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”