To watch with chapters “1914,” (the Tatlin section), “1921b” and “1933.”
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
July 2 REVOLUTION
8 thoughts on “July 2 REVOLUTION”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The there’s two themes that had to do with revolution, one being constructivism, it was heavily used during 1921, the main reason being how people were trying to move away from communism by making works of art to connect more to the people rather than the world. The first monument by Vladimir Tatiln is a great example of this, it doesn’t seem to represent something, it was used to express it instead, he used abstract as well to express the idea, seeing that artwork can be used to make a creative concept than just making something simple and plain. If we just make everything simple we can’t really tell our story from the outside. Now going to Vladimir Tatiln’s idea there’s a lot of stuff happening in the concept, one of them being that there’s a lot of holes in the concept showing the creativity behind the idea. The way that these holes showcase the idea of multiple different things that can happen and yet they still connect with each other is fascinating to me because it makes sense that they have to do it in the same space as the concept. The most interesting aspect of the work was how it was going to be able to rotate in different speeds to a specific time, I feel like it was supposed to represent the same speed that was handled during the revolution, maybe some certain time periods where it went a bit slow but when it managed to become a big movement it paced faster. As for the rotation I feel like it was also to show multiple people witnessing the revolution, not just for the state but for other countries around the world, newspapers were a bigger factor as television wasn’t invented yet. So places had to get their sources via newspapers or radios. It’s not just a coincidence but rather to showcase the massive influence from the revolution which is why Vladimir wanted to make it in the first place. The revolution was something so influential to him which is why Vladimir wanted to create the building.
Continuing with the themes, the last one being abstraction, abstraction is likely influenced by the Vladimir tower model as well. Considering that abstraction had also become a huge influence as well to the revolution during the time, an example being Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a staircase No. 2, 1912, where as the title implies, depicts a woman descending a staircase, you may not see it at first but when looking closely you can find the many signs that a woman is descending down from the stairs you need to really see carefully to find the vision. I think this is also what Vladimir wanted to do as well, make people look at the tower closely to understand the vision behind it. Even despite it never being built it has become a good model to put a piece of influence history into.
Your analysis of Tatlin’s Tower is exceptional, and your comparisons are rather surprising and interesting. I like how you related the constant need for revolution to the rotation of the building, suggesting that it reflects the change in the pace of revolution and serves as a reminder of revolutionary ideas before the invention of modern media such as television. I liked your personal reaction to the sculpture with the words ‘holes’ referring to possibilities and connections.
Hii Ahtziri
I like your Tatlin’s tower was not made to look like a normal building. The open spaces, metal parts, and moving sections make it feel like a model for a new kind of society.
Vladimir Tatlin’s Selection of Materials: Iron, Stucco, Glass, Asphalt, dating back to 1914, is a pivotal work in the development of abstract painting and Constructivism. This lost or destroyed piece was among Tatlin’s earliest “painterly reliefs,” representing his break with the conventional understanding of painting as merely pictorial.
A Revelation in Paris
After his debut as a painter, Tatlin entered Pablo Picasso’s Parisian studio for the first time in 1913. There, he was deeply impressed by Picasso’s constructions made up of found objects and was eager to create something similar. Nevertheless, while Picasso’s Cubist constructions depicted recognizable objects rendered in a non-traditional manner, Tatlin’s “sculptures” gave new meaning to the term “still life” by presenting abstract compositions made of various materials, such as iron, stucco, glass, and asphalt, as stated in the work’s title.
A Materialistic Statement
The very title of Selection of Materials: Iron, Stucco, Glass, Asphalt suggests that this work was more than just another experiment. In fact, it was the beginning of Tatlin’s desire to move away from the traditional approach to painting, where the artist’s role is to render objects realistically. The new direction called for a complete rethinking of the relationships between subject and medium; hence the inclusion of diverse materials, each speaking for itself through its natural textures and “faktura” (artist’s technique). Indeed, Tatlin wrote that his art sought to achieve a “purely technical mastery and organisation of materials” to reach a “congruent dialogue.” This marked the first break with centuries of the art being overwhelmingly figurative.
The First Step Toward Counter-Reliefs
Tatlin’s 1914 construction was the first work in his so-called counter-reliefs series, which continued through 1915. He progressively moved away from the traditional picture frame, making his works “float” at an angle. In effect, he created the first “sculpture without a pedestal,” short in supply but groundbreaking in its implications. It could be said that Tatlin liberated art from two things at once: the picture frame and the pedestal.
Anchors of Constructivism
The lost construction was at the forefront of a radical artistic movement. It pointed the way toward future Constructivism practice and theory, as well as the movement’s main themes and motifs. In particular, Selecton of Materials’ abstract and materialistic approach can be seen as a complete break with the traditional, academically informed understanding of art. Furthermore, by placing the artwork in the spatial context of a room and eliminating the idea of art as something separate and aloof, Tatlin rejected art’s dependence on the capitalist system of exploitation. In a way, Selection of Materials: Iron, Stucco, Glass, Asphalt was the first work to convey the spirit of the age, which was soon to see the emergence of the Soviet Union, with its distinctive Constructivist take on the social role of art.
Where to start? Uhh…constructivism. To be honest, I don’t completely understand the movement. Or really, it’s hard not to think about it on a grand scale…art as a whole. It was mentioned in the lecture, but it overlaps heavily with the ideas of other movements like Dada, and it’s getting a little harder to differentiate the priorities of these movements. But I should probably keep it in the context of the Russian Revolution. However, I’m still going to share my thoughts at certain points through the lesson.
For starters, I’ll start by bringing up Alexei Gan’s statement on Constructivism. Specifically, his conception of these artists in this new revolutionary state needing to be productive, and their art having to transition to a constructive approach in this new society. Now, before going into the examples, I was under the impression that constructivism would be more centered on the artists in these revolutions, used to improve the architecture of society… crafting unique designs for functional things like a chair or bed. Then, the Incorporation of political and cultural agendas on a larger metaphorical canvas. For example, buildings. And as far as the mix of materials being used in functional ways, and whatnot…I assumed they would introduce a movement similar to Art Deco.
So, considering all the other developments that were happening in the art world during this period, that’s honestly what confuses me about constructivism. As far as being a spectator of the movement. When I saw Tatlin’s “Selection of Materials” from 1914, I was immediately disappointed. I don’t know if it’s a bad take, but I don’t see how a lot of these works, like in “The Obmuku”, provide much to the production of this new society. There’s a clear limit on the functional side of these works in comparison to some of the other developments in the world I mentioned.
However, I feel productivism captures the ideas of constructivism more prominently. While I dont agree with Rodchenko’s conceptual intention of his “Pure Red Color, etc.,” and this “ending of art,” I think the advertising approach he took with Vladimir is more on the nose of what constructivism should have been. It can be one person making it, at times. You can mix materials if you want. You can make it political. It’s flexible in nature. A poster/advertisement is meant to entice the viewer, and it can be used as a revolutionary—let’s say foundation. So that’s serving a function. For example, the Sphere dome in Vegas comes to mind.
But, it’s a shame productivism didn’t really take off for Rodchenko because if I’m not mistaken, the posters and advertisements were a booming success in America around this time after the Industrial Revolution. ( I’m not 100% sure about the timeline)
I actually thought the same thing when I first thought of constructivism. I thought it was going to be more about functional design rather than political ideas and art that captured societal views. I was leaning more towards architectural styles developed in Europe and how it progressed throughout time.
In this lecture, I think art can become very different when society is going through a major political change. Revolution is not only about changing a government. It can also change how people think about work, class, technology, public space, and the purpose of art. In this lecture, I think artists were asking whether art should stay inside museums and private homes, or if it should become part of everyday life.
One idea that interested me was the connection between art and materials. Tatlin’s work is a good example. His constructions used materials like wood, metal, glass, and wire. These materials were not hidden. They were important parts of the artwork. Instead of making a sculpture that looked like a person or an animal, Tatlin showed the material itself. I think this connects to revolution because it rejects old ideas of art as something expensive, decorative, or only made for wealthy people.
Tatlin’s work also makes me think about technology. At first, machines and industrial materials may seem cold. But in Constructivism, they could also represent a new future. Artists wanted to build something new instead of only looking back at the past. The artwork could feel like a model, a structure, or even a design for a new society. This is different from older art because it does not only focus on beauty. It also focuses on function, construction, and collective life.
At the same time, I think there is a difficult question. Can art really help create social change? Art can give people new ideas, but it cannot solve every problem by itself. A sculpture, poster, or mural may inspire people, but real political change also depends on workers, laws, money, power, and public action. So I think revolutionary art can be powerful, but it also has limits.
The lecture also made me think about public art and murals. A mural can reach people who do not usually go to museums. It can tell stories about workers, history, poverty, and struggle in a large public space. This makes art feel more connected to daily life. But public art can also become political propaganda if it only shows one side or supports people in power without allowing criticism.
Revolution
When I think of revolution, I think of change. I mostly associate it with war in a sense of rebellion. After going through the lecture. I have to say, I look at revolution a bit differently. I’m looking at it in a progressive way. I’m a believer that things in life should serve a purpose and have a function. Whether it’s through a means of communication or helping our daily lives in a technological way, function and purpose were two of the elements that were pivotal in Russian Avant-garde. The first thing that struck out to me was how artists were taking existing elements (iron, aluminum, wire, etc) art mediums and then using them to experiment.
Rodchenko’s Oval Hanging Construction No.12 from 1920 was a good example of how function and design meet. Visually, it looks a bit perplexing. When I first saw it, I was reminded of an atom. The ability to look at it from different angles and be able to move different parts gives it depth, but also plays with perspective. Perspective is a huge term in Constructivism, because it’s supposed to help us view things in a different and more modern like way. If you look at the composition of Rodchenko’s oval, it’s composed of different circular shapes. However, when you play around with the layering, sizing and positioning, it makes a 3 dimensional object. It’s taking an idea that could look flat at first glance to the next level and making it an interactive piece when you move the ovals.
I’m reminded of minimalism, where sometimes less is more. You can take a simple idea and tinker with it and perhaps make something new. When you mix engineering and art, you’re able to open a world of ideas on how we view shapes, physical space and layering altogether. One of the other terms that struck out to me was transparency. Rodchenko’s ovals were transparent in a way that you could see through the interior of the ovals and how they interacted with one another to functional as a whole. Metaphorically in the lecture, it was used in a way to show us (the public) how inner things work in society. It’s a way of showing how a powerful government could gain the trust of it’s citizens. Ironically, although constructivism was about being progressive and showing how things work internally, it makes me curious. Have we progressed in a transparent way in society? Or are we using Constructivism to create a deceiving image of what we should perceive as transparency? What is the limit in terms of designing functional items that are aesthetically pleasing, but also purposeful?