El Lissitzsky, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge, 1919
Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:05

October 1917: The Spark For Great Art

Published in Visual Arts

Christine Lindey explains how the 1917 Russian Revolution inspired the transformation of the visual arts into instruments of popular liberation.

“In the land of the Soviets every kitchen maid must be able to rule the state,” said Lenin and the arts were an intrinsic part of the Bolshevik revolution’s attempt to achieve this momentous step forward. But it was no mean task. For a population — 80 per cent of whom were illiterate — serfdom, abolished in 1862-4, was still within living memory. And it was by expressing the revolution’s aims through imagination, emotion, humour and joy, that the arts opened the people’s minds and boosted their self-confidence to seize power.

How best to do this was hotly debated. Rejecting unique works of art as self-indulgent bourgeois commodities, some artists heeded the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky’s dictum that “the streets are our brushes, the squares our palettes.” Turning to agit-prop — agitation and propaganda — they created ephemeral posters and street pageants and decorations to educate and enthuse support for the revolution. Thus in 1920 artists including Nathan Altman organised the ambitious re-enactment of the storming of the Winter Palace, involving decorated buildings, factory sirens and 2,000 Petrograd proletarians. Perhaps a few kitchen maids were among them.

CL Natan Altmans proletarian futurism

Nathan Altman's proletarian futurism

Trains were transformed into “moving posters,” with vivid images and slogans painted on them, and were filled with travelling theatre companies, film shows, books and literacy classes to bring socialism to the countryside. Such actions were possible because the worker state became patron of the arts. Recognising the importance of culture, Anatoly Lunacharsky, Minister for Enlightenment, immediately revolutionised cultural institutions.

CL Anatoly Lunacharsky 1923

Anatoly Lunacharsky

The arts would now serve the people, not the aristocracy or bourgeoisie.The art market was abolished, museums nationalised and their contents reorganised and reinterpreted from a working class perspective. Two radical artists ­— washerwoman’s son Alexander Rodchenko and bourgeois ex-lawyer Wassily Kandinsky — jointly founded 22 new museums and purchased contemporary art for the young state. Museums worldwide still envy these collections.

The 19th-century progressive intelligentsia had already challenged tsarist Russia’s near mediaeval socio-political conditions and their expression through equally polarised aesthetics. The aristocracy favoured Western academic art as a mark of their superior sophistication, while denigrating their serfs’ woodcut prints (luboks), icons, carvings and embroideries as “crude” and “primitive.” But the early avant garde upturned these aesthetic criteria. Arguing that photography liberated them from academic art’s fussy illusionism, they were inspired by the flat shapes, bold colours and outlines through which folk art succinctly expressed visible and inner worlds.

CL Apsit

The Resolute Brothers, by Alexander Apsit, showing the gigantic proletarian clubbing Czar Nicholas II and his allies

So lubok-inspired revolutionary posters, illustrations and textiles appeared after 1917, energising peasants and workers by affirming their own, hitherto denigrated, cultural traditions. But artists also embraced the social progress promised by industrialisation and the surge in the recent technological inventions — film, recorded sound, telephones, flying machines and motor cars. Their forms and functions symbolised the speed, dynamism and energy of modernity and of the revolution.

As art education was reorganised, the Marxist Vladimir Tatlin headed the innovatory VKhUTEMAS, the technical workshops in a Moscow art school which influenced the globally influential German craft and fine art Bauhaus movement from 1919 to 1931 and beyond. Inspired by the machine age, VKhUTEMAS dispensed with traditional art to investigate forms, spatial organisation, materials and processes as a basis for producing cheap mass-produced goods, accessible to all. Rejecting the bourgeois concept of the artist as individual male genius, they defined themselves as classless, self-effacing “constructivists,” collectively constructing the revolution alongside other workers, regardless of gender.

CL stepanova textile designs

Varvara Stepanova’s textile designs

Lyubov Popova’s transportable theatre, Rodchenko’s posters and Varvara Stepanova’s textiles shared the abstracted forms of modernity — the circles of factory cogs and wheels, electricity’s lightning zig-zags or the soaring grace of flying machines. At Vitebsk Art Academy Kazimir Malevich founded UNOVIS, a group in which students and teachers collaborated in explorations of the essence of form and volume to create futuristic architectural models as prototypes to inspire designers, engineers and architects. And they did.

Marc Chagall, painter of poetic evocations of Jewish village life and art commissar of his native province, founded the Vitebsk academy during the revolution and Lunacharsky’s pluralist aesthetic policies enabled Malevich, pioneer of geometric abstraction, to teach in the same academy. Similarly Alexander Deineka, who argued for realist paintings to represent the revolution and workers’ lives, taught in the same Moscow institution as Tatlin, renowned for his soaring design for a monument to the Third International (1919-20).

CL Tatlins Tower 1919

Tatlin's Tower, 1919

During the hardships of war communism (1917-22) artists concentrated on speculative research but some of these reached fruition afterwards. Kitchen maids sported dresses printed with modernist motifs celebrating technology and socialism. Buildings such as Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Communal House of 1930, incorporated communal facilities such as laundries, dining halls, kitchens and reading rooms.

Inspired by UNOVIS, its horizontal banded windows sweep across the facade, providing maximum light and air, behind wide, heated corridors in which tenants could interact. Together with parallel developments in the other arts, the visual arts made real differences to people’s lives. In the coming centenary year of the 1917 revolution, numerous exhibitions will repeat the neoliberal mantra “great art, shame about the politics,” perpetuated since the 1920s.

In fact, it was great politics which generated such a blossoming of the arts.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star on 31 December 2016.

Content, Form and Universality
Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:05

Content, Form and Universality

Published in Fiction

Paul Simon introduces some book reviews.

Lenin was clear as to the purpose of literature. He saw it as the cogs and wheels of the revolutionary cause. Dismissing bourgeois concepts of the ‘’absolute freedom’’ of the writer, literature only has value to the socialist when it is directly connected to the liberation struggles of the working class. As he said in Party Organisation and Party Literature 'one cannot live in society and be free from society. The freedom of the bourgeois writer, artist or actress is simply masked (or hypocritically masked) dependence on the money-bag, on corruption, on prostitution'.

Building on this clear sense of purpose, Anatoli Lunacharsky, the Soviet Union’s first Commissar of Education, outlined the role of the socialist critic in evaluating literature. In his Theses on the Problems of Marxist Criticism, he states 'everything that aids the development and victory of the proletariat is good; everything that harms it is evil'.

Lunacharsky identifies three key criteria that upon which the socialist reviewer should focus his or her efforts: content, form and universality. Obviously the material facts of our present world are quite different to those of 1928 when the Theses were written. Although the prospects for a wider working class revolution were uncertain by then, socialist means of production, distribution exchange and thought were being consolidated in the Soviet Union itself.

In the twenty first century, the over-arching dominance of capitalism and its myriad tools of control – the rise of e-publishing notwithstanding - mean that the role of the socialist reviewer is arguably more of a defensive rather than an offensive one in reminding readers of the prospect of a better society and possible steps towards it in his or her writings. Therefore, in my approach to literary criticism for the Morning Star, I have somewhat concentrated on a select number of basic questions within each of Lunacharsky’s criteria:

· Content: does the book expose the real nature of society or does it deal with marginal and trivial matters? Does it empower and inspire or immiserate and confuse the working class reader as regards collectivist action?
· Form: does the form naturally and effectively support the content or does it detract from it? If the form is innovative, to what extent do its innovations reflect a working class perspective?
· Universality: regardless of differential cultural references, does the work demonstrate the existence of similar realities for readers irrespective of their backgrounds or does it merely exaggerate differences? Does the work appeal equally to different types of workers or does it differentiate between them and so fragment its appeal?

Lunacharsky also – rightly – warns against the socialist reviewer getting above him or herself. Reviewers should not be cast as the sole arbiters of the correct response to a novel or short story. That is why I am thrilled at the existence of this section of this website, which allows a more collectivist evaluation of contemporary literature. I hope you enjoy my reviews, and I look forward to reading yours.