Full text of "Art of the avant-garde in Russia : selections from the George Costakis Collection"

See other formats

Art of the
Avant-Garde
in Russia:

Selections from
the George Costakis
Collection

Art of the Avant-Garde in Russia:

Selections from the George Costakis Collection

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

president Peter O. Lawson-Johnston
vice-president The Right Honorable Earl Castle Stewart

trustees Anne L. Armstrong, Michel David-Weill, Joseph W. Donner, Robin Chandler Duke, John
Hilson, Harold W. McGraw, Jr., Wendy L.-J. McNeil, Thomas M. Messer, Frank R.
Milliken, A. Chauncey Newlin, Lewis T. Preston, Seymour Slive, Albert E. Thiele, Michael
F. Wettach, William T. Ylvisaker

honorary trustees Solomon R. Guggenheim, Justin K. Thannhauser, Peggy Guggenheim
in perpetuity

advisory board Elaine Dannheisser, Susan Morse Hilles, Morton L. Janklow, Barbara Jonas, Bonnie Ward
Simon, Stephen C. Swid

staff Henry Berg, Counsel

Theodore G. Dunker, Secretary-Treasurer; Aili Pontynen, Assistant Treasurer; Barry Bragg,
Assistant to the Treasurer; Margaret P. Cauchois, Assistant; Veronica M. O'Connell

director Thomas M. Messer

THE SOLOMON R. GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM

Diane Waldman, Director of Exhibitions

Catherine Grimshaw, Secretary to the Director; Cynthia M. Kessel, Administrative Assistant

staff Louise Averill Svendsen, Senior Curator; Margit Rowell, Curator of Special Exhibitions;

Vivian Endicott Barnett, Research Curator; Lisa Dennison Tabak, Assistant Curator; Carol
Fuerstein, Editor; Ward Jackson, Archivist; Philip Verre, Collections Coordinator; Susan B.
Hirschfeld, Exhibitions Coordinator; Lucy Flint, Curatorial Coordinator; Cynthia Susan
Clark, Editorial Assistant

Angelica Zander Rudenstine, Adjunct Curator

Orrin H. Riley, Conservator; Elizabeth Estabrook, Conservation Coordinator; Harold B.
Nelson, Registrar; Jane Rubin, William J. Alonso, Assistant Registrars; Marion Kahan,
Registrar's Assistant; Saul Fuerstein, Preparator; Robert D. Nielsen, Assistant Preparator;
William Smith, Preparation Assistant; Scott A. Wixon, Operations Manager; Tony Moore,
Assistant Operations Manager; Takayuki Amano, Head Carpenter; Carmelo Guadagno,
Photographer; Holly Fullam, Photography Coordinator

Mimi Poser, Officer for Development and Public Affairs; Carolyn Porcelli, Ann Kraft, Devel-
opment Associates; Susan L. Halper, Membership Associate; Cynthia Wootton, Develop-
ment Coordinator

Agnes R. Connolly, Auditor; James O'Shea, Sales Coordinator; Mark J. Foster, Sales Man-
ager; Robert Turner, Restaurant Manager; Rosemary Faella, Assistant Restaurant Manager;
Darrie Hammer, Katherine W. Briggs, Information

David A. Sutter, Building Superintendent; Charles Gazzola, Assistant Building Superinten-
dent; Charles F. Banach, Head Guard; Elbio Almiron, Marie Bradley, Assistant Head Guards

life members Eleanor, Countess Castle Stewart, Mr. and Mrs. Werner Dannheisser, Mr. William C.

Edwards, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Andrew P. Fuller, Mrs. Bernard F. Gimbel, Mr. and Mrs. Peter O.
Lawson-Johnston, Mrs. Samuel I . Rosenman, Mrs. S. H. Scheuer, Mrs. Hilde Thannhauser

CORPORATE patrons Alcoa Foundation, Atlantic Richfield Foundation, Exxon Corporation, Mobil Corporation,
Philip Morris Incorporated

government patrons National Endowment for the Arts, New York State Council on the Arts

Art of the
Avant-Garde
in Russia:

Selections from
the George Costakis
Collection

by Margit Rowell and Angelica Zander Rudenstine

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York

Published by

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation,

New York 1981

ISBN: 0-89207-29-3

Library of Congress Card Catalog Number: 81-52858

Cover: El Lissitzky

Untitled. 1919-1920 (cat. no. 138)

EXHIBITION 81/4

10,000 copies of this catalogue,

have been typeset by Dumar Typesetting

and printed by Eastern Press

in September 1981 for the Trustees of

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

on the occasion of the exhibition

Art of the Avant-Garde in Russia:

Selections from the George Costakis Collection.

Contents

Preface

by Thomas M. Messer

Acknowledgments

The George Costakis Collection 9

by Angelica Zander Rudenstine

New Insights into Soviet Constructivism: 15

Painting, Constructions, Production Art
by Margit Rowell

The Catalogue

by Angelica Zander Rudenstine

Notes for the Reader

Symbolism and Origins

II.

Cubo-Futurism

III.

Matiushin and His School
Pavel Filonov

74
108

IV.

Suprematism and Unovis

110

The Inkhuk and Constructivism

198

VI.

Productivism

259

VII. Parallel Trends: The Figurative 305
and the Cosmic, 1918-1930

Biographical Notes 312

Index of Artists in the Exhibition 319

Photographic Credits 320

Preface

The name of George Costakis has been well known
throughout the art world for some time. A citizen
of Greece who had spent his entire life in the Soviet
Union, he accomplished the extraordinary and
unique feat of amassing a private collection of twen-
tieth-century Russian and Soviet art in which the
great names of the avant-garde are often represented
by numerous works and in a variety of media. Over
the years, many a visitor from abroad was privi-
leged to visit the Costakis apartment to find exquis-
ite examples illuminating a little-known chapter of
modern-art history. The works were hung or merely
placed in an informal and unselfconscious setting
over which the collector-proprietor presided with
authoritative knowledge and unflagging enthusiasm.

Visitors who came in 1977 or thereafter could
no longer see the entire collection in George Co-
stakis's home. But during the 1977 ICOM confer-
ence, it was possible to glimpse a few examples
from it in a segregated area at the Tretiakov Gal-
lery in Moscow. It was subsequently announced
that about eighty percent of Costakts's art holdings
was to remain at the Tretiakov as the collector's
generous gift to the country that, his Greek citizen-
ship notwithstanding, had always been his own.
Costakis and virtually his entire family emigrated
with the remainder of the collection and settled
in Athens.

The first public showing of the part of the col-
lection brought out of the Soviet Union was ar-
ranged in 1977, almost immediately upon its arrival
in the West, by Wend von Kalnein, then director of
the Diisseldorf Kunstmuseum. This event, together
with a slide presentation of the collection at the
Guggenheim Museum in 1973, indirectly resulted
in the current exhibition.

Many visits, first to the Costakis home, then
to the Tretiakov Gallery and eventually to Diissel-
dorf, were made by Margit Rowell, Angelica
Rudenstine and myself. They led us to approach
Costakis with a proposal to entrust the collection
now in the West to the Guggenheim Museum for
thorough study, conservation and documentation
as necessary preliminaries to a selective exhibition
at the Guggenheim and subsequent extended circu-
lation to other museums under our auspices. Mr.
Costakis agreed to this undertaking, and Margit
Rowell, as Curator of Special Exhibitions, with Ad-

junct Curator Angelica Rudenstine, brought the
project to its present stage. Both engaged in exten-
sive scholarly research in order to arrive at the care-
fully considered selection on display and to produce
a catalogue rich in new and reliable information.
That other Guggenheim staff members, who are
acknowledged elsewhere in this publication, have
provided essential support does not in any way di-
minish the importance of the contributions of the
co-curators.

The part played by George Costakis as collec-
tor and lender is too obvious to be belabored in this
preface, but it should be stressed that the owner of
this extraordinary collection remained in close
touch with all aspects of the project, freely provid-
ing valuable, previously unpublished data and as-
serting a lively interest though not a determining
voice throughout the process of selection.

The Guggenheim Museum has embarked upon
this project, as it has upon comparable exhibitions
in the past, in order to contribute to the expansion
of knowledge of the twentieth-century art that re-
mains outside the already codified and by now fa-
miliar mainsrream. The collector's willingness to
enter into a professional relationship with the Gug-
genheim Foundation represents his response to our
initiative.

I therefore take great pleasure in expressing
the Guggenheim's gratitude to George Costakis for
joining in a friendship that we hope will endure
long beyond the occasion of the current exhibition.

Thomas M. Messer, Director

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

Acknowledgments

Many scholars and friends have generously shared
their knowledge of the Russian and Soviet field with
us. Among them we would particularly like to
thank the following individuals without whose in-
valuable assistance we could not have produced the
present exhibition and catalogue:

Vasilii Rakitin, the Soviet art historian, pro-
vided us with extensive biographical information
about the artists and a checklist of many of the
works in the George Costakis collection. Much of
the information he supplied has been incorporated
into the catalogue.

Translations were undertaken by Chimen
Abramsky, Sarah Bodine, Christina A. Lodder,
Tatyana Feifer, Arina Malukov, Marian Schwartz,
Eleanor Sutter and Steven Wolin.

Christina A. Lodder, by generously putting her
manuscript, Constructivism: From Fine Art into
Design (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1982), at
our disposal, provided us with illuminating insights
and information in the field of Constructivism.

We are further grateful to the following schol-
ars and friends for their contributions to our re-
search: Nina Berberova, Sarah Bodine, John E.
Bowlt, Ellen Chances, Jean Chauvelin, Sophie
Consagra, Cleve Gray, Alma H. Law, Arina Malu-
kov, Jean-Claude Marcade, Marc Martin Malburet,
Zoia Ender Masetti, Andrei B. Nakov, Dmitrii
Sarabianov.

We would also like to thank present and for-
mer members of the Museum staff and the intern
program who have made vital contributions:

Philip Verre coordinated all aspects of the
exhibition and assisted us in innumerable ways
from the inception of the undertaking: it could not
have been brought to a successful conclusion with-
out him.

Elizabeth Funghini helped to prepare the ini-
tial inventory. Lucy Flint and Ann Husson contrib-
uted research and handled demanding technical and
organizational matters with extraordinary dedica-
tion. Saul Fuerstein and his staff, Joan Insa, Robert
D. Nielsen, William Smith, tackled intricate and
delicate framing requirements and successfully
solved innumerable logistical problems over a long
period of time.

Anne Hoy, editor of the catalogue, has pro-
vided sensitive and thorough guidance and expertise

in the face of an unusually demanding production
schedule.

We are grateful to Antonina Gmurzynska,
Cologne, and a private collector who prefers to
remain anonymous for lending works formerly in
the Costakis collection.

Finally, to the appreciation expressed by
Thomas M. Messer, we would like to add our
thanks to George Costakis. The opportunity to
work with his collection has been a rare and incom-
parable experience for us both.

M.R. andA.Z.R.

George Costakis seated in living room of his Moscow
apartment, 1974

The George Costakis Collection

by Angelica Zander Rudenstine

Georgii Dionisevich Costakis was born in Moscow,
of Greek parents, in 1912, the third of five children.
His father, Dionysius Costakis, had emigrated to
Tsarist Russia in about 1907, seeking his fortune.
He settled in Moscow, where there was a sizable
and flourishing Greek community, joined a large
tobacco firm, and within a few years had become
the owner of the entire business.1

Costakis's mother also belonged to the world
of Greek tobacco interests: her father, Simeon Pa-
pachristoduglu, had been a highly successful to-
bacco merchant in Tashkent who had married into
the well-known aristocratic Sarris family. Though
he had then lost his fortune and abandoned his wife
and children, they had — through Sarris connec-
tions — been taken in by a Greek official living in
Moscow who provided them with upbringing and
education.

When the Bolshevik Revolution came in 1917,
the Costakis family, like many other Greeks, re-
mained in Moscow. They were not supporters of
the Bolshevik cause: as pious orthodox Christians
they could be expected to oppose it on religious
grounds alone. Furthermore, they — like many
others — did not expect the regime to last. As time
went by, and their expectations were disappointed,
they accommodated themselves to new conditions.

As George Costakis was growing up in the
1920s, the Bolsheviks were restructuring the entire
educational system. Lenin's aim had been to raise
cultural standards, and to expand literacy through
mass education, but the actual situation during
these years (when open admissions were estab-
lished, but admissions quotas were simultaneously
instituted for the bourgeois) was one of confusion
and limited opportunity. Costakis's family was of
some cultivation (his mother knew six languages),
but he had little in the way of formal schooling. By
the time he was seventeen years old, in 1929, he was
clearly expected to be independent. Fortunately, his
older brother Spiridon (who was, interestingly
enough, a national motorcycle racing hero) helped
him to find a job in the Greek Embassy. Later Co-
stakis obtained a position at the Canadian Embassy,
where he remained for the next thirty-five years —
his entire working life.

During the same year that Costakis began his
embassy career, 1929- 1930, Kazimir Malevich had
a one-man show at the Tretiakov Gallery in
Moscow; Vsevolod Meierkhold produced Klop
(Bedbug) by the poet Vladimir Maiakovsky, with
designs by Alexandr Rodchenko, and Bahi {Bath-
house) with designs by Alexandr Deineka; the di-
rector Dziga Vertov presented his Constructivist
film Man with a Movie Camera. But these events
went unnoticed by the young Costakis, and — to be
sure — by most of his contemporaries. Indeed, the

1 Fads about Costakis's life are published in much greater detail by
S. Frederick Starr, to whose research I am indebted (R.. S.. C, Costakis.
pp. 26-51). My own research, like his. has been extensively based on
interviews with Costakis himselt.

avant-garde movement in the arts was by then
waning. Costakis had been far too young to wit-
ness its dynamic flowering between 1915 and 1922,
and he was not attuned to the succession of events
that signaled its approaching end. In 1919- 1930
Maiakovsky committed suicide; a retrospective of
the work of Pavel Filonov, scheduled to open at the
Russian Museum in Leningrad, fell victim to con-
servative opposition and was canceled; Anatolii
Lunacharsky, the cultural minister (director of the
People's Commissariat of Enlightenment, Nar-
kompros), who had been a sympathetic supporter
of much that the avant-garde movement repre-
sented, resigned. In 193 1 the Russian Association
of Proletarian Artists formulated its conception of
art as ideology, "a revolutionary weapon in the
class struggle," and in 1934 Socialist Realism was
adopted as the exclusive style for all forms of Soviet
art. The era of the avant-garde had come to a close.

Meanwhile, Costakis at age nineteen had mar-
ried Zinaida Panfilova, a bookkeeper at the Java
Tobacco Factory. They settled modestly in a one-
room apartment in Moscow, and he began to show
the first signs of becoming a collector. The fields he
chose were conventional: Russian silver, porcelain
and sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Dutch
paintings. Within a decade, he had amassed a con-
siderable collection in these areas. Two important
factors helped in the thirties and early forties to
produce a favorable climate for collecting, and they
gave added impetus to Costakis's natural inclina-
tions. First, the Government, which desperately
needed foreign currency in order to purchase in-
dustrial machinery, had from 1928 ordered massive
sales of paintings and antiques to foreign buyers;
simultaneously, it also encouraged sales to Soviet
citizens who could buy similar items in state-owned
"commission stores."2 Second, art collecting was
entirely legal in the Soviet Union, and — because
currency fluctuations were then so volatile — invest-
ments in art and antiques were highly desirable.3

This environment was totally transformed, of
course, by the severe hardships of World War II.
Indeed, by the end of the War, extreme conditions
of poverty and famine, and shortages of all kinds
had forced most people — including Costakis — to
sell much of what they owned in order to acquire
food, clothing and other vital necessities. Costakis
at this point still had a collection of about thirty
Dutch pictures, but he was beginning to tire of
them: their somber colors depressed him, and he
no longer derived great satisfaction from owning
them.

He entered the field of the avant-garde quite
by accident.4 One day he was shown a brilliantly
hued abstract painting by Olga Rozanova, an artist
of whom he had never heard. Its impact upon him
was instantaneous: "I was dazzled by the flaming

colors in this unknown work, so unlike anything I
had seen before." The identity of the artist, her ori-
gins, the historical and aesthetic environment from
which she came — all these became the subject of
immediate inquiry. Costakis sold his entire collec-
tion and began what would become a thirty-year
quest for the works of the avant-garde and for
information about the history of the movement.

There were a number of reasons why that his-
tory was essentially a closed book in 1946. The
most compelling reasons were of course political
and ideological. The Bolshevik regime had initially
encouraged the ambitions of the avant-garde to
create a major revolution in art, comparable in its
implications to the political revolution which had
just been achieved. Kandinsky, Malevich, Rod-
chenko, Vladimir Tatlin, Osip Brik, Viktor Shklov-
sky, Nikolai Punin and others were placed at the
top of the new artistic hierarchy — in charge of the
Government's Section of Fine Arts — and were
asked to "construct and organize all art schools
and the entire art life of the country."5 As Luna-
charsky later claimed: "No other government has
responded so well to artists and to art in general
as the present one."6

This situation, however, lasted only a short
time. The avant-garde was of course a minority
among artists, and they soon became deeply divided
even among themselves. Innumerable disagree-
ments and dissensions developed along aesthetic
and intellectual lines. In addition, Lunacharsky's
official support for this revolutionary cadre came
under attack from the very start. As early as 1920,
there was significant organized opposition from
within the artistic community: many artists felt that
the avant-garde's formal, abstract approach was
far too limited in its appeal, that its work was essen-
tially unintelligible and that the complete break
with the past advocated by the Section of Fine Arts
was destructive rather than regenerative. Lunachar-
sky's attempts to mediate were in the end ineffec-
tive, and Lenin finally insisted on a reduction of the
authority of the avant-garde group.7 This was the
beginning of official political opposition to the
avant-garde — an opposition which grew steadily
over the course of the next decade and more.

It would be a mistake, however, to ascribe the
disintegration of the avant-garde entirely to polit-
ical attitudes and events. As mentioned before, the
hostility of other artists was a significant force —
quite apart from the fact that the different groups
within the avant-garde movement scarcely tolerated
one another. In addition, Costakis and others have
long held the view that under the pressure of these
various antagonisms, some members of the avant-
garde began to suffer a serious loss of confidence in
their own methods and goals. Once the initial pe-
riod of enthusiasm and activity — particularly the

2. Starr's discussion of the history of collecting in Russia provides much
new information on this subject. Ibid, pp. 22-26.

3. R . S . C , Costakis. p. 30

4. The earliest reports about Costakis's collecting activities were in the
press. Notable among over two hundred articles are' Hermann Porzgen in
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. No 110. May 13, 1972; Bruce Chatwin
in the Sunday Times Magazine, London. May 6. 1973 See also

Kunstmuseum Diisseldorf. Werke aus der Sammlung Costakis, Russisctie
Avantgarde 1910-1930, 1977; and Douglas Davis in Art in America,
Nov -Dec 1977

5. "Otchet 0 deiatelnosti Otdela izobrazitelnykh iskusstv," Vestmk
narodnogo prosvesticheniia soiuza severnoi oblasti, Nos. 6-8, 1918,
p. 87, quoted by V D Barooshian, "The Avant-Garde and the Russian
Revolution:- Russian Literature Tnguarterly, fall 1972, p. 348.

years 1913-1924 — had passed without favorable
public response, many of them found it difficult (not
surprisingly) to sustain the same degree of convic-
tion that had characterized their original efforts and
formulations. Far from advertising the art of their
early years, some of them turned away from it: they
transformed their styles, and neglected and, in some
cases, even lost or destroyed the work of their
youth. In this way the "record" of the avant-garde
suffered yet another form of destruction : in addi-
tion to the incalculable losses caused by sheer polit-
ical suppression, there was the cumulative damage
that resulted from the change in attitudes and feel-
ings on the parts of artists themselves.

In this connection, it is important to note that
one of the leading art critics and theoreticians of
the movement, Nikolai Tarabukin, whom Costakis
met several times, shared Costakis's view on this
point. Tarabukin had abandoned hope that the
avant-garde would ever be revived, and he agreed
that his compatriots had suffered significant blows
to their self-confidence as their achievements went
unappreciated by both the public and by the Bol-
shevik regime.8

It is of course impossible to determine the
extent to which such changes in attitude were the
result of simple fear in response to pressure and
hostility, or of a quite human desire to conform, or
of an actual loss of faith in the achievements of
avant-garde art. All of these — and other — factors
were undoubtedly at work. Meanwhile, ideological
attacks on individual artists began in earnest dur-
ing the early 1930s. The journalist V. Grishakin,
for example, published an extremely critical article
concerning Rodchenko's photography in Zhmnal-
ist, stating that Rodchenko's use of various forms
of "distortion" was in fact anti-Revolutionary.
Osip Beskin published a book in 1933 entitled
Formalism in Fainting, in which the term "formal-
ist" (synonymous with bourgeois decadence) was
applied to a number of artists, including Alexandr
Drevin. By 1938, Drevin had been arrested, and he
was never seen again. Immediately thereafter, his
wife Nadezhda Udaltsova destroyed every one of
her own earlier works still in her possession.9

Costakis's long, painstaking quest in search of
the avant-garde, therefore, can without exaggera-
tion be described as a private archaeological exca-
vation. By the late 1940s, the names of many of
the artists had been virtually forgotten, information
about their very existence was difficult to find and
many of their works had been packed away in attics,
lost or destroyed. The chronology of the movement
as a whole was uncharted. The various groups
within the movement were little known and poorly
defined: their stylistic differences, their various in-
terrelationships, their philosophical, social and re-
ligious attitudes — all these and many other factors

required rediscovery and careful reconstruction.

In the course of his own collecting, Costakis
gradually created his own "map" of the avant-
garde terrain, and he eventually dated the beginning
of the movement as ca. 1910. During that year, the
newly established "Union of Youth" {Soiuz molo-
dezhi) opened its first exhibition in St. Petersburg
with the participation of, among others, David and
Vladimir Burliuk, Natalia Goncharova, Pavel Filo-
nov, Mikhail Larionov and Alexandra Exter. In
Moscow, also in 1910, the newly established "Jack
of Diamonds" group {Bnbnovyi valet) held its first
exhibition with the same artists, together with Kan-
dinsky, Malevich, Aristarkh Lentulov, Alexei
Morgunov, and many others. The artistic activity
of those who later became prominent in the avant-
garde obviously antedated 1910, and Costakis him-
self purchased some works that were painted dur-
ing the previous decade. (See, for example, cat. nos.
1-5.) But his conviction that the innovative nature
of the movement and its emerging self-conscious-
ness as a "movement" date from about 1910 is
certainly plausible. During the years 1910-1921, the
artistic climate in Moscow and St. Petersburg
(Petrograd) was characterized by continuous
experimentation and an increasing preoccupation
with the concept of an avant-garde. Constant and
rapid developments in styles and theories were in-
stantly reflected in the many exhibitions organized
to bring new work to the attention of the public.
Alliances were formed and broken, theories were
formulated and revised, all at a remarkable pace.
The exhibition catalogues of the period, the mani-
festoes and the reviews provide essential documen-
tation of these changes, and it was partly to these
documents that Costakis turned as he sought to
learn the names and identities of the individual
artists and the groups from this period. He soon
concluded that the movement as a whole could in
no sense be described in terms of "progress" or a
clear line of "development." Rather, it was, as the
Soviet art historian Vasilii Rakitin has recently
described it, "a permanently mobile condition of
the artistic consciousness of an epoch."10

It is natural, as one looks back on the era, to
seek to establish its various parameters, to fix im-
portant points and to define stylistic and philosoph-
ical issues in such a way as to suggest the steady
development and even the coherence of events.
Thus, for example, the first Futurist books by
Velimir Khlebnikov and Alexei Kruchenykh, the
invention of their transrational (zaum) language
and the contemporary related alogical paintings of
Malevich and Morgunov, all date from 1913-14.
Malcvich's Suprematism was first articulated in
theoretical and visual form on the occasion of the
December 1915 0.10 exhibition. The first moves
towards a "constructive" definition of form oc-

6 Barooshian, p 358, fn. 9.

7. Ibid. pp. 355-57

8. Costakis had several conversations with Tarabukin and others on this
subject. (Interview with the author ) For extensive intormation on Tarabukin
and his theory, see A B. Nakov, ed., Nikolai Taraboukme Le dernier
tableau, Paris, 1972.

9. Andrei Drevin, son of the artist, related this to Costakis, and the tacts

are contirmed by other sources. Some early works by Udaltsova were
in other hands by 1938 and were thus preserved. Andrei Drevin also
discovered a tew additional early works after Udaltsova's death, and-
according to her wishes -ottered them for sale to Costakis.

10. "The Russian Avant-Garde Movement Freedom and Necessity!'
unpublished manuscript, collection G. Costakis, trans. E. J. Cruise
with A. N. Tiurin.

curred inTatlin's reliefs of 191 3-15, while the full
emergence of Constructivism may be said to have
occurred in 1910-21. Clarifications of this kind are
extremely helpful — indeed, essential — and they
serve to illuminate the landmark-moments of the
period. They also, however, serve to blur the count-
less subtle and complex similarities as well as dis-
tinctions between one artist and another, and one
group and another; they tend to overlook the
variety of stylistic expression within any individual
movement, as well as the often inexplicable and
apparently unjustifiable stylistic changes within the
work of a single artist.

It is important to remember, therefore, that
when Costakis set out to build his collection, he
had no established "framework" for the period.
Rather, he approached the entire span of two
decades as a vast panorama embracing a multitude
of characters and events; he focused not simply on
those which were "important" and even well-
known, but also on those which seemed minor,
or idiosyncratic or even insignificant. As he has
often repeated: "The army was huge. Most art his-
torians whom I met as I began to learn about the
avant-garde told me of a dozen artists, or at most
fifteen: Tatlin was mentioned, Malevich, Larionov,
Goncharova, Exter, Kandinsky, Chagall, Lissitzky,
and a few others. But these art historians had too
narrow a view. There were Generals, Majors,
Colonels, Captains, Sergeants, and — not to be for-
gotten — many foot soldiers. If you forget these, you
do not understand the avant-garde. I collected the
work of about fifty-eight artists; I'm sure that there
were many more; probably three hundred."

With this basic conviction, Costakis naturally
tried to leave no stone unturned in his pursuit of
the avant-garde. While he feels strongly that he
missed collecting the work of many artists —
through bad luck, unfortunate timing or lack of
knowledge — his overriding principle was always to
fill in the picture with more and more artists, and to
show them in the various stages of their stylistic
developments.

Very soon after World War II, in 1946, Co-
stakis met Rodchenko and Varvara Stepanova, a
couple who were to become his close friends. Rod-
chenko was at that point a quiet, depressed figure,
who had — as Costakis put it — "totally lost confi-
dence in his early work." In his apartment, he ex-
hibited works that he had painted in 1930-35
(circus figures, clowns), some late abstractions, but
little else. Although Rodchenko continued to be
fascinated by photography — an interest he had
pursued all his life, and with special intensity dur-
ing the 1920s and early 1930s — the rest of his
creative achievement seemed to have lost all signifi-
cance for him. Indeed, Costakis himself had not
been especially aggressive in his acquisitions of

Rodchenko's early work. It was not until several
years later, after Alfred Barr's visit to Moscow in
1956 (and in response to Barr's enthusiasm for
Rodchenko's art), that Costakis began to purchase
the artist's avant-garde work on a larger scale.
Though he had always known about Rodchenko's
leadership earlier in the century, he had somehow
been influenced by the artist's own sense of de-
moralization. When he finally did begin to buy
whatever he could, the works were difficult to find:
he discovered one large painting that was being
used — "face down" — as the covering for a table
top; he unearthed the last surviving Hanging Con-
struction of ca. 1920 in a pile of old newspapers
lying in a storage space. Meanwhile, Rodchenko
continued to be surprised at any interest shown in
his avant-garde achievement — almost to the time
of his death in 1956.

Of Stepanova, Costakis says: "She was the
general of the family; very masculine, very strong.
I didn't like her work as much and I acquired very
little; but now I think I was wrong. She was a fine
artist." Tatlin was also an early acquaintance.
Costakis met him in Moscow in 1949, and used to
visit him in Petrovsky Park where he lived in a
squalid apartment. Costakis remembers him as
bitter, demoralized and critical of almost all the
early members of the avant-garde. Rodchenko was
one of the few artists he praised, one of the few he
regarded as truly creative. Through Tatlin's mem-
ories, Costakis gained an insight into some of the
fiercest antagonisms of the Revolutionary era, the
deep intolerance of one artist for another, the pas-
sion and intransigence with which philosophical
and aesthetic convictions were often held.

Costakis's early search for the work of Olga
Rozanova brought him to the poet Kruchenykh,
whom he came to know very well. Kruchenykh
lived in the same apartment as Udaltsova — she in a
room to the left, he to the right, with toilet facilities
between. His room was about ten feet square, and
contained only a chair, a sofa and a table. Every
remaining inch was taken up with papers and
books piled helter-skelter, waist high upon the
floor. Kruchenykh talked of the poetry of Khlebni-
kov, of literature and philosophy, but never of his
young wife Rozanova who had died so tragically in
1918. Her dramatic painting of 1917 — the Green
Stripe (cat. no. 105) — had been given to Costakis
as a present years earlier, but — search as he might
— he was never able to find more paintings by this
artist whom he regarded as perhaps the most gifted
of all the avant-garde painters.

Liubov Popova's extraordinary stature was
recognized by Costakis by the early 1950s. She, like
Rozanova, had died while the avant-garde move-
ment was still in full swing. Costakis, however,
managed to meet her brother, Pavel Popov, a dis-

tinguished, elegant professor of philosophy who
lived in a comfortable five-room apartment, and
the two men became friends. Although Popov had
a large collection of his sister's work, he had no
deep appreciation of it. Costakis purchased literally
dozens of paintings from him (later giving many of
them away to friends); Popov often seemed some-
what relieved to see the large, cumbersome panels
taken out of the closets where they were stacked.
Costakis also came to know Popov's stepson and
acquired most of his several hundred Popova draw-
ings and gouaches from this source.

Gustav Klucis, who perished during World
War II, was another early discovery for Costakis.
The artist's widow Valentina Kulagina received
Costakis warmly, and they came to know one
another well. She is, as he put it, "a wonderful
woman, beautiful, charming, one of the few wid-
ows of painters who really understood the quality
of their husbands' contributions." She had by then
already donated a considerable collection of her
husband's work to a museum in Riga. She allowed
Costakis to purchase much of what was left, includ-
ing the single remaining "axiometric" painting
(cat. no. 150). The art historian Nikolai Khardzhiev
also appreciated the work of Klucis and shared
Costakis's view of the Latvian's originality and
brilliance. Few others did.

Ivan Kliun, whom Costakis had encountered
once or twice about 1940 at exhibitions in Mos-
cow, died in 1942. When Costakis began combing
through exhibition catalogues in the late 1940s, he
became convinced that Kliun was an important
figure. He started to look for surviving relatives,
and after many frustrating attempts, located one of
Kliun's daughters. She was amazed and delighted
to encounter, for the first time in her life, someone
who was interested in her father's work. The doz-
ens of drawings and watercolors in her possession
had remained piled in unopened dusty packages
for decades. Similarly, the paintings (stored with a
sister) were stacked carelessly in corners. Costakis
purchased everything by Kliun that he could find,
although an incalculable number of the artist's
works had been destroyed during the War, as had
all of his early constructions —some of wire, others
of wood.11

During the 1950s, according to Costakis, it
was difficult to find people who took the art of
Rodchenko, Popova, Rozanova and Kliun seri-
ously. As he gradually gathered the works of these
artists into his apartment, he was often ridiculed
by family and friends. Nonetheless, he continued
to collect, increasingly confident about the impor-
tance of his venture. There were certain artists
whose reputations he knew well, but whose works
eluded him for many years, and others whose work
he never found. Thus, although he was able rather

early on to purchase Malevich's Portrait of Matiu-
shin from Nikolai Khardzhiev (who helped him in
many ways), it was years later before he was able to
purchase works from the collection of Malevich's
brother.12

In the case of the painters in the circle of Mik-
hail Matiushin (see pp. 74-107), Costakis had
known of the existence of Matiushin himself and of
Boris Ender for many years, and he knew that Ender
was still living in Moscow, a close friend of Khard-
zhiev. But Ender was reluctant to show his work,
and Costakis was unable to make contact with him,
in spite of many attempts. One day, Costakis was
approached by a friend who asked him to come to
the hotel where he was staying. When Costakis ar-
rived, he was shown about a thousand watercolors
by the Enders (Boris, Yurii, Mariia and Ksenia) and
three oils by Matiushin, all of which had been re-
cently bought from the Ender family in Leningrad.
Costakis, who was instantly struck by the original-
ity and quality of the paintings, purchased the en-
tire collection on the spot, for a modest sum.13

Ivan Kudriashev was a close friend from the
mid-1950s. Costakis initially felt no special interest
in his work, but the two men often talked of Su-
prematism, of the City of Orenburg, of Unovis (the
group founded by Malevich), and of Kudriashev's
own experiences as a friend and follower of Male-
vich. Ultimately Costakis purchased virtually all the
surviving early work of Kudriashev, although he
readily acknowledges that he recognized its impor-
tance rather late.

Other discoveries also came belatedly in Cos-
takis's collecting career. The "engineerists" Kliment
Redko and Mikhail Plaksin lived into the 1960s,
but Costakis never met them. His interest in their
branch of the avant-garde enterprise (see pp. 305,
307-308) developed about 1965, and his friend the
art critic Vladimir Kostin helped him to locate Red-
ko's widow. She herself had only recently discov-
ered her husband's work of the twenties (which he
had hidden away and never shown her). As late as
the mid-1960s, Costakis was still the first person in-
terested in buying the art of this group.

Costakis had heard about Sergei Senkin's
work, but he could scarcely find examples of it; Er-
milov's he regarded as important but it too eluded
him. He totally overlooked the Constructivists Kon-
stantin Medunetsky, Alexei Babichev, Boris Koro-
lev, Karel Ioganson, Nikolai Ladovsky and others,
until he acquired the important Inkhuk portfolio
from Babichev's widow in about 1967. He blames
himself for not having sought them out earlier. (See
pp. 126-227.)

Solomon Nikritin and Vasilii Chekrygin
were also important discoveries for Costakis. They
represented an aspect of the avant-garde character-
ized by spiritual tension, anxiety and romantic ex-

11 See cat. nos 85, 192. Also Ft., S., C, Costakis. pis 255-58.
289-90. 293-98.

12. See Ft.. S , C. Costakis. pis. 474. 476-78, 480-82.

13 Approximately eight hundred of these works were later stolen from
Costakis's home In the Soviet Union

pressiveness. Like Plaksin and Redko, they also
explored cosmic themes. Nikritin's work, in partic-
ular, became one of the major centers of his collec-
tion (with several hundred examples). Chekrygin,
who died in 1912 at age twenty-five, left almost
1500 drawings, but very few paintings. Several of
those which survived entered the Costakis col-
lection.

• • •

This brief introduction has — necessarily — pro-
vided only a sketch of Costakis's collection and of
his basic approach. His fundamental aim, over the
course of more than thirty years, has been to repre-
sent as broadly as possible the full diversity of the
Russian avant-garde achievement. Virtually every
avant-garde artist who worked between ca. 1910
and the 1930s has, in his view, a legitimate place in
the history of the movement, and each stage in an
artist's career is worthy of study.

In arriving at our selection for the current
exhibition, we have taken several important con-
siderations into account. In contrast to the 1977
presentation of the collection in Diisseldorf, which
demonstrated the breadth and scope of Costakis's
present holdings, this second exhibition has a rather
different focus: it is selective and concentrated in its
approach, and it singles out a set of individual art-
ists and groups for presentation in some detail.
Many of the works in the exhibition are being
shown in the West for the first time. Although much
is omitted (the collection contains approximately
1 2.00 items),1 ' our hope has been that through the
particular orientation of our selection we will con-
tribute to a fuller understanding of certain aspects

of the avant-garde than has been possible hitherto.

There are five areas of concentration here: the
work of Popova, which is represented with unusual
breadth in the Costakis collection; that of Kliun;
that of Klucis; Matiushin and his school; and cer-
tain aspects of the discipline of Constructivism. In
order to elucidate the contexts within which these
works were produced, we have used seven conven-
tional stylistic groupings in this catalogue. But in
doing so, our intention is not to emphasize the
theoretical or stylistic uniformity suggested by the
headings. The label "Suprematism," for example,
tends to blur the important distinctions that devel-
oped among the works of Malevich, Kliun, Popova
and Rozanova, as they formulated their indepen-
dent approaches to the basic issues embraced by
the style. The varieties of approach that coexisted
within every one of the avant-garde's innumerable
groups and the mobility of the artists between one
group and another must be borne in mind, and the
headings given in the catalogue should therefore be
understood as only general designations for what
often constituted internally inconsistent and diverse
tendencies.

Though we have included some examples of
the figurative tradition, and some works illustrating
the cosmic and technological utopianism of the
1920s in which Costakis has demonstrated exten-
sive interest, we have not attempted to do full justice
to these artists and their work. Given the complex-
ity of the avant-garde movement as a whole, and
the particular nature of Costakis's present holdings,
we have chosen rather to place our emphasis upon
a few, clearly discernible strands.

14 The precise number of works given by Costakis to the Tretiakov is not
known. Costakis's present holdings, together with 125 of the works from
the Tretiakov's Costakis holdings, are reproduced in R., S., C, Costakis

New Insights into Soviet
Constructivism: Painting,
Constructions, Production Art

by Margit Rowell

The selection from the George Costakis collection
exhibited here offers surprises that challenge us to
reexamine certain premises about the Russian and
Soviet avant-garde as we thought we knew it. The
exhibition contains substantial bodies of work by
artists whom we knew partially, as well as lesser
bodies of work by artists of whom we knew little
or nothing. This fragment of the lifetime pursuit of
an enlightened and impassioned amateur d'art pro-
vides us with a broader picture and a fuller under-
standing of a moment in the history of art that is
fundamental to our comprehension of the art of
our century.

A proliferation of exhibitions and publications
over the last decade has given Western scholars un-
precedented exposure to the art of pre-Soviet and
Soviet Russia. At the same time, this exposure has
engendered a sense of frustration because real
understanding based on a complete grasp of the
material continues to elude us. The works and doc-
uments that have come to the West are often frag-
mentary and without provenance, and sometimes
have attributions that cannot be easily confirmed
owing to our lack of knowledge. The immense value
of the George Costakis collection is that it is the
creation of a single man who was intimately in-
volved with the art and the artists of the period
1910-1930 and who, in this context, brought to-
gether an enormous group of works in the Soviet
Union, drawing only on primary or confirmed sec-
ondary sources.

As the present catalogue makes clear, the col-
lection reveals many areas of formerly uncharted
terrain in Russian avant-garde art. Among them,
three areas that are particularly well represented
seem to us worthy of discussion: the painting of
Liubov Popova (1889-1924); the constructions of
the Moscow Inkhuk (the Institute of Painterly Cul-
ture; 1918-1924) and the utilitarian or "production
art" which represents the final stage (after 192.1) of
the Constructivist enterprise. Large bodies of works
in the Costakis collection illustrate these diverse as-
pects of Constructivism, which heretofore have
been difficult to define.

CONSTRUCTIVIST PAINTING:
LIUBOV POPOVA

Up to now, American and European scholars have
studied the art of Liubov Popova on the basis of
works dating from the mid-teens to the early 19ZOS
scattered throughout the West. Despite the sparse-
ness of this material, it has been generally agreed
that she was an exceptionally gifted artist. The ap-
proximately 160 of her works that George Costakis
brought out of the Soviet Union (only a fraction of
which are exhibited here) provide us with a fuller

fig. I

Liubov Popova
Still Life. 1908
Oil on canvas, 29% x 21" (74.5 x 53.5 cm.)

fig. 2

Liubov Popova

Study of a Female Model, n.d.

Pencil on paper, 10% x 8" (27.1 x 20.2 cm.)

understanding of this artist's evolution and objec-
tives; they are, as the Soviet art historian Dmitrii
Sarabianov has perceptively suggested,1 emblematic
of the development of Russian and Soviet art be-
tween 191a and 192.4.

Early works by Popova in the Costakis collec-
tion include a large quantity of individual studies
and five sketchbooks from the pre-War period. A
few isolated pictures dated 1906-082 already show
an instinctively sure hand and the clear brilliant pal-
ette that will characterize her production through-
out her career. Although one sketchbook is dated
1914, some may represent the period 1907-08 when
Popova was studying in Moscow with the painters
Stanislav Zhukovsky and Konstantin Yuon. The ac-
ademic exercises — portrait sketches and life studies
of male and female models (fig. 2) — in these sketch-
books reflect the conventional form of artistic dis-
cipline that prevailed in Moscow as it did in every
other European capital at that time.

Popova, who belonged to a wealthy and culti-
vated bourgeois family, traveled early and wide.
Her first trips, starting in 1909, took her across Rus-
sia, to St. Petersburg, Kiev, the ancient cities of
Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Suzdal, Pereslavl and
others (famous for their icons), and then to Italy in
1910. Although she probably discovered Cezanne,
Gauguin and the Impressionist tradition under
Zhukovsky's and Yuon's guidance, her interest in

modern painting is thought to date from approxi-
mately 1911 when she entered Vladimir Tariin's
studio.3 That same year, she was probably intro-
duced to Sergei Shchukin's great collection of mod-
ern French art in Moscow, as indicated by the
Cezannesque sketches of foliage in the Costakis
collection which predate her first trip to Paris in
1912 (figs. 3 and 4). Contemporaneous sketches of
trees, some of which show a marked primitivism —
in their use of heavy ink lines, almost childlike
awkwardness and complete lack of perspective or
illusionism — reflect her contacts with Natalia Gon-
charova, Mikhail Larionov and the "World of Art"
group (Mir iskusstva) animated by Sergei Diaghilev
in the 1890s (fig. 5). These studies show no attempt
at verisimilitude but rather an effort to distill the
fundamental structural patterns and organic
rhythms of her subjects (fig. 6).

In the fall of 1912, Popova left for Paris where,
along with the painters Nadezhda Udaltsova and
Vera Pestel, she studied with the Cubists Le Fau-
connier and Metzinger. Upon her return to Mos-
cow in 191 3, she worked once again with Tatlin
and with Alexei Morgunov. In 1914, she traveled
once more to France and Italy, but when war broke
out, she returned to Russia.4

Beginning in 1913, Popova's studies of nudes
became radically different from her earlier academic
exercises. Some (fig. 7) make direct reference to

1 Dmitrii Sarabianov. "The Painting ot Liubov Popova!' in LACMA.
pp. 42-45.

2. For example, tig. 1.

3 There she worked alongside the painters Viktor Bart, Kirill Zdanevich
and Anna Troianovskaia Sarabianov, in LACMA, p 42

4 The sketchbook dated 1914 contains copy drawings of mythological
subjects and Baroque sculpture presumably made on this Italian trip.

fig- 3

Liubov Popova

Study of Foliage, n.d.

Ink on paper, 14 x 9%" (35.5 x 22.5 cm.)

fig- 4

Liubov Popova

Study of Foliage, n.d.

Pencil and ink on paper, 14% x %%"

(35.4x22.1 cm.)

fig- 5

Liubov Popova

Study of Trees, n.d.

Ink on paper, 14 x 8%" (35.5 x 22.4 cm.'

fig- 6

Liubov Popova

Study of Trees, n.d.

Ink on paper, 14 x 9%" (35.6 x 22.5 cm.)

Metzinger's form of Cubist painting. Others (cat.
nos. 15, 16), through the reduction of the body to
a play of open, nested cones, appear to echo Bocci-
oni's Development of a Bottle in Space (see p. 46,
fig. b) which Popova probably saw in the Italian
Futurist's Paris exhibition in the early summer of
1913. Still others may reflect Tallin's influence in
their rigorous structural and axial articulations
which underscore the fulcrums of the body's move-
ment (compare fig. 8 and fig. a, p. 5 1 with cat. nos.
10,11).

The years 1914-15 maybe identified as Pop-
ova's mature Cubo-Futurist period. At the outset,
her paintings reveal her assimilation of Western
pictorial devices; these gradually submerge in her
later, more synthetic and autonomous style. The
earlier works of 1913-14 show definite French
and Italian influences: in her choice of subject mat-
ter, her palette (predominantly greens and browns),
her disjointed geometric volumes and her weaving
together of subject and environment through a
continuous rhythmic pattern of modular forms. In
some paintings, such as Italian Still Life of 19 14
(fig. 9), she uses collage and letters from the Roman
fig. 7 alphabet. Her Portrait (cat. no. 18) and the closely

Liubov Popova related Philosopher (fig. 10), both of 1914-15, con-

Stttdy. n.d. tajn Roman lettering as well.5

Pencil on paper on paper, 10% x %Va" (26.7 x 21 cm.) fiy ^^ however5 by which time Russian art.

ists had become acutely conscious of being cut off
from the West by the War, Popova was using the
Cyrillic alphabet, a more brilliant palette inspired
by native Russian art and simulated wall-paper tex-
tures and patterns rather than real collage. Also by
1915, her swift diagonals, circular rhythms and ara-
besques softly highlighted with white echo those in
Balla's 1913-14 studies of the effects of velocity and
light, some of which were published in Boccioni's
Scultura pittura futuriste of March 1914, which
conceivably she could have seen. These devices
structure her paintings quite independent of subject
matter and recall Boccioni's introduction to his
1913 exhibition catalogue, where he wrote: "One
must completely forget the figure enclosed in its
traditional line and, on the contrary, present it as
the center of plastic directions in space."6

The Russian encounter with French Cubism
and Italian Futurism was timely in that the artists
of all three countries were seeking the bases of a
new formal language. In Russia, as in France and
Italy, avant-garde painters and poets alike were in-
vestigating devices for breaking up traditional pat-
terns of expression. In the summer of 191 3 the
poet Nikolai Kruchenykh enunciated the perspec-
fj„_ g tive that was shared by the visual artists: "A new

Vladimir Tatlin content can only be obtained when we have worked

Study. r9ii-i4 out new devices, when we have worked out a new

Pencil on paper, i6lYi6 x 10*4 " (43 x 26 cm.) form. The new form therefore implies a new con-

Collection State Archives of Literature and Art, Moscow tent, and thus it is the form that defines the con-

■|g 5. The letters "LAC" and "RBA" seen in the two Moscow paintings

suggest a reference to the Italian magazine Lacerba. published 1913-15

6 Umberto Boccioni, Preface, Ike Exposition de sculpture futuriste du
peintre et sculpteur futuriste Boccioni. June 20-July 16. 1913, in Paris,
Galerie La Boetie; translated and quoted in Robert L. Herbert, ed.
Modern Artists on Art. Englewood Cliffs, N.J, 1964, p 49

fig- 9

Liubov Popova

Italian Still Life. 1914

Oil, wax and paper collage on canvas, 24% x 19%"

(61.9 X48.9 cm.)

Collection Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow

fig. 10

Liubov Popova

The Philosopher. 1914-15

Oil on canvas, zz7/ux 15%" (57x40cm.)

Private Collection, Moscow

fig. II

Vladimir Tatlin
Painting Relief, ca. 1914
Wood, metal, plastic and glass
Now lost

tent."7 The orientation of both poets and painters
as reflected here identifies content with formal
structure, not with subject matter. Although the
artists' motivations and premises were quite dissim-
ilar from one country to another (and indeed it may
be said of Picasso and Braque that they had no the-
oretical program at all), the breakthroughs in the
visual arts occurring in the West provided Russian
artists with plastic devices for revitalizing their vo-
cabulary and syntax, even though they rejected as-
pects of the French painters' practice as "passive"
and anecdotal, as opposed to "active" and "con-
structive."

Tatlin's visit to Picasso's studio in Paris in the
spring of 191 3 and his encounter with Picasso's con-
structions coincided with his own search for a way
out of established pictorial conventions. By late
1913-early 1914, he was working on the abstract
constructions he called "painting reliefs" and later
"counter-reliefs" (fig. n), possibly referring to their
aesthetic position counter to conventional bas-
reliefs. Little by little Tatlin elaborated a compen-
dium of forms that he believed corresponded to the
properties of his materials. According to principles
he developed at this time, each material, through its
structural laws, dictates specific forms. These forms
exist in the simplest everyday objects. For example,
the basic form of wood is a flat geometric plane; the
basic form of glass is a curved shell or flat pane; the
basic form of metal is a rolled cylinder or cone. Tat-
lin believed that these laws and their respective
forms should be considered in the conception and
execution of a work of art, and this would assure
that the work would be governed by the laws of life
itself. Only then could the work have significance,
according to the new aesthetic and social impera-
tives regarding art's function that were evolving
during the pre-Revolutionary period in Russia.

Popova worked closely with Tatlin in 1912
and again in 1913, prior to her first trip to Paris and
after her return from Western Europe. Her painting
of 19 14-15, Portrait (cat. no. 18), suggests a knowl-
edge of his premises, even though the work remains
figurative and has no three-dimensional elements
added to its surface. The flat black planes, the
curved conic shapes — which appear to project from
the surface and enclose space — and the transparent
zones in the lower foreground evoke the basic forms
as Tatlin defined them for wood, metal and glass.
The painting also recalls aspects of the work of
Alexander Archipenko whose studio in Paris Pop-
ova visited during her 19 12-13 sojourn in the French
capital.8 She may have visited him again in 1914.
Precisely at this time, the Ukrainian sculptor was
working on mixed-media anthropomorphic con-
structions, using wood, metal and glass. In the same
years Boccioni too was working on mixed media
constructions, and he exhibited some of them in
1913 at the Galerie La Boetie.

7 Alexei Kruchenykh, "The New Paths of the Word!' in Troe (The Three),
1913; translated and quoted by A. B Nakov, Introduction, in Edinburgh,
Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Liberated Colour and Form:
Russian Non-Obiective Art 1915-1922, Aug 10-Sept 10, 1978, p. 11

8, Vasilii Rakitin, "Liubov Popova'
Avant-Garde, p. 198,

in Women Artists of the Russian

fig. IZ

Liubov Popova

Relief. 1915

Painted papers on cardboard, z6Vs X 19%"

(66.3 x 48.5 cm.)

Museum Ludwig, Cologne (Ludwig Collection)

fig- 13

Liubov Popova

Architectonic Composition. 1917-18

Oil on canvas, 41%,$ x 35%<j" (105.5 x 9° cm-)

Private Collection, Moscow

fig. 14

Vladimir Tatlin

Study for a Counter-Relief. 1914

Gouache and charcoal on paper, I97is x I37is"

(49.3x34.2 cm.)

Collection The Museum of Modern Art, New York,

Gift of the Lauder Foundation

9 As opposed to bas-reliefs. Two ol these reliefs are still extant: Jug on
the Table (see fig. c, p. 47). Collection Tretiakov Gallery. Moscow
(ex-Costakis collection); and Relief. Museum Ludwig. Cologne (Ludwig
Collection), fig. 12 here (cf. Tatlin's Painting Relief ca. 1914, fig. .11).
The third (fig f, p 47) is presumed destroyed but was reproduced in
Arp's and El Lissitzky's Kunstismen in 1925, fig. 62, p. 31, and there
dated 1916 Jug on the Table is definitely dated 1915 and there is reason
to think that the other two reliefs were executed the same year

In 1915, Popova made three reliefs that are
documented.9 Aside from the choice of forms and
their projection from the wall, the works are unlike
Tatlin's counter-reliefs. Popova's use of bright col-
ors and painterly shading define these as "plastic
paintings," as she chose to call them.10 They are
"paintings in relief" belonging to her Cubo-Futurist
mode, rather than works that can be called Con-
structivist, as Tatlin's work exemplified the term —
that is, of specific forms dictated by specific raw
materials.

In 1916, Popova's allegiance temporarily
shifted away from Tatlin to the "Supremus" group
which centered on Kazimir Malevich and included
Ivan Kliun, Olga Rozanova, Alexandra Exter, Vlad-
imir Markov, Udaltsova and Pestel among others
(see fig. a, p. no, and cat. no. 106). Yet Suprema-
tist theory could not truly satisfy her because she
was already deeply involved in the spatial and con-
ceptual premises of Constructivism which were
incompatible with Malevich's more mystically ori-
ented aesthetics of nonobjectivity. Nonetheless, her
work of this period, like that of her friend Udaltsova
(see cat. nos. 116-18), shows a formal debt to Male-
vich in its open space, floating planar forms and
clear flat color. In this period Popova produced
beautiful works which bear her personal stamp, but
the phase was short-lived.

An anomalous period of post-Cubist abstrac-
tion followed in Popova's art (cat. no. 107). The
works identified with this phase are generally dated
1917-18. In these paintings, some motifs can be
read as fragmented reminiscences of Cubist still
lifes. The colors appear arbitrary; the highlighting
recalls Malevich's rather stiffly rendered modeling
in his paintings of around 1912. where it does not
shape volumetric form. Popova's planes overlap,
but without a strong structural logic. Further, the
frontal organization, cylindrical and conic shapes
and diagonal lines seen, for example, in Architec-
tonic Composition (fig. 13) recall features of some
of Tatlin's counter-reliefs (see fig. 14 and cat. no. 161)

Popova arrived at her most personal idiom in
1918. Between 1918 and 1922, her canvases illus-
trate the clearest and most consistent conception of
Constructivism in painting to appear in the Soviet
Union or anywhere else. These works demonstrate
how Constructivism, generally understood through
Tatlin's ideas as a sculptural idiom which reflects
and embodies the true nature of materials, encom-
passed painting in the theory and practice that
evolved among Tatlin's followers.

Tatlin's original experiments starting in 191 3-
14 — his counter-reliefs — emphasized the use of
real materials in real space. The most famous group
of Constructivists, who adopted the name in 1921
and exhibited under it for the first time that same
year, were artists who worked in three-dimensional

form. Yet in the Russian concept of faktura, a phi-
losophy of materials that may have been at the ori-
gin of the Constructivist aesthetic, paint itself was
considered an autonomous expressive medium.
Nikolai Tarabukin, a Constructivist artist and the-
oretician, wrote in 1923: "If we apply this general
definition [of construction] to painting, we must
consider as elements of pictorial construction, the
material and real elements of the canvas, which is
to say the paint or medium, whatever it may be, the
texture, the structure of color, the technique and
other elements unified by the composition (as a
principle) and constituting altogether the work of
art (as a system.)"11

Briefly then, according to the principle of fak-
tura, not only wood or metal, but the substance of
the paint surface itself — its thickness, glossiness,
technique of application — was considered a texture
or fabric (a faktura) that generates specific forms.12
And it was believed that this fundamental premise
would change the function and significance of the
work of art. The narrative function of figurative art
would be replaced by a self-contained system.

Thus, artists such as Popova, Exter, and Alex-
andr Rodchenko concentrated on the qualities and
potential of paint as an autonomous medium of
expression, the vocabulary unique to the painting
experience. They set out to remove all references to
illusion, narrative or metaphor from their art. As
Rozanova stated in 1913, the painter should "speak
solely the language of pure plastic experience."11
This was an idea she expressed in an astonishing
painting of 1 9 17 (cat.no. 105). Through her contact
with Malevich in 1916, Popova had acquired the
pictorial notion of the plane freed in space. But
upon her return to Tatlin's studio, she reverted to
a more materialistic concept of painting, focusing
on color, plane, line and texture as entities to be
manipulated to create dynamic compositions and
new content. Whereas Malevich sought to ethereal-
ize space and render it less determinate, Popova
sought to materialize it and render it active, pal-
pable, complex.

Two of Popova's paintings, both titled Paint-
erly Architectonics and both of 1918-19 (cat. nos.
176-77), are eloquent examples of pure spatial artic-
ulation defined by the materials, which is to say the
artist's use of paint. In both paintings, the planes
do not so much overlap (a technique that implies
at least a shallow spatial depth) as interpenetrate.
Even the small black motifs in cat. no. 176, although
they recall Malevich, do not float. They are set, as
though encrusted, in the single plane that defines
this composition. The diagonal thrusts solicit a per-
spectival reading while simultaneously defying it.
The use of white creates ambivalent effects of trans-
parency and reflection. Both paintings are executed
with small busy brushstrokes which create subtle

10. A postcard dated October 25, 1915 (Costakis collection) from
Popova to her tnend Adda Dege shows a reproduction of Jug on the Table,
under which Popova has written "'Nature morte'" (in French) and
"plastic painting" (in Russian). R., S.. C, Costakis, pis. 815-16.

11. Nikolai Tarabukin. "Ot molberta k mashine" trans into French as
Du Chevalet & la machine!' in A. B Nakov, ed„ Nikolai Taraboukine

Le dernier tableau, Paris, 1972, pp. 42-43. (All translations trom the
French are by the author.)

12. For additional information on the concept of faktura. see Margit Rowell,
"Vladimir Tatlin: Form/Faktura:' October, no. 7, winter 1978. pp. 83-108.

13. From an unpublished manifesto of the "Union of Youth" group,
St. Petersburg. Mar. 28. 1913. edited by Rozanova: quoted in Nakov.
Liberated Colour and Form, p. 4.

gradations and tonal passages from one area or hue
to another. Cat. no. 177 is purely about space; one
can hardly speak of planes for they appear dema-
terialized.

In 1920 Popova joined the Moscow Inkhuk
(the Institute of Painterly Culture) where the con-
cepts of "construction" and Constructivism were
debated throughout the winter of 1920-21. But
already by 1918-19, the dates of the paintings dis-
cussed above, Popova had used the term "construc-
tive" and formulated ideas that were obviously in
the air:

"What is of importance now is the form or part of
a form, line, color or texture that takes an imme-
diate part in the painterly construction — Hence
it is clear why an objective14 form is quite super-
fluous — such a form always possesses aconstruc-
tive components. ... A transformed form is an
abstract one and is completely subject to archi-
tectonic necessity and ... to the general construc-
tive objectives. The artist gains complete freedom
in absolute nonobjectivity, orienting and con-
structing the lines, planes, volumetrical elements
and color weight. Depictive art can never be an
authentic art. . . P
A common itinerary followed by the Constructivist
painter (as exemplified by Popova and Rodchenko
in particular) was from experiments with color and
plane to experiments with line. As early as 19 15
Rodchenko had emphasized the line as an objective
anonymous element of painting; and by way of il-
lustration, he used a compass to point up the pure
function of line, which to his mind defied individual
sensibility, subjectivity or style. In 1919 Popova
wrote: "Line as color and as the vestige of the trans-
verse plane participates in, and directs the forces
of, construction Energetics = direction of vol-
umes + planes and lines or their vestiges + all col-
ors."16 By 1921, Popova was working intensively
on more linear experiments such as the Spatial
Force Constructions (cat. nos. 180, 182). Her works
of this period were often executed directly on
wooden panels, reflecting the artist's allegiance to
Tatlin's ethic of "truth to materials." Because she
now considered color superfluous, she reduced her
palette, generally to black and white and sometimes
red. The circles in Spatial Force Construction,
1920-21 (cat. no. 180), are drawn with a compass.
The straight lines are less precise. The linear com-
ponents of the work are painted with smooth, some-
what glossy paint. In the "shaded" areas, the paint
is thicker and more matte and appears gritty. Here
is an exemplary illustration of Tatlin's theory that
the material dictates the technique and the tech-
nique the forms: thin smooth paint demands a pre-
cision instrument, whereas thicker paint requires a

dabbing technique and produces, as a result, less
precise configurations. Popova's works from this
period are more austere than her earlier paintings.
They contain no spatial ambiguities, no light re-
flection, no "transparency." At the same time the
physical presence of paint is more aggressive, as
for example in Spatial Force Construction (cat.
no. 182).

This premise — that different mediums impose
specific techniques and generate different kinds of
imagery — appears in the work of other Moscow
Constructivists, which confirms that they typify
Constructivist painting practice. A case in point is
the painting of Gustav Klucis. Between 1919 and
1921, Klucis attended the Svomas/ Vkhutemas,17 the
state-run art studios, and was already in close con-
tact with Malevich in 191 8-19, and with Naum
Gabo and Antoine Pevsner in i9i9.18He was thus
exposed to the tenets and practices of both Suprem-
atism and Constructivism, and his painting Dy-
namic City oi 1919-1921 (cat. no. 150), for example,
is a unique synthesis of these ideas. It demonstrates
a Constructivist awareness of the diverse effects of
glossy and matte textures in a composition painted
on board. However, the results are quite different
from those of Popova. The lighter areas are painted
in such a way as to produce the effect of a shiny
enamel; yet somehow these glossy surfaces have an
almost ethereal transparency and evoke a cosmic
spatial continuum. In contrast, the grittiness of the
blacks evokes the texture of cement. The inherent
contradictions of the central image, drawn with a
compass and ruler and endowed with a presence
which is at once aggressively physical and demate-
rialized or illusionistic, and the Suprematist space
in which it floats, create a truly unsettling image.

In 1920, the year he painted his Linearism (cat.
no. 171); Rodchenko formulated a text for a lecture
to the Moscow Inkhuk group on the significance
of the line:

Recently, having devoted myself exclusively to
the construction of forms and to their system of
construction,19 I have introduced in the plane-
surface the line as a new element of construction.
This led to a definitive clarification of the line's
significance, both in its function as a limit and
border, and as a major factor in the construction
of every organism in life: skeleton, base, frame-
work or system. The line is a beginning and an
end in painting, as, more generally, in any con-
struction. . . .

Thus the line has won a total victory and re-
duced to nothing the last bastions of painting:
color, tone, texture, and the plane-surface. . . .20
Having stated the primary importance of the
line as the element which alone allows for con-

14. In this context, "objective" should be understood as "representational"
and as opposed to "nonobjective!'

15. Rakitin. "Liubov Popova: From Her Manuscripts and Notes:' in
Women Artists of the Russian Avant-Garde, p 211.

16. From the artist's contribution to the catalogue of X Gosudarstvennaia
vystavka, Bespredmetnoe tvorchestvo i suprematizm, Moscow. 1919,

p. 22; translated and quoted by John E. Bowlt in "From Surface to Space:
The Art of Liubov Popova;' The Structurist, nos. 15/16, 1975-76, p. 85.

17. See p. 25 here.

18. Naum Gabo's and Antoine Pevsner's 1920 Realistic Manifesto is of
crucial importance to the understanding of the history of Constructivism

but its discussion falls outside the scope of this study Although the
Pevsner brothers preferred to refer to the subject of their program
as "Realism" (denoting the "reality" of the self-contained, self-
referential object), this manifesto laid out the fundamental premises of
Constructivist theory and practice (See Stephen Bann, ed., The Tradition
of Constructivism, New York, 1972, pp. 3-11, for a complete translation
of the Manifesto.)

19. Rodchenko is referring not only to his paintings but to his hanging
spatial constructions. See cat no. 172.

20. Andrei B. Nakov calls attention to the fact that as early as 1914 the
Ukrainian Futurist Alexandr Bogomazov had foreseen a conflict between

struction and creation, we by the same token re-
pudiate all aesthetic of color, as well as factural
concerns [concerns for jaktura] and concerns for

style

The line has revealed a new vision of reality:
to construct, literally, and not to represent, to be
in the objective or the nonobjective, to build con-
structivist functional equipment in life and not
from life and outside of life.21

This text on the line helps clarify Rodchenko's
linear experiments both on a painted surface and in
space. Further, it provides a point of departure for
understanding the concentration on dynamic struc-
tural line in the three-dimensional constructions
which were the prime examples of Constructivism
between 19 19 and 1922. It announces new priorities
and, in so doing, elucidates the shift of emphasis
from surface to space, from planar constructions
referring in one way or another to a two-dimen-
sional surface, to open freestanding structures in
space.

CONSTRUCTIONS:
THE MOSCOW INKHUK

A study of the three-dimensional Constructivist
works produced in the early 1920s has been difficult
up to now, owing to a lack of documentation and
an understanding of the distinctions and interrela-
tions as well as the motivations and objectives of
the various groups and single artists involved. Art-
ists used the term "constructive" or "construction"
during the period 1920-22 sometimes with what
appear as contradictory meanings. Those most ac-
tively and consistently involved with defining Con-
structivist theory and practice were the Inkhuk and
the Vkhutemas (Higher State Art-Technical Studios,
which originated as the Free State Art Studios). The
Inkhuk, founded in May 1920 at the initiative of
Kandinsky, was essentially a theoretical and re-
search-oriented group. After May 1920, under the
new leadership of Alexei Babichev, it redirected
its program of formal analysis toward a definition
of "the constructive" or the basic premises of Con-
structivism. The Vkhutemas, on the other hand,
was a pedagogical institution comparable in many
aspects — and in particular in the conception of its
first-year course — to the better-known Bauhaus.
Originally formulated in 1918 as the Svomas or
Free State Art Studios, the Vkhutemas like the Ink-
huk was reorganized in late 1920 according to a
decree by Anatolii Lunacharsky, the People's Com-
missar of Enlightenment. Its new statutes reflected
a greater commitment to Constructivism (although
it had not yet been formally named), and its objec-

tive was to train artists for the new Communist
society and economy. These two institutions com-
plemented each other in their respective dedication
to theory and practice; furthermore, many Inkhuk
members, such as Popova, Exter, Rodchenko, Kliun,
Varvara Stepanova, and Alexei Babichev, were pro-
fessors at the Vkhutemas.

Although at one time it was common among
Western scholars to divide the history of Con-
structivism during the period 1919-1922 into a
"laboratory" phase (emphasizing formal experi-
mentation) and a "Productivist" phase (directed
towards utilitarian objectives), as new evidence has
become available, it is increasingly clear that in
reality the situation was more complex: both ap-
proaches existed simultaneously by 1920-21.

Babichev's program for the Inkhuk, presented
in December 1920, proposed a "Working Group of
Objective Analysis," which would devote itself to
both "theoretical" and "laboratory" investigations
of the basic elements of the work of art, identified
as "color, faktura, material, construction, etc."22
The underlying premise was "that the structure of
a work arises from its elements and the laws of
their organization (construction, composition, and
rhythm of the elements.)"23 The program was fur-
ther defined as follows:

Neither the creative process, nor the process of
perception, the defined aesthetic emotion, is the
object of analysis, but those real forms which,
created by the artist, are found in the already
finished work. Consequently the form of the
work and its elements are the material for
analysis, and not the psychology of the creation,
nor the psychology of aesthetic perception, nor
the historical, cultural, sociological or other
problems of art.24

This explication was formulated in direct op-
position to Kandinsky's statement of aims for the
Inkhuk which drew upon the psychological and
physiological effects and subjective responses pro-
duced by each constituent of the work of art.2''

Babichev's concept of a "material self-con-
tained object"26 lent itself to a broad range of
interpretations: it could be anything from an ab-
stract structure to an industrial object. Eventually a
controversy arose between those for whom ma-
terial and formal concerns were paramount (the
"objectists"), and others for whom this idealized
conception of the object represented merely a tran-
sitory phase on the path to truly productive or
utilitarian art, which they considered the only
worthy aim.

In 1921, the "Working Group of Objective
Analysis" split into subgroups, one of which, the
"First Working Group of Constructivists" —

the line (as non-representational) and the plane (as reptesentational).
The opposition would lead to "a struggle in which total victory is
impossible (or this would mean the destruction of the pictorial plane
and the pictorial plane cannot tie eliminated tor every representation
which lays claim to the status of plastic art is linked to the pictorial
plane!' Bogomazov, "Painting and Its Elements!' unpublished
manuscript of 1914; quoted in Nakov, Liberated Colour and Form, p. 9.

21. Alexandr Rodchenko, "The Line'.' Arts Magazine, vol. 47.
May-June 1973, pp. 50-52; translation and notes by A. B. Nakov.

22 Report on the Inkhuk, in Russkoe iskusstvo. nos. 2-3, 1923, p. 85;
translated and quoted by Lodder in Constructivism

23. Khan-Magomedov. "The Inkhuk Discussion!' p. 43 (trans.
Marian Schwartz).

24. Nikolai Tarabukin. unpublished and undated manuscript, private
archive, Moscow; translated and quoted by Lodder, Constructivism.

25. See Vieri Ouilici, L archilettura del costruttivismo. Bari, 1969,
pp. 485-86, for Kandinsky's program. Also see pp. 226-27 here.

26. See Lodder, Constructivism. The term in quotation marks is taken
from the 1923 Inkhuk report.

assembled in March 1921 — included Rodchenko,
Stepanova, Konstantin Medunetsky, the Stenberg
brothers and Karel Ioganson. Lectures and discus-
sions were held under the auspices of the Inkhuk in
an attempt to determine the basic elements of art
and their organizational laws. A number of sessions
addressed the formal and functional distinctions
between composition and construction, during
which the definition of construction emerged as the
central issue for debate, partially based on the un-
derstanding that this was the form of creativity
which corresponded to the character and answered
the needs of the new Communist society. Often the
debates were supported by visual material illustrat-
ing the issues at hand. According to the Soviet art
historian S. O. Khan-Magomedov,27 most of the
artists presented two works in the course of these
theoretical discussions, one representative of a
"composition," the other of a "construction."

In the autumn of 1921, the publication of a
collection of theoretical essays and illustrative ma-
terial was planned, to be called From Figurative-
ness to Construction. Not surprisingly, the penury
of the times prevented its appearance. A group of
drawings devoted to this subject was preserved in
Babichev's personal archives and is now in the
Costakis collection (see cat. nos. 184-208). The
dates that are sometimes inscribed on the front of
each drawing indicate that the works were exe-
cuted throughout the year 1921; many bear the
inscription "composition" or "construction," con-
firming their origin in the discussions of that year,
and perhaps as well their relevance to the planned
publication.

Notwithstanding the clarity of the minutes of
the meetings in which the artists discussed the func-
tional distinctions between these two forms of
creative activity, at first glance the visual differences
are not always clear. For example, the theoretical
conclusions drawn up after the first session were:

Construction is the effective organization of

material elements.

The signs of Constructivism:

1 ) The best possible organization of materials.

2) The absence of excess elements.

The plan of Constructivism is the conjunction of
lines and the planes and forms defined by them;
it is a system of forces.

In general, most of the artists seemed to concur
that a construction was an organization of ma-
terials based on necessity and function, whereas, in
Popova's words, "composition is the regular but
tasteful distribution of materials."28

A closer examination of the works reveals cer-
tain visual characteristics that do relate, in one way
or another, to the theoretical positions of the
artists. The "composition" drawings tend for the
most part to emphasize two-dimensionality and a

harmonious pictorial organization that relates in
many cases to the format of the support. They in-
clude elements that are aesthetically pleasing but
not structurally essential. Lines do not strictly de-
fine forms or suggest materials; the integral organi-
zation creates visual balance rather than tension.
Moreover, many of these drawings are executed in
soft, sometimes colored, pencil, reinforcing the
intentionally pictorial character.

Conversely, the "construction" drawings
imply a three-dimensional vision, and depict closed
planar shapes which correspond to the vocabulary
of specific sculptural materials. The forms interact
according to a tensional articulation based on the
structural logic of the image. Often the medium is
hard pencil or ink, evoking the technique of in-
dustrial "shop" drawings.

Since most of the Inkhuk artists by this time
considered "construction" the language of the
future and "composition" an idiom of the past,
many chose to differentiate deliberately between
their illustrations of the two. For example, Stepa-
nova's "composition" (cat. no. 204) is a flat figura-
tive image (of a head and torso) typical of her
painting production around 1920-21 (see cat. no.
174). Her "construction" (cat. no. 205) is radically
different. Entitled "Planar Structure" by Khan-
Magomedov,29 it is a collage in which every com-
ponent is essential to the whole, and it is close in
concept to the collages in her 1919 book Gaust
Chaba (cat. no. 183). As she said:

When one of its parts is separated from it, a com-
position does not decisively lose its sense and is
not destroyed; it merely requires some rearrange-
ment of the remaining parts or the addition of
other parts. In construction the removal of any
part entails the destruction of the whole con-
struction.30

At a later date, Stepanova elaborated further,
stating that in a composition, the artist "strives 'to
transmit his feelings consciously from reality' "
whereas a construction

is linked with the real making of the object, apart
from representativeness, apart from contempla-
tiveness or the artist's conscious attitude toward
nature. Construction is the creation of an abso-
lutely new organism. . . . Genuine construction
appears only in real objects operating in real
space.31

Vladimir Stenberg's training as an engineer is
visible in his "construction" (cat. no. 203), which
reflects an engineer's vision and drafting technique.
Yet his "composition" (cat. no. 202) is a pure
graphic arrangement, without depth,32 tension, or
any suggestion of materials. The contrast between
Medunetsky's "construction" and his "composi-
tion" (cat. nos. 197 and 196 respectively) may be
described in analogous terms. Medunetsky, trained

27 Khan-Magomedov. p. 61

28. Khan-Magomedov. "The Inkhuk Discussion!' pp. 54-55.

29. In Khan-Magomedov, see fig. 18. p. 75. Khan-Magomedov's titles
derive from an inveriory list in the State Archives, Moscow.

30. Paraphrased ibid . p 49. This statement dates from January 28. 1921

31. May 25. 1921. Quoted ibid. p. 60.

32. The notion of "depth" derives from Gabo's and Pevsner's Realistic
Manifesto (see fn. 18) It does not denote illusionistic perspective but
rather the real, multidimensional "spatiality" of a work.

as a painter, by this time thought differently about
his former discipline: "It is good that we have moved
away from savoring surfaces, from textural beauty
in painting. Materials demand construction, and in
spatial objects there is none of the old savoring of
materials."33 Yet Ioganson criticized Medunetsky's
spatial constructions (fig. 15) as "merely the repre-
sentation of technical construction" because they
showed no respect for specific materials.34

Boris Korolev and Babichev, both trained as
sculptors, seem to have approached the problem
with a more acute sense of its implications. Each
appears to have attempted to use the same reper-
tory of formal components for the two projects.
Korolev analyzes the premise of the proposed pub-
lication From Figurativeness to Construction quite
literally. His "composition" (cat. no. 193) shows a
schematized human figure of somewhat arbitrary
organization. Parts of this depiction are reiterated
in his "construction" (cat. no. 194), distilled to
their geometric essence of lines and planes and
newly organized according to an austere structural
logic. Babichev's "composition" (cat. no. 184) is
frontal, static and balanced; the shapes express
little function or content. By contrast, his "con-
struction" (cat. no. 185) is a profile organization of
the same elements so tightly related that their inter-
dependence creates the integrity of the whole; the
elimination of one part would cause the image to
collapse. Some months before he executed these
two drawings, Babichev had stated:

In any art the form of active interaction has mean-
ing only as an expression of a known force.
Therefore we replace the concept of the relation
of forms with the relation of their work, their
forces, their functions. . . . Construction is the
organic unity of material forms attained through
the exposure [revelation] of their [intrinsic]
functions.35

Both Rodchenko and Babichev, echoing Tat-
lin, emphasized materials as form-dictating agents.
Further, most of the artists claimed that their "con-
structions" were projects to be executed in "real
materials" and "real space." Yet visibly, the focus
had shifted from Tatlin's original preoccupation
with materials to a study of the interrelations be-
tween forms and forces in interaction, expressed
through line, depth and tensional organization;
from a respect for the laws of "plastic necessity" to
a respect for the laws of "mechanical necessity";36
from the inspiration of observed reality to the ab-
stract conception of the forces underlying that
reality. This may help explain why the "spatial
structures" that were actually built in the early
twenties by Medunetsky, the Stenberg brothers and
Ioganson (see fig. 16) stand in stark contrast to
Tatlin's and Gabo's first planar structures of
1913-15. Technological form or "technical con-

fig- 15

Konstantin Medunetsky
Construction No. J57. 1919

Tin, brass and iron, h.: 10%" (17.6 cm.), base, painted
metal, 7x7x7" (17.8 x 17.8 x 17.8 cm.)
Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Gift of Col-
lection Societe Anonyme

fig. 16 (pp. 28-29)

Installation view of Third Obmokhu Exhibition, Mos-
cow, 1921

Linear constructions by Stenberg brothers (central area),
Ioganson (on I. and r.) and Medunetsky (r. background)
were included as well as hanging constructions by Rod-
chenko (upper center and r.)

33. Quoted in Khan-Magomedov, "The Inkhuk Discussion'.' p. 59.

34. Ibid., p. 53.

35. At the first session of discussions held at the Inkhuk by the "Working
Group of Objective Analysis!' Jan. 1, 1921. Ibid, p. 46.

36. These terms, initiated by the architect Ladovsky, were used throughout
the Inkhuk discussions.

fig- 17

Vladimir Tatlin

Model for the "Monument to the Third International."

1919-1910

Destroyed

struction" as a concept had replaced the notions of
"truth to materials" and "construction in art."37

In 1921 the Third Obmokhu (Society of Young
Artists) exhibition in Moscow3S brought together a
number of these constructions and presented them
to the public for the first time (fig. 16) . Most of the
works reflected an architectonic and technological
approach to materials; indeed, the materials appear
reduced to their essence, the forms seem pure
ciphers of the materials' intrinsic functions. Stripped
of mass and weight, and in some cases attempting
to defy gravity, these dematerialized linear equa-
tions express the tensile strength of metal, the
transparency of glass, and define an almost palp-
able volume of space. Analogous to Tatlin's 1920
model for the "Monument to the Third Interna-
tional" (fig. 17), but quite different in the source of
their inspiration and imagery,59 they show a syn-
thesis of dynamic force and stability, technology
and creativity, anonymous statement and personal
expression, modern materials and ideal forms.
These models, representing the new Constructivist
syntax in its purest state, are both metaphors of
modern technology and, by extension, dynamic
images of the new Communist society.

Tatlin's awareness of the shift of meaning
within the term Constructivism is evident in the
phrase "constructivists in quotation marks" he
would come to use. "Existing forms," he wrote
in 1932,

when used in constructional art (in architecture,
technology and, especially, aviation), exhibit a
certain schematic quality which has become
established. Usually this is the conjunction of
straight line forms with the simplest of curved
forms. . . . The constructivists in quotation marks
used the same materials to solve formal prob-
lems, but in an abstract way, mechanically add-
ing technology to their art. The constructivists
in quotation marks did not consider the organic
connection of the material with its application
and function. ... An indispensable form is not
simply born as a result of the dynamics of these
interrelationships.40

Even within the Inkhuk, as it progressed
toward a more Productivist orientation, the criti-
cism of these "projects" was severe. Despite their
attempted references to technology, they were
attacked as "formalist" as opposed to socially use-
ful objects. Nikolai Tarabukin made the following
assessment in 1923:

By the term construction, we generally mean a
material installation of a determined kind, en-
dowed with a utilitarian character, without
which it loses all meaning.

However, the Russian constructivists, who do
not want to be considered artists and who waged
a battle "against art" in its conventional, mu-

37. These terms are also attributed to Ladovsky,

38. This subgroup of the Vkhutemas was founded in 1919 initially to
promote the cause of agitprop ("agitational propaganda") art. By 1920-21 .
its exhibitions included abstract experimental constructions.

39. See Rowell, "Tatlin!' October, pp. 100-03 for a discussion of Tatlin's
inspiration for the monument.

40 Quoted in I Matsa, "Constructivism: An Historical and Artistic
Appraisal!' Studio International, Apr. 1972, p. 143. The translation uses
the British term "inverted commas" which we have converted to the more
common American usage of "quotation marks'.'

41 . Tarabukin in Nakov, Le dernier tableau, p. 39.

42. Quoted in Rakitin, Women Artists of the Russian Avant-Garde
pp 212, 214.

seum sense, allied themselves with technique,
engineering and industry, without possessing the
specific understanding necessary and all the
while remaining artists par excellence deep down
inside. In their hands, the constructivist objective
takes the form of naive and dilettantish imita-
tions of technical constructions, imitations which
solely refer to a hypertrophied veneration for the
industrialism of our century.

Constructions of this kind cannot even be
qualified as models, since they are not projects of
technical installations but merely totally autono-
mous objects, justifiable only on their artistic
merits. Their authors remain fundamentally
"aesthetes," champions of "pure" art, despite
their disaffection for these epithets.'11

These models or structures were generated by
a theoretical rhetoric which proved to be their
strength (as highly innovative and original forms)
and their limitation (in regard to practical applica-
tion). In November 1921, after a second reorgani-
zation of the Inkhuk under the leadership of Osip
Brik, Boris Arvatov and Tarabukin, twenty-five
artists— including Popova, Alexandr Vesnin, Stepa-
nova, Rodchenko and Exter— announced their
withdrawal from theoretical activity and "labora-
tory" work with forms to devote their energies to
"production art," by which they meant a utilitar-
ian, socially useful art form.

In December 1911, the new governing board of
the Inkhuk commissioned an article from Popova,
in which she explained her position in regard to the
earlier Inkhuk program and her new allegiance to
"production art":

It is quite obvious that the revolution that has
taken place in the aims, objectives, media and
forms of art has set us — art production workers
— a particular aim: "to organize the material ele-
ments of industrial production in an expedient
manner" instead of "depicting this or that" ....
Even the new objective method of analyzing the
formal elements of each individual "art" ... is
still, ultimately, concerned with the same old
depictive formal elements. . . . Essentially, em-
phasizing the formal element serves merely as a
point of transit, filling in the gap between two
worldviews, a bridge whereby the timid and
irresolute try to get to the other side. . . . The aim
of all this should not be the synthesis of elements
"in abstracto," but rather the concrete produc-
tional object to which this entire technology will
relate. . . .

[We must] find the paths and methods that
lead away from the dead impasse of depictive
art and advance through knowledge of techno-
logical production to a method of creating
objects of industrial production, products of
organized, material design.112

Ill

PRODUCTION ART:

THEATER AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

The major apologists for the "production art"
interpretation of Constructivism were Brik, Tara-
bukin and Arvatov who launched the third or
Productivist phase of the Inkhuk (1921-24). Arva-
tov wrote in October 1922:

Constructivism is socially utilitarian. Its applica-
tion is situated either in industrial production
(engineer-constructor) or in propaganda (con-
structor-designer of posters, logos, etc.). Con-
structivism is revolutionary not only in words
but in acts. It is revolutionary by the very orien-
tation of its artistic methods.43

The notion of "production art" encompassed
architecture, public sculpture, theater sets and cos-
tumes, industrial and graphic design. Activity in
these areas was viewed as more socially pertinent
to the Russian people than all the earlier attempts
by artists to contribute to the "organization of life."
During this period, many Constructivist artists
turned to the theater which they considered an
exemplary discipline by which to shape the minds
and tastes of the masses.4 ' The objective was not to
stage plays in the traditional sense, but productions
conceived for popular participation. This was
theater permitting "the unification of the stage with
the auditorium," as the theater director Vsevolod
Meierkhold said in October 1920.45

Meierkhold's eminence in the history of thea-
ter is based on his development of "Biomechanics,"
an actor-training technique. The Biomechanical
method consisted of a repertory of twenty exer-
cises, purported to have been drawn from the
observation of the "scientific organization of labor
in America and Russia."'45 The director explained:
If we observe a skilled worker in action, we
notice the following in his movements: (1) an
absence of superfluous, unproductive move-
ments; (2) rhythm; (3) the correct positioning of
the body's center of gravity; (4) stability. Move-
ments based on these principles are distinguished
by their dance-like quality; a skilled worker at
work invariably reminds one of a dancer; thus
work borders on art.47

Meierkhold's method, deriving from the study
of the human body as a raw or elementary material
to be manipulated according to its inherent capa-
bilities, relates it to the sources of Constructivism,
or Tatlin's initial "truth to materials" premise. As
Meierkhold stated,

In art our constant concern is the organization of
raw material. Constructivism has forced the
artist to become both artist and engineer. Art
should be based on scientific principles; the
entire creative act should be a conscious process.

43. From the article. "Two Groups!' published in Zrelishcha. no. 8.
Oct. 17. 1922; translated into French by Andrei B Nakov and Michel
Petris in Change (Paris), nos. 26-27. Feb 1976. p 253

44, In (act. the Constructivist artists' attitude to the theater was
ambivalent; in principle they reiected this art form for its inherently
suggestive and associational nature

45. In a speech, "To the Company of The RSFSR Theater!' October 31,
1920, Quoted in British Film Institute, Futurism. Formalism. Feks.
London, 1978.

46. Edward Braun. "Constructivism in the Theater!' in London. Hayward
Gallery. Art in Revolution. Feb. 26-Apr. 18, 1972. p. 67.

47. Meierkhold. from a lecture on "Biomechanics!' June 1922 Translated
by Edward Braun in Futurism. Formalism, Feks. p. 67.

The art of the actor consists in organizing his ma-
terial; that is, in his capacity to utilize correctly
his body's means of expression. The actor em-
bodies in himself both the organizer and that
which is organized (i.e., the artist and his
material).48

In 1921 Meierkhold invited Popova to teach
a design course in his Theater Workshop. During
this experience she worked on the set design for the
Biomechanical production of The Magnanimous
Cuckold, a play by the Belgian author Fernand
Crommelynck which was presented in April 1922
(see cat. nos. 251-55. )49 Popova's sets involve no
images or illusionism. Her open linear frames,
wheels, catwalk and slides — the barest skeletons of
theater flats — are her attempt to replace accepted
aesthetic traditions with a functional design, illus-
ionistic props with real materials and structural
patterns, backdrop conventions with a working
platform for the actors. In line with Meierkhold's
emphasis on the physical as opposed to the psycho-
logical in his conception of theater, this stage archi-
tecture was designed to reinforce and articulate the
scenic action. The revolving wheels, turning at
different moments and speeds, dramatized moods
and emotions which were only suggested by the
actors' emblematic movements. The concerted
synchronization of these formally organized modes
of expression identifies The Magnanimous Cuckold
as the first true example of Constructivist theater.

Structures in the streets for Revolutionary
pageants or for communicating propaganda were
another form of Constructivist expression in which
art was to be integrated with Soviet life. Gustav
Klucis's agitprop constructions were designed in
1922 to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the
October Revolution and the Fourth Congress of
the Comintern (see p. 259 and cat. nos. 218-229).
These display stands, screens for projecting visual
propaganda, rostrums and radio loudspeakers were
made of wood, canvas and cable and painted black,
white and red. Klucis's preoccupation with easily
assembled and collapsible multipurpose structures
evolved from the same principles governing Meier-
khold's conception of ideal scenic devices: practical-
ity and economy. The variety of Klucis's linear in-
vention combined with functional technology
echoes Popova's work for Meierkhold and the
Stenberg and Ioganson constructions of the same
period. His taut linear structures cast the values of
the new society in a new formal syntax that under-
scores the dynamic graphics of the slogans and
their specifically agitprop messages.

Consistent with their new role as "art produc-
tion workers," by 1924 Stepanova and Popova
were working at the First State Textile Factory in
Moscow, designing patterns for printed fabric (see
cat. nos. 236-243). Although these patterns are

supremely decorative, they also corresponded to a
principle: that all fabric and clothing should be
designed according to an understanding of the
body's articulations and movements. After 1922,
Popova also worked in graphic design (cat. no.
245), and Stepanova wrote articles on "industrial
dress" and related subjects for the Constructivist
magazine Lef (1923-25). Klucis produced posters,
postcards (cat. no. 232), exhibition designs and
photomontage. Vesnin, Medunetsky and the Sten-
berg brothers worked for the theater and the Sten-
bergs designed remarkable posters for the film in-
dustry. Tatlin and his students at the Petrograd
Vkhutemas designed clothing, furniture and other
household items, while Rodchenko worked pro-
lifically in advertising graphics, propaganda pro-
duction, photography, cinema, typography and
book and poster design.

Thus, in the space of a few short years, the ideology
of Soviet Constructivism evolved radically and
rapidly from an emphasis on materials and the self-
referential object to a focus on the interrelations or
"forces" of materials and their distillation into
abstract formal metaphors, and finally to the utili-
tarian object, or industrial design. The socially
valuable content implicit in the earlier phases of
Constructivism became explicit in the third, a phase
which was virtually a synthesis of the first two. It
can be concluded that without the artists' under-
standing of the intrinsic nature of ordinary ma-
terials and of the "necessary" forms they generated,
a formally meaningful utilitarian production prob-
ably would not have come about.

Paradoxically, the idea of social necessity,
which was one of the fundamental catalysts of the
Constructivist ethos and aesthetic as far back as
Tatlin's initial counter-reliefs in 1913-15, would
lead to the demise of the original premise of Con-
structivism: that of a pure materialist syntax with-
out reference to extra-plastic concerns. In its
idealism, early Constructivist ideology expressed a
time and place, an inchoate social consciousness
and a naive political perspective. Although the
technological or "industrial" Constructivism of
post-1921 dissipated the purity of Constructivism
as it was originally defined, the latter form corres-
ponded more fully to the objective of the organiza-
tion of daily life. The theory and practice of the
pioneers of Constructivism — their attention to the
expressive autonomy of materials, color, line and
space — represent a fundamental contribution to
the shaping of our twentieth-century environment.

48 Meierkhold, "The Actor and Biomechanics" (1922), in Art in
Revolution, p. 80,

49 Alma H. Law calls attention to the fact that these sets were begun
by other hands (among them the Stenbergs and Vladimir Liutse) and
that Popova took over after much work had been done See Alma H. Law,
"The Revolution in the Russian Theater!' in LACMA, pp. 68-69, See also
here, p, 293.

The Catalogue

by Angelica Zander Rudenstine

Notes for the Reader

ORGANIZATION

The catalogue is divided into seven sections: I.
"Symbolism and Origins"; II. "Cubo-Futurism";

III. "Matiushin and His School; Pavel Filonov";

IV. "Suprematism and Unovis"; V. "The Inkhuk
and Constructivism"; VI. "Productivism and the
Theater"; VII. "Parallel Trends: The Figurative
and the Cosmic."

Several of the artists naturally appear in more
than one of these sections. Thus, for example, Ma-
levich and Kliun are represented within "Symbol-
ism," "Cubo-Futurism" and "Suprematism,"
Popova within "Cubo-Futurism," "Suprematism,"
"Inkhuk" and "Productivism," etc. The location of
the work of any individual artist throughout the
catalogue may be easily established through the
use of the index, p. 319.

Though the headings provide an important
structure, they run the risk of suggesting a narrow
definition of style and of theoretical foundation. It
is our hope, however, that they will serve an addi-
tional purpose, indicating in their conjunction with
this group of works the difficulty inherent in such
labels, and the essentially complicated nature of the
movement as a whole.

INSCRIPTIONS

Inscriptions, unless otherwise indicated, have been
translated from the Russian. Signatures and dates,
unless otherwise indicated, have been transcribed
from Cyrillic to Latin characters. The transliteration
used is a modified version of the Library of Con-
gress system, but the soft and hard signs either have
been omitted or have been rendered by "i" (e.g.,
Vasilz'evich), and "x" has been substituted for "ks."

DIMENSIONS

Dimensions are given in inches and centimeters,
height preceding width.

INVENTORY NUMBERS

The numbers appearing after the acquisition data
refer to an inventory prepared by The Solomon R.
Guggenheim Museum in connection with Mr. Co-
stakis's loan of his collection to the museum.

ST. PETERSBURG

The city of St. Petersburg underwent a series of
name changes: until 1914 it was St. Petersburg; in
August 1914 it was renamed Petrograd; following
Lenin's death, January 21, 19Z4, it received its pres-
ent name, Leningrad.

DATES

Russian dates in the biographies and other text
sections follow the so-called Old-Style calendar in
use in Russia before January 1918 and are, there-
fore, thirteen days behind the Western calendar.

ABBREVIATIONS

Ginkhuk

Gositdarstvennyi institut khodozhestvennoi kultury

(State Institute of Painterly Culture [Leningrad])

Inkhuk

Institut kbudozhestvennoi kultury (Institute of

Painterly Culture [Moscow])

Lef

Levyi front iskusstva (Left Front of the Arts)

Narkompros (NKP)

Narodnyi komissariat prosveshcheniia (People's

Commissariat for Enlightenment)

Obmokhu

Obshchestvo molodykb khudozbnikov (Society of
Young Artists)

OST

Obshchestvo khudozhnikov-stankovistov (Society
of Studio Artists)

Petrosvomas

Petrogradskie gosudarstvennye svobodnye khu-
dozhestvennye masterskie (Petrograd State Free
Art Studios)

Proun

Proekt utverzhdeniia novogo (Project for the Affir-
mation of the New)

Svomas

Svobodnye gosudarstvennye kbudozhestvennye

masterskie (Free State Art Studios)

Unovis

Utverditeli (also Utverzhdenie) novogo iskusstva
(Affirmers [also Affirmation] of the New Art)
Vkhutemas

Vyssbie gosudarstvennye khudozhestvenno-
tekhnicbeskie masterskie (Higher State Art-
Technical Studios)

Zorved

Zorkoe vedanie (See-Know, literally, "sharp-
sighted knowing")

LACMA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The
Avant-Garde in Russia, 1910-1930: New Perspec-
tives, ed. S. Barron and M. Tuchman, Los Angeles,
1980.

Lodder, Constructivism: Lodder, C. A., Construc-
tivism: From Fine Art Into Design, Russia, 1913-
1933, New Haven (in press)

R., S., C, Costakis: Rudenstine, A. Z., S. F. Starr,
G. Costakis, The Russian Avant-Garde: The George
Costakis Collection, New York, 1982. A compre-
hensive illustrated publication on the Costakis col-
lection and its history.

Women Artists of the Russian Avant-Garde: Co-
logne, Galerie Gmurzynska, Women Artists of the
Russian Avant-Garde/ Kiinstlerinnen der russischen
Avantgarde 1910-1930, 1979.

SHORT TITLES

Bowk, Theory and Criticism: Bowlt, J. E., Russian
Art of the Avant-Garde: Theory and Criticism,
1902-1934, New York, 1976.

From Surface to Space: Cologne, Galerie Gmurzyn-
ska, From Surface to Space/Von der Flacbe zurn
Raum, 1974.

Khan-Magomedov: Khan-Magomedov, S. O.,
"Diskussiia v inkhuke o sootnoshenii konstruktsii
i kompozitsii" ("The Inkhuk Discussion of the Re-
lationship Between Composition and Construction
[January-April 19Z1]"), Tekbnicheskaia estetika,
no. 20, Moscow, 1979, pp. 40-78.

Symbolism and Origins

Kliun and Malevich met in 1907, and in their work
of 1907-1910 both demonstrated strong ties on the
one hand to Russian Symbolism, and on the other
to the palette of Gauguin and Matisse.

In Kliun's Portrait of the Artist's Wife (cat. no.
7), the frailty of her health (she would die of con-
sumption) finds an expressive correspondence in
the tracery of indeterminate natural forms against
which she is silhouetted. There is a mysterious un-
reality to this landscape in which a recumbent
white haloed figure — the premonition of death —
floats suspended in the middle distance, as if be-
tween the present and the future, while the space
behind them both is peopled with shadows which
appear to come from another world. With an
acutely Symbolist intention, Kliun has created a
suggestive, equivocal floral setting which echoes
and illuminates his melancholy subject.

Malevich's Woman in Childbirth (cat. no. 2)
depicts a mask-like female face framed by three
disembodied forearms and hands and emerging
from a red tapestry-like ground covered with
images of minute, writhing fetuses. The allusion to
the pain of labor, the felt but invisible aspects of the
child-bearing experience, and the depiction of the
internalized "idea" of childbirth rather than a
realistic portrayal of it, combine to create an image
of profound Symbolist sensibility.

Kliun and Malevich were strongly influenced
in these years by the Symbolist painters Mikalojaus
Ciurlionis and Pavel Kuznetsov, and their debts to
Matisse and Gauguin can be traced to the numer-
ous works in the collections of Sergei Shchukin and
Ivan Morosov and at the Golden Fleece exhibi-
tions of 1908 and 1909. In Kliun's Family of 191 1
(cat. no. 6), the treatment of the darkly outlined
silhouettes against the vivid flat red background
distinctly echoes Gauguin's treatment of color and
space. In Malevich's self-portrait (cat. no. 3), the
Symbolist echoes are still clearly present in the
tapestried veils of color in the background and in
the subtly differentiated shading of the flesh and
eyes. In his later portrait (cat. no. 4), the starkly
contrasting Fauve colors of the face, the dark black
outlines and the vibrant unified ground are more
clearly suggestive of Gauguin and Matisse.

At this early stage of their friendship, the two
artists already shared strong aesthetic affinities.
These affinities were to grow and become even
closer during the development of Suprematism
from 1915. (See below, p. 111.)

KAZIMIR SEVERINOVICH MALEVICH

Untitled. 1904-05

Oil on board, 12% x -jYic" (30.8 x 19 cm.)

Signed l.r.: KM

Inscribed on reverse: K. Malevich N2-5P

Acquired from the artist's brother, M. S. Malevich

C508

K. S. MALEVICH

Woman in Childbirth. 1908

Oil and pencil on board, 9u/irt x 10 Vie" (2.4.7 x 2.5.6 cm.)

Signed and dated 1.1.: Kazimir Malevich 1908

Acquired from the artist's brother, M. S. Malevich

138.78

•'-' * 'W. ' • ...

'.• T ■,■•
1 »» ,. 1 . 1

1 ,■••- -" &rM

:<<u--^-L ' '■'• 7

- :s .'-^> •■•■ -|'

■ v

• .>'-r

4. \.

ft '• • ■ '».• .i r fV ^-

SjSf

s&^f

HJK&

$?
W

i v ' "

'■.. ,'•.,••- .

I J

ROT '•.''•-- \^

SYMBOLISM AND ORIGINS

K. S. MALEVICH

Self-Portrait. ca. 1908

Watercolor and varnished gouache on paper, diameter

97s" (2-5-1 cm0

Private collection

K. S. MALEVICH

Portrait, ca. 1910

Gouache on paper, ioyg x 10%" (27 -7 x z7-7 cm-)

Acquired from the artist's brother, M. S. Malevich

140.78

SYMBOLISM AND ORIGINS

IVAN VASILIEVICH KLIUN (KLIUNKOV)

Untitled. 1908

Watercolor, gouache and pencil on paper, 6ll/u x 10"

(17 x 25.3 cm.)

Inscribed on the reverse by the daughter of the artist:

J guarantee that this is the work of my father,

I. Kliun. S.I.

Acquired from the artist's daughter, Serafima Ivanova

Kliun

804.79

I. V. KLIUN

Family. 1911

Oil on board, I8V4 x 14%" (46.4 x 36.3 cm.)

Signed 1.1.: /. Kliun

Signed, titled and dated on reverse: /. Kliun Family 1911

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

85.78

SYMBOLISM AND ORIGINS

I. V. KLIUN

Portrait of the Artist's Wife (Consumption). 1910

Watercolor, charcoal and pencil on paper, I37i6 x 11V2"

(34.2 X29.1 cm.)

Dated I.e.: 1910

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

C549

VLADIMIR EVGRAFOVICH TATLIN

Nude. ca. 1910-12

Pencil on paper, 16% x ioV6" (42.8 x 25.8 cm.)

On reverse, a second nude (repr. R., S., C, Costakis,

pi. 1105).

Acquired from the artist's widow, A. M. Korsakova

271.78 recto

SYMBOLISM AND ORIGINS

LIUBOV POPOVA 1912-16

Cubo-Futurism

fig.b

Umberto Boccioni

Development of a Bottle in Space. 1912-13

Bronze, 15 x 2.4" (38 x 61 cm.)

Lydia and Harry L. Winston Collection

(Dr. and Mrs. Barnett Malbin), New York

Popova's development between 1912 and 1916 is
characterized by the assimilation of several different
influences and by her establishment of a mature
style. If one examines the works produced during
those years, certain dominant stylistic issues
emerge, and it becomes possible to map out a plaus-
ible chronology.

The drawings datable to 1912-13 clearly be-
tray French influence, especially that of Le Faucon-
nier (see R., S., C, Costakis, pis. 754 and 771). But
by the middle of 1914 Popova had embarked upon
a more complex path, in which the combined influ-
ences of Tatlin and Boccioni are dominant.

Popova's relationship to the work of Tatlin
has been noted by the art historian Dmitrii Sara-
bianov, among others (see pp. 51-53). 1 Tatlin's for-
mulation of the figure, with limbs hinged at the
joints as if encased in armor, is echoed in Popova's
studies of the nude of 1914-15. Moreover, Tatlin's
use of structural planes governing the figure's shoul-
ders and thighs in his work of ca. 19 13-14 recurs
with regularity in Popova's work of the same period
(see cat. nos. 9, 11, 12). In addition, however, her
stylistic evolution is clearly indebted to the exam-
ple of Boccioni, both in theoretical and visual terms.

The 1912 Technical Manifesto of Futurist
Sculpture was published in Moscow in 1914, and
an article on Boccioni's sculpture appeared in Apol-
lon in 1913.2 Popova must have known these texts,
and she almost certainly also saw important exam-
ples of Boccioni's work at his one-man show in
Paris in June- July 1913.3 In Popova's Jug on the
Table of 1915 (p. 47, fig. c), in a large series of
nudes — some of which are exhibited here (cat. nos.
13, 15-17) — and in Seated Figure (cat. no. 20), the
full extent of Boccioni's influence is apparent.

One of Boccioni's central concerns (clearly ar-
ticulated in his manifestoes, as well as in his work)
was the relationship between object and environ-
ment. In the Manifesto on Painting, he wrote: "To
paint a human figure you must not paint it; you
must render the whole of the surrounding atmo-
sphere. . . . Our bodies penetrate the sofas upon
which we sit, and the sofas penetrate our bodies."
In the Sculpture Manifesto, he spoke of sculpture
becoming a "translation in plaster, bronze, glass,
wood, or any other material of the atmospheric
planes which bind and intersect things." He envis-
aged "the absolute and complete abolition of defin-
ite lines and closed sculpture," insisting instead on
"breaking open the figure and enclosing it in its
environment."

In Boccioni's work of 1912-14 — for example,
the painting Materia (p. 57, fig. d), the sculptures
Development of a Bottle in Space (p. 46, fig. b) and

1 . See D Saraoianov, "The Painting of Liubov Popova!' in LACMA, p, 42

2. Nakov, 2 Stenberg 2, London-Paris, 1975, p. 56, fn. 31.

3- Ibid

4. Repr J. C. Taylor, Futurism, New York, The Museum of Modern Art,
1961, p. 93. This work is destroyed.

Head + Houses + Light,4 and the series of works
titled Horse + Rider + Buildings (p. 57, fig. e) —
he managed to translate these theoretical concerns
into pictorial and sculptural form. Thus, the Bottle
in Space, with its complex and dynamic centrifugal
motion, is literally and metaphorically opened to
include surrounding space. The curved planes cre-
ate both the environment and the object itself.
Meanwhile, in Materia, and in Horse + Rider +
Buildings, the large "planes which bind and inter-
sect things" serve to integrate the central figures and
their surrounding ambiance.

Popova's 19 14-15 Portrait (cat. no. 18) and
Traveling Woman (cat. no. 19) are still clearly de-
pendent upon a Cubist formulation of space and
form,5 though the latter also suggests some response
to Futurism. But in the drawings for Seated Figure,
in the painting itself (cat. no. 20) and especially in
its final version,6 Boccioni's "atmospheric planes,"
including their painterly handling, have suddenly
become a central factor in Popova's notion of com-
position. The very title of this final version {Person
+ Air + Space) is a clear reference to Boccioni's
own terminology. Meanwhile the structure and
method of articulation first used by Popova in Jug
on the Table (fig. c), and the interlocking cones of
light which constitute the shoulder, hip and knee
joints of the figure in Person + Air + Space (as
well as the curved planes throughout) reflect a fuller
understanding of the Bottle in Space.

In her immediately succeeding works, such as
the now lost relief (fig. f), and Painterly Archi-
tectonics (cat. no. 107), there are still traces of rec-
ognizable objects (guitar, table, numerals, etc.), but
these have now been substantially subordinated to
the interplay of those dynamic planes which have
clearly become the artist's major focus. Finally, in
Popova's developed and mature style of 1916-19,
the planes are unambiguously the actual subject
matter of an art that is thoroughly nonobjective
(cat. nos. 112-115 and 176).

In short, by tracing Popova's work through its
series of complex stages in the years 1914-16 it is
possible to see that in addition to Tatlin's example,
Boccioni's too provided her with a crucial catalyz-
ing force: it was partially through an understanding
of his art and its theoretical foundations that she
was able to formulate her own powerful and fully
mature style.

fig. c

Liubov Popova

Jug on the Table (Plastic Painting). 1915
Oil on cardboard mounted on wood with wood attach-
ment, 23 x 17%" (58.5 x 45.5 cm.)
Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow, gift of George Costakis
(repr. color R., S., C., Costakis, pi. 817, where evidence
for the 1915 date of this work is offered)

fig.f

Liubov Popova

Relief (early photograph owned by George Costakis).

Medium, dimensions and present whereabouts

unknown.

5. Works such as Picasso's Bar Table (Bottle of Pernod and Glass)

ol 1912 (P. Daix and J. Rosselet, Picasso, The Cubist Years. 1907-1916,
Lausanne, 1979, no. 460) had been visible at Shchukin's since 1913
and undoubtedly helped to shape Popova's Cubist style.

6. Repr. color, C. Gray. The Great Experiment: Russian Art 1863- 1922.
New York, 1962, p 185, Collection The Russian Museum, Leningrad.

LIUBOV SERGEEVNA POPOVA

Seated Figure, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 8%,; x 6V2" (21.5 x 16.6 cm.)

Acquired from rhe collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C70 recto

L. S. POPOVA

Anatomical Study, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 6% x 8V2" (16.8 x 21.6 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C76 recto

Standing Figure, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 10V2 x 8V4" (2.6.8 x 21 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C78

CUBO-FUTURISM

L. S. POPOVA

Seated Figure, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 8V2 x 65/s" (zi.6 x 16.8 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

Page 62 from Sketchbook C313

L. S. POPOVA

Anatomical Study, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 10V2 x 8Vs" (2.6.7 x zo-6 cm-)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C3 recto

fig. a

Vladimir Tatlin

Page from a Sketchbook, ca. 1913-14

Pencil on paper, iB15/^ x io'/S" (43 x 2.6 cm.)

Central State Archives of Literature and Art, Moscow,

fond 2089, Archive 1, no. 2..

CUBO-FUTURISM

L. S. POPOVA

Standing Figure, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 10% x SYk," (26.5 x 20.5 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

Page 273 a from Sketchbook C2

Standing Figure, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 10% x 8%" (26.5 x 20.5 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

Page 274 from Sketchbook C2

Nv,

f?ff

h^^4

f?**«

ld-~-i£

' \

V A

=*r^?

nCatd

L. S. POPOVA

Standing Figure, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 10V2 x SVu" (2.6.7 x 2°-5 cm-)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C68

Anatomical Study, ca. 1913-15

Pencil on paper, 10V2 x 8V6" (2.6.7 x 2.0.6 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

CUBO-FUTURISM

L. S. POPOVA

Portrait. 1914-15

Oil on paperboard, z)7/\6X i67is" (59.5 x 41.6cm/

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

183.78

Traveling Woman. 1915

Oil on canvas, 61% x ifi1/^' (158.5 x 123 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

177.78

A second version of this composition is in the collection
of Norton Simon. One of the two appeared as cat. no.
92. in the 0.10 exhibition of December 1915-January
1916' and as cat. no. 151 in the exhibition The Store
{Magazin), March 1916. The Simon picture appears in
the installation photographs of Popova's posthumous
exhibition of 1914 (and is no. 18 in the catalogue). The
Costakis version may also have been shown in this
exhibition, but documentation for its appearance has
not yet been found.

CUBO-FUTURISM

L. S. POPOVA

Seated Figure, ca. 1914-15

Oil on canvas, 41% x 34'/^" (106 x 87 cm.)

Collection Peter Ludwig, Cologne; formerly Costakis

collection

(Not in exhibition.)

fig.d

Umberto Boccioni

Materia. 1912

Oil on canvas, 88% x S9V4" (222.7 x 150.5 cm.)

Gianni Mattioli Collection, Milan

fig. e

Umberto Boccioni

Horse + Rider + Buildings. 1914

Ink and watercolor on paper, 8 x 11 %" (20.3 x 30.1 cm.)

Civico Gabinetto dei Disegni, Castello Sforzesco, Milan

CUBO-FUTURISM

L. S. POPOVA

Landscape. 1914-15

Oil on canvas, 41% x 27%" (105.2 x 69.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

184.78

This work appeared in the artist's posthumous exhibi-
tion of 1924 and is visible in the installation photo-
graphs. For preparatory drawings, see R., S., C, Cos-
takis, pis. 818, 819.

CUBO-FUTURISM

IVAN VASILIEVICH KLIUN

I. V. KLIUN

22 ii-v

Study for Cubist at Her Dressing Table.1 ca. 1914

Pencil on paper, 3% x 3" (9.2 x 7.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, Serafima Ivanova

Kliun

293.80 A

Studies for The Musician

Pencil on paper

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

ii, C552 b, 4% x 2.14" (n.i x 5.7 cm.); iii, C552 c, 4% x

2%" (10.5 x 7 cm.); iv, C 559 d, 4V2 x 2%" (11.5 X7 cm.)

v, C552 E, 4% x 1%" (10.5 x 7 cm.)

1 Cat nos. 22 and 24 i-iii belong to a series of sixteen double-sided sheets
of mounted drawings, possibly constituting part of Kliun's personal
oeuvre catalogue. For a discussion of these sheets and full reproductions
of all of them with the drawings of their original positions, see Ft., S , C.
Costakis, pp. 175-195

In the years 1914-17 Kliun produced a number of sculp-
tures, almost all of which have apparently been de-
stroyed. Surviving are two strikingly original works:
Landscape Rushing By of ca. 1914-15 (p. 63, fig. a, Tret-
iakov Gallery, Moscow, formerly Costakis collection),1
and The Musician of 1917 (Tretiakov Gallery, repr.
here, fig. b).

The Landscape is a vivid combination of painted wood,
metal, wire and porcelain, for which two studies are
shown here (cat no. 23). The relief clearly evokes
Futurist conceptions of speed and motion; moreover,
through the inclusion of porcelain and wire — allusions
to telegraph poles seen by a traveler speeding by — Kliun
calls specific attention to the materiality of the sculpture
while also introducing pictorially expressive juxta-
positions.

In the now lost Cubist at Her Dressing Table (fig. a) and
in The Musician (fig. b), Kliun again achieves his effects
partly through the handling and juxtaposition of unex-
pected materials. Glass, metal, celluloid, copper, wood
and porcelain are combined to create figures that are in
various ways evocative both of Archipenko's and of
Picasso's constructions, but which possess a strong
stylistic identity of their own.2

Both Landscape Rushing By and Cubist at Her Dressing
Table were exhibited (together with fourteen other
sculptures by Kliun) at the December 1915 0.10 exhibi-
tion. All trace of the other pieces has apparently been
lost, and Kliun's clearly innovative contribution in con-
struction is thus recorded only in the two surviving
pieces and some drawings. His statement written on the
occasion of the 1915 exhibition is revealing: "Before us
sculpture was a means of reproducing objects. There
was no sculptural art, but there was the art of sculpture.
Only we have become fully aware of the principle: Art
as an end in itself. . . . Our sculpture is pure art, free
from any surrogates; there is no content in it, only
form."3

Though the "content" was on one level obviously rec-
ognizable, Kliun's interest was intensely focused upon
the faktura and the tektonika of his medium.

h 1*

|J V.

jsi

It'

Lrm

. 1

«i

JK f *I^B

fig. a

I. V. Kliun

Cubist at Her Dressing Table, ca. 1914-15

Mixed media, dimensions unknown, presumed

destroyed

fig.b

I. V. Kliun

The Musician. 1917

Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow. Dimensions and medium

unknown.

Documentary photograph owned by George Costakis.
On reverse of photograph, the media are identified as
glass, metal, wood, celluloid, copper. The photograph
was taken in a hitherto unidentified exhibition.

1. Repr color. R., S., C ., Costakis, pi. 135.

2. Cubist at Her Dressing Table is most closely related to Archipenko's
Woman in Front ol a Mirror (destroyed, repr M Rowell. The Planar
Dimension. New York.The Solomon R Guggenheim Museum, 1979. p. 21).
Though Archipenko remained in close touch with his Russian colleagues

alter his move to Paris in 1908. and was a corresponding member ol
"Supremus:' the Suprematist group. Irom 1916. it has not hitherto been
possible to establish the specific nature ol the interaction between him
and Kliun during the years 1914-15.

3. Trans. Bowlt. Theory and Criticism, p. 114.

fig. a

I. V. Kliun

Landscape Rushing By. ca. 1914-15

Oil on wood, wire, metal and porcelain, 2.9V& x zz1'i/ic"

(74 x58 cm.)

Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow, gift of George Costakis

I. V. KLIUN

23 i-ii

Studies for Landscape Rushing By. ca. 1914-15
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
Left, i, 2.74.80: wash on paper, 6Yn x 51%s" (16 x 14.!
cm.); inscribed across the center: POKROV
Right, ii, 273.80: ink on paper, 5 14 x 3 Kg"
(13.4 x 8.7 cm.)
Signed l.r.: /. Kliun

CUBO-FUTURISM

m^t

I. V. KLIUN

24 i

Untitled, ca. 1914-15

Pencil on paper, 2 x 2" (5 x 5 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

C368A

24 ii

Untitled, ca. 1914-15

Pencil on paper, 33*g x 3%" (8.6 x 8.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

C368B

24 Hi

Study for Self-Portrait with Saw. ca. 1914-15
Watercolor on paper, 5% x 3V2" (I4-4 X 8.9 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
C559C

24 iv

Study for Self-Portrait with Saw. 1917

Pencil on paper, 8% x y1/^1 (2.2.2 x 18.4 cm.)

Signed 1.1.: l.K.

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

822.79

I. V. KLIUN

Whereas Kliun's constructions of the years 1914-15 bear
no relationship to the contemporary work of Malevich,
his painting and drawing of the period provide contin-
ued evidence of a close rapport between the two artists.
Kliun's drawings for The Woodsman (cat. nos. 24 i and
ii), and for The Self-Portrait with Saw (cat. nos. 24 iii
and iv), though much more explicitly Cubist in their
conception of space and form, are reminiscent in many
details of Malevich 's 191 1 Portrait of Kliun1 and of his
1913 Portrait of Matinshin.2 The 1914 oil version of
Self-Portrait with Saw (present whereabouts unknown)
was followed in 1922 by a second version, which Cos-
takis gave to the Tretiakov Gallery in Moscow (R., S.,
C, Costakis, pi. 155).

Untitled. 1915

Pencil on paper, 6l/i6 x 4^6" (154 x 11 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r.: /. Kliun 1915

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

267.80

1, Russian Museum, Leningrad, oil on canvas. 43,5/6x 27%" (111 5 x
70 .5 cm), repr. T. Andersen. Malevich, Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum.
1970. p. 22.

2. Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow, gift of George Costakis, oil on canvas,
41% x 425/i6" (106 x 107.5 cm I. repr color R.. S.. C, Costakis, pi. 482.

CUBO-FUTURISM

ALEXEI ALEXEEVICH MORGUNOV

Aviator's Workroom. 1913

Gouache on canvas (relined), 2,8-% x 17%"

(50.5 x 36 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter

159.78

According to V. Rakitin, this work was shown in the

last Union of Youth exhibition (Soiuz molodezhi), St.

Petersburg, December 13-January 1914 (cat. no. 85

there); also in Tramway V, Petrograd, March 1915 (cat.

no. 38 there). (Information from private archives,

Moscow.)

For information about the work of Morgunov, see

O. Obolsina, "Zabytye stranitsy sovetskogo iskusstva,"

hkttsstvo, no. 3, Moscow, 1974, pp. 32.-37.

KAZIMIR SEVERINOVICH MALEVICH

Violin

Oil on canvas, Z7n/i<$ x ziVis" (70.3 x 53.4 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Mai

Acquired by Costakis from A. A. Drevin, the son of

Alexandr Drevin and Nadezhda Udaltsova

282.78

The attribution to Malevich is by E. Kovtun and the
sister of Udaltsova. According to Kovtun, there is a
closely related work, similarly signed on the reverse, in
the collection of the Russian Museum, Leningrad.

CUBO-FUTURISM

OLGA VLADIMIROVNA ROZANOVA

28 i-iii

Advertisements for three books by Kruchenykh illus-
trated by O. Rozanova. 1913
Lithograph and watercolor on paper, 7%6 x 9%"
(18.6x14.5 cm-)
Acquired from A. Kruchenykh
301. 80c (a and B not illustrated)

The advertisement is titled "New Books Take the Air."
The three books advertised, all of 1913, are Duck's Nest
of Bad Words, Forestly Rapid and Explodity.
Folded at the center, pages of this design were bound
into published copies of Duck's Nest of Bad Words, the
advertisements appearing as the final page.1

The three books written by Kruchenykh advertised here
were central to the early book production of the Rus-
sian Futurist group. In her illustrations for Duck's Nest
of Bad Words published by EUY (Kruchenykh's own
imprint), St. Petersburg, June 12, 1913, Rozanova intro-
duced a new use of color, which also occurs in the ad-
vertisements: the black drawings and manuscript text
were lithographed on gray paper, but the illustrations
and the printed pages of text were separately colored. In
the text of this book, as in that of the books Forestly
Rapid and Explodity, the ambiguities of Khlebnikov's
and Kruchenykh's zaum ("transrational") language, de-
veloped during the summer of 1913, were given early
expression. The intention was to create a universal lan-
guage that would be "broader than sense" but not lack-
ing in meaning; words or individual phonemes would be
juxtaposed in bizarre, seemingly irrational combina-

tions and by the very juxtaposition of them, new "mean-
ings" would be established. Malevich and Morgunov,
closely allied to the poets, concurrently developed their
"alogical" style of painting. Thus, in Englishman in
Moscow by Malevich and Aviator's Workroom by Mor-
gunov (cat. no. 26), incongruous images are juxtaposed,
with scale, context and perspective intentionally vio-
lated, and the fragmentation produces a new form of
"conceptual" illustration. (In the Morgunov, for exam-
ple, the appearance of the airplane, out of scale, within
the interior of the workroom, suggests the mental pre-
occupations of the pilot as he prepares for flight.)

In his illustrations for Khlebnikov's "Wooden Idols"
(cat. no. 30) — Filonov's only contribution to the book
production of the Futurists — the artist achieves a new
level of originality in the relationship between text and
illustration. He illuminates the letters (as well as creat-
ing separate illustrations) and thus, with an expressive
handwriting which is essentially phonic and ideo-
graphic, he intensifies both the musical quality of the
poetry and the visual associations of sound.2

The innovations in book production during the early
Cubo-Futurist movement of ca. 1913-14 continued
through the teens, when some of the most striking ex-
amples were produced once again by the partnership of
Kruchenykh and Rozanova. (See cat. no. 102.) She il-
lustrated more than ten volumes for him alone — some
of them in collaboration with Malevich, others on her
own.

/ T W H 0 £ > M It 3^ 6lWM^ "^

K. S. MALEVICH

Prayer. 1913

Lithograph, 6% x 4,/4" (17-5 x 11. 5 cm.)

Signed and titled in the stone: Prayer K. Malevicb

Gift of A. Kruchenykh

C528

Illustration for A. Kruchenykh's Explodity (Vzorval),
znd edition, St. Petersburg, 1914 (identical with one in
the first edition of 1913).

1, A copy ol the book owned by the Leonard Hutton Galleries contains
the tolded wrap as first and last page The Costakis examples were
probably extra loose sheets rather than parts ot dismantled copies ot
the book.

2. "Varvara Stepanova's Anti-Book!' in From Surface to Space, p. 60.

CUBO-FUTURISM

PAVEL NIKOLAEVICH FILONOV

P. N. FILONOV

30 i

30 ii

Drawing for "Wooden Idols" (Dereviannye idoly) by

V. Khlebnikov. 1914

Ink on paper, 7%s x 4%" (18.3 x 12..2 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's sister, E. N. Glebova,

Leningrad

58.78

Drawing for "Wooden Idols" (Dereviannye idoly) by

V. Khlebnikov. 1914

Ink on paper, jY\& x 4iyis" (18.4 x 11.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's sister, E. N. Glebova,

Leningrad

57-78

The book, Selection of Poems 1907-1914 (Izbomik stik-
hov 1907-14), in which these illustrations appeared, was
published in March of 1914.

M3"b KHHrn

AEPEBflHHblE MAOnbl."

*s 4-

ou HHor^fl r/iflia i]poko,ieI\
H/in PbibflHb^ocipom

m pymem HEcer n»xoprb

Jft rUlECET t!vBU3b BfPETfl

OPJHflJiCEHnE-

Phi LLbfl

EL LISSITZKY

(LAZAR MARKOVICH LISITSKY)

Cover design for The Spent Sun — Second Book of

Poems (Solntse na izlete: vtoraya kniga stikbov, 1913-16)

by K. Bolshakov. 1916

Black ink on paper, 6% x sVis" (17-1 x 12.8 cm.)

Dedicated along lower edge: To a friend, a poet, Konst.

Arist. Bolshakov, a bundle of visions, as a memento —

Lazar Lissitzky.

Acquired from the widow of Alexei Babichev,

N. Babicheva

441.80

The book was published in 480 copies (with a litho-
graphic cover by Lissitzky) by Tsentrifuga, Moscow,
1916. Dimensions of the book cover, printed in ocher
and black on gray stock: 9V6 x j%" (23.4 x 18.8 cm.)
(repr. color, S. P. Compton, The World Backwards,
Russian Futurist Books, 1912-16, London, 1978, pi. 18).

Lissitsky's style and imagery are clearly indebted to ex-
amples of Italian Futurism, such as Carlo Carra's Kitini
plastici of 191 1.

,t«

"'/Vi,v,'c7 K

CUBO-FUTURISM

IVAN ALBERTOVICH PUNI

Composition. 1915-16

Pencil on paper, 6%6 x 4%" (16.7 x 11.8 cm.)

Inscribed along lower edge: The Understanding Court

Acquired from a relative of the artist in Leningrad

C295

I.A.PUNI

Untitled, ca. 1915-16

Pencil on paper mounted on paper, 3%6 x 3%"

(8.8 x9.6 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Good Old Time

Acquired from a relative of the artist in Leningrad

C196

Untitled, ca. 1915-16

Pencil on paper, 6 x 4%" (15.3 x 10.5 cm.)

Inscribed u.r.: Funeral of Sentiment

Acquired from a relative of the artist in Leningrad

C297

CUBO-FUTURISM

MIKHAIL MATIUSHIN AND THE ENDERS

Matiushin and His School
Pavel Filonov

The Costakis collection's important holdings from
the Moscow Inkhuk (cat. nos. 184-208) are
matched by a striking body of work produced in
the years 1918-1927 by Mikhail Matiushin and his
school at the Petrosvomas (Petrograd State Free Art
Studios) and later at the Institute of Artistic Culture
in Leningrad (Ginkhuk). While the former may be
said to represent the early development of a Con-
structivism based on principles of technology, on
economy of expression leading to a utilitarian view
of art, and hence to Productivism, the latter repre-
sents a continuing and fundamental commitment to
painting, a concentration on the study of nature
and on the idea of organic form.

Matiushin — composer, violinist, painter, the-
oretician and publisher — was born in 1 861 , and
was a mature artist in his fifties in 1912 when he
became intimate friends with the much younger
Malevich. They collaborated (in 1913) with Kru-
chenykh on the revolutionary opera Victory Over
the Sun. Malevich confided in Matiushin (and in
him alone) as he struggled in 1915 to formulate the
early theory and practice of Suprematism, and
Matiushin published Malevich's first text on the
subject at the end of that year: an intense series of
letters from Malevich to his older colleague (writ-
ten between 19 13 and 1917) bear witness to the
importance he attached to this close relationship.1
It also seems likely that Matiushin's interest in the
concept of a fourth dimension fostered Malevich's
own ideas on this subject. They shared a view of
the artist as visionary, although Matiushin's par-
ticular emphasis — and contribution— lay in his
concentration on the physical process of seeing, as
well as on the physiological and psychological
aspects of perception.2

In his studio of "Spatial Realism," with his
students Nikolai Grinberg and the four Enders,
Matiushin conducted elaborate experiments in-
tended to expand man's capacity to see, partly
through a physical retraining of the eye, partly
through a kind of "clairvoyance" or an "inner
gaze." The intended result was to be a "perspi-
cacity and a penetration" of extraordinary power.3
His system, which in 1923 he named Zorved ("See-
Know"), represented an effort to combine the
powers of keen, physical sight with those of mental
perception and cognition. The system depended on
the study of physiology (especially of the relation-
ship between retina, central brain and cerebral
cortex) and on the psychological dimensions of
perception. Thus, for example, Boris Ender in-

1. E. Kovtun published ten of the forty-nine letters in Centre Pompidou,
Malevich, Actes du colloQue international, trial 1978, Centre Pompidou.
Lausanne, 1979, pp. 171-189. See also C. Douglas, Swans of Other Worlds
Kazimir Malevich and the Origins of Abstraction In Russia. Ann Arbor,
1980, pp. 61-62, 71 ff,

2 A Povelikhina, "Matiushin's Spatial System!' The Slructunst
nos. 15-16. 1975-76. p. 65. This important article, part of a larger study,
was the first analysis of Matiushin's work published either in the
Soviet Union or the West. See also L. Shadowa, "II sistema cromatico
di Matjusin'.' Rassegna sovietica. no. 1, 1975, pp. 122-30; M. Matiushin,
"An Artist's Experience of the New Space" trans. C Douglas. The
Structurist, nos. 15-16, 1975-76, pp. 74-77; Z. Ender Masetti, EC. Masetti

and D A Perilli. Boris Ender. Rome, 1977; Z Ender and C. Masetti,
"Gli esperimenti del gruppo di Matjusin;' Rassegna sovletica, no, 3, 1978,
pp. 100-07, B. Ender, "Material! per lo studio della fisiologia della vista
complementare" trans. C. Masetti, Rassegna sovietica. no. 3, 1978,
pp. 108-25. All of these sources are based upon unpublished manuscript
materials housed in The State Museum of History, Leningrad; The
Manuscript Section, Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House),
Leningrad; TsGALI (The Central State Archive of Literature and Art),
Moscow, and in various private archives Probably the most important of
these is Matiushin's manuscript Opyt khudozhmka novoi mery of 1926
(TsGALI, fond 134. op 2. ed khr 21).

3. A Povelikhina, p. 65

vented a series of experiments in which — with his
eyes blindfolded — he recorded his "visual" re-
sponses to a new, totally unfamiliar physical
setting. These results were then compared to sub-
sequent responses recorded with the blindfold
removed. A remarkable level of consistency in re-
sponse was observed.'1 Similarly, one of Matiushin's
experiments required that two people walk toward
one another, pass one another, and then describe
one another's subsequent motions without turning
their heads. This capacity to see "through the back
of one's neck" — expanding one's field of vision by
1 80° — could be learned, they felt, through a new
understanding of the mechanism of perception.5

With this new and expanded vision, an artist
would be able to depict (and the viewer to grasp)
nature in an entirely new way: a "world without
boundaries and divisions," one that encompassed
what was behind as well as in front of an individual
observer, above as well as below. As Matiushin
wrote in 1926: "When you see a fiery sunset and for
a moment turn around into the deep blue violet
cold, you understand and feel the material influence
[of both] on the organs of the central perceptions,
and you will recognize and sense that they both act
on you at once and not separately."6 In effect, every
person was believed to have the capacity to absorb
and understand what was occurring behind him
while actually observing what lay in front. The
effect of these theories on the actual landscape paint-
ings of these artists was in some instances a ten-
dency to flatten the picture plane, to move the hori-
zon line toward, or even beyond, the top of the
canvas, and to establish a perceptual "center of
gravity" near the middle of the canvas, so that some
aspects of the landscape seem to be below and be-
hind this center, others above and in front of it (cat.
nos. 49-53). In some other instances, a series of re-
ceding, spiraling forms created a new and intensi-
fied sense of depth, of the limitlessness of space, in
which "the fiery sunset and the deep blue-violet
cold" were combined, as it were, in a single image.
(See R., S., C, Costakis, pi. 679.)

That Matiushin was a professional musician,
and that the Enders were also accomplished in-
strumentalists, undoubtedly contributed to their
common desire to include acoustical perceptions in
the general program to expand man's ability to
grasp and depict his environment. They devised ex-
periments to expand the sense of hearing as well as
sight, and they painted pictures intended to be ac-
tual "transcriptions of sound" (zapis zbuka).1
Matiushin wrote in 1916: "Sound has the same
oscillation as color; the words 'a crimson tone,' a

thin, thick, transparent, brilliant or dull sound, de-
termine and show very clearly that our eye, as it
were, can hear and our ear can see."g Boris Ender,
meanwhile, had created a "table" of speech sounds
for A. Tufanov's book K zaumi (1924), in which
Matiushin's theories about the relationship between
image and sound were described in some detail.

"See-Know" — and the spatial theories that
emerged from it — provided the foundation for an
elaborately developed theory of color which was
discussed at the Ginkhuk during the years 1923-26
when Matiushin was directing the Department of
Organic Culture. Color tables showing the results
and conclusions of the experiments were drawn up
with explanatory texts, and some of them were
taken to Berlin by Malevich in 1927 (and are now
in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam); others
were published in Conformity of Changeability in
Color Combinations. Reference Book on Color
(Zakonomernost izmeniaemosti tsvetovykh so-
chetanii. Spravochnik po tsvetu, Moscow and
Leningrad, 1932). These were to be aids to textile
designers, ceramicists, architects, etc., and were
clearly pragmatic in their purpose. Boris Ender had
considerable success as a designer of architectural
interiors during the 1930s, moreover, and it is clear
that his general practice was based upon the con-
clusions reached with Matiushin during the pre-
vious decade.9

Because of the collaborative nature of the
Ginkhuk enterprise — in which the artists worked
closely with one another to solve a set of common
problems — and because few of their works are
signed, it is often difficult to make confident indi-
vidual attributions. The 156 works by these artists
now in the Costakis collection, of which a selection
is shown here, offer important new insights into
the total contribution of the group as a whole. In-
evitably, the individual attributions and dates of-
fered here are to some extent tentative, and further
study of the Ender, Grinberg and Matiushin hold-
ings in the Soviet Union and elsewhere will be nec-
essary in order to arrive at a clearer definition of the
various hands.10

4. B. Ender, pp 108-25

5. M. Matiushin. pp. 75-76; B. Ender. pp. 108-09. Also Mania Ender,
unpublished report, "On Complementary Form!' Nov. 1927, Pushkin House
Archives, Matiushin Archive 656. This manuscript, kindly drawn to my
attention by Z Ender, contains a discussion of the concepts ot "visual
perception" and "visual conception"

6. M. Matiushin, p 76.

7. See R., S., C, Costakis, pis 629, 631 .

8. "Science in Art,' 1926-27, quoted by A, Povelikhina, "Matiushin!'
The Structurist. p. 69.

9 Boris Ender worked with his sister Mariia on the interior design ot the
Soviet pavilion tor the Exposition internationale in Paris, 1937. and at
the New York World's Fair. 1939. among other projects. He also worked
extensively with architects during the 1930s on various questions
relating to polychromy in architecture. See L. Shadowa. "II colore e
lambiente cromatico secondo Ended' Rassegna sovietica, no. 6. 1975.
pp. 81-87, a trans, by C. Masetti from Tekhnicheskaia estetika,
no. 11. 1974. pp. 5-8.

10. For color reproductions ot all ot the works by these artists in the
Costakis collection, see R.. S., C .. Costakis. pis. 526-682.

MIKHAIL VASILIEVICH MATIUSHIN

Painterly-Musical Construction. 1918
Oil on board, 20V16 x 24^1 <s" (51 x 63 cm.)
Acquired from the Ender family, Leningrad
155.78

According to V. Rakitin, this work and cat. no. 36 were
exhibited at the First Free Exhibition at the Winter Pal-
ace in Petrograd, 1919. (Information from private ar-
chives, Leningrad.)

M. V. MATIUSHIN

Painterly-Musical Construction. 1918

Gouache on cardboard, 20 VS x 25 Mf/' (51-4 x 63.7 cm.)

Acquired from the Ender Family, Leningrad

154.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

ELENA GURO (ELEONORA
GENRIKHOVNA VON NOTENBERG)

Untitled, ca. 1908-10

Ink on paper mounted on paper, 9% x 6V2"

(Z3.9X 16.5 cm.)

Acquired from N. Khardzhiev who dated it 1908.

Rakitin has dated it ca. 1910.

63.78

For information on the life and work of Guro see
N. Khardzhiev, "E. Guro," Knizbnye nouosti, no. 7,
Moscow, 1938; E. Kovtun, "Elena Guro. Poet i khudo-
zhnik," Pamiatniki kultury. Novye otkrytiia, Ezbegod-
nik, 19J6, Moscow, 1977, pp. 317-316; K. B. Jensen,
Russian Futurism, Urbanism and Elena Guro, Arhus
(Denmark), 1977.

BORIS VLADIMIROVICH ENDER

Movement of Organic Form. 1919

Oil on canvas, 40^1 <; x 39%" (104 x 100 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

13.78 recto

On reverse, Abstract Composition, ca. 1921, repr., color,

R., S., C, Costakis, pi. 534

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

B. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor on paper, lyVlc, x iz%" (43.4 x 32.2. cm.'

Inscribed on reverse in the hand of Andrei Ender:

Boris Ender

Acquired from the family of the artist

45.78

B. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor on paper, 14 x 10%" (35.7 x 2.7.6 cm.;

Acquired from the family of the artist

C287

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

B. V. ENDER

Extended Space. 1922-23

Oil on canvas, 27^6 x 38V2" (69.1 x 97.8 cm.)

Signed on reverse: Boris Ender

Acquired from the family of the artist

14.78

This work appeared in the 1924 Venice Biennale, cat.
no. 1456, as "Spazio allargato."

B. V. ENDER

Untitled. 1924

Pencil on paper, 7% x 7V2" (20.1 x 19.2 cm.)

Signed and dated on reverse: 19 July 1924 B. Ender

Acquired from the family of the artist

C272

3S>%

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

NIKOLAI IVANOVICH GRINBERG

Composition. 1920-21

Gouache on cardboard, nVs x zo15/ir" (28.4 x 53.2 cm.)

Acquired from rhe Ender family

61.78

KSENIA VLADIMIROVNA ENDER

Untitled

Oil on canvas, i5n/ns x n34" (39-8 x 29.8 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

15.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Untitled

Oil on canvas, 12. Vs x i^Yu" (30.9 x 40.1 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

20.78

K. V. ENDER

Untitled, ca. 1924-25

Watercolor on paper, 11V2 x 11V4" (29.4 x 28.7 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

25.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Untitled. 192.5

Watercolor on paper, 13% x i}Yi6" (34.1 x 33.6 cm.'

Dated on reverse: 24 July 1925

Acquired from the family of the artist

36.78

K. V. ENDER

Untitled. 192.5

Watercolor and pencil on paper, 13V2 x 13%"

(34-3X33-7 cm.)

Dated on reverse: 24 July 1925

Acquired from the family of the artist

C271

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Lake. 1925

Watercolor on paper, 9%s x io5/8" (24 x 27 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Tarchovka Lake 1925

Acquired from the family of the artist

43.78

K. V. ENDER

Lake. 1925

Watercolor and pencil on paper, ^/xc x 10V2"

(24 x z6.8 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Tarcbovka Lake 1925

Acquired from the family of the artist

44.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Lake. 1925

Watercolor on paper, 9Y16 x 10%" (24 x 27 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Tarchovka Lake 192J

Acquired from the family of the artist

C269

K. V. ENDER

Lake. 192.5

Watercolor on paper, 8-% x 10%" (22.2 x 27 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Tarchovka Lake, 19Z5

Acquired from the family of the artist

21.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Lake. 192.5

Watercolor on paper, 9%6 x 10%" (2-4-4 x 27-7 cm-)

Inscribed on reverse: Tarchovka Lake 192J

Acquired from the family of the artist

31.78

K. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor on paper, 7V2 x 6" (19. 1 x 15.4 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

27.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Untitled. 1914-16

Paper collage on paper, 15% x 13%" (39 x 34.5 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

K. V. ENDER

Untitled. 1924-26

Paper collage on paper, 15% x 13%" (40.3 x 34.6 cm.]

Acquired from the family of the artist

C122

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Untitled. 1924-26

Paper collage on paper, ioYg x jYs" (26.5 x 18.7 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

37-7S

K. V. ENDER

Untitled. 1914-26

Paper collage on paper, iiVis x 6%" (28.7 x 17.4 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

38.78

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

K. V. ENDER

Vntitled. 1924-26

Paper collage on paper, 12V2 x iollA& (31.8 x 27.2 cm.)

Acquired from the family of the artist

C120

100

K. V. ENDER

Designs for a Cigarette Case. 1926

Paper collage on paper, sheet: 9 x 15" (23 x 38 cm.);

each image: ^/\f, x 31/i,s" (n x 7.8 cm.)

Dated u.l.: January 1926

Inscription: Government Decorative [Arts] Institute.

Dept. Organic Culture. "Cigarette Box." Work by the

artist Ksenia Ender. Teacher M. Matiusbin.

January 1916.

Acquired from the family of the artist

40.78-41.78

Designs for a Tobacco Box. 1926

Paper collage on paper, 4>4 x 10%" (2-3-5 x z7-7 cm-)

Dated u.l.: January 1926

Inscription: Government Decorative [Arts] Institute.

Dept. Organic Culture. Work by the artist Ksenia

Ender. "Tobacco Box." Teacher M. Matiusbin.

January 1926.

Acquired from the family of the artist

39-78

mm JvtHUU . vu)i P
.XA&AKF-PKA'

101

MARIIA VLADIMIROVNA ENDER

Untitled. 1920

Watercolor on paper, 13 x ^/x" (33 x 24 cm.)

Dated u.l.: Dec. 2, lyzo

Signed on reverse: M. Ender

Acquired from the family of the artist

C429

«r— —

102

M. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor on paper, 10 x 8Yi6" {z$-S x 2.1. 1 cm.)

Signed on reverse: M. Ender

Acquired from the family of the artist

C281

103

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

M. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor and pencil on paper, 10% x n%"

(25.8 x 29.9 cm.)

Signed on reverse: M. Ender

Inscribed on reverse: To Natasha from Mulenki.Nj6. 1

Acquired from the family of the artist

C462

104

1. The inscription was added at a later date by one ot the daughters
of Ksenia Ender.

M. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor on paper mounted on board, 12 x 8n/i6"

(30.5 x zz. 1 cm.)

Signed on reverse: M. Ender

Acquired from the family of the artist

C457

105

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

M. V. ENDER

Untitled

Watercolor and pencil on paper, ioVk x 14%"

(25.8 x 37.6 cm.)

Signed on reverse: Martyshkino/M. Ender

Inscribed: To Galia from M. N19. 1

Acquired from the family of the artist

C424

106

1 The inscription was added by one of the daughters of Ksenia Ender.

M. V. ENDER

Untitled. 1927

Watercolor and pencil on paper, 9V2 x i2.lYi

(24.1 x 32.9 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: Odessa 1927

Acquired from the family of the artist

C260

IV,."

107

MATIUSHIN AND HIS SCHOOL

PAVEL NIKOLAEVICH FILONOV

Head. 1925-26

Oil and gouache on paper backed with cardboard,

34V16 x 237s" (86.7 x 60.7 cm.) (sight)

Acquired from the artist's sister, E. N. Glebova,

Leningrad

59-78

Safe--

108

PAVEL FILONOV

P. N. FILONOV

Pavel Filonov, like Matiushin and Tatlin, directed
one of the departments of the Museum of Painterly
Culture in Petrograd, which was established under
Malevich's direction in 192.3. He remained in the
position only a few months, and differed with all of
his colleagues on matters of artistic policy. More-
over, he is in almost all respects impossible to place
within a specific group, though he did for some
time work in the same environment as Matiushin,
Malevich and Pavel Mansurov.1 His own "Collec-
tive of Masters of Analytical Art" (the filonovtsy)
was initially set up in 1925 within the framework
of the Academy of Arts in Leningrad, but from
1927 to 1932 it was run as an independent venture,
and it became the center for his own exploration of
a "Theory of Analytical Art," as well as for his
teaching of painting.

While recognizing the fundamental differences
between the art of Filonov and that of Matiushin,
Charlotte Douglas has drawn attention to certain
compelling similarities between the theoretical
thinking and aesthetic convictions of the two.2 Both
artists were committed to easel painting, and they
therefore found the Productivist program alien.
Both viewed the creative process as analytic in na-
ture, rejecting the notion that it depended on emo-
tional or intuitive inspiration, and insisting rather
on its extraordinary intellectual and even physical
aspects. Thus, Matiushin's new way of seeing and
depicting nature required a complete retraining of
the eye, and of the mental processes behind the eye.
Filonov's pictorial aims, meanwhile, demanded
exhaustive attention to detail — a "control" and
"exactness" in the handling of the minutely worked
surface of the painting — in order to realize the goal
of "madeness" (sdelannost) which he strove to
achieve. The physical presence of the work of art,
and the deliberateness of the craft involved in its
production, were thus intimately bound up with
Filonov's notion of content. The lapidary detail of
his intricately built-up forms, and the actual phys-
ical process of creating them on the canvas were —
in Filonov's eyes — both a part of the actual sub-
stance of his art.

Although the analogy between Filonov and
Matiushin should not be pressed too far, it is clear
that they both viewed the art of painting as a com-
plex process involving highly self-conscious analy-
sis and an emphasis on the actual physical process
of creative work: the goal in both cases was an in-
tegration or fusion of the intellectual and the physi-
cal in order to achieve new ways of "seeing" or new
ways of "making."

Untitled

Ink on paper, 10% x 8V2" (26.4 x 21.7 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's sister, E. N. Glebova,

Leningrad

203.80

Kjffc

1 . See J. E. Bowlt. "Pavel Filonov!' Russian Literature Triquarterly.

no. 12, 1975, pp. 371-392; idem. "Pavel Filonov: An Alternative Tradition.'
Art Journal, no. 34, 1975, pp. 208-216. See also T. Andersen, "Pavel
Nikolaievich Filonov,' Signum, Copenhagen, 1963, no. 9, J. Kriz,
Pavel Filonov. Prague, 1966

2. "The Universe Inside & Out New Translations of Matyushm and
Filonov;' The Structunst. nos. 15-16, 1975-76, pp. 72-74.

109

PAVEL FILONOV

C7P P E M>/

vnPEM^i)-?

IV
Suprematism and Unovis

fig. a

Liubov Sergeevna Popova

Cover Design for Supremus, Periodical of the "Su-

premus" Society of Painters. 1916-17

Ink on paper, 3V2 x 3 Vis" (8.8 x 7.8 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

Pavel Sergeevich Popov

C752

In the months following the December 1915 0.10 exhi-
bition, the "Supremus" group, including Malevich, Ro
zanova, Popova, Udaltsova, Exter, Kliun, Pestel, Mikhail
Menkov and Natalia Davydova, began to take shape.1
Plans to publish a Suprematist periodical, with Male-
vich as the editor, were developed during the winter of
1916-17, when the group met fairly regularly. However,
the publication never materialized. Popova made sev-
eral designs for the cover, some of which bear the date
1917.2

110

1 Pans, Centre Pompidou, Malevich, Acles du collOQue Internationale.
mai 1978, Lausanne, 1979, pp. 181, 187-88.

2, For other examples of these designs in the Costakis collection
see R„ S., C, Costakis, pis. 824-25.

Kliun's friendship with Malevich, which had
started in 1907 (see p. 37), became especially close
in 1915-18 when Kliun was a strong supporter of
Suprematism. His work of this period (see, for
example, cat. nos. 70-79) is concerned with the de-
piction of clearly articulated form and pure color.
The relationship between his work of 1916-17 and
that of Popova is in some instances strikingly close,
and the nature of their overlapping concerns re-
quires further study and elucidation. (See, for
example, cat. nos. 79 and 106.)

By 1919, however, after Kliun had been pro-
fessor at the Svomas for a year, his development
had become more complex. His Suprematist style
had reached full maturity (see, for example, R., S.,
C, Costakis, pis. 145-151, 163) and he began to ex-
plore the possibilities of what one might call a Su-
prematist Constructivism. A group of drawings in
the Costakis collection (cat. no. 85 iii-vii) record
Kliun's plans for a series of hanging constructions,
formulated out of purely Suprematist planar ele-
ments. Whether he actually made any of these "mo-
biles" is not known.1 Certainly they must be seen
within the context of Klucis's contemporary experi-
ments with hanging constructions (see p. 195), and
those of Rodchenko (cat. no. 172). But in a funda-
mental sense Kliun's constructions differ from both:
far from arising out of a Constructivist aesthetic, his
are conceived entirely in planar, and indeed pic-
torial, terms. Seen beside studies for his contem-
porary paintings (cat. nos. 84 and 85 Hi) they
reveal the firmly pictorial nature of his sensibility.

At about the same time, Kliun's treatment of
color and form underwent profound changes.
Color in his work from about 1920 on is often
characterized by a sfumato technique, a blurring of
the edges of his forms which creates shimmering,
atmospheric effects. In many of his paintings of this
period his concern is with overlapping veils of trans-
parent color, and the Suprematist juxtaposition of
pure elements has disappeared. In a statement writ-
ten for the catalogue of the Tenth State Exhibition:
Nonobjective Creation and Suprematism, which
opened in January of 1919, he wrote: "In Color
Art the colored area lives and moves, affording
color the utmost force of intensity. And the con-
gealed, motionless forms of suprematism do not
display a new art but reveal the face of a corpse
with its eyes fixed and dead."2

Kliun's break with Suprematism as Malevich
defined it was certainly complete, though he con-
tinued to evolve his own formulation of it, and
indeed exhibited several works with the title Su-
prematism in the 1919 exhibition. His growing con-
cern during the early 1920s was to depict the move-
ment of light through a color mass, and even when
working in a limited color range, this issue ab-
sorbed him. In his 1924 painting Composition
(p. 1 26, fig. a), an image that Malevich and Ilia
Chashnik had conceived in opaque color and artic-
ulated outline, Kliun's distorted form, transparency
of color and shimmering outline seem almost to
offer a critique of Suprematism as originally
conceived.

1. Five ol Kliun's entries in the 1919 Tenth State Exhibition were
"nonobjective sculptures!' No evidence apparently survives to identify
these works, hut it cannot be ruled out that they were hanging constructions
based on these drawings.

2. Trans. Bowlt. Theory and Criticism, p 143

111

IVAN VASILIEVICH KLIUN

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1917

Oil on paper, 10% x 8%" {27 x 22.5 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, Serafima Ivanova

Kliun

90.78 A

According to V. Rakitin, cat. nos. 70-76 were exhibited
in the 1917 jack of Diamonds {Bnbnovyi valet) exhibi-
tion in Moscow. (Information from private archives,
Moscow.)

Untitled, ca. 1917

Oil on paper, 10% x 8%" (27 x 22.5 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
90.78 B

Untitled, ca. 1917

Oil on paper, 10% x 8%" (27 x 22.5 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
90.78 c

\ \

112

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1917

Oil on paper, 10% x 8%" (27 x 22.5 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

86.78

Untitled, ca. 19 17

Oil on paper, io'/s x 8%" (z-7 x 22.5 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

88.78

Untitled, ca. 19 17

Oil on paper, 10% x 8%" (27 x 22.5 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

87.78

Untitled.

ca. 1917

Oil on paper, io5/s x 8%" (27 x 22.5 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
89.78

113

I. V. KLIUN

Suprematism: 3 Color Composition, ca. 1917
Oil on board, 141/15 x I313/i<5" (35-7 x 35- cm-)
Signed and titled on reverse: I.Kliun I Suprematism/
3 color composition

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
82.78 A

According to Rakitin, this work and cat. nos. 78-82
appeared in the 1917 Jack of Diamonds exhibition in
Moscow. (Information from private archives, Moscow.)

.<y

114

I. V. KLIUN

Snprematism. ca. 1917

Oil on panel, l$ls/i6 x 14%" (35-3 x 35-8 cm-)

Inscribed on reverse, probably not in the artist's hand:

Kliun I Snprematism I ze

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

76.78

^A^

115

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

Suprematism. ca. 1917

Oil on panel, 14 x 14V16" (35-6 x 35.7 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

77-78

116

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1917

Watercolor and ink with pencil on paper, 12 x 10%"

(30.5 x 26 cm.) (sight)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

75-78

117

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

Suprematism: 3 Color Composition, ca. 1917

Oil on board, 14^ x 13%" (35.7 x 35.2 cm.)

Signed and titled on reverse: 7. Klinn I Suprematism I fJ"^

3 color composition

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

82.78 B

•sm I (

118

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1917

Gouache, ink and watercolor on paper, 12% x 8%"

(31.3 x z.2.5 cm.) (sight)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Khun

74.78

119

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled. 191 8

Gouache on paper, 12.% x iiVii (30.8 x z8.8 cm.'

Signed and dated: 1918

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

177.80

x=&

120

I. V. KLIUN

84 i-ii

Untitled, ca. 1918-19

Left, 255.80: watercolor and pencil on paper, 7%s y.0/%

(18.3 x 16.2 cm.)

Right, C559 A: watercolor on paper, 5V2 x 3V2"

(14 x 8.9 cm.)1

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

Ife

.-r^3

1. This drawing and cat nos 85. 87. 88, 89 are from the oeuvre
catalogue sheets, see p 60. fn 1

121

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

-A

r ___

122

I. V. KLIUN

85 i-vii

Seven Drawings. 1918-19
Pencil on paper

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Khun
Clockwise from u.l.: i, C552 A: 6l/s x 3%" (15.6 x 9.5
cm.); ii, C559 B: 5*4 x 3V2" (13-3 x 8.9 cm.); iii, C563 A:
4X 3%" (10.2x9.5 cm0; iy> C563 D: 2V2 x 41/4" (6.4 x
10.8 cm.); v, C672: 4 x 2%" (10.2 x 6.7 cm.); vi, C563 C:
4V8 x 2%" (10.5 x 7.3 cm.); vii, C563 B: 3I/8 x 31/3"
(8x8 cm.)

Ill

£.Z£»

123

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

86 i-ii

Two Designs for a Monument to Olga Kozanova.

1918-19

Pencil on paper

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

Left, 294.80: 6iyL6 X47is" (17.7 x 11. 2 cm.)

Right, 252.80: 73/8 x6%" (18.3 x 17.5 cm.)

Kliun's close friend Rozanova died November 8, 1918,
of diphtheria. A posthumous exhibition of her work
was held in Moscow in January 1919, and then again
later in the year, within the context of the Tenth State
Exhibition: Nonobjective Creation and Suprematism.
Kliun wrote the obituary for the catalogue, which in-
cluded 270 works, and he made a series of designs for
a memorial to her (these two works and cat. no. 87 i-v).
His final entry in the exhibition catalogue was "Project
for a Memorial to O.V.R. [Olga Vladimirovna Rozan-
ova]. The memorial was apparently never built.

Several of the drawings for the memorial make explicit
visual reference to the imagery of Rozanova's Bicyclist,
the construction of 1915 (see pp. 138-139), indicating
his sense of that work's significance in her oeuvre.

^-!

124

I. V. KLIUN

87 i-v

Five Drawings for a Monument to Olga Rozanova.
1918-19
Pencil on paper

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
Clockwise from u.l.: i, C551 A: 2% x 2" (7 x 5.1 cm.);
ii, C551 B: z% x 2.%" (6.8 x 5.7 cm.); iii, C563 E: 3V2 x
2.%" (8-9 x 6.8 cm.), inscribed l.r.: N 11; iv, C551 D:
2.5/8 x zVa" (6.8 x 5.7 cm.); v, C551 C: 2% x 1 %" (7.3 x
4.8 cm.)

•

125

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

fig. a

I. V. Kliun

Composition. 1924

Oil on cardboard, 16^/4 x 1614" (41.1 x 41.2 cm.)

Staatsgalerie Stuttgart (formerly Costakis collection)

126

I. V. KLIUN

88 i-iii

Three Drawings. 1918-19

Pencil on paper

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

Left to right: i, C551 E: 2n/i<s x 2. Vis" (7.3 x 5.2. cm.); if

C551 F: 3I/8 x l"/ifi" (8 x 4.1 cm.); iii, C551 G: 3 x zVs"

(7.6 x5.4 cm.)

89 i-iii

Three Drawings. 1919-1920

Pencil on paper

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

Left to right: i, C553 A: ^/g x 3" (8.6 x 7.6 cm.); ii, C552

d: 37/i6 x 35/i6" (8.8 x 8.4 cm.); iii, 284.80 A: 4y8 x ^/g"

(11. 1 x n. 1 cm.)

It cannot be ruled out that these three drawings are also
related to Kliun's preliminary ideas for a memorial to
Rozanova.

Closely related to Kliun's Suprematist paintings and
gouaches of 1919-1920, these studies combine planar
with more decorative linear elements, the pencil shading
and cross-hatching suggestive of Kliun's constant experi-
mentation with the interaction of texture and form.

127

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1919-1921

Gouache on paper, 15 x n^r," (38 x 29.3 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Khun

178.80

128

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1919-1921

Gouache and watercolor on paper, i^Yk, x io1/^"

(35.4 x 26.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

179.80

129

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1919-1921
Charcoal and gouache on paper, 10 x ioyg"
(25.4 x17 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
181.80

130

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled. 1921-22

Pencil and colored pencil on graph paper, 4% x 3I/8"

(11.1 X7.9 cm.)

Signed 1.1.: KL

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

265.80

Untitled. 1920

Watercolor on paper, 6u/ig x 4%" (17 x 11. 2 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r.: /. Kliun XX

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

261.80

it.iyitoit

131

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

95 i-iii

Three Drawings

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

Left, i, 800.79: dated l.r., 1920, colored pencil on paper,

7Vl6 x 55/i6" (18-2- x 13.5 cm.)

Middle, ii, C554 A: ca. 1921, pencil on paper,

4n/i6X3y2" (11.9x8.9 cm.)

Right, iii, C554 B: dated in pencil l.r., 1921, pencil on

paper, $%6 x 3%" (13.2 x 9.8 cm.)

Untitled, ca. 1920-21

Oil on board, 29 x 24" (73.6 x 60.9 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

81.78

These drawings of 1920-21 are typical of Kliun's
sfumato style as he moved away from Malevich's
much more rigorously outlined definition of form.

132

133

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

Untitled, ca. 1911-25

Oil on canvas, z%Y\6 x 17%" (71-5 x 43.5 cm.) (sight)

Signed l.r.: 7. Kliiin

80.78

The date of this work is suggested by Rakitin.

M, ,-,-

134

I. V. KLIUN

Red Light, Spherical Composition, ca. 19Z3
Oil on canvas, 17V4 x zjVs" (69.1 x 68.9 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
84.78

ppk

*&y

«*>

"d"jr

135

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. V. KLIUN

100

Spherical Siiprematism. ca. 1923-25

Oil on canvas, 40% x 27%" (102. 1 x 70.2 cm.)

Signed 1.1.: Kliun

Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun

71.78

The title is inscribed on the reverse, though not in the
artist's hand.

According to Rakitin, this work was exhibited in 1925
at the first exhibition of OST (the Society of Studio Art-
ists). (Information from private archives, Moscow.)

Spherical Non-Objective Composition. 1922-25
Oil on canvas, 40% x 27%" (101.8 x 70.7 cm.)
Signed, titled and dated on reverse: /. Kliun, Spherical
nonobjective composition, VI I 1922-/Z / 192J
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
83.78

136

137

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

OLGA VLADIMIROVNA ROZANOVA

101 a 101 b

Preliminary Sketch for the Construction Automobile. Preliminary Sketch for the Construction Bicyclist. 1915

I9I5 Both: pencil on paper, 5%^ x 4" (13.5 x 10.1 cm.)

C353 recto and verso

■

•?>

0 w-'

■ -

3 J:5?3

.iiIiULVL£xAiA-i.i^- ,

- -

I ■

' '

-> w.

. i >' . ■ < ■

138

^v***"*"*""*"

u c ?

2^1

^au;>

sS*:Si

«*

.^/^V*

fig. a

Diagrammatic rendering of Automobile sketch.

Cyclisl

sketchboard pant
en-face

white disc set 1

T prpdle

wood Painty

wood / ^v]

Painted blaS^CS

\ J^ 9,ee"

pa><*

ota^9e

plane

pivot

fig.b

Diagrammatic rendering of Bicyclist sketch.

These two pages of sketches (recto and verso of a single
sheet) are the only known surviving record in Rozan-
ova's hand of the two constructions she exhibited at
o.io (December 19, 1915-January 19, 1916).1 In addi-
tion, the lower portion of each page shows a sketch for
another, otherwise unknown construction.
The two exhibited constructions (nos. 121 and 122 in
the 0.10 catalogue) were Automobile and Bicyclist, and
they were reproduced in a review of the exhibition pub-
lished on January 3, 1916 (fig. c). Though they became
famous at the time, they have long since been lost, and
the Costakis drawings provide the first clear evidence of
the materials used and the actual appearance of the ob-
jects. Composed partly of raw materials (unpainted
wood, tin, glass), partly of painted elements (black,

white, green and red), and partly of found objects (a
rubber ball, a brick or cobblestone), Rozanova's images
suggest on the one hand her strong adherence to the
Suprematist principles of Malevich's contemporary
painting, but also her interest in an iconography that is
more systematically related, though in a complex and
allusive way, to actual objects in the world. It is this
original combination of tendencies — the fusing of ab-
stract form with a nonrepresentational and elliptically
referential vocabulary — that Rozanova continued to
develop in 1916 and 1917. (See cat. nos. 102-05.) ft >s
interesting to note that when her close friend Ivan Kliun
designed a memorial after her death in 1918, he
returned specifically to the imagery of the Bicyclist in
his search for a suitable motif (cat. nos. 86-87).

O.IO" — noen-fcflHflit Bw«raBK« <$>y ry pn«ro«» a> n<rporo*dV

-Hfrt«c»n» M Ty»jWT«ik». 2) rBuwevmiht. 1) <PMW<wit, 4) ilWpMMl^ua. 5) «MwiM awnt

■

•.'.lirT&Jll

■ ■

1 »r-T41j-

1««UI 1

■

. - . ■ \ 4inj*.juti.i r* olptlnii Ukii »6tm

fig. c

A page from Ogonek, Jan. 3, 1916, illustrating works in
the 0.10 exhibition. On the far left, Kliun's Cubist at Her
Dressing Table; in the center, the two Rozanova con-

structions, Bicyclist (top) and Automobile (bottom); on
the right, Puni's Barbershop and Window Dressing
(bottom).

1. For a discussion of several important aspects of this exhibition see
C. A. Douglas, "0.10 Exhibition!' in LACMA, pp. 34-40.

139

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

O. V. ROZANOVA AND
ALEXEI KRUCHENYKH

102

The Universal War (Vselenskaya voina). Petrograd,

January 1916

Paper and fabric collage on paper, printed covers, 2 pp.

printed text, n pp. collage illustrations. Published in an

edition of 100 handmade copies.

Each page: 8Vs x n%6" (21x29 cm.); book: 8u/i,5Xi3"

(22 x 23 cm.)

Gift of A. Kruchenykh

130.80

Rozanova's illustrations to Kruchenykh's The Universal
War demonstrate the striking originality and coloristic
purity of her nonobjective style of 1916, and Kruch-
enykh's preface to his book stresses the innovative na-
ture of her experiments. His invention of a zanm
language, in which the sound of a word is exploited
apart from its contextual meaning, was clearly echoed
in the new pictorial language which Rozanova created
to illustrate the volume's twelve poems (predicting the
outbreak of a universal war in 1985). Originality per se
was clearly of great importance to her. In an essay on
"Suprematism and Criticism" published in Anarkhia, in
March 1918, she wrote: "The greatest satisfaction in
creativity is to be unlike anything else. . . . Only he can
create who feels that he is new, unlike anything else."

As Hubertus Gassner has argued, though the various
collages carry titles borrowed from the text, the works
themselves are clearly lacking in "subject matter."1 The
particular stress on asymmetry and dissonance repre-
sents a clear departure from the carefully calculated
equilibrium of Malevich's contemporary Suprematist
compositions.

140

1 . "Olga Rozanova!' Women Artists of the Russian Avant-Garde.^ p. 235.
This article contains a discussion ol Rozanova's contributions in the
field of book production

141

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

142

O. V. ROZANOVA

103

Untitled. 1916-17

Collage on paper, 8n/i6 x 13" t-2- x 33 cm0

Acquired from A. Kruchenykh

253.78

104

Untitled. 1916-17

Paper collage on paper, 8% x 13V6" (2-1-9 x 33-4 cm-)

Acquired from A. Kruchenykh

254.78

This collage, and cat. no. 103, must originally have been
intended as illustrations for the book The Year 1918
(1918 god), a miscellany by Vasilii Kamensky, Kruch-
enykh and Kirill Zdanevich, published in Tiflis in 1917.
The book was handmade, and each copy included indi-
vidual collages by Rozanova. A copy of the entire book
in the collection of Alexandre Polonski includes col-
lages which are on paper that is identical in nature
(color, texture, size) to that used as the ground in the
present two works. In addition, the paper of the actual
collage elements (including the turquoise embossed
paper used in cat. no. 103) is identical to that used for
collage elements in the Polonski book.

It is not clear whether the two collages in the Costakis
collection derive from a dismembered copy of the 1917
book, or whether they were simply extra pages that re-
mained unused.

143

SUPRE.MATISM AND UNOVIS

O. V. ROZANOVA

105

Untitled {Green Stripe). 1917

Oil on canvas, 27^16 x 20%" (71 x 53 cm.)

Gift from I. Kachurin, who acquired it from a close

friend of Rozanova

251.78

According to Rakitin, this work was included in
Rozanova's posthumous exhibition, held in Moscow in
1919, which included twenty-two "Suprematist non-
objective compositions." Ivan Kliun wrote the catalogue
preface. Rakitin has also drawn attention to the exis-
tence in a Soviet collection of a similar work with a
yellow stripe on a white ground. These unusual com-
positional experiments demonstrate yet again Rozan-
ova's emphasis on innovation, originality and the break-
ing of new ground. As early as 1913, she had written:
Each moment of the present is dissimilar to a mo-
ment of the past, and the moments of the future will
contain inexhaustible possibilities and new revela-
tions. . . . There is nothing more awful in the World
than repetition, uniformity. Uniformity is the apothe-
osis of banality. There is nothing more awful in the
world than an artist's immutable face, by which his
friends and old buyers recognize him at exhibitions
— this accursed mask that shuts off his view of the
future. . . .x

In Rozanova's collages of 1916, Suprematist forms are
arranged upon a ground that is clearly distinct from
them, and the forms appear suspended in a large pic-
torial space. In this painting, however, and presumably
in others of this moment, Rozanova destroys the notion
of a ground as such. The green, interpenetrated at its
edges by the white, exists on the same plane with it and
the entire surface of the canvas thus becomes a flat
juxtaposition of color masses. Though Rozanova still
regarded herself as a Suprematist painter, she — like
Kliun — was developing an independent formulation.
(Seep, in.)

144

1. "The Bases of the New Creation and the Reasons why it is misunder-
stood" (Osnovy novogo tvorchestva 1 pnchiny ego neponimaniya). 1913.
trans. Bowlt, Theory and Criticism, p. 109.

p:„-

145

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

146

LIUBOV SERGEEVNA POPOVA

106

Painterly Architectonics. 1916-17

Oil on canvas, 17% x jyVn" (43-5 x 43-9 cm-)

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

182.78

yu<-K

c^>

^^^■■H

147

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

L. S. POPOVA

107

Painterly Architectonics. 1917-18

Oil on canvas, 37V16 x 30" (94.1 x 76.3 cm.) (sight)

From A. Vesnin to D. Sarabianov; acquired from Sara-

bianov

176.78

According to Rakitin, this work and cat. no. 106 both
appeared in Popova's posthumous exhibition of 192.4.

148

L. S. POPOVA

108

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Paper collage on paper mounted on paper, 13 x 9%(j"

(33 x -4-3 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

186.78

149

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

L. S. POPOVA

109

Cover Design for a Set of Linocuts. ca. 1917-19
Linocut on paper, 16% x 11%" (41-7 x z9-9 cm-)
Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov
188.78

Several of Popova's linocuts appeared in her posthu-
mous exhibition of 1924 and are visible in the installa-
tion photographs.

150

L. S. POPOVA

110

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Gouache and pencil on paper, n15/i6 x 99/u"

(32.9x24.3 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

187.78

151

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

L. S. POPOVA

111

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Linocut on paper, 13% x io^tg" (34.1 x 16.1 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

189.78

152

L. S. POPOVA

112

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Linocut on paper, I2i5/16 x 9y16» (32-9 x 14 cm_)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C390

153

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

L. S. POPOVA

113

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Linocut on paper, I3%s x lo%6" (34.5 x 25.9 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

192.78

154

L. S. POPOVA

114

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Linocut on paper, 13% x 10%,;" (34.4 x Z5.9 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

193.78

155

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

L. S. POPOVA

115

Untitled, ca. 1917-19

Linocut on paper, I3%6 x 10%,;" (34.5 x 26 cm.)
Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov

191.78

156

NADEZHDA ANDREEVNA UDALTSOVA

116

Untitled, ca. 1920

Gouache on paper, z^Yie, x lyVz" (64 x 44.5 cm.)

Acquired from A. A. Drevin, son of Alexandr Drevin

and Udaltsova

ATH.80.18

157

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

N. A. UDALTSOVA

117

Untitled.

ca. 19Z0

Gouache on paper, 18% x 15 yU" (48 x 38.5 cm.'

Acquired from A.
and Udaltsova
ATH.80.19

A. Drevin, son of Alexandr Drevin

158

N. A. UDALTSOVA

118

Untitled, ca. 1920

Gouache on paper, iz1^ x 97i6" (32-5 x 24 cm.)

Acquired from A. A. Drevin, son of Alexandr Drevin

and Udaltsova

ATH.80.20

159

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

KUDRIASHEV IN ORENBURG

After the Revolution, Ivan Kudriashev was admit-
ted to the Free State Art Studios in Moscow
(Svomas), where he studied with Malevich and also
met Kliun, Gabo and Pevsner. In 1919 he was sent
to Orenburg to establish the Svomas there, main-
taining his contact with Malevich through corre-
spondence and occasional visits, and in 1920 he
organized an Orenburg branch of Unovis.1 Oren-
burg's theater, dating from 1856, was renamed — in
1920 — The First Soviet Theater, and Kudriashev's
Suprematist designs for its interior decoration
were exhibited in that same year.2 It has not been
possible to establish whether the designs were ever
carried out.

,sf V

160

1 An unpublished letter Irom Malevich to Kudriashev. addressed to him
in Orenburg and dated Vitebsk. April 14. 1921 , bears witness to a
continued shared interest in the development and dissemination ot
Suprematist ideas and principles (Costakis collection, 143.80)
Malevich writes about his own activities, about the progress of the
Suprematist movement, about attitudes towards the Unovis movement and
about Kudriashev's work ("Your mural is good -it must be really good in

the original, and luminous" He presumably had a photograph ot part ot
the theater decoration.)

2 For an installation photograph, see R.. S., C , Costakis, pi 406

For color reproductions of these designs, and of an additional oil for the

project now in the Tretiakov Gallery. Moscow, see ibid., pis 407-10

IVAN ALEXEEVICH KUDRIASHEV

119

Design for The First Soviet Theater in Orenburg. 1920

Pencil and gouache on paperboard, 13 x 41"

(33 x 102.5 cm.)

Acquired from the artist

127.78

' ,x

161

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

I. A. KUDRIASHEV

120

Design for The First Soviet Theater in Orenburg. 1920

Watercolor, gouache and paper collage on paper,

53/l<;X 15%" (13.3 x 39 cm.)

Inscribed on mount: Foyer/lateral wall

Acquired from the artist

132.78

162

I. A. KUDRIASHEV

121

Design for The First Soviet Theater in Orenburg. 1920
Watercolor, ink and pencil on paper on board, 8yic,x 2.1"
(21.2x53.4 cm.)
Acquired from the artist
133.78

163

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

ILIA GRIGORIEVICH CHASHNIK

122

Suprematist Cross. 1923

Oil on canvas, $z7/i6 x 52V2" (l33-l x 133.4 cm)

Signed, dated and inscribed on the reverse: Unovis 11.

Chashnik, 23

Acquired from a private collection in Leningrad

795-79

For information on the life and work of Chashnik see
S. von Wiese, A. B. Nakov, et al., Ilja C. Tschascbnik,
Kunstmuseum Diisseldorf, 1978; llya G. Chashnik,
New York, Leonard Hutton Galleries, 1979.

164

KAZIMIR SEVERINOVICH MALEVICH

123

Black Quadrilateral

Oil on canvas, 6n/\6 x 97/i6" (17 x 24 cm.)

Gift from a close friend of the artist

ATH.80.10

Malevich exhibited his first black quadrilaterals at the
0.10 exhibition in Moscow, December 1915. A rectan-
gular form on a light ground was also exhibited on that
occasion and is visible in the installation photographs.1

Malevich's radical break with the pictorial traditions of
the past, represented by these 1915 compositions, has
been widely discussed in the literature.2 As both Crone
and Marcade have pointed out, Malevich specifically
described these works as "quadrilateral" (chetyreugol-

nik), rather than as square, and indeed none of them
can be described as conforming strictly to a geometrical
form; rather they are quadrilaterals tending towards the
square or the rectangle. It was the "quadrilaterality"
that concerned Malevich, and as such they represented
a departure from a "triangularity" which until then had
been historically seen as a symbol of the divine. He
wrote: "the form of modernity is the rectangle. In it four
points triumph over three points."3 The specificity of
his references to the "icon" in his writings of the period
further intensifies this association. Thus the works func-
tion on one level as extreme examples of the absolute
planarity of the pictorial surface; on another as "non-
figurative" expression of the "nonobjective world" ren-
dered visible.4

1. A. B. Nakov, Kazimir S. Malevic: Scrim. Milan. 1977, p. 153. The
dating ol these works is often difficult to establish, since Malevich
himself continued to produce variants well into the 1920s and several
were produced in his studio at the Inkhuk. On this point, see T. Andersen.
Malevich, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1970, p. 40. fn. 13.

2. See, for example, J. Golding, "The Black Square!' Studio International.
vol. 189, no. 974, Mar-Apr. 1975, pp, 96-106; L. Henderson. "The Merging
of Time and Space: 'The Fourth Dimension' in Russia from Ouspensky
to Malevich!' The Structurist. nos. 15/16. 1975-76, pp. 97-108:

S. Compton, "Malevich's Suprematism and the Higher Intuition',' Burlington
Magazine, no. 118. Aug. 1976, pp. 577-585; E. Kovtun, "The Beginning
of Suprematism!' Kasimir Malewitsch: zum WO. Geburtstag. Galerie
Gmurzynska, Cologne, 1978, pp, 196-231 ; R. Crone. "Zum Suprematismus
-Kazimir MaleviJ, Velimir Chlehnikov und Nicolai Lobacevskij!'
Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch. vol. XL, 1978, pp. 129-162: J.C. Marcade, ed..

Malevich. Actes du collogue international (Centre Pompidou. Paris. May 4
and 5. 19781, Lausanne. 1979; idem, "K. S. Malevich: From Black
Quadrilateral (1913) to White on White (1917); from the Eclipse of Objects
to the Liberating Space!' LACMA, pp. 20-24; C. Douglas, Swans of
Other Worlds: Kazimir Malevich and the Origins of Abstraction in Russia.
Ann Arbor, 1980.

For Malevich's own writings on Suprematism see A. B. Nakov, Kazimir
S. Malevic: Scrim, Milan. 1977; J. C. Marcade, "An Approach to the
Writings of Malevich!' Soviet Union, vol. 5, pt. 2, 1978. pp. 225-240.

3. Quoted by J. C. Marcade, LACMA. p. 21 . from an otherwise unpublished
manuscript in a private archive in Leningrad.

4. For a discussion of this point see J. C. Marcade. LACMA. pp. 21-22;
E. Martineau. preface to K. Malevich. Ecrits. II. Le Miroir Suprematiste.
Lausanne. 1977, p, 33.

165

K. S. MALEVICH

124

125

Single Page Autograph Manuscript, dated July i, 1916

Colored inks, crayon and pencil on paper, 10^5 x 6%"

(26.3 x 16.2 cm.)

Page numbered u.r.: p. 27

Acquired from the collection of S. Lissitzky-Kiippers,

Novosibirsk

164.80

This single page in Malevich's hand is apparently part
of a longer manuscript or diary. Some passages are rec-
ognizably taken from Malevich's essay "From Cubism
and Futurism to Suprematism: The New Realism in
Painting," which appeared for the first time in connec-
tion with the December 1915 0.10 exhibition and was
published in its most complete form (third edition) in
Moscow, January 1916. Other passages are closely re-
lated to Malevich's concepts and ideas of the period. He
was drafted into the armed forces in the middle of July
and apparently did not write again for some time.

For the most detailed discussion and publication of
Malevich's writings see A. B. Nakov, Kazi?nir S. Male-
vie: Scritti, Milan, 1977; J. C. Marcade, K. Malevich,
Ecrits, Le Miroir Suprematiste, 1 vols., Lausanne, 1977.

1 ...1 V frl

, ' ' ■ ■■ ' ~" •''■-" '-■■''■'- ''!'

r >, . . :i>.w l-.v ' ■.'.'■' ...

. /• ...

\ . ,

.... ..'■■ . if-i- ■ ■■

.,.,..:■.■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ • •■ . ■-.-■■ ■ ■■ "

i ,-i'" '- . ■ ■ ■ >

' I

- . ■ .:

V '

. . ■ - « Ch-

.. ■ . .

' I .J*.'

Front and Back Program Covers for the First "Confer-
ence of the Committees for Peasant Poverty, Northern
Region 191S"

Color lithograph on heavy folded paper. Page: 19V16 x
25V2" (48.5 x 64.8 cm.), recto image: 11% x 11%"
(29 x 29 cm.), verso image approx.: 7lY\c, x 7%"
(20.1 x 19.7 cm.)

Signed in the stone within the image, l.r.: KM
Front cover: Conference of the Committees for Peasant
Poverty, Northern Region 191S.
Back cover: Proletarians of all nations unite!
C161

The creation of the Committees for Peasant Poverty in
late 1917 and early 1918 marked the beginning, in
Lenin's words, "of the Revolution in rural districts."
The first Conference took place November 3-8, 1918 in
Petrograd and the pamphlet designed by Malevich
originally contained three texts: the speech made at the
Congress by Grigorii Zinoviev (pseud. Radomylsky,
1883-1936) who was head of the Party and Soviet
organization for Petrograd; the speech delivered by
Anatolii Lunacharsky, the Commissar of Popular En-
lightenment, on behalf of the workers of Petrograd; and
instructions to the village and country Soviets on
peasant poverty.1

The size of the edition is unknown, but less than half a
dozen copies of this cover are recorded. N. Khardzhiev
has suggested that the pamphlet, which was printed on
unusually fine paper, was destined only for the official
delegates, and that it would thus have been printed in
a very small edition. Bowlt states that the lithographed
pamphlet was produced in an edition of ten or twelve
copies, and he attributes the rarity of the document to
the participation of Zinoviev: because the latter was an
enemy of Stalin and an ally of Trotsky, copies of the
pamphlet were, by the mid 1920s, being seized or
destroyed.

Malevich's lithographic cover had an extraordinary
impact on the development of typography and design
in the years following its 1918 publication. (For
discussion and bibliography see R., S., C, Costakis,
pis. 497-98).

166

1. "The 'Vasari' Diary!' Art News, vol 75. no 5, May 1976. p. 25, reporting
information supplied by J E Bowlt.

167

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

AGITPROP DESIGNS

K. S. MALEVICH

During the 1920s and early 1930s, the artists of the
avant-garde produced an extraordinary range of
"agitational" posters, designs for decorating agit-
prop trains and trams and other materials to be used
in the battle against capitalism, against illiteracy
and for the progress of the Revolution. The trains
traveled across the country during the civil war,
distributing Bolshevik propaganda, and although
Malevich has not hitherto been identified with the
decoration of such trains, he did participate in
the propaganda effort starting in 1918. (See Agi-
tatsionno-massovoe iskusstvo . . . , Moscow, Izda-
telstvo iskusstvo, 1971, p. 96; L. Shadowa, Suche
und Experiment, Dresden, 1978, pis. 174, 176.)

126a

Sketch for Agitprop Train, ca. 1920
Pencil on paper, 7 x 87i<s" (17.9 x 2r.5 cm.
Acquired as a gift from I. Kudriashev
C525 recto

126 b

Sketch for Agitprop Train, ca. 1920
Pencil on paper, 7 x %1/\" (17.9 x 21.5 cm.]
Acquired as a gift from I. Kudriashev
C525 verso

—*■-

—

53 •..

168

ARTIST UNKNOWN

127

128

Revolutionary Propaganda

Lithograph, 7 x 17%" (17.9 x 45.4 cm.)

Text: Proletariat of the World Unite. Organization of

Production Victory Over a Capitalist Structure

Acquired from the collector, Evgenii Platonovich Ivanov

139.80

Revolutionary Propaganda

Lithograph, 8% x 23n/i6" (2.2.2 x 60.1 cm.)

Text: Create the Week of the Red Gift Everywhere

Acquired from the collector, E. P. Ivanov

276.78

flPOAETAPM* BCEX CTPAH ujEJHHA «r£(".b'

0praHM3aijHfl npoH3Bo/icTBa

HaA . .nklTA/lHCTMHECKH

BB M

CTPOEM

169

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

UNOVIS IN VITEBSK

ARTIST UNKNOWN

The following eight drawings are stylistically re-
lated to the work of the Malevich school in Vitebsk
and were probably produced there in about 1920—
2.1. The penciled notations on the drawings ("1st
room," "2nd room," "3rd room," "ceiling," etc.)
identify the series as studies for a Suprematist inte-
rior. A 1919 manuscript by Malevich outlines prin-
ciples for the decoration of "a wall, a surface, an
entire room, or a total interior according to the sys-
tem of Suprematism."1 It is clearly within this con-
text that the present series was created. Malevich
and his students Chashnik, Vera Ermolaeva, Niko-
lai Suetin and Lazar Chidekel also produced designs
for the decoration of rostrums (tribunes) and other
Revolutionary festival structures; the hands of the
various participants in these projects are difficult to
distinguish.2

129

Untitled

Gouache and pencil on paper, 14% x n %g"

(37.5 x 28.7 cm.)

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C200

130

Untitled

Gouache and pencil on paper, i^Ms x n%"

(37.8 x 28.9 cm.)

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C201

'<•*?

fc&'A

' '

•

• .. "

170

1 Partially published by L. Shadowa. Suche und Experiment, Dresden.
1978, p. 317.

2. See. for example, ibid., pis. 157, 162-63, 166-67, 173

ARTIST UNKNOWN

131

132

Untitled

Gouache and pencil on paper, 14% x 2.2.%"

(37-4 x 57-7 cm0

Inscription: 1st room

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C20Z

Untitled

Watercolor and pencil on paper, 14% x n'lV

(37.5 x 57.6 cm.)

Inscription: 1st room

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C2.06

i fr-..iniy.V*ft_

• 4 M ■ '

' ficjirtfiit.

%mct*-...5«wpJ

\ •

11 V

tS»'S5J^g

171

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

ARTIST UNKNOWN

133

Untitled.

Watercolor and pencil on paper, i4lYu x 22%"

(37.7.x 57.8 cm.)

Inscription: 1st room ceiling

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C207

;

... J

172

ARTIST UNKNOWN

134

Untitled

Gouache and pencil on paper, I415/i6 x 22%"

(37.9x53.6 cm.)

Inscription: ind room

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C203

135

Untitled

Gouache and pencil on paper, 14% x 21%"

(37.8x53.6 cm.)

Inscription: 3rd room

Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C204

™

■

•

• 1

• •

■
■

173

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

ARTIST UNKNOWN

136

Untitled

Watercolor and pencil on paper, I415/is x 2.2u/ks"
(37.9x57.6 cm.)
Inscription: is; room
Acquired from I. Kudriashev

C105

174

LISSITZKY AND KLUCIS, 1919-1922

Addressing the Inkhuk in 192.4, Lissitzky said:
In continuing to paint with brush on canvas, we
have seen that we are now building and that the
picture is burning up. We have seen that the sur-
face of the canvas has ceased to be a picture. It
has become a construction and, like a house, you
have to walk around it, to look at it from above,
to study it from beneath. The picture's one per-
pendicular axis (vis-a-vis the horizon) turns out
to have been destroyed. We have made the
canvas rotate. And as we rotated it, we saw that
we were putting ourselves in space. Space, until
now, has been projected onto a surface by a
conditional system of planes. We began to move
on the surface of the plane towards an uncondi-
tional distance. . . -1

When Lissitzky moved to Vitebsk in the sum-
mer of 1919 at the invitation of Chagall, he clearly
did so in order to work more closely with Malevich
(whom he had met in 1918) and to absorb and
develop what he perceived to be the possibilities of
Suprematism. He was invited to teach in the Studio
of Graphic Arts, Printing and Architecture at the
Popular High School of Art, and his program, as he
defined it, involved teaching the students "the basic
methods and systems of architecture and . . . the art
of giving graphic and plastic expression to their
constructional projects (working on models)."2 It is
clear that his concept of "Proun" was developed
within this context, and that architecture played a
crucial role in Lissitzky's development of the idea.
He wrote:

The painter's canvas was too limited for me. The
connoisseur's range of color harmonies was too
restricted; and I created the Proun as an interme-
diary station on the road between painting and
architecture. I have treated canvas and wood
panel as a building site which placed the fewest
restrictions on my constructional ideas.3

In works such as Proun 6B (cat. no. 148), and
Proun 1 (cat. no. 141), Lissitzky gave expression to
his desire to destroy the limitations imposed by the
format of the painter's canvas: the work is to be
seen from all four sides, to be rotated. In Proun 1E,
The Town (cat. no. 142), the viewer is to be pro-
jected into space and made to look down "at it
from above."

The architectural thinking articulated in the
Prouns was part of a more general movement
around 19ZO. Many artists (only some of whom
were architects) became involved with the ideologi-
cal effort to create new "architectural" forms that

would embody the aspirations of the Revolution.
For example, Tatlin's "Monument to the Third
International," Anton Lavinsky's "City for the
Future," Malevich's studies in volumetric Suprem-
atism and Lissitzsky's own "Wolkenbiigel," all in
different ways shared the Utopian characteristics of
this phase of Constructivism: they were all in some
sense seeking cosmic paradigms for the new age.

Klucis's Dynamic City (cat. no. 150) and his
drawings and prints of these years (cat. nos. 151-57)
belong to the same tendency. They are essentially
visionary and imaginative conceptions of techno-
logical developments rather than practical, struc-
turally feasible designs. Like Lissitzky, Klucis
clearly intended his ideas to have an impact on the
society in which he lived: Valentina Kulagina wrote
in her diary in 1922, "Gustav . . . intends to rebuild
the world and the universe. . . "4 But the results
were more symbolic and aesthetic than truly func-
tional. In his strikingly original constructions of this
period (p. 195, fig. a, and p. 196, fig. a) Klucis
created coherent spatial formulations which greatly
impressed his contemporaries,5 and which — seen in
conjunction with their pictorial counterparts (p.
195, fig. b) — have extraordinary resonance. Klucis's
photomontage Dynamic City (p. 189, fig. a), with
"workers of a future society" placed at strategic
places on its perimeters, is on one level a purely
Utopian fantasy, but a fantasy based on the notion
that architecture is the fundamental language of the
future. As Lissitzky had written: "It is in architec-
ture that we move today. It is the central issue of
modern times."6

The dating and chronology of Klucis's work of
1919-1922 and the contemporary work of Lissitzky
pose certain problems. The artists certainly knew
one another by 1918, and both were, by then, ad-
mirers of Malevich. From 1919 to 192.1, when Lis-
sitzky was in Vitebsk, Klucis (who first studied at
the Moscow Svomas, then became a member of the
Inkhuk and of the Vkhutemas) remained in close
touch with Malevich, and even exhibited with the
Unovis group in Vitebsk in 1920. As he and Lissit-
zky developed their independent Suprematist
idioms during these years, it is clear that similari-
ties of approach existed, and that each learned
important things from the other. Until further evi-
dence emerges to elucidate the nature of these
mutual influences, however, only tentative efforts
can be made to establish the chronology of their
separate careers during these years.7

1. El Lissitzky. lecture delivered at the Inkhuk. October 24. 1924. trans
J. E. Bowlt. in Cologne, Galerie Gmurzynska. Lissitzky. 1976, p. 66.

2, Journal of the Governmental Soviet ot Peasant Red Army Worker and
Labourer Deputies, no. 169. July 17, 1919, p. 3. quoted by V, Rakitin,
"El Lissitzky!' Architectural Design. Feb, 1970, p, 82,

3 S. Lissitzky-Ku'ppers, £1 Lissitzky. London, 1980. p. 325

4, Quoted by V, Rakitin, "Gustav Klucis Between the Non-Objective
World and World Revolution:' in LACMA, p. 61

5. ibid.

6. Lecture at the Inkhuk, October 24. 1924, trans, in Bowlt, Lissitzky. p. 71 .

7. For additional information on Klucis see V. Kalmykov and A. Sarabianov,
Sto pamiatnykh dat. Moscow. 1974, pp. 17-20; N. Lapidusova, "Gustav
Klucis:' Umenia remesla (Prague), no. 3. 1977, pp. 24-28; H. Gassner
and E, Gillen, eds,. Zwischen Revolutionskunst und Sozialistischen
Realismus: Dokurnente und Kommentare Kunstdebatten in der Sowjetunion
von 1917 bis 1934. Dusseldorl, 1979.

175

EL LISSITZKY

(LAZAR MARKOVICH LISITSKY)

137

Promt 1 c. 19 19

Oil and collage on wood, 16% x z6%" (67.5 x 67.5 cm.

Titled, signed and dated on reverse: Proun lc El Lis-

sitzky 1919. Painted on reverse, a red square within a

circle; inscribed below the square: UNOV1S

Collection Antonina Gmurzynska, Cologne, formerly

Costakis collection

Acquired from the collection of Sophie Lissitzky-

Kiippers, Novosibirsk

(New York only)

•a
r

176

ELLISSITZKY

138

Untitled. 1919-1920

Gouache, pencil and ink on paper. Page: 3% x 3%"
(10 x 10 cm.); image: 3^x3%" (9.7 x 9.7 cm.)
Written across center of black square, barely visible:
Rosa Luxemburg

Acquired from the collection of S. Lissitzky-Kiippers,

Novosibirsk

440.80

A larger version of this composition, lacking the Rosa
Luxembourg inscription, is in the collection of the Van
Abbemuseum, Eindhoven (gouache, 52 x 50 cm., no.
2.0271. L24). As part of the Plan for Monumental
Propaganda initiated by Lenin in May 1918, artists
were encouraged to create monuments of all kinds to
major revolutionary figures. In this connection a 1919
issue of Art of the Commune (hkusstvo kommuny)
carried the announcement of a competition for a monu
ment to Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg who
were assassinated that January. The present gouache
may have been destined for the cover of a memorial
brochure dedicated to Luxemburg, either arising out
of the competition or some other context. Later Lissit-
zky apparently abandoned the project and painted out
her name.

177

SUPREMATISM AND UN'OVIS

EL LISSITZKY

139

Cover Design for Proun Portfolio. 1921

Gouache, watercolor and pencil on paper. Page: i9Vi<;

x 14" (48.5 x 35.7 cm.); image: 6V4 x 6V2" (16 x 16.5 cm.)

Signed 1.1. in gray within composition: El

Acquired from the collection of S. Lissitzky-Ktippers,

Novosibirsk

146.78

140

Design for cover of the publication Proitns: A Lecture
Read at the General Meeting of hikhuk, September 23,

Black and red gouache, ink and pencil on gray folded

paper. Page: 14% y-^/i" (37.7 x 24 cm.); diameter of

image: 4V2" (11.5 cm.)

Inscribed in gray ink around edge of circle: May the

overthrow of the Old World be imprinted on the palms

of your hands

Signed in black ink: El Lissitzky

In parentheses along diameter line in black ink:

In overcoming art

Below title in black ink: Lecture read at the general

meeting of Inkhuk Sept. 23 1921

Acquired from the collection of S. Lissitzky-Ktippers,

Novosibirsk

C518

fA A

He*.

/ J

Lissitzky's lecture on the Proun {"Proekt ntverzhdeniia
novogo," "Project for the Affirmation of the New") was
delivered at the Inkhuk on September 23, 1921. The
original Russian text has apparently not survived,
though the existence of this cover design confirms the
fact that publication was planned. Lissitzky did publish
essays based on the lecture in Vesch/Gegenstand/Objet
and De Stijl in 1922. (For further information see
R., S., C, Costakis, p. 244.)

178

EL LISSITZKY

141

Froan 1. 1919-1921

Lithograph on paper mounted on paper. Page: 13V2 x
17%" (34-4 x 45-5 cm-); image: 10 x 13I/2" (25.5 *
34.4 cm.)

Inscribed in pencil, one word on each of three sides:
Along the path of a circle; 1.1.: P 1
Acquired from N. Babicheva
148.78

179

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

EL LISSITZKY

142

Promt 1E, The Town. 1910-21

Lithograph on paper mounted on paper. Page: 13%^ x
1814" (34.4 x 46.1 cm.); image: 87/8 x ioi%6" (22.5 x
27.4 cm.)

On mount 1.1.: P JE; l.r.: Plan of a city square
Included in the first Proun portfolio, Moscow, 1921
Acquired from N. Babicheva
151.78

~'E"T'S5:

180

EL LISSITZKY

143

Proun 2B. 1919-1921

Lithograph on paper mounted on paper. Page: 13%^ x

17%" (34-5 x 45-5 cm.); image: 10V2 x 83/i6" (26.7 x

20.9 cm.)

Inscribed in pencil on mount 1.1.: P 2B

Acquired from N. Babicheva

147.78

181

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

182

EL LISSITZKY

144

145

Proun 2D. 1919-1921

Lithograph on paper mounted on paper.

Page: i83/i6 x 13V2" (46.1 x 34.4 cm.); image: i4Vi6 x

834"(3J.8xz2..4cm.)

Inscribed in pencil on mount: P 2D

Included in the first Proun portfolio, Moscow, 1911

Acquired from N. Babicheva

149.78

Promt 3A. 1919-1921

Lithograph on paper. Page: n^gx io1^" (28.5 x

27.8 cm.); image: 10% x loYic," (27.6 x 26.2 cm.)

Inscribed 1.1. in pencil below image: P 3A

Acquired from N. Babicheva

142.78

183

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

EL LISSITZKY

146

Proun 5A. 1919-192.1

Lithograph on paper mounted on paper. Page: 18%^ x

i39/ns" (46.1 x 34.4 cm.); image: iol3/i6 x 10%" (27.5 x

26.1 cm.)

Inscribed 1.1. in pencil on mount: P SA

Acquired from N. Babicheva

145.78

184

EL LISSITZKY

147

Sketch for Proun 6B. ca. 1919-1921

Gouache and pencil on paper. Page: 13% x i7%<s"

(34.6 x 44.7 cm.); diameter of image: 9n/i&' (24-6 cm-)

Signed: el Lissitzky

Penciled title in three places: P 6B (indicating that the

work should be viewed from all directions)

Acquired from the collection of S. Lissitzky-Kiippers,

Novosibirsk

438.80

The circular painting that closely follows this study was
exhibited at the International Art Exhibition in Dresden
in 1926, and then entered the collection of Ida Bienert.
It is presumed lost (repr. S. Lissitzky-Kiippers, El Lissit-
zky, London, 1980, p. 2.6). The lithograph was included
in the first Proun portfolio of 1921.

185

SUI'REMATISM AND UNOVIS

EL LISSITZKY

148

Proun 6B. ca. 1919-1921

Circular lithograph on paper mounted on paper:

diameter of image: 9%" (2.5.2 cm.)

Inscribed in pencil on mount: 1.1.: P 6B

Acquired from N. Babicheva

150.78

186

EL LISSITZKY

149

Proun 10°. ca. 1919-1921

Gouache and pencil on buff paper. Page: ioli/i6 x 9 Vie"
(27.9 x 23.1 cm.); image: 85/ic x 7I4" (21. 1 x 18.5 cm.)
Inscribed in pencil u.L: No 21; 1.1.: Proun 10°
Acquired from N. Babicheva
439.80

Though this design was undoubtedly intended for
realization in lithographic and/or painted form,
Lissitzky never carried it out. The gouache remains a
unique example of the image.

187

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

yvZss *&>&*

188

GUSTAV GUSTAVO VICH KLUCIS

150

Dynamic City. 1919-1921

Oil with sand and concrete on wood, 34I4 x 25%"

(87 x 64.5 cm.)

Signed on reverse: G. Kinds

Acquired from the artist's wife, Valentina Ivanova

Kulagina

94.78

According to Rakitin, this work was shown at the
Moscow Unovis exhibition of 1921.

fig. a

Documentary photograph (printed from Klucis's own
negative owned by Costakis) of photomontage. Pres-
ent whereabouts unknown. Ca. 1919-1920.

fig.b

Documentary photograph (printed from Klucis's own
negative owned by Costakis) of an ink, pencil and
gouache (?) drawing, signed l.r.: G. Kinds. This hith-
erto unpublished drawing (collection Riga Museum)
appears in an installation photograph of Klucis's one-
man exhibition held in Riga in 1970. Though its dimen-
sions are not known, its juxtaposition in the installation
with works of known size implies dimensions of ca.
i8n/i^x20%" (47.5 X53 cm.). Its chronological relation-
ship to the Dynamic City has not been established,
though it probably dates from approximately the same
time.

189

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

G. G. KLUCIS

151

Construction, ca. 1910-21

Pencil and gouache on paper, n%s x 9Y\& (-8-5 x 2.3.7

cm.) (sight)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

95-78

190

G. G. KLUCIS

152

Construction. 1920-21?

Colored ink and pencil on paper, ii^^x 14%"

(28.5 x 37.9 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I, Kulagina

99.78

191

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

G. G. KLUCIS

153

Architectural Drawing, ca. 1921?

Pencil and red crayon on paper, 9^ x io%s" (23.5 x

26.9 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

C480

154

Architectural Construction, ca. 1921-22?

Pencil on paper, 17 x 13%" (43-2 x 33.3 cm.)

Signed l.r.: Klucis

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

102.78

192

G. G. KLUCIS

155

Construction, ca. 1921-22

Ink, gouache, pencil and watercolor on paper, ioVi x

8%" (26.8x21.3 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

98.78

193

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

G. G. KLUCIS

156

Construction. 1922-23

Lithograph on paper, 6Vie x 8n/i<s" (i5-5 x 12»I cm-!

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

121.78

194

fig. a

Gustav Klucis

Construction. 1920-22

Dimensions and whereabouts unknown

Photograph Costakis collection, printed from Klucis's

negative

fig.b

Gustav Klucis

Construction. 1920-22

Lithograph, 7% x $lYl6" (19.7 x 15 cm.)

Acquired from V. I. Kulagina

C476

195

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

G. G. KLUCIS

157

Construction Project, ca. 1921-23
Linocut on paper, 8^5 x 5%" (21.5 x 14.2 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
122.78

196

fig. a

Gustav Klucis

Construction, ca. 1920-22

Dimensions and whereabouts unknown

Photograph Costakis collection, printed from Klucis's

negative

SERGEI YAKOLEVICH SENKIN

158

Construction of Three Forms, Unovis. 1919
Oil on plywood, i95/s x i6V8" (49.8 x 41 cm.)
Signed and dated l.r.: S. 19; on reverse: Senkin 1919
Acquired from the collection of the artist's daughter,
N. S. Senkina
255.78

According to Rakitin, this work was executed in
the winter of 1919-1920 during Senkin's first visit to
Vitebsk where he joined the Unovis group. He became
close friends with Klucis and they later shared a work-
shop in photomontage at the Unovis.

197

SUPREMATISM AND UNOVIS

The Inkhuk and Constructivism

198

VLADIMIR EVGRAFOVICH TATLIN

159

Drawing for a Counter-Relief(?) ca. 1915
Pencil on paper, 6Y\c, x 9V4" (15.7 x 23.5 cm.]
300.80

it-

-if

199

V. E. TATLIN

160

161

Drawing for a Corner Counter-Relief, ca. 1915
Charcoal on brown paper, ^Y\6 x 0/\" (2.3.3 x I5-7 cm-)
299.80

Preparatory drawings for Tatlin's corner reliefs are
almost unknown. This drawing may be an initial study
for the relief shown at the December 1915 0.10 exhibi-
tion and reproduced in the journal that was distributed
on that occasion (cat. no. 161).

Neiv Magazine for Everyone (Novyi zhurnal dlya
vsekh.) Petrograd, December 17, 1915

4 PP-, i4?is" x 10%" (37.1 x 27 cm.)
140.80

This printed brochure about Tatlin was distributed at
the 0.10 exhibition.

Bjiap,MMip-b EBrpa<fcOBMH-b
TATJIHHT..

200

V. E. TATLIN

162

Wing strut for Letatlin. 1929-1932
Willow and cork, length: 94V2" (240 cm.)
Purchased from K. Zelinsky's widow
273.78

Tatlin worked on his invention the Letatlin for several
years, starting in 1929. His intention was that the "air
bicycle" (propelled by man, not by motor) would be
put into general production and used by ordinary
people. The Letatlin — a word coined by the artist out
of the Russian verb "to fly" (letat) and his own name —
was thus conceived simultaneously as a utilitarian con-
struction and as a work of art. Tatlin was utterly
persuaded of both its practicality and its aesthetic
quality: "Now art is entering into technology." He
based his technical solutions on his observations of
birds, specifically a group of young cranes that he kept
and watched closely, and probably on a set of calcula-
tions by the leading pioneer in rocket research, K. E.
Tsiolkovsky.1 Upon its completion in 1932, the Letatlin
was exhibited in Moscow at the State Museum of Art
(Pushkin Museum).

As the pilot K. Artseulov wrote in 1932, the materials
were chosen with extreme care entirely on the basis of
their flexibility and their ability to function. The willow
wood was split rather than sawed or cut, so that the in-
ternal fibers were preserved full length. With the help
of steam, the long strips of wood were then molded,
pressed and twisted into complicated octagons of bent
wood, giving them strength, elasticity and powers of re-
sistance to the rotation and movement of the wings. The
ratio of the weight of the wings to the weight of the en-
tire mounted machine was 1:6 — corresponding to the
ratio of wing to body in most birds.
Tatlin's projects for utilitarian objects throughout the
1920s show a consistent involvement with organic form
as opposed to technological design. This wing strut, an
eloquent example of this concern, is the only part of the
construction that has apparently survived.

1. See Troels Andersen, in Stockholm, Moderns Museet, Vladimir Tallin.
July-Sept, 1968, pp. 9-10,

For important information on Tatlin see also V E Tallin Zasluzhennyi
deyatel iskusslva RSFSR Katalog vystavki proizvedenii. Moscow, 1977

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

ALEXANDR MIKHAILOVICH
RODCHENKO

163

Nonrepresentational Construction of Projected and

Painted Surfaces of a Complex Composition with

Colors. 1917

Varnished watercolor and gouache with pencil on paper,

14I/2 x n1/." (36-8 x 29.2 cm.) (sight)

Signed and dated l.r.: A. Rodchenko 191 j

Gift of Varvara Fedorovna Stepanova

242.78

The titles of this and the following work (cat. no. 164)
were supplied by Rakitin, and are based on material in
the Rodchenko Archive in Moscow. According to notes
in that archive, both works were included in the Fifth
State Exhibition (From Impressionism to Nonobjectiv-
ity) held in Moscow in 1919.

202

A. M. RODCHENKO

164

Nonrepresentational Construction of Projected and
Painted Surfaces of a Complex Composition with Col-
ors, Circle and Line Composition. 1917
Gouache, ink and watercolor on paper, 10 7k; x 8"
(26.6 x zo.3 cm.) (sight)
Signed and dated 1.1.: A. Rodcbenko 1917
Gift of V. F. Stepanova
243.78

203

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

-J

204

A. M. RODCHENKO

165

Untitled. 1917

Charcoal on paper, z6l/i x 20V2" (66.7 x 52 cm.)

Signed lower edge: Rodchenko

Gift of the artist's daughter, Varvara Alexandrovna

Rodchenko

246.80

This drawing is closely related in style and composition
to some of Rodchenko's designs for the Cafe Pittor-
esque,1 though it seems unlikely that it was preparatory
to any functional aspect of that project. Though lacking
the decorative surface treatment of works such as cat.
nos. 163 and 164, it does share some of their formal
vocabulary and probably dates from not much later.

166

Composition: Two Circles. 19 18

Varnished oil on paperboard, 10 x 8%" (25.4 x 21.3 cm.)

Gift of the artist

245.78

According to notes in the Rodchenko Archive in Mos-
cow, this work appeared in the Nineteenth State Exhi-
bition in Moscow (December 1919) and the Exhibition
of Four (Moscow, 1920).2

During the course of debates held at the Inkhuk Janu-
ary-April 1921 (see below, pp. 226-227), a painting by
Rodchenko entitled Two Circles (closely related in
composition to this work, though painted in enamel)
was discussed at length, as an example of construction
in painting. Rodchenko commented that in order to
achieve construction in painting, materials should
always be used with extreme sensitivity to their natural
properties. Though he was cautious about accepting the
definition of "construction" for this painting, preferring
to describe it as "striving towards construction," several
other members of the group felt it did achieve its goal,
and it was brought up again for further discussion at
a later session.

Rodchenko's desire to achieve a "halo" of sfumato light
around each circle apparently resulted in his explora-
tion of the potentialities of various media. His experi-
mental approach to matters of style and technique
intensified considerably during the years 1918-1920,
and he produced works of such diversity during those
years that the establishment of a chronology or a sense
of stylistic development becomes almost impossible.
(See below, cat. nos. 167-171.)

1 See, lot example. G Karginov. Rodchenko. London. 1979, pis. 69 and 70

2. No detailed information on this exhibition has been found. According
to Rakitin, it included the work of Kandinsky, Rodchenko, Stepanova and
Siniezubov. but whether a catalogue exists has not been established.

205

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

A. M. RODCHENKO

167

The Clown Pierrot. 1919

Gouache and ink with pencil on paper, 2.0 x 14"

(50.8 x 35.6 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r.: Kodchenko i<)i<)

Gift of the artist

244.78

One of seventeen costume designs for the revue We
planned by Alexei Gan. Gan never actually wrote the
revue, and the costumes were thus not produced.

According to notes in the Rodchenko Archive, the de-
signs were all shown at the June 1923 exhibition in Mos-
cow, Moscow's Theatrical Art: 191S-1923. They were
subsequently included in the 1925 Exposition Interna-
tionale des arts decoratifs et industriels modernes in
Paris (cat. nos. 141-157, "dessins de costumes pour
Nous autres de A. Gann" [sic]).

206

A. M. RODCHENKO

168

Composition No. nj. 1919

Oil on canvas, 15% x l^/u" (40.3 x 35.1 cm.)

Stenciled signature and date on reverse: Rodcbeuko

1910; in black ink: N. iij

Purchased from the artist

239.78

According to Rakitin, the title and date correspond to
those recorded in the Rodchenko Archive in Moscow,
which also indicates that the painting appeared in the
Nineteenth State Exhibition of December 1919, and in
the Exhibition of Four (Moscow, 1920; see above cat.
no. 166, fn. 2). The stenciled date on the reverse was
thus presumably added later.

Gustav Klucis saw this canvas in the 1920 exhibition,
and in a letter to Kudriashev spoke of a work "by Rod-
chenko ... a black picture with little dots of color . . .
a work of extraordinary genius."1

1. According to Costakis. the letter is preserved in a provincial museum
in the USSR.

207

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

A. M. RODCHENKO

169

Construction on White (Robots). 1920
Oil on wood, 56n/i6 x 37%" (144 x 94.3 cm.)
Stenciled signature on reverse: Rodchenko
Gift of the artist
2-49-78

According to notes in the Rodchenko Archive, this work
was shown at the Nineteenth State Exhibition in Mos-
cow (December 1919) and at the Exhibition of Four
(Moscow, 192.0; see above cat. no. 166, fn. 2).

208

A. M. RODCHENKO

170

Composition no. izj. 1920

Oil on canvas, 54 x 37u/is" (137-2 x 95.7 cm.)

Stenciled signature and date on reverse: Rodchenko

1920; in ink: N. I2J

Purchased from the artist

248.78

According to Rakitin, the title corresponds to that re-
corded in the Rodchenko Archive in Moscow, which
also indicates that the painting appeared in the Exhibi-
tion of Four (Moscow, 1920; see above cat. no. 166,
fn. 2).

209

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

A. M. RODCHENKO

171

Linearism. 1920

Oil on canvas, 40V2 x 277/is" (102.9 x 69.6 cm.)

Signed and dated on reverse: Rodcbenko I 1920 I

No. 104

Purchased from the artist

240.78

Rodchenko's paper on Line1 prepared for the Inkhuk in
the autumn of 1921, reflects his commitment at that mo-
ment to the essential significance of line within the en-
terprise of "construction." This polemical position,
which claimed for line a "victory" over the very nature
of painting (color, tone, faktara and plane), was taken
at a moment when discussions about the theoretical for-
mulation of Constructivism were at their height.

Linearism and Oval Hanging Construction, no. 12
illustrate clearly the theoretical basis of Rodchenko's
Constructivist thinking. They are, however, only a part
of what constituted his actual practice during these cru-
cial years. A. Nakov has written cogently about the
radical nature of stylistic change within the entire chron-
ological development of Rodchenko's oeuvre.2 But
equally striking is the coexistence within a few short
months (in 1920) of these Constructivist tendencies with
painterly works in which color, tone, faktura — the very
process of making art — are essentially the subject of
the work.3 In 1943 Rodchenko's continued preoccupa-
tion with such issues is manifested in a single composi-
tion consisting entirely of elaborately interwoven skeins
of color (see cat. no. 173).

The complexity of Rodchenko's restless experimental
career, and his ambivalence about the "death of paint-
ing" require considerable further study. Elucidation of
many aspects of these issues may lie in the surviving
notebooks, diaries, drawings and gouaches in various
archives in the USSR.

The manuscript of this essay, which was never published in Russian.

' '" is in a private archive in Moscow. For information on the English

translation, see Rowell, pp. 24-25. fn. 21 .

2 "Stylistic changes: Painting without a referent!' Museum of Modern
Art. Oxford, Rodchenko, 1979, pp. 56-57.

3 See for example, Painting no 125. cat. no. 1 70, or Abstraction (Rupture)
of late 1920, repr. color. R„ S„ C„ Costakis. pi. 1020.

211

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

A. M. RODCHENKO

172

Oval Hanging Construction, no. iz. ca. 1920
Painted plywood and wire, 32% x 23 x 17 Vis"
(83.5 X58.5 x 43.3 cm.)
Gift of the artist
246.78

173

Expressive Rhythm. 1943-44

Gouache on paper, 24 x 68" (61 x 172.7 cm.)

Signed in monogram l.r.: A. R.

Gift of the artist's daughter, V. A. Rodchenko

241.78

Between 1918 and 1920, Rodchenko executed several
freestanding and hanging constructions, which reflect
an interest in manipulating forms in real space. The
identification of this piece as Oval Hanging Construc-
tion, no. iz was found in the artist's archives.1

The hanging constructions, probably executed in 1919-
1920, are based on the principle of repetition of a single
form: a rhomboid, circle, hexagon, oval, etc. The oval
construction was made from a single sheet of plywood
which the artist cut in concentric bands from the outer
circumference to the center.2 Closed, the structure rep-
resents a flat oval plane, whereas opened, it becomes a
skeletal structure of graduated linear ellipses revolving
around a central axis. Tiny bits of wire hold the open
ribs in place.

Whereas in Rodchenko's earlier constructions, the art-
ist appears to have placed more emphasis on materials,'
the constructions of ca. 1920 represent a linear modeling
of space. That one face of the object is painted silver
further testifies to Rodchenko's waning interest in the
real substance of materials and contributes to the dis-
embodied effect of the whole.

Rodchenko's hanging constructions were shown for the
first time at the Third Obmokhu exhibition in May 1921
in Moscow (see fig. 16, pp. 28-29). This piece is thought
to be the only hanging construction to have survived.

The work appears in a wedding photograph of Rod-
chenko's daughter and on this basis is datable no later
than 1944.

1 Information supplied by V Rakitin According to J E Bowlt, there were
ten treestanding and six hanging constructions ("The Construction ot
Space" in From Surface to Space, p. 9)

2. Photographs from the period suggest that this method was not
followed in the other constructions

3. See C. Gray, The Great Experiment Russian Art 1863-1922,
New York, 1962.pl. 175, p. 257.

213

VARVARA FEDOROVNA STEPANOVA

174

Two Figures. 1920

Oil on board, IsYux zS7A6" (89.4 x 72.3 cm.)

Purchased from the artist

266.78

According to Rakitin, this work appeared in the Nine-
teenth State Exhibition held in Moscow, 1920. (Infor-
mation from private archives, Moscow.) It was also
shown in 5 x 5 = 25, Moscow, September 1921 (cat. no.
4 or 5 in that catalogue); and at the Galerie van Diemen,

Berlin, at the Erste russische Knnstausstellung, 1922
(cat. no. 211 in that catalogue).

For information about Stepanova's theory of painting,
see V. Agrarykh (Stepanova), "Bespredmetnoe tvor-
chestvo," 10-ya Gosndarstvennaia vystavka, Moscow,
1919, trans, into English and German in 'Women Artists
of the Russian Avant-Garde, pp. 272, 276. See also Step-
anova, Varvara Fedorovna 1S94-195S, Katalog, Kos-
troma, 1975.

214

SOLOMON BORISOVICH NIKRITIN

175

The Connection of Painting and Architecture: Tectonics

1919

Oil on canvas, 68lYn x 51%" (175. 1 x 131.1 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse: 19 19, S. Nikritin, Composition

Acquired from the artist's widow

163.78

The title above is given by Rakitin, who dates the work
1910-21.

215

LIUBOV SERGEEVNA POPOVA

176

Painterly Architectonics. 1918-19

Oil on canvas, 17% x 2.2%" (70.8 x 58.1 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's brother, Pavel Sergeevich

Popov

178.78

216

L. S. POPOVA

177

Painterly Architectonics. 1918-19

Oil on canvas, 28% x iS^Aa" (73.1 x 48.1 cm.) (sight)

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

180.78

According to Rakitin, this work and cat. no. 176 ap-
peared in Popova's posthumous exhibition of 1924.

<^\^CrX^~

217

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

178

Untitled. 1919-1921

Gouache and watercolor on paper, I31%6 x io7ks"

(35.1 x 26.5 cm.)

Dated on reverse in Vesnin's hand: 1921

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

195.78

218

L. S. POPOVA

179

Untitled. 1920-21

Crayon on paper, io1^ x W\(" (2.70 x zo-6 cm.)
Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov

C73

Probably a study for the painting formerly in the Cos-
takis collection, now in the Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow.
A closely related drawing in a private collection (colored
pencil on paper, io1^,-, x 8 Vis", 17.5 x 20.5 cm.) is re-
produced in Women Artists of the Russian Avant-
Garde, p. 194, no. 71. It is said to be dated on reverse
1922, though this could be in Vesnin's hand.

219

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

220

L. S. POPOVA

180

Spatial Force Construction. 1920-21

Oil with marble dust on wood, 44M6 x 44%"

(112.6X 112.7 cm.)

Dated on reverse: 1921

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

175.78

This work and cat. no. 182 appeared in Popova's post-
humous exhibition of 1924 and are visible in the instal-
lation photographs.

181

Spatial Force Construction. 1921

Ink on paper, 17 x io1^" (43.2 x 27.5 cm.)

Dated on reverse: 1921

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

196.78

According to Rakitin, this work was also shown in
Popova's posthumous exhibition of 1924.

221

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

182

Spatial Force Construction. 1921

Oil with marble dust on plywood, 27'%;; x 25 Vk"

(71 x 63.9 cm.)

Dated on reverse: 192 r

Acquired from the artist's brother, P. S. Popov

179.78

Popova's contributions to the hand-made catalogues for
the 1921 exhibition 5 x 5 = 25 include a linocut (fig. a),
closely related to the present painting. Several other
Spatial Force Constructions of 1921 are variations on
this imagery. (See R., S., C, Costakis, pis. 872-73.)

fig- a

L. S. Popova

Linocut from catalogue for 5x5

(see cat. no. 216).

25, page 8, 1921

222

223

THE 1NKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

V. F. STEPANOVA

183

Gaust Chaba. 19 19

Handmade book: paper collage and watercolor on

newspaper; 14 pp.

Each page: io*3/^ x 6%" (27.5 x 17.5 cm.)

Eight poems, six collages, plus cover. The newspaper

carries the date 1918.

Gift of A. Rodchenko

C489

The book appeared in Moscow in 1919 in an edition of
fifty numbered copies, plus four separately numbered,
priced at fifty rubles each. The present copy is number 38.

Starting in 1912 with books such as Worldbackwards by
Khlebnikov and Goncharova, the Futurists in Russia
had initiated an assault on the accepted notion of the
book as a richly ornamented and printed aesthetic ob-
ject. They substituted handwritten texts for printed ones
and used lithographic presses, cheap stock and wood-
block illustrations.1 In Gaust Chaba, Stepanova added a

S8g_igft!

■ -"■ = — = 5 t: _ a\

■ - ■
! :

P S 3 H — 'y = - fc

.Ik

gfislf ?gl=isBEf
Si= :'»?! = -=*

fg| |e| "1 f

: 5 3 ;-:

.-<»»

■ -

' -

§ : 2 i 3 - 3 = -3 6

? ? ? 2 f •= .5 I » S 1

if ■ .:; b ;-

ISfa?|ls»l^ts -
I a iff1' :

224

1 See above, cat no. 28.

new dimension to this process and created what Evgenii
Kovtun has described as an "anti-book."2 Her "stock"
was newspaper — a choice that in itself sets up a series
of antitheses. Thus, the typeset newspaper text was
denied its own communicative function by the super-
imposition of Stepanova's manuscript text. Her poems
were explicitly zaum, while the underlying newspaper
text was, of course, thoroughly prosaic. While the
latter might — with difficulty — still be "read," it was
made essentially incomprehensible by being placed lat-
erally in relation to the viewer holding it in a conven-

tional way. Meanwhile, collages and poems were diag-
onally superimposed upon it. The poems in turn were
written in a language that was — to the ordinary reader
— incomprehensible, although it was intended ultimately
to carry a larger meaning. Some of the collages were
themselves made from typographical elements, thus
converting words into pictures. As a final inversion,
Stepanova placed the title page at the back of the book;
as Kovtun observed, all that remained of a "book" in the
conventional sense was the fact that its pages could be
turned.

2. From Surface to Space, p. 57.

225

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

INKHUK PORTFOLIO

The following group of drawings and watercolors
(cat. nos. 184-208) were acquired from the collec-
tion of Alexei Babichev and date from his asso-
ciation with the Inkhuk (histititt khudozhestvennoi
kultury, the Institute of Painterly Culture).1

The Inkhuk was founded in May 1920, initially
under the direction of Kandinsky. Its original aim
was to formulate an ideological and theoretical
approach to the arts based upon scientific research
and analysis. Kandinsky's program, published in
Moscow in 1920,2 was detailed and ambitious.
It clearly reflected his own convictions about
the psychological implications of art, and the es-
sentially subjective nature of aesthetic experience.3
This led to disagreements with other founding
members of the Institute, and by the end of 1920 he
had left. The administration was then reorganized
by Rodchenko, Stepanova, Babichev and Nadezhda
Briusova — the nucleus of what was to become the
Working Group of Objective Analysis.

Babichev, a sculptor and theoretician who had
been trained first in mathematics and then in art,
drew up the new program:' The subjective, psycho-
logical issues were rejected. Instead, the program
was rooted in an objective analysis of form, and its
essentials were framed under two headings:

1. Theoretical: the analysis of the work of art,
the conscious definition of the basic problems
of art (color, faktura, material, construction,
etc.).

2. Laboratory: group work according to inde-
pendent initiative or according to a task. For
example, all members were presented with
work on the theme "composition and con-
struction."

It is within the context of the Institute's Labor-
atory section, and specifically in connection with
the theme of "composition" and "construction,"
that the present group of drawings must be studied.5

Eighteen of the drawings carry on their verso
an Inkhuk stamp, with a handwritten number be-
tween 2 and 27 (e.g., cat. no. 187); the two draw-
ings by Ladovsky carry a circular Inkhuk stamp
with no number. Gaps in the numbering indicate
that the portfolio is incomplete, and in fact a list of
the entire original group of drawings, said to be
preserved in the archive of the Group of Objective
Analysis, cites thirty works.6

During the four months January-April of 1921,
the Working Group of Objective Analysis held nine
sessions during which the issues of "composition"

and "construction" were discussed (January 1, 21,
28, February n, 18, March 4, 18, 25, April 22).
Shorthand reports of these sessions were kept, re-
cording the positions taken by various participants.
The drawings themselves were apparently used for
analysis at the final session on April 22. 7 The record
of the theoretical discussions, together with the
visual evidence provided by the drawings, throws
important new light on the developing theory of
Constructivism and ultimately that of Productivism
as they were being formulated at the Inkhuk during
1921.

Attendance at the sessions fluctuated, but al-
most all of the artists represented in the portfolio
participated with some regularity. There were con-
siderable differences of opinion regarding the cate-
gories under discussion. The architect Nikolai
Ladovsky, for example, stated that "the chief sign
of construction [is] that there be no superfluous ma-
terials or elements in it. The chief distinction of
composition is hierarchy, coordination." He defined
technical construction (as opposed to pictorial con-
struction) as "the union of shaped material elements
according to a definite scheme for the achievement
of a force-effect."

The sculptor Babichev gave a slightly different
definition: "Construction is the organic unity of
material forms attained through the exposure [rev-
elation] of their [intrinsic] functions. . . ." Accord-
ing to his view, it is possible in "composition" to
encounter situations in which the material itself dic-
tates and prescribes the form; in construction, how-
ever, it is essential to dominate the material.

Bubnova and Popova at one point prepared a
joint definition according to which construction is
characterized by necessity, whereas composition is
characterized by the regular, tasteful arrangement
of elements. Popova, adopting the essence of La-
dovsky's definition for technical construction, also
applied it to painting, stating that if the material
elements in their combination achieve the goal set
by the artist, and if there is nothing redundant in the
work, construction is achieved. She thus expressed
the view, shared by others, that one of the central
issues for construction was the ability to create in
such a way as to make efficient and economical
forms that were absolutely consistent with the in-
trinsic nature of the materials being used: there
should be nothing merely added, nothing super-
fluous.

Rodchenko, focusing on construction in paint-
ing, distinguished between the construction of the
forms themselves, independent of their placement

226

1. Six works— three by Bubnova, two by loganson. one by Popova-
were acquired by Costakis with the Inkhuk portfolio and are therefore
included in this context, though they carry no Inkhuk stamp (and in the
case of the logansons postdate the group as a whole). Similarly, two
works by Khun and one by Rodchenko, all dating from the same Inkhuk
period, are included here. All of the works not specifically part of the
Inkhuk numerical series are identified with an asterisk.

2. 1, Matsa, Sovetskoe iskusstvoza 15 let Materialu 1 dokumentatsiia,
Moscow. Leningrad, 1933, pp 126-39

3. E.g., while Kandinsky included physics, physiology, optics and
medicine under the study of color, he did so in order to intensify his
examination of the deeper emotional effects that he believed colors to

have upon the psyche Similarly the study of form and line was to be
based upon rigorous mathematical and geometrical analysis, but only in
order to arrive at conclusions about the power of certain linear and
formal combinations to evoke feeling and sensation A questionnaire he
devised early in 1920 and circulated at the Inkhuk included such
questions as "Describe bow certain colors affect you"; "Don't you think
that a triangle has a greater sense of humor than a square?" etc
See R., S., C , Costakis. pis 63-64

4, Published in Russkoe iskusstm. nos. 2-3, 1923. pp 85-88 For
extensive information on Babichev. see D. Sarabianov, Alexei Babichev
Khudozhnik, teoretik. pedagog. Moscow. 1974. Also A. Babichev, "0
Konstruktsu i kompositsii'.' Dekorativnoe iskusstvo SSSR no, 3 1967
pp. 17-18

on the canvas, and the construction of the work as
a whole. He went so far as to suggest that since au-
thentic construction was "utilitarian necessity," the
achievement of such construction in painting was
probably impossible. One could try to approach it
by creating "constructive compositions"— composi-
tions in which the materials are used with particu-
lar regard for their appropriateness and for their
intrinsic properties, but the overriding aesthetic
considerations in painting may well present insur-
mountable obstacles. Babichev, meanwhile, rejected
a highly restrictive notion of "utilitarian necessity."
He felt that the categories applicable in technology
were not strictly applicable in art, and that the two
should be kept separate. He suggested that a law of
"mechanical necessity" and a law of "plastic neces-
sity" could coexist in the same work.

Stepanova's views were similar to— but also
slightly different from— those of other members in
the group. She agreed with Ladovsky's basic dis-
tinction between composition and construction,
but stated the dichotomy even more strongly. In
construction, she felt, there is an unequivocal ne-
cessity for economy in the use of materials and
elements, while in composition the actual reverse
is true, since "everything rests precisely on the
excessive. . . . The flower on a teacup is absolutely
unnecessary for its constructive appropriateness,
but it is necessary as an element of taste, a compo-
sitional element. . . ." The essential distinction be-
tween the two concepts could, Stepanova argued,
rest upon the fact that if one part of a "composi-
tion" is deleted, the whole does not lose its mean-
ing; it merely requires rearrangement of the
remaining parts or the addition of some others. In
construction, on the other hand, the removal of
a single part entails the destruction of the whole.

In time, discussions at the Institute focused
increasingly on construction perse (rather than its
relation to composition) and the majority gradu-
ally came to the conclusion that construction could
not be achieved in painting. Rodchenko, clearly
moving toward the questions that were to become
the basis of Productivist theory, summarized the
issues in the following manner: "Technical con-
struction cannot be brought into painting. Our
attraction to construction is an expression of the
modern consciousness, which comes out of indus-
try." He defined construction "as a goal or task
executed according to one definite system in
which the organization of materials accounts for
the specifics of their purpose, their appropriate use,
and the absence of a single redundant element."

The process of formulating definitions for
"construction" and "composition" forced the vari-
ous participants to refine their individual theoreti-
cal convictions and thereby to clarify the differences
among them. Thus, on March 18, 1921, the "First
Working Group of Constructivists" emerged as a
unit and held their first meeting (Rodchenko, Ste-
panova, Medunetsky, Karel Ioganson, and the
Stenberg brothers). On March 26 the "Working
Group of Architects" was formed with Ladovsky,
Vladimir Krinsky, and others. On April 8, Korolev
announced the formation of a group of sculptors,
and on April 1 5 the "Working Group of Objec-
tists" (Drevin, Udaltsova and Popova) held their
first session. To some extent, therefore, the draw-
ings discussed at the final session on April 22 re-
flect the more strongly defined tendencies of these
different groups.3 For example, Kliun's "construc-
tion" (cat. no. 191) was conceived by him as the
collision of two states: the static (in the back-
ground) and the dynamic (in the foreground). The
color of the different elements (not indicated in
the drawing), as well as the precise placement of
the forms, would be determined by the different
functions they performed in expressing the basic
static-dynamic theme of the work.9 Nevertheless,
the essentially pictorial nature of Kliun's "con-
struction" does suggest, in spite of his analysis, the
degree to which his own sensibility was quite alien
to that of the Constructivists, and it is not surpris-
ing that he left the Inkhuk shortly after the April
1921 sessions. By contrast, Medunetsky and V.
Stenberg— both of whom exhibited constructions
at the Third Obmokhu exhibition in May 1921 —
produced work that consistently showed a strong
correlation between Constructivist theory and
actual artistic practice. Indeed, they were, with
Babichev, the only members of the group to submit
"constructions" that were feasible designs for the
creation of actual objects in space.

At one point, the Inkhuk group developed
plans for a publication (From Figurativeness to
Construction) summarizing their conclusions and
presenting examples of their works, but the project
was never realized. Nonetheless, the surviving ma-
terials do give extremely important insights into
the development within the Inkhuk and the
Vkhutemas of the theoretical issues that led these
artists to move from pictorial concerns to Con-
structivist ones, and finally to "production art."

5. In connection with this subject, see Khan-Magomedov, pp. 40-79.
Also Lodder, Constructivism Both Khan-Magomedov and Lodder base
their discussion on the unpublished records of the sessions held at the
Inkhuk during this period: the present discussion ot the theoretical
issues is entirely indebted to their researches.

6 Khan-Magomedov refers to this list, though he does not publish it.
He reproduces all of the drawings in the Costakis group, in addition he
includes seven others: two by V. Krinsky, one by G Stenberg a second
work by Popova (formerly owned by Costakis). a second work by
Rodchenko, a third work by both Korolev and Tarabukin, Of the original
thirty on the list, missing works are, according to Khan-Magomedov, by
Drevm, G Stenberg. Udaltsova (one each), and Bubnova (two). In the case
of Bubnova, it cannot be ruled out that the drawings reproduced here
(cat. no. 186), which were acquired by Costakis with the portfolio, originally

formed a part of the group, though they carry no stamp or number.
For color reproductions of all the works in the Costakis portfolio, see
R.. S.. C, Costakis. pis. 65-90. The hypothetical presentation of the
portfolio in the latter publication is attributable to the fact that the
material published by Khan-Magomedov was not available when the
book went to press.

7. Identical pinholes at the top of each of the drawings in the Costakis
portfolio suggest that they were tacked to the wall during the discussion.

8. The April 22. 1921 session was attended by Babichev. Bubnova.
Drevin. Ioganson. Kliun. Korolev. Krinsky. Ladovsky, Medunetsky. Popova.
Rodchenko. V. and G. Stenberg, Stepanova, Tarabukin and Udaltsova

9. Khan-Magomedov, records of the April 22 meeting.

227

ALEXEI VASILIEVICH BABICHEV

184

Composition. April 22, 1921
Pencil on paper, i^'/i x 13%" (49.5 x 34.5 cm.)
Dated on reverse: April 22, 1921; Inkhuk stamp no. 19
Inscribed on reverse by N. Babicheva: According to
the Inkhuk Archives this work is entitled "Composi-
tion" and is dated iz/iv/zi.
Acquired from Natalia Babicheva
C170

228

A. V. BABICHEV

185

Construction, ca. 1911

Ink, gouache and pencil on paper, Z0V2 x nVs" (52-1

x 28.2. cm.)

On reverse, Inkhuk stamp no. zo

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C169

229

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

VARVARA DMITRIEVNA BUBNOVA

V. D. BUBNOVA

186 i

186 ii

"'Untitled

Ink on paper, 14 x 8n/i6" (35-6 * zz cm-)

Signed 1.1.: V.B.

Numbered u.L: J

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C184
*See p. 2.26, fn. 1.

"Untitled

Ink on paper, 14 x 8u/k;" (35.6 x 11. 1 cm.'
Signed l.r.: V.B.
Numbered u.L: 11
Acquired from N. Babicheva
C183

230

fig. a.

V. D. Bubnova
"Untitled

Ink on paper, 8% x 14" (21.9 x 35.6 cm.)
Signed 11: V.B.
Numbered u.L: ///
Acquired from N. Babicheva
C182

KAREL IOGANSON

187

Composition. April 7, 192.1

Colored pencil, ink and pencil on paper, 9V2 x I2u/i6"

(14.1 x 32.3 cm.)

Signed and dated on reverse: Karel loganson, April 7,

1921; Inkhuk stamp no. 18

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C186 recto

Verso of Composition

Inscribed: Plan for a composition: Nature-Morte. I

The composition on a plane and in space is their

geometrization. I Objects: Apple, bottle, glass, table,

and fabric

C186 verso

188

Construction. April 7, 192.1

Colored pencil and pencil on paper, 12V2 x 99/\c" (31.8

x 24.3 cm.)

Signed and dated on reverse: Karel loganson, April 7,

1921; Inkhuk stamp no. 17

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C185 recto

Verso of Construction

Inscribed: The graphic representation of a construction
of a complete cold structure in space./ Construction!
The Construction of a complete cold structure in space
or any cold combination of hard materials is a cross
(A) either right-angled (a' a" a"") or obtuse and acute-
angled (a'")
C185 verso

■ < - . , .

I'l

i t • / Q

• • ■ ■ ■ / ■ ' - "j "/

• <M'

a « 9

— - .-,,- -V '

231

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

K. IOGANSON

189

''Construction. February 13, 1921
Paper collage, graphite and colored pencil on paper,
i715/i(5 x i35/ifi" (45-5 x 33-7 cm.)
Signed and dated 1.1.: Feb. 13, 1912
Inscribed at top: Construction by loganson/ Depiction;
on reverse: loganson. 23.//. Moscow
Acquired from N. Babicheva
196.80

2"HXTiVtj l<--U,U L luitl/HCO-i-O- /

232

K. IOGANSON

190

''Electrical Circuit (Depiction). February 13, 1922
Paper collage, graphite and colored pencil on paper,
1715/16 x 1314" (45.4 x 33.6 cm.)
Signed and dated 1.1.: February 23, 1922; on reverse:
Karel Ioganson 23 II. 22

Inscribed at top: Electrical Circuit /Depiction
Acquired from N. Babicheva
197.80

These two additional drawings by Ioganson, also ac-
quired with the Inkhuk portfolio but dating almost a
year after the debates, probably relate to a teaching
project, though an almost total lack of biographical
information about Ioganson makes it difficult to pin-
point the precise context.

3_/i_e icr p -a, %. t l ',-c a. ji -t^e-fv t,

233

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

IVAN VASILIEVICH KLIUN

191

Work no. 2 for the Task Construction, ca. 1920

Pencil on paper, 9V16 x y^Ai (23 x 19.8 cm.)

Inscribed u.L: Work no. 2 for the task Construction;

l.r.: Ivan Kliun

On reverse, Inkhuk stamp no. 25

Acquired from N. Babicheva

180.80

An almost identical work, similarly inscribed, but of
slightly different dimensions (7% x 7") is in the collec-
tion of the Grosvenor Gallery, London. Kliun's studies
for a memorial to Olga Rozanova, and the related
studies for constructions, are closely linked to this
work. (See cat. no. 86 ii.)

234

I. V. KLIUN
192 i-ii

Two Drawings. 1910
Pencil on paper

Each inscribed along lower edge: Wire sculpture 1920
Acquired from the artist's daughter, S. I. Kliun
i, 254.80: 613/i6X43/i6" (17-3 x 10.6 cm.)
ii, 257.80; 415/16 x 6Ju" (12.6 x 16.6 cm.)

235

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

BORIS DANILOVICH KOROLEV

193

Composition. April 8, 1921

Pencil and pen on paper, 6% x 4Yi(s" (16.1 x 10.6 cm.)

Signed l.r.: signed and dated on reverse: April 8, 1921;

Inkhuk stamp no. 3

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C176

For information on Korolev see L. Bubnova, Boris
Danilovich Korolev, Moscow, 1968.

236

B. D. KOROLEV

194

Construction. April 19, 1921

Pencil on paper, I315/i6 x 10%^" (35.4 x 25.9 cm.)

Signed l.r.; inscribed, signed and dated on reverse:

Construction for Inkhuk, B. Korolev, 19 April 21;

Inkhuk stamp no. 4

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C177

_^r_^~3^ ■ -*- ^?7

237

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

NIKOLAI ALEXANDROVICH LADOVSKY

195 i

Example of a Composed Structure. April 15, 1921
Ink, pencil and wash on cardboard, i^y^x 10%"
(38x27.5 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r.: 15 April 1921; on reverse, circular
Inkhuk stamp with no number

Inscribed u.l.: Scheme of the structure of the composi-
tion; c.r.: Example of a composed structure; 1.1.: The
entire structure is governed by the rectangle A which
generates geometric similarities and displacements for
which A is the center
Acquired from N. Babicheva
C175

Ladovsky, who was on the architecture faculty at the
Vkhutemas, had already developed the basis for a
theory of architecture by October of 192.0, when he
formulated a series of problems on this subject. He
introduced the theory with the statement:

Architectural rationality based on economic prin-
ciples is very similar to technological rationality. The
difference lies in the fact that technological ration-
ality is an economy of labor and material for the
creation of an expedient structure, while architectural
rationality is the economy of psychic energy for the
perception of the spatial and functional qualities of
a structure. The synthesis of these two rationalities in
one structure is rational architecture.1

Ladovsky 's contributions to the debates on "composi-
tion" and "construction" arise directly out of his general
program at the Vkhutemas and are consistent with his
emphasis, shared by others in the group, on the need
for economy, functionalism, expediency.2

195 ii

Model of a Constructive Structure. April 15, 1921
Ink, pencil and wash on cardboard, i^Yu x 10%"
(38x27.3 cm.)

Signed and dated 1.1.: ij April 1921; on reverse, circular
Inkhuk stamp with no number
Inscribed u.r.: Given z planes A and B, forming a bi-
planar angle, it is necessary to make a constructive
structure which reveals both the angle and the given
properties of each of the planes; 1.1.: A model con-
structive structure; l.r.: Scheme of the structure
Acquired from N. Babicheva
C174

238

1. Trans Judith and Steven Wolin, The Institute for Architecture and
Urban Studies, New York. Art and Architecture. USSR. 1917-1932.
1971. p. 15

2. For further information on Ladovsky see M. Barkhin and Yu_ Yaralov,
Masters sovetskoi arkhitektury ob arkhitekture. vol. 1 Moscow 1975
pp. 337-364.

KONSTANTIN KONSTANTINOVICH

MEDUNETSKY K. K. MEDUNETSKY

196 197

Composition. 1920 Construction. 1920

Pencil and orange crayon on paper, io%6 x 9^/4" Brown ink on paper, ioVs x 7%" (27 x 19. 1 cm.)

(26.8 x 23.4 cm.) Signed, titled and dated l.r.: 1920

Signed l.r.; on reverse, Inkhuk stamp no. 26 On reverse: Construction 1910; Inkhuk stamp no. 27

Acquired from N. Babicheva Acquired from N. Babicheva

Cl79 C178

239

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

240

L. S. POPOVA

198

199

Composition.1 1921

Gouache on paper, 13V2 x io1^" (34.3 x 27.5 cm.)

Signed and titled on reverse: L. Vopova Composition;

Inkhuk stamp no. 2

Acquired from N. Babicheva

190.80

'■'Untitled. December 1921
Red and black crayon on paper, 10% x 83/i6"
(27.6 x 20.7 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r.: L. Vopova XU 21
Acquired from N. Babicheva
C188

Popova's second work for the Inkhuk portfolio formed
part of the Costakis gift to the Tretiakov Gallery and,
according to Khan-Magomedov, its title is "Represen-
tation of a Spatial Organization (Construction)."2
Whether this work carries an Inkhuk stamp on its
reverse is not known. In addition, a third work, almost
identical to cat. no. 198 and dated 1921, was given by
Costakis to the Tretiakov (repr., color, R., S., C,
Costakis, pi. 866).

1 . Khan-Magomedov gives the title as "Representation of a Spatial
Organization (Composition)!' p. 74.

2. Ibid This work is reproduced in color in R., S.. C, Costakis. pi. 81 .
gouache on cardboard, 133/i6x 10%" (33.5 x 27 cm.).

241

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

A. M. RODCHENKO

200

Composition. 1917

Pencil and colored crayon on paper mounted on paper,

10I/2 x SV2" (2.6.6 x 2.1.5 cm-)

Signed and dated l.r.: Kodchenko 1917; Inkhuk stamp

no. 11

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C171

This drawing is one of a series of designs for lamps that
Rodchenko made for the Cafe Pittoresque in 1917.
Georgii Yakulov supervised this project, which was
intended as a synthesis of fine arts, literature and the
theater.1 Rodchenko's decision to submit this earlier
work in the context of the "construction" and "com-
position" debate at Inkhuk becomes plausible in the

light of his comments during the debate. In arguing for

"construction" in real objects he said:

Let's take a lamp. You could examine it as a com-
position together with all its decorations and base,
but there are expediently built lamps — that is, lamps
in which goal and use are exposed as constructively
as possible; such a lamp permits construction alone
without the aesthetic compositional combining of
goal with the decorative moment.2

The Construction published by Khan-Magomedov as
Rodchenko's second work for the portfolio, described
by him as a "project for a lamp," precisely illustrates
this more explicitly "constructive" or expedient
approach.

242

1 . See R„ S., C, Costakis. pi. 1168- Also G. Karginov, Rodchenko.
London 1979, pp. 91 and 92

2. Khan-Magomedov. p 51 .

A. M. RODCHENKO

201

"Untitled. October 192.1
Red and blue wax crayon on paper, 19 x 12.%"
(48.3 x 32.4 cm.)

Signed lower edge: Rodchenko N3 1921 X
C198

243

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

VLADIMIR AVGUSTOVICH STENBERG

202

Composition. 1920

Colored pencil on paper, 8*4 x 5V2" (21 x 13.9 cm.)

Signed, titled and dated on reverse: Composition 1920

V. Stenberg; Inkhuk stamp no. 5

Acquired from N. Babicheva

182.80

244

V. A. STENBERG

203

Construction. 1920

Ink on paper, 10 x 7%" (25.4 x 19.3 cm.)

Signed l.r.; Inkhuk stamp no. 6

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C165

R.CtEHJj£FF

245

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

V. F. STEPANOVA

204

Composition, ca. 1920-21

Gouache on paper mounted on gray paper, SlY\& x

75/lS" (22.3 x 18.5 cm.)

Signed 1.1. on mount: Varst; Inkhuk stamp no. 15

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C172

205

Construction, ca. 1920-21

Collage on paper, 14V8 x 9" (35.9 x 22.9 cm.)

Signed on reverse: Varst; Inkhuk stamp no. 16

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C173

'$$

246

247

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

NIKOLAI MIKHAILOVICH TARABUKIN

N. M. TARABUKIN

206

207

Linear Composition, ca. 1921

Pencil on paper, 8u/i<; x 7 Vis" (22 x *7-9 cm-)

Signed l.r.: N. T.

On reverse, in N. Babicheva's hand: N. Tarabukin;

Inkhuk stamp no. 13

Inscribed along lower edge: Linear composition

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C181

In his 1923 essay "Toward a theory of painting" ("Opyt
teorii zhivopisi"), Tarabukin has a section on "Com-
position and Construction," which elaborates upon the
position taken by him during the debates. (Trans, into
French in A. B. Nakov, ed., Nikolai Taraboukine.
Le dernier tableau, Paris, 1972, pp. 124-27.)

Static-dynamic, planar-volumetric compositional
constructiveness. ca. 1921

Pencil on paper, 14V8 x 8%" (35.8 x 22.2 cm.)
Signed l.r.: N.T.; Inkhuk stamp no. 14

Inscribed along lower edge: Static-dynamic, planar-
volumetric compositional constructiveness
Acquired from N. Babicheva
C180

■

.• .

248

NADEZHDA ANDREEVNA UDALTSOVA

208

Untitled

Blue ink and pencil on paper, 13% x ioVis"

(34.5 x 25.5 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse, in N. Babicheva's hand:

Vdaltsova; Inkhuk stamp no. 24

Acquired from N. Babicheva

C189

249

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

ANTONINA FEDOROVNA SOFRONOVA

209

Untitled. 1922

Ink and watercolor on paper, 8Vi x SYk,"

(21.6 x 21. 1 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r.: 22

Acquired from the artist's daughter

264.78

Sofronova taught at the State Art Studios in Tver (now
Kalinin) from 1920 to 1921, but in the fall of 1921 she
moved to Moscow and for two years worked on a large
series of Constructivist drawings in pencil, charcoal
and colored inks. During these years she became a close
friend of Nikolai Tarabukin, and in 1923 designed the
cover for his book From the Easel to the Machine
(Ot molberta k mashine).

250

A. F. SOFRONOVA

210

Untitled. 1922

Ink and watercolor on paper, 8% x 7V&"

(22.2 x 18.2 cm.)

Signed l.r.: AFS (in monogram)

Acquired from the artist's daughter

261.78

-a.

251

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

A. F. SOFRONOVA

211

Untitled. 1922

Charcoal on paper, 8% x 6 Vie" (u-3 x J5-4 cm0

Acquired from the artist's daughter

257.78

252

A. F. SOFRONOVA

212

Untitled. 1912

Charcoal on paper, ju/i6 x 6'/\(" (19.5 x 15.7 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's daughter

260.78

253

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

KONSTANTIN ALEXANDROVICH VIALOV

213i-ii

Two Designs for Constructions. 1922

Pencil on paper, mounted on paper

Left, i, 815. 79B: 9V8 x 4%" (23.2 x 12. 1 cm.), dated 1922

Right, ii, 815.79A: S x 35/s" (20.4 x 21.3 cm.), dated 1922

Purchased from the artist

During the late teens Vialov studied under Lentulov
and Morgunov at the Svomas, but from about 1921
he was at the Vkhutemas, where all of the students
were required to take the Basic Course. His theatrical
designs (cat. nos. 261-62), as well as his construction
projects, were clearly indebted to the Vkhutemas
training in "the fundamentals of spatial relationships.'
(See S. Bojko, "Vkhutemas," in LACMA, pp. 78-83;
Lodder, Constructivism.)

254

K. A. VIALOV

214

Design for Construction of Theater Set (?) 1923
Gouache and pencil on paper formerly mounted on
purple paper, ioVs x 6V»" (25.7 x 16.2 cm.)
Signed and dated l.r. on mount: 1923 K. Vialov
Purchased from the artist
816.79

r.L _

255

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

V. F. STEPANOVA

5*5 = 25

215

S x 5 = 25 Exhibition Catalogue. Moscow, Sep-
tember 1921

Handmade catalogue with cover by Stepanova and
original works by Popova, A. Vesnin and Stepanova.
Numbered on upper left of cover and title page: 146
Paper collage, gouache, hectography and ink (10 pp.
including cover). Cover: 7^6X4%" (18.6 x iz cm.);
interior sheets: 7 x 4%" (17.8 x 11.2. cm.)
Gift of Alexandr Rodchenko
146.80

In September of 192.1, an exhibition took place
under the auspices of the Inkhuk on the premises
of the All-Russian Union of Poets Club (VSP). The
five artists who participated — Popova, Rodchenko,
Stepanova, Exter and Vesnin, each represented by
five works— conceived it as a "farewell to pure
painting."1 Stepanova declared the end of the con-
templative role of art, and Popova described her
works as "preparatory experiments towards con-
crete material constructions."2

lustrated: cover (left); Popova collage (right)

a n

256

1 Rodchenko. text in catalogue 5x5 = 25. n.p

2 Ibid

ALEXANDR ALEXANDROVICH VESNIN

Within the context of the Inkhuk debates, the
exhibition was an important turning point. By
November of that year, Osip Brik's resolution
proclaiming a Productivist aesthetic doctrine was
adopted by the Constructivist group, the majority
of whom produced no further paintings.

The catalogues for the exhibition were hand-
made, each artist contributing original works, and
every copy having a unique identity. The size of
the edition is not known. Of the two copies exhib-
ited here, cat. no. zi 5 lacks the works by Rod-
chenko and Exter. The inclusion in it of a collage
by Popova (instead of the more commonly used
linocut) may be unique.

216

5 x 5 = 25 Exhibition Catalogue. Moscow, Sep-
tember 192.1

Handmade catalogue with cover by Vesnin and original
works by Stepanova, Vesnin, Popova, Rodchenko and
Exter

Dedication on verso title: to Costakis from Varvara
Rodchenko

Charcoal and colored crayons, gouache, ink, linocut,
pencil and hectography (14 pp. including cover).
Cover: 8u/i6 x 4lyic" (zz x 12.5 cm.); interior sheets:
7x4%" (17-8 xii. 2. cm.)
Gift of Varvara Rodchenko
145.80

Illustrated: cover (left); Rodchenko drawing (right)

■

257

THE INKHUK AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

PETR VASILIEVICH MITURICH

217

Ten Cubes. 1919-1921

Cardboard cubes with gouache; each approx. 7?/\(, x

xVu, x 2%6" (5.6 x 5.6 x 5.6 cm.)

Gift of M. Miturich, son of the artist

313.80

Miturich's cubes, each of which is constructed out of
only three sides, all decorated with gouache designs,
are closely related to his "spatial" paintings of the same

period. In both sets of works, he explores the relation-
ship between volume and space and the means by which
graphic elements interact with those which are experi-
enced spatially. Since each of the cubes is painted on
all three sides, a constantly shifting relationship be-
tween the viewer and the objects in their various
combinations occurs.

(For a discussion of Miturich and his career see N.
Rozanova, Petr Vasilievich Miturich, Moscow, 1973; -
also Lodder, Constructivism.)

258

Productivism

GUSTAV GUSTAVOVICH KLUCIS

Working at the Inkhuk as a member of the Pro-
ductivist group in the summer and autumn of
1922, Klucis designed a group of "Radio Orators"
or loudspeakers in connection with Moscow's
preparations for the Fourth Comintern Congress
(Congress of the Communist International).
Closely adhering to Constructivist principles (and
differing, therefore, from the essentially Utopian
conceptions of 1920-22), the kiosks were designed
with maximum economy of material and efficiency
of construction. They were to be lightweight and
collapsible, made of wood, canvas and rope, with
every nut and bolt exposed. Skeletal cages were to
hold the propaganda apparatus. There were loud-
speakers for the broadcasting of speeches by Lenin,
Zinoviev and others; screens for the projection of
newsreels and slides; speakers' rostrums; and sign-
boards for the display of posters and other propa-
ganda.

Only two of the kiosks were actually built,
including the "International" which was installed
on Tverskoi Boulevard outside the Hotel Nerenzee,
where the Comintern delegates were staying.1
Wood and paper models of the others were pre-
pared for the convening of the congress in Novem-
ber 1922, and the designs for all the constructions
were published in separate lithographic editions.

There is a striking structural and conceptual
relationship between Klucis's designs and the
"KPS" structures shown by the Stenberg brothers
at the Third Obmokhu exhibition in 1921,2 and it
is likely that Klucis was influenced by the Stenberg
example as he developed the ideas for his own
Comintern project of 1922.

1 L. Oginskaia. "Khudozhnik-agitator Dekorativnoe iskusstvo. „__

no. 5. 1971. p. 27. 259

2. Konsiruktsiia pcostranstvennogo sooruzhenna (construction ol a
spatial apparatus); A. B. Nakov. 2 Stenberg 2. London-Paris. 1975.
See esp. "KPS 13" and Its stand and "KPS 6"

G. G. KLUCIS

218

Designs for Loudspeakers. i^az

Ink and gouache on paper, 7 x ^/\" (17.8 x 24.3 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, Valentina Ivanova

Kulagina

100.78 A-B

260

G. G. KLUCIS

219

Design for Loudspeaker. 1922

Ink and gouache on paper, 6^A& x s^/u"

(17.7x13.8 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

ico.78 D

261

PRODUCTIVISM

G. G. KLUCIS

220

Design for Loudspeaker no. 7. 1922
Gouache, ink and pencil on paper, 10%,? x 6!%s"
(26.9 x 17.7 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
106.78 B

262

G. G. KLUCIS

221

Design for Loudspeaker no. 3. 192Z

Watercolor and ink on paper, 7V16 x 5^"

(17.9x13.5 cm.)

Inscribed: Speech of Comrade Zinoviev

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

C385

263

PRODUCTIVISM

G. G. KLUCIS

222

Design for Screen-Loudspeaker no. 5. 1922
Colored inks and pencil on paper, loVi x 5 %"
(26.6 x 14.7 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
106.78 c

264

G. G. KLUCIS

223

Design for Screen, Rostrum and Propaganda

Stand. 1922

Watercolor, pencil and ink on paper, 131/2 x 7%"

(34.3x18.9 cm.)

Inscribed in pencil along lower edge: Screen-Rostrum

IV Comintern Congress, 1922

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

109.78

265

PRODUCTIVISM

G. G. KLUCIS

224

Design for Screen. 1912.

Watercolor and ink on paper, 95/8 x 6V2"

(24.6 x 16.5 cm.)

Signed and dated 1.1.: G. Kinds 1922

In Klucis's hand on reverse: Screen— Rostrum— Kiosk I
for the jth anniversary of the October Revolution and
the IV Congress of Comintern. I Size: height 6 m; with
the screen {in vertical position) = y.2 m\ width 2.1 m.
Material: wood, rope, canvas.

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
116.78

/ tiM/yuj; TC:

266

G. G. KLUCIS

225

Design for Rostrum. 1921

Ink, pencil and gouache on paper, 10V2 x 6lYic"

(2.6.7 x i7-<> cm-)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

114.78

267

PRODUCTIVISM

G. G. KLUCIS

226

Design for Propaganda Kiosk. 1921

Ink and gouache on paper, io5/i6 x 6lYi6"

(26.3 x 17.4 cm.)

Inscribed: Down with art, Long live agitational

propaganda

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

111.78

268

G. G. KLUCIS

227

Design for Propaganda Kiosk. 1921
Ink and gouache on paper, 6% x 4%" (17.4 x 12.6 cm.)
Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
100.78 c

269

PRODUCTIVISM

G. G. KLUCIS

228

Design for Propaganda Stand. 1922.
Ink and gouache on paper, 10% 6 x 6%" (16.5 x 17.2. cm.'
Inscribed: Agitprop for Communism of the pro-
letariat of the ivhole world
Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
113.78

270

G. G. KLUCIS

229

Design for Speaker's Platform. 1922.

Gouache and colored inks on paper, ioVi x &xx/\"

(26.8 x 17 cm.)

Slogan on the platform: Long live the anniversary of

the October Revolution

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

112.78

271

PRODUCTIVISM

G. G. KLUCIS

230

Design. 192.2.

Gouache, ink and pencil on paper, 10% x 7"

(27.1 x 17.8 cm.)

Inscribed across cenrer of circle: International

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I, Kulagina

110.78

272

G. G. KLUCIS

231

Principles for the Scientific Organization of Labor.

mid-i920S

Ink, pencil and watercolor on paper, 19% x 23 V2"

(50.5x59.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

C479

The "wheel" is divided into four sections titled
"Entertainment," "Daily Life," "Advertising" and
"Agitprop." The "Principles of NOT" (the "Scientific

Organization of Labor" group, Nauchnaia organizatsiia
truda) indicate those spheres of the new Communist
society in which the artist can make useful contribu-
tions.1 Although the purpose of this diagram is not
precisely known, it probably dates from the time of
Klucis's agitprop work at the Vkhutemas. In the dia-
gram he lists the artist's potential roles in each section,
reflecting his own strong Productivist conviction by
this date.

1 . For a lull translation ot the wheel, see R.. S.. C, Costakis, pi. 974.

273

PRODUCTIVISM

KLUCIS'S PHOTOMONTAGES

G. G. KLUCIS

During the 1920s and 1930s Klucis was actively
involved in the agitprop work of the Productivist
movement. At the Vkhutemas— where he proposed
the creation of a single "Workshop of the Revo-
lution" to replace traditional faculties— he designed
posters,1 exhibition installations, books and post-
cards, often using his powerful gifts in the field of
photomontage. Published in connection with the
sports event known as the All Union Spartakiada
under the Central Communist International of
the USSR, the set of postcards in the Costakis
collection is essentially ideological, identifying the
success of the Revolution with physical prowess,
youth and the working class.

232

Photomontage Postcard. 1928

Color printing on postcard, 5^x3 %" (14.6 x 9.1 cm.)
Signed as part of image: Klucis. Text: Spartakiada I
Moscow I 192S. Printed on reverse: CWy in the country
of the proletarian dictatorship does physical culture
completely serve the interests of the workers
Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
1089.80

232 ii

Photomontage Postcard. 1928

Color printing on postcard, 6V16 x 4" (15.3 x 10.1 cm.)

Signed as part of image: Klucis. Text: For healthy

tempered youth I Moscow I Spartakiada, 1928. Printed

on reverse: All Union Spartakiada. A bloiv to the

bourgeois sport movement

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

1088.80

232 iii

Photomontage Postcard. 1928

Color printing on postcard, 5% x 4" (14.9 x 10.2 cm.)

Signed as part of image: Klucis. Text: Our physical

cultural greetings to the worker sportsman from all

over the world I Spartakiada I Moscow I 192S. Printed

on reverse: For the United International of Workers'

Sport

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

1087.80

232 iv

Photomontage Postcard. 1928

Color printing on postcard, 5!%s x 4%/'

(15. 1 x 10.6 cm.)

Signed as part of image: Klucis. Text: Every sportsman

must be a sharpshooter I Moscow 1928 I Spartakiada.

In German: Every worker-sportsman I must be a I

soldier of the Revolution. Printed on reverse: Physical

culture is the means of preparing the work and defense

of the Soviet Unions

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina

1090.80

232 v

Photomontage Postcard. 1928

Color printing on postcard, ^n/i6 * jYa"

(14.4x9.4 cm.)

Signed as part of image: Klucis. Text: Spartakiada I

Moscow I 1928. Printed on reverse: The physical

culture of the ivorker is the kernel of socialist

construction

Acquired from the artist's wife, V. I. Kulagina
1091.80

274

1. A number of these posters, which belong to the Riga Museum, were
included in Klucis's one-man exhibition in Riga in 1970, (SeeKafatog
vystavki omizvedenii Gustava Klutsisa. Riga, Gosudarstvennyi
khudozhestvennyi muzei, 1970). Several are visible in the installation

photographs For Klucis's own concept ot the role of photomontage in
agitprop contexts, see G. Klucis, "Fotomontazh kak novyi vid agitatsionnogo
iskusstva!' Izofmnt klassovaya borba na fronte prostranstvennykh
iskusstv. Moscow-Leningrad, 1939, pp 119 ff.

Ill

CnRPTHKHHflH

275

PRODUCTIVISM

LIUBOV SERGEEVNA POPOVA

TEXTILE DESIGNS

233

Design for a Banner for the All-Russian Union of Poets.

ca. 1921

Wash and wax crayon on paper, 6% x 37%"

(16.9x95.6 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C52

234

Design for a Banner for the All-Russian Union of Poets.

ca. 1921

Colored pencil and wax crayon on paper, 5% x 29%"

(14.9x74.7 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C53

The All-Russian Union of Poets Club (VSP) was located
at 18 Tverskoi Boulevard in Moscow. It was organized
by 1921 and remained in existence for approximately
six years. Ivan Aksenov, its chairman, was a close friend
of Popova, and undoubtedly was the person who com-
missioned her to design banners to hang over the
entrance to the building. Other members of the club
were Andrei Bely, Riurik Ivnev, Anatolii Mariengof,
Mikhail Kuzmin and Georgii Chulkov. It was under the
sponsorship of this group, and on the premises of the
club, that the 5 x 5 = 25 exhibition was held in
September 1921. (See cat. nos. 215-16.) At least two
other designs for banners by Popova have survived
(LACMA, cat. nos. 252, 253).

Popova's textile designs, of which a few examples
are shown here, date from the final stages of her
career. Both she and Stepanova regarded textile
design and clothing design as natural outgrowths
of their commitment to Productivism, and during
1922-23 they formulated a theory and methodol-
ogy linking the two. First and foremost they em-
phasized the functional aspects of clothing, and
while they clearly invested a good deal of imagina-
tion in the execution of their designs, they rejected
what they considered to be purely "aesthetic"
considerations.

Probably late in 1923 or very early in 1924,
though the date is a matter of some dispute, they
actually entered the industry, taking jobs at the
First Textile Printing Works in Moscow, where
fabrics were being produced.1 An article had
appeared in Fravda describing the need for artists
in the textile industry but they and Rodchenko
were the only three who responded.2 They started
work at once, and although they met with some
resistance, they ultimately succeeded in their desire
to be involved in the industrial part of the process.
Their designs were an unprecedented success.3

if p

276

1. 0 Brik. in an article in Lei, no. 2, 1924, p. 34, states that they were
invited by the director of the factory, but gives no date, A. Abramova,
"Odna iz pervikh" Dekorativnoe iskusstvo, 1963, no, 9, p. 19, states that
it was in i924; J. E. Bowlt, "From Pictures to Textile Prints!' The Print
Collector's Newsletter, no. 1, 1976, pp. 16-20, suggests late 1922;
T. Strizhenova, Iz Istorii sovetskogo kostiuma, Moscow, 1972, suggests
1921; Lodder, Constructivism, gives no precise date but implies a
preference for late 1923. For important information on the history of
textile and clothing design within Productivism, see all of the above.

2. Abramova She does not give the date of the Pravda article.

3. Abramova For further information on the textile design of this period,
see Varst (Stepanova), "Kostium segodniashnego-dnia-prozodezhdai' Lei,
no. 2, 1923, pp. 65-68; V. Stepanova, "Of kostiuma k risunku i tkani"
Vecherniaia Moskva, February 28, 1929 (reference supplied by Lodder.
Constructivism)

NADEZHDA ANDREEVNA UDALTSOVA

235

Textile Design, ca.192.1f?)

Watercolor and pencil on paper, 10% x 7%"

(27. 6 x 20 cm.)

Acquired from A. A. Drevin, son of Alexandr Drevin

and Udaltsova

198.80

V V

277

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

236 i

Textile Design, ca. 1923-24

Gouache on paper, 6 1/1 6 * 2.15/i6" Us-5 x 6-9 cm-)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

241.80 recto

236 ii

Textile Design, ca. 1923-24

Gouache and ink on paper, $Yi^ x 2" (13.6 x 5.1 cm.)
Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov

240.80

■

278

L. S. POPOVA

237

Textile Design, ca. 1923-24

Ink on paper, 711/i<; x 5 V2" (19.6 x 14.1 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C44

This work appeared in the artist's posthumous exhibi-
tion of 1924 and is visible in the installation photo-
graphs.

279

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

238

Design for Embroidered Book. ca. 1913-24
Colored inks on paper, 6% x i%" (17.3 x 4.8 cm.)
Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov
C84

239

r*^%

Embroidered Book Cover, ca. 1923-24

Silk thread on grosgrain, TjliA& x 12%"

(45.3x31.5 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C164

280

281

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

240

241

Textile Design. 1923-24

Gouache on paper, 6lA x i2%s" (16 x 31.6 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C47

This work appeared in the artist's posthumous exhibi-
tion of 1924 and is visible in the installation photo-
graphs.

Textile Sketch. 1923-24

Gouache and pencil on paper, 13% x 11" (35 x 28 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

223.78

This work appeared in the artist's posthumous exhibi-
tion of 1924 and is visible in the installation photo-
graphs.

282

283

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

242

Textile Design. 08.1923-24

Gouache and ink on paper, 9*4 x 5%s" (23.5 x 14.2 cm.'

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C46

284

L. S. POPOVA

243

Textile Design, ca. 1923-14

Watercolor and ink on paper, 5% x 6n/i&

(13.7 x 17 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P S. Popov

C377

285

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

244

Design for a Poster (?) Long Live the Dictatorship of

the Proletariat. 1922-23

Paper collage, gouache and ink on paper, 8 x ^Yis"

(zo.i x 25.1 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C59

3APABCTBH:r

mill

K!_

1 1-

) J

u_r-v_A

°j

I !

nPOXETAPMATA!

286

L. S. POPOVA

245

Design for Cover of Periodical Film Performers z

(Artisty Kino z). ca. 1922

Gouache on board, yYu, x GVii' (2.3.4 x J5-8 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

C58

287

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

246

247

Catalogue of the Posthumous Exhibition of the Artist-
Constructor L. S. Popova. Moscow, 19x4
21 pp. with color lithographic cover, 6% x $Vu"
(17.1 x 14. 1 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov
147.80

Poster Announcing the Opening of Popova's Posthu-
mous Exhibition. December 21, 1924
Color lithograph in red and black, 36^6 x z^/ii'
(92.6 x 62.4 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov
486.80

The cover of this catalogue is said to have been designed
by Rodchenko. (C. A. Lodder, in conversation, April
1981.)

288

IIT.UM III) JE.I.ill ll);HKII 1. 1 USUI. 'I, II llll'KOHIII'on,

'unit jkhmhcM

Kyj!LT7PLl M'E!T3m

L 11.

nOCMEPTHAH

^ypHCHHKA-KOHCTPVKTOPA a

OTKPWTHE

3EK

ABPH

BEM

i- —> .Jl~ 1

:_,:::z:3:;:::::::;. ;.:.:::

ui.htaisi; v nTi;i-i.iT.\

1EAIPLMIIE IBKCffitt

289

PRODUCTIVISM

THEATER

ALEXANDRA ALEXANDROVN/ EXTER

248

Costume Design for Oscar Wilde's Salome (?) 1917
Gouache on cardboard, 27% x 15%" (70.2 x40cm.)
Acquired from the collection of A. G. Koonen, Moscow
56.78

The production of Salome directed by Alexandr Ta'irov
had its premiere at the Kamernyi (Chamber) Theater in
Moscow on October 9, 1917. Although it has not been
possible to establish with certainty that this costume
was used in the production, it is stylistically compatible
with those which were.

290

A. A. EXTER

249

Costume for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. 1920-21

Oil and gouache on board, 22%6 x 17^6"

(56.4x43.7 cm.) (sight)

Acquired from the collection of A. G. Koonen, Moscow

55-78

The production, directed by Tairov, had its premiere at
the Kamernyi Theater on May 17, 1921.

291

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

250

Sketch for Stage Set. 1920-21

Gouache on paper, io7i6 x 14" (26.5 x 35.5 cm.)

Gift of D. Sarabianov

C9i

This sketch was for Anatolii Lunacharsky's play, The
Locksmith and the Chancellor, first performed at the
Korsh Theater in 1921.1 The design bears some resem-
blance to those made by Popova for Tai'rov's 1921 pro-
duction of Romeo and Juliet at the Kamernyi Theater in
Moscow.2 These latter designs were pictorially elabor-
ate, and, in their original form, totally impracticable.
Alexandr Vesnin revised and simplified them, but ulti-
mately they were not used.

POPOVA, "THE MAGNANIMOUS
CUCKOLD" (Velikodushnyi rogonosets)

Vsevolod Meierkhold assumed the directorship of
the State Higher Theater Workshop in 1921 ; in
that fall he had been profoundly impressed by the
exhibition 5X5 = 25. In the work of the Con-
structivists, and especially in that of Popova, he
saw new possibilities for stage design, and he im-
mediately invited her to join the faculty of his
workshop to teach a course in "material stage
design" or "set formulation" [veshchestvennoe
oformlenie spektaklia). A few months later, in
January 1922, Meierkhold began work on his
production of The Magnanimous Cuckold, a con-
temporary play by the Belgian writer Fernand
Crommelynck. It had opened in Paris on Decem-
ber 18, 1920, and had then been translated into

292

1. Information supplied by V. Rakitin, G. Costakis, and D Sarabianov.

2. One is reproduced in J. E. Bowl!, "From Surface to Space: The Art of
Liubov Popova!' The Structurist, nos. 15-16. 1975-76, pp. 86-87.
Bowlt indicates that Popova's designs were eventually used, but this
seems not to be the case.

1. For a full discussion of Meierkhold's production and details about the
set and its function, see A. Law, "Le Cocu magnifiaue de Crommelynck!'
Les Voies de la creation WeStrale, vol. VI, Paris, 1979, pp. 13-43 For a
discussion of its impact on the development of architectural design, see
C A Lodder. "Constructivist Theatre as a Laboratory for an Architectural
Aesthetic;' Architectural Association Quarterly, vol. II, no 2. 1979,
pp. 24-35

2 I. A Aksenov, "Prostanstvennyi konstruktivizm na stsene!' Teatralnyi
Oktiabr no. 1, Leningrad-Moscow, 1926, pp. 31 ff.; also, idem,

Russian by Ivan Aksenov. Meierkhold had chosen
it as the vehicle for his first demonstration of his
actor-training method known as "Biomechanics"
(see pp. 31-32) and of the Constructivist stage set.1

Tracing the origin of the set itself is somewhat
complex. According to Aksenov, who wrote two
articles in 1926 on the importance of the project in
the development of Constructivist theater, the set
was entirely conceived and executed by Popova.2
Other evidence indicates, however, that Meier-
khold originally commissioned the Stenberg broth-
ers and Medunetsky to submit designs, that they
did so in a preliminary form but did not carry the
project through to completion.' A model for the
set was then prepared in the Theater workshop
under the direction of the young designer Vladimir
Liutse, but Popova intervened to make extensive
changes, and the responsibility for the final resolu-
tion is generally acknowledged to be hers.

The set as executed was extraordinarily pow-
erful in conception and effect, and Aksenov's
claims for its influence on the future of the theater
were not exaggerated. Two platforms of uneven
height with stairs on either side were joined by a
bridge (cat. no. 251). A slide ran from the right
platform down to the floor, and the lower part of
this mounting was called the "cage." A support
divided the facing side into two unequal halves,
the left of which contained a window that was
hinged to open diagonally. The cage and window
(visible at the lower right of fig. a, p. 294) were used
for entrances and exits, as well as for an acting area.
Three wheels, one white, one red, and one a large
black disc bearing the letters "CR-ML-NK," ro-
tated clockwise or counterclockwise at erratic
speeds underscoring the "kinetic meaning of each
moment in the action."4

The three Costakis drawings that clearly elab-
orate details for the cage (cat. nos. 252-54), in one
case including notations for proportions and di-
mensions, present a structurally sophisticated solu-
tion for that area, and support the notion that
Popova was centrally involved in the design. These
drawings, and the stage set, demonstrate a new
structural conviction that is indebted to the KPS
constructions of the Stenbergs and to the Con-
structivist theory that had been developing at the
Inkhuk in the preceding year. As Bowlt has pointed
out, Popova's immediately preceding theatrical
venture (the Romeo and Juliet designs for
Tai'rov of May 1921; see cat. no. 250), had been
fanciful, pictorial and almost entirely impractica-
ble. The Cuckold set, on the other hand, was gov-
erned by utilitarian and practical considerations,
and was to a considerable extent the natural conse-
quence of Popova's aim, expressed in a statement

in the 5 X 5 = 25 catalogue, to create "concrete
material constructions." Its execution is difficult
to imagine without the example, on the one hand,
of the Stenbergs' KPS constructions (exhibited in
January 1921), and, on the other, of her own in-
volvement in the Inkhuk debates of March-April
1921 (see pp. 226-227). Even the terminology that
Popova used in her description of the Cuckold (in a
report to the Moscow Inkhuk on April 27, 1922) is
reminiscent of the language of the debates on "con-
struction" and "composition." Her aim was: "The
organization of the material elements of a produc-
tion as equipment, as a form of mounting, or as a
device for a given action. . . . The criterion should
be utilitarian suitability and in no case the solu-
tion of any formal, aesthetic problems "5

Similarly, the costumes for the production
(cat. no. 256) were strictly utilitarian in conception:
a blue work uniform (prozodezbda) served as the
basic dress for all of the characters— with flared
jodhpurs for the men and calf-length skirts for the
women. Details such as red pompons, a white
handkerchief, a cape, a stick or a monocle, were
the only means used to differentiate one character
from another. As Popova stated in her 1922 report
to the Inkhuk, "we put aside the aesthetic princi-
ples of historic, national, psychological, or every-
day costume. In this particular task, we wanted to
find a general principle of work clothes for the
actor's professional work based on what he needs
for the contemporary aspect of his professional
emploi."6

The set was not regarded as a complete suc-
cess. Popova herself acknowledged the difficulty
of abandoning "outmoded aesthetic habits," and
also drew attention to important determining
characteristics that were inherent in the play itself:
"the action had a built-in visual character which
prevented the consideration of an action solely
as an on-going working process. . . ."7 Nonetheless,
as Elena Rakitina has suggested, the innovations in
the conception were powerful and influential ones,
perhaps most of all in their kinetic elements: "We
will never understand [the set] correctly if we re-
gard it statically. It is not a picture to be admired.
Rather it is a kind of machine which takes on a
living existence in the course of the production."8
Popova's exploration of the use of kinetic devices
in stage design did not, of course, end with the set
for The Magnanimous Cuckold. New devices
were extensively used in Popova's next theatrical
venture, the set for Earth in Turmoil (cat. nos.
257-260).

"Proiskhozhdeme ustanovki 'Velikodushny rogonosets'. " 3Afistia TIM
1926. pp 7-11.

3. E. Rakitina. "Liubov Popova, iskusstvo i manilesty.' Khudozhmk.
stsena. ekran. Moscow, 1975, p 162; Law, Les Voies de la creation
theatrale. Lodder Architectural Association Quarterly; also J E Bowlt,
From Surface to Space The Art of Liubov Popova" The Structunst.
nos. 15-16, 1975, pp 86-87 Vladimir Stenbergs memories of the events
will be published by A. Law in a forthcoming issue of the Art Journal.
edited by G Harrison Roman

4 L Popova, quoted and translated by Law. from a manuscript in a
private archive. Moscow. This text is also partially quoted by Bowlt.
"Popova!' The Structunst. p. 87.

5. Trans. A. Law, from a manuscript in a private archive, Moscow.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid

8 Quoted by Law. Les Votes de la creation thiStrale. p. 23.

293

L. S. POPOVA

251

Set Design for The Magnanimous Cuckold. 1922

Pencil, colored pencil and wash on paper, 9V16 x 14%"

(23.1 x 37.8 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

202.78

A second watercolor depicting the entire set was for-
merly in the Costakis collection (Tretiakov Gallery,
Moscow, repr. color, R., S., C, Costakis, pi. 882). The
latter gouache was almost certainly made after the set
was complete, rather than at a preparatory stage.

294

fig- a

Documentary photograph, courtesy Alma H. Law, of

Popova's original stage set in use, 1922

L. S. POPOVA

252

Untitled, ca. 1922

Crayon and pencil on paper, 10% x 7%" (25.7 x 20 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

201.78

Design for the "cage" section of the set of The Magnan-
imous Cuckold.

253

Untitled, ca. 1921

Black crayon on paper, 9154fiX 8" (25.3 x 20.4 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

200.78

Design for the "cage" section of the set of The Magnan-
imous Cuckold.

254

Untitled, ca. 1922

Ink and pencil on paper, i6xY\(, x iz1^" (43 x 32.5 cm.)

Inscribed on reverse, not in the artist's hand: "Cage for

the production Magnanimous Cuckold"

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

199.78

295

PRODUCTIVISM

L. S. POPOVA

255

Untitled, ca. 192Z

Colored pencil on paper, i49/lf, x 9VU" (37 * 2-3 cm-)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

198.78

296

L. S. POPOVA

256

Costume Design for The Magnanimous Cuckold. 192.2

Gouache, ink and paper collage on paper, 12% x 9%"

(32.-7 x 23.8 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

203.78

The costume has been identified as that of the Burgher-
master. (A. Law, in conversation, January 1981.) For the
nursemaid's costume, see A. Law, "The Revolution in
the Russian Theater," in LACMA, p. 68. Some of the
other costume designs for the production have been
published elsewhere, erroneously identified as designs
for magazine covers.

/l.nOfIOffA.19*^

297

PRODUCTIVISM

POPOVA, "EARTH IN TURMOIL"

(Zemlia dybom)

On March 24, 1923, the fifth anniversary of the
founding of the Red Army, Meierkhold staged
Earth in Turmoil, Sergei Tretiakov's agitprop
adaptation of Martinet's verse drama, La Nuit,
originally published in 19 21 . The five acts of the
drama were divided into two major sections with a
total of eight episodes: Down with War; Attention;
Truth in the Trenches; The Black International;
All Power to the Soviets; The Revolution Betrayed;
Shearing the Sheep; Night.

Popova designed the production, which in
some respects built upon her experience with The
Magnanimous Cuckold, but in many ways differed
from it. The set consisted again of a large con-
struction made of wood, dependent for much of
its structural vocabulary on objects such as the
KPS inventions of the Stenbergs. However, unlike
Popova's previous set, this was conceived almost
as an industrial object; it resembled a giant gantry
crane and functioned strictly as a background.1
The actors performed in front of it, rather than
using it as a machine within which to work. It was
therefore not a genuinely active component in the
drama. Kinetic elements were included, but now
they consisted of lighting effects, cinema and
slides, rather than of structural elements. Political
slogans relating to the structure of a new society
(electrification, industry, the mechanization of
agriculture) as well as references to the Revolution

were continuously flashed onto a screen suspended
from the crane. Newsreels and other films were
also projected. The actors were illuminated with
military searchlights, and the props were taken
from everyday life: a car, a tractor, motorcycles
and a machine gun.

In a note published in Lef, no. 4, 1924, p. 44,
Popova's principles of "set formulation" for the
production were reprinted. In it she described the
purpose of the set as "agitational," not aesthetic.
The intention of the specific devices used was to
create and reinforce the "agitational" effect. The
artist's primary function was now to select and
combine objects from the "real world" and other
material elements in such a way as to serve the
social and propagandistic goals of a new art. The
notion of a Productivist art, in which design was
placed entirely at the service of society's needs,
had consequently been taken a step further, and
Popova felt no longer trapped by what she had
described as her own "outmoded aesthetic habits"
(see p. 293 above). As C. A. Lodder has cogently
argued, this development followed directly from
the Constructivist principle of rejecting "creativ-
ity" or aesthetic quality per se. The production of
Earth in Turmoil thus marked a stage in the pro-
cess whereby Constructivism, "setting out to
transform the environment, was itself being trans-
formed by that environment, returning to existing
reality as a source of inspiration, of imagery. . . ."2

%■ a

Documentary photograph, owned by George Costakis,

of Popova's design for Earth in Turmoil.

298

1 . Popova would have preferred to use a real crane if the stage floor
could have supported it.

2. Lodder, Constructivism.

L. S. POPOVA

257

Part of the Design for the Stage Set for Earth in Turmoil.

1923

Photomontage, gouache, newspaper and photographic

paper collage on plywood, 19^6 x 32%(->" (49 x 82.7 cm.)

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

204.78

A contemporary photograph (fig. a) records the original
appearance of Popova's design. The slogans "Earth in
Turmoil" and "We will build a new World" are com-
bined on this backdrop with pictures of Tsar Nicholas
II and his generals shown upside down and symbolically
"deleted" from society.

299

CTAPUIHM

IAMBCWET

L. S. POPOVA

COMATbl

8 oranbi

PAG04HE

K CTAHKAM

258

Political Slogan for Earth in Turmoil. 1923

Gouache, ink and paper collage on paper, 8V2 x 10%"

(21.6 x 27.7 cm.)

Text: Youth to replace the oldest. Long live Komsomol!

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

205.78

This and the following two slogans were among those
designed by Popova to be flashed onto the screen at the
back of the set during the performance of the play. The
Costakis collection includes thirteen additional designs
for such slogans, as well as titles for two of the eight
episodes. (See R., S., C, Costakis, pis. 888-906)

259

Political Slogan for Earth in Turmoil. 1923

Gouache, ink and paper collage on paper, 7 x 9"

(17.9 x 22.9 cm.)

Text: Soldiers to the trenches— workers to the factories

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,

P. S. Popov

209.78

260

Political Slogan for Earth in Turmoil. 1923
Gouache, ink and paper collage on paper, 7 x 9%"
(17.8 x 24.8 cm.)

Text: The fight against counterrevolutionary specula-
tion and sabotage

Acquired from the collection of the artist's brother,
P. S. Popov
217.78

OTEBMHyEH

chekmmilheh
hCAEOTAMEM

300

KONSTANTIN ALEXANDROVICH VIALOV

261

Sketch for Production of Stenka Kazin by Vasilii

Kamensky. 192.3-Z4

Gouache and pencil on paper, 6 x 5%" (15. 2. x 14.3 cm.)

Purchased from the artist

Sii.79

Vialov was responsible for designing the sets and the
costumes for Kamensky's play, which had its premiere
on February 6, 19Z4 in Moscow at the Theater of the
Revolution. The director was Valerii Mikhailovich Beb-
utov, a student and colleague of Meierkhold.

fig- a

Scene from production of Stenka Kazin. Contemporary

drawing, photograph courtesy of Alma H. Law.

301

PRODUCTIVISM

K. A. VIALOV

262

Set Design, ca. 1924-Z6

Ink and pencil on paper, 69/ux $9A&" (16.7 x 14-zcm.]

Purchased from the artist

813.79

302

K. A. VIALOV

263

Costume Design for Production of Stenka Razin.

1923-24

Watercolor, pencil and gold paint on paper, io%(3 x 7"

(26.8 x 17.9 cm.)

Purchased from the artist

817.79

303

PRODUCTIVISM

304

VII

Parallel Trends: The Figurative
and the Cosmic, 1918-1930

During the 1920s, Kudriashev turned gradually
away from Suprematism to an increasingly cosmic
form of abstraction, influenced to some extent by
his friendship with the rocket and space pioneer
K. E. Tsiolkovsky. In an unpublished manuscript
of the early 1910s, he described the gradual shift
in his own work from an abstraction of pure color
and form (such as that in the Orenburg Theater
decorations, cat. nos. 119-121) to one inspired by
"the contemporary perception of space."1 He came
to believe that space and the cosmic universe
would become the content of contemporary ab-
stract art, and that "spatial painting" would dem-
onstrate the "limitlessness of the cosmic world"
while also providing art with a powerful expres-
sive imagery. The new art, in its "intuitive" inter-
pretation of spatial phenomena, was intended to
parallel contemporary scientific discoveries about
the universe, and reflect the extent to which such
discoveries were influencing man's consciousness.

Kliment Redko, Mikhail Plaksin and Solo-
mon Nikritin— all of whom belonged to the so-
called Electroorganism group in the 1920s— shared
Kudriashev's conviction that art could derive im-
portant inspiration from the world of science, ex-
ploration and spatial discovery. Redko, who (like
Kudriashev) began his career as a Suprematist,
wrote in his diary of 1921: "We are moving into
the world of science, and this is the first unmis-
takable sign of the rebirth of art. . . ."2 In the
"Electroorganism" manifesto of 1922, he wrote:
"Light is the highest manifestation of matter," and
he— together with others in the group— came to see
luminescence, luminism, electricity, and even the
lighting ramifications of "Roentgenology" as the
subject matter of their art.

1 Private Archive. Moscow Passages from the text courtesy of Vasilii
Rakitin. Moscow

2 Private Archive. Moscow Diary entry lor Oct 14, 1921, courtesy of
Vasilii Rakitin, Moscow Further quotations from Redko's unpublished
diaries are translated into German and published by H Gassner and
E. Gillen, Zmschen Revolulionskunst una Sozialistischen Realisms:
Dokumente und Kommentare Kunstdebatten in tier Sowietumon von 1917
bis 1934. Dij'sseldorf. 1979 pp. 335-37.

305

VASILH NIKOLAEVICH CHEKRYGIN

Seated Woman. 1918

Oil on canvas, zfiVis x 20%" (66.1 x 5 1.7 cm.)

Signed, dated and inscribed on reverse: Study for a

fresco painting by V. I. Chekrygin, 191S

Acquired from L. F. Zhegin

274.78

For information about the life and work of Chekrygin
see Vasilii Nikolaevicb Chekrygin, Izobrazitelnykh
iskusstv imeni A. S. Pushkina, Moscow, 1969, with texts
by E. Levitin, L. F. Zhegin and B. Shaposhnikov.

306

MIKHAIL MATVEEVICH PLAKSIN

265

Planetary. 1922

Oil on canvas, 28^6 x 24" (71.9 x 61 cm.)

Signed and dated on reverse: Plaksin 1921

Acquired from the collection of the artist's second wife,

A. N. Varnovitskaia

174.78

According to V. Rakitin, this work was shown in an ex-
hibition organized by the "Electroorganism" group in
Moscow in 1922, and in the First Discussional Exhibi-
tion of Associations of Active Revolutionary Art which
opened in Moscow, May 1924. (Information from pri-
vate archives, Moscow.)

307

PARALLEL TRENDS

KLIMENT NIKOLAEVICH REDKO

266

Dynamite. 1922

Oil on canvas, 2.4n/is x iS1^" (62.8 x 47.5 cm.)

Signed and dated on reverse: K. Redko 1922

Acquired from the artist's widow (his second wife)

236.78

According to Rakitin, this work was exhibited in
Redko's one-man show held in Moscow in 1926 and
appeared as the cover illustration of the catalogue.
(Information from private archives, Moscow.)

For information about the life and work of Redko, see
V. Kostin, compiler and author of introductory essay,
Kliment Redko. Dnevniki. Vospominaniia Staty, Mos-
cow, 1974.

308

IVAN ALEXEEVICH KUDRIASHEV

267

Luminescence. 1926

Oil on canvas, 42 x z^Yi^' (106.6 x 71 cm.)

Signed and dated l.r. and on reverse: / Kttdriashev 1926.

Acquired from the artist

128.78

309

PARALLEL TRENDS

ALEXANDR DAVIDOVICH DREVIN

268

Landscape with Two Figures. 1930

Oil on canvas, 2.7V16 x iiYu" (68.7 x 84.6 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's son, A. A. Drevin

10.78

According to Rakitin, this work was shown in an exhi-
bition in Moscow in 1931. (Information from private
archives, Moscow.)

For information about Drevin, see M. Miasina, ed.,
Stareishie khudozhniki o Srednei Azii i Kavkase, Mos-
cow, 1973; Alexandr Davidovich Drevin 1S89-193S,
Katalog vystavki, Moscow, 1979.

310

SOLOMON BORISOVICH NIKRITIN

269

Man and Cloud. 1930

Oil on canvas, 56 x 56" (142.3 x 142.3 cm.)

Acquired from the artist's widow

160.78

For information about the life and work of Nikritin, see
K. London, The Seven Soviet Arts, London, 1937, pp.
213-29; V. Kostin, "Vystavka rabot. zhivopis i grafika,"
in the exhibition catalogue Solomon Borisovich Nikritin
1S98-1965, Moscow, 1969.

311

PARALLEL TRENDS

Biographical Notes

Much of the biographical information included here
has been supplied by Vasilii Rakitin. For more extensive
biographical information on these artists, see R., S., C,
Costakis; LACMA; Lodder, Constructivism; and Bowlt,
Theory and Criticism.

ALEXEI VASILIEVICH BABICHEV

Born Moscow, March 2, 1887; died Moscow, May 1, 1963.

From 1905 to 1906 studied in the Department of Math-
ematics of Moscow University and simultaneously at the
private studios of Ivan Dudin and Konstantin Yuon.
From 1907 to 1913 attended the Moscow Institute of
Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. From 1918 to 1920
taught at the Svomas in Moscow, from 192.0 to 1921 was
professor at the Vkhutemas, and late 1920 until 1923
was a member of the Inkhuk in Moscow, where he
emerged as a theoretician.

VARVARA DMITRIEVNA BUBNOVA

Born St. Petersburg, May 4, 1S86; lives Sukhumi,
Abkhazian Republic.

From 1907 to 1914 studied at the School of the Society
for the Encouragement of the Arts, taking lessons from
Nikolai Dubovskoi. From 1914 participated in numer-
ous exhibitions, including the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth
State Exhibitions in Moscow (all 1919) and the First
Russian Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstatts-
stellung, at the Galerie van Diemen, Berlin (1922). Ca.
1920 began to take an active part in the administration
of IZO Narkompros in Moscow.

ILIA GRIGORIEVICH CHASHNIK

Born Lyucite, Latvia, June 20, 1902; died Leningrad,
December 4, 1929.

Spent childhood in Vitebsk; from 1917 to 1919, studied
art with Yurii Pen. In 1919 attended the Vkhutemas in
Moscow but soon transferred to the Vitebsk Art Insti-
tute to study under Chagall, then Malevich, who took
control of the school in the winter of 1919-1920. Partic-
ipated in the organization of the "Posnovis" ("Followers
of the New Art") group, later renamed "Unovis" ("Af-
firmers of the New Art"), and contributed to all exhibi-
tions of the Unovis group. In 1922, when the Unovis was
forced out by the local authorities and Malevich left
Vitebsk, Chashnik, Suetin, Ermolaeva and Yudin all fol-
lowed and joined the Ginkhuk in Petrograd. Worked as
a designer with Suetin at the Lomonosov State Porcelain
Factory.

VASILII NIKOLAEVICH CHEKRYGIN

Born Zhizdra, Kaluga Province, January 18, 1897; died
near Moscow, June 3, 1922, after being struck by a train.

In 1913, through school friends Vladimir Maiakovsky
and Lev Zhegin became close to the Larionov group and
participated in Futurist events. From 1920 lived in Mos-
cow. In 1922 cofounder of the "Makovets" group, sup-
ported by the philosopher Pavel Florensky. At the first
Makovets exhibition, April 1922, in Moscow, showed
201 works. Later in 1922 a posthumous exhibition was
held at the Tsvetkov Gallery in Moscow. In 1922 his
work was included in the First Russian Art Exhibition
(Erste russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van
Diemen in Berlin.

312

ALEXANDR DAVIDOVICH DREVIN

Born Vendene (Ventspils), Latvia, July 15, 1889; died in
exile in the Altai region, 1938.

Moved to Moscow in late 1914. Participated in the Fifth
State Exhibition in 1919. From 1918 to 1922 worked in
both figurative and abstract styles and wrote poetry.
From 1910 to 192.1 member of the Inkhuk; left, with
Kandinsky, Udaltsova and Kliun, in disagreement over
the rejection by the Constructivist-Productivists of pure
"easel art." From 1910 to 1930 professor of painting at
the Vkhutemas/Vkhutein; he and Udaltsova met there
and were later married. In 1921-21 participated in the
World of Art (Mir iskusstva) exhibitions in Moscow. In
1912 sent work to the First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste
russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin. In the late 1920s returned to landscape and
naturalistic painting.

BORIS VLADIMIROVICH ENDER

Born St. Petersburg 1893; died Moscow, i960.

In 1917 studied in Matiushin's studio. In 1918 studied
under Petrov-Vodkin in the Petrograd Svomas and also
with Malevich. 1919-1921 a member of Matiushin's stu-
dio in "Spatial Realism." In 1923 became a member of
the "Zorved" (Zorkoe vedanie, See-Know) group, with
other Matiushin students. From 1923 to 1927, research
at the Department of Organic Culture of the Museum
of Painterly Culture (later the Ginkhuk) in Leningrad.
In 1928 moved to Moscow. In addition to continuing
his painting, from 1930 to 1931 worked on polychrome
architecture with, among others, Hinnerk Scheper, a
German artist from the Bauhaus. Also designed inte-
riors, exhibitions, books and costumes.

KSENIA VLADIMIROVNA ENDER

Born St. Petersburg, 1895; died Leningrad, 1955.

From 1919 to 1922 she studied in Matiushin's studio at
the Petrosvomas and worked with his "Zorved" (Zor-
koe vedanie, See-Know) group. Between 1923 and 1926,
research in the Department of Organic Culture of the
Museum of Painterly Culture (later the Ginkhuk),
headed by Matiushin. From the mid-i92os, research
with Matiushin and Boris and Mariia Ender on color
theory.

MARIIA VLADIMIROVNA ENDER

Born St. Petersburg, 1897; died Leningrad, 1942.

In 1919 studied at the Petrosvomas in Matiushin's
studio. In 1923 became a member of the Museum of
Painterly Culture in Petrograd and participated in its
Department of Organic Culture directed by Matiushin.
From 1925 to 1926 directed the laboratory on form-
color perception at the Ginkhuk. In 1927, after the
closing of the Ginkhuk, entered the Art History Insti-
tute in Leningrad. From 1929 to 1932 taught the theory
of color in the Department of Painting, Sculpture, Ar-

chitecture and Graphics at the Fine Arts Academy in
Leningrad. Continued to devote herself to the problems
of color in architecture; collaborated with her brother
Boris on the Soviet pavilions for the World's Fairs held
in Paris in 1937 and New York in 1939.

ALEXANDRA ALEXANDROVNA EXTER

Born near Kiev, January 6, 1882; died Fontenay-aux-
Roses, near Paris, March 17, 1949.

Graduated from the Kiev Art School in 1906 and also
attended the Academie'de la Grande Chaumiere, Paris,
where she set up a studio in 1909; became acquainted
with Picasso, Braque, Apollinaire and the Italian Futur-
ists Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and Giovanni Papini.
Participated in all Jack of Diamonds [Bubnovyi valet)
exhibitions between 1910 and 1916 and in Union of
Youth [Soiuz molodezhi) exhibitions in 1910 in Riga and
in 1913-14 in St. Petersburg. Between 1914 and 1924
participated in almost all the important exhibitions of
the Russian avant-garde, including Tramway V in 1915
in Petrograd and The Store in 1916 in Moscow. In 1916
began theater work for Alexandr Tai'rov at the Moscow
Kamernyi (Chamber) Theater. From 1920 to 1922
taught at the Vkhutemas and in 1921 participated in the
5 X S = 25 show in Moscow. In 1924 emigrated to
France, where she continued to design theater produc-
tions and to illustrate books.

PAVEL NIKOLAEVICH FILONOV

Born Moscow, January 8, 1883; died Leningrad,
December 3, 1941.

Was a member of the "Union of Youth" (Soiuz molo-
dezhi) group and participated in their 1910, 1912 and
1913-14 exhibitions in St. Petersburg, and the Donkey's
Tail (Oslinyi khvost) in Moscow. From 1916 to 1918
served on the Rumanian front. In Petrograd in 1919
was represented at the First State Free Exhibition of
Works of Art. In 1922 participated in the First Russian
Art Exhibition [Erste russische Kunstausstellung), at the
Galerie van Diemen in Berlin. From 1923 taught at the
Petrograd Academy and briefly headed the General
Ideology Department at the Museum of Painterly Cul-
ture. In 1925, with a group of students and followers,
established the Filonov school in Petrograd, which
lasted until 1932.

NIKOLAI IVANOVICH GRINBERG

Born St. Petersburg, 1897.

In 1918 was a student of Malevich, and from 1919 to

1922 studied with Matiushin. Was a member of the
"Zorved" (Zorkoe vedanie, See-Know) group. From

1923 worked at the Petrograd Museum of Painterly
Culture, later the Ginkhuk. During the late 1920s ceased
artistic activity, and almost none of his work has sur-
vived; his fate is unknown.

313

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

ELENA GURO (ELEONORA GENRIKHOVNA
VON NOTENBERG)

Born in St. Petersburg, 1877; died Usikirkko, Finland
(now in the USSR), May 6, 1913, of leukemia.

From 1890 to 1893 studied at the School of the Society
for the Encouragement of the Arts; from 1903 to 1905
studied at the private studio of Yan Tsionglinsky,
where she met her future husband, Mikhail Matiushin.
Guro and Matiushin were both members of Nikolai
Kulbin's "Impressionists" group and exhibited in its
shows of 1909-1910. Her paintings were shown first at
Kulbin's Exhibition of Contemporary Trends in Art
(Vystavka sovremennikk techenii v isknsstve) in 1908.
Also participated in the Union of Youth {Soinz
molodezki) exhibitions; her 1913-14 posthumous ex-
hibit in St. Petersburg was under its auspices. A writer
as well as a painter, she published her first story in St.
Petersburg in 1905. Her first book The Hurdy-Gurdy
(Sharmanka) was published in 1909; Autumn Dream
{Osennii son) in 1912; Baby Camels in the Sky (Ne-
besnye verblnzhata) in 1914.

KAREL IOGANSON

Biographical information about Ioganson has been
unobtainable.

IVAN VASILIEVICH KLIUN (KLIUNKOV)

Born Kiev, 1873; died Moscow, late 1942.

During the 1890s studied art in Warsaw and Kiev while
earning a living as a bookkeeper. In 1907 met Male-
vich. Contributed to the last Union of Youth (Soiuz
molodezhi) exhibition in 1913-14 in St. Petersburg.
In 1915 contributed to the exhibition Tramway V in
Petrograd. In 1915-16 participated in the major avant-
garde exhibitions, including 0.10 in Petrograd, The
Store in Moscow, and the Jack of Diamonds (Bubnovyi
valet) in Moscow. In 1917 was named director of the
Central Exhibition Bureau of the Narkompros. From
1918 to 1921 was professor of painting at the Svomas,
later the Vkhutemas; in 1921 was a member of the
Inkhuk. Participated in the 19 19 Fifth and Tenth State
Exhibitions in Moscow. In 1922 sent work to the First
Russian Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstausstel-
lung), at the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin.

GUSTAV GUSTAVOVICH KLUCIS

Born near Volmar (Valmiera), Latvia, January 4, 1895;
died 1944 in a labor camp.

1913 to 1915 attended the Riga Art Institute. Moved to
Petrograd and from 1915 to 1917 attended the School of
the Society for the Encouragement of the Arts. From
1918 to 1921 studied in Moscow at the Svomas, later
the Vkhutemas, under Malevich and Antoine Pevsner.
In August 1920 participated with Pevsner and his
brother Naum Gabo in a show at the Tverskoi Boule-
vard pavilion in Moscow. In 1921, with other students
of Malevich, contributed to the Unovis exhibition in

Moscow. From 1921 to 1925 was a member of the
Inkhuk, and in 1922 contributed to the First Russian
Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstausstellung), at
the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin. From 1924 to 1930
taught a course in color at the Vkhutemas.

BORIS DANILOVICH KOROLEV

Born Moscow, December 28, 1884; died Moscow, June
18, 1963.

From 1902 to 1905 studied in the scientific section of the
physics and mathematics department at the University
of Moscow. From 1910 to 1913 studied at the Moscow
Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. In
1913 traveled to England, Italy, Austria and Germany,
and to Paris, where he worked in Alexander Archi-
penko's studio. From 1918 to 1924 taught at the Vkhute-
mas in Moscow and from 1929 to 1930 at the Leningrad
Academy.

IVAN ALEXEEVICH KUDRIASHEV

Born Kaluga, 1896; died Moscow, 1972.

From 1913 to 1917 attended the Moscow Institute of
Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and from 1918
to 1919 studied with Malevich at the Svomas in Mos-
cow; met Kliun, Antoine Pevsner and Naum Gabo. In

1919 was sent to Orenburg to establish the Svomas
there, and organized a branch of the Unovis group. In
1921 went to Smolensk, where he met Katarzyna Kobro
and Wladyslaw Strzeminski, Polish followers of Male-
vich. Returned to Moscow, and from late 1921 worked
as a designer. In 1922 sent work to the First Russian Art
Exhibition {Erste russische Kunstausstellung), at the
Galerie van Diemen in Berlin. From 1925 to 1928
showed his abstract works at the first, second and
fourth OST exhibitions.

NIKOLAI ALEXANDROVICH LADOVSKY

Born Moscow, i88r; died Moscow, 1941.

From 1914 to 1917 attended the Moscow Institute of
Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. From 1919 to

1920 worked on experimental architectural projects
with a group of young architects including Konstantin
Melnikov. In 1919-1920 was a founding member of the
Commission of Painterly-Sculptural-Architectural
Synthesis (Zhivopisno-skulpturno-arkhitecturnyi sintez,
or Zhivskulptarkh). In 1920 helped found and then
taught at the Vhkutemas/Vkhutein; was a member of
the Inkhuk. In 1923 founded the "formalist" group of
new architects, ASNOVA. Designed monuments,
theaters and a metro station in Moscow.

ELLISSITZKY (LAZAR MARKOVICH
LISITSKY)

Born Polchinok, Smolensk Province, November 23,
1890; died Moscow, December 30, 1941.

Grew up in Vitebsk; attended technical high school in
Smolensk, the Technische Hochschule in Darmstadt

314

and in 1916 received a diploma in engineering and
architecture from Riga Technological University. In
1919 was invited by Marc Chagall, director of the
Vitebsk Art Institute, to become professor of graphics
and architecture. Later sided with Malevich; became a
member of Posnovis and Unovis. 1911 lectured in the
architecture department of the Vkhutemas in Moscow.
Exhibited a Proun and other works at the First Russian
Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstausstellung) , at the
Galerie van Diemen in Berlin and created his Proun
Room for the Great Berlin Art Exhibition (Grosse Ber-
liner Kunstausstellitng) of 1923. From 1925 to 1930
taught in the wood and metalwork department of the
Vkhutemas/Vkhutein in Moscow. In 1928 planned and
directed the installation of the Soviet Pavilion at the
International Press Exhibition ("Pressa") in Cologne.

KAZIMIR SEVERINOVICH MALEVICH

Born near Kiev, February 26, 1878; died Leningrad,
May 15, 1935.

Lived in Kursk from 1898 to 1901. Attended the Mos-
cow Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture
in 1903. In 1910 showed at the Jack of Diamonds
(Bubnovyi valet) exhibition and in 1912 at the Donkey's
Tail [Oslinyi khvost) exhibition. Associated with the
"Union of Youth" (Soiuz molodezhi) group and took
part in their exhibitions in 1911 to 1914 and in the
Target (Mishen) exhibition in Moscow in 1913. De-
signed the scenery for Alexei Kruchenykh and Mikhail
Matiushin's opera Victory Over the Sun (Pobeda nad
solntsem) in 1913. Exhibited in 0.10, December 1915,
Petrograd, in Tramivay V also in Petrograd, and in 1916
in The Store in Moscow. From the autumn of 1918 was
professor at the Svomas in Moscow and was active in
1ZO Narkompros. In 1919 wrote On New Systems in
Art (O novikh sistemakh v iskusstve), and in September
of that year began teaching at the Vitebsk Art Institute,
where, after philosophical disputes, soon replaced
Chagall as director. Organized the Unovis group, in-
cluding El Lissitzky, Vera Ermolaeva, Chashnik, Suetin
and Yudin. In 1919-1920 held a one-man show of 153
works in Moscow at the Sixteenth State Exhibition. In
1922 showed at the First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste
russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin. In Petrograd joined the new branch of the
Inkhuk formed by Tatlin. In 1927 traveled to Poland
for a one-man exhibition in Warsaw and to Germany,
where his work was shown in a separate section at the
Great Berlin Art Exhibition (Grosse Berliner Kunstaus-
stellung). In 1929 held a one-man show at the Tretiakov
Gallery in Moscow.

MIKHAIL VASILIEVICH MATIUSHIN

Born Nizhnii Novgorod, 1861; died Leningrad,
October 14, 1934.

From 1878 to 1881 attended the Moscow Conservatory

of Music and worked from 1881 to 1913 as a violinist
in the Court Orchestra in St. Petersburg. Studied at the
School of the Society for the Encouragement of the
Arts until 1898. Helped to found the "Union of Youth"
(Soiuz molodezhi). In 1910 contributed to the first vol-
ume of the Futurist almanac Trap for Judges (Sadok
sudei) and was the publisher of the second volume.
In 1913 collaborated with Kazimir Malevich, Alexei
Kruchenykh and Velimir Khlebnikov to publish The
Three (Troe) — under his own imprint — in memory of
his wife, Guro, who had died that year. Also wrote the
music for the Futurist opera Victory Over the Sun
(Pobeda nad solntsem), with libretto by Kruchenykh
and stage sets by Malevich. Published a number of
other books under his own imprint, including a trans-
lation of Du Cubisme by Albert Gleizes and Jean
Metzinger. From 1918 to 1922, at the Petrosvomas,
conducted a studio in "Spatial Realism" for his group,
known as "Zorved" (Zorkoe vedanie, See-Know).

KONSTANTIN KONSTANTINOVICH
MEDUNETSKY

Born Moscow, 1899; died ca. 1935.

In 1914 studied at the Stroganov Art Institute in Mos-
cow, specializing in stage design. In 1919 was a
founding member of the Obmokhu and contributed to
its first, second (1920) and third (1921) group exhibi-
tions. Became a member of the Inkhuk in 1920. In
January 1921, with the Stenbergs, organized an exhibi-
tion entitled The Constructivists of sixty-one nonutili-
tarian constructions at the Poets' Cafe in Moscow. Was
represented in the 1922 First Russian Art Exhibition
(Erste russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van
Diemen in Berlin. In 1924 worked with the Stenbergs on
stage sets for Alexandr Tairov's Kamernyi (Chamber)
Theater in Moscow. Also designed film posters. In 1925
sent work to the Exposition Internationale des Arts
Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris.

PETR VASILIEVICH MITURICH

Born St. Petersburg, September 12, 1887; died Moscow,
October 27, 1956.

From 1906 to 1909 attended the Kiev Art Institute.
During World War I was wounded at the front while
serving as a signalman for the Eleventh Siberian Divi-
sion, and in 1917, during the October Revolution, was
again wounded and discharged. Contributed to the
Exhibition of Painting: 191J (Vystavka zhivopisi 1915
god), in Moscow; the 1916 Exhibition of Contemporary
Russian Painting (Vystavka sovremennoi russoi zhivo-
pisi), in Petrograd; and the World of Art (Mir iskusstva
exhibitions from 1915 to 1918 in Petrograd. In 1922
contributed to the First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste
russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin. From 1923 was professor in the graphics and
architecture departments at the Vkhutemas.

315

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

ALEXEI ALEXEEVICH MORGUNOV

Born Moscow, 1884; died Moscow, February 1935.

In the early 1900s studied at the Stroganov Art Institute
in Moscow and at the private studios of Sergei Ivanov
and Konstantin Korovin. From 1904 to 1910 exhibited
at the Moscow Association of Artists, where he met
Malevich and Kliun. Joined the "Jack of Diamonds"
{Bubnovyi valet) group, and participated in its exhibi-
tions of 1910, 1913 and 1914. Also showed with the
"World of Art" (Mir iskusstva) group in 1911-12 in
Moscow and St. Petersburg. In 1912 contributed to the
Donkey's Tail {Oslinyi khvost) exhibition in Moscow;
participated in three Union of Youth (Soiuz molodezhi)
exhibitions in St. Petersburg, in 1911, 1912 and 1913-14.
In 1915 contributed to Tramway V in Petrograd and in
1916 to The Store in Moscow. From 1918 to 1920 was
professor of painting at the Svomas in Moscow. In
1918 was a member of IZO Narkompros. Exhibited at
the 1918-19 Fifth State Exhibition in Moscow.

SOLOMON BORISOVICH NIKRITIN

Born Chernigov, December 3, 1898; died Moscow,
December 3, 1965.

Graduated from the Kiev Art School in 1914. From 1917
to 1920 was a decorator for Revolutionary celebrations
for the city of Kiev. From 1920 to 1922 completed his
artistic education at the Vkhutemas in Moscow. In
1921, with Redko, Plaksin, Alexandr Tyshler, Sergei
Luchishkin and Alexandr Labas, organized the "Elec-
troorganism" group, which held an exhibition at the
Museum of Painterly Culture in Moscow in 1922. Sent
work to the First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste russische
Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin.
In 1923 formed the Projectionist group called "Metod"
(Method). Participated in the First Discussional Exhibi-
tion of the Associations of Active Revolutionary Art
in 1924 in Moscow, and signed the Projectionists' group
declaration in the catalogue.

MIKHAIL MATVEEVICH PLAKSIN

Born Shlisselburg, near St. Petersburg, May 15, 1898;
died Moscow, May 22, 1965.

Began his artistic training as a lithography student and
studied with Nikolai Roerich and Alexandr Yakovlev
at the School of the Society for the Encouragement of
the Arts in St. Petersburg. Under the influence of
Alexandr Labas, became interested in abstract art. In
Moscow from 1920 onward, studied at the Vkhutemas
in Robert Falk's studio. Was a member of the "Electro-
organism" group. Participated in the First Discussional
Exhibition of the Associations of Active Revolutionary
Art in Moscow in 1924, and signed the declaration of
the. Projectionists' group in the catalogue. Gradually
gave up painting and worked for the theater, on books,
and on setting up agricultural and printing exhibitions.
From 1920 on worked on inventions, including a color
movie camera and stereo projection systems.

LIUBOV SERGEEVNA POPOVA

Born near Moscow, April 24, 1889; died Moscow, May
25, 1924, of scarlet fever.

Studied in the private studios of Stanislav Zhukovsky
and Konstantin Yuon in Moscow. In 1912 worked in
the Moscow studio known as The Tower with Tatlin,
Viktor Bart and Kirill Zdanevich. That winter traveled
to Paris and worked in the studios of Le Fauconnier and
Metzinger with Udaltsova and other Russian artists.
Returned to Russia in 1913, and in 1914 again traveled
through Italy and France. Contributed to the 1914 and
1916 Jack of Diamonds (Bubnovyi valet) exhibitions in
Moscow, the 1915 Tramway V and 0.10 in Petrograd,
and The Store in Moscow, 1916. Participated in the
1918-19 Fifth State Exhibition and the 1919 Tenth State
Exhibition, both in Moscow. From 1918 taught at the
Svomas and Vkhutemas. From 1920 to 1923 was a
member of the Inkhuk. Participated in the 5 X 5 = 25
exhibition of 1921 in Moscow and contributed to the
First Russian Art Exhibition {Erste russische Kunstaus-
stellung), at the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin in 1922.

IVAN ALBERTOVICH PUNI (JEAN POUGNY)
Born Kuokkala, Finland (now Repino, Leningrad Dis-
trict), May 6, 1894; died Paris, November 26, 1956.

In 1910 left for Paris to attend the Academie Julien; also
traveled to Italy. In 1912 returned to St. Petersburg and
met Nikolai Kulbin, the Burliuk brothers and Malevich.
Married the artist Ksenia Boguslavskaia in 1913. Par-
ticipated in the 1912 and 1913-14 Union of Youth
(Soiuz molodezhi) exhibitions in St. Petersburg. In 1915
exhibited at Tramway V and organized 0,10 in Petro-
grad; released a Suprematist manifesto with Boguslav-
skaia, Malevich and Kliun. In January 1919 went with
Boguslavskaia to Vitebsk, where he taught at the Art
Institute at the invitation of Chagall. In the autumn of
1920, emigrated to Berlin. In 1922 showed at the First
Russian Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstaus-
stellung), at the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin; in 1924
settled in Paris.

KLIMENT NIKOLAEVICH REDKO

Born Kholm (now Khelm), Poland, September 15, 1897;
died Moscow, February 18, 1956.

In 1910 enrolled in the icon painting school at the
Kievo-Pechersk Monastery. From 1914 to 1915 attended
the School of the Society for the Encouragement of the
Arts in Petrograd. From 1918 to 1920 studied at the Kiev
Art School, and helped decorate the city for Revolution-
ary celebrations. Settled in Moscow in 1920. After a
short period of Suprematist work lasting until 1921,
was one of the initiators of the "Electroorganism"
group. In 1924 participated in the First Discussional
Exhibition of the Associations of Active Revolutionary
Art in Moscow. Had a one-man show in Moscow in
1926, and from 1927 to 1935 lived in Paris. Returned to
Moscow late in 1935 and turned to landscape painting.

316

ALEXANDR MIKHAILOVICH RODCHENKO

Born St. Petersburg, November 23, 1891; died Moscow,
December 3, 1956.

From 1910 to 1914 attended the Kazan Art School,
where he met Varvara Stepanova, whom he later mar-
ried. After graduation, entered the Stroganov Art Insti-
tute in Moscow. Participated in The Store in Moscow
in 1916. In 1918 painted Black on Black (Chernoe na
chernom) as a polemical response to Malevich's White
on White (Beloe na helom). Was active in IZO Nar-
kompros in the Subsection of Applied Art, headed by
Rozanova. Showed work in the 1919 Tenth State Ex-
hibition. Was a founding member of the Inkhuk in 1920
and, that same year, was one of the initiators (with
Kandinsky) of the creation of a network of art museums
throughout the country. Also became a professor at
the Vkhutemas/Vkhutein. In 1912 participated in the
First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstaus-
stellung), at the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin. From
1923 worked on the design and content of Lef and
Novyi Lef, contributing articles, photographs and
typography. In 1925 designed a workers' club, which
was exhibited in the Soviet Pavilion at the Exposition
Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et hidiistriels Mo-
dernes in Paris.

OLGA VLADIMIROVNA ROZANOVA

Born Malenki, Vladimir Province, 1886; died Moscow,
November 8, 1918, of diphtheria.

From 1904 to 1910 studied at the Bolshakov Art College
and Stroganov Art Institute in Moscow. Lived in St.
Petersburg from 1911 onward. By 1911 was one of the
most active members of the avant-garde art movement
in St. Petersburg. Was a member of the "Union of
Youth" {Soiuz molodezhi) group and contributed to its
exhibitions from 191 1 to 1914. Exhibited in all the
major avant-garde shows of 1915-16, including Tram-
way V, 0.10 of 1915 in Petrograd and The Store and
Jack of Diamonds {Bubnovyi valet) of 1916 in Mos-
cow. From 1916-17 member of the "Supremus" group.
In 1918 member of IZO Narkompros. With Rodchenko
was in charge of the Subsection of Applied Art of IZO
Narkompros and helped to organize Svomas in several
provincial towns. In 1919 a posthumous exhibition of
her work was held in Moscow. Her work was also ex-
hibited at the 1912 First Russian Art Exhibition {Erste
russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin.

SERGEI YAKOLEVICH SENKIN

Born Pekrovskoe-Stresknevo, near Moscow, 1894;
died Moscow, 1963.

In 1914-15 attended the Moscow Institute of Painting,
Sculpture and Architecture. In 1918-19 studied at
Malevich's studio at the Svomas in Moscow. Continued
his education at the Vkhutemas in 1920. From 1918 to
1922 was closely associated with Klucis and Lissitzky.

In 1922 his Suprematist works were shown at the As-
sociation of New Trends in Art (Obedinenie novykh
techenii v iskusstve) exhibition in Petrograd. From 1923
was a member of Lef and wrote an article with Klucis
for that journal entitled "Workshop of the Revolution."
In the 1920s and 1930s worked as a designer and made
extensive use of photomontage. In 1928, with Lissitzky,
made a large "photofresco" for the Soviet Pavilion at
the International Press Exhibition {"Pressa") in Cologne.

ANTONINA FEDOROVNA SOFRONOVA

Born Orel, March 14, 1892; died Moscow, May 14, 1966.

In 1913 entered Ilia Mashkov's private studio in Mos-
cow. Contributed to the 1917 World of Art (Mir
iskusstva) exhibition in Moscow. From 1920 to 1921
taught at the State Art Studios in Tver (now Kalinin).
Friend of Nikolai Tarabukin; returned to Moscow and
in 1923 designed the cover of Tarabukin's book From
the Easel to the Machine (Ot molberta k mashine). Did
illustrations for newspapers, journals and posters.

VLADIMIR AVGUSTOVICH STENBERG

Born Moscow, April 4, 1899; lives Moscow.

Born to a Swedish father and a Russian mother; worked
closely with his younger brother, Georgii (1900-1933).
From 1912 to 1917 studied at the Stroganov Art Insti-
tute in Moscow. From 1918 to 1919 attended the
Svomas in Moscow. He and his brother became mem-
bers of the Obmokhu and showed work in the second
Obmokhu group exhibition in May 1920; became
members of Inkhuk. As early as 1915 the brothers de-
signed stage sets and film posters. From 1922 to 1925
they also designed stage sets for Alexandr Tairov at the
Kamernyi (Chamber) Theater in Moscow. Exhibited
works at the 1922 First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste
russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin, and at the 1925 Exposition Internationale des
Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris. From
1929 to 1932 taught at the Architecture Construction
Institute in Moscow.

VARVARA FEDOROVNA STEPANOVA

Born Kaunas (Kovno), Lithuania, November 5, 1894;
died Moscow, May 20, 1958.

In 191 r studied at the Kazan Art School; there met
Alexandr Rodchenko, later her husband. In 1912 moved
to Moscow and studied under Ilia Mashkov and
Konstantin Yuon before entering the Stroganov Art
Institute in 1913. Showed work at the 1918-19 Fifth
State Exhibition and the 1919 Tenth State Exhibition
in Moscow. Also participated in the Exhibition of Four
(with Kandinsky, Rodchenko and Nikolai Sinezubov)
in 1920, and the 1922 First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste
russische Kunstausstellung), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin. Starting in 1918 associated with IZO Narkom-
pros and from 1920 to 1923 was a member of the
Inkhuk. In 1922 designed the costumes and sets for

317

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Alexandr Sukhovo-Kobylin's Death of Tarelkin (Smert
Tarelkina) under the direction of Vsevolod Meierkhold.
From 1923 to 1928 was associated with Maiakovsky's
Lef and Novyi Lef. Taught in the textile department
of the Vkhutemas from 1924 to 192.5. In 1925 partici-
pated in the Exposition Internationale des Arts Deco-
ratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris.

NIKOLAI MIKHAILOVICH TARABUKIN

Born Moscow, 1899; died Moscow, 1956.

Before 1918 studied at Moscow University, specializing
in history and philosophy. From 1920 was secretary of
the Inkhuk and took an active part in the debates on
Construction and Production art in the group, which
included Brik, Lissitzky, Rodchenko and Stepanova.
Wrote such theoretical works as For a Theory of Paint-
ing (Opyt teorii zhivopisi), and From the Easel to the
Machine (Or molberta k mashine), both published in
Moscow in 1923, and The Art of Today (Iskusstvo
dnia), published in Moscow in 1925.

VLADIMIR EVGRAFOVICH TATLIN

Born Moscow, December 12, 1885; died Moscow, May
3I.I953-

Son of an engineer; spent his childhood in Kharkov,
where he completed technical high school. 1902 went to
sea with the Russian Steamship and Trade Society as a
merchant seaman. In 1909 entered the Institute of
Painting, Sculpture and Architecture in Moscow; ex-
pelled. In the winter of 1911 organized a studio, The
Tower, in Moscow. From 1911 to 1914 participated in
all the Union of Youth {Soiuz molodezhi) exhibitions in
St. Petersburg. Took part in 1912 Donkey's Tail (Oslinyi
khvost) exhibition in Moscow. In 1913 traveled to
Berlin and later to Paris, where he visited Picasso's
studio and almost certainly saw Picasso's Cubist con-
structions. After returning to Russia began to work on
his own reliefs and counter-reliefs. In May 1914, in his
Moscow studio, held an exhibition of his first reliefs.
Lived in Moscow but spent long periods in Petrograd,
where a circle of young artists formed around him,
including Lev Bruni, Petr Miturich and the critic
Nikolai Punin. In 1915 participated in all the major
avant-garde shows, including Tramway V and 0.10 in
Petrograd. In 1916 organized The Store exhibition in
Moscow, in which Malevich participated, but showed
no Suprematist work. From the summer of 1918 headed
IZO Narkompros and in January of 1919 was ap-
pointed head of the Department of Painting at the
Moscow Svomas. From early 1919 to 1921 was an in-
structor in the Petrosvomas. In 1921 became head of
the Department of Sculpture at the restructured Acad-
emy of Arts in Petrograd. In 1922 showed work in the
First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste russische Kunstaus-
stellung), at the Galerie van Diemen in Berlin. Starting
in 1923 was involved with the Inkhuk and in 1924
helped to form the Petrograd Ginkhuk. In 1925 sent

work to the Exposition Internationale des Arts Deco-
ratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris. Taught the
"culture of materials" in the departments of wood and
metalwork at the Vkhutemas/Vkhutein.

NADEZHDA ANDREEVNA UDALTSOVA

Born Orel, 1886; died Moscow, 1961.
Beginning in 1905 studied at the Moscow Institute of
Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, and in 1906 at-
tended Konstantin Yuon's private art school. In the
winter of 1912, with Popova, visited the Paris studios of
Metzinger, Le Fauconnier and Segonzac. In 1913 in
Moscow worked in Tatlin's studio, The Tower. Par-
ticipated in the 1914 Jack of Diamonds (Bubnovyi valet)
exhibition in Moscow and in 19 15 in Tramivay V in
Petrograd. Also contributed to the 1915-16 0.10 in
Petrograd and The Store exhibition in Moscow, 1916.
From 19161 to 1917 was a member of the "Supremus"
group, and worked on the journal of the same name,
which never appeared. Worked in IZO Narkompros
and from 1918 onward taught at the Svomas in Mos-
cow—first as an assistant to Malevich and later as
a professor of painting. Member of the Inkhuk in
1920-21. From 1921 to 1934 taught at the Vkhutemas/
Vkhutein; met Drevin, whom she later married. In 1922
sent works to the First Russian Art Exhibition (Erste
russische Kunstausstellnng), at the Galerie van Diemen
in Berlin.

KONSTANTIN ALEXANDROVICH VIALOV

Born Moscow, April 6, 1900; lives Moscow.

From 1914 to 1917 attended the Stroganov Art Institute
in Moscow, specializing in textile design. From 1917 to
1923 studied in Moscow under Lentulov and Morgunov
at the Svomas, later at the Vkhutemas. In 1925 became
a member of OST and participated in its exhibitions
from 1925 to 1928. Worked as a stage designer, poster
designer and book illustrator. At the end of the 1920s
turned to painting simple landscapes.

318

Index of Artists in the Exhibition

Babichev, Alexei Vasilievich, pp. 13, 25, 27, 226-129
Bubnova, Varvara Dmitrievna, pp. 226-227, 230
Chashnik, Ilia Grigorevich, pp. 111, 164, 170
Chekrygin, Vasilii Nikolaevich, pp. 13, 14, 306
Drevin, Alexandr Davidovich, pp. 11, 227, 310
Ender, Boris Vladimirovich, pp. 13, 74, 75, 79-83
Ender, Ksenia Vladimirovna, pp. 13, 74, 75, 85-101
Ender, Mariia Vladimirovna, pp. 13, 74, 75, 102-107

Exter, Alexandra Alexandrovna, pp. 11, 12, 23, 15, 31,
2-56, 257, 290, 291

Filonov, Pavel Nikolaevich, pp. 10, 11, 70, 108, 109
Grinberg, Nikolai Ivanovich, pp. 74-75, 84

Guro, Elena (Eleonora Genrikhovna von
Notenberg),p. 78

Inkhuk Portfolio, pp. 15, 226-249

Ioganson, Karel, pp. 13, 25, 27, 32, 226-227, 2.31—2.33

Kliun, Ivan Vasilievich (Kliunkov), pp. 13, 14, 23, 25, 37,
42-44, 60-65, 111-137, 139, 144, 160, 226-227, 234, 235

Klucis, Gustav Gustavovich, pp. 13, 14, 24, 32, 175,
188-197, 207, 259-275

Korolev, Boris Danilovich, pp. 13, 27, 226-227, 236, 237

Kudriashev, Ivan Alexeevich, pp. 13, 160-163, 207,
305, 309

Ladovsky, Nikolai Alexandrovich, pp. 13, 226-227, 238

Lissitzky, El (Lazar Markovich Lisitsky), pp. 12, 71,
175-187

Malevich, Kazimir Severinovich, pp. 9-14, 23, 24, 37-41,
65, 67-69, 109, in, 139, 144, 160, 165-168, 175

Malevich School at Vitebsk, pp. 170-174

Matiushin, Mikhail Vasilievich, pp. 13, 14, 74-77, 109

Medunetsky, Konstantin Konstantinovich, pp. 13, 25,
26, 27, 32, 226-227, 239, 293

Miturich, Petr Vasilievich, p. 258

Morgunov, Alexei Alexeevich, pp. n, 16, 66, 68, 254

Nikritin, Solomon Borisovich, pp. 13, 14, 215, 305, 311

Plaksin, Mikhail Matveevich, pp. 13, 14, 305, 307

Popova, Liubov Sergeevna, pp. 12, 13, 14, 15-26, 31, 32,
46-59, in, 147-156, 216-223, 226-227, 240, 241, 256,
257, 276, 278-289, 292-300

Puni, Ivan Albertovich, pp. 72, 73

Redko, Kliment Nikolaevich, pp. 13, 14, 305, 308, 309

Rodchenko, Alexandr Mikhailovich, pp. 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 23-25, 27, 31, 32, in, 202-213, 226-227, 242, 243,
256, 257, 276, 288

Rozanova, Olga Vladimirovna, pp. 10, 12, 13, 14, 23,
68,124,138-145,234

Senkin, Sergei Yakolevich, pp. 13, 197

Sofronova Antonina Fedorovna, pp. 250-253

Stenberg, Vladimir Avgustovich, pp. 25, 26, 27, 32,
226-127, 244, 245, 259, 293, 298

Stepanova, Varvara Fedorovna, pp. 12, 25, 26, 31, 32,
214, 224-229, 246, 247, 256, 257, 276

Tarabukin, Nikolai Mikhailovich, pp. 11, 23, 30, 31,
226-227, 248, 250

Tatlin, Vladimir Evgrafovich, pp. 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23,
24, 27, 30, 32, 45-47, 109, 175, 199-201

Udaltsova, Nadezhda Andreevna, pp. 11, 16, 23, 157-
159,226-227,249,277

Vesnin, Alexandr Alexandrovich, pp. 31, 31, 256,

257,292

Vialov, Konstantin Alexandrovich, pp. 254, 255,
301-303

319

Photographic Credits

Works in the Exhibition

All photographs by Geoffrey Clements, Mary Donlon,
Robert E. Mates, and Stanislav Zemnokh with the ex-
ception of cat. no. 20: Rheinisches Bildarchiv, Cologne

Figures in the text

Courtesy John E. Bowlt: figs. 9, 10, 13

Courtesy Jean Chauvelin: fig. 11

Geoffrey Clements: figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7

Courtesy Galerie Gmurzynska, Cologne: fig. 16

Robert E. Mates and Mary Donlon: fig. 3

Courtesy Moderna Museet, Stockholm: fig. 17

Courtesy The Museum of Modern Art, New York:
fig. 14

Rheinisches Bildarchiv, Cologne: fig. 12

Courtesy Yale University Art Gallery: fig. 15

Stanislav Zemnokh: fig. 1

Supplementary Illustrations

Geoffrey Clements: fig. a, p. no; fig. b, p. 195; fig. a,
p. 222; fig. a, p. 230.

Courtesy George Costakis: fig. f, p. 47; fig. b, p. 61;
fig. a, p. 189; fig. b, p. 189; fig. a, p. 195; fig. a, p. 196;
fig. a, p. 298.

Courtesy Civico Gabinetto dei Disegni, Castello
Sforzesco, Milan: fig. e, p. 57

Courtesy Jean-Claude Marcade: fig. a, p. 61

Robert E. Mates and Mary Donlon: fig. b, p. 46

Courtesy Staatsgalerie Stuttgart: fig. a, p. 126

Stanislav Zemnokh: fig. c, p. 47; fig. a, p. 63

320

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Art of the avant-garde in Russia : selections from the George Costakis Collection"

See other formats