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.