The$Contemporary$Artistic$RelevanceofSovietConstructivism$...2! accordance!with!the!communistideal.!His!friendship!and!creative!interaction!with!Aleksandr!...

1

Copyright © 2018 Nikolaos Bogiatzis

The Contemporary Artistic Relevance of Soviet Constructivism

The emergence of Soviet Constructivism as a revolutionary creative movement in the 1920s

was a decisive turn in the historical avant-‐garde. Influenced by the October Revolution of

1917 and the building of a new, communist society, the Constructivists brought art theory

and practice to a new terrain that challenged art's meaning, content, and its very existence.

The urgency to respond to the revolutionary demand of the ‘social building’,1 led them to

raise ‘the question of the methods of artistic labour, instead of the question of form’,2 and

subsequently to denounce art and to focus on the production of objects.

The legacy of Soviet Constructivism in contemporary art could be traced through various

artistic approaches; however, my intention is to locate contemporary critical responses and

then investigate convincing artistic practices with emancipating possibilities in the neoliberal

era, in relation to canonical works of the Constructivist aesthetic.

In January 1920, Aleksei Gan, who cannot easily be categorised in terms of his artistic

practice as he was involved in various cultural activities inside the avant-‐garde circles,

grasped the critical writings of Michail Larionov and Kazimir Malevich.3 Gan was interested

in the relationship between art and the Revolution and tried to open new artistic paths in

1 Boris Arvatov, ‘Art and Production in the History of the Workers’ Movement: Art and the October Revolution’. in Art and Production (1926), ed. by John Roberts and Alexei Penzin (London: Pluto Press, 2017), p. 84. 2 Ibid., p. 85. 3 For Malevich’s Suprematism as abstract revolution, his theory of non-‐objectivity and his relation to Constructivism, the State, and the Revolution see Nikolaos Bogiatzis, ‘Kazimir Malevich: Suprematism and Non-‐Objectivity in Revolutionary Times’ (unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University, 2017), https://nikolaosbogiatzis.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/kazimir-‐malevich-‐suprematism-‐and-‐non-‐objectivity-‐in-‐revolutionary-‐times/

2

accordance with the communist ideal. His friendship and creative interaction with Aleksandr

Rodchenko and Varvara Stepanova led to the formation of the First Working Group of

Constructivists on March 1921, which also included four other artists: Karl Ioganson,

Konstantin Medunetskii, Georgii and Vladimir Stenberg.4 The group was organised within

the Moscow Institute of Artistic Culture or INKhUK, and its programme was written in the

same year by Gan. The basic proclamation was the synthesis of art and industry and the

intention of the artists to create useful objects via intellectual and material production

based on the principles of tektonika / faktura / construction.5

One year later, in 1922, Gan published Constructivism; in his theoretical exposition of the

new movement, Gan attempted to explain and justify Constructivism’s approach.

Interestingly, the book declared war not only on traditional art but on art itself; it began

with a passage from Marx’s and Engels’ Communist Manifesto and later, very simplistically

one could note, Gan, claimed that: ‘As soon as we approach art, we stop being Marxists’.6

Overall, in the first part of the publication, Gan tried to convince the reader -‐ and the Party -‐

that the new communist epoch needed new forms and means of expression, as this was

dictated by the emerging culture of work and intellect.7 Further, Gan counterposed the

traditional forms of visual art with the latter; sculpture should give way to the object’s

4 Christina Lodder, ‘Aleksei Gan: A Pivotal Figure in Russian Constructivism’. in Constructivism (1922), by Aleksei Gan (Barcelona: Tenov, 2013), p. XXV. 5 Ibid., pp. XXV-‐XXVI. 6 Aleksei Gan, ‘Constructivism’. in ibid., p. 12. 7 However, regarding the nature of culture after the Revolution, Lenin was adamant that all modern history experience and revolutionary struggle of the proletariat since the appearance of the Communist Manifesto should be taken into account. Moreover, the major achievements of the bourgeois epoch and those of the thousand years of the development of human thought and culture should not be left behind under communism. Nikolaos Bogiatzis, in op. cit., pp. 47-‐48.

3

spatial resolution; painting could not compete with photography; architecture could not

stop the emergence of Constructivism which is connected with work and everyday life.8

Indebted to Bukharin’s Theory of Historical Materialism, Gan continued by stressing that the

socially meaningful artistic work should be productively connected with science and

technology, and subsequently explained the function of tektonika / faktura / construction:

‘While tectonics encompasses the fusion of the ideological and formal and produces a unity

of idea as a result, and faktura is the state of the material, construction reveals the process

of structuring itself’.9

It is important to highlight the existence of different opinions inside the First Working Group

even if, finally, they all agreed on Gan’s programme. The nine sessions which were held at

Moscow’s Museum of Painterly Culture, or MZhK, attest to the members’ different

Constructivist positions.10 Furthermore, in additional meetings, there were different

approaches and objections about the triptych tektonika / faktura / construction.11 However,

all members embraced social utilitarianism and an anti-‐art credo. One should also

distinguish between the members of the First Working Group and the practice of artists like

Naum Gabo, who aimed at an art which would positively influence society from an idealist

perspective. Gabo’s practice was a formalist version of Constructivism, as it was indebted to

8 Aleksei Gan, in op. cit., p. 36. 9 Ibid., p. 62. 10 Maria Gough, ‘Composition and Construction’. in The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: California University Press, 2005), pp. 39-‐41. 11 Maria Gough, ‘In the Laboratory of Constructivism’. in ibid., pp. 71-‐73.

4

mankind’s creative genius12 and was located away from the historical materialist

perspective of Gan and his fellow members of the First Working Group.

It is in the work of artists or, to put it more adequately, producers like Gan and Rodchenko

and other Constructivists like Lyubov’ Popova and Vladimir Tatlin,13 that one could

encounter the most critical works of the Soviet era; that is, the ones that attempted to put

art-‐into-‐life. Consequently, I would argue that by negating the traditionally autonomous

character of the avant-‐garde, and by infusing art into life, Soviet Constructivism managed to

be the vanguard of the avant-‐garde. Therefore, the task of exploring the contemporary

artistic relevance of Soviet Constructivism becomes more demanding, if one would want to

proceed with reference to the most critical works of that certain historical period.

Constructivism wanted to participate in the praxis of life, the building of the communist

society and its new culture and it was interdependent with the mode of social production.

Consequently, to trace the artistic relevance of its most interesting historical manifestation

under the prism of the neoliberal era, one should locate the topos of critical art today.

Hence, I will first look at one of Tatlin’s major works and then investigate its legacy in

contemporary times.

12 Christina Lodder, ‘"English" Abstraction: Nicholson, Hepworth, and Moore in the 1930s'. in Art of the 20th Century: Art of the Avant-‐Gardes ed. by Steve Edwards and Paul Wood (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 280. 13 Interestingly, Tatlin was considered the ‘father of Constructivism’ but he never called himself as such; however, he claimed that he was its founder. Christina Kiaer, ‘Everyday Objects’. in Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism (Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 2005), p. 43 and p. 279.

5

Tatlin’s Model for the Monument to the Third International14 was exhibited in Moscow in

December 1920, and paved the way for the emergence of Constructivism. It was supposed

to be a functioning building and the base of the Communist Third International, or

Comintern. The structural materials would be iron and glass; it was a construction that

negated the architecture of the past and symbolised the new social order, as it

commemorated the Revolution and pointed to the emergence of the new communist

society. The Monument was planned to be a machine construction with rotating volumes

and moving parts, and as Tatlin claimed, he was ‘combining purely artistic forms with

utilitarian intentions’.15 He accordingly declared: ‘Distrusting the eye, we place it under the

control of touch’.16 Tatlin’s declaration is not a naïve claim but a critical shift in the artistic

practice of Soviet avant-‐garde and also in the broader context of the avant-‐garde, which

actualises a progressive theory that sought to emphasise the material over the visual.

While in the second decade of the twentieth century, and through the work of pioneering

cubists George Braque and Pablo Picasso, we encounter the first application of construction

to artistic production, it is Tatlin’s work which produces a critical rupture with traditional

forms; hence the importance of his artistic practice.

The Monument is independent of any particular materials as it is self-‐sufficient through its

utilitarian nature and scope; Comintern was the international organisation of communist

parties that promoted world revolution; the four internal glass volumes would be the base

14 Figure 1: MoMA, Vladimir Tatlin: Model for Pamiatnik III Internatsionala (Monument to the Third International) (1920) (no date), < https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/?work=226 >, [accessed 10 April 2018]. 15 Christina Lodder, ‘Soviet Constructivism’. in op. cit., p. 366. 16 Christina Kiaer, in op. cit., p. 41.

6

of the different Comintern’s agencies and would rotate at different speeds. However, the

choice of the structural materials of iron and glass were not picked accidentally; they were

vital elements of the dynamic new epoch, that is, certain kind of materials which were

essential to the social meaning of construction. Therefore, I suggest that what is critical in

the Monument is the radical coordination between the artistic and the social.17 Tatlin clearly

indicated this coordination in 1920, when he stressed: ‘What happened from the social

aspect in 1917 was realized in our work as pictorial artists in 1914, when "materials, volume,

and construction" were accepted as our foundations'.18 Consequently, the criticality of

Soviet Constructivism lies in its relationship with the radical social context that emerged and

the interaction between the two.

Investigating Soviet Constructivism’s contemporary artistic relevance without distancing

from Tatlin’s Monument, Dan Flavin’s ‘Monument’ for V. Tatlin19 was one in the series of

forty-‐five works made in the period between 1964 and 1990. Flavin used pre-‐fabricated

fluorescent tubes to create a tower-‐like structure that required being plugged in and

switched on to produce light. The element of irony was evident comparing Flavin’s simplistic

object and Tatlin’s construction, as the former ironically challenged the supposed

permanence and durability of the latter. Furthermore, in Tatlin’s Monument, the material of

17 ‘Construction is a rational-‐instrumental process with historically specific social, material and technological conditions’. Peter Osborne, ‘Art Space: Construction and Expression’. in Anywhere or Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art (London and New York: Verso, 2013), p. 154. 18 Vladimir Tatlin, ‘The Work Ahead of Us’ (1920). in Russian Art of the Avant-‐Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-‐1934 ed. by John E. Bowlt (New York: The Viking Press, 1976), p. 206. 19 Figure 2: Tate, Dan Flavin: ‘Monument’ for V. Tatlin (1966-‐1969) (no date), < http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/flavin-‐monument-‐for-‐v-‐tatlin-‐t01323 >, [accessed 11 April 2018].

7

glass symbolised the transparency of the revolutionary government and the clear

conscience of the proletariat;20 on the contrary, in Flavin’s Monument, one could not stare

directly into the white fluorescent lights.21

Although inspired by Tatlin’s practice, Flavin’s work provided an artistic response which is

characterised not only by irony and even humour,22 but with scepticism as well. Soviet

Constructivism aimed at efficiency by using the rational and motivated use of materials; the

third principle of construction as explained in Gan’s Constructivism, was meant to give form

to the concept by the use of processed material;23 there were a certain logic, order, and

motivation behind each construction. Flavin's series of monuments instead, were

characterised by chance and a sceptical absence of motivation which functioned as the

negation of modernism’s viability. Consequently, Flavin’s work attested to the ideological

failure of the Constructivist project. Further, Soviet Constructivism aimed at the integration

of artistic labour into the totality of a social construction that would lead to communism; by

taking away its revolutionary and social-‐utilitarian logic and keeping only its formalist

structure, Flavin essentially negated Soviet Constructivism’s ideological and anti-‐aesthetic

nucleus.24

The question that emerges is, if Flavin’s ironic and sceptic approach provides the exclusive

way, or if there are alternative contemporary artworks that can provide an adequate

20 Christina Lodder, in op. cit., p. 365. 21 Brandon Taylor, ‘Constructivism Now’. in After Constructivism (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), p. 224. 22 Tate, in op. cit. 23 Aleksei Gan, in op. cit., p. 62. 24 Therefore, Flavin also produced a method of ‘inactive history’ which Taylor mentions. Brandon Taylor, in op. cit., p. 224.

8

response to the former approach. Next, after looking at Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club, I will

focus on Chto Delat’s relevant Activist Club as one of these responses.

The Workers’ Club25 was designed by Rodchenko and was made for the ‘International

Exhibition of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts’ which was held in Paris in 1925.26 It

was meant to promote the social ethos and values of the USSR, as the Workers’ Clubs were

the places where the proletariat used to relax, communicate, and absorb the culture of the

new society. The ‘Lenin Corner’ was obligatory and signified the importance of the

communist ideology; it included a picture of Lenin and his name written in letters of

squares, and a poster celebrating his life. The prevalent colours in the Workers’ Club were

red and black -‐ the colours of the Revolution -‐ and the furniture was made by wood; there

was a sense of strict economy in materials and mode of production, and an authentic

functionalism in all areas of the construction.

Rodchenko’s work was made in accordance with the principles of tektonika/ faktura/

construction; however, although Constructivism embraced the machine aesthetic and the

new technology, the presence of wood implies that Rodchenko had to come to terms with

the hard economic reality of the period. The fall of 1921 brought the institution of the New

Economic Policy, or NEP, which for many revolutionaries meant a regressive ideological

25 Figure 3: The Charnel-‐House, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Lenin Workers’ Club in Paris (1925) (29 May), < https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/05/29/aleksandr-‐rodchenko-‐lenin-‐workers-‐club-‐in-‐paris-‐1925/ >, [accessed 12 April 2018]. 26 Christina Lodder, in op. cit., p. 375.

9

retreat to capitalism.27 This critically transitional period of the NEP brought an accordingly

critical shift in Soviet Constructivism’s character. Therefore, I would argue that the route

from Tatlin’s Monument to Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club signals the shift from the creative

experimentation to the realisation of the pragmatic constraints of everyday reality.

It is true that Constructivism in its revolutionary manifestation could appear as a form of

unfreedom comparing to the aesthetically unlimited scope of formalism;28 it is also true that

the merging and solidification of new social forms became a constraint upon forms of

construction, and experimentation retreated back to the non-‐utilitarian realm.29 Bearing

these in mind, I suggest that the shift from the creative experimentation to the realisation of

the pragmatic conditions of everyday life and the practicalities of social production is not a

retreat, but a progressive sublimation of art-‐into-‐life. Accordingly, in the itinerary from the

Monument to the Workers’ Club, I would situate the potential for a radical possibility of an

emancipatory mass culture, contra to Bürger’s view of an enthralling and subjugating art,30

or Adorno’s negation of the rationality of construction.31

27 A considerable number of Bolsheviks saw the institution of the New Economic Policy as the ‘New Exploitation of the Proletariat’. Christina Kiaer, ‘The Socialist Object’. in op. cit., p. 19. 28 Peter Osborne, in op. cit., p. 155. 29 Ibid., p. 156. 30 Peter Bürger, ‘On the Problem of the Autonomy of Art in Bourgeois Society: The Negation of the Autonomy of Art by the Avant-‐Garde’. in Theory of the Avant-‐Garde (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. 54. 31 Theodor W. Adorno, ‘Paralipomena’. in Aesthetic Theory (1970), ed. by Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann (London and New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 304.

10

Moving into the contemporary period, Chto Delat’s Activist Club32 is an on-‐going art project

which is based on the production of space. In the past, the project took the form of a

specially constructed space for kino-‐club and reading table, the publication of a newspaper

issue called Chto Delat “Make Film Politically”, and a discussion based on the newspaper’s

issue.33 Influenced by Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club, Chto Delat, whose members also define

themselves a Workers’ Group, produced a space which could be seen as the contemporary

equivalent of Rodchenko’s project. The strict economy in materials and mode of production

and the functionalism in all areas of the construction remained, while the historical ‘Lenin

Corner’ was substituted by a contemporary version, where posters of other art-‐activist

initiatives like Park Fiction’s work in Hamburg, Germany, were promoted.34 The red and

black colours of the Revolution were still present, and in the video projections, there were

talks about effective forms of protest and the revolutionary dialectic of the current

moment.

Dmitry Vilensky, one of the members of Chto Delat, stressed their intention that the group’s

activities were not meant to be restricted by the spaces of art institutions; further, he

highlighted that the museum space was only the arena which they could use temporarily as

a place that they could spread their propaganda of ideas and values.35 Chto Delat’s Activist

32 Figure 4: Chto Delat, Activist Club /2007-‐ / (no date), < https://chtodelat.org/category/b7-‐art-‐projects/installations/a_8/ >, [accessed 13 April 2018]. 33 Ibid. 34 For the case of Park Fiction, see Grant H. Kester, ‘Park Fiction, Ala Plastica, and Dialogue’ and ‘Park Fiction: Desire, Resistance, and Complicity’. in The One and The Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2011), pp. 24-‐29 and pp. 199-‐210. 35 Dmitry Vilensky, in op. cit.

11

Club follows the legacy of Constructivism, Productivism, and Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club,

whose basic aim was to create a new political audience through the construction of the

space in a way that enabled the creation of a didactic narrative. Consequently, the new

aesthetic that emerged was based on a dialectic perception of the world that negated

bourgeois fetishist consumption and considered artefacts not as objects of decoration but

of a radical transformation of the every-‐day.36

Chto Delat’s declaration is reminiscent, although less poetic and polemical, of the manifesto

made by the First Working Group of Constructivists in 1921. The latter declared ‘the

communist expression of material constructions and irreconcilable war against art’.37 Chto

Delat, ‘demanding the (im)possible…[wants] to move away from the frustrations occasioned

by the historical failures to advance leftist ideas and discover anew their emancipatory

potential’.38 Subsequently, the group believes that capitalism is not a totality and locates

the alternative in the micropolitics and microeconomies of human relationships and creative

labour; the historical becoming of the emancipatory alternative is communism, and the

synthesis of theory and practice can provide the communist decoding of capitalist reality.39

Chto Delat recognises the importance of the intellectual and artistic avant-‐gardes of the

twentieth century and aims at the triptych of engaged thought/ political action/ artistic

innovation. Moreover, the group situates the task of contemporary art in the unmasking of

36 Ibid. 37 First Working Group of Constructivists, ‘Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group’ (1921). in Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the Field ed. by Helen Armstrong (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), p. 24. 38 Chto Delat, ‘A Declaration on Politics, Knowledge, and Art’ (2008). in op. cit., < https://chtodelat.org/b5-‐announcements/a-‐6/a-‐declaration-‐on-‐politics-‐knowledge-‐and-‐art-‐4/ >, [accessed 14 April 2018]. 39 Ibid.

12

the current system’s ideological control and manipulation of the people. Accordingly, an

autonomous contemporary art must be able to exist and be produced outside of the art

institutions, as part or in the centre of events, in the streets, the squares, and in

communes.40

Looking at Flavin’s Monument and Chto Delat’s Activist Club, it is easy to distinguish

between two different approaches towards the legacy of Soviet Constructivism. In Flavin’s

work, there was an emphasis given to the formalist structure as a creative response to

Tatlin’s Monument. Despite the critical aspect of his work, Flavin omitted the revolutionary

and anti-‐aesthetic nature of Soviet Constructivism, that is its social-‐utilitarian and

ideological aspect. Therefore, by producing an inactive history and by cutting off, or to be

more precise, by neutralising – anaesthetising this specific attribute of Soviet

Constructivism, Flavin negated its emancipatory legacy.

On the other hand, Chto Delat’s work stayed attached to the Constructivist spirit and nature

more adequately. The Activist Club followed Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club logic and tradition

and the three principles of tektonika/ faktura/ construction, and did not exclude the social-‐

utilitarian and ideological nature of Soviet Constructivism. The group attempted and, to a

considerable extent, managed to create a different type of public space where people could

interact and use their free time creatively, by watching grassroots films and by engaging into

educational activities such as reading, theoretical analysis, and discussion in accordance

with the existing social centres and social forums.

40 Ibid.

13

Like Soviet Constructivism, Chto Delat’s on-‐going art project attempts to bring art-‐into-‐life

and to develop an emancipated aesthetic experience that liberates the consciousness of

both the artist and the viewer. As the group stresses, in a time of reaction, the place of

revolutionary art is in direct opposition and negation of the populist logic of the culture

industry, and in the articulation of a new mode of emancipated sensuality.41 Consequently, I

would argue that it is in the work like Chto Delat’s that the legacy and relevance of Soviet

Constructivism could be met more convincingly, and could also open possibilities for a

critical art practice in a dialectic with the every-‐day and the social, without overlooking the

constrictions and the failures of the historical avant-‐garde in general.

41 Furthermore, ‘In the contemporary conjuncture, the self-‐negation essential to arts development happens outside institutional practices'. in ibid.

14

Figure 1

15

Figure 2

16

Figure 3

Figure 4

17

Bibliography

Adorno, W. Theodor, Aesthetic Theory (1970), ed. by Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann

(London and New York: Continuum, 2002)

Arvatov, Boris, Art and Production (1926), ed. by John Roberts and Alexei Penzin (London:

Pluto Press, 2017)

Bogiatzis, Nikolaos, ‘Kazimir Malevich: Suprematism and Non-‐Objectivity in Revolutionary

Times’ (unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University,

2017)

Bolt, John E., Russian Art of the Avant-‐Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-‐1934 (New York:

The Viking Press, 1976)

Buchloh, Benjamin H. D., ‘Cold War Constructivism’ (1986). in Reconstructing Modernism:

Art in New York, Paris, and Montreal 1945-‐1964 ed. by Serge Guilbaut (Cambridge, MA, and

London: The MIT Press, 1992), pp. 85-‐112

Bürger, Peter, Theory of the Avant-‐Garde (Minneapolis and Manchester: University of

Minnesota Press and Manchester University Press, 1984)

Chto Delat, Activist Club /2007-‐ / (no date),

< https://chtodelat.org/category/b7-‐art-‐projects/installations/a_8/ >, [accessed 13 April

2018]

Chto Delat, A Declaration on Politics, Knowledge, and Art (2008) (no date),

< https://chtodelat.org/b5-‐announcements/a-‐6/a-‐declaration-‐on-‐politics-‐knowledge-‐and-‐

art-‐4/ >, [accessed 14 April 2018]

Edwards, Steve and Paul Wood (eds). Art of the 20th Century: Art of the Avant-‐Gardes (New

Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004)

18

First Working Group of Constructivists, ‘Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group’

(1921). in Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the Field ed. by Helen Armstrong (New

York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), pp. 22-‐24

Foster, Hal, ‘Some Uses and Abuses of Russian Constructivism’. in Art into Life: Russian

Constructivism 1914-‐1932 ed. by Richard Andrews (New York: Rizzoli, 1990), pp. 241-‐253

Fried, Michael, ‘Art and Objecthood’ (1967). in Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews

(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 148-‐172

Gan, Aleksei, Constructivism (1922), (Barcelona: Tenov, 2013)

Gough, Maria, The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution (Berkeley, Los

Angeles, and London: California University Press, 2005)

Kiaer, Christina, Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism

(Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 2005)

MoMA, Vladimir Tatlin: Model for Pamiatnik III Internatsionala (Monument to the Third

International) (1920) (no date),

< https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/?work=226 >,

[accessed 10 April 2018]

Osborne, Peter, Anywhere or Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art (London and New

York: Verso, 2013)

Osborne, Peter, The Postconceptual Condition: Critical Essays (London and New York: Verso,

2018)

Tate, Naum Gabo (no date),

< http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/naum-‐gabo-‐1137 >, [accessed 10 April 2018]

Tate, Dan Flavin: ‘Monument’ for V. Tatlin (1966-‐1969) (no date),

19

< http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/flavin-‐monument-‐for-‐v-‐tatlin-‐t01323 >, [accessed 11

April 2018]

Taylor, Brandon, After Constructivism (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014)

The Charnel-‐House, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Lenin Workers’ Club in Paris (1925) (29 May),

< https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/05/29/aleksandr-‐rodchenko-‐lenin-‐workers-‐club-‐in-‐

paris-‐1925/ >, [accessed 12 April 2018]

The$Contemporary$Artistic$RelevanceofSovietConstructivism$...2! accordance!with!the!communistideal.!His!friendship!and!creative!interaction!with!Aleksandr!...

Documents