NEWS AND VIEWS: "The Great Utopia" misrepresents artists' backgrounds (01/17/93)

NEWS AND VIEWS: "The Great Utopia" misrepresents artists' backgrounds

by Arcadia Olenska-Petryshyn

"The Great Utopia," an exhibit of "Russian and Soviet Avant-Garde" art, was held September 25-January 3 at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York. The exhibit presented works executed on the territory of the former Russian empire and the former Soviet Union, mostly during the second decade of this century.

The exhibit displayed the dynamic and imaginative art that had attracted the attention of Western art historians much before the Guggenheim show, especially in the late 1950s and 1960s, when it became somewhat easier than before to obtain information and reproductions from Soviet sources. Works thought to be lost or destroyed were newly discovered in the 1950s, and have fascinated the artistic community ever since.

The Guggenheim exhibit is certainly an ambitious undertaking, given its inclusion of a vast number of hitherto unknown utilitarian objects as well as numerous minor works assembled from museum and private collections from many countries.

Considering that the exhibit was conceived during a 1988 visit to the museum by Eduard Shevardnadze, then foreign minister of the Soviet Union, other than artistic reasons for its inception may be entertained. This is significant because the exhibit does not present any major or novel interpretation of the subject and the majority of the more important works are well-known in the West.

It would seem that some of the organizers of the exhibit strove to establish the historical importance of Russian art and the significant role of "Russian" artists in the development of contemporary art. Otherwise it is difficult to explain the disingenuous presentations and omission of pertinent information about the participating artists.

It is inexplicable why an exhibit comprising works from throughout the world, with appropriate credits, would arbitrarily withhold all biographical information, especially information about the origins of participating artists.

The art of the most important artists in the exhibit Malevich's and Tatlin, is showcased (the only two artists so honored) in the prestigious High Gallery of the museum, featuring Malevich's "Red Square" of 1915 and Tatlin's "Counter Relief," also of 1915. Malevich and Tatlin were indeed most influential in the formulation of new ideas. Tatlin was the founder of Constructivism, the art of assemblage, which during the Soviet period led to the development of utilitarian art which became prominent in the 1920s. Malevich originated Suprematism, an abstract movement in art in which he brought the idea of non-objectivity to its logical conclusion, namely, painting a white square on a white background.

Both artists were born in Ukraine - Malevich in Kiev and Tatlin in Kharkiv - a pertinent fact that organizers of the show chose to omit. There are indeed many non-Russian artists in the exhibit, among them the Latvian Gustav Klutois, who is represented by a large number of works, many of which were on loan from the Latvian museum in Riga.

As is well-known, information about artists' origins is considered to be an important part of exhibit information, especially if the primacy of an original idea is at stake. Such information is included as a rule, along with titles of works and museum loans, even if the artists, as is the case with the Spaniard Picasso, lived most of their lives outside their native countries.

It is also difficult to explain the organizers' omission of pertinent information given that the data in question are readily available from other sources. There are such thorough studies as "The Great Experiment" by Camilla Gray, as well as monographs about the avant-garde artists. There are, for example, books on Malevich, the artist's letters in Ukrainian (in the archives of the State Museum in Kyyiv) which reveal his active participation in the Ukrainian art scene in the 1920s.

Among other non-Russian artists whose works are included in the Guggenheim exhibit is Alexander Archipenko (also born in Kyyiv), whose sculpture "Medrano II" of 1912 or 1913, a work executed while he lived in Paris, is also displayed. There is no evidence of any work which Archipenko might have executed during his brief stay in Moscow (1906-1908) and his earliest known works from the Paris years are reminiscent of the stone babas which he had an opportunity to see while participating in excavations in the Ukrainian steppes. There is no justification for including a sculpture by a Ukrainian artist who lived in Paris in an exhibit of "Russian and Soviet" art. The work was included because Archipenko, the originator of Cubism in sculpture, is indeed an important innovator of 20th century art. The primacy of his ideas, however, is co-opted in this exhibit as that of a "Russian artist."

The organizers of the exhibit even included works with titles in Ukrainian, as in the case of Alexander Deineka (1925 "Pered spuskom v shakhtu"), as well as Ukrainian-language book covers, as can be seen in Vasilly Ermilov's book cover for "Biblioteka Robitnyka" or Vadim Meller's 1930 "Radianskyi Teatr."

The exhibit, of course, implies that the creative art scene was exclusively in Russia, while, as is known from other sources, there was a great deal of activity in Ukraine. There is, of course, abundant evidence for this as documented by various exhibits, stage and costume designs, book covers and posters.

Notable among the artists who were active on the Ukrainian art scene is Anatoly Petrytsky (also included in the Guggenheim show), who was active in designing for the State Opera in Kharkiv in the 1920s, and Meller, who designed stage sets and costumes for the Berezil Theater, also in the 1920s as well as for the State Dramatic Theater in Kiev.

| Home Page |