Within the Russian Avant-Garde era of artistic explosion, two artists particularly stand out. Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin provided monumental innovation in their art works. Although both were bitter rivals in essence, there is an overlapping similarity between them that when observed at a closer look exposes an interesting subject. Prior to the novel ideas and art work of Malevich and Tatlin, the art that was making waves in the Avant-Garde scene were concepts such as Futurism and Cubism. The artists that founded and represented these ideas were receiving attention all over the world, especially in Europe. But concerning Tatlin and Malevich, one of these ideas drew a particular interest and thus inspired each artist to construct their respective new ideas. However, given the difference in artistic outlook it was clear that Cubism’s influence on each artist was channeled differently as well. However, Vladimir Tatlin’s constructivist Reliefs and Counter Reliefs incorporated Cubist influence into the aesthetic and basic concepts while Kazimir Malevich’s Suprematism Painting: Aeroplane Flying were inspired by cubism to contradict its principles in a pursuit of a more cosmically proportional meaning.
Cubism was developed around 1908 to 1912 in Europe[1]. Suprematism and Constructivism were developed around the same time, shortly after Cubism had reached its height of notoriety. Malevich created the idea of Suprematism in 1913 and the art work was introduced to fame when it entered a German exhibition in Berlin in 1922[2]. Vladimir Tatlin’s first constructivist art work was displayed in an exhibition around 1914[3]. So as this timeline of artistic emergence points out, the network of Avant-Garde artists in Europe and Russia was closely linked. Several Cubist artists and writers played an integral role in both introducing and influencing both men to the concepts of Cubism.
When observing each work of art, there are certain distinctions as well as contradictions in the implications Malevich and Tatlin had on art in relation to space. If you observe Corner Counter Relief, Vladimir Tatlin, 1915 (Figure 1) The materials comprising the installation are suspended, this immediately implies a defining message about the material’s relationship with space. In juxtaposition with Suprematist Painting: Aeroplane Flying, Kazimir Malevich, 1915 (Figure 2) you can notice how the colored geometric shapes are painted on an entirely white background with no perceived frame. This whiteness surrounding the objects is Malevich’s method of depicting a “weightlessness,” in which actual cosmic space would be the reality[4]. Cubism had many novel concepts concerning art and paintings but one medium in which it focused heavily on was space and how it played into the art and objects within the art. It is in the broadest sense of this emphasis on space in the artwork that Malevich and Tatlin are similar. Each artist set out, in these respective pieces, to achieve an idiosyncratic view on space’s impact in the art as a tool, or medium, or even support.
In Tatlin’s piece in Figure 1, the shape, type, and positioning, of each material holds great meaning in terms of the essence of the counter-relief perspective. It is obvious, although the picture of this installation may be in black and white, that most of the materials are metals of some sort. Metal is highly malleable as well as durable and after being shaped or bent can maintain its new form. Notice also how there is no real order amongst the materials, each piece of sheet metal or wire seems to be randomly connected, touching each other from random angles. It is also difficult therefore to find a point of convergence where the art ends or one material begins and another ends. It is similar to the balancing trick where you can take a random assortment of kitchen utensils or objects with no congruity and have them balance, i.e. two forks balancing on a glass cup with no adhesive or stabilizing agent, they seem to exert enough force at the right angle to where they reach equilibrium. Malevich’s painting from Figure 2 is comprised of a much different relationship between the materials and the space. Even though the painting is called Aeroplane Flying there is no apparent resemblance to an actual airplane; there are several different colored sets of square or rectangular blocks in close proximity to one another with no apparent connection between them apart from close proximity between them which immediately contradicts Tatlin’s piece. Tension and force of not just the materials is absent but of gravity itself, the figures seem to be floating as if drifting in outer space. However, the comparison can be made that the action, whether it be action of or inaction of, the objects of focus (the blocks in Malevich’s painting & the metal sheets/wire/string in Tatlin’s installation) contains the meaning of the art work and what it’s trying to accomplish.
The weightlessness of the objects depicted in Malevich’s painting in Figure 2 is of the utmost significance. This absence of gravitational force signifies the need to move beyond the earth and its objects. Malevich, although these ideas were not fully formed at first, believed in the “exit” of not objects in general, but objects of this world[5]. This notion of wanting to be break free and leave the necessity of objects for art to convey its meaning was influenced by the Cubist idea of focusing on ordinary and well known objects and essentially breaking them up into unidentifiable pieces of images which were jumbled. Although Malevich was inspired by the notion of countering the notion of previous art work, to him, Cubism still represented a connection with earthly objects which he believed belittled what art should embody. But Tatlin took certain Cubist principles and ran with it using a constructivist outlet with installations instead of paintings. Instead of contradicting Cubist principles, Tatlin carried over the Cubist concept of this focus on materials speaking for the art work. It was the basis for what Faktura artists like Tatlin called “material dialogue or material heterogeneity,” or a way of letting the materials speak for themselves[6].
The next significant difference between Malevich’s Suprematism and Tatlin’s Counter-Relief work dealt with the previously discussed concept of special relations. In Figure 1, the materials and the space possess an inherent relationship that forms the basis for Tatlin’s constructivist counter reliefs. The removal of a wooden board from Tatlin’s Relief contructions and the change of placement to the corner for the Counter Reliefs indicates his intentions for the spatial relationship between the material and the void. This is seen in when observing Painterly Relief, Vladimir Tatlin, 1914 in Figure 3 while juxtaposed to Figure 1; Figure 3 shows Tatlin’s installation with the wood and metal is centered on a wall with a wooden frame behind it, supporting it. Tatlin wished to remove the frame out of the picture for the sake of altering the space by taking the frame which became part of the art itself and now allowing the material tension to occupy a pace which itself supports the art work[7]. Now, Malevich in Figure 2 had a completely different take on how the space should be perceived. Similarly, with his insertion of the all white background with no visible boarders that construct a limit that was indeed about deleting a frame. However, Malevich wished for this to be evident as to cut any connection with objects in general or even any gravitational force or tension. That free floating illusion represents the Suprematist belief that cosmic space is the “supreme” concept encompassing all else. The divergence from cubism in each of these works is evident however, Tatlin’s intention can actually even be thought of as an evolution of cubism still maintaining some of its foundations while Malevich’s intention goes so vastly beyond what cubism entailed it contradicts its very nature.
The Soviet Avant-Garde has bred an era of creativity, innovation, and revolutionary artistic thinking. These novel ideas concern art from all different types and styles. But when an analysis of where this inspiration comes from, cubism is clearly woven into the fabric of these new concepts and ideas. Two artists who were at the forefront of the Soviet Avant-Garde, Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin, were no exception to this trend. However, each artists used their cubist influence in different ways. Malevich clearly viewed cubism, while holding its concept of challenging the notion of all previous art as admirable, as contrast. Cubism to Malevich, however forward its concepts were in the art world, was still confined by earthly “objectness,” and he sought to breach this notion and take art into the realm of the cosmos where it ultimately should be. Tatlin, while still incorporating his own creative constructivist spin, was much more in touch with cubism’s influence, using many of its ideas and styles even in his later Counter-Reliefs. But at the end of the day, cubism must be recognized as a vital icon in the world of progressive art which seeks to defy tradition and push the limits of its existence.
Art Work Index
Figure 1. Corner Counter Relief. Vladmir Tatlin, 1915 (Exhibition: Zero-Ten, The Last Futurist Exhibition Painting in Dobychina Gallery in St. Petersburg).
Figure 2. Suprematist Painting: Aeroplane Flying. Kazimir Malevich, 1915 (oil on canvas).
Figure 3. Painterly Relief. Vladimir Tatlin, 1914
[1] http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/cubism.html
[2] Kazimir Malevich, The Non-Objective World: The Manifesto of Suprematism (Courier Corporation, 2003), 7-8.
[3] Gabriel Villalobos, A New Palpable World: The Counter Reliefs of Vladimir Tatlin (Harvard University, 2012), 4-5.
[4] E.F. Kovtun and Charlotte Douglass, Kazimir Malevich (Art Journal. Vol. 41, No.3, The Russian Avant-Garde, Autumn, 1981), 236.
[5] Kazimir Malevich, 235.
[6] A New Palpable World: The Counter Reliefs of Vladimir Tatlin, 16.
[7] A New Palpable World: The Counter Reliefs of Vladimir Tatlin, 16.