Early Soviet Art and Its Remarkable Figures

 Yağmur Dikener, 2021

New Planet, Konstantin Yuon - 1921 

The Soviet art has been a phenomenon that has been discussed and respected all over the globe where a majority of its artists are still recognised to be the prominent forerunners of the art today. Yet, the Soviet-era art does not necessarily connotate to the stereotypical idea of works of propaganda illustrating healthy, lively, colourful figures achieving great successes or living through their synthetic perfect lives. Instead the Soviet art can be marked by different periods, where art finds form in various ways according to the qualities of the Soviet leaders. Within such, our contextualisation of stereotypical Soviet images resides with especially the Stalinist era with increasing pressure on symbolic and cubic art; and an increasing support directed towards the ‘Soviet realism’. Yet to be able to present a realistic image of what Soviet art really is, it is a must to understand the complete picture including the forerunners in the early years of post-revolution whom have been strapped of their artistic title several decades later from being the commissioners of arts and heads of universities in the newly established Soviet Union. The following essay will try to grasp the prioritised artistic ideas prevailing through the early periods of Soviet Union, paying specific focus on some of the most preeminent artists.

            Since art is an organic phenomenon, it is not possible to strap it from its natural flow and timeline. In other words, to understand the early Soviet art in the post-revolution period, the first phenomenon that must be understood is pre-revolution Russian art scene where the artists we know as great Soviet artists were growing into their artistic styles.

            To being with, the pre-revolution era art scene can be marked with two distinct spheres: one being the leftist artists mainly producing Avant-garde, futuristic, abstract expressionist works, and the other being traditional artists grouped in several associations such as the Revolutionary Russian Artists Union.

            In the pre-revolution years, especially in the 1910s, the Russian art scene was marked by the Russian Avant-garde, the Miriskusstva, where Benois and other significant artists claimed that the industrial society was not aesthetic, thus the arts must resemble the Romantics, the folklore, and the 18^th century Rococo. With such, this brand of artists believed that their purpose was to save the world by beauty. What is ironic is that, nearly a decade later a direct opposite idea prevailed in Russia where the fascination with the industrial society is included in every element of the majority of art produced.

A prominent group in Russian Avant-grade were the Blue Rose Group which swept the art scene between 1906 to 1908 whom utilised colour as a tonal medium to create rhythm. What is especially significant about them was a member, Wassily Kandinsky whom had a name for himself both in the European and Russian art scene.  

            Another significant art wave under leftist Russian sphere was futurism which accepted Filippo Marinetti’s futurist manifesto where the past was deliberately rejected, and elements such as speed, machinery, violence, youth, industry, modernisation and cultural rejuvenation were celebrated. The Russian futurism prevailed with the works of Kazimir Malevich. Malevich, an artist we might know from his famous paintings of squares and rectangular shapes, believed that the arts have surpassed the need to reflect plain nature or forms of it. For him, it was impossible to capture the beauty of nature and artists are doomed to fail in such path, as nature constantly changed in form. Rather he believed that the artists must be in constant movement with the world and its discoveries since it was irrational to ignore the advancements in science and technology. Instead of ignorance, artists were rather to take active part in it. This viewpoint can be illustrated in one of his most famous work and the first recognised painting of Supremativism, ‘the black square’ or ‘the black cube’; which consists of a black square shape covering the majority of a white space. Although from afar the painting can be judged to be too simplistic, its significance lays in both its meaning and its place in the historical timeline of visual arts. For many of the art historians, this work marked the point zero of painting; where the idea for such painting is though to be arisen from the décor of Matyushin’s opera of ‘Victory Over the Sun’. Simply, this work showed individual’s active creative power in its passive form, reigning its victory over nature. Hence, in this painting, what emerged instead of a solar circle, was instead a square.

The Black Square, 1915, Kazimir Malevich

In the post-revolution period, Malevich stood as one of the forerunners for the Soviet art; taking part in many of the art scenes such as cubism. Yet, with Lenin’s death and Stalin coming to power, a major shift, very much similar to that of a paradigm shift, occurred; which cost Malevich many of his works and his academic position, with his art being confiscated and any future artwork being prevented by prohibitions. He was even jailed during this period in 1930 due to suspicions raised by his visits to Poland and Germany.

            Returning to our original path in pre-revolution Russian art, it can be said that Supremativism created under the leadership of Malevich consisted of many artists whom produced not only two-dimensional, but also three dimensional artworks. With the sole purpose of achieving beauty rather than practicality or usefulness, designs for tea sets, dishwashers and even skyscraper plans were produced. What was especially significant about Supremativism was about it coexisting with the art wave directly opposed to it, the Constructivism which focused on pure functionality. To express in material terms, if a dishwasher was to produced under Constructivism it was to be used, and if a building were to be designed it must be suitable for work and leisure.

Suprematist tea set. Designed in 1918, Kazimir Malevich

Moving on to the Abstract Expressionists, Kandinsky, a figure mentioned above under the Blue Rose Group reappears. Before his return to Russia in 1914, he founded the school ‘Phalange’ in Germany and greatly contributed to the European art scene. After his return, he emerged as one of the most prominent artists in terms of shaping the post-revolution art scene, with his efforts in founding the Soviet Art Culture museum under Lucharsky even though he left Soviet Union after a period of three years due to his spiritual position being alienated in the polemical materialism in Soviet society. By contextualising the Avant-garde atmosphere prevailing in Moscow, his works of demi-abstractionist, impressionist landscapes and romantic fantasies were said to be influenced from such art scene. In his technique and style, he focused on the geometric abstraction of individual elements, or in other words simplification. Likewise to supremativists, Kandinsky stood in opposition to the constructivists whom were critical of his art. Punin’s remark of ‘mutilated spiritism’ as a depiction of Kandinsky’s work were only one of such critics. Thus, his works were also under the attack of Stalinism and Soviet realism after a decade later, where the artworks were prohibited from being displayed in museums. Yet, after leaving for Europe in 1920 and later participating in the Bauhaus school and the Geralt principles; he became the Kandinsky he is today.

On white II, 1923, Wassily Kandinsky

Another significant wave that prevailed both in the pre-revolution and the post-revolution period was constructivism, an artistic and architectural philosophy that was brought about by Vladimir Tatlin and Alexander Rodchenko in 1915. This philosophy’s purpose was to depict and reflect the modern industrial society and urban area. It refused movement and aesthetical stylisation in favour of industrial materials. For Constructivism, the art was to serve practical and social purposes. Perhaps, the most famous of the Constructivist works is the ‘Tatlin tower’, a work which stands as the inspiration of many others today, one being the Georges Pompidou Centre in France. Tatlin’s tower was originally designed to be Cominterm’s, the Third International, headquarters and monument, and planned to be located in Petrograd, or with its current name Saint Petersburg. Yet, this architectural plan only stood as a sample, since even if that much lead was to be found; within the economic conditions, the housing crisis and the political turmoil of the newly established Soviet state, it would still be impossible to build the Tatlin’s tower. However, even if it was an impossible design in terms of resources, its significance stood in the essence of its design, the practicality and the symbolic nature. The purpose was to supersede Eiffel’s modernism. Hence, it was deemed by Shklovsky as “made from iron, glass and revolution”.

Tatlin's Tower, or the project for the Monument to the Third International, 1919-1920, Vladimir Tatlin

In the immediate art scene in the aftermath of 1917 Revolution, it is possible to recall three artists as forming the theoretical basis for the leftist art school: David Shterenberg, Aleksandr Drevin, and Wassily Kandinsky under InkHunk. Yet for the sake of context, only the association of InkHuk, the Institute of Artistic Culture, will be analysed since all three figures took part in such organisation. With the first director Kandinsky, the InkHuk was found in 1920 and remained active until 1924. For Shterenberg, who was the director of IZO at the time, InkHuk had the purpose of “determination of scientific hypotheses on matters of art”, where the area of research included three areas: research regarding the main elements in painting, sculpture, architecture, music and dance; the way different arts were connected by internal, organic and synthetic ways; and finally the Monumental Art which Kandinsky saw as the future of the art scene.

In Grey, 1919, Wassily Kandinsky

To summarise the leftist view in pre-revolution art scene and the early Soviet era, Nikolai Punin’s words can be utilised. “If the depiction of the world does aid cognition, then only at the very earliest stages of human development, after which it already becomes either a direct hindrance to the growth of art or a class-based interpretation of it. The element of depiction is already an element characteristic of a bourgeois understanding of art.”

On the other hand, the second great sphere marking early Soviet art were the traditional artists whom continued their realistic depictions of life and figures. Later by transforming into Soviet realism, the paintings done by artists of the traditional sphere mark the classical and popular imagery we know from the revolutionary era and the Soviet Union. One of such artists was Isaak Brodsky, a student of Repin, whom was a member of Revolutionary Russian Artists Union, whom we might know from the very famous depictions of Lenin whether it be him sitting in a room scribbling notes, or giving speeches to the masses. By depicting historical events such as the shooting of 26 Baku commissars, images of Stalin and landscapes: Brodsky became on the most known Russian artists.

Speech by Lenin before the Red Army, sent to Polish front May 5, 1920, Isaak Brodsky

Another significant artist was Boris Ioganson, whom painted works that are recognised to be one of the best examples of socialist realism. This was due to his creation of moral values of good and bad that can be grasped in seconds by just one stare at the figures. The works stood as symbols for heroic myths of the psychological battle between the proletariat and the ‘owner’.  Hence, his paintings focused on the duality of classes and their encounters. Even if one class resided within the painting, their opposition was without doubt since the moral nature of his figures resided in their class relations. Such can be understood from his painting of ‘Conspiracy of the Kulaks’ dating back to 1933, 1934. With the Stalinist era and the new paradigm shift in arts, he was an increasingly celebrated artist; thus even in the de-Stalinisation period his works continued to be masterpieces. Within such, in-between 1958-1962 he served as the head of USSR Arts Academy, and in-between 1965-1968 he served as the head of USSR Union of Artists.

Conspiracy of Kulaks, 1933-34, Boris Ioganson

A third and final artist can be recalled for understanding, although not a full one, the traditional artists whom are later to become the remarkable figures of socialist realism, a ‘nationally’ endorsed style of visual arts: Aleksandr Deineka, a painter of the belief in revolution and Soviet power which embarked a similarity between a poet friend of his, Mayakovsky whom also showed endorsement and love for the proletariat, and excitement towards physical strength and health. Thus, comes about the painting ‘Left March’ of Aleksandr Deineka inspired by Mayakovsky’s poem with the same name.

Left March, 1941, Alexander Deineka

What was so significant about Deineka was especially how his art styles transformed over the years including the ‘sniper art’ he painted which consisted of a very charachteristical use of color and movement illustrated in the dynamics of the proletariat; the scenes from warfare from his visit to Sivastopol in 1941, the famous mosaics at Mayakovskaya metro station, images of happy and healthy fisherwomen, depictions of sports and health, and finally imagery of Soviet successes. 

Mosaic on the Mayakovskaya Metro Station, 1938. Detail. Aleksandr Deineka

At the construction site of new workshops, 1926, Aleksandr Deineka

In the later years, the early voices of traditionalists transformed into the depictions of Soviet power and beauty under socialist realism, casting aside the abstract and expressionist nature held by the competing leftist sphere. Yet, what can be said is that both spheres left great remedies in the art scene and can be celebrated today as depictions of form and story.