(google images)

The Moscow Metro was built in 1935 under the direction of the Stalin regime. It would come to be the first underground transportation system in the Soviet Union. According to a speech given by L.M. Kaganovich in 1935, the metro “goes far beyond the ordinary understanding of technical construction. Our metropolitan is a symbol [my emphasis] of the new socialist society currently being built . . . and operating upon bases utterly opposed to those upon which capitalist society has been constructed” (Ryklin, 262). From this contemporary assessment, a clear sense of symbolism can be derived from the building of the Moscow Metro.

The construction of the Moscow Metro was symbolic in itself, as Ryklin described that it had “conspiratorial nature” (263). Much of the actual construction of the metro was full of conspiracy, with the State lying or deceiving the public. This was seen when the state hid from the public that the metro had militaristic purposes. The state also portrayed to the public that it had built the metro entirely on its own accord, with zero aide from foreign countries, which turned out to be false (Ryklin, 263-264). I believe this conspiritual nature of the construction of the Moscow Metro is symbolism for the way Stalin’s regime operated during this time. We talked in class how Stalin is always portrayed in artwork as leaning forward in a military uniform, as a symbol for Soviet advancement. Thus, the Stalin regime gave the construction of the Moscow Metro more credit to the State then it actually deserved. Even though it was cutting edge for its time, the Soviets did receive foreign engineering aide, as well as mobilizing their entire society into constructing it, thus simultaneously putting other aspects of their society on hold during this time period.

The above Youtube video provided me several interesting images of the Moscow Metro which advanced my conceptualization of what it looked like soon after it was constructed.

(google images)

Factography, a Soviet art technique/concept, emerged in the 1920’s. This technique is a branch-off of the photomontage and incorporates many of the same characteristics as its predecessor. However, a major difference occurs from photomontage to factography in the sense that factography portrays a series of stories in a documentary-like fashion, but alters specific facts in order to convey a certain message. Sara Bailey characterizes factography as, “Because there was no room for fiction, no art for art’s sake, the communist regime created a series of stories, a collective mythology, out of pieces from the past using real people, real places, and real events, only shifting and spinning the facts behind each to reach a greater truth, a common understanding of reality” (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/journals/newriver/08Spring/bailey/Home.html).

From the concept of factography given above, it can be derived that reality is altered in some way through its usage. This is clearly seen when Alexander Rodchenko documented the construction of the White Seal Canal in 1931. He was employed by the communist regime to photograph the “heroic technological achievements of the Stalin government and to produce a volume of photographic record” (Buchloh, 117).  This act alone would not be considered factography, but Rodchenko made a moral (or unmoral depending on how you look at it) decision to not document the 100,000 plus workers who died during the construction of this massive canal.

Most likely, Rodchenko chose to not portray the construction of the White Sea Canal in its true and honest light because he was employed by the state and would have lost his job. As Buchloh puts it, “it is undoubtedly clear that at this time Rodchenko did not have any other choice than to comply with the interest of the State Publishing House if he wanted to maintain his role as an artist who participated actively in the construction of the new Soviet society” (117). I found it very interesting that he made this decision, as it must have been a very tough ethical/moral decision to make. I believe that more than his job was likely on the line, probably also his life at the hands of the Stalin regime if he chose to expose the inhuman conditions. Nonetheless, “his subsequent publications on the subject only project a grandiose vision of nature harnessed by technology and the criminal and hedonistic impulses of the prerevolutionary and counterrevolutionary personality mastered through the process of reeducation in the forced labor camps of the White Sea Canal” (Buchloh, 117).

Thus, Rodchenko used the technique of factography to obscure the decrepit and deadly work on the canal and simultaneously portrayed the technological/industrial progress of the Soviet Union during this time.

(google images)

(Google Images)

According to the Villalobos reading, faktura was a specific way in which materials were manipulated to create a work of art. Faktura’s focus was more on the emphasis of the actual means of production itself, and didn’t necessarily place a strong emphasis on the actual finished art form. Another interesting facet of faktura is that it can be interpreted in many ways depending on the artist or country. Focusing on Tatlin and Soviet Union interpretation, Tatlin believed that “materiological determination meant that the reliefs would not respond to a preconceived metaphor or subject matter – but it would neither mean that the gathering of materials was arbitrary. The reliefs would allow materials to speak for themselves” (Villalobos, 11).

Tatlin’s interpretation of faktura can be seen in several of his reliefs, such as his counter reliefs he created for “Zero Ten”. These pieces were described as achieving “a new level of material heterogeneity, as metal, wood and rope now incorporate in their dialogue the physical forces that act upon them. Mass is arranged in dialogue with the void. Furthermore, as faktura denoted a dynamic process of material handling, it is congruent for the work of art to be set into a state of physical strain. Suspended in equilibrium, the counter-reliefs become performances of faktura” (Villalobos, 16). Thus, it can be seen that Tatlin did not just throw materials together and proclaim it art, but instead he incorporated very particular materials together in way that hinted at their physical functions in real life.

Tatlin’s view of faktura can be seen vividly in many of his art pieces. However, rather than discuss his many reliefs and other art pieces that are already known for being examples for faktura, I believe that I can apply Tatlin’s definition of faktura to his largest constructivism project in his career, “Monument to the Third International”. I believe that the idea of Tatlin’s Tower in itself is a prime example of faktura, because it involves the manipulation of various materials on a very large scale. His tower was not “responding to a preconceived metaphor”, that being of traditional buildings of the time period. But instead it paved the way for the constructivism art movement, engineers, and architects as a new way of thinking. The fact that the tower was never finished also has an important element of faktura; not focusing on the final product. Although obviously most pieces of art do get finished, it is interesting that this massive monument was essentially a giant art piece that was so caught up in the methods and means of production, that it was never produced.

(Google Images)

Piss Christ

The Piss Christ was an art piece created by Andres Serrano in 1987. The artist took a cheap, plastic crucifix and submerged it into a glass of his own urine. Serrano then photographed the crucifix and provided the description of his urine and name “Piss Christ”. The public reception was mixed to say the least.

On one hand, Serrano received approximately $20,000 and was the winner of the “Southeastern Center for Contemporary Arts” award. Sister Beckett, a Catholic nun/art critic, stated in an interview that she didn’t think the piece of art was blasphemous. Instead, she thought that Piss Christ was a strong metaphor for what society has done to Christ and how society has come to think the values he represents.

On the negative side, the piece of art caused quite a bit of hate towards Serrano, to include death threats and negative emails/mail. Critics proclaimed that Serrano violated the separation between church and state because his piece of art was funded by the government. In 2011, Piss Christ was vandalized by Christian protestors beyond repair while it was on display in France and again in 2012 while it was on display in New York.

It is clear that Piss Christ is steeped in controversy and has many meanings. Personally, I think that it is disrespectful to the Christian faith because urine is a “waste” that is excreted by the human body. This to me stands as a metaphor as what contemporary society thinks about religion. Although I have these views, I do believe that Piss Christ is a form of art because the artist does manipulate his choice of medium (the crucifix) and transforms it into a series of ideas. It is also clear that Serrano uses multitudes of emotion during this creation, as well as creativity. So as controversial and disrespectful that Piss Christ might seem, society needs to realize that this is art and should stop trying to destroy it with hammers.

Below is a video on the overview of Piss Christ and how it was attacked in France.

Help Received: Wikipedia for general information, google images, youtube