This page has tags:

1. 1 2017-02-28T11:36:11-08:00 Jmedina2 9ac3fc10003fb639ac412984b59b01a5b826e161 Constructivism Jmedina2 1 An example of Constructivist work plain 2017-02-28T11:36:11-08:00 Jmedina2 9ac3fc10003fb639ac412984b59b01a5b826e161
2. 1 2017-02-28T11:36:13-08:00 Jmedina2 9ac3fc10003fb639ac412984b59b01a5b826e161 Vladimir Tatlin Jmedina2 1 The Constructivist works of Vladimir Tatlin plain 2017-02-28T11:36:13-08:00 Jmedina2 9ac3fc10003fb639ac412984b59b01a5b826e161

This page is referenced by:

• 1 2017-03-01T12:20:23-08:00 Visual Poetry in Suprematism 40 gallery 2017-05-26T10:51:00-07:00 Suprematism is a visual expression of subjective freedom through poetic grammar. Visual language is a language like any other, with unique and obligatory aspects of communication:  “while for us definiteness, number, and time are obligatory aspects, we find in other language, location, source of information, as obligatory aspects,” according to Jakobson. These aspects vary fundamentally from language to language, but, “in defiance of the neogrammarian aversion [to univerals]” there is a universal grammar between languages, our of necessity. “Thus the true difference between languages is not in what may or may bot be expressed but in what must or must not be conveyed by the speakers” (Jakobson, 492) Like all systems of language, visual expression is characterized by universal syntagmatic traits that define its meaning-making. Visual art (and any visual signage) has its own inherent linguistic qualities, made manifest in lexical and relational elements. Obligatory, as Jakobson and Boas explain. 
  
  If visual language has inherent grammar, than visual language must have an inherent poetry. This poetry is what I believe Suprematism to reveal. Through the dissection of the painterly language into its constitute lexical pieces, these molecules gain new autonomy and expression revealed in and exploding into the negative space left by the crumbling object of meaning. 
  
  When seen through the parallel comparisons that Jakobson himself was such a fan of, we can begin to answer these questions by revealing the Jakobsonian poetry inherent to suprematist art. Suprematism versus Constructivism is at its core as primordial as the question of form versus function. And by comparing Suprematist pieces to Constructivist art, it becomes evident that visual art contains material and relational elements comparable to those studied by Jakobson. 

   

  While the two movements are visually mistakable, the differences were rooted so deeply that it ended up driving the two movements apart. And while the material, lexical nature of the pieces compared are similar, the differing relationally grants Suprematist art a poetic return-to-form due to a freedom from visual grammar. This is true of suprematism as a movement, regardless of the exact artistic medium employed. But for the sake of exploring this poetry of the visual form, we are going to be comparing works of painting, sculpture, and architecture.

   

  
  1. Painting
  
  El Lissitsky - Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge
  Lyubov Popova - Painterly Architectonic
  
  At first glance, these two pieces have similar shapes, shades and apparent style. They both have a predominant red triangle, along with grayscale circles and blocks that make up a sort of backdrop. But after a moment’s considering the parts, you see that they are ordered so as to portray different meanings. 
  
  Lissitsky’s painting shows clear orientation, directionality between the shapes, even so far as momentum and violence. The captions tell you what direction to view the painting, and give it contextual meaning. Meaning that is implied even in the shapes before you know what the captions say. Its political, and has to do with the red/whites of the Russian Civil War. 
  
  Popova's work shares the predominant red triangle, the abstracted geometry, the striking colors. Yet they are placed on top of each other as disparate pieces. They are all stuck, shoved together, with less obvious relation. The exact relation between the objects is ambiguous, as is the angle of observation, the painting’s orientation, and other mediation. Even symbolism is escaped and subverted. And thus, more attention payed simply to the shape, the line, the layering.
  
  2. Sculpture  
  Vladimir Tatlin - Counter Relief
  El Lissitzky - Proun 19d
  
  Both Tatlins and Lissitsky's pieces present projections of depth, three dimensional form and perspective. They work with similar shapes and colors projected at similar orientations, but with entirely different intensions and application of their lexical elements. 
  
  Counter Relief has plenty of vested meanings and intentions, despite its apparent abstraction. It maintains itself on a wall, its parts working in tandem to keep it fixed up on the wall. Its proportioned in a corner, and remains the center of attention, with a fixed angle of perspective. In light of this physicality, there’s an emphasis on functional materials, and their collective physicality, and industrialized sources.
  
  In Proun 19d, like any piece of suprematism, one's perspective is a matter of variable orientation. Its about the use of depth and structure not distracted, by prescribed perspective, or orientation, by symbolism, and most distinctly, by physical space.
  
  3. Architecture
  Vladimir Tatlin - Monument to the Third International  
  Lazar Khidekel - Floating City
  
  Both of these pieces are speculative works of architecture, never to actually be constructed. However they were both conceived to use architectural structure, physical space and environmental integration as their means of expression. To this extent, they both have similar usage of negative space, and stark, geometric forms. However, that’s where their similarities end.  
  
  Tatlin’s sculpture was called Monument to the 3rd international, and even from the name, there is a hint of politics that only grows stronger. The political nature of the piece is evident even in its structure and material, the tower made up of steel, glass, etc. Rising, phallic.So too did it have an incredibly detailed political intention and purpose, complete with megaphones and cameras. 
  
  Lissitsky’s was different. It’s called a floating city, but only in name. Does this look like a city? Its not burdened with political purpose, or even by purpose at all. More interested in idea than actuality. No focus on materials or their source. Instead, Khidekel’s buildings existing as forms in nature. Not surpassing them, but incorporating them. All was organic, more interest in aesthetic than purpose.
  So, what’s going on here? Three examples of Supremitist and Constructivast art with similar constituent parts. Similar lexicality. But, different relationally. Differing grammar. Whereas the Constructivist pieces tended toward constructing representation, both political and symbolic, the Suprematist pieces leaves relationally mostly up to the interpreter. A return to form, away from symbols and objectivity. And towards Poetry, if you ask Roman Jakobson. 
  
  That’s what Jakobson’s call is. Poetry is the utterance for the purpose of expression alone, without need for the mediator of grammar. Suprematism, in contrast to Constructivism, is a return to poetry based on a subversion of visual relationally. Visual grammar. A grammar that doesn’t act as a mediator, so far as it invites multiple subjectivities.  In Suprematist art, these subjectivities are invited by a lack of clear relationality involving object priority, orientation, visual perspective, etc. “Suprematism is about Supremacy of pure artistic feeling.”