The Combing of Art and Industry in the Soviet Union

Written By River Berry

After many years of being subjected to an oppressive power the Russian artists found a need to replace religious artwork with something more representative of the people of Russia. The turmoil of war left the Russian people calling for a sense of power and order. The Bolsheviks came to power in 1917 after Russian Revolution and Civil War. This soothed the peoples need for leadership, creating an era of reconstruction. This shift in governmental power lead artists away from easel painting and ‘pure art’ toward the idea of art as a representation of life. To rebuild the artists became concerned with mass culture and its origins in industry. Thus these artists sought for support within the industries of Russia; claiming that there was an inherent connection between art and industry. They wished to unite them in idealized plans for the inevitable future; creating plans for skyscrapers, rockets, and automation. Although the economic structure of Russia would not allow for the construction of such utopian plans the Constructivist artists still were determined to combine both industry and art. Factories and industrial institutions were still recovering from both the Russian Revolution and following Civil War, most production was at a third of what it had been previously. The artists still created plans that included an approach to working with materials as certain predetermined participants in this social and political transformation based on life in working within and around factories. This process of ideas can be known as the ‘Social Construction’ of Russia. The Constructivists’ focus on industry and mass production was a direct reaction to the end of the Russian Revolution and Civil War. This connection can be see through Tatlin’s monument The Third International. The artists were driven from the studio to factories to discover ways of mass production. These ideas lead to much experimentation in material, space, and objectivity. The newly instilled ideals of Marxism drove these artists to much in-depth discussion. Without the follow through of many of their plans, the constructivists focused rigorously on debate. Their most highly debated subject - artists role in the current society. 

These debates divided the artists into two groups: one lead by Malevich, Kandinsky, and Pevsner; the other lead by Tatlin Rochenko. Malevich and others focused more on art as a spiritual activity. They believed that their work was supposed to order mans vision of the world. Artists were also engineers and craftsman who constructed utilitarian designs. They saw art as useless, superfluous, unless it was to be functional in someway. Malevich specifically focused on industrial design and its dependence on abstract creation. This way of thinking and creating has come to be called Supermatistism not Constructivism, although many still were influenced by Constructivsim. This constructive tendency created much confusion in the early research of Russian Constructivism. The other group: Tatlin and Rodchenko focused their energy on artists as technicians. These are the artists who became known as Constructivists. They aimed to learn the materials of modern production for the benefit of the Proletariat. The Proletariat were a class of working class people in Russia. In an effort to please this group these artists created works that mimicked or symplozied their lives. Their motto, ‘Art into Life!’ Gave way to previous cultures and allowed artists to welcome the machine and utilitarian design. This idea created a subset of ideas center around ‘Objectism”, which insisted that objects were to be created with an intended utilitarian end or function. Countering this movement was Constructivism, which inevitably defeated ‘Objectism’, with the idea that ‘Objectism’ was simply too romantic and unachievable. 

Many artists found themselves unable to work in the very factories they had intended, creating yet another obstacle in their ideology of the combing of art and industry. Artists wished to created an entirely utilitarian object including their ow pleasing aesthetics, but all they found was their inability to understand the specialized machinery used by engineers. They were too reluctant to only apply their art to pre-made projects as was common for artists who worked in the factories. Although it Wass expressed as the Constructivists’ main goal to venture into factories as a means of creation, only very few actually did this. Only Tatlin, Stepanova, and Popova attempted to enact their role as artist-engineer into practice. Stepanova and Popova however applied this in the textile industry which made them more widely successful than Tatlin. This can be attributed to the ease of transition of artist to industry within the textile industry, as it does not differ as widely from applied decorative art. Although they were remotely successful in this branch of industry none of their works were ever mass produced, which was the true intention of all Constructivists. These artists attempted to enter other branches of industry as well. Even though there is no evidence to support the artists actually entering the factories as in the textile industry many Constructivists did design furniture and architecture. Rodchenko was at the forefront of Constructivist-esque interior design and furniture design, with his model for his own Workers’ Club. Models of this were exhibited in Paris in 1925 at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes. This club was intended to foster the ideas of the new Soviet man and provide a place to focus on the reeducation and total restructuring of the current society. Thus he designed the furniture to be representational of communist values. These values can be outlined in Lissitzky’s ‘The Artistic Pre-Requisites for the Standardization of Furniture’ of 1928. These ideas were simply that: 1. the pieces were honest, they did not represent themselves as something else 2. They are precise, so the eyes take them in as a whole 3. They are elementary and simple, without fantasy or richness 4. They are geometrical, their forms as a whole were made up of circles and lines 5. They are industrial, made by a mans hand by means of machine. Constructivism took traditional plastic arts and began to widely differ toward an industrial emphasis. Many artists believed that as an artist they must go into the factory with ideas of mass production, as this production was the way of the current world. The only way to represent life accurately was to emphasize the industrial world. This understanding of art and life was reinforced by the idea of factory as the real link between art and society. Since artists were unable enter the factories to mass produce their work they set their sights lower to more practical issues. A physical connection to the real lives of artists and people of Russia can be seen through striking photomontages and collages. These works compared to the completely utilitarian works of some Constructivists are seen as less ideal, but are still representational of the struggles of life under a strict governmental force. The Constructivists expanded into fields less affected by material shortages like typography, posters, and exhibition design. From this transition the term ‘Constructivist Graphic Design’. This area, because of its practicality became a primary focus for Constructivists even though it lacked some of the initial concepts of the group. The use of photography in these works allowed for a strong pull toward realism in an attempt to create popular Soviet art. The mechanical and objective nature of the photograph first seemed to align and promote the Constructivist theories, but ultimately it lead partially to the demise of the movement. The use of photography eventually eroded and became just another compromise the Constructivists took instead of their proposed reality and utilitarian beginnings. Theatrical design became another outlet for the Constructivist theories, using Soviet subject matter to create sets in many Russian theaters such as: Red Army Theater, the Theater of the Moscow Soviet, and the Theater of Lenin Komsomol.

In its later stages Constructivism split into two major parts; focus of smaller detailed oriented tasks like typography and another more technical examination of the world around them. Both of these paths continued into what is called Socialist Realism. At the end of constructionism the movement began to spread past Russia into other countries. While Constructivism did begin to influence other art movements it lacked the social and political value it possessed in Russia during the time of the Soviet Union. Other countries, with some accepting, only saw Constructivism for its inherent aesthetic value. Although Constructivism came to an end in Russia in the 1930s, it continued to make its way west and affect many artists there. Constructivism still lives on as contemporary inspiration for many artists. Although Europe had become first aquatinted with Constructivism in 1922 when the Erste Russische Kunstausstellung opened at the Van Diemen Gallery in Berlin. This exhibit captured the eyes of the German press and public. Constructivist theories were also spread to Germany when El Lissitzky immigrated there from Russia in 1921. These views of Constructivism began to morph and grow into purely aesthetic understands instead of the ideological theories Constructivism was actually based in. Outside of Germany, in Hungary, the Hungarians had just failed an attempt of revolution. This lead to the rise of progressive, socialist artists. Unlike other countries who drew inspiration from the Russian Constructivists, the Hungarians could understand the social climate the Russians were facing in the Soviet Union. In Paris in 1925 the West had the opportunity to see, for the first time, the theoretical, social, and economical ideologies of the Constructivists. Although this was greatly over shadowed by Bauhaus, the most innovative design and architectural hub. Much further in the future Constructivist approaches to space and material influenced American sculpture George Rickey. He used the non-utilitarian route to create contemporary sculptures with a Western understanding. 

Many artists across the world began to become inspired by this short-lived movement. Constructivism spread throughout Germany to Bauhaus and even as far as the Americas where it influenced artists working primarily in sculpture. The representation of art and industry created a new voice in its use of materials for purpose and aesthetic uses. Although this movement did not show influence in the later years of Russia, inspiration took hold in many other parts of the world. Many Constructivists artists created new ways to interpret the Constructivists ideologies. During the height of the Constructivists other offshoots influenced new different artists. The combined work from this short time period can be known as one of the best modern art movements in Russia. The rich body of work produced by these artists gives insight into the complex societal occurrences during the Soviet era of Russia. Wide variety of objects were created by the Constructivists from Theatrical sets to photomontage. There were many different interpretations on the concept of art as life and the artists as the engineer. The involvement of industry in the Constructivists work aligns closely with the affect of industry in many contemporary works. The Constructivists’ investigation into materials, and subject matter sets the apart from many other art movements. Such exploration reveals the individual revolutionary and social commitment of each artist. This personal commitment by each artist was necessary for a movement of such creative energy. These artists had endured many hardships throughout their time of creation. The political, social, and economic state of Russian before and after the Russian Revolution and Civil war allowed artists to reflect and protest the new and old. Although many outside countries did not see this social influence until much later they were still inspired by the sheer spacial force and design.