Vertov's The Man with a Movie Camera

Although I enjoyed the movie and how it depicted Soviet life, the article enabled me to appreciate the tedious editing techniques and how the variety of shots were composed as a whole. I think the film greatly succeeded in showing a particular rhythm of everyday life, where a great amount of energy was put into the production of goods with the help of mechanical devices. Vertov continuously reflected back onto the actual device of the camera to show that the film process and production was deeply connected to the machines and processes that he was filming.

I found that the film had a positive and inspirational viewpoint on the production cycle in the cities where Vertov showed the great social unity in everyday life. Even when the film transitioned into leisure activities, the same rapid high energy shots, portrayed the subjects in the film to be motivated and productive as when they were working.

Constructivism on film..

As I watched the video on Friday I was a bit confused as to what was going on and why. Some of the scenes seemed completely random at times and I wasn't sure where it was going. After reading the article I feel like I understand more of the direction in which Vertov was headed. I believe he was extremely successful in what he set out to achieve by using this new method of film editing. I'm not sure if I liked the film but considering the fact that I'm not really into movies, yet this one for some reason did not make me fall asleep I believe is a good thing.

Going back to the article, I like the comparison with Tatlin's Monument to the Third International and Complex Corner Relief. The author speaks of the "bridging of their separateness," speaking of the materials used in the relief, which is also valid for The Man with a Movie Camera in the way it brings the different industrial and daily tasks together into an interwoven pattern of daily life.

On a different note. I couldn't help noticing what Jae wrote about technique and message? I think he brings up a good point that might be worth looking at...

Art for the sake of Technique

This week’s reader has been the most difficult material to absorb so far. Perhaps it was because of its incessant references and comparison to other theorists, but it was difficult to follow the points the author was making. Having pointed that out, it seems to me that constructivists sound a lot like the formalists. They put great emphasis on the method of production, and such attitude is exemplified in Vertov’s “The Man with a Movie Camera.” Constructivist’s diligent effort to discover and master their technique is admirable. Evolution of movie film from a mere reproduction of the eye to something much greater is amazing. But all great achievements aside, question remains: is purpose of art to convey a message or to present a technique? Vertov’s work conveys a simple message very clearly through an extensive use of several advance film editing techniques. If the purpose of art is to present a technique, is art just something to be appreciated?

KINOEYE

The machine is a means by which we fulfill our desires to create. In the case of weaving, it was the demands of life (growth of population and raw material production, extension of commerce, accumulation of capital) that brought about the machine. It is not the machine that effected these changes but affects them. The focus is on the means of assembly, which finds resonance with the Suprematist and the Formalist. It is not about production but the process. Production should not govern the lives of individuals, without the individuals there would be no production. Human resources are the catalyst for any sort of industrial mechanization, in addressing our needs and wants we are the engine that drives change. The machine is a product of human ingenuity, forever endebted to our service, and yet it has put many people out of service. Production has come to govern the lives of men when it used to be our slave. The machine has staged a revolution of its own and appealed to the weak moralities of men, dividing us so that it may advance itself in the ranks of ownership. But in a revelation of the role of process and material we are liberated from the machine, exposing its sweet inner parts that we may enjoy it without ill consequence. The shell of the machine is hard and unyielding, but the structure is vulnerable to our manipulation and we break it down into its components. If we break it down into the processes by which it operates and assert our will there, then our intent controls the outcome of the product, which plays to our own desires: "its [product] a human social object created by man and destined for him." We are the master of puppets that pull the strings for our enjoyment. But we are not sadistic masters, we strive for the integration of all parts into a series of wholesome and complete experiences. We give the machine life and purpose, and in turn the machine gives us capabilities that enhance life. The invention of film-making as a device to capture motion and time has rendered new opportunities for social examination and betterment. The machine can assume implications beyond its immediate purpose with productions that were unforseen at its creation. Certain products were not created with intent, but we are fortunate for such accidents. The camera is also a device for revealing novel things, whether they be scientific, artistic, or philosophical.

The quest for unity

The Russian Constructivists of the 1920s based their principles on the Communist ideals, which had just arisen in the government at the time. There was the view that this new industrial, modern era was a breach between “two worlds.” The previous world was one of religion and traditions inherited from generation to generation, allowing no room for innovation nor freedom of thought. They presumed that the new world, in contrast, would release mankind into his fullest potential by destroying the fragmentation caused by labor classes, and unifying all activities and lifestyles under the theme of production for the equal benefit of society. Vertov’s “The Man with a Movie Camera” is a powerful tool in expressing this vision. The rhythm of the labor force corresponds to the rhythm of a musical masterpiece, as if the unity of all different fields and activities, with each individual playing their part, could create something like a symphony of production. The fact that all the shots are unscripted is important because of Vertov’s desire to bring out truth through cinema. The film shows all aspects of life, from a girl getting ready in the morning, to the fast-paced hands of those working in a factory, to the travel time between home and work. This goes along with unifying the domestic life with the labor force.

We all know that Communism didn’t work. But it definitely recognized and tried to mend a disconnect that is present today in American society. I was talking with some people the other night about the way our lives are so fragmented with various activities that many of us don’t have a place we can call home or a people we can call family. We may know the people we live with, but we don’t share life together, and we honestly don’t need each other to take care of ourselves; we dare not be dependent on others. We go from living space to school where we all have different schedules and personal agendas that don’t match up. We go from there to organizations or extracurricular events where we are so focused on getting our business done that we fail to truly know the people there on an intimate level. Is there any group we can truly call family? Is there any purpose that we truly pursue with others in unity? Within a single day, there is so much fragmentation within what we are accomplishing and who we are spending our time with that it can be confusing at the end of the day, thinking it over. There is definitely a need for unity within our lifestyles and equality of vision with fellow people.

Russian Constructivism in Film

The use of constructivist principles in film is quite fascinating from an artistic standpoint. The constructivists and the communist culture in general wanted to capture their new society on this new medium. Given the seeming obsession of Russian movements with novelty, this is no surprise. The use of a new medium, that has not yet expanded to even incorporate sound, would prove most efficient in explaining the novelty of their society. Expectations of the stereotypical older movie are not to be found here. Older movies in the United States seem to have amazing plots and seem to shy away from some of the production tricks. The Russian movies avoided the entire concept of a plot and characters. The entire movie was nothing but a combination of footage designed to illustrate a specific point. These montages are perhaps the clearest art pieces of the time period. The message behind the juxtaposed images was clear without written explanation. The images were selected with great intention and pieced together meticulously. The message of communism, daily life, and comparisons between seemingly dissimilar or opposite phenomena were all present and understandable.

One of the most surprising elements of these movies is the techniques of editing them. It did not seem like a particularly out of date movie based on the measures taken to create optical illusions. Many of the tricks used in these movies can be seen in TV shows and movies today. The idea of running a scene in reverse has been used by many producers to get a particular effect. The idea of the montage of images is how most movies are put together. The green screen shot are the best example of this technique in modern film. It is interesting that many of these techniques were so commonly used in Russia at such an early date, especially given the economic conditions of the country and the technological equipment available.

From an observer’s standpoint, it was fascinating to read an article about the seeming futuristic nature of many of their accomplishments. It is often difficult to remember how novel many of these ideas were at the time, which can lead to skepticism. The idea of the Monument to the Third International must have seemed extraordinary to the people at the time, whereas today most have seen revolving buildings and every building in Times Square is covered in giant screens. Ideologically, many of the principles of the time are deplorable, but the artistic ventures are interesting because of their clear ramifications in the modern world.

Movie Day

I'm not going to lie. At first I didn't understand the movie. Yeah, Nick did us a favor and explained some parts, but for the most part, I was just wondering what the hell was going on. I understood the whole premise and how it related to our readings, but as far as the movie goes, it wasn't anything that I particularly was interested in. I read over Vertov again and understood more about what he was trying to accomplish. I can actually see the parts of the movie and see what the idea behind that was. I think that as far as constructivism goes and as far as Vertov goes, the movie was very successful in its endeavors. Using film as a medium is a great way to see the basis of constructivism and how everything is taken out of context and a new one is made by it. I think that Moholy-Nagy and Epstein had as much to do with this idea as anyone. You don't really see reality through a film. If you were to go to the movies today, you wouldn't see normal, everyday events. I don't have an idea of how movies were back then, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't involve the happenings of normal people. Thinking about the movie and about the layout, sans soundtrack, well, not really since they implanted it into the movie, and the articles, I can say that I now have an appreciation for it. I really like seeing how these movements shaped things even now. I think they transcended generations, and it's nice to see how we react to them now.

The Man with a Movie Camera

The comparison of Tatlin and Vertov in their different mediums is very interesting. Tatlin’s Tower was grounded in the “technique of montage” and both the Tower and The Man with a Movie Camera insisted “upon the materiality of the object and its architectonics as determinant”. Again, the manner in which the art came about is the most important thing. Having read this article after watching the film, the ideas in the article just further emphasize Vertov’s reasoning and method. I feel I understood the film, but could see even more if I watched it again. The idea that film was not being used to its full potential is understandable and the manner in which Vertov wanted to treat film was truly innovative and revolutionary. Film used not to tell a story but to show what the eye does not see. Relearning how to look. So much can be uncovered if you just look at things differently or from a new perspective, and this type of filmmaking forces you to do so. What patterns can be found? What connections? Can the “terrible underside of things” be exposed, just by looking in a different fashion? Vertov’s attention to formal tension, chiaroscuro, relationships, movement, tempo, etc., reminds me of the Renaissance painting Fete Champetre by Giorgione that seems to have no relation to a biblical or classical story or any specific people, unlike most other paintings of the time, but is painted to capture the mood, rather than tell a story. The painting looks at their bodies, at the light, at the placement of the figures. Though Vertov and his contemporaries are trying to distance themselves with the past (Suprematists more than others) there are always roots in history. I feel that film can be pushed in Vertov’s direction even more. Imagine seeing a man’s face daily from birth to death in the span of five minutes, as proposed by Moholy-Nagy. There is so much that could be uncovered.

Constructivism in Film

Vertov’s The Man with the Movie Camera is richer in technique and is infused with more layers of meaning than Eisenstein’s narrative montages, but the ideas in his films also run the risk of not being understood at all. I am not advocating having something be directly understood as opposed to digging deeper into layers of meaning but merely stating that Vertov’s methods are not without its disadvantages. After all, the various ways in which he showcases technique can also be seen as an entertaining display of skill, which can overshadow the meaning behind the busyness of technique. After watching The Man with the Movie Camera and rereading Kino-Eye, I know that Vertov’s film can only become richer with repeated viewings, whereas with Eisentein, the initial reaction/emotions, however strong, will probably remain the same with repeated viewings. I don’t think one method is necessarily better than the other, but I think there are appropriate times to use one method as opposed to the other. I will also note that whatever the difference of opinion in technique, both Vertov and Eisentein were preoccupied with the social and political climate of the times. The techniques which they first experimented with to propound an ideal are now being used almost purely for entertainment purposes. It seems to be a common theme that revolutionary principles and techniques which were founded initially for such an elevated purpose have often become debased into something frivolous.
Having actually watched The Man with the Movie Camera definitely helped me understand better Vertov’s position on film and montage. However, it would also have been useful to watch even just a clip from something done by Eisentein. In order to better compare the differences between the two, I had to find extra information and images of films by Eisentein. I think the readers rely too heavily on words when the subject is often something pictorial. As architects, I think we would also appreciate images and other methods of communication besides words to help us better understand the ideas and principles which are often inadequately laid out in words, especially considering that most of us are not acquainted with most of the works mentioned or described in these texts.

Constructivism and Communism

An interesting theme I’ve realized about many of these articles is that they don’t necessarily talk about architecture in great detail. Rather, they focus on art and literary movements, sometimes even on political shifts. Perhaps architecture is simply the amalgamation of the themes in other creative outlets, built into a form that encompasses it all. That would seem to be what constructivism is. Constructivism incorporates so many aspects of design: material, formal dialogue, and unity. One cannot simply fulfill one of the goals of constructivism; all must be met to consider it a part of the movement. Ironically, I think it’s strange that constructivist thinkers attacked the western idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, a seemingly parallel theme. Instead, constructivism calls for a division between art and the real world, dividing the two because of how utilitarian life is and finding a new form and content in such is impossible. Constructivism calls for form and category to be separated.
The connection between constructivism and communism is unmistakable. Both call for a new social order, a reworking of preconceived ideas and break down of hierarchy. The movement also relates to the industrialization of the Soviet Union. As materials became a major production in cities, the art and literary worlds began to reflect the new division of labor between factory work in the city and agriculture in the country. The new art focused on the “newness” of industrialization, how it was bringing Russia out of the utilitarian past to the superfluous present.

Quotes:

“real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his connections”

“when the senses do thus become ‘directly theoretical in practice’” (on Kino-eye)

“to know more, one must first abandon the most evident certainties of established knowledge”

There must be more than this

The Formalists remind me of the Suprematists in that they have become frustrated with simplistic everyday life in conjunction with an almost meaningless art that follows traditions without asking any questions or striving toward innovations. When humanity gets stuck in this endless repetition, what used to be alive and awe-inspiring becomes dead and out of place, a misuse of the art that was remarkable in its own time. The Formalists see this happening in their world, and they become disgusted, and the idea of a new art is a vision to give their lives to. It is their method of attempting to achieve this end that differs from the Suprematists. While the Suprematists strove to create new form and matter by starting from nothing, the Formalists do it backwards, removing the content from that art/literature that exists, as if it were created from nothing. By doing this, they can discover the mechanism of the art and use the system to create an art for themselves.

I think the desire that struck the Suprematists and the Formalists exists within all of us. There comes a point in our lives when we are no longer children, accepting and enjoying life at face value, but we begin to search for something deeper than what we grew up with. We all long for a purpose, for a meaning, for something worth living for, for something worth striving to change or improve. If we can find the source of this freedom, we can then be “ransomed from the futile ways inherited from our forefathers,” and be released into something new, something living. It is not enough to simply survive, like animals following instinct, nor is it enough to simply submit to the status quo of our society, knowing that we will soon pass away and be remembered no more. It is written on our heart of hearts to have an impact on eternity.

The Formal Method I

I found Sklovskij's comparison of how one analyzes a piece of literature by its content or the "what" instead of the "how", to a new form of art where the artistic object is taken out of its traditional context, very intriguing. Because literature is so deeply rooted in context, people can always find information on the author or the subject matter in that particular period, yet Sklovskij's revolutionary idea of viewing an artifact or object from no context allows one to gain more insight to its artistic meaning. I think this idea can be executed successfully to some extent, yet people will always want to know the context behind a piece of art and eventually they will be able to find information on the object. Maybe viewing a piece for the very first time and allowing yourself to identify your immediate reactions from the piece is what Sklovskij is trying to establish with taking the artistic artifact out of context and into a space of its own.

In reading about the mechanistic Formalists idea to use this practice in literature where one strips away all traditional "storytelling" significance, does not seem like it would have a more successful effect than the artistic object. How can you read or analyze a piece of literature that really has no form but only a "relation of material values"?

Suprematism vs. Formalism

I find this art and literature movement interesting. To focus on something as if it had no context, to see it as a simply an object in space with out time or place is very difficult to perceive. It is interesting to see this movement when compared to Supermatism in that they look very alike in their clean lines and simple forms, but they imply completely different things, thereby resulting in similarly opposed art movements. Piet Mondrian is listed as both a formalist and part of the De Stijl movement in Germany. My question is whether or not formalism and De Stijl are related or even the same? Or perhaps Mondrian simply bridged the two movements successfully. Either way his use of primary colors is clearly formalist and the displacement of his piece (it is neither of this world nor apart from it) is as well. The search for the origin of a piece is another issue at the heart of formalism, or the search for the origin of the meaning behind a piece. This idea is closely related to the idea of letting the object exist on its own, outside of preconceived notions because the thought originated long ago in a vacuum, and it is this idea of creating something from nothingness that has pervaded both formalism and suprematism.

Is everything contradicting??????

So putting the whole formalist thing aside.. I would like to know what is the deal with theory and practicce? Why is it so complcated to follow ones own theory, rules, guidines? It came up in last weeks discussion and I saw it once more in this weeks reading. Theorists contradicting themselves in theory and pracitce. If one is going to go on and on about why or how something should or should not be then the least they can do is back it up. I'm not sure if it's just me or maybe I didnt understand the reading well enough but if I'm going to be reading about a movement, style or whatever it might be, I'd like to be able to read about and see a number of good physical representations of the style I'm reading about. I know there are actually examples of the works that resulted from these theories but I dont know.. I feel like once you set yourself up wit a certain set of principles you should stick to them and develop them.. Not act like you're developing them and go off in a completely different direction.

Aside from all that.. i felt like there was plenty of good thinking going on. I'm not too sure about the whole scientific method but I've never been big on science and technicality so I might just be a bit biased towards the whole craftmanship idea which is what im more familiar and supportive of.

Resurrection Through Obscenity

Writings of the Russian Formalists are full of pessimism about death and aspiration for revival. Successful as a literary movement, they sought to create very non-conventional art to shock and awaken the current art scene. Argument they make it convincing. People do get too used to things. We are too uninspired and uninterested as we pass our time in such banal environment, and it is in the peculiar that we take most interest in. Peculiarities inspire us to look closer and gain more understanding into our world. But having watched the most strange "Victory over the Sun," last Friday, I am some what skeptical of the Formalists. Behaviors, costumes, and speech of the actors were so alien that they completely stunned me. Perhaps the leap out of my comfort zone demanded by the play writers were just too great for me. Play was unintelligible and discomforting, and perhaps that was part what the Formalists set out to do, but they certainly failed at inspiring me to look closer.
As I tried to relate the Formalist writings into architecture, works of Peter Eisenman quickly came to my mind. It is impressive how disfigured his works are. And like the play "Victory over the Sun," many of Eisenman's works inspire nothing more than a wince from the audience. Maybe we only have ourselves to blame as we choose not to open up an encyclopedia. Even the most beloved works peculiarity, such as the works of Frank Gherie, inspire nothing more than a momentary joy. It is somewhat unfortunate. I found Eisenman houses very intriguing when I actually did look up the history behind them.

Formalism - What it meant to me

I was definitely impressed by the fact that Russian formalism sought to defend literature and criticism against contamination by other disciplines and attempted to discover and formulate specifically literary laws and methodologies. I’m all ears for their cause of keeping craftsmanship alive, which is especially valid for today’s generation of architects. Architecture students these days, including myself, are guilty of losing this valuable quality at the hands of gadgets like the laser cutter. Formalist writings make you realize the importance of craft for an architect, and throw light on a topic that has become a huge concern for studio professors!

The mechanical aspect of Formalist theorists also struck a strong chord with me. Architecture in today’s world is definitely heading towards a more mechanized approach, and Formalism was quick on recognizing that trend. On another note, though I agree with the somewhat scientific method for studying poetic language, I cannot vouch for their exclusion of traditional psychological and cultural-historical approaches. I strongly feel that machine and culture have a strong bonding, and separating one from the other is a crime, and the Formalists did not have the right to announce their presence with such claims.

Method Formal

Russian Formalism seems to coincide with the aim of Suprematism to reveal the hidden truths of our world. How "literature" pertains to "art" is haphazardly communicated by Viktor Sklovskij in his earliest desconstruction of literary theory. I think he is proposing how certain devices can give order to a chaotic superfluous of meanings (a concept that is familiar with us, how architectural elements impose order upon nature). By administering intention upon these variables they are shaped into a new form. For an example consider the musical composition of the Suprematist theatrical performance "Victory Over the Sun." In music, there are certain notes that should never follow other specific notes in a sequence because it would sound "bad", or discomforting, as I think we all experienced. But in making a sequence out of notes that should never be allowed in sequence, they are given form. Now think of these rejected notes as materials; that would have no significance if not for their equal and enthusiastic contribution to the creation of form. This treatment of material as nothing but an unavoidable means to an end deprives them of their natural, familiar characteristics, but then allows them to reconstruct and assume new identities and new meaning in the unique form that is created from their relationship to each other. This is the purpose of art.
Now the relation between Formalism (concerning literature) and Suprematism (concerning art) can be drawn more clearly. The classical interpretation in the study of literature is focused on reconstructing aspects of identifiable human cultures by revealing continuities in various pieces of literature. This approach is completely reliant upon chronological data, making literature inseperable from history, just as art is inseperable from nature. But, literature is not an account of history, just as art neither is nor should be an imitation of nature, because the attempt to capture something supreme by a lesser means than how it has naturally come to exist deprives that thing of its magnificance. So art remains as an end that has still yet to be clearly defined.
According to this doctrine, if art should not be used to imitate nature, nor literature used to communicate history, then theory should not be used to explain either of them, nor anything else. In what realm theory dwells, I do not know, but it seems to me like the instant we attempt to verbalize art, we have already lost sight of its true purpose, and moved away from the profound, metaphysical experience it creates. But if it weren't for theory, I would have never been able to understand the black square, nor Suprematism, nor been able to write what I am writing now. And yet, maybe we weren't meant to understand art, and there inlies its power to create; things are novel when we do not have an understanding of them. What Suprematism offers is this profound acknowledgement of this purpose of art, and if you can grasp it, then take it and move forward, and tomorrow we will spit on Suprematism, and everything else we know, just as Malevich had encouraged.

The Formal Method I September 18, 2008

In being too familiarized with our words and actions, we become complacent in life. The polite formality of asking someone how they are has become meaningless in some cases and is simply done out of habit. In “The Resurrection of the Word”, Schklovsky aspires to constantly keep the imagery of the word alive in part by knowing the root of the word and the connotations associated with it. In that way the word will become once more beautiful. I see the goal in “de-familiarizing” our everyday life and its objects as primarily a method to force us to think. In not thinking and questioning life becomes stagnant and “dead” versus moving and “alive”. The conflict arises in that by constantly questioning our actions and thoughts, we inevitably get confused or frustrated, and there is always the possibility of our losing our way. If in living we have to struggle through even the simplest of routines, then life is not a vehicle of enjoyment but instead becomes a hardship. I think for many the choice is simply to follow habits and instruction and try to garner enjoyment like vultures or mice scavenging for their meals.
I find the idea behind the method fascinating, but I think there is always the danger of forgetting the purpose behind the actions for these theorists; for example, the idea behind “shock value” for me means shocking people out of complacency. In introducing something completely different the masses will necessarily shy away from the unknown. However the hope is that they will not forget and eventually will have to think about it and question the validity of the introduced idea and their own opinions. Nowadays, however, when people say “shock value”, it seems as though they are only talking about the method itself and not about trying to change anything. Now the methodology itself has become familiarized and “non-shocking”, which discredits the idea behind it.
Still, people like Tatlin, who attempts disciplined approaches to creation, will always exist. It is important that their ideas and experimentations live on, because even if they themselves cannot bring a resolution to their work, someone else might. The importance of continuity has often been overshadowed by the need to do something new, but this need doesn’t arise out of simply a desire for new things but dissatisfaction with current situations. I think it’s incredibly important to distinguish the cause from the effect and that the cause should never be forgotten, because then the effect cannot be viewed as the end product but as only a possible solution.

How to create a new movement....

I think Formalism mirrors the state of Russia during the early 20th century. Much like the Suprematist and Futurist movement, Formalism takes it roots from wanting to change the way we view standard norms. Although it started as a literary movement, and not as an artistic movement, much like everything we've read so far, Formalism formed a very interesting method of thinking. I do like the way they were thinking at the time, in particular about returning to craftsmanship. I find it fascinating that they actually took the time to look through, pun intended, literary pieces. It feels like when you look at all the details and workings of a bulding and not at the end product. You start imagining what the process behind that is, how it led a person from point A to point B, and how they weren't worried about the end product, but about piecing things together and letting the end product be what it was. But then that might only be me.

Formalism: The Art of Criticism

Formalism was, at its core, a means of analyzing and critiquing the various types of artistic works produced at the time. It began as a literary movement, and it was from there that it established its basis for interacting with the remaining arts. Shklovsky, an important figure in the literary movement, stressed the idea that words have lost their meanings. With this point, it is easy to agree. Looking at the current usage of language, one rarely sees the origins of a word. It is actually quite fascinating to look in an etymological dictionary, simply because modern culture is so disconnected with the meanings of words. In fact, many words are misused so frequently that incorrect meanings become attributed to them. This would anger the Formalists even more than the issues of their day. They recommended that literature be analyzed for form and not for content, so that the quality of their literature would rise above a mere story. This has been embedded as the focus of modern literary analysis.

When translated to art, the ideas begin to break down a bit. The Formalists had a pure theory of literature that attempts to integrate itself into painting. The transition does not prove to be all that successful. They praise the same paintings as the Suprematists, only for different reasons. It is true that the works of Malevich are quite profound in their ability to capture the meaning behind painting, not just a work itself. But still, is this really an example of Suprematism and Formalism? Neither group was long-lived or especially organized. The Suprematists tended to migrate toward simple geometries. The Formalists became synonymous with abstraction, which is probably the only reason why so many works of different genres were adopted into the Formalist style. It appears to have been less than successful as a movement of art.

In architecture and industrial design, the movement found slight success through Tatlin. He at least produced the Monument to the Third International, which is very much a Formalist composition. It does not capture any essence of building, sculpture, monument, or object, but rather focuses on the purity of forms. The material, the vocabulary as it were, was used in a new manner, thus accomplishing the Formalist goals. These materials were combined in such a novel manner that no one has dared to construct the monument. At the scale of a model, the project was successful. However, the external conditions, especially the conditions of wind velocities, would not scale proportionately, which would make such a lightly constructed work very unstable at full scale.

In true communist form, Tatlin’s Studio rarely credited the creator of the object. This follows Formalism directly, as they did not believe in the artist or writer, but rather the movement to which the person belonged. This is possibly the most controversial. Is their theory correct? Are works of art and literature inevitable? If one artist does not make them, will another? It is hard to say. It is possible that if Malevich had not painted a Black Quadrilateral, then someone else would have. On the other hand, it is difficult to envision a complex literary work as being inevitable. In the end, it appears that detailed representational works, against which the Formalists fought, would not exist without the individual. Formalist works, on the other hand, could probably have existed without specific artists. They claim this makes their art more valuable, but additional thought and logic seem to contradict this principle.

maybe for public education

I appreciate that the Formalists were thinking artists. Their movement was not a unanimous decision, but rather a constant dialogue. It is fascinating to me that a country can experience the pain of insufficient government and the build up of a second revolution at so many levels, including literature, art and architecture. It makes perfect sense; these are mediums of expression - passive and instigative, reactionary and revolutionary. What I find so interesting is that they debated over technique! In the midst of world war and ground up social, political and economic change, theorists, writers and other artists literally put aside thought of their general well-being (food, work, etc.) to discuss the technique of criticizing poetry and literature. I wonder then if they had any larger aims than to specify methodology for studying (and creating?) literature. It might all seem ridiculously selfish if their intentions were purely academic. If they intended to develop public education, for example, then I might understand the justification for such debate.

"SUPREMATISM"

The passage by Kazimir Malevich entitled "From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism" most effectively communicates the ideology behind Suprematism. The traces of progressive thinking compose a dialect that can be sensibly followed and understood; offering an understanding that is further strengthened with the achievements and failures of Cubism and Futurism. However clear of an understanding is obtained after reading Malevich's passage, there are some cryptic, questionable ideas that might require further investigation.
Suprematism upholds a definition of art that is crucial in understanding the ideology, and simply put: art is creation. Creation occurs only in novel forms that are completely devoid of all references to nature (nature being everything composing our world and beyond). It is a rejection of everything we recognize at conscious and subconcious levels, thus something truly new; this is the goal of art. And now art proceeds with this exact purpose, assuming its own unique role in our lives and universe. This is the defining ideology behind Suprematism: that art exists as a unique expression defined by its purpose to create something new.
Consider the "Black Square on a White Background;" this is novel because it does not occur anywhere in nature. The replication of things in nature through artistic reproduction is offensive to both art and nature herself. The act of imitative painting already offends the subject matter by creating a form that is never as great as the original. Paint does not occur anywhere in nature, nor should it be used to express her forms. However, paint does dwell in the realm of art, where it is expressive of its purpose to create imagery. And still, it is not just imagery; in creating something novel, a painting assumes its own identity, it becomes an interactive piece of our world as introduced by the artist. This artwork by Malevich is possibly the most basic, but at the same time the most peotic, contribution to Suprematist work.
Nature is the mother of all things in existence, and Malevich is slightly inconsistent throughout the passage with his attitude towards her. In one statement he declares that art moves towards "domination over the forms of nature," but I would say more accurately "freedom from" the forms of nature. For art to exist as a real creation it must be truly novel, but nevertheless nature is undeniably present in everything in existence. For the sake of Suprematism, maybe her role is beyond comprehensive, or relevant, means, but it is because of nature that we can see in the first place, and think deeper thoughts about art and Suprematism. And for sake of architecture, it is perhaps the best means of expressing the ideals of Suprematism, for architecture is novel creation because it is a development upon nature with forms that have not been provided.

death of art?

I found this very difficult to comprehend. I don’t have the “artist” eye, so understanding what the Suprematists were saying with regard to the nuances of the depiction of reality vs. the need to change the form to reflect transformation are lost on me. However, there is one point that stuck out to me. It was the point that this new art was “trying to dislodge art from its dead position.” This infusion of life that Futurism, Cubism, and Primitivism is apparently what brought so much richness and passion back into the modern field of art. While I may not particularly care for Russian Avant-Garde, I can acknowledge that it is powerful in its interpretations and consequences.

As a side note, it was interesting to see the difference between the Russian versions of Futurism and Cubism vs. the Western European versions. They have somewhat parallel themes, but the Russian way is much different, almost bolder.

THE BLACK SQUARE

INTUITIVE FEELING DISCOVERED IN OBJECTS THE ENERGY OF DISSONANCE, A DISSONANCE OBTAINED FROM THE CONFRONTATION OF TWO CONSTRASTING FORMS

INTUITION IS A NEW REASON, CONSIOUSLY CREATING FORMS

THE SQUARE IS NOT A SUBCONSCIOUS FORM. IT IS THE CREATION OF INTUITIVE REASON. THE FACE OF NEW ART. THE SQUARE IS THE LIVING, REGAL INFANT. THE FIRST STEP OF PURE CREATION IN ART. BEFORE IT THERE WERE NAÏVE DISTORTIONS AND COPIES OF NATURE.

I can understand, respect and even relate to the ideas of the Suprematists, yet I can not say that Michelangelo, DaVinci, Rembrandt, etc. were not genius artists and did not create beautiful things. I am torn between my total understanding and acceptance of the Suprematist’s ideals and goals, and my other understanding and tendencies towards more humanist architecture/art. The notion of pure, instinctive design, that is released from most ties of the natural world is very alluring. Though ultimately rejecting communism, some communist ideas are present in their thoughts on creativity being universal and something to be experienced by all. The destruction of reality and need to move out of the material world is reminiscent of the transcendentalism of Thoreau, which I assume they were aware of due to their quotations of Walt Whitman. The Suprematists moved past the cubists and futurists with their use of color, understanding if scale, and abstraction to create “form out of nothing.”

"Reproduction cannot be art"

I found it very interesting how the Suprematists view on art was very avant-garde, progressive and modern, yet they couldn't allow themselves to accept historical precedents and the reinterpretation of nature and reality as acceptable art. They wanted art to start anew and throw out classicism and the renaissance. Malevich describes reproducing nature and the real world as not creating a new form but only copying what is already seen. He believes that one must break art down into the simple forms and express color, texture, movement and weight. He states that "the artist can be a creator only when the forms in his picture have nothing in common with nature". I agree with others below that the inspiration of even the simplest forms that Malevich writes of, comes from nature and one's own experiences. To exclude nature from affecting art seems like a very dangerous statement that is arguable.

That being said I do think the Suprematist movement had some very innovative ideas and creations of art and it has inspired a large portion of the modern movement. The idea of almost taking a step back from the reproduction of nature and reality and removing the subject and context is very progressive and thought provoking. Malevich writes that color and texture are of the greatest value in painterly creation...I think this new way of viewing art was certainly revolutionary and of great importance, yet their stubborness and strict ideals against art history and reproduction are damaging to their movement.

Inserting Art into a personal mold

Writings of the Russian Suprematists are certainly provocative and refreshing. They talk of “spitting” on the old, established academia of realism and “venturing” forth to the creation of new form. They advocate inventiveness and shun the portrait of nature as savagery. They seek to find and create the real art. Their challenge to the ancient form of “reproduction” art is very powerful. Indeed, there is nothing new introduced to us when we gaze into the mysterious smile of Mona Lisa. But nonetheless, Mona Lisa is captivating. It seems that the definition of Art is a main source of contention. Russian Suprematists define art as composition of pure forms and colors. It is something isolated from reality, an absolute invention, and the works of Renaissance masters are harshly criticized for their lack of inventiveness. Kazimir Malevich’s “Suprematist Composition” is the complete embodiment of this new art. Red, Yellow, Black, and Blue quadrangles float within a white canvas in the Suprematist Composition. In another work of Malevich, Black Quadrilateral, a single large, black square occupies the canvas. During a long stare at the works, mind wavers. Is this complex? Is this simple? Is it wonderful? Is it not? Poetries within the works are immense. One of the most difficult questions to answer is perhaps, is this richer than Mona Lisa? Today’s best cameras cannot capture all that is present in many great representational works of art. Suprematist’s definition of art is valid, but there are ways of defining art that respects the richness contained in Mona Lisa, David, or Madonna. Our ability of recognize art is the projection of our own inspiration. What I am most curious about is Suprematist’s reaction to the works of Van Gogh or Monet, where equal parts of nature and human inventiveness are so harmoniously present.

Who's doing the creating here?

The Suprematists pose an interesting question. Can something be created out of nothing? The tangible expression of this philosophical idea is expressed in Malevich’s painting of a colored square on a white background. It is as if the color did not derive from anything already made because it protrudes out of nothingness. It is in his mind is a new color, giving life to a new form. The Suprematists hold fast to this concept and run their entire lives around achieving it because it is more than an art to them; it is a worldview and a philosophy, a manifesto about the perfection of the modern age, a vision for the highest potential of humanity. They slander the artistic works of all previous generations with utmost contempt, and they proclaim the new art as far superior- as if there were a breech between the two worlds equal in the magnitude to that between a peasant and a feudal lord. It appears they are even arrogant about their arrogance. Their attitude in expressing the philosophy says something about the philosophy itself. It is an egotistical humanism that aims to crown humanity his own god, as well as god over all other forms of nature and art. Something can indeed be created out of nothing. That should be obvious as we observe the universe around us through science and ponder how it came into existence, how it began; for we know it had to have a beginning because it is aging over time. Thus, that should not even be a question. The question should be about the subject matter, rather than the verb. Who can create something out of nothing? And after this is answered, the question is, can one who is himself created, then in turn create something out of nothing? I think the answer is no. We as humans are limited in our creation to what has already been created. How can we claim to create a new color? The materials we use for that color, for that white background, are already before us, discovered to exist by us, and yes put into use creatively, but still we did not derive them out of nothing. And the new forms that we create are not the hierarchy. Their purpose is to serve the existing forms. Their purpose is to serve humanity, which the suprematists do recognize, and we must remember that humanity is creation. Architectural and artistic forms are given as gifts to our creative minds for the purpose of adding more beauty to that which is already beautiful. Lissitzky calls the new artist of his age the “omniscient, omnipotent, omnific constructor of the new world.” If he is omniscient, why did he not know that the age of suprematism, though leaving its mark, would come to its end along with the other movements of the time? If he is omnipotent, why did he not bring mankind to a point of supreme perfect rule? And if he is omnific, why did he not pop new materials and colors and objects out of thin air? The suprematist art is creative, but not omnific. It is new, but not free from evolution. It is progressive for architecture, but not the stimulus for perfection by any means. The exalted words of the Suprematists are brought low by the following era. Let us not make the same mistake in our claims.

I agree that it seems like the suprematists were trying too hard to distinguish themselves from others in creating a new form of art. It's almost like they were practically comdemning the older art forms such as the reinterpretations on the "savage" which was the beginning of art to begin with, or the classical artwork that used status and rank as a basis for composition. Malevich claims that all who reiterate nature is a thief while referring to earlier forms of art but he should not exclude himself because everything around us, everything we see, everything we experience is nature therefor these new creations must be inspired in some way by nature. He speaks of suprematism as a quick instinctive method of working but those instincts must be inspired by something. A bad feeling in ones gut doesn't just happen. There is usually a connection between the present situation and a former situation which results in that feeling of either caution, joy or in this situation the lively, colorful new form of art.

Suprematism = Super? Maybe not...

The Russian Suprematists definitely had a new vision towards art. Though the movement saw its roots dug into controversial grounds, Malevich's ideas were so audacious and novel that despite the initial distress and alarm, Suprematism quickly became a dominant style. Malevich's white square on a white ground embodied the movement's principles. As we can see, Malevich stresses almost endlessly that the name of the new style refers to the supremacy of pure feeling in art over art's objectivity. The simplest geometric forms -- a square, a triangle, a circle, and intersecting lines – composed into dynamic arrangements on the flat surface of the canvas or into spatial constructions (architektons) – are to express the sensation of speed, flight, and rhythm.

Suprematism, through its propagation by the Bauhaus, profoundly influenced the development of modern European art, architecture, and industrial design. The theory of abstraction was probably best realized through suprematism, and its ripples can be seen in the modern art of our times. In my opinion, suprematism and modern art share a streak of lightening that bolts through both these ideologies – they are almost indiscernible by the ordinary eye. By ordinary, I mean people like me, my family, my friends, and almost all the people I interact with. How do you expect me to know that a white square on a white background is a piece of art, and not a discoloration of the paper? And along the same lines, how are blobs of paint smacked on a canvas art, when the paintings give me vibes of a kid gone berserk with his paint brushes?

Suprematism, along with Cubism and Futurism, was successful in taking a peak into what the future had in store for the world of art. But I feel they tried too hard to differentiate themselves from other artists around the world. The idea of creating something from scratch is a strong one, but the mechanisms that they used were still the same as those that have existed for as long as one can remember. There is a very thin boundary between invention and innovation, and in fact, one cannot exist without the other. It is this delicate relationship that makes me dubious about the ideologies of the Suprematists.

short on suprematism

I am having a hard time buying it. As I understand, Suprematism is a movement based on nonobjective creativity that denies academic representation of the natural world and aestheticism in any form. I accept this. However, I cannot seem to get past two points: first that the Suprematists glorified themselves as creators of new form and new meaning. As I see it, they used geometric form and color, both of which were derivative from nature by their predecesors, to accomplish this. I understand that their ideas were in reaction, or revolution rather, to their environment, but I do not see the truth in it. How can something completely new, without any relationship to the already created world, be made by humans of this world? The amount of ego required for this way of thinking astounds me. Secondly, it seems that so many of these artists aimed to turn away from creating art solely for the art community, yet I do not think that the common person could obtain any higher meaning or somehow elevate themselves by interacting with Suprematist work. The theory behind all of it is so far removed from our natural, daily experience that I do not see the work as successful by it’s own goals.

Suprematism and everything after...

I understand suprematism. I understand the meaning behing suprematism. I even understand how supematism evolved, especially in the changing landscape that was Russia. However, I do not understand why this "new" art form should replace every other art form. No, it does not follow the tenents of classical art. And it does not follow nature. It does not even take into account any of the past artists who indulged in the canons of natural beauty. But it does bring about the concept of intuition. It breaks apart the molds of renaissance art and contorts them into new art. And sets the standards for the modern movement. It does what we have done in the span of our existence, it evolved. Suprematism created an art based on our subconscious; it was based on nothing more than our gut feeling, leaving out any influences coming from the outside. It spat on the faces of scholars. The movement was born out of revolution and it was very radical, as well as influential. But to try to disconnect themselves from the established norms or art is ludicrous. The suprematists, and everything in between, were, ironically, born from that classical art. In expressing their dislike for classical art, they revolutionized a new movement and a new way of thinking. So, shouldn't they be thanking them for that? Because radical ideas are born and bred from rising against the establishment. But if not for the establishment, where would radical ideas come from? How would they be developed? In a sense, we have to look back at other forms of art to see how that same art shaped the future and the ideals of people at the time. Ironically, it allows us to understand them better.

Contradictions in Russian Suprematism

Russian suprematism was a radical separation in thinking and producing art, but with the aid of hindsight some of its ideas seem contradictory. The Russian suprematists believed that the purpose of art is to create. They thought that nothing can truly be created if it represents an object. For this reason, they chose to separate their art entirely from all representative forms. While it is true that representative forms appear simple on the surface, not all of them are as shallow as the suprematists claim. Many of these works of art are subtle; rather than being overwhelming statements of an idea, they state something in a much more obscured way. Of course, there are many representative works that are simply meant to represent the object. In that case, while it may be too extreme to declare this as something other than art, it certainly is not adding very much to the overall communication between artists. The suprematists clearly believed in communicating their ideas through abstract forms. These works of art are probably less intelligible to the average viewer, but for the educated art aficionado, they will have much more meaning. The main problem with this type of art, and building, is that one has to be familiar with the theories to get much out of it. Malevich may have created a Russian masterpiece with white on white, but if I had not read the reasons why he chose to paint this quadrilateral, I would not have understood. This may be more radical and creative, but it does not necessarily communicate to the individual.

Moreover, the suprematists are clearly attempting to liberate their ideas from all of the types of styles that have come before, insisting that they are not practicing a style. This follows the same logic as every time period – no architect or artist will admit being part of a movement, but if lots of artists are all trying to accomplish the same goal with the same principles, they have just established a movement. One of the ideas of liberation relates to color. They felt that using representative colors for objects, even when highly abstracted, was limiting the potential of a work. By breaking down this expectation, they felt that they could achieve a higher state of meaning. I find it strange that any work so abstract would be held back because the color could be perceived as representing sky or ground. As far as the experimentation with brighter colors, it may have been liberating in a sense, but it does not appear to be used in many important works. They were more concerned with breaking down preconceptions of all kinds, and this is highly evident in their manifestos. They spend so much time describing how paintings such as The Englishman in Moscow break down preconceptions by using alternate materials. In this case, a spoon was glued on the canvas. Does this really change the field of art? They began to blend two-dimensional and three-dimensional works together, and this may have resulted in new, more profound works.

Finally, given that most of these theorists quickly returned to representational painting by about 1930, this was a very short-lived means of thinking. It had profound impacts on future movements, probably because the theories are so fascinating. Also, the results, at least those described here, seem to come short of the full potential that the ideas offer. There is always room for breaking down preconceived notions; every time a notion is broken down, new ideas are put in place. The thoughts contained here are a great basis for any new set of theories. All someone has to say is that they want to break down preconceptions, and then they can reference the Russian cubofuturists, constructivists, and suprematists.

I feel that this means of defending abstraction, at least for them, had to do with their need to defend their own way of life as well. With the rise of communism, they believed that they were living in the radical experiment that would change the world. It is only natural for their art to reflect this. They called for something more human, living in an environment that they believed would benefit the common man. They called for an end to academic works of art and a return to intuition. This makes sense in a society obsessed with the communist vision of the worker, as the common man would be much more likely to have intuition than an academic understanding of art. The discrepancy seems to exist because their art is in fact academic; in many ways, it is less comprehensible to the common man than a representational painting. Without an education, I can understand that I am looking at a painting of an individual or a bridge. It is much harder to understand why a painter chose to paint a black quadrilateral that is just short of being square (Black Quadrilateral by Malevich). Therefore, I think the theories are interesting, but the works presented in defense of the theories do not seem any more justifiable as artistic than any other movement of art history.

Prologue: Suprematism

Week of September 7, 2008

In his advocating Suprematism as the only art, communism as a new form of government, and even the stream of consciousness writing style as a new way of thought, El Lissitzky seems desperate to not only find a new world for art but also seeks for a fundamental change in the way we live. In his writings he expresses a desperate desire for a severe and complete disassociation with the world of the past and to start anew. Yet near the end of his “Suprematism in World Reconstruction, 1920”, he writes that the way to this new world is to free the people from the “shackles” which bound them, thereby allowing them to discover that which has been suppressed. Does he think then the way to a new world is through rediscovery of a lost self?
I see no contradiction in the sentiment of creating something new by using buried potential, but El Lissitzky’s words suggest a much greater revolution, a more complete and disorienting break with the past. The Renaissance was a rediscovery of lost knowledge, but El Lissitzky considers those ideals untrue and insincere. His revolutionary words seem to suggest a greater solution than that which he offers at the end, because what he offers is an old idea. The idea of human potential and its possibilities is not new, and neither are the ideas of progress, of evolution, and even of revolution. The Suprematists, the Cubists, and the Futurists all seek new forms in order to create a new world, but according to the Suprematists, the other two cannot succeed because they are still bound by conventions. I see the Suprematists as also being bound by the limitations of this world. No matter how much El Lissitzky may attempt to modify his writing and grammar, how will anyone else but he understand his writings if he truly creates a hitherto unknown writing? In order to communicate ideas to others, we have to use known conventions. We often understand through analogy and comparison, so any new knowledge will necessarily be based on past knowledge.
Can El Lissitzky’s ideas be valid even if he communicates them by a method of the past? I cannot fully accept his ideas while these problems exist; I can only try to understand it by what I know, which I am certain will not be fully what El Lissitzky is trying to convey. If each individual is truly the product of his or her times, and there are no absolute rights or wrongs, then I believe that El Lissitzky’s absolutes and often intolerance for other ideas are results of the turmoil and uncertainty of his times, and that I can never truly agree with his ideas.