about  the  dis- 
tance separating  the  artist  and  his  work 
like  that?  Is  it  really  so  important  that 
an  artist  remain  completely  bound 
together  with  his  work?  Man  is  a  com- 
plex machine,  perpetually  moving  and 
changing,  and  a  work,  once  completed, 
becomes  a  static  thing  with  its  own 


314 


naTaLia  GoncHarova 


individual  life,  a  life  that  lasts  longer 
than  that  of  the  individual  who  created 
it:  the  difference  between  the  two  has 
always  existed  and  always  will.  If  you 
try  and  approach  your  work  from  the 
distance  of  the  future,  when  you  will  no 
longer  have  the  painting  you  created 
anywhere  near  you,  then  all  that's  left 
is  simply  whether  the  work  has  been 
created  well  or  poorly,  strongly  or 
weakly.  What  remains  is  merely  the 
extrinsic  and  intrinsic  artistic  value 
and  absolutely  nothing  of  the  extent  to 
which  the  work  expressed  the  artist, 
his  soul,  or  his  connection  with  what 
he  created.  Nonetheless,  the  material 
of  the  work,  and,  beyond  that,  its  cre- 
ative spirit,  lies  not  in  the  individual, 
but  in  the  people,  in  the  nation  to 
which  the  individual  belongs,  in  its 
earth  and  nature.  It  is  part  of  the  com- 
mon, popular  soul,  like  a  flower  on  a 
huge  tree.  True,  the  flower  may  be  torn 
from  the  tree  and  planted  in  an  artifi- 
cial growing  environment,  and  at  first 
it  will  perhaps  begin  to  bloom  still  bet- 
ter, but.  even  so,  it  would  have  been 
nicer  had  the  flower  remained  on  the 
tree.  For  the  Russian  artist,  this  tree  is 
Russia  and  the  East,  but  not  Europe, 
from  whence  she  can  and  must  take 
military  ships,  aeronautics,  methods 
for  attack  and  defense.  The  artist,  how- 
ever, needs  to  devote  his  life  to  indige- 
nous places,  to  take  life  from 
indigenous  places. 

Please  forgive  my  overly  serious 
tone,  but  these  are  things  that  I  think 
about  a  lot.  A  Russian  cannot  become  a 
European  without  first  creating  a  divi- 


sion between  his  [or  her]  own  inner 
world  and  the  means  of  expressing 
[this]  in  external  life  —  dressing,  walk- 
ing about,  or  making  poetry,  music, 
and  painting  —  all  of  which  possess  a 
certain  dryness  and  restraint,  don't 
express  things  very  well,  and  provide 
little  gratification.  The  same  might 
happen  if  you  withdraw  into  the  aes- 
thetic and  the  archaeological. 
However,  there  is  also  another  way  of 
discovering  equilibrium,  i.e.,  forget 
your  first  love,  become  the  adopted  son 
of  a  foreign  country,  and  give  yourself 
up  to  the  new  country  completely. 
That's  what  happened  with  van  Gogh, 
Gauguin,  and  Picasso,  but  not  with  the 
Russians.  Again,  please  forgive  me  for 
the  overly  serious  tone,  but  there  are 
things  in  your  letter  that  do  not  allow 
me  to  write  lightly  or  on  just  any  old 
topic. 

We  will  be  happy  to  help  your 
Englishman  as  someone  who  has  seen 
you  recently.  Your  name  suffices  for 
us  to  welcome  him,  but  he  hasn't 
turned  up  yet.  What  a  shame  that  it's 
just  a  friend  of  yours  and  not  you 
yourself.  I  do  ask  you  to  understand 
that  I  do  not  forget  you  and  that  your 
name  alone  would  suffice  for  M[ikhail] 
F[edorovich]  and  I  to  welcome  him  as  a 
good  person." 

My  exhibition  has  been  a  really 
great  success.8  Rundles  of  newspapers 
featuring  articles  big  and  small,  one 
contradicting  another.  There  have 
been  photographs  of  me.  reproduc- 
tions in  journals,  flowers  [sent  to  me], 
interviews,  letters  (from  various 


3>5 


DocumenTs 


ladies),  and  a  lecture  about  me  and  my 
work-,  there  were  public  scandals  and 
receptions  in  restaurants,  three  edi- 
tions of  the  catalogue,  commissions  for 
portraits,  for  a  carpet,  for  [stage] 
decors;  and  three  works  were  pur- 
chased for  the  Tretiakov  Gallery  (very 
early  works,  to  be  sure,  but  all  the 
praise  is  lavished  on  my  old  works,  not 
the  new  ones  —  to  which  two  rooms 
were  devoted  and  which  met  with  little 
approval,  but  which  caused  a  furor).? 


i.     These  are  excerpts  from  an  undated  manu- 
script entitled  "Albom"  in  the  Archive  of 
the  Khardzhiev-Chaga  Cultural  Foundation, 
Amsterdam  (in  Box  78);  translated  from  the 
Russian  by  J.  Frank  Goodwin.  The  "Album" 
is  difficult  to  date  with  precision,  but  the 
fact  that  Goncharova  emphasizes  her  cur  - 
rent  interest  in  icons  and  refers  to  a  letter 
that  Mikhail  Larionov  had  written  from 
military  camp  (Larionov  was  drafted  in 
October  1910  and  was  in  an  army  camp  near 
Moscow  in  the  summer  of  1911)  indicates 
that  this  section  of  the  "Album"  dates 
from  1911. 

2.    Goncharova  wrote  this  "Letter  to  the 

Editor"  on  February  i3,  1912,  the  day  after  a 
debate  organized  by  the  Jack  of  Diamonds 
group  and  held  in  the  Greater  Auditorium 
of  the  Polytechnic  Museum,  Moscow. 
Chaired  by  Petr  Konchalovsky,  the  debate, 
dedicated  to  the  new  art,  consisted  of  three 
main  lectures  —  by  David  Burliuk  ("On 
Cubism  and  Other  Directions  in  Painting"). 
Nikolai  Kulbin  ("The  New  Art  as  the  Basis  of 
Life"),  and,  in  absentia,  Vasily  Kandinsky 
(and  read  aloud  by  someone  else)  —  fol- 
lowed by  comments  by  Goncharova, 
Larionov.  and  Maximilian  Voloshin. 
Goncharova  sent  this  letter  to  several  news  - 
papers.  The  manuscript  of  the  text  pre- 


sented here,  "Letter  to  the  Editor"  ["Pismo 
k  redaktoru  'Russkogo  slova'"]  (undated),  is 
handwritten  in  pen  on  fourteen  sheets  and 
is  addressed  to  the  editor  of  Russkoe  slovo 
(Russian  Word).  Russkoe  slovo  did  not  pub- 
lish the  letter,  although  part  of  it  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Moscow  newspaper  Protiv 
techeniia  (Against  the  Current),  March  3. 
1912.  Shorter  versions  of  the  letter  have  also 
appeared  in  Eli  Eganbiurfs  1913  mono- 
graph on  Larionov  and  Goncharova,  pp. 
18—19.  and  in  Benedikt  Livshits's  memoirs 
(Benedikt  Livshits,  The  One  and  a  Half -Eyed 
Archer,  translated  by  John  E.  Bowlt 
[Newtonville,  Mass.,  1977],  pp.  82-84).  A 
French  translation  of  the  entire  letter 
appeared  inTatiana  Loguine,  Gontcharova  et 
Larionov:  Cinquante  ans  a  Saint  Germain-des- 
Pres  (Paris:  Klincksieck,  1971),  pp.  21—23. 
This  English  translation  by  Thea  Durfee  first 
appeared  inExpenment  (Los  Angeles),  no.  1 
(1995),  pp.  162—63  (NB.:  it  appears  here 
with  some  slight  editorial  changes).  The  let- 
ter is  preserved  in  the  Manuscript  Division 
of  the  Russian  State  Library,  Moscow  (inv. 
no.  f.  259,  R.S.,i3  ed..  k.  4). 

3.  Goncharova's  "Open  Letter"  is  handwritten 
in  pen  on  paper,  and,  while  undated,  is 
probably  from  1913,  since  it  is  accompanied 
by  a  copy  of  the  celebrated  group  photo- 
graph of  the  contributors  to  the  1913  Target 
exhibition.  It  is  preserved  in  the  Nikolai 
Rykovsky  Archive  at  the  Manuscript 
Division  of  the  Russian  State  Library. 
Moscow  (inv.  no.  f.  421,  no.  1,  ed.  khr.  33). 

4.  Goncharova  wrote  this  undated  letter,  in 
pencil  and  in  halting  French,  during 
Marinetti's  visit  to  Moscow  and 

St.  Petersburg  in  January  and  February 
1914;  translated  from  the  French  by  John  E. 
Bowlt.  It  is  not  known  whether  the  letter 
was  ever  sent.  Clearly  Goncharova  was 
incensed  by  Marinetti's  open  disdain  for 
women,  at  least  as  voiced  in  his  manifestos 
and  speeches.  Although  Marinetti  attracted 
attention  as  a  social  curio,  and  some  of  the 


3i6 


naTaua  GoncHarova 


Russian  intelligentsia  welcomed  him,  he 
commanded  neither  respect  nor  popularity 
with  the  more  radical  wing  of  the  Russian 
avant-garde.  But  even  if  Goncharova  and 
her  closest  Russian  colleagues  tried  to  dis- 
tance themselves  from  Marinetti,  critics 
tended  to  regard  both  the  Italians  and  the 
Russians  as  parts  of  the  same  generic 
Futurism.  The  Moscow  newspaper  Nov 
(New)  even  reproduced  a  photograph  of 
Goncharova  to  accompany  a  commentary  on 
Marinetti's  visit  (see  P.  Kozhevnikov, 
"Italianiskii  futurizm,"  January  29,  1914. 
p.  3).  The  letter  is  in  the  collection  of  the 
Khardzhiev-Chaga  Cultural  Foundation. 
Amsterdam  (in  Box  78). 
This  unfinished,  undated  letter,  written  in 
pencil,  is  thought  to  have  been  written  in 
1914,8  conclusion  based  on  Goncharova's 
reference  to  the  three  editions  of  the  cata- 
logue of  hersolo  exhibitions  in  1913—14 
(two  for  the  Moscow  venue,  one  for  the 
St.  Petersburg  venue);  translated  from  the 
Russian  by  J.  Frank  Goodwin.  It  is  not 
known  whether  the  letter  was  ever  sent. 
Boris  VasilievichAnrep  (1883-1969), 
a  painter,  sculptor,  mosaicist,  and  writer, 
was  born  in  Russia  but  lived  mainly  in 
France,  England,  and  Scotland.  Before  the 
Revolution,  he  often  returned  to 
St.  Petersburg,  mixed  with  the  local  artists 
and  intellectuals  (at  one  time  he  was  very 
close  to  poet  Anna  Akhmatova) ,  and  con- 
tributed several  articles  to  the  journal 
Apollon  (Apollo) .  Anrep  put  together  the 
Russian  section  for  Roger  Fry's  Second  Post- 
Impressionist  Exhibition  at  the  Grafton 
Galleries,  London,  in  1912.  which  included 
a  strong  representation  by  Goncharova  and 
Larionov.  Presumably,  Anrep's  and 
Goncharova's  friendship  dates  from  that 
time.  The  letter  is  in  the  collection  of  the 
Khardzhiev-Chaga  Cultural  Foundation. 
Amsterdam  (in  Box  78). 
Invited  by  Sergei  Diaghilev,  Goncharova 
and  Larionov  left  for  Paris  via  Rome  in  April 


1914,  and  they  stayed  with  Anrep  for  much 
of  their  time  in  Paris. 

This  paragraph  has  been  crossed  out  in  the 
original.  The  "Englishman"  has  not  been 
identified. 

A  reference  to  Goncharova's  solo 
exhibitions  in  Moscow  (September- 
November  1913)  and  St.  Petersburg 
(March-April  1914). 

In  March  1914,  the  public  censor  removed 
twelve  "blasphemous"  works  from  the  pre- 
view of  the  St.  Petersburg  venue  of 
Goncharova's  exhibition. 


A 


J|H  By\pl> 


figure  91.  Cover  for  Popova's  handmade  book.  Pankm  otdykh,  1901 
Watercolor.  ink,  and  pencil  on  paper,  17.6x11.2  cm. 
Private  collection.  Moscow. 


LIUBOV 

popova 


Artists  Statement  in  the  Catalogue  of 
the  Exhibition 5x5  =  25(1931)' 

All  these  experiments  are  visual  and 
should  be  regarded  merely  as  a  series 
of  preparatory  experiments  toward 
concrete,  materialized  constructions. 

Department  of  Contemporary 
Russian  Painting:  Explanatory 
Classification  (ca.  1931)2 

Whether  due  to  the  greater  age  of 
Western  artistic  culture  or  because  of 
the  stimuli  of  concurrent  artistic 
impulses,  the  history  of  contemporary 
Russian  painting  is  experiencing  the 
same  evolution  and  revolution  of  artis- 
tic forms  as  Western  Europe  is. 

Although  Russian  painting  in  its 
initial  stages  also  coincides  with  the 
course  of  Western  painting  or  evolves 
parallel  with  it,  its  individual  devia- 
tions seem  to  expose  another  root,  one 
nourished  by  the  art  of  Russia's  past 
and  the  unqnestionable  influence  of 
national  and  psychological  character. 
Consequently,  many  Russian  artists 
may  regard  any  attempt  to  accommo- 
date contemporary  Russian  painting 
within  a  precise  scheme  based  on  a 
consecutive  development  of  pictorial 
ideas  (which  Western  art  follows,  par- 
ticularly French  art  of  recent  decades) 
as  troublesome,  if  not  as  an  act  of  vio- 


lence. Indigenous  national  culture  or 
again,  perhaps,  national,  painterly 
emotion,  comes  through  all  too  obvi- 
ously and  distinctively. 

The  two  points  of  derivation  — 
French  art  as  a  school  and  the  private 
psycho -physical  impetus  — produce  a 
specific  kind  of  painting  that  always 
stands  out  at  international  exhibitions 
by  virtue  of  its  deviation  from  the 
common  herd.  This  also  provides 
instant  identification  of  the  artist's 
nationality. 

Nevertheless,  let  us  try  to  locate 
and  classify  the  pictorial  foundations 
of  this  kind  of  work.  In  its  aspiration 
toward  formal  expression,  French  art 
of  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth 
and  early  twentieth  centuries  attained 
one  of  its  culminating  points  with 
Impressionism,  whose  synthesis  of 
undulating  colors  was  intended  to 
create  a  [total]  image  in  the  eye  of 
the  viewer. 

Later  on,  the  goal  narrowed  and 
consciously  so,  as  [French  art]  moved 
away  from  the  object  and  its  concept  to 
purely  formal  emotions.  Cezanne  no 
longer  depicted  the  impression  of  the 
object,  but  only  its  essence,  the 
essence  of  its  color,  volume,  and  the 
drawn.  .  .  . 


319 


DOCumenTs 


figure  92.  Liubov  Popova.  Clock,  1914.  Oil  and  wallpa- 
per on  canvas,  88  x  70  cm.  Private  collection,  Moscow. 

Impressionism  as  a  New  Approach  to 
Color  (ca.  1921)3 

Color  assumes  a  formal  significance. 
With  Impressionism,  in  general,  we 
can  speak  of  a  new  consciousness  and  a 
"new  style"  in  art.  What  —  even  at  the 
highest  moments  of  formal  art  — 
appeared  to  be  merely  a  method  (its 
formal  significance  often  manifested 
itself  spontaneously) ,  becomes  content 
andpurpose. 

Moments  of  formal  achievement 
[are]  Impressionism,  Cubism,  Futur- 
ism, Suprematism,  Objectivism* 

The  latter  tendency  denotes  an 
abrupt  turn,  one  that  is  occurring  on  a 
completely  new  level.  The  goal  here  is 
not  what  results  in  any  one  of  the 


spheres  of  the  elements,  for  another 
shift  of  the  entire  and  total  construc- 
tive consciousness  is  taking  place  — 
from  the  representation  of  the  object 
to  its  concrete,  material  organization. 
What  happens  to  the  entire  object  also 
happens  to  all  its  individual  parts  or 
elements,  as  in  the  case  of  color. 

In  Impressionism,  color  moved 
away  from  representation  only  with  the 
help  of  the  colorizing  means  of  paint- 
ing. Now,  however,  color  is  no  longer  a 
means  of  representation,  but  assists  in 
its  own  materialization.  Both  within 
the  material  texture  of  the  material 
itself  (or  its  imitation)  and  with  the 
help  of  texture,  abstract  color  materi- 
alizes, distinguishes  itself  from  the 
representation  of  color,  and  becomes  a 
goal  that  exerts  an  influence  through 
its  concrete  essence,  independently  of 
the  method  of  representation. 

But  the  goal  has  been  torn  from  its 
traditional,  applied  denotation,  all  the 
way  down  to  being  designated  as  formal 
pictorial  relations,  except  that  they 
themselves  have  become  the  goal  as 
such,  contributing  to  the  construction 
of  a  living  organism. 

On  Organizing  Anew  (ca.  1931)5 

We  have  no  need  to  conceal  our  pride 
that  we  are  living  in  this  new  Great 
Epoch  of  Great  organizations. 

Not  a  single  historical  moment  will 
be  repeated. 

The  past  is  for  history.  The  present 
and  the  future  are  for  organizing  life, 
for  organizing  what  is  both  creative  will 
and  creative  exigency. 


320 


LIUBOV  popova 


We  are  breaking  with  the  past, 
because  we  cannot  accept  its  hypothe- 
ses. We  ourselves  are  creating  our  own 
hypotheses  anew  and  only  upon  them, 
as  in  our  inventions,  can  we  build  our 
new  life  and  new  world  view. 

More  than  anyone  else,  the  artist 
knows  this  intuitively  and  believes  in  it 
absolutely.  That  is  exactly  why  artists, 
above  all,  undertook  a  revolution  and 
have  created  —  are  still  creating  —  a 
new  world  view.  Revolution  in  art  has 
always  predicted  the  breaking  of  the 
old  public  consciousness  and  the 
appearance  of  a  new  order  in  life. 

A  real  revolution,  unprecedented 
in  all  the  enormity  of  its  significance 
for  the  future,  is  sweeping  away  all  the 
old  conceptions,  customs,  concepts, 
qualities,  and  attachments  and  is 
replacing  them  with  new  and  very  dif- 
ferent ones,  as  if  borrowed  from 
another  planet  or  from  alien  creatures. 
But  wasn't  art  the  forerunner  of  this 
revolution  —  art  that  replaced  the  old 
world  view  with  the  need  to  organize  — 
and  to  such  an  extent  that  even  the  end 
of  "art"  was  declared?  In  fact,  this 
[new]  form  has  declared  the  end  not 
only  of  the  old  art.  but  perhaps  of  art  in 
general  or.  if  not  the  end,  then  an 
artistic  transformation  so  great  that  it 
cannot  be  accommodated  within  the 
old  conception  of  art. 

An  analysis  of  the  conception  of 
the  subject  as  distinguished  from 
its  representational  significance  lies  at 
the  basis  of  our  approach  toward 
reality:  at  first  there  was  the  deforma- 
tion of  the  subject,  and  this  was  fol- 


figure  93.  Cover  design  made  in  1922  by  Popova 
for  the  music  journal  K  novymberegam.  1923. 
Gouache  and  india  ink  on  paper.  24.5  x  18.6  cm. 
Private  collection.  Moscow. 


lowed  by  the  exposition  of  its  essence, 
which  is  the  concretization  of  a  given 
consciousness  within  given  forms.  It 
also  marks  the  beginning  of  the 
organization  of  the  artistic  media. 

As  a  purpose,  this  is  not  new.  for 
there  has  been  no  significant  era  in 
art  when  the  subject  was  not  deformed 
in  accordance  with  the  external  energy 
of  expression  or  reconstructed  from 
a  need  to  concretize  a  particular  world 
view. 

To  the  extent  that  a  given  conflu- 
ence of  historical  conditions  for  the 
formation  of  a  certain  consciousness 
is  unique,  that  condition  of  conscious- 
ness in  relation  to  its  own  past. 


321 


DOCumenTS 


figure  94.  Popova's  Moscow  studio,  1924.  pho- 
tographed by  Alexander  Rodchenko.  showing: 
(bottom  left)  her  maquette  for  The  Magnanimous 
Cuckold  (1922);  (above  door)  Painterly  Architectonics 
(1917,  Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York);  a  maquette 
for  her  project  (with  Vsevolod  Meierkhold  and 
Alexander  Vesnin)  for  an  open-air  mass  spectacle 
intended  to  celebrate  the  theme  of  Struggle  and  Victory 
for  the  Congress  of  the  Third  International  in  1921 ;  and 
(on  easel)  a  set  design  in  collage  on  plywood  for  Earth 
onEnd  (1928). 

present,  and  future  will  also  be  singu- 
lar and  unique. 

That's  the  first  point. 

The  second  point  is  still  more 
important  —  above  all,  the  moment  of 
creation:  a  new  organization  of  ele- 
ments is  created  out  of  the  constant, 
traditional  ones,  which  are  so  only 
because,  ultimately,  we  know  only  one 
and  the  same  concrete  material. 

Through  a  transformed,  [more] 
abstract  reality,  the  artist  will  be 
liberated  from  all  the  conventional 


world  views  that  existed  hitherto. 

In  the  absolute  freedom  of  non- 
objectivity  and  under  the  precise  dic- 
tation of  its  consciousness  (which 
helps  the  expediency  and  necessity  of 
the  new  artistic  organization  to  mani- 
fest themselves),  [the  artist]  is  now 
constructing  [his/her]  own  art,  with 
total  conviction. 

Our  fanaticism  is  conscious  and 
assured,  for  the  scope  of  our  experi- 
ences has  taught  us  to  assume  our  posi- 
tive place  in  history. 

The  more  organized,  the  more 
essential  the  new  forms  in  art,  the 
more  apparent  it  will  become  that  our 
era  is  a  great  one  and  indispensable  to 
humanity. 

(Form  +  color  +  texture  +  rhythm  + 
material  +  etc.)  x  ideology  (the  need  to 
organize)  =  our  art. 

Note  (ca.  1931)6 

I  don't  think  that  non-objective  form 
is  the  final  form;  rather,  it  is  the  revo- 
lutionary condition  of  form. 

One  must  renounce  the  object 
and  all  the  conventionality  of  the 
traditional  [kind  of]  representation 
connected  with  it.  We  must  feel  com- 
pletely free  of  everything  created 
before  us  in  order  to  attend  to  the 
emergent  need.  We  can  then  look  dif- 
ferently at  the  form  of  the  object,  which 
emerges  from  the  work  not  only  trans- 
formed, but  as  an  altogether  different 
form. 

Not  only  theoretical  work  on  the 
concept  of  volumetric  form,  line,  or 
color,  but  also  working  on  the  joining 


322 


LIUBOV  popova 


of  these  disparate  concepts  (their  syn- 
thesis should  produce  the  concept  of a 
new  form)  —  this  is  what  [we  mean  by] 
the  construction  of  pictorial  form,  lib- 
erated, of  course,  from  any  excres- 
cence irrelevant  to  painting. 


unfinished  manuscript  in  a  private  collec- 
tion. Moscow:  translated  from  the  Russian 
by  J.  Frank  Goodwin. 


Liubov  Popova,  untitled  statement  in  the 
catalogue  (unpaginated)  of  the  exhibition 
5x5  =  25,  held  at  the  All-Russian  writers' 
Club,  Moscow,  in  September  1921;  trans- 
lated from  the  Russian  by  John  E.  Bowlt. 
Popova  contributed  five  works  to  the  exhi- 
bition: Spatial -Volumetrical  [Construction] . 
[Construction]  of  Color  Planes ,  Enclosed 
Spatial  Construction  .and  two  Spatial  -  Force 
[Constructions] . 

Popova.  "Otdel  noveishei  russkoi  zhivopisi: 
Obiasnitelnaia  klassifikatsiia":  translated 
from  the  Russian  by  J.  Frank  Goodwin.  The 
text  is  from  an  unfinished,  undated  manu- 
script in  a  private  collection.  Moscow. 
Popova.  "Impressionizm  kak  novyi  pod- 
khod  ktsvetu":  translated  from  the  Russian 
by  J.  Frank  Goodwin.  The  text  is  from  an 
undated  manuscript  in  the  Department  of 
Manuscripts.  State  Tretiakov  Gallery, 
Moscow  (inv.  no.  f.  148.  ed.  khr.  75. 11.  1-2). 
The  term  obektivizm  refers  to  the  position  of 
the  Group  for  Objective  Analysis,  founded 
byAlexei  Babichev  within  Inkhukin  1921. 
Countering  the  extreme  attitude  of  Alexei 
Gan.  Alexander  Rodchenko.  Georgii  and 
Vladimir  Stenberg.  Nikolai  Tarabukin.  et 
al..  who  called  for  the  total  rejection  of  stu- 
dio painting  in  favor  of  production  art.  the 
Objectivists  recognized  that  art  could  develop 
on  the  basis  both  of  traditional  studio  paint- 
ing and  sculpture  and  of  industrial  design. 
Popova,  "0  novoi  organizatsii";  translated 
from  the  Russian  by  J.  Frank  Goodwin.  The 
text  is  from  an  undated  manuscript  in  a  pri- 
vate collection,  Moscow. 
Popova.  untitled  text  from  an  undated. 


323 


UUi       ittW  tf2$£    OU<U  '7ijL<UteSU,     \Ui^U^n,    •k    i   fLf±-f~UUou~tO^ 
..    -  ■  ,,      i   -  I  lift     i    ■yw    i3rVi-U,    Lou  au  ikui. 


figure  95.  Handwritten  letter  from  Rozanova  toAlexei  Kruchenykh,  December,  1915. 
in  connection  with  the  0.10  exhibition,  Petrograd,  1915— 16.  Archive  of  the 
Khardzhiev-Chaga  Cultural  Foundation,  Amsterdam  (Box  78).  (Translation  on 

page33o.) 


OLGa 

rozanova1 


Letter  to  Anna  Rozanova 
(Deeemberc),  1913)- 

Your  portrait  [Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  Pink, 
(Portrait  of  Anna  Rozanova,  the  Artist's 
Sister)  plate  4?]  has  caused  a  sensation 
among  artists!  ...  I  met  a  most  inter- 
esting guy  today,  David  Burliuk,  and 
now  I'm  in  love  with  him.3  We  shook 
hands.  He  really  likes  my  paintings  and 
says  he's  discovered  a  star  in  me.  He 
particularly  liked  my  portrait  of  you 
and  the  houses  in  landscapes,  too. 
Burliuk  lectures  on  art.  Wanted  to 
photograph  my  paintings  so  as  to  show 
them  to  the  public  on  the  screen.  He 
lectures  in  different  cities.  Good  for 
him!  What  a  great  chest  he  has!  But 
he's  a  bit  impudent.  Tomorrow  he's 
lecturing  in  St.  Petersburg.  Has  given 
me  a  complimentary  ticket  to  the  lec- 
ture. 0,  David! 

. . .  The  critics  come  down  on  me, 
i.e.,  the  critics  from  the  gutter  press. 
They  even  wanted  to  reproduce  my 
Smithy  and  wanted  your  portrait,  but 
Shkolniksaidno.+ 

If  you  knew  just  how  entertaining 
these  critics  are!  Burliuk  laughs  and 
says,  "They  come  down  on  me,  too.  I'm 
happy  that  our  names  are  next  to  each 
another." 

...  So  far  my  pictures  are  not  sell- 
ing, but  I'm  having  a  great  success 


among  artists.  One  artist  from  the 
World  of  Art  group  introduced  himself 
to  me  at  the  exhibition^  and  said  it  was 
a  great  pleasure  to  make  my  acquain- 
tance. [Female]  students  of  Petrov- 
Vodkin6  try  to  ingratiate  themselves 
with  me,  and  Madame  Zvantseva"  her- 
self spoke  with  me  at  the  exhibition, 
saying  she  likes  my  paintings  ...  A  lot 
of  new  acquaintances.  Some  of  them 
are  interesting,  but  I'm  really 
immersed  in  my  artistic  milieu  and 
artistic  interests  .  .  .  I'm  now  reading 
about  art  in  French,  and  am  hanging 
out  at  the  exhibition.  My  paintings 
occupy  the  very  best  place.  Alas,  David 
is  soon  going  away! 

Letter  to  Anna  Rozanova 
(December  9, 1913)8 

.  . .  Alexei  Kruchenykh  and  I  have  been 
coloring  books  together,  books  that  are 
selling  very  well,  so  we'll  earn  a  lot 
from  them. 

I've  been  hanging  out  at  the  Stray 
Dog  cabaret.  There  was  an  "Evening  of 
Apache  Dance"  there  recently.  An 
unusual  Saturday.  I  sat  through  the 
entire  night,  from  i2:3o  a.m.  to  7:3o 
a.m.  Thus  I  got  there  on  the  last  street- 
car that  night  and  left  on  the  first  one 
the  next  morning.  Such  are  my  labors 
and  diversions!  I'm  going  to  the  Stray 


3^5 


DocumenTS 


n  a  c  x  a  y  <i>  y  t  y  p  n  c  t  o  b  ^. 


[l  A  C  \  A   \  b  II  bl  si    n  O  S  E  A  A  H  I  (I 


nyp*  JlTpT. 


figure  96.  Ivan  Otsup,  Photograph  captioned  Easter 
with  the  Futurists.  Group  ofPetrograd  Futurists  in  the 
Studio  of 'the  Artist  N.  1 '.  Kulbm,  Petrograd,  1915.  Showing 
(left  to  right)  Nikolai  Kulbm,  Ivan  Puni,  Olga 
Rozanova,  Vladimir  Mayakovsky.  Arthur  Lourie.  and 
Vasilii  Kamensky.  The  portrait  in  front  of  Puni  is 
Kufbin's  of  Georgii  Yakulov.  The  photograph  has  been 
doctored,  for  the  Puni  head  has  been  beheaded  from 
another  photograph,  stuck  on  to  the  drape,  and  repho- 
tographed  to  give  the  impression  of  collegiality,  even 
though  the  calisthenic  Mayakovsky  is  about  to  punch 
the  rubberhead  Puni. 


Dog  again  today,  although  I'm  not 
going  to  stay  there  all  night  this  time. 

Letter  to  Alexei  Kruchenykh 
(summer  1915)9 

. . .  Right  now,  I  can  do  either  only 
exclusively  realist  or  non-objective 
paintings,  but  nothing  in  between, 
since  I  don't  think  that  there  are  any 
connecting  links  between  these  two 
arts,  no  rivalry,  nothing  in  common. 


just  as  there  is  no  link  between  the 
crafts  of  shoemaking  and  tailoring  and 
so  on.  They  are  not  even  vaguely  simi- 
lar. I  have  to  confess  that  objectivity 
and  non-objectivity  (in  painting)  are 
not  two  different  tendencies  in  one  art, 
but  two  different  arts.  The  screen  is  the 
only  possible  medium  that  can  replace 
the  material  paints  in  non- objective 
painting!  No  connection  whatsoever!!! 

Letter  to  Alexei  Kruchenykh 
(December  1915)'° 

He  [Puni]  has  taken  down  my 
Automobile  and  Devil's  Panel  [Bicyclist] . 
When  these  pieces  were  brought  into 
the  exhibition,  my  [paintings]  proved 
to  be  more  more  original  than 
Puni's.  My  relations  with  Oksana 
[Boguslavskaia]  are  strained  to  the 
limit."  There  is  no  tension  between  me 
and  Ivan  Albertovich  [Puni],  but 
Oksana  is  behaving  like  a  stupid  old 
bag  and,  except  for  Malevich,  there's 
absolutely  no  one  on  Puni's  side.  In  the 
catalogue,  Puni  went  as  far  as  to  sign 
himself  "manager."  For  reasons  of  tact, 
not  even  Zheverzheev  has  ever  done 
such  a  thing,12  but  Oksana  says  that  she 
has  the  right  to  administer  everything, 
since  the  exhibition  is  financed  with 
their  capital  and  so  on.  All  this  is  dis- 
gusting. Not  worth  writing  about. 

Rostislavov'3  is  in  ecstasy  over  my 
works  and  has  told  me  that  most  likely 
not  even  I  know  my  own  true  worth, 
etc.  Now  if  he  would  only  write  that  in 
Rech  [Discourse]  —vulgar  man.  Well. 
never  mind! . . . 

I'll  say  more:  all  of  Suprematism 


326 


OLca  rozanova 


consists  entirely  of  my  collages,  com- 
binations of  surfaces,  lines,  discs  (par- 
ticularly discs) .  and  totally  -without  a 
realistic  subject.  In  spite  of  all  that, 
that  swine  doesn't  mention  my  name. 

. . .  Malevich  has  a  guilty  look  when 
he  is  with  me.  He  has  turned  a  bit 
humble.  He  offers  his  services  politely. 
Quite  unrecognizable.  The  first  day.  I 
deliberately  turned  my  back  on  him. 
Did  you  show  Malevich  my  collages, 
and  when  exactly?  Unfortunately,  I 
gave  [him]  only  Suprematist  reliefs 
(four) .  but  no  painting.  My  narrative 
painting  is  infinitely  more  Suprematist 
than  Puni's,  however. 

I  saw  Zelmanova'4  at  the  opening. 
She  was  delighted,  invited  me  over  to 
her  place,  and  I  invited  her  to  mine.  I 
don't  know  what  will  come  of  that.  I'll 
send  you  photographs  and  reviews,  if 
there  are  any.  I  regret  that  you  are  not 
with  me.  Kisses  to  you.  Write.  Kulbin 
and  Matiushin  were  not  at  the  opening. 

. . .  Malevich  remembered  that  he 
hadn't  yet  sent  you  the  package.  I  rep- 
rimanded him  for  that. 

Letter  to  Alexei  Kruchenykh 
(December  1915) 

. . .  On  the  wall  at  the  exhibition,  they 
[the  Suprematists]  have  titled  their 
paintings,  "Suprematist."  but  not  in 
the  catalogue. '5  However,  I  didn't  [title 
mine  that  way] ,  since  in  his  review  that 
fool  Rostislavov  did  not  include  me  as  a 
member  of  the  group.  In  general,  he 
gave  a  very  good  review  of  both  the 
exhibition  and  of  me  in  particular. 
Unfortunately.  I  have  only  one  copy  of 


figure  9-.  Alexei  Kruchenykh.  Heavy  Weapon. 
illustration  for  his  Vselenskaia  voina  (Petrograd.  1916). 
Paper  collage.  22.9x30.4  cm.  Courtesy  of  Galerie 
Gmurzynska,  Cologne 


the  newspaper  and  don't  know  how  to 
send  it  to  you. . .  .  There  were  other 
stupid  and  totally  hostile  reviews  in 
Petrogradskaia  gazeta  [Petrograd 
Gazette] ,  Listok  [Sheet] .  Birzhevj-e  vedo- 
mosti  [Stock-Exchange  News],  and  Den 
[Day],  but  I  haven't  read  them  yet. 
Attendance  at  the  exhibition  is 
poor.  Just  over  two  hundred  attended 
the  opening,  the  worst  one  I've  ever 
had  to  endure.  So  as  to  satisfy  your 
curiosity,  here  are  my  copies  of 
Malevich's  pictures,  Ladrin  an 
Automobile  [her  sketch  of  the  composi- 
tion follows]  and  Boat  Ride  [her  sketch 
of  the  composition  follows].  I  did  not 
buy  any  postcards  for  reasons  of  thrift. 
I  don't  have  much  money . . . 

Letter  to  Alexei  Kruchenykh  (1916) 

I've  sent  a  registered  [letter]  to 
Shemshurin  with  the  drawings  for  the 
poetry  that  you  asked  for.16 1  made  the 
drawings  in  colored  ink.  How  do  you 
like  them?  You've  probably  already 
received  them,  haven't  you?  As  I  already 


327 


Documenxs 


figure  98.  Olga  Rozanova,  Untitled,  1917—18.  Gouache 
and  india  ink  on  paper,  10.8x9.8  cm.  Sheet  no.  68  in 
Alexei  Kruchenykh's  scrapbook,  A  Kruchenrkh. 
igoo—i<)3o. 


wrote,  I'm  crazy  about  these  verses  and 
the  idea  of  letters  of  the  alphabet  float- 
ing free  in  these  transrational  poems.  I 
simply  burst  with  pleasure  when  I  read 
and  contemplated  them. 

Cubism,  Futurism,  Suprematism 
(i9i7)>7 

.  . .  We  propose  liberating  painting 
from  its  subservience  to  the  ready- 
made  form  of  reality  and  to  make  it 
first  and  foremost  a  creative,  not  a 
reproductive,  art. 

The  savage  happily  drawing  the 
outlines  of  a  bull  or  a  deer  on  a  piece  of 
stone,  the  primitive,  the  academician, 
the  artists  of  antiquity  and  of  the 
Renaissance,  the  Impressionists,  the 
Cubists,  and  even  to  some  degree  the 
Futurists  are  all  united  by  the  same 
thing:  the  object.  These  artists  are 


intrigued,  delighted,  amazed,  and 
gladdened  by  nature.  They  try  to 
fathom  her  essence,  they  aspire  to 
immortalize  her.  .  .  . 

Cubism  killed  the  love  of  the 
everyday  appearance  of  the  object,  but 
not  the  love  of  the  object  as  a  whole. 
Nature  continued  to  be  the  guide  of 
aesthetic  ideas.  The  works  of  the 
Cubists  lack  a  clearly  defined  idea  of 
nonobjective  art. 

Their  art  is  characterized  by  efforts 
to  complicate  the  task  of  depicting 
reality.  Their  complaint  against  the 
established  prescriptions  for  copying 
nature  turned  into  a  formidable  bomb 
that  smashed  the  decayed  metaphysics 
of  figurative  art  into  smithereens  —  an 
art  that  had  lost  all  idea  of  aim  and 
technique.  .  . . 

In  its  force  and  its  clarity  of  per- 
ception, Futurism  provided  art  with  a 
unique  expression  —  the  fusion  of  two 
worlds,  the  subjective  and  the  objec- 
tive. Maybe  this  event  is  destined  never 
to  be  repeated. 

But  the  ideological  gnosticism  of 
Futurism  had  no  effect  on  the  damned 
consciousness  of  the  majority  who,  to 
this  day,  continue  to  reiterate  that 
Futurism  marks  a  radical  break  in  the 
course  of  world  art,  a  crisis  of  art  . . . 

Our  time  is  one  of  metal,  its  soul 
is  initiative  and  technology:  the 
Futurists  brought  technology  to  its 
full  potential.  .  .  . 

Until  the  Futurists  came  along, 
artists  used  to  express  movement  in 
the  following  conventional  manner: 
a  maximum  expression  of  movement 


328 


OLGa  rozanova 


resulted  from  placing  forms  on  the 
surface  of  the  canvas  parallel  to  the 
perimeter  of  the  canvas,  and  a  maxi- 
mum static  expression  resulted  from 
placing  the  forms  parallel  to  the  sur- 
face of  the  canvas. 

The  spectator  did  not  sense  move- 
ment in  the  picture.  All  he  [or  she]  saw 
was  a  rendering  of  movement. . . . 

For  the  Suprematists,  the  painting 
has  ceased,  once  and  for  all,  to  be  a 
function  of  the  frame. 

We  do  not  regard  the  forms  that  we 
use  [in  painting]  as  real  objects.  We  do 
not  force  them  to  depend  on  the  up  and 
down  directions  in  the  painting. . . .  We 
consider  their  painterly  content. 
Consequently,  the  emphasis  on  sym- 
metry or  asymmetry,  on  static  or 
dynamic  elements,  is  the  result  of  cre- 
ative thinking  and  not  of  the  precon- 
ceived notions  of  common  logic.  The 
aesthetic  value  of  the  non-objective 
painting  lies  entirely  in  its  painterly 
content. 

We  perceive  the  color  of  an  object 
as  its  hue  made  visible  by  the  refrac- 
tion of  light  (the  rainbow,  the  spec- 
trum). But  we  can  also  conceive  of 
color  independently  of  our  conception 
of  the  object,  and  beyond  the  colors  of 
the  spectrum. 

We  can  see  green,  blue,  and  white 
mentally. . . . 

The  unreality  of  the  Cubo- 
Futurists  was  a  product  of  their  self- 
destructive  desire  to  convey  the  total 
reality  of  the  obj  ect  via  the  prism  of 
pure  subjectivity.  This  was  so  remark- 
able that  "non-existence,"  created  by 


the  artist's  will,  acquired  the  value  of  a 
new  reality,  of  a  kind  of  abstract 
absolute  that  killed  any  interest  in  what 
was  actually  being  observed. . . . 

Suprematism  rejects  the  use  of  real 
forms  for  painterly  ends.  Like  leaky 
vessels,  they  cannot  hold  color.  Stifled 
by  the  chance  simplicity  or  complexity 
of  these  forms,  which  may  not  always 
correspond  to  their  respective  color 
content,  color  just  creeps  about,  faded 
and  dim. . . .  We  create  quality  of  form 
in  connection  with  quality  of  color,  and 
not  each  separately. 

We  have  chosen  the  plane  as  the 
transmitter  of  color,  since  its  reflective 
surface  will  transmit  color  the  most 
effectively  and  with  the  least  mutabil- 
ity. As  a  result,  reliefs,  appliques,  tex- 
tures that  imitate  material  reality,  and 
sculptural  effects  (for  example,  a 
brushstroke  creates  shadow),  which 
were  used  in  figurative  painting  (right 
up  to,  and  including,  Futurism),  can- 
not be  applied  to  two-dimensional 
painting  on  a  plane:  such  factors 
influence  and  change  the  essence  of 
color. . .  . 

Just  as  a  change  in  the  atmosphere 
can  create  a  strong  or  weak  air  current 
in  nature,  one  that  can  overturn  and 
destroy  things,  so  dynamism  in  the 
world  of  colors  is  created  by  the  proper- 
ties of  their  values,  by  their  weight  or 
lightness,  by  their  intensity  or  duration. 
This  dynamism  is,  essentially,  very  real. 
It  commands  attention.  It  engenders 
style  and  justifies  construction. 

Dynamism  liberates  painting  from 
the  arbitrary  laws  of  taste  and  estab- 


3a9 


DocumenTS 


lishes  the  law  of  pragmatic  inevitabil- 
ity. It  also  liberates  painting  from  util- 
itarian considerations.  . . . 

The  works  of  pure  painting  have 
the  right  to  exist  independently  and 
not  in  relation  to  banal  interior  fur- 
nishings. To  many,  our  efforts  and 
endeavors  —  as  well  as  those  of  our 
Cubist  and  Futurist  predecessors  — 
to  put  painting  on  a  course  of  self- 
determination  may  seem  ridiculous, 
and  this  is  because  they  are  difficult  to 
understand  and  do  not  come  with 
glowing  recommendations.  Never- 
theless, we  do  believe  that  a  time  will 
come  when,  for  many  people,  our  art 
will  become  an  aesthetic  necessity  —  an 
art  justified  by  its  selfless  aspiration  to 
reveal  a  new  beauty. 


Translation  of  figure  95 :  "  [It  was  the  worst 
opening]  I've  ever  had  to  endure.  In  order 
to  satisfy  your  curiosity,  here  are  my  copies 
of  some  of  Malevich's  pictures:  Lady  in  an 
Automobile  [first  drawing].  Boat  Ride  [sec- 
ond drawing] .  I  didn't  buy  any  postcards.  I 
didn't  want  to  waste  my  money  and  I  don't 
have  that  much.  The  pictures  are  painted  in 
various  colors,  not  black  and  white.  The 
most  disgusting  aspect  of  the  entire  exhibi- 
tion and  of  the  artists  themselves  is  that 
everything  is  being  done  on  the  sly.  While  it 
used  to  be  that  you  just  looked  after  your- 
self, now  what  you  do  is  to  harm  someone 
else,  no  matter  what.  For  example,  Puni  and 
his  wife  promised  to  make  frames  for  me 
and  then  failed  to  do  so  on  purpose,  so  that 
the  paintings  would  look  slipshod.  They 
distorted  the  catalogue  and  a  myriad  other 
things,  so  that  even  Malevich  thought  it  was 
disgusting.  I  never  imagined  that  Oksana 
[Boguslavskaia]  could  be  such  a  horrible 


creature.  Malevich  is  like  their  lackey.  How 
long  the  organization  will  last  depends  on 
how  long  he  remains  satisfied  with  his  'cor- 
ner,' since  besides  him  good.  .  .  ." 

1 .  The  following  documents  (except  the  last) 
are  excerpts  from  letters  that  Olga  Rozanova 
wrote  between  1912  and  1916.  They  are  pre- 
served in  the  Archive  of  the  Khardzhiev  - 
Chaga  Cultural  Foundation,  Amsterdam 
(in  Box  78). 

2.  Letter  to  Anna  Rozanova,  the  artist's  sister, 
transcribed  by  Nikolai  Khardzhiev. 

3 .  The  reference  is  to  poet  and  painter  David 
Davidovich  Burliuk  (1862-1967),  the 
"father  of  Russian  Futurism." 

4.  IosifSolomonovichShkolnik  (1883-1926), 
a  painter,  was  secretary  of  the  Union  of 
Youth.  In  spite  of  Shkolnik's  objections, 
Rozanova's  portrait  of  Anna  was  reproduced 
in  the  journal  Ogonek  (St.  Petersburg),  no.  1 
(1913),  p.  20.  Rozanova's  oil  painting, 
Smithy  (1912),  is  in  the  collection  of  the 
State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg. 

5.  The  reference  is  to  the  Union  of  Youth  exhi- 
bition in  St.  Petersburg,  December 
1912— January  1913. 

6.  Kuzma  Sergeevich  Petrov- Vodkin 
(1878-1939),  a  painter 

7.  Elizaveta  Nikolaevna  Zvantseva 
(1864-1922),  a  painter,  directed  an  art 
school  in  St.  Petersburg.  Rozanova  was  a 
student  there  in  1911. 

8.  Letter  to  Anna  Rozanova  (1886-1969), 
transcribed  by  Nikolai  Khardzhiev. 

9 .  Letter  to  Alexei  Eliseevich  Kruchenykh 
(1886-1969),  Rozanova's  companion. 

10.  In  this  letter,  Rozanova  is  describing  the 
o.w  exhibition  at  Nadezhda  Dobychina's 
Art  Bureau  in  Petrograd,  December  1915 
through  January  1916.  to  which  she  con- 
tributed the  works  mentioned  here. 

11.  Ivan  Albertovich  Puni  (Jean  Pougny, 
1894-1956)  and  his  wife  Ksenia 
Leonidovna  Boguslavskaia  (1892-1972) 
were  the  organizers  of  the  o.  1  o  exhibition. 


33o 


oixa  rozanova 


12.  Levldi  Ivanovich  Zheverzheev  (1891-1942). 
a  collector  and  businessman,  was  a  sponsor 
of  the  Union  of  Youth,  specifically  of  the  two 
theatrical  productions  that  it  produced  in 
December  1913.  Victory  over  the  Sun  and 
Vladimir  Maiakovsky. 

i3.  Alexander  Alexandrovich  Rostislavov 
(1860—1920).  an  art  critic. 

14.  Anna  MikhailovnaZelmanova- 
Chudovskaia  (ca.  1890—1948)  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union  of  Youth. 

15.  Rozanova  is  referring  to  the  0.10  exhibition. 

16.  Andrei  Akimovich  Shemshurin 
(1872—1939).  a  literary  critic.  Rozanova  is 
probably  referring  to  the  Suprematist  book 
illustrations  that  she  was  making  at  this 
time  for  Zaumnaia gniga  [Transrational 
Gook].  See  Terekhina  et  al..  Olga  Rozanova 
7S86-i97S.pp.3--38. 

17.  These  extracts  are  from  Rozanova's  text 
"Kubizm.  futurizm.  suprematizm."  which 
she  wTote  for  the  journal  Supremus  in  1917 
(not  published);  translated  from  the 
Russian  by  John  E.  Bowlt.  The  entire  text 
was  published  in  English  and  German  in 
Vonder  Malerei  zum  Design/From  Painting  to 
Design,  exh.  cat.  (Cologne:  Galerie 
Gmurzynska.  1981),  pp.  100— n3. 


33i 


tt  a^^jaiW  (tap- 

$^«mjtm.  %|urto4   efi&ftuuea. 


figure  99.  Handwritten  statement  by  Stepanova,  The  New  Consciousness.  Undated, 
private  collection.  (Translation  on  page  340.) 


varvara 
STepanova 


On  Non-Objective  Creativity 
(in  Painting)  (1919) 

In  the  logical  course  of  its  development, 
painting  reached  non-objectivity.  Not 
so  long  ago  the  defenders  of  "studio 
art"  — i.e.,  painting  of  a  particular  size, 
painting  in  a  narrow,  professional 
sense,  but  a  kind  of  painting  bereft  of 
meaning  or  any  spiritual  aspiration  — 
rejected  the  slogan  "painting  as  an  end 
in  itself."  This  is  a  painting  of  synthe- 
sis, a  monumental  kind  of  painting  that 
is  just  as  indispensable  as  a  road  sign. 
However,  painting  moves  not  by  syn- 
thesis, but  by  analysis  and  innovation 
—  which  is  always  excessive,  but  which 
always  stimulates  further  movement. 

Non-objective  creativity  is  a  move- 
ment of  the  spirit,  a  protest  against  the 
narrow  materialism  and  naturalism 
that  had  begun  to  control  life. 

Non-objective  creativity  is  a  new 
world  view  in  all  spheres  of  life  and  art. 
and  painters  were  the  first  to  appreci- 
ate it.  We  should  note  that  recently 
painting  has  begun  to  occupy  a  really 
major  place  in  the  global  movement, 
overtaking  all  other  arts  in  its  develop- 
ment and  achievement. 

Without  knowing  one  another, 
painters  in  different  corners  of  the 
world  have  begun  to  appreciate  non- 
objective  art  and.  perhaps  intuitively. 


to  begin  waging  "war  on  the  object." 
This  has  been  particularly  characteris- 
tic for  Russia,  where  most  of  our  smart 
young  painters  came  to  negate  the 
object  in  painting.  Russia  has  become 
the  home  of  non-objectivity,  and  this 
is  understandable,  since  Russia  had 
long  been  a  country  of  the  spirit. 

In  Russia  the  epoch  of  transition  to 
"non-objectivity"  produced  good 
painters  who  derived  much  from  mate- 
rial life.  However,  they  took  not  the 
essence  of  the  object,  but  its  surface, 
its  texture,  its  relationship  to  another 
object,  all  of  which  diverted  them  from 
the  object  as  such.  How  very  different 
from  French  art.  Take  Cubism.  The 
French  artist  will  take  an  object,  break 
it  up.  extrapolate,  will  think  it  through 
and  through,  and  then,  on  the  well- 
defined  surface  of  the  studio  painting, 
present  you  with  the  object  or  a  paint- 
ing in  which  the  object  in  the  painting 
realizes  its  highest  potential. 

The  French  artist  learned  to  paint 
by  studying  the  object,  while  the 
majority  of  Russian  painters  of  the 
transitional  period  learned  not 
through  the  object  itself  but  through 
French  paintings  of  the  object.  The 
Russian  Cubists  offered  an  elaboration 
of  space,  but  not  of  the  object;  they 
understood  the  idea  of  "breaking  up 


333 


DOCumenTs 


the  object"  in  an  abstract  sense  and 
passed  from  the  object  of  the  painting 
to  painting  [itself] . 

Color  was  of  great  importance  to 
the  painting  of  "Russian  Cubism,"  but 
the  color  of  paint  also  led  it  away  from 
Cubism.  [Artists]  began  to  investigate 
the  sphere  of  color  and  removed  the 
object.  The  shift  among  Russian  artists 
toward  non- objectivity  came  roughly 
in  1913,  although  "studio  painting"  was 
also  promoted  at  the  same  time,  which, 
as  I  mentioned  above,  completed  the 
moment  of  transition  and  took  the 
preceding  accomplishments  to  their 
limit. 

At  first,  each  individual  artist 
understood  non-objective  creativity 
differently.  Some  explored  color, 
others  texture  or  composition.  But  as 
non- objective  creativity  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  it  deepened,  a  particular 
group  [of  artists]  came  to  the  fore, 
demonstrating  a  method  or  system  that 
was  able  to  accommodate  non-objec- 
tive painting.  The  first  method  was 
Suprematism  as  interpreted  in  two 
ways  —  either  as  a  new  formal  accom- 
plishment (the  square)  or  as  an  inten- 
sification of  painting  through  color, 
destined  to  play  the  role  of  a  "new 
Renaissance  of  painting."  The  square, 
of  course,  was  not  a  discovery,  but 
merely  the  logical  extension  of  the 
cube;  color  began  to  play  a  role  here, 
however,  when  it  commandeered  the 
square  so  as  to  make  a  more  effective 
representation.  Consequently,  color 
provided  the  stimulus  to  the  liberation 
of  painting  from  the  object,  while 


the  square  provided  the  synthesis. 

The  Suprematists  extolled  the 
square  plane  of  color,  which  they  began 
to  elaborate  and  build  into  the  picture 
in  a  monumental  fashion.  But  the 
canons  of  Suprematism  did  not  allow  a 
further  shift,  since  color  —  formerly 
the  living  force  of  Suprematism  —  now 
became  just  a  component  auxiliary 
to  the  square,  the  latter  assuming 
preeminence. 

Where  did  this  lead?  Suprematist 
compositions,  executed  not  on  canvas 
but  in  embroidery,  where  color  is 
purer  than  in  paint  on  canvas.  Made 
from  surfaces  colored  with  the  finest 
methods,  they  soon  rivaled  the  painted 
picture,  and  quite  successfully.2  It  is 
now  clear  that  in  its  pure  form 
Suprematism  is  decorative  and,  as  a 
new  style,  was  meant  to  be  applied  —  a 
forceful  and  astonishing  one.  Perhaps 
Suprematism  needed  to  find  a  better 
technique  than  the  application  of  paint 
to  a  canvas  in  order  to  carry  the 
Suprematist  method  to  its  logical  con- 
clusion. In  Suprematist  painting,  the 
colored  form  is  incomplete,  and 
demands  that  the  paint  from  the  tube 
be  at  least  three  times  more  intense,  so 
that  when  applied  to  a  composition  the 
color  will  lose  no  more  than  one-fifth 
of  its  properties. 

Meanwhile,  two  individuals  in  par- 
ticular came  forward  from  the  ranks  of 
a  second  group  of  painters,  who  at  one 
time  had  supported  the  Suprematist 
method  in  their  non- objective  creativ- 
ity, finally  breaking  with  the  method  of 
Suprematism:  they  had  either  removed 


334 


varvara  STepanova 


color  at  the  expense  of  composition 
(Udaltsova)  or,  on  the  contrary,  had 
intensified  it  to  the  point  of  decora - 
tiveness  and  dissonance  (Rozanova). 
Such  was  the  attempt  to  accommodate 
non-objective  creativity  within  the 
system  of  Suprematism.  At  the  same 
time,  nonobjective  creativity  also 
developed  outside  the  methods  of 
Suprematism,  but  here  individual 
artists  set  out  on  their  own,  making  no 
attempt  to  contain  their  inventions 
within  a  particular  system  (Rodchenko, 
Kandinsky)  or  to  assign  an  "  -  ism"  to 
their  achievements.  All  in  all,  non- 
objective  creativity  in  painting  is  still 
at  its  initial  stage  of  development,  and 
it  is  difficult  to  find  an  "-ism"  that 
could  characterize  it  fully.  But  one 
thing  has  become  very  clear  in  non- 
objective  painting:  the  ways  in  which  it 
is  being  rendered  are  certainly  not 
monotonous,  and  nearly  all  the  non- 
objective  artists  are  powerful  and  vivid 
individuals.  Each  of  them  may  well 
create  his  own  school.  The  non-objec- 
tive artists  are  advancing  toward  new 
inventions,  toward  analysis  in  the  work 
of  painting,  toward  the  painting  of 
color  (color-painting),  toward  acuity  of 
composition,  and  toward  the  making  of 
monochrome  painting  (Drevin).  .  .  .  ' 

Diary  (1919)' 

January^ 

. . .  0.10. 5  Malevich  discovers 
Suprematism,  but  doesn't  say  anything 
until  the  exhibition.  Wishing  to  ruin 
the  exhibition,  he  managed  to  have  it 
called  "The  last  Futurist  exhibition." 


figure  100.  Works  by  Stepanova  (on  right)  and 
Alexander  Rodchenko  (on  left)  at  the  Nineteenth  State 
Exhibition,  Moscow,  1920. 

Ivan  Puni  and  "Punka"  (Boguslavskaia) 
are  helping  him.1'  Draconian  measures 
are  being  taken  to  prevent  Tatlin  from 
exhibiting  his  reliefs  alongside  their 
works.  The  Moscow  group  (Udaltsova, 
Popova,  Exter)  threatens  to  "back  out" 
unless  the  Petrograd  group  changes 
these  conditions.  The  Petrograd  group 
agrees,  so  Tatlin  delivers  his  reliefs  . . . 
With  Malevich,  the  atmosphere  thick- 
ens. You  feel  that  he  has  discovered 
something,  but  he  says  nothing.  Every 
effort  is  being  made  to  find  out  what 
he's  going  to  call  his  works  .  .  . 

A  gathering  at  Exter's  (chic  hotel 
room,  knickknacks,  she  herself  is 
eccentric  —  constantly  smoking,  fruit, 
pastries):  Udaltsova,  Popova. 
Malevich,  Kliun,  twelve  midnight,  but 
failed  to  find  out  anything  .  .  .  Kliun 
squeaks  on  about  something  and 
Malevich  says  nothing.  Udaltsova  is 
pale.  Exter's  face  has  broken  out, 
Popova's  all  in  stripes. . . .  Malevich 
declares.  "I  have  discovered 
Suprematism,"  and  he  proceeds  to 


335 


DOCumenTS 


»? 


MAPCOBO    no/IE,  Hi  7. 

lOCJIMHflfl 

BblCTHBKA  KftPTHHl 

010 

HOJIbHECflTb) 

cocraai  ysaCTHHHOB'b-iuaiiEi  „TpaMBaH  B", 
50      HMcrnfi     npH6bi/in    B-b    no/ibay    JlaaapeTa  * 

fl-bRTeJieil  McHyccTea. 

B£PHHCCfl>K"b-f9.ro  fteHaopn,  m  I   .  n 

OTHPblTIE— 20-ro  fleHaSpn,  urn  50  -. 

Bi>iieHb  BepHHCcawa  BbicTaBKa  oTKpbiTa  ct»    I 

4  Mac.  aHH  bo  8  sac.  Beq. 

B-b  neHb  OrnpbiTiH  m  nponie  dhm  et  10  4.  no  5  i 

8' um  n  I'll  iqurtw  I  p.  fo  im  injurii  50  I-  laoiir  in  50  HL  nil>fl  30  L 

TpaMBaM:    JfeJVa  I,  2,  3,  12,  15,  22. J 


figure  101.  Anonymous  designer.  Poster  advertising 
vernissage  (December  19. 1915)  and  opening 
(December20. 1915)  oi  the  Last  Futurist  Exhibition  of 
Paintings,  o.w  (Zero-Ten)  at  Nadezhda  Dobychina's Art 
Bureau,  Petrograd.  Courtesy  of  Puni-Archiv.  Zurich. 


explain  .  .  .  Exter  refuses  to  participate 
in  0.70,  since  her  works  are  almost 
non-objective  [anyway]  and  she  does- 
n't want  to  be  in  the  Malevich  group. 

Organizing  0.70:  Tatlinis  nervous, 
curses  at  "Punka,"  hangs  the  works  of 
the  Moscow  group,  and  then  brings  in 
his  reliefs  at  four  in  the  afternoon.  The 
exhibition  opens  at  five.  He  curses  at 
"Punka"  to  keep  her  from  peeking  to 
see  what  he's  carrying  in.  Finally,  the 
room  is  partitioned  off  with  screens, 
but  when  Tatlin  walks  by,  "Punka" 
yelps.  The  Suprematists  want  to  scatter 
Suprematism  throughout  the  exhibi- 
tion and  at  all  costs  to  hang  at  least  part 
[of  their  works]  in  the  "Muscovite" 


room.  That's  why  they  hide  their 
works,  at  first  those  of  Pestel,  then  of 
Vasilieva  M.,7  but  to  no  avail,  since  the 
Muscovites  wouldn't  give  up  their 
room.  Five  o'clock:  the  opening.  Tatlin 
failed  to  hang  his  reliefs  in  time  and  is 
now  up  on  a  ladder  hanging  them  right 
in  front  of  the  public.  The  public 
responds  with  attention  and  interest. 

"Punka"  catches  reporters  at  the 
entrance.  The  result  is  evident  in  the 
newspapers:  Malevich- Puni, 
Malevich- Puni . . . 

Dinner  in  the  Vienna  Restaurant. 
Malevich  and  Tatlin  quarrel,  the 
latter  declaring,  "This  peasant 
[Malevich]  has  insulted  me."  and 
demands  that  their  works  (his, 
Udaltsova's,  Popova's)  be  removed 
from  the  exhibition.  But  Udaltsova  and 
Popova  do  not  give  their  consent,  so 
Tatlin  fumes  and  threatens  to  remove 
his  own  works  himself.  But  he  doesn't. 

By  now  Tatlin's  policy  is  clear  —  he 
wants  to  ruin  o.io,  and  since  the 
Muscovites  have  a  big  room,  the  exhi  - 
bition  would  collapse  if  they  were  to 
remove  their  works. 

Through  this  exhibition,  Malevich 
ruined  the  Futurists  and  Cubists  with 
his  Suprematism  and  by  calling  the 
exhibition  "the  last  one."  o.io  pertains 
to  Suprematism  in  that  it  derives  from 
Malevich's  own  words,  "I've  reached 
the  o  of  form." 

A  debate  rages:  on  one  side,  Tatlin, 
Udaltsova,  and  Popova-,  on  the  other, 
Kliun,  Malevich,  and  Puni ...  In  order 
to  avenge  Malevich,  Popova  hangs  a 
poster  in  her  room  reading  "Room  of 


336 


varvara STepanova 


Professional  Painters"-.  Udaltsova  lends 
a  hand.  Again  a  scandal  breaks  out. 

Throughout  all  these  ups  and 
downs.  Rozanova  landed  in  the  middle, 
neither  on  Malevich's  side  nor  on 
Tatlin's.  She  did  get  a  sinking  feeling. 
as  she  said  herself,  when  she  began 
to  realize  that  Malevich  had  discovered 
something:  but  she  soon  sensed  what 
it  was  all  about  and  hastily  painted 
several  Suprematist  works  for  the 
exhibition. 

Rodchenko  turns  up  (he  hasn"t  met 
Tatlinyet). . . . 

Malevich  appears  at  The  Store'' . . . 
o.io  is  written  on  his  forehead,  and  on 
his  back  is  a  sheet  of  paper  with  the 
declaration  "I  am  an  apostle"  (of  what 
was  not  recorded). 

Tatlin  throws  Malevich  out  of  the 
exhibition,  because  of  the  announce- 
ment [of  it  being  "the  last  one"]  that  he 
has  been  putting  up  everywhere,  and 
because  of  his  promotion  of 
Suprematism  . . .  Malevich  and  Kliun 
take  down  their  works. 

Malevich  flirts  with  Rodchenko. 
About  Rodchenko's  graphic  works.' 
Malevich  says.  "You  yourself  still  don't 
know  what  you're  doing"  . . .  and  draws 
him  over  to  his  side. . . .  He  invites 
Rodchenko  home  to  talk  about 
Suprematism,  and  shows  him  some  of 
the  works  with  small  forms.  Kliun 
invites  Rodchenko  to  participate  in  the 
Jack  of  Diamonds.  Rodchenko  uses  this 
to  get  a  better  handle  on  Tatlin.  who 
had  been  warning  Rodchenko  about 
Malevich.  Tatlin  positively  panicked 
when  he  learned  that  Rodchenko  was 


figure  102.  Varvara  Stepanova.  Rozanova  Dancing. 
1918—19.  collage  and  india  ink  on  cardboard. 
15.5  x  11  cm.  Made  by  Stepanova  for  Alexei 
Kruchenvkh's  plav  dr-dy.  Private  collection. 


being  invited  to  join  the  Jack  of 
Diamonds.  Malevich  did  not  present 
any  Suprematist  works  at  The  Store  — 
thanks  to  Udaltsova.  as  it  turned  out, 
who  insisted  that  Malevich  not  exhibit 
Suprematism  there. . . . 

January  1 1 

It  ah  began  delightfully. 

Drevin  talked  about  Olga 
Rozanova  s  exhibition.  ... 

Opening  today . . .  Drevin  and  I. 
along  with  Strzeminski  (head  of  the 
Exhibition  Bureau)''  set  off  for  the 
exhibition  . . .  Here  we  are.  Kliun  and 
the  boys  are  hanging  up  an  enormous 
black  square  on  a  white  canvas  beneath 
a  sign . . .  Drevin  and  I  become 


337 


DocumenTS 


extremely  indignant.  We  shout  at  the 
guys  not  to  put  it  up,  but  Kliun  shouts 
"Put  it  up!"  At  first  the  guys  were  con- 
fused, but  soon  resumed  working. . . . 

We  come  down  on  Kliun  for 
putting  Malevich's  square  under 
Rozanova['s  name]  .  . .  Kliun  blames 
Malevich  for  everything,  says  that  he 
(Kliun)  has  nothing  to  do  with  [the 
exhibition] ,  and  that  he  is  doing  all  this 
based  on  a  sketch  by  Malevich. 

We  go  in  to  the  exhibition.  Attack 
Strzeminski  and  demand  to  know  how 
he  could  have  allowed  Malevich  to  put 
this  logo  onto  Rozanova['s  sign] .  We 
look  at  the  exhibition.  The  exhibition 
shines,  simply  sings  with  color. 

The  square  has  been  raised  and  is 
about  to  be  nailed  up,  but  it  fits  per- 
fectly into  the  window  of  the  "non- 
objective"  room.  I  get  mad.  Drevin  and 
I  attack  Strzeminski.  and  he  demands 
that  the  square  be  removed  . .  .  Kliun 
runs  to  remove  the  square  . . .  He 
moves  Rozanova's  playing-card  paint- 
ings and  several  other  works  .  .  .  Kliun 
stammers  that  there  are  still  a  few 
other  decorations  for  the  exhibition 
which  he,  Kliun,  had  been  painting  all 
night .  .  . 

We  take  a  look  ...  0,  what  a 
delight!  Malevich  has  brought  in  three 
more  enormous  canvases  with  square 
black  forms  of  colossal  dimensions  . . . 
Bad  language  .  . .  We  protest  that  such 
things  should  not  be  displayed  at  a 
Rozanova  exhibition,  since  she  had 
been  on  the  way  to  smashing  the 
square  . . .  We  demand  that  all  these 
"decorations"  be  left  behind  for 


Malevich ...  It  becomes  apparent  that 
these  "decorations"  might  have  cov- 
ered the  entire  facade  . . . 

We  managed  to  prevent  the  exhibi- 
tion of  "ornaments"  .  .  .  Kliun  whines 
that  he  won't  be  paid  for  his  work  and 
shows  how  his  fingers  had  swollen 
from  the  cold  as  he  painted  them. 

All  worked  up  [over  this  dispute] , 
we  set  off  to  see  Gan. 

Most  disgraceful  is  that  Malevich 
showed  no  one  that  he  was  making 
such  squares  for  Olga  Rozanova.  What 
is  there  in  common  between 
Malevich's  square  and  Rozanova? 

Rozanova  has  what  Malevich 
aspired  to,  and  he  used  her,  as  a 
painter,  for  his  philosophizing.  Color 
in  its  essence  is  paint,  it  is  decoration, 
and  that's  why,  during  the  heyday  of 
Suprematism,  the  enthusiasm  was  for 
applied  art,  and  there  were  numerous 
exhibitions  of  decorative  art.  Thus  at 
one  such  exhibition  Anti'=  said  of 
Malevich's  works  that  here  was  the  real 
sphere  of  Suprematism,  its  alpha  and 
omega,  not  a  Suprematism  of  the  form 
of  the  square,  but  a  Suprematism  of 
color.  Malevich  confuses  color  and  the 
philosophy  of  the  square  in  Suprem- 
atism and  now,  therefore,  wants  to  pin 
Rozanova  to  a  Suprematism  of  the 
square.  Drevin,  too,  understood 
Suprematism  in  this  way.  According  to 
Drevin,  Suprematism  is  like  a  textile, 
and  Malevich  had  created  not  painting 
but  merely  a  new  style.  Malevich  pro- 
vided a  graphic  scheme  or  form  of  the 
square  which,  without  Malevich's 
essays  and  mysticism,  has  no  signifi- 


338 


varvara sTepanova 


cance.  Furthermore,  if  Malevich 
declares  that  he  alone  discovered  the 
square,  then  that  is  nonsense.  Drevin 
painted  with  square  forms  without  ever 
seeing  Malevich's  works  or  even  know- 
ing of  Malevich's  existence.  Then  in 
1915,  when  Malevich  promulgated  the 
square,  both  Kliun  and  Rozanova  con- 
tributed to  the  same  exhibition.  In 
remote  Kazan,  Rodchenko,  too,  with- 
out knowing  anything  about 
Suprematism,  the  square,  or  knowing 
of  Malevich's  existence,  created 
graphic  works  with  square  forms. 
Malevich's  trick  lies  only  in  his  pro- 
mulgation of  the  name.  Who  thought  of 
it  and  how,  I  do  not  know. 

The  square  .  .  .  hung  logically  in  the 
air  and  derived  from  the  cube  .  . . 


figure  io3.  Varvara  Stepanova.  cover  for  the  catalogue 
of  \h.e$%5  =  25  exhibition,  1921.  Gouache  on  paper. 
17.7  x  14  cm.  Private  collection. 


February  ij 

On  the  exhibition  of  the  Young  Leftist 
Federation  of  the  Professional  Union 
of  Artists  and  Painters.  Udaltsova:  a 
great  female  Cubist  artist  in  Russia  and 
good-looking,  too,  like  a  piece  of 
chintz.  She  breaks  up  the  object  along 
vertical  lines  (hence  a  certain  monot- 
ony). Of  course,  Udaltsova  is  quite 
smart  and  won't  let  on.  [Her  work]  is 
displayed  wonderfully.  She  wins 
laurels  and  wants  to  play  a  dirty  trick 
on  Malevich,  since  in  Cubism  he's  just 
a  zero  ["=o"].  Rodchenko  exhibits  old 
works.  Kandinsky  likes  his  earliest 
works,  where  everything  is  done 
to  a  "t"  to  the  extreme.  Gabo  says  of 
him:  "He  has  everything  in  order  to 
paint,  but  he  still  hasn't  begun"  . . . 
Pevsner,  delighted,  says:  "This  guy 


will  showyou,  he'll  go  a  long  away. 
Look!  There's  not  [even]  Suprematism 
here.  That's  amazing!'" 

Kliun  likes  Anti's  texture  in  tem- 
pera. Yes,  he  really  knows  what  tex- 
ture'sail  about. 

Kandinsky  says  that  Anti  is  the 
only  artist  whom  he  likes. 

P.  Kuznetsov  also  likes  Anti.'*  He 
walks  around  all  the  time  expressing 
amazement:  "And  that's  Rodchenko  .  . . 
Yes,  yes ..." 

Rozanova  has  a  certain  dryness. 
This  trait  is  characteristic  of  many 
Russian  artists  (Shevchenko. 
Le-Dantiu).'r> 

The  works  of  Pevzner  and  Drevin 
obviously  made  an  impression  on 
Udaltsova  through  their  primitive 
simplicity. 


339 


DocumenTS 


Artist's  Statement  in  the  Catalogue  of 
the  Exhibition  5x5  =  35  (1921) ' 

In  the  artist's  creativity,  composition  is 
a  contemplative  approach. 

Technology  and  industry  have  con- 
fronted art  with  the  problem  of  CON- 
STRUCTION as  a  dynamic  action  and 
as  contemplative  visuality. 

The  "sacred"  value  of  the  work  [of 
art]  as  something  singular  and  unique 
has  been  eliminated. 

As  the  depository  of  this  "unicum" 
the  museum  turns  into  an  archive. 

Translation  of  figure  99:  "The  New 
Consciousness:  Technology  and  industry. 
Active  action  vs.  contemplation.  Production 
and  making  things.  Temporal,  not  eternal. 
Organization  and  construction.  Movement 
vs.  statics.  Material  conception.  Integration 
of  the  spiritual  and  material  aspects. 
Creation  of  a  new  form.  Coming  into  a 
three-dimensional  perception." 

1.  Varvara  Stepanova,  "0  bespredmetnom 
tvorchestve":  translated  from  the  Russian 
by  I.  Frank  Goodwin.  The  text  is  from  a 
manuscript  in  a  private  collection,  Moscow. 
Stepanova  published  a  similar  essay, 
"Bespredmetnoe  tvorchestvo"  [Non- 
Objective  Creativity],  under  the  pseudonym 
"V.  Agrarykh"  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Tenth 
State  Exhibition:  Non-Objective  Creativity  and 
Suprematism,  Moscow,  1919.  Another  trans- 
lation of  this  text  is  in  LavTentiev  and  Bowlt. 
Stepanova.  p.  170.  For  other  statements  by 
Stepanova  in  English  translation  see  ibid., 
pp.  171-83. 

2.  Anumber  of  the  Suprematists,  particularly 
Ksenia  Boguslavkaia.  Kazimir  Malevich, 
and  Ivan  Puni.  applied  their  Suprematist 
motifs  to  embroideries  for  purses,  scarves, 
belts,  etc.,  contributing  their  designs  to 
exhibitions  such  as  the  Exhibition  of 


Industrial  Art  at  the  Lemercier  Gallery, 
Moscow,  1915,  and  the  Exhibition  of 
Contemporary- Decorative  Art  at  the 
Mikhailova  Salon.  Moscow,  1916—1917. 

3.  Alexander  Davidovich  Drevin  (1889-1938), 
Udaltsova's  husband,  painted  several  mono- 
chrome paintings  in  1921,  each  of  which  he 
titled  Suprematism  or  Painterly-  Composition. 
For  reproductions  of  two  of  these  works,  see 
The  Great  Utopia,  cat.  nos.  255.  256. 

4.  These  are  excerpts  from  the  diary  that 
Stepanova  kept  intermittently  between  1919 
and  1921  and  then  in  1927—28,  and  from  the 
notes  that  she  made  during  the  1930s  and 
194,0s;  translated  from  the  Russian  by  J. 
Frank  Goodwin.  However,  the  most  inter- 
esting entries  are  the  early  ones,  which  doc- 
ument events  crucial  to  the  history  of  the 
Russian  avant-garde:  here  we  read  of  the 
various  responses  to  Malevich's  Suprema- 
tism. to  Olga  Rozanova's  posthumous  exhi- 
bition, and  the  preparations  for  the 
Nineteenth  State  Exhibition,  which  was  the 
first  time  that  Stepanova  showed  her  paint- 
ings publicly.  Extracts  from  the  diaries  have 
been  published  in  various  Russian  and 
German  sources,  including  Alexander 
Lavrentiev  and  Varvara  Rodchenko.  eds., 
Varvara  Stepanova:  Chelovek  ne  mozhetzhit 
bezchuda,  Moscow:  Sfera,  1994,  pp.  202-58 
and  the  catalogues  for  the  exhibitions  Sieben 
Moskauer  Kunstler/Seven  Moscow  Artists  at  the 
Galerie  Gmurzynska,  Cologne,  1984,  pp. 
251-60;  and  Rodschenko-Stepanova  at  the 
Osterreichische  Museum  fur  angewandte 
Kunst,  Vienna,  1991,  pp.  136-41. 

5.  0.10:  The  Last  Futurist  Exhibition  was  pre- 
sented at  Nadezhda  Dobychina's  Art  Bureau 
in  Petrograd  from  December  1915  through 
fanuary  1916. 

6.  According  to  the  catalogue  of  0.10.  Ivan 
Albertovich  Puni  (lean  Pougny,  1894-1956) 
and  Ksenia  Leonidovna  Boguslavskaia 
("Punka,"  1892—1972)  were  the  organizers 
of  the  exhibition.  Boguslavskaia,  in  fact, 
financed  the  enterprise. 


340 


varvara  STepanova 


7.  Vera  Efremova  Pestel  (1883-1952)  and  Figures.  Figure.  Seated  Figure,  andfigure 
Mariia  Ivano\Tia  Vasilieva  (Marie  Vassilieff.  (plate  73). 

1884.-1957)  contributed  four  and  eight 
Cubist  works,  respectively,  to  o.  to. 

8.  Tatlin's  exhibition  The  Store  opened  in 
Moscow  in  1916.  Tatlin  showed  reliefs,  but 
Malevich  was  represented  only  by  pre- 
Suprematist  paintings. 

9.  Rodchenko's  contribution  included  six 
non-objective  ruler-and-compass 
compositions. 

10.  A  reference  to  Rozanovas  posthumous 
exhibition  in  1918  in  Moscow,  i.e..  the  first 
State  Exhibition. 

11.  Avant-garde  Polish  artist  Wladyslaw 
Strzeminsku  (1893-1952)  was  living  in 
Russia  at  this  time. 

12.  Ami  was  the  pseudonym  of  Alexander 
Mikhailovich  Rodchenko  (1890—1956). 
Stepanova's  husband. 

i3.  The  brothers  Naum  Gabo  (pseudonym  of 
Naum  Neemiia  Pevzner.  1890—1977)  and 
Antoine  Pevsner  (pseudonym  of  Noton 
Pevzner.  1886—1962)  were  responsible  for 
the  Realisticheskii  manifest  (Realist 
manifesto) .  which  they  published  in  Moscow 
in  1920. 

14.  Pavel  Varfomoleevich  Kuznetsov 
(1878-1968)  had  been  leader  of  the 
Symbolist  Blue  Rose  group  in  the  early 
1900s.  By  this  time,  he  was  painting  mainly 
Kirghizian  scenes. 

15.  Alexander Vasilievich  Shevehenko 
(1882-1948)  and  Mikhail  Vasilievich  Le- 
Dantiu  (1891-1917)  had  been  close  to 
Larionov  before  the  Revolution,  investigat- 
ing Neo-Primitivism.  Cubism,  and 
Rayonism. 

16.  Varst  (i.e..  Varvara  Stepanova).  untitled 
statement  in  the  catalogue  (unpaginated)  of 
the  exhibitionj  jj  =  25.  held  at  the  All - 
Russian  Writers  Club.  Moscow,  in 
September  1921:  translated  from  the 
Russian  by  John  E.  Bowlt. 

Stepanova  contributed  five  works  to  the 
exhibition:  Figure  (Peasant)  (plate  72).  Two 


341 


vv 


■X. 


ILWA  ttGg 


SlVctL/ 


t  { 


V 


/' 


■h  Pc 


"(Lett 


UJfy  /(U&O     ■p^uQtJ    s,7 


• 


figure  104.  Handwritten  letter  from  Udaltsova  to  Alexander  Rodchenko.  1919. 
Private  collection.  (Translation  on  page  347.) 


naDezHDa 
UDaursova 


Extract  from  Diary  (1914)1 
Febru  a  ry  17 

Picasso  is  a  classic.  He  has  a  classical 
understanding  of  planes  and  space. 

My  Recollections:  My  Life  in  .Art 
(early  19.30s) 

...  In  November  1912. 1  went  to  Paris 
with  Liuhov  Popova.  Sofia  Karetnikova 
and  Vera  Pestel  also  traveled  with 
us.  although  they  soon  returned  to 
Moscow.  After  looking  around.  Popova 
and  I  began  to  search  for  a  studio. 

Our  intention  had  been  to  work 
with  Matisse,  but  his  school  was 
already  closed,  so  we  went  over  to 
Maurice  Denis's  studio.  But  there  we 
ran  into  a  Red  Indian  with  feathers  sit- 
ting against  a  red  background  and  we 
ran  away.  Someone  then  told  us  about 
La  Palette,  the  studio  of  Le  Fauconnier. 
We  went  there  and  immediatelv 
decided  that  it  was  what  we  wanted. 

. . .  Le  Fauconnier.  Metzinger.  and 
Segonzac  used  to  visit  the  studio  once  a 
week.  Le  Fauconnier  offered  pictorial 
solutions  for  the  canvas,  while 
Metzinger  spoke  of  Picasso's  latest 
accomplishments.  That  was  still  the 
time  of  classical  Cubism  without  all  the 
vie  banale  [ordinary  life]  —  which  first 
appeared  in  the  form  of  wallpaper  and 
appliques  in  the  works  of  Braque. 


Le  Fauconnier  was  a  ferocious  expert, 
and  many  a  student  trembled  before 
the  canvas.  Both  Le  Fauconnier  and 
Metzinger  responded  positively  to  my 
works,  and  I  was  so  happv  when 
Metzinger  told  me  two  weeks  later. 
"Vous  avez  fait  le  progres  extraordi- 
naire" ['You  have  made  extraordinary 
progress"] .  How  the  students  looked 
at  me! 

. . .  A  year  of  life  with  only  art.  and 
[living]  in  isolation,  turned  me  into  a 
conscious  artist  and  a  real  individual. 
For  the  first  time  I  now  sensed  my  own 
"  I . "  I  n  mv  diary  for  that  year.  I  wrote 
that  Cubism  was  only  a  school  for  me. 
not  a  goal.  I  fully  appreciated  the  extra- 
ordinary nature  of  Cubist  achieve- 
ments  in  painting—  and  it  was  not  the 
decorative  aspect  that  attracted  me. 
but  rather  the  severity  of  its  construc- 
tion and  the  severe  laws  of  painting 
itself. . .  Oddlv  enough,  after  working 
through  a  season  in  Paris.  I  felt  that  I 
just  had  to  leave,  that  I  could  work  only 
in  mv  own  countrv.  I  felt  the  need  to 
hide  away  and  not  see  anything  else. 

Letter  from  Liubov  Popova  to 
Nadezhda  Ldaltsova 
(Paris.  March 3  1913) - 

Dear  Nadezhda  Andreevna. 

Thank  you  for  the  letter.  There's  a  lot  I 


3+3 


DocumenTS 


figure  105.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  Study  for  a  Restaurant 
Table.  1914.  pencil  on  paper.  Private  collection. 

need  to  tell  you  and  my  head  is  simply 
reeling,  but  at  least  I  can  mention  the 
important  news.  I  saw  the  new  Pieassos 
at  Uhde's  and  Kahnweiler's  (I  sent  you 
Violin  and  Portrait  with  a  Violin,  only  I 
wasn't  sure  if  I  had  sent  you  the  right 
ones,  since  you  did  not  indicate  in  your 
letter  which  of  them  you  received). 
They  are  uncommonly  good.  I  think 
that  they  are  even  more  essential  than 
the  period  of  precise  form  that  we  all 
like  so  much  (although  that,  too,  of 
course,  is  amazing) .  Man  with  a  Guitar 
(I  sent  this  to  you)  at  Uhde's  is  a  very 
large  work.  I've  never  seen  anything 
with  such  a  diversity  of  planes  and 
formal  balance.  As  for  its  colors,  the 
marble  is  green  and  painted  photo- 
graphically, while  the  rest  consists  of 
well-defined  white,  black,  and  an 
entire  spectrum  of  grays. 


Letter  from  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  to 
Olga  Rozanova  (1917)3 

Olga  Vladimirovna, 

You  asked  me  my  opinion  about  French 

art  and  also  expressed  your  own  view 

that  Russian  artists  are  less  aesthetic, 

that  their  textures  are  firmer,  and 

their  colors  stronger.  I  agree  with  you 

completely. 

As  for  the  French,  you  sense  their 
so-called  "culture  of  successive  tradi- 
tion," as  we  say.  That's  true,  but  the 
same  culture  also  contributes  an  ele- 
ment of  disintegration  (into  subtlety, 
prettiness,  and  a  technique  that  is 
skillful,  but  may  only  be  superficial). 

Essentially.  I  just  don't  understand 
this  constant  reference  to  the  great 
culture  of  successive  tradition.  Does 
the  very  definition  of  art  not  lie.  in  fact, 
within  the  concept  of  culture?  Does 
there  really  exist  an  uncultured  art?  Art 
is  a  phenomenon  of  culture,  whether 
young  or  old,  it  doesn't  matter.  "We  try- 
to  understand  both  the  primitive  art 
of  a  savage  with  a  bare  minimum  of 
culture  and  the  refined  art  of  a  Cubist 
from  the  standpoint  of  art.  Art  is 
possible  only  for  those  peoples  who 
have  the  power  to  create  and  renew 
[their  art]  through  a  knowledge  of 
other  cultures. 

Even  after  receiving  a  fresh  influx 
of  forms  from  the  art  of  other  cultures 
(Japan.  Impressionism,  the  East, 
Matisse,  the  African  works  of  Picasso) , 
much  of  French  art  retains  an  awful 
proclivity  to  depersonalize  the  forms  of 
other  cultures  and  affix  the  stamp  of 
sickliness  upon  them.  ... 


344 


naDezHDa  iiDai/rsova 


In  my  view  it's  time  to  oppose 
[French  art]  with  a  different  art.  an  art 
based  on  the  principle  of  pure  paint- 
ing, painting  as  an  end  in  itself,  which 
will  generate  not  profound  changes  in 
the  human  soul,  but  canvases  in  which 
the  artist  will  demonstrate  the  clear 
and  simple  laws  of  pure  color  and  pure 
form  with  inexorable  clarity. 

If  the  Futurists  have  called  for  a 
healthy  life  and  have  been  dreaming  of 
cultivating  a  strong  and  healthy  soul, 
then  let  us  produce  a  strong  and 
healthy  art.  There  has  been  enough 
cultivated  thought  from  the  big  city, 
enough  gloomy  iron  from  the  factory 
and  the  train  station.  We  have  demon- 
strated that  the  steam  engine  and  the 
automobile  are  just  as  wonderful  as 
nature  and  man,  but  we  do  not  wish  to 
imitate  these  forms  that  already  exist. 

To  create  something  out  of  iron 
and  wood  for  us  is  the  same  as  painting 
a  sunny  landscape  or  a  portrait  of  a  girl. 

If  artists  wish  to  imitate  forms  that 
already  exist,  then  let  them  do  so.  We 
say  that  art  should  be  free  and  an  end 
in  itself. 

We  shall  create  things  in  our  work 
no  less  expediently  than  the  artists  of 
the  other  kind  of  creativity  —  those  who 
work  with  technology. 

Extract  from  Diary:  The  o.io 
Exhibition  (1915) 

December  6 

Tatlin  has  left.  Doesn't  write. 

December  ly 

So  we've  had  the  inauguration  of  the 


exhibition  and  I  think  people  approve 
of  me,  but  I  feel  like  leaving,  going  off 
again  alone  and  working.  I  didn't 
expect  such  a  success  from  this  group 
of  young  people. 

December  so 

I'm  very  glad  no  vanity  lies  within  me, 
that  yesterday's  success  remained  out- 
side of  me.  and.  I  suppose,  has  only 
driven  me  to  bring  my  own  tasks  into 
even  higher  and  clearer  relief  —  and 
that's  why  I'm  pleased.  Just  my  own 
tasks. 

December  37 

...  I  stopped  by.  Tatlin  was  waiting.  He 
apologized,  kissed  my  hands  and  a  rec- 
onciliation took  place.  All  the  same, 
it's  true,  I  do  need  to  be  more  inde- 
pendent. 

Extract  from  Diary  (1916) 

November^ 

I've  suddenly  become  interested  in 

decorative  designs  and  in  Malevich. 

December  8 

.  .  .  Pure  forms  fly  in  pure,  cold  space. 
They  are  thrown  into  a  headlong  race, 
colliding,  separating,  or.  through  their 
inner  dynamism,  revealing  the  static 
development  of  color.  Form-color.  The 
composition  of  color  relationships. 

Letter  from  Nadezhda  Udaltsova  to 
Kazimir  Malevich  (1917?) 

Kazimir  Severinovich. 

[I've  had]  many  new  thoughts  about  our 

art  recently  and  I  see  new  possibilities. 


345 


Documents 


figure  106.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova.  Untitled.  1916. 
Gouache  on  paper,  34.5  x  25  cm.  Private  collection. 

Just  as  nine  years  ago  the  first  form 
appeared  and  created  the  great  art  of 
Cubism,  so  now  the  new  painterly  form 
has  become  a  reality  and  is  creating  a 
new  art.  It  is  already  establishing  a  new 
technique  and  a  new  understanding  of 
color.  It  is  revealing  the  characteristics 
of  color.  Our  new  art  will  be  built  on 
these  new  laws  and  we  will  tell  about 
this  new  art  simply  and  clearly  in  our 
paintings  and  our  articles. 

Cezanne  once  said  that  everything 
is  built  with  the  geometric  forms  of 
volume  .We  can  say  that  everything  is 
built  with  geometric  forms.  We  know 
the  qualities  of  the  colors  of  paints, 
their  depth  and  intensity.  We  could 
compile  a  mathematical  table  of  the 
relations  between  this  and  that  color. 


The  material  we  work  with  is  paint, 
and  it  is  only  from  paint  that  we  will 
create  a  new  world  of  reality. 

Nadezhda  Udaltsova:  Article  for 
Supremus(i9i7) 

A)  If  the  Cubists  studied  the  forms  of 
things  and  looked  for  their  volume;  if 
the  Futurists,  crazy  about  swift  move- 
ment, aspired  to  convey  this  movement 
as  reality-,  if  artists  who  are  chained  by 
love  to  their  material  made  things  of 
iron  and  wood  or  imitated  them  in 
painting  and  pasted  together  paper  and 
cardboard,  then  artists  of  today  have 
arrived  at  the  fundamental  basis  of 
painting:  color  (color-painting). 

Color  determines  form. 

From  within  color  reveals  one  of 
its  distinctive  characteristics:  its 
depth,  its  weight. 

Henceforth,  the  artist  will  not 
strive  to  transform  a  given  form  of 
nature  so  as  to  create  a  wonderful  aes- 
thetic work;  rather,  he  will  go  to  the 
foundation  of  the  art  of  painting:  color. 
He  will  produce  new  forms  that  have 
not  yet  appeared  within  nature,  but 
that  originate  within  the  consciousness 
of  the  artist.  This  is  not  the  study  of  the 
forms  of  nature  in  the  light  of  this  or 
that  painterly  idea. 

Nature  may  enter  only  as  a  stimu- 
lus to  this  or  that  correlation  of  colors 
and  abstract  forms. 

The  world  as  a  result  of  sensory 
perception  is  a  falsehood.  Art  that  is 
constructed  on  the  basis  of  sensory 
perception  confirms  this  falsehood. 
Abstract  thought  can  penetrate 


346 


naoezHDa  uDai/rsova 


beyond  the  limits  of  the  sensory  world. 

An  abstract  form  of  consciousness 
can  also  penetrate  beyond  those  limits. 

"The  forms  of  our  consciousness 
evoked  through  the  medium  of  expres- 
sion evolve  continuously.  In  addition 
to  the  forms  we  know,  new  forms 
should  arise."  They  arise  within  life;  all 
the  forms  of  technique  are  summoned 
to  life  by  necessity. 

Art  searches  for  them  persistently. 

Cubism  broke  up  the  object  and 
Futurism  smashed  it,  while 
Suprematism  generates  a  completely 
abstract  form  of  viewer  perception. 

The  Suprematist  form  is  con- 
firmed by  the  necessity  of  its  pictorial 
existence  on  a  given  canvas.  In  this 
way,  a  concrete  life  is  created,  a  life 
more  affirmative  than  anything  else, 
than  all  the  living  and  dead  forms  of 
nature.  These  forms  change  in  per- 
spective, according  to  light  or  the 
influence  of  the  atmosphere  and  sur- 
rounding forms,  and  only  the  individ- 
ual desire  of  the  artist  will  show  them 
on  the  canvas  in  this  or  that  aspect. . . . 

B)  Art  gives  new  forms  to  life;  or, 
more  precisely,  as  a  more  sensitive  work 
of  creativity,  it  designs  new  forms  of  life. 

Futurism,  now  obsolete  in  art,  has 
entered  life. 

After  first  discovering  new  forms 
of  dynamism,  the  Futurists  were  struck 
by  the  beauty  of  a  new  form  and  strove 
to  convey  it  in  their  canvases.  We  who 
have  experienced  the  pleasure  of  pass- 
ing through  these  forms  can  look  back 
calmly  and  now  create  a  new  art:  we 
have  a  presentiment  of  a  new  form  of 


life  based  not  on  tremor  and  excite- 
ment before  the  machine  and  technol- 
ogy, but  on  the  calm  application  of 
these  factors  of  life  and  on  the  free  cre- 
ative work  of  the  human  soul  liberated 
from  the  slavery  of  property. 

For  us,  for  our  spirit,  airplanes  are 
no  different  than  the  automobile  or 
the  cart,  for  they  are  already  forms  of 
the  everyday. 

Unrestrained  by  the  rapture  of  the 
moment,  our  spirit  calmly  subordi- 
nates all  forms  of  human  creation.  We 
are  not  carried  away  with  delight  before 
a  newly  discovered  form  of  technology, 
for  our  free  spirit,  in  its  own  creative 
work,  rises  to  infinity. 


Translation  of  figure  104.:  Alexander 
Mikhailovich.  1  went  to  the  Proletkult. 
What  I  found  out  is  that  the  sketch  has 
to  be  finished  by  today.  Drop  by.  I'll  be 
in  Proletkult  until  three  o'clock. 
N.  Udaltsova. 

1.  The  following  excerpts  are  from  the  manu- 
scripts in  the  Drevin-Udaltsova  Archive  in 
Moscow.  "My  Recollections:  My  Life  in  Art" 
and  the  1915-16  diary  entries  are  taken 
from  Ekaterina  Drevina  and  Vasilii  Rakitin. 
Nadezhda  Udaltsova:  Zhizn  russkoi  kubistki. 
Dnevniki,  stati,  vospominaniia  (Moscow: 
RA,  1994),  pp.  9~i4,  28-4,2;  translated 
from  the  Russian  by  J.  Frank  Goodwin. 

2.  The  manuscript  of  this  letter  is  in  the 
Drevin-Udaltsova  Archive,  Moscow. 

3.  Udaltsova  intended  to  publish  this  letter 
(and  her  letter  to  Malevich  below)  in 
Supremus.  Copies  of  the  letters  are  in  a  pri- 
vate collection  in  St.  Petersburg  and  in  the 
Archive  of  the  Khardzhiev-Chaga  Culhiral 
Foundation,  Amsterdam  (inv.  no.  KAZ-2). 


347 


list  of  piaTes 


The  following  list  of  plates,  prepared  as  this  book 
was  going  to  press,  contains  information  that,  in 
some  cases,  differs  from  that  found  in  the  catalogue 
section.  In  the  case  of  discrepancies,  it  is  the  infor- 
mation below  that  prevails,  reflecting  scholarly 
discoveries  made  in  the  course  of  preparations  for 
this  exhibition. 

Information  about  the  provenance  and  exhibition 
history  of  the  works  has  been  supplied  by  the  fol- 
lowing individuals:  Liudmila  Bobrovskaia 
(Alexandra  Exter  and  Nadezhda  Udaltsova) ,  Nina 
Gurianova  and  Faina  Balakhovskaia  (Olga 
Rozanova) ,  Alexander  Lavrentiev  and  Tatiana 
Mikhienko  (Varvara  Stepanova),  and  Alia  Lukanova 
(Natalia  Goncharova  and  Liubov  Popova) . 

Provenance.  Gaps  in  chronology  and  ownership  still 
persist.  Much  research  has  yet  to  be  done  on  the 
issues  of  itinerary  and  ownership  of  works  by  the 
artists  of  the  Russian  avant-garde. 

Exhibitions.  While  many  of  the  works  listed  below 
continue  to  be  included  in  public  exhibitions,  only 
major  venues  of  the  1910s  and  early  1920s  have  been 
listed  here.  The  following  abbreviations  have  been 
used: 

1911.  Moscow,/ac/ro/ Diamonds  -.Jack  of Diamonds, 
Levisson  Building,  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka,  Moscow, 
December  1910— January  1911 

1913.  Moscow,  Donkey's  Tail:  Donkey's  Tail,  Institute 
of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture,  Moscow, 
March-April  1912 

1912.  Moscow,  Union  of  Youth:  Union  of  Youth, 
Institute  of  Painting,  Sculpture,  and  Architecture, 
Moscow.  March— April  1912 

1912.  St.  Petersburg,  Union  ofYouth:  Union  ofYouth, 
73  Nevskii  Prospect,  St.  Petersburg, 
January-February  1912 

1912-13.  St  Petersburg,  Union  ofYouth:  Union  of 
Youth,  73  Nevskii  Prospect,  St.  Petersburg, 
December  1912-January  1913 

1913— 14.  St.  Petersburg,  Union  ofYouth-.  Union  of 
Youth,  73  Nevskii  Prospect,  St.  Petersburg. 
November  1913- January  1914, 

1913.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds-,  fack  of  Diamonds, 
Art  Salon,  1 1  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka.  Moscow, 
February-March  1913 


1913.  Moscow,  Target-.  Target,  Art  Salon,  11  Bolshaia 

Dmitrovka,  Moscow,  March— April  1913 

igi3.  St.  Petersburg,  Jack  of 'Diamonds -Jack  of 
Diamonds,  St.  Petersburg,  April  1913 

1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova-.  Exhibition  of  Paintings  by 
Natalia Sergeevna  Goncharova,  1900—1913,  Art  Salon, 
11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka,  Moscow.  August— October 
1913 

1914.  Kiev,  Ring-.  Ring,  House  of  Ilia  Kalf  on  the 
Kreshchatik  Boulevard,  Kiev,  February  23-March 
1914 

1914.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds-.  Jack  of  Diamonds, 
Art  Salon,  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka,  Moscow,  February 
1914 

1914.  St.  Peterburg,  Goncharova-.  Exhibition  of 
Paintings  by  Natalia  Sergeevna  Goncharova,  1900—1913 
at  the  Dobychina  Bureau,  63  Moika,  St.  Petersburg, 
March-April  1914. 

1914.  Moscow,  Wo.  <f:No.  4,  Levisson  Building,  11 
Bolshaia  Dmitrovka,  Moscow,  March-April  1914 

1914.  Paris,  Guillaume-.  Exposition  Natalia  de 
Gontcharova  et  Michel  Lahonov,  Galerie  Paul 
Guillaume,  Paris.  June  1914. 

1915.  Petrograd,  TramwayV:  TramwayV,  Imperial 
Society  for  the  Encouragement  of  the  Arts, 
Petrograd.  March-April  1915 

1915.  Moscow.  Exhibition  of  Painting:  Exhibition  of 
Painting,  1915,  Art  Salon.  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka, 

March— May,  Moscow,  1915 

1915.  Petrograd,  0. 10.  -.o.w.  The  Last  Futurist 
Exhibition.  Dobychina  Bureau,  Petrograd, 
December  1915— January  1916 

1916.  Moscow,  The  Store-.  The  Store,  Petrovka, 
Moscow,  March  1916 

1916.  Moscow, /act  of  Diamonds-.  Jack  of  Diamonds, 
Art  Salon,  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka.  Moscow, 
November-December  1916 

1917.  Moscow,  fack  of  Diamonds-.  Jack  of  Diamonds, 
Art  Salon,  11  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka,  Moscow, 
November-December  1917 


348 


list  of  piaTes 


1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition-.  First  State 
Exhibition.  Posthumous  Exhibition  of  Paintings, 
Studies,  Sketches,  and  Drawings  by  0.  V.  Rozanova.  Art 
Salon,  Moscow.  December  1918 

1919.  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition-.  Tenth  State 
Exhibition.  Non-Objective  Creativity  and  Suprematism, 
Art  Salon.  Moscow,  April  1919 

1920.  Kazan,  First  State  Exhibition-.  First  State 
Exhibition  of  Art  and  Science  in  Kazan  organized  by  the 
Political  Section  of  the  Reserve  Army,  the  Kazan 
Gubernatorial  Department  of  Popular  Education,  and 
the  Kazan  Sub-Section  of  the  All- Russian  Collegiate  for 
Museums  and  the  Preservation  of  Monuments  of  An  and 
Antiquity,  Kazan,  1920 

1920.  Moscow,  Nineteenth  State  Exhibition-. 
Nineteenth  State  Exhibition .  Bolshaia  Dmitrovka  11. 
October  2-Deceniber  4, 1920 

1921.  Moscow.  5x5  =  25:515  =  25.  Club  of  the  All- 
Russian  Union  of  Poets  Moscow,  September  and 
October  1921  (two  sessions) 

1922.  Berlin,  Erste  russische  Kunstausstellung-.  Erste 
russische  Kunstausstellung ,  Galerie  Van  Diemen, 
Berlin,  October— November  1922 

1924.  Moscow.  Popova-.  Posthumous  Exhibition  of  the 
Artist -Constructor.  L.  S.  Popova,  1889-1924,  Museum 
of  Painterly  Culture  (formerly  the  Central  Stroganov 
Industrial  Art  Institute),  Moscow,  December  1924 


aiexanDra  exxer 

1.  The  Bridge  (Sevres),  1912 

Oil  on  canvas.  145  x  115  cm 

National  Art  Museum  of  Ukraine.  Kiev 

Provenance:  State  Museum  of  Russian  Art.  Kiev; 

State  Museum  of  Ukrainian  Visual  Art.  Kiev 

(National  Art  Museum  of  Ukraine,  Kiev)  (1936) 

Inv.  ZhS-045 

Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow.  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(cat.  no.  182) 

1913.  St.  Petersburg.  Jack  of  Diamonds  (cat.  no.  404) 


2.  Composition  (Genoa),  1912-14 
Oil  on  canvas.  115.5  x  ^-5  cm 
Museum  Ludwig.  Cologne 

Provenance:  Alisa  Koonen.  Moscow; 

George  CostaMs.  Moscow; 

Galerie  Gmurzynska.  Cologne; 

Museum  Ludwig.  Cologne  (1981)  Inv.  Mi338 

Exhibitions:  1914.  Moscow .  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(cat.  no.  187  or  192) 

3.  City,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas.  88.5  x  -0.5  cm 
Regional  Picture  Gallery.  Vologda 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow. 

Vologda  Museum  of  Local  Lore.  (1927); 

Regional  Picture  Gallery,  Vologda,  (1970) 

Inv.  Zh-614 

Exhibitions:  Possibly  at  1913.  St.  Petersburg. 

Union  of  Youth  (cat.  no.  161) 

Possibly  at  1914.  Moscow.  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(cat.  no.  188) 

1914.  Kiev,  Ring  (cat.  no.  14) 

Possibly  at  1914.  Moscow,  No.  4  (cat.  no.  284) 
Possibly  at  1915.  Petrograd,  Tramway  V {cat.  no.  84) 
1922.  Berlin,  £rste  russische  Kunstausstellung 
(cat.  no.  32) 

4.  Still  Life.  ca.  1913 

Collage  and  oil  on  canvas.  68  x  53  cm 
MuseoThyssen-Bornemisza.  Madrid 

Provenance:  Simon  Lissim,  New  York; 

Leonard  Hutton  Galeries,  New  York  (1968) ; 

Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection,  Lugano  (1973); 

MuseoThvssen-Bornemisza.  Madrid. 

Inv.  540(1973.26) 

Exhibitions:  1914-  Moscow.  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(cat.  no.  193) 

1915.  Petrograd.  Tramway  V (cat.  no.  86.  87.  or  89) 

5.  Still  Life.  Bowl  of  Cherries,  1914 
Oil  on  canvas,  89  x  72  cm 

Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP: 

Museum  of  Architecture  and  Art,  Rostov - 

Yaroslavskn 

(as  of  1998  Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve) 

(1922).  Inv.  Zh- 142 

Exhibitions:  1915-  Petrograd,  TramwayV 

(cat.  no.  86.  87,  or  89) 


349 


LIST  of  PLaTes 


6.  Composition,  1914 

Oil  on  canvas,  90.7  x  72.5  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 
Gift,  George  Costakis 

Provenance:  Private  collection,  Moscow; 
George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Galleiy,  Moscow  (1977),  Inv.  46984 
Exhibitions:  Possibly  at  1915.  Petrograd, 
Tramway  V (cat  no.  81,  as  Paris  Boulevards  in  the 
Evening ) 

7.  Venice,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  123  x  97  cm 
Moderna  Museet,  Stockholm 

Provenance:  Henschen  Collection,  Stockholm; 

Moderna  Museet,  Stockholm  (1980) 

Inv.  MOM(i73) 

Exhibitions:  1922;-  Berlin,  Erste  russische 

Kunstausstellung  (cat.  no.  33) 

8.  Cityscape  (Composition),  ca.  1916 
Oil  on  canvas,  117  x88  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow; 
Slobodskoi  Museum  of  Local  Lore,  Slobodskoi 
(as  of  1998  Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition 
Center)  (1919—20),  Inv.  SMK-995/54 
Exhibitions:  Exhibition  of  Contemporary  Russian 
Painting,  Dobychina  Bureau,  63  Moika.  Petrograd, 
1916-17  (within  cat.  nos.  284-88) 

9.  Non- Objective  Composition,  1917 
Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  53  cm 

Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art  Museum 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow; 

Kuban  Art  Museum,  Krasnodar; 

(as  of  1940  Krasnodar  District  Lunacharsky 

Art  Museum;  Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art 

Museum,  1927),  Inv.  Zh-359 

Exhibition:  1922.  Berlin,  £rste  russische 

Kunstausstellung  (cat.  no.  34) 


1  0 .  Composition.  Movement  of  Planes,  1917—18 
Oil  on  canvas,  92.5x76.9  cm 

State  Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Nizhnii  Tagil 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow; 

Museum  of  Local  Lore,  Nizhnii  Tagil 

(as  of  1967  State  Museum  of  Visual  Arts, 

Nizhnii  Tagil)  (1927),  Inv.  Zh-485 

Exhibition:  XIV  Esposizwne  internazwnale  d  'Arte  delta 

cittadi  Venezia,  Venice,  1924  (cat.  no.  3i  or  32) 

11.  Construction  of  Color  Planes ,  1921 
Oil  on  canvas,  89  x  89  cm 

State  Radischev  Art  Museum,  Saratov 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow; 

State  Radishchev  Art  Museum.  Saratov  (1929) 

Inv.  Zh- 685 

Exhibition-. XIV Esposizione  internazwnale  d'Arte  della 

cittadi  Venezia,  Venice,  1924  (cat.  no.  3o) 

12.  Construction,  1922— 23 
OH  on  canvas,  89.8  x  89.2  cm 

The  Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York. 

The  Riklis  Collection  of  McCrory  Corporation 

(partial  gift) 

Provenance:  The  Riklis  Collection  of  McCrory 
Corporation,  The  Museum  of  Modern  Art  (1983) 


naTaLia  GoncHarova 

1  3 .  Self  -  Portrait  with  Yellow  Lilies,  1907 
Oil  on  canvas,  77x58.2  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Moscow  Soviet  Depository  of  Works 
of  Contemporary  Art  (until  mid-i92os); 
Acquired  by  the  State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow, 
from  the  artist  in  through  the  mediation  of 
LevZhegin  (1927),  Inv.  8965 
Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova 
(cat.  no.  339) 

14.  Mowers,  1907—08 

Oil  on  canvas,  98x118  cm 

Private  Collection,  Courtesy  Gallery  Gmurzynska, 

Cologne 

Provenance:  Private  collection,  Cologne 
Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova 
(cat.  no.  554?) 
1914.  Paris,  Gudlaume  (cat.  no.  54) 


350 


LIST  of  PLaTes 


15.  Pillars  of  Salt,  1908 

Oil  on  canvas.  80.5  x  96  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


18. Sabbath,  1912 

Oil  on  canvas,  i3?-5  x  118  cm 

State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  ofTatarstan,  Kazan 


Provenance: 

Moscow  Soviet  Depository  of  Works  of 

Contemporary  Art  (until  mid-i920s); 

Artist's  studio,  Paris  (after  1928); 

Alexandra  Tomilina  (1964.); 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1988) 

Inv.Zh-1579.  P-74159 

Exhibitions:  Probably  at  Goncharova's  One-day 

Exhibition,  Society  of  Free  Esthetics.  15  Bolshaia 

Dmitrovka.  Moscow,  24  March.  1910 

1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  441) 

1914.  St.  Petersburg,  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  49) 


16 .  Apocalypse  (Elder  with  Seven  Stars) ,  1910 
Oil  on  canvas,  147  x  188  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Moscow  Soviet  Depository  of  Works  of 

Contemporary  Art  (until  mid-i920s); 

Artist's  studio,  Paris  (after  1928); 

Alexandra  Tomilina  (1964): 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1988). 

Inv.  Zh-1585 

Exhibitions:  1914.  St.  Petersburg,  Goncharova 

(cat.  no.  249) 

17.  The  Evangelists  (in  Four  Parts),  1911 

1)  In  Blue-.  2)  In  Red-.  3)  In  Gray-,  4)  In  Green 
Oil  on  canvas,  204  x  58  cm  each 
State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 

Provenance:  Moscow  Soviet  Depository  of  Works  of 

Contemporary  Art  (until  mid-i92os); 

Artist's  studio.  Paris  (late  1920s): 

Alexandra  Tomilina  (1964); 

State  Russian  Museum,  Leningrad  (1966), 

inv.Zh-8i83-86 

Exhibitions:  1914.  St.  Petersburg,  Goncharova 

(cat.  no.  247). 


Provenance:  State  Art  Fund.  Moscow  (1919); 
Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP  (1920); 
State  Museum  of  the  Tatar  Soviet  Republic,  Kazan 
(as  of  1962  State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  of 
Tatarstan,  Kazan)  (1920).  Inv.  Zh-772 
Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow.  Target  (cat.  no.  34) 

1913.  Moscow.  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  605) 

1914.  St.  Petersburg.  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  91. 159. 
or  161) 

1920.  Kazan.  First  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  27) 

19.  Peasants  Gathering  Grapes,  1912 
Oil  on  canvas.  145  x  i3o  cm 

State  Art  Museum  of  Bashkkortostan,  Ufa 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow  (1919); 

Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP  (1920); 

State  Art  Museum  of  Bashkkortostan,  Ufa  (1920) 

Inv.Zh-1438 

Exhibitions:  1912-  Moscow,  Donkey's  Tail 

(cat.  no.  34) 

1913.  Moscow.  Goncharova  (possibly  cat.  no.  753) 

1914.  St.  Petersburg,  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  i3o). 

20.  Electric  Lamp,  igi3 

Oil  on  canvas,  125  x81.5  cm 
Centre  Georges  Pompidou, 

Musee  national  d'art  moderne.  Paris 

Provenance:  Galene  Der  Sturm.  Berlin  (1914); 

Artist's  Studio,  Paris  (1918)-. 

Alexandra Tomilna.  Paris  (1964); 

Musee  National  d'Art  Moderne,  Paris  (1966) 

Inv.AM435BP 

Exhibitions:  1914.  Moscow,  No.  4  (cat.  no.  39  or  51) 

21.  The  Weaver  (Loom  +  Woman).  1912—13 
Oil  on  canvas.  153. 3  x  99  cm 
National  Museum  and  Gallery.  Cardiff 

Provenance:  Mikhail  Larionov; 

Sotheby's  London  (1964): 

Rogers  Collection  (1964): 

Grosvenor  Gallery.  London  (1972); 

National  Museum  and  Gallery,  Cardiff  (1975) 

Inv.  A  2056 

Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow.  Goncharova 

(cat.  no.  765) 

1914.  Paris,  Guillaume  (cat.  no.  35) 


351 


LIST  of  PLaTes 


^.Airplane  over  a  Train,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  55  x  83-5  cm 

State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  of  Tatarstan,  Kazan 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow  (1919); 

Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP  (1920); 

State  Museum  of  the  Tatar  Soviet  Republic,  Kazan 

(State  Museum  of  the  Visual  Arts  of  Tatarstan, 

Kazan)  (1920),  Inv.  Zh-1243 

Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova 

(cat.  no.  632) 

1914.  St.  Petersburg,  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  29) 

Kazan  (cat.  no.  28) 

2,3.  Rayist  Lilies,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  91x75.4  cm 

State  Picture  Gallery,  Perm 

Provenance:  State  Art  Fund,  Moscow  (1919); 

Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow  (1920); 

Museum  of  Local  Lore  of  the  City  of  Ekaterinburg 

(1920); 

(as  of  1920  Regional  Museum  of  Local  Lore, 

Sverdlov), 

State  Picture  Gallery,  Perm  (1935).  Inv.  Zh-538 

Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow,  Target  (cat.  no.  45) 

1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  633) 


26.  Emptiness,  igi3 

Mixed  media  on  canvas,  80x106  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Moscow  Soviet  Depository  of  Works  of 

Contemporary  Art  (until  mid -1920s); 

Artist's  studio.  Paris  (after  1928): 

Alexandra Tomilina  (1964); 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1988), 

Inv.  Zh-1543 

Exhibitions:  1914.  Moscow,  No.  4,  (cat.  no.  51) 

27.  Composition,  1913—14 

Oil  on  canvas,  103.5  x  97-2  cm 

Centre  Georges  Pompidou, 

Musee  national  dart  moderne,  Paris 

Provenance:  Moscow  Soviet  Depository  of  Works  of 

Contemporary  Art  (until  mid-i920s); 

Artist's  studio,  Paris  (late  1920s); 

Alexandra  Tomilina  (1964); 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow  (1988), 

Centre  Georges  Pompidou,  Musee  national  d'art 

Moderne  (1988),  Inv.  AM  1988-887 


LIUBOV  POPOVa 


24.  Yellow  and  Green  Forest,  1913 
Oil  on  canvas.  102  x  85  cm 
Staatsgalerie,  Stuttgart 


28.  Composition  with  Figures ,  1913 
Oil  on  canvas,  160  x  124-3  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


Provenance:  Galleria  del  Levante,  Milan; 
Galerie  Beyeler,  Basel; 
Staatsgalerie,  Stuttgart  (1965),  Inv.  LNA881 
Exhibitions:  1912.  Moscow,  Donkey's  Tail  (cat.  no. 
73,  as  Autumn  Study  [Spontaneous  Perception]  ) 
Erster  Deutscher  Herbstsalon,  Galerie  Der  Sturm, 
Berlin,  October-November,  1913  (cat.  no.  151) 

25.  Cats  (rayist percep.[tion]  in  rose,  black,  and 

yellow),  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  84.5  x  83.8  cm 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum.  New  York 

57.1484 

Provenance:  From  the  artist,  1957 
Exhibitions:  1913.  Moscow,  Target  (cat.  no.  49) 
1913.  Moscow,  Goncharova  (cat.  no.  645) 

1913.  Berlin,  Der  Sturm.  Erster  Deutscher  Herbstsalon, 
Sept.  20-Nov.  1  (cat.  no.  149) 

1914.  Paris.  Guillaume  (cat.  no.  34) 


Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popovas  brother) 

or  his  stepson,  Moscow. 

George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1977).  Inv.  i3io 

Exhibitions:  1914.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(cat.  no.  119) 

1924-  Moscow,  Popova  (cat.  no.  17) 

29.  Italian  Still  Life,  1914 

Oil,  plaster,  and  paper  collage  on  canvas. 

61.5x48  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture,  Moscow; 

State  Art  Fund,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1927). 

Inv.  Zh-9365 

Exhibitions:  Fifth  State  Exhibition  of  Paintings  at  the 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Volkhonka,  Moscow, 

1918-19  (within  cat.  nos.  181-84) 

1922.  Berlin,  Erste  russische Kunstausstellung 

(cat.  no.  153) 

1924.  Moscow.  Popova  (cat.  no.  29) 


352 


LIST  of  PLaTes 


3o.  Guitar,  1915 
Oil  on  canvas,  83-5  x  71  cm 
Collection  of  Elena  Murina  and 
Dmitrn  Sarabianov.  Moscow 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother), 

Moscow-, 

AlexanderVesnin,  Moscow; 

Elena  Murina  and  Dmitrn  Sarabianov,  Moscow 

(i960) 

3i.  The  Pianist,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  106.5x88.7  cm 

National  Gallery  of  Canada.  Ottawa 


$4,.  Jug  on  Table.  Plastic  Painting,  1915 
Oil  on  cardboard,  mounted  on  panel, 
59.1x45.3  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow, 
Gift,  George  Costakis 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother) 

or  his  stepson,  Moscow; 

George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1977), 

Inv.  P  46736 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  o.  10  (cat.  no.  96) 

1916.  Moscow,  The  Store  (cat.  no.  54) 

1924.  Moscow.  Popova  (cat.  no.  16) 


Provenance:  Popova  family.  Moscow; 

Victor  Moore.  Moscow  (1957)  (purchased  through 

George  Costakis); 

National  Gallery  of  Canada.  Ottawa  (1966) 

Inv.  NGC 14930 

3a.  Lady  with  a  Guitar,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  107  x71.5  cm 

State  Museum  of  History,  Architecture,  and  Art, 

Smolensk 


35.  Birsk,  1916 

Oil  on  canvas,  106  x  69.5  cm 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum,  New  York. 

Gift,  George  Costakis  81.2822.1 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother), 

Moscow; 

George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

Solomon  R.  Guggenheim  Museum,  New  York  (1981) 

Exhibitions:  1924.  Moscow,  Popova 


Provenance:  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture,  Moscow; 

Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow  (1920); 

State  Museum  of  History,  Architecture,  and  Art, 

Smolensk  (1920),  Inv.  Zh-855 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd.  Tramway  V 

(cat.  no.  45) 

1916.  Moscow,  The  Store  (cat.  no.  47) 

33.  Traveling  Woman,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  158.5  x  123  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother) 

or  his  stepson,  Moscow; 

George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection)  (1984), 

Inv.  177.78 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  0.10  (cat.  no.  92) 

1916.  Moscow,  Th.e  Store  (cat.  no.  51) 


36.  Painterly  Architectonics ,  1917 
Oil  on  canvas,  107  x  88  cm 

Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art  Museum 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture.  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (until  1929); 

Kuban  Art  Museum,  Krasnodar  (attributed  to 

Ivan  Klnm) 

(Krasnodar  District  Lunacharsky  Art  Museum; 

Krasnodar  District  Kovalenko  Art  Museum) 

Inv,  403 

Exhibitions:  1924.  Moscow,  Popova  (within 

cat.  nos.  33-46) 

37.  Painterly  Architectonics,  1918 
Oil  on  canvas.  105  x  80  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow; 

Museum  of  Local  Lore,  Slobodskoi.  Viatka  Region 

(as  of  1998  Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition 

Center)  (1920),  Inv.  SMK  995/49 

Exhibitions:  Tenth  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 

164^4) 


353 


LIST  OF  PLSTeS 


38.  Construction,  1930 

Oil  on  canvas,  106.8x88.7  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture.  Moscow; 

State  Art  Fund,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1927),  Inv.  9389 

Exhibitions:  1922.  Berlin,  Erste  russische 
Kunstausstellung  (cat.  no.  152) 

39.  Spatial-Force  Construction,  1921 

Oil  with  marble  dust  on  plywood,  112.7x112.7  cm 
Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother) 

or  his  stepson.  Moscow; 

George  Costakis.  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd  (Georges  Costakis  Collection)  (1984) 

Inv.  no.  17578 

40.  Spatial --Force  Construction,  1921 

Oil  over  pencil  on  plywood.  124  x  8s-3  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow, 
Gift.  George  Costakis 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother) 

or  his  stepson,  Moscow-, 

George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1977), 

Inv.Zhi3i4  (P  46727) 

41.  Spatial-Force  Construction.  1921 

Oil  with  marble  dust  on  plywood.  71  x  64  cm 
Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Provenance:  Pavel  Popov  (Liubov  Popova's  brother) 

or  his  stepson,  Moscow; 

George  Costakis.  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd  (George  Costakis  Collection)  (1984). 

Inv.  179.78 

Exhibitions:  1924.  Moscow,  Popova 


OLGa  rozanova 

42.  Portrait  of  a  Lady  in  Pink  (Portrait  of  Anna 
Rozanova,  the  Artist's  Sister).  1911 
Oil  on  canvas,  1 13  x  139  cm 
Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Ekaterinburg 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP.  Moscow; 

Museum  of  Local  Lore  of  the  City  of  Ekaterinburg, 

(as  of  1920  Regional  Museum  of  Local  Lore, 

Sverdlovsk: 

as  of  1936  Sverdlovsk  Picture  Gallery,  Sverdlovsk; 

Museum  of  VisualArts.  Ekaterinburg)  (1920). 

Inv.  390 

Exhibitions:  1912,  Moscow.  Union  ofYouth 

(cat.  no.  67) 

1912.  St.  Petersburg.  Union  of  Youth  (cat.  no.  68) 

1912-18.  St  Petersburg.  Union  ofYouth  (cat.  no.  73) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  16) 

4.3.  Fire  in  the  City  (Cityscape),  1914 
Oil  on  metal.  71  x  71  cm 
Art  Museum,  Samara 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP.  Moscow, 

Art  Museum,  Samara 

(Art  Museum,  Kuibyshev; 

Art  Museum.  Samara)  (1919),  Inv.  Zh-411 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  TramwayV 

(cat.  no.  63) 

1916.  Moscow.  Jack  of  Diamonds  (cat.  no.  266) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  65  or 

66?) 

44.  Pub  (Auction),  1914 

Oil  on  canvas.  84  x  66  cm 

State  Unified  Art  Museum,  Kostroma 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow; 

Museum  of  Painterly  Culture,  Kostroma 

(as  of  1922  Art  Museum,  Kostroma)  (1920), 

Inv.  NV5 

Exhibitions:  inhibition  of  Paintings  of  Leftist  Trends, 

Dobychina  Bureau.  Petrograd,  1915  (cat.  no.  89) 

1918.  Moscow ,  First  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  83) 


354 


LIST  of  PLaTes 


4.5.  Jack  of Hearts,  i9i2(?)-i5,  from  the  series 

Playing  Cards 

Oil  on  canvas,  80  x  65  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow: 
Museum  of  Local  Lore,  Slobodskoi,  Viatka  Region 
(as  of  1998  Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition 
Center)  (1920), Inv.  SMK  995/14 

Exhibitions:  Exhibition  of  Paintings  of  Leftist  Trends, 
Dobychina  Bureau,  Petrograd,  1915  (cat.  no.  84) 

1917.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds  (cat.  no.  181, 
dated  1912) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 
36-47) 

46.  King  of Clubs,  1912c?)— 1915. 
from  the  series  Playing  Cards 
Oil  on  canvas,  72  x  60  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP.  Moscow; 
Museum  of  Local  Lore,  Slobodskoi,  Viatka  Region 
(as  of  1998  Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition 
Center)  (1920),  Inv.  SMK 995/23 
Exhibitions:  Exhibition  of  Paintings  of  Leftist  Trends, 
Dobychina  Bureau,  Petrograd,  1915  (cat.  no.  81) 

1917.  Moscow ,  Jack  of  Diamonds  (cat.  no.  182, 
dated  1912) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 
36-47) 

47.  Queen  of  Spades.  1912(7)— 1915.  from  the  series 
Playing  Cards 

Oil  on  canvas,  77.5  x  61.5  cm 
Regional  Art  Museum,  Ulianovsk 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow; 

Regional  Art  Museum,  Simbirsk 

(as  of  1924  Art  Museum,  Ulianovsk)  (1920), 

Inv.  Zh-504 

Exhibitions:  Exhibition  of  Paintings  of  Leftist  Trends, 

Dobychina  Bureau,  Petrograd,  1915  (cat.  no.  88) 

1917.  Moscow ,  Jack  of  Diamonds  (cat.  no.  178, 
dated  1912) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 
3  6-47) 


48.  The  "Moderne"  Movie  Theater  (In  the  Street) .  1915 
Oil  on  canvas,  101x77  cm 

Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition  Center 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow: 
Museum  of  Local  Lore,  Slobodskoi.  Viatka  Region 
(as  of  1998  Slobodskoi  Museum  and  Exhibition 
Center)  (1920),  Inv.  SMK 995/48 
Exhibitions:  1915-  Petrograd.  0.10  (cat.  no.  123. 
called  In  the  Street) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no,  90-91, 
as  In  the  Street) 

49.  Non-Objective  Composition  (Flight  of  an  Airplane), 
1916 

Oil  on  canvas,  118  x  101  cm 
Art  Museum,  Samara 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKO: 

Art  Museum,  Samara  (1919,  where  renamed  Right  of 

an  Airplane  in  the  early  1930s;  Art  Museum, 

Kuibyshev;  Art  Museum.  Samara),  Inv.  Zh-418 

Exhibitions:  1916.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(within  cat.  nos.  269^4) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  no. 

93-111) 

50.  Non-Objective  Composition  (Suprematism) ,  1916 
Oil  on  canvas,  90  x  74  cm 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKO, 

Museum  of  Local  Lore  of  the  City  of  Ekaterinburg, 

(as  of  1920  Regional  Museum  of  Local  Lore, 

Sverdlovsk; 

as  of  1936  Sverdlovsk  Picture  Gallery,  Sverdlovsk; 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Ekaterinburg)  (1920). 

Inv.  Zh-409 

Exhibitions:  1916.  Moscow.  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(within  cat.  nos.  269—74) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 

93-111) 


355 


LIST  OF  PLaTes 


51.  Non-Objective  Composition  (Suprematism) ,  1916 
Oil  on  canvas.  102  x  94  cm 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts.  Ekaterinburg 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKO; 

Museum  of  Local  Lore  of  the  City  of  Ekaterinburg 

(as  of  1920  Regional  Museum  of  Local  Lore. 

Sverdlovsk; 

as  of  1936  Sverdlovsk  Picture  Gallery-.  Sverdlovsk: 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg)  (1920). 

Inv.  Zh-411 

Exhibitions:  1916.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds 

(within  cat.  nos.  269—74) 

1918.  Moscow,  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 

93-111) 

52.  Color  Painting  (Non-Objective  Composition) ,  1917 
Oil  on  canvas.  62.5  x  40.5  cm 

State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Artistic  Culture.  Petrograd 

(1922); 

State  Russian  Museum,  Leningrad  (1926), 

Inv.  ZhB  1579 

Exhibitions:  1917.  Moscow.  Jack  of  Diamonds  (within 

cat.  nos.  159—76.  under  the  title  Color  Composition) 

1918.  Moscow.  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 
1 16-27  utider  the  title  Color  Composition) 

1919.  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  181  or 
182?) 


54.  Green  Stripe  (Color  Painting) .  1917 

Oil  on  canvas.  71.5x49  cm 

Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP: 

Museum  of  Architecture  and  Art.  Rostov- 

Yaroslavskii 

(as  of  1998  Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve) 

(1922).  Inv.  371 

Exhibitions:  1917.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds  (within 

cat.  nos.  159^76.  as  Color  Composition) 

1918.  Moscow.  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 
116—27.  as  Color  Composition ) 

1919.  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  181  or 

182?) 


varvara  STepanova 

55.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "RtnrKhomle. "  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  23.3  x  17.7  cm 

Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family.  Moscow; 
Private  collection.  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919-  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

56.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "RtnyKhomle."  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper.  23.3  x  17.7  cm 

Private  collection 


53.  Non-Objective  Composition  (Color Painting).  1917 
Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  64  cm 
Regional  Art  Museum.  Ulianovsk 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP.  Moscow: 

Regional  Art  Museum.  Simbirsk. 

(as  of  1924.  Art  Museum.  Ulianovsk)  (1920), 

Inv.  1180-zh 

Exhibitions:  1917-  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds  (within 

cat.  nos.  159^76,  under  the  title  Color  Composition) 

1918.  Moscow.  First  State  Exhibition  (within  cat.  nos. 
116—27  2S  Color  Composition) 

1919.  Moscow.  Tenth-State  Exhibition  (cat.  no.  181  or 
182?) 


Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection.  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

57.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "RtnrKhomle,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper.  23.3  x  17.7  cm 

Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family.  Moscow: 

Private  collection.  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

58.  Illustration  for  the  poem-  "RtnrKhomle. "  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper.  23.3  x  17.7  cm 

Private  collection 


Provenance:  Artists  family.  Moscow; 

Private  collection .  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow.  Tenth  State  Exhibition 


3^6 


list  of  PLaxes 


59.  Illustration  for  the  poem,  "ZigraAr,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8  x  16  cm 
Private  collection 


65.  Dancing  Figures  on  White,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  107.5  x  !4^-5  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 


Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions;  1919.  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

60.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr, "  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8  x  16  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

61.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr."  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 
Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919-  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

62.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8  x  16  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection.  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919-  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

63.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8x16  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 

64.  Illustration  for  the  poem  "ZigraAr,"  1918 
Watercolor  on  paper,  18.8  x  16  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 


Provenance:  Artist's  family.  Moscow; 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1998) 
Exhibitions:  1919.  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 
1920.  Moscow,  Exhibition  of  Four  Artists  (Kandinsky. 
Rodchenko,  Stepanova,  Shevchenko) 

66.  Five  Figures  on  a  White  Background ,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  80  x  98  cm 

Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1920.  Moscow,  Nineteenth  State 

Exhibition 

Exhibition  of  Four  Artists  (Kandinsky.  Rodchenko. 

Stepanova.  Shevchenko) 

67.  Billiard  Players,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  68  x  129  cm 

Carmen  Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 
Galene  Gmurzynska,  Cologne; 
Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection.  Lugano  (1983); 
Carmen  Thyssen-Bornemisza  Collection,  Madrid 
(1995).  Inv.  54,0.730 

68 .  Playing  Draughts .  1920 
Oil  on  plywood.  78  x  62  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artists  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection.  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1920.  Moscow,  Nineteenth  State 

Exhibition 

Exhibition  of  Four  Artists  (Kandinsky-  Rodchenko. 

Stepanova,  Shevchenko) 

69.  Trumpet  Player,  1920 
Oil  on  canvas,  70  x  57  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family.  Moscow-. 

Private  collection.  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1920.  Moscow,  Nineteenth  State 

Exhibition 

Exhibition  of  Four  Artists  (Kandinsky,  Rodchenko. 

Stepanova.  Shevchenko) 


357 


LIST  of  PLaTes 


70.  Musicians,  1920 

Oil  on  canvas.  106  x  142  cm 

Museum  of  Private  Collections, 

Pushkin  State  Museum  of  Fine  Arts.  Moscow 


75.  Composition,  1913 

Oil  on  canvas,  111.5  x  *^3  cm 

Museum  of  History  and  Architecture, 

Pereiaslavl-Zalesskii 


Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow-. 
Museum  of  Private  Collections,  State  Pushkin 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Moscow  (1992),  Inv.  ZhR-828 
Exhibitions:  1919-  Moscow,  Tenth  State  Exhibition 
1920.  Moscow,  Exhibition  of  Four  Artists  (Kandmsky, 
Hodchenko.  Stepanova,  Shevchenko) 

71.  Self -Portrait,  1920 

Oil  on  plywood,  71  x  52.5  cm 

Museum  of  Private  Collections, 

Pushkin  State  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Museum  of  Private  Collections,  Pushkin  State 

Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Moscow  (1992),  Inv.  ZhR826 

Exhibitions:  1920.  Moscow.  Nineteenth  State 

Exhibition 

Exhibition  of  Four  Artists  (Kandmsky,  Rodchenko. 

Stepanova,  Shevchenko) 

72.  Figure  (Peasant),  1921 

Oil  on  canvas,  99.5  x  65.5  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions;  1921.  Moscow, 5x5  =35  (cat.  no.  1) 

73.  Figure,  1921 

Oil  on  canvas,  125  X71.5  cm 
Private  collection 

Provenance:  Artist's  family,  Moscow; 

Private  collection,  Moscow 

Exhibitions:  1921.  Moscow,  5x5  =  25  (cat.  no.  3  or  5) 


naoezHDa  uDaivrsova 

74.  Seamstress.  1912-13 

Oil  on  canvas,  71.5x70.5  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Andrei  Drevin,  the  artist's  son. 

Moscow; 

George  Costakis.  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1977), 

Inv.  Zh-1297 


Provenance:  Ivanovo  Regional  Museum; 
Museum  of  History  and  Architecture,  Pereiaslavl- 
Zalesskii  (1923),  Inv.  9934 
Exhibitions:  1914.  Moscow ,  Jack  of  Diamonds 
(cat.  no.  144) 

y 6.  At  the  Piano,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  107x89  cm 

Yale  University  Art  Gallery, 

Gift  of  Collection  Societe  Anonyme 

Provenance:  1922-  Berlin,  Erste  russische 

Kunstausstellung; 

Katherine  Dreier,  New  York  (1922); 

Societe  Anonyme,  New  York  (1922); 

Yale  University  Art  Gallery,  New  Haven  (1941), 

Inv.  1941.725 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  0.10  (cat.  no.  145, 

as  Music ) 

1916.  Moscow,  The  Store  (cat.  no.  80) 

1922.  Berlin,  Erste  russische  Kunstausstellung 

(cat.  no.  235) 

77.  Guitar  Fugue,  1914—15 
Oil  on  canvas,  70.3  x  50.4  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow, 
Gift,  George  Costakis 

Provenance:  George  Costakis,  Moscow; 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow  (1977), 
Inv.  Zh-1296 

78.  Artist 's  Model.  1914 
Oil  on  canvas.  106x71  cm 

State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Artistic  Culture,  Petrograd; 
State  Russian  Museum,  Leningrad  (1926), 
Inv.  Zh-B  1712 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  Tramway  V (cat .  no. 
73,  asArtist's  Model  with  Guitar  [Architectonic 
Composition]) 

79. New,  1914-15 

Oil  on  canvas,  60  x  48  cm 

Vasnetsov  Regional  Art  Museum,  Kirov 

Provenance:  Yaransk  Museum  of  Local  Lore  of  Kirov- 
Region  (1923); 

Vasnetsov  Regional  Art  Museum,  Kirov  (1958), 
Inv.  NV/Zh-54 


358 


list  of  PLaxes 


80.  Self  '-  Portrait  with  Palette,  1915 
Oil  on  canvas,  72  x  53  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture; 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery  (1929),  Inv.  11929 
Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  0.10  (cat.  no.  150, 
as  My  Representation) . 

81.  Red  Figure,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  70  x  70  cm 

Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve 


85.  Painterly  Construction,  1916 
Oil  on  canvas,  109  x  79  cm 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Artistic  Culture.  Moscow; 
State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1929).  Inv.  11931 
Exhibitions:  1916.  Moscow,  Jack  of  Diamonds 
(cat.  no.  283.  284.  or  285) 

86.  Untitled,  1916 
Watercolor  on  paper,  48  x  40  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 


Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow: 
Museum  of  Architecture  and  Art,  Rostov-Yaroslaskii 
(as  of  1998  Rostov  Kremlin  State  Museum  Preserve, 
Rostov)  (1922).  Inv.  Zh-i36 

82.  Study  for  Restaurant,  1915 
Oil  on  canvas,  71  x  53  cm 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Painterly  Culture,  Moscow; 

State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow  (1929).  Inv.  11930 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  Tramway  V 

(cat.  no.  72) 

1916.  Moscow,  The  Store  (cat.  no.  74) 

83.  Restaurant,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  134  x  116  cm 

State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg 

Provenance:  Museum  of  Artistic  Culture,  Petrograd; 
State  Russian  Museum,  Leningrad  (1926)  Inv.  i334 
Exhibitions:  1916.  Moscow,  The  Store  (cat.  no.  73) 

84.  Kitchen,  1915 

Oil  on  canvas,  161  x  165  cm 
Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg 

Provenance:  Museum  Bureau  of  IZO  NKP,  Moscow; 

Museum  of  Local  Lore  of  the  City  of  Ekaterinburg, 

(as  of  1 920  Regional  Museum  of  Local  Lore, 

Sverdlovsk; 

as  of  1936  Sverdlovsk  Picture  Gallery,  Sverdlovsk; 

Museum  of  Visual  Arts,  Ekaterinburg)  (1920), 

Inv.  421 

Exhibitions:  1915.  Petrograd,  0.10  (cat.  no.  146) 

1919,  Moscow,  Fifth  State  Exhibition  of  Paintings 

(From  Impressionism  to  N on  -Objectivity),  as  cat. 

no. 268 


Provenance:  Andrei  Drevin,  the  artist's  son, 

Moscow; 

George  Costakis.  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection)  (1984), 

Inv.  ATH  80.21 

87.  Untitled,  1916 

Gouache  and  pencil  on  paper,  24.6  x  15.9  cm 
Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Provenance:  Andrei  Drevin,  the  artist's  son, 

Moscow; 

George  Costakis,  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd  (George  Costakis  Collection)  (1984). 

Inv.  200.80 

88.  Untitled,  1916 
Gouache  on  paper,  48  x  38-5 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Provenance;  Andrei  Drevin.  the  artist's  son, 

MOSCOW; 

George  Costakis.  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection)  (1984) 

Inv.  ATH  80.19 

89.  Untitled,  1916 

Gouache  on  paper.  64  x  44.5  cm 

Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection) 

Provenance:  Andrei  Drevin,  the  artist's  son. 

Moscow; 

George  Costakis.  Moscow; 

Art  Co.  Ltd  (George  Costakis  Collection)  (1984). 

Inv.  ATH  80.18 


359 


BIBLIOCCaPHY 


Works  on  the  Russian  Avant-Garde 

Bowlt,  John  E.,  ed.  Russian  An  of  the  Avant-Garde-. 

Theory  and  Criticism  1902—1934.  Trans.  John  E. 

Bowlt.  London:  Thames  and  Hudson.  1988. 
Compton,  Susan.  Russian  Avant-Garde  Books, 

1917-34..  Cambridge,  Mass.:  The  MIT  Press,  1993. 
.  The  World  Backwards:  Russian  Futurist  Books, 

1913—16.  London:  British  Museum,  1978. 
Douglas,  Charlotte.  Swans  of  Other  Worlds:  Kazimir 

Malevich  and  the  Origins  of  Abstraction  in  Russia. 

Ann  Arbor,  Mich.:  UMI  Research  Press,  1980. 
Gray,  Camilla.  The  Great  Experiment:  Russian  Art, 

1863—1922-  London:  Thames  and  Hudson,  1962. 
Gurianova,  Nina  and  Andrei  Sarabianov.  Neizvestnyi 

russkii avangard.  Moscow:  Sovetskii  khudozhnik, 

1992. 
Hagelstein,  Virginia  M.  and  Gail  H.  Roman,  eds. 

The  Avant-Garde  Frontier:  Russia  Meets  the  West, 

1910—1930.  Gainesville,  Fla.:  University  Press  of 

Florida,  1992. 
Howard,  Jeremy.  7?te  Union  of  Youth -.An  Artists' 

Society  of  the  Russian  Avant-Garde .  New  York: 

St.  Martin's  Press,  1992. 
Janecek,  Gerald.  The  Look  of  Russian  Literature: 

Avant-Garde  Visual  Experiments,  1900—1930. 

Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1984. 
Kafetsi,  Anna,  et  al.  Russian  Avant-Garde.  1910- 1980: 

The  G.  Costakis  Collection.  Exh.  cat..  2  vols.,  Athens: 

The  National  Gallery  and  Alexandros  Soutzos 

Museum,  1996. 
Karasik,  Irina.  Russkii  avangard.  Muzei  v  muzee. 

St.  Petersburg:  Palace  Editions,  1998. 
Kovtoune,  Evgeni.  L'Avant- Garde  Russe  dans  les 

Annees  192,0—1930.  Bournemouth,  England: 

Parkstone,  1996. 
Kovtun,  Evgenij.  Sangesi.  Die  russische Avangarde. 

Chlebnikow  und  seine  Maler.  Zurich:  Stemmle, 

i993. 
Lodder,  Christina.  Russian  Constructivism. 

New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press,  1983. 
Margolin,  Victor.  The  Struggle  for  Utopia:  Rodchenko, 

Lissitzky,  Moholy-Nagy,  1917-1946.  Chicago: 

University  of  Chicago  Press,  1997. 
Milner,  John.  Kazimir  Malevich  and  the  Art  of 

Geometry.  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press,  1996. 
Parton.  Anthony.  Mikhail  Lanonov  and  the  Russian 

Avant-Garde.  Princeton:  Princeton  University 

Press,  1993. 
Rudenstme,  Angelica,  ed.  Russian  Avant-Garde  Art: 

The  George  Costakis  Collection.  New  York:  Abrams, 

1981. 
Von  Geldern,  James.  Bolshevik  Festivals,  1917—1920. 

Berkeley:  University  of  California  Press.  1993. 
Wood,  Paul,  et  al.  The  Great  Utopia-.  Vie  Russian  and 

Soviet  Avant-Garde.  1915—1932.  Exh.  cat..  New  York: 

Guggenheim  Museum,  1992. 


Works  on  the  Women  Artists  of  the  Russian 
Avant  -  Garde 

Bernier,  Georges.  Cherchez  la femme .  Exh.  cat.. 

Cologne:  Galene  Gmurzynska,  1993. 
Costlow,  Jane  T.,  Stephanie  Sandler,  and  Judith 

Vowles,  eds.  Sexuality  and  the  Body  in  Russian 

Culture.  Stanford:  Stanford  University  Press,  1993. 
Cunningham,  Rebecca.  "The  Russian  Women 

Artist/Designers  of  the  Avant-Garde."  Theatre 

Design  and  Technology  (London) ,  spring  1998, 

pp.  39-51. 
Das  Leben  zur  Kunst  machen.  Arbeiten  auf  Papier  von 

Frauen  derrussischerAvantgarde.  Stoffe  und 

Porzellan aus der jungen Sowjetunion.  Exh.  cat., 

Zurich:  Helmhaus.  1989. 
Die  Rationale.  Rationale  Konzepte  von  Kunstlerinnen 

7975-1955.  Exh.  cat..  Bonn:  Frauen  Museum,  1985. 
Goussev,  Vladimir.  Le  Portrait  dufemmin  du  XVIII" 

debut  duXXe  siecie.  Exh.  cat.,  Leningrad: 

Khudozhnik  RSFSR,  1981. 
Gusev,  Vladimir,  et  al.  The  Beauty  of  Russian  Women 

of  the  Fifteenth— Twentieth  Centuries.  Exh.  cat., 

Otaru,  Japan:  Petersburg  Museum,  1995. 
KJimov,  Evgenii.  Russkie  zhenshchiny po 

izobrazheniiam  russkikh  khudozhmkov . 

Washington,  D.C.:  Kamkin,  1967. 
Lippard,  Lucy  R.,  et  al.  Kunstlerinnen  international 

1877-1977.  Exh.  cat.,  Berlin:  Schloss 

Charlottenburg,  1977. 
Marcade,  Valentine,  et  al.  L'Avant- Garde  aufeminin-. 

Moscou,  Saint- Petersbourg,  Pans  (1907—1980).  Paris: 

Artcurial,  1983. 
Nochlm.  Linda  and  Ann  Sutherland-Harris.  Women- 
Painters.  Exh.  cat.,  LosAngeles;  Los  Angeles 

County  Museum,  1976. 
Pioneering  Women  Artists  1900  to  1940.  Exh.  cat.. 

New  York:  Helen  Serger,  la  Boetie,  1980. 
Rubinger,  Krystyna,  ed.  Kunstlerinnen  der  russischen 

Avantgarde/Women- Artists  of  the  Russian  Avant - 

Garde,  1910-1930.  Exh  cat.,  Cologne:  Galene 

Gmurzynska.  1979. 
Schlagheck,  Irma.  "GenialeTochter  der  russischen 

Revolution. "An  (Hamburg),  no.  3  (March  1992). 

pp.  32-47. 
Stein,  Donna.  Women  Artists  in  the  Avant-Garde: 

1910—1935.  Exh.  cat..  New  York:  Rachel  Adler 

Gallery,  1984. 
Stites.  Richard.  The  Women's  Liberation  Movement  in 

Russia:  Feminism,  Nihilism,  and  Bolshevism, 

1860-1930.  Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press. 

1978;  2nded..  1998. 
Toporkov,  Andrei  L..  ed.  Seks  i  erotika  v  russkoi 

traditsionnoi  kulture .  Moscow:  Ladomir,  1996. 
Vachtova.  Ludmila.  et  al.  Kunstlerinnen  des  20. 

Jahrhunderts.  Exh.  cat..  Wiesbaden:  Museum 

Wiesbaden,  1990. 


36i 


BIBLIOCraPHY 


Vergine,  Lea.  L'altra  meta  deU'avanguardia 

1910-194.0.  Exh.  cat..  Milan:  Gabriele  Mazzotta, 

1980. 
Wismer.  Beat.  ed.  Karo  Dame:  Konstruktive.  konkrete 

und  radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1014.  bis  heute. 

Baden:  Lars  Muller,  1995. 
Yablonskaya.  Myuda.  Women  Artists  of  Russia's  New 

Age.  1900-1935.  London:  Thames  and  Hudson. 

1990. 

Works  on  the  Artists  in  the  Exhibition 
Alexandra  Exter 

Baty.  Gaston.  Alexandra  Exter.  Theatre  (Maquettes, 

Decors.  Costumes).  Exh.  cat..  Galene  Quatre 

Chemins,  Paris.  1929. 
Belli.  Gabriella.,  et  al.  "Interferenze  culturali." 

Alexandra  Exter  eil  Teatro  da  Camera,  pp.  i3— 16. 

Exh.  cat.,  Archivio  del  '900,  Rovereto,  1991. 
Bowlt.  John  E.  "Alexandra  Exter. "Alexandra  Exter 

Marionettes.  Exh.  cat..  Leonard  Hutton  Galleries. 

New  York,  1975. 
Cohen.  Ronny.  "Alexandra  Exter's  Designs  for  the 

Theater. "  Artforum  (New  York)  19,  no.  10  (summer 

1981).  pp.  46-49. 
Faucher,  Paul.  "Preface. "  Alexandra  Exter.  Theatre. 

Exh.  cat..  Musee  des  Arts  et  Metiers,  Paris,  1987. 
Gorbachev.  Dmitni.  "Exter  in  Kiev-Kiev  in  Exter." 

Experiment  (Los  Angeles)  1,  no.  1  (1995), 

pp.  299-322. 
Kolesnikov,  Mikhail.  "Alexandra  Exter  i  Vera 

Mukhina."  Panorama  iskusstv  (Moscow)  no.  12 

(1989),  pp.  89—110. 
.  "Alexandra  Exter.  Ot  impressiomzmak 

konstruktivizmu."  Sovetskiibalet  (Moscow)  no.  6, 

(1987),  pp.  61-65. 
.Alexandra Exter.  pp.  5—24-  Exh.  cat.. 

Bakhrushin  Museum.  Moscow.  1988. 
Koval,  Alexander. "Aus  Anlass  der 

Wiederentdeckung  von  Alexander  Exter- 

Marionetten. "  Ausstellung  RussischeAvantgarde. 

Alexandra  Exter.  MichelAndreenko.pp.  1— 3. 

Exh.  cat.,  Galerie  Werner  Kunze.  Berlin,  1974. 
Kovalenko.  Georgii.  "Exterv  Parizhe."  Teavralnaia 

zhizn. (Moscow)  no.  17  (1990),  pp.  20-23. 
."Alexandra  Exterv  Parizhe."  Teatr  (Moscow) 

no.  2  (1992).  pp.  io3-22. 

.Alexandra Exter.  Moscow:  Galart,  1993. 

.  "Tsvetovaia  dinamika'  Alexandry  Exter  (iz 

byshego  sobraniia  Kurta  Benedikta)."  In  Vagner, 

Georgii  Karlovich,  et  al.,  eds.:  Pamiatniki  kultury. 

Noiye  otkrytiia,  pp.  356-65.  Moscow:  Nauka,  1996. 

—  "La  pemture  cubo-futuriste  d'Alexandra 

Exter."  Ligeia  (Paris)  no.  21-24  (1998). 

pp.  104-19. 


.  "Teatr  i  zhivopis  Olexandri  Exter."  Ukramskii 

teatr  (Kiev)  no.  4  (1988), 

pp.  25-27  (in  Ukrainian) . 
Lissim,  Simon.  "Alexandra  Exter  As  I  Knew  Her." 

ArtistoftheTheatre.AlexandraExter.  pp.  9-15. 

Exh.  cat..  Center  for  the  Performing  Arts,  New 

York  Public  Library  at  Lincoln  Center.  New  York, 

1974. 
Mareade,  L'avant-garde  au  feminin-.  Moscou.  Saint- 

Petersbourg.  Pans  (100*7—10.30).  pp.  i3,  27—29. 
McClintic.  Miranda.  "Alexandra  Exter.  Marionettes 

and  Theatrical  Designs. "Alexandra  Exter. 

Marionettes  and  Theatrical  Designs.  Exh.  cat., 

Hirshhorn  Museum  and  Sculpture  Garden, 

Washington,  D.C.,  1980. 
Nakov.  Andre  B.  "Alexandra  Exter. "Alexandra  Exter, 

pp.  5-48.  Galerie  Chauvehn.  Paris.  1972. 
Rubmger.  Kunstlerinnen  der  russischen 

AvantgardeAFomen-Artists  of  the  RussianAvant- 

Garde.  1910— ia3o.  pp.  112— 3o. 
Rudenstine,  Russian  Avant-garde  Art:  The  George 

Costakis  Collection,  pp.  97—102. 
Tairov,  Alexander.  ,4Ze:randra  Exter.  Decors  de  Theatre. 

Galerie  Quatre  Chemins.  Paris.  1930. 
Tomilovskaia.  Elena.  "Alexandra  Exter. "Alexandra 

Exter.  Eskizy dekoratsu  i kostiumov .  Exh.  cat., 

Bakhrushin  Museum.  Moscow.  1986. 
Tugendkhold,  Yakov.  Alexandra  Exter.  Berlin:  Zaria. 

1922. 
Vergine.  L'altra  meta  deU'avanguardia  1010—104.0. 

pp.  83-85. 
Walden,  Herwarth.Ausstellung  Alexandra  Exter. 

Exh.  cat.,  Der  Sturm.  Berlin,  1927. 
Wismer,  Karo  Dame-.  Konstruktive.  konkrete  und 

radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1914  bis  heute, 

pp.  84-87. 
Yablonskaya,  Women  Artists  of  Russia's  New  Age, 

1900-1935,  pp.  117-40. 
Yakovenko,  N.  E.  "Introduction, "  Alexandra  Exter 

(1884-194,9).  Exh.  cat.,  Odessa  Art  Museum. 

Odessa,  1989. 

Natalia  Sergeevna  Goncharova 

Bakos,  Katalin.  Goncsarova.  Budapest:  Corvina.  1981. 
Belloli,  Carlo.  "Incidenza  Internationale  di  due 

magistrah  protagonisti  deU'avanguardia  russa." 

Nathalie  Gontcharova.  Michel Larionov .  Exh.  cat.. 

Arte  Centro,  Milan,  1983. 
Berlewi,  Henryk.  Lanonov.  Gontcharova.  Exh.  cat.. 

Galerie  Beyler.  Basel,  1961. 
Boissel.  Jessica,  et  al.  Nathalie  Gontcharova.  Michel 

Larionov.  Exh.  cat..  Centre  Georges  Pompidou, 

Paris.  1995. 
Bowlt,  John  E.  "Natalia  Goncharova  and  Futurist 

Theater.'Mrr  JoumaZ  (New  York)  49,  no.  1  (spring, 

1990),  pp.  44-51. 


362 


BIBLIOCraPHY 


Chamot,  Mary  and  Camilla  Gray.>l  Retrospective 

Exhibition  of  Paintings  and  Designs  for  the  Theatre. 

Larionov  and  Goncharova.  Exh.  cat..  City  Art 

Gallery,  Leeds;  City  Art  Gallery.  Bristol; 

and  Arts  Council  Gallery,  London,  1961. 

— .  Goncharova.  Stage  Designs  and  Paintings. 

London:  Oresko.  1979. 
Chamot,  Mary.  Gontcharova.  Paris:  La  Bibliotheque 

desArts,  1972- 
Dane,  Marie -Claude.  Gontcharova.  Larionov. 

Exh.  cat.,  Musee  d'art  moderne  de  la  ville  de  Paris, 

Paris,  1963. 
Daulte.  Francois.  "Introduction."  Larionov. 

Gontcharova.  Retrospective.  Exh.  cat.,  Musee 

d'lxelles.  Brussels,  1976. 
Durfee,  Thea.  "Natalia  Goncharova:  Two  Letters." 

Experiment  (LosAngeles)i,  no.  1  (July.  1995), 

pp.  159-68. 
Eganbiuri.  Eli  (pseudonym  of  Ilia  Zdanevich). 

Mikhail  Larionov  Natalia  Goncharova.  Moscow: 

Miunster.  1913. 
Exposition  des  oeuvres  de  Gontcharova  et  Lanonow. 

L'Art  decoratij 'theatral  moderne.  Exh.  cat.,  Galerie 

Sauvage,  Paris,  1918. 
Gayraud,  Regis,  ed.  Nathalie  Gontcharova  Michel 

Larionov  par  Elie  Eganebury.  Paris.-  Clemence  Hiver, 

1996. 
Goldman,  John.  "Introduction."  Retrospective 

Gontcharova.  Exh.  cat.,  Maisonde  la  culture  de 

Bourges,  1973. 
Gunanova.  Nina.  "Voennye  graficheskie  tsikly 

N.  Goncharovoi  i  0.  Kozanovoi."  Panorama 

iskusstv  (Moscow)  no.  12  (1989),  pp.  63-88. 
Kovalenko.  Georgii.  Natalia  Goncharova.  Mikhail 

Larionov.  Vospominanua  sovremennikov .  Moscow: 

Galart,  1995. 
Loguine.  Tatiana.  Gontcharova  et  Larionov.  Paris: 

Klmcksieck.  1971. 
Marcade,  L' avant-garde  an feminm:  Moscou.  Saint- 

Petersbourg.  Paris  (iqoj~i^3o).  pp.  12— 13.  33—36. 
Martini  and  Ronchetti,  Michel  Larionov.  Nathalie 

Goncharova.  Exh.  cat.,  Galleria  Martini  & 

Ronchetti.  1983. 
Omuku,  Toshiharu.  Le  Paris  des  annees  vingt. 

R.  Kawashwa.  N.  Gontcharova  et  M.  Larionov. 

Exh.  cat.,  Shiseido  Gallery,  Tokyo,  1995. 
Orenstein.  Gloria.  "Natalia  Goncharova.  Profile  of 

the  Artist-  Futurist  Style. "  The  Feminist  Art  Journal 

(New York)  3,  no.  2  (summer,  1974).  pp.  1—6. 
Parton,  Anthony.  "Gontcharova  and  the  'Ballets 

Russes.'"  Natalia  Gontcharova  and  the  Russian 

Ballet.  Exh.  cat.,  Julian  Barran.  Ltd.,  London. 

1996. 
Rubinger.  Kunstlerinnen  der  russischen 

Avantgarde/Women  -Artists  of  the  Russian  Avant- 

Garde,  iqio-i<)3o,  pp.  132—52. 


Rude.  Ferdinand.  "Nathalie  Gontcharova  et  son 

temps."  Nathalie  Gontcharova.  Exh.  cat..  Musee  des 

Beaux-Arts,  Lyon.  1969. 
Rudenstine,  Russian  Avant- Garde  Art:  The  George 

Costakis  Collection,  pp.  106—09. 
Seuphor.  Michel.  "Ricordi  di  tempi  eroici." 

Larionov -Gontcharova.  Exh.  cat..  Galleria  Schwartz. 

Milan,  1961. 
Sharp.  Jane  A.  "Redrawing  the  Margins  of  Russian 

Vanguard  Art:  Natalia  Goncharova's  Trial  for 

Pornography  in  1910."  In  Jane  T.  Costlow. 

Stephanie  Sandler,  and  Judith  Vowles.  eds.. 

Sexuality  and  the  Body  in  Russian  Culture  (Stanford: 

Stanford  University  Press,  1997).  pp.  104.-06. 
Stupples,  Peter.  "The  Stylistic  Development  of 

Natalia  Gontcharova."  Goncharova,  pp.  11—15. 

Exh.  cat..  National  Art  Gallery.  Wellington. 

New  Zealand,  1987. 
Tobin,  Robert.  "Gontcharova/Larionov."Nataita 

Goncharova,  pp.  5—7.  Exh.  cat.,  Marion  Koogler 

McNay  Art  Museum,  San  Antonio,  1987. 
Tsvetaeva,  Marina.  Nathalie  Gontcharova,  Pans: 

Clemence  Hiver,  1990. 
Vergine.  L'altra  metd  dell'avanguardia  1910—10,40. 

pp.  80-82. 
Wismer,  Karo  Dame-.  Konstruktwe,  konkrete  und 

radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  iQi/f.  bis  heute, 

pp. 48-52. 
Yablonskaya,  WomenArtists  of  Russia's  New  Age, 

1000-10.35,  pp.  52-79. 

Liubov  Sergeevna  Popova 

Adaskina.  Natalia  and  Dmitni  Sarahianov.  Lioubov 
Popova.  Paris:  Sers.  1989;  English  edition. 
New  York:  Abrams.  1990. 

.  "Formirovanie  dizainerskoi  kontseptsii  L.S. 

Popovoi.  GVYTM-VKHUTEMAS.  1921-1923 
goda."  Trudy  VN11TE.  Tekhnicheskaiaestetika. 
(Moscow)  no.  41  (ig83).  pp.  43—60. 

Adaskina.  Natalia.  "Rabota  L.  Popovoi  po  sozdaniiu 
'tsvetovoi  distsipliny' Vkhutemasa."  Ida  Gofman. 
ed.  Gosudarstvennaia  Tretiakovskaia galleria. 
Material)-  i  issledovaniia.  pp.  172-87.  Leningrad: 
Khudozhnik  RSFSR.  1983. 

Bodine,  Sarah.  " Liubov  Sergeevna  Popova." 
Gouaches  and  Drawings  by  Liubov  Popova  and 
Kazimir Malevich ,  p.  2.  Exh.  cat..  Leonard  Hutton 
Galleries,  New  York,  1986. 

Bowlt,  John  E.  "From  Surface  to  Space:  The  Art  of 
Liubov  Popova."  The Structurist  (Saskatoon)  no. 
15-16  (1976),  pp.  80-88. 

.  "Liubov  Popova.  Painter."  In  Nadia  Jernakoff. 

ed.:  Transactions  of  the  Association  of  Russian- 
American  Scholars  in  US,  special  issue  devoted  to 
Russian  art  (New  York)  15  (1982).  pp.  227-51. 


U,.i 


BIBLIOGTaPHY 


Dabrowski,  Magdalena.  Liubov Popova.  Exh.  cat.. 

The  Museum  of  Modern  Art,  New  York, 

1991-92-Douglas,  Charlotte.  "Liubov  Popova's 

Spatial  Force  Constructions."  Liubov  Popova. 

Exh.  cat.,  Rachel  Adler  Gallery,  New  York,  1985. 
Law,  Alma.  "'Le  Cocu  Magnifique'  de 

Crommelynck."  Les  Voies  de  la  creation  theatrale 

(Paris)  no.  7  (1980),  pp.  14-43. 
Marcade,  L 'avant-garde  aufeminin:  Moscou,  Saint- 

Petersbourg,  Pans  (190^-1930),  pp.  16,  37-39. 
Posmertnaia  vystavka  proizvedemi  L  S.  Popovoi. 

Exh.  cat..  Museum  of  Artistic  Culture,  Moscow, 

1924- 
Rubinger,  Kunstlerinnen  der  russischen 

Avantgarde/Women-Anists  of  the  Russian  Avant- 

Garde.  j^jo— 79.30.pp.  174—314. 
Rudenstine.  Russian  Avant- Garde  Art,-  The  George 

Costakis  Collection,  pp.  344—420. 
Sarabianov,  Dmitrii,  et  al.  L.  S.  Popova  1889-1924. 

Exh.  cat.,  Tretiakov  Gallery.  Moscow;  Russian 

Museum,  Leningrad,  1990. 
.  Pnamaia  i  obratnaia  perspektwa  russkogo 

minimalizma/Gerade  und  umgekehrte  Perspective  des 

russischen  Minimalismus.  Liubov  Popova/Aleksandr 

Konstantinov.  Exh.  cat.,  Tsaritsyno  Museum, 

Moscow;  Palais  Liechtenstein.  Feldkirch,  1994. 
Sarabianov,  Dmitrii.  Liubov  Popova,  Moscow;  Galart, 

1994. 
Vergine,  L'altra  meta  deU'avanguardia  1910—1940, 

pp.  104-07. 
Vorobiev,  Vladimir.  "Kak  Liubvi  Popovoi  povezlo." 

Russkaia  mysl,  (Paris)  (4  October  1979).  p.  10. 
Wismer,  Karo  Dame-.  Konstruktive,  konkrete  und 

radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1914  bis  heute, 

PP- 52-65. 
Yablonskaya,  Women  Artists  of  Russia's  New  Age. 

1900—193$,  pp.  99-116. 

Olga  Vladimirovna  Rozanova 

Bowlt,  lohn  E.  "Olga  Wladimirowna  Rozanova." 

Von  derFlache  zum  Raum/From  Surface  to  Space. 

Russland/ Russia  1916-1924,  pp.  i26-3i.  Exh.  cat., 

Galerie  Gmurzynska,  Cologne,  1974. 
Efros.Abram.  "O.V.  Rozanova."  Profili.  (Moscow) 

Federatsiia,  1980,  pp.  228-29.  First  appeared  as 

Rozanova  obituary  "Vo  sled  ukhodiashchikshim." 

Moskva.  Zhurnal  literatury  i  iskusstva  (M  oscow) 

no.  3  (1919).  pp.  4-6. 
Gunanova.  Nina.  "Na  puti  k  novomu  iskusstvu.  Olga 

Rozanova." Iskusstvo  (Moscow)  no.  1  Qanuary, 

1989),  pp.  24~3o. 
.  "Voennye  graficheskie  tsikly  N.  Goncharovoi  i 

0.  Rozanovoi."  Panorama  iskusstv  (Moscow)  no.  12 

(1989),  pp.  63-88. 
.  "Olga  Rozanova:  Colore  hibero." Art  e Dossier 

(Florence)  no.  85  (Dec.  1993),  pp.  37-43. 


.  Rozanova,  Filonov,  Tatlin,  Goncharova, 

Larionov.  Malevich,  Kulbm.  Moscow;  Avant-Garde; 

Paris:  La  Hune,  1994. 
KhanMagomedov,  Selim.,  et  al.  VonderMalereizum 

Design/From  Painting  to  Design.  Exh.  cat.,  Galerie 

Gmurzynska,  Cologne,  1981. 
Kliun,  Ivan.  "Introduction." Pervaia 

Gosudarstvennaia  naia  vjstavka.  Katalog posmertnoi 

vystavki  kartin.  etiudov.  eskizov  1  nsunkov  O.V. 

Rozanovoi.  Exh.  cat.,  "I  State  Exhibition,"  pp.  i— vi. 

Art  Salon.  Moscow,  1919. 
Marcade,  L 'avant- garde  aufeminin:  Moscou,  Saint- 

Petersbourg,  Pans  (1901— 1980) ,  pp.  14—15, 42—44. 
Rubinger,  Kunstlerinnen  dermssischen 

Avantgarde/Women  -Artists  of  the  Russian  Avant- 
Garde,  1910-1930,  pp.  215—56. 
Rudenstine.  Russian  Avant -Garde  Art:  The  George 

Costakis  Collection,  pp.  453—61. 
Terekhma.  Vera.  "Zhenshchina  russkogo 

avangarda."  CheJtH'efc  (Moscow)  no.  6  (1993). 

pp.  128— 3i. 
-.  "Nachalo  zhizni  tsvetochno  aloi. . .  ." 

Panorama  iskusstv  (Moscow)  no.  12  (1989),  pp. 

38-62- 
Terekhina,  Vera.,  et  al.  OlgaRozanova  1886—1918. 

Exh.  cat.,  Helsingin  KaupungmTaidemuseo, 

Helsinki,  1992. 
Vergine,  L'altra  meta  deU'avanguardia  1910—1940, 

pp.  96-101. 
Wismer,  Karo  Dame-.  Konstruktive.  konkrete  und 

radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1914  bis  heute, 

pp.  66—73. 
Yablonskaya.  Women Artists  of  Russia's  New  Age. 

1900-193$,  pp.  81-98. 

Varvara  Fedorovna  Stepanova 

Bowlt,  John  E.  and  Alexander  Lavrentiev.  Stepanova. 

Cambridge,  Mass.:  The  MIT  Press,  1988. 
Kovtun,  Evgenii.  "Das  Antibuch  derWarwara 

Stepanova/VarvaraStepanova's  Anti-book." 

In  John  E.  Bowlt,  et  al.:  VonderHachezum 

Raum/From  Surface  to  Space.  Russland/Russia 

1916—1924,  pp.  57-64, 142—51.  Exh.  cat.,  Galerie 

Gmurzynska,  Cologne.  1974. 
Lavrentiev,  Alexander. "V.  F.  Stepanova  0  rannem 

konstruktivizme."  TrudyVNllTE  Tekhnicheskaia 

estetika  (Moscow)  no.  21  (1979),  pp-  m— 17. 
.  "Poeziiagraficheskogo  dizaina  vtvorchestve 

Varvary  Stepanovoi."  TrudyVNllTE. 

Tekhnicheskaia  estetika  (Moscow)  no.  5  (1980),  pp. 

22-26. 
— -.  "The  Graphics  of  Visual  Poetry  in  the  Work  of 

Varvara  Stepanova."  Grafik  (Budapest)  no.  1 

(1982).  pp.  46-51. 
Lavrentiev,  Alexander  and  Nicoletta  Misler. 

Stepanova,  Milan:  Idea  Books,  1988. 


364 


BIBUOGraPHY 


Lavrentiev,  Alexander  and  Varvara  Rodchenko.  eds. 

V.  Stepanova:  Chelovek  ne  mozhet  zhit  bez  chuda. 

Moscow:  Sfera,  1994. 
Law,  Alma.  "The  Death  ot'Tarelkin.' 

AConstructivist  Vision  of  Tsarist  Russia."  Russian 

History  (Tempe,  AZ)  8,  parts  1—2  (198a), 

pp.  145-98. 
Quilici,  Vieri.  "Loschermo  traspaarente." 

Rodcenko/Stepanova,  pp.  18-19.  ^xn-  cat-'  Palazzo 

dei  Priori  a  Palazzo  Cesaroni,  Perugia,  1984. 
Rubinger,  Kiinstlerinnen  der  russischen 

Avantgarde/Women-Artists  of  the  Russian  Avant- 

Garde,  1910—1930,  pp.  270—84. 
Rudenstine.  Russian  Avant-  Garde  Art:  The  George 

Costakis  Collection,  pp.  467—69. 
Sarabianov,  Dmitrii,  et  al.  Sieben  Moskauer 

Kunstler/Seven  Moscow  Artists .  Exh.  cat.,  Galene 

Gmurzynska,  Cologne.  1984. 
Stepanova,  Varvara.  "Aufzeichnungen/Occasional 

Notes  (1919-1940)."  InSelim  Khan-Magomedov, 

et  al.:  Von  der  Malerei  zum  Design/From  Painting  to 

Design,  pp.  133—44.  Exh.  cat.,  Galerie  Gmurzynska, 

Cologne,  1981. 
Vergine,  L'altra  meta  dell'avanguardia  10,10—194,0. 

pp.  87-89. 
Wismer,  Karo  Dame:  Konstruktive,  konkrete  und 

radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1914,  bis  heute. 

pp.  84-95. 
Yablonskaya,  Women  Artists  of  Russia's  New  Age, 

1900-1935,  pp.  141-56. 


Vergine,  L'altra  meta  dell'avanguardia  1910—194.0, 

pp.  93-95. 
Wismer.  Karo  Dame:  Konstruhtive,  konkrete  und 

radikale  Kunst  von  Frauen  von  1914.  bis  heute, 

pp.  74-83. 
Yablonskaya.  Women  Artists  of  Russia's  New  Age, 

1900-1935,  pp.  157-72. 


Nadezhda  Andreevna  Udaltsova 

Drevina,  Ekaterina.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  Moscow: 

Trilistik,  1997. 
Drevina,  Ekaterina  and  Veronika  Starodubova,  eds. 

Alexander Drevin.  Nadezhda  Udaltsova,  Exh.  cat., 

Union  of  Artists  of  the  USSR,  Moscow:  Sovetskii 

khudozhnik,  1991. 
Drevina.  Ekaterina  and  Vasdii  Rakitin.  N.  Udaltsova, 

Zhizn  russkoi  kubistki.  Dnevniki,  stati, 

vospominaniia.  Moscow:  RA,  1994. 
Marcade,  L' avant -garde  aufeminin-.  Moscou,  Saint- 

Petersbourg,  Paris  (1907-1930),  pp.  40-41. 
Miasina.  Marianna,  ed.  "Udaltsova,  Nadezhda 

Andreevna."  Stareishie  sovetskie  khudozhnihi  0 

SredneiAzu  1  Kavkaze.  Moscow;  Sovetskii 

khudozhnik,  1973. 
Rubinger,  Kiinstlerinnen  der  russischen 

Avantgarde/Women  -Artists  of  the  Russian  Avant - 

Garde,  1910-1980,  pp.  286— 3i2. 
Rudenstine,  Russian  Avant -Garde  Art.-  The  George 

Costakis  Collection,  pp.  484-87. Sarabianov, 

Dmitrii,  et  al..  Sieben  Moskauer  Kunstler/Seven 

Moscow  Artists,  Exh.  cat.,  Galerie  Gmurzynska, 

Cologne,  1984. 


365 


PHOTO  creDus 


by  figure  number 

2.  Courtesy  private  collection;  5.  Courtesy  Puni- 
Archiv,  Zurich;  8.  Archive  of  the  Institute  of  Modern 
Russian  Culture,  Los  Angeles;  10.  ©  Estate  of 
Vera  Mukhina/Licensed  by  VAGA,  New  York,  NY. 
Photo:  Courtesy  Harry  N.  Abrams,  Inc.;  11.  Courtesy 
Art  Resource.© Erich Lessing;  12.  Courtesy  Georgii 
Kovalenko;  14,.  Courtesy  private  collection; 
18.  ©  State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg: 
20.  ©National  Museum  of  American  Art, 
Smithsonian  Institution:  22-  ©  State  Russian 
Museum,  St.  Petersburg;  23.  Courtesy  Galart, 
Moscow;  24.  Courtesy  private  collection-, 

26.  Courtesy  Herman  Bernmger.  Zurich; 

27.  ©  1999  The  Museum  of  ModernArt,  New  York; 

28.  Courtesy  of  Solianka  Gallery,  Moscow  (Oton 
Engels  Archive,  Malakov  Collection);  29.  Courtesy 
of  Vera  and  Nikita  Goleizovsky,  Moscow;  33. 
Courtesy  private  collection;  35.  Rheinisches 
Bildarchiv,  Cologne.  38.  Photo  by  David  Heald; 
41.  Courtesy  Galart,  Moscow;  42.  Courtesy 
Alexandra  Galitzin  Archive,  Museum  of  Russian 
Culture,  San  Francisco;  43.  ©  State  Russian 
Museum,  St.  Petersburg;  44.  ©  State  Tretiakov 
Gallery,  Moscow;  45.  Archive  of  the  Institute  of 
Modern  Russian  Culture,  LosAngeles;  46.  Courtesy 
Bakhrushin  State  Theater  Museum.  Moscow; 

48.  Courtesy  Galart.  Moscow;  49.  Courtesy 
Osterreichisches  Theatermuseum.  Vienna; 

54.  ©  State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg; 

55.  Courtesy  private  collection;  57.  Courtesy  private 
collection;  58.  Archive  of  the  Institute  of  Modern 
Russian  Culture,  Los  Angeles;  61.  Archive  of  the 
Institute  of  Modern  Russian  Culture,  Los  Angeles; 
62.  Courtesy  Maxim  Fedorovsky,  Berlin;  64.  ©  State 
Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg;  65.  Courtesy  Art 
Co.  Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection);  66.  ©  State 
Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow;  69.  Courtesy  private 
collection;  74.  Courtesy  private  collection; 

77.  Courtesy  Ekaterma  Drevina;  78.  Courtesy 
Dmitrii  Sarabianov,  Moscow;  82.  Courtesy  Vasilii 
Rakitin;  84.  Archive  of  the  Institute  of  Modern 
Russian  Culture.  Los  Angeles;  91.  Courtesy  Mariia 
Zubova,  Moscow:  94.  Courtesy  private  collection; 
100.  Courtesy  private  collection. 


Valereii  Evstigneev;  70,  71 :  ©  Museum  of  Private 
Collections,  Pushkin  Museum  of  Fine  Arts.  Moscow; 
78.  ©  State  Russian  Museum,  St.  Petersburg; 
83.  ©  State  Russian  Museum.  St.  Petersburg, 
courtesy  Harry  N.  Abrams.  Inc.;  86—89:  ©Art  Co. 
Ltd.  (George  Costakis  Collection). 


byplate  number 

2-  Rheinisches  Bildarchiv,  Cologne;  6,  i3, 15, 
16, 26, 28,  29. 34, 38, 40,  65, 74, 77,  80,  82.  85. 
©  State  Tretiakov  Gallery,  Moscow;  12.  ©  1999 
The  Museum  of  ModernArt,  New  York;  14.  Karl 
Arendt,  AFD,  Cologne;  17.  ©  State  Russian  Museum. 
St.  Petersburg;  20.  Phototheque  des  collections 
du  Mnam/Cci;  21  -  ©  National  Museum  and  Gallery. 
Cardiff;  27.  Phototheque  des  collections  du 
Mnam/Cci.;  33,  39.  41:  ©  Art  Co.  Ltd.  (George 
Costakis  Collection);  55-64,  66,  68,  69,  72.