GAIETY IS THE MOST OUTSTANDING FEATURE OF THE SOVIET UNION:
NEW ART FROM RUSSIA
Boris Mikhailov, Case History, 1997 - 1998
Contents
Teacher
Resource
This resource aims to provide you with information on the broad themes of the exhibition and in depth information on selected artists.
There are discussion points to help you plan your trip to the Saatchi gallery and for further work in the classroom following your visit.
Introduction: Brief contextualisation of the exhibition
Key Themes: Analysis of themes running through the exhibition and relevant artists
Key Artists: Full page reproductions of key art works, information and discussion point for in the Gallery and in the Classroom
Glossary: Useful terms
Suggested reading and useful links
The diverse range of work in the exhibition aims to encourage your students to think imaginatively and creatively about their own work. We hope
that the exhibition will arouse their curiosity and help push their boundaries by providing new experiences.
Our free tours and workshops can build skills of visual communication, problem solving and creative risk taking.
We hope that students will discover the work of new, young and exciting artists, whose work and careers can provide long term inspiration.
Please note Galleries 3, 7 and 8 contain images with nudity and works that some students may find disturbing.
Introduction
'Gaiety is the Most Outstanding Feature of the Soviet Union: New Art from Russia' is the first exhibition of contemporary Russian art at
the Saatchi Gallery.
This large survey show features 18 artists working in diverse ways across the mediums of painting, photography, sculpture and
installation.
Most of the artists in the exhibition, which takes its title from a speech delivered by Joseph Stalin in 1935, are young and emerging, and
have rarely shown their work internationally; the exhibition will also present Boris Mikhailov’s highly acclaimed photographic project,
Case History, which documents his hometown of Kharkov following the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Witnesses to the break-up of the Soviet Union and the perestroika years, the artists in this exhibition have absorbed the complexities of
life in Russia and created a wide variety of works in response. Some of them play on Russia’s long and rich tradition of jokes and a
distinctive sense of humour which also find its way into political satire. Others draw on the influential wave of modernist art in Russia,
particularly Malevich and Rodchenko, as well as important contemporary Russian artists such as IlyaKabakov.
As Dimitri Ozerkov, director of the Contemporary Art Department of The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, says about the
artists in his introduction to the exhibition catalogue: “Their art is multifocal and transcendent, poetic and hypocritical, politicized and
romantic. It is probably the most global art in the world but still very much related to its origins.”
The works in this exhibition will play a key role in shaping our understanding of recent Russian history as well as contemporary Russian
art.
JānisAvotiņš
Daniel Bragin
DashaFursey
LiudmilaKonstantinova
Irina Korina
Valery Koshlyakov
DariaKrotova
Boris Mikhailov
NikaNeelova
VikentiNilin
GoshaOstretsov
Sergey Pakhomov
Anna Parkina
Yelena Popova
Roman Savchenko
DashaShishkin
TamunaSirbiladze
Sergei Vasiliev
Looking at the Title:
In 1935 when Stalin declared that ‘Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union’, his Five Year Plans, designed to make
Russia an industrial and economic super power, were well underway. As a result of Stalin’s ruthless vision and autocratic leadership,
millions of Russian people were executed, starved or exiled whilst millions more were forced into grueling labour camps. In order to
survive, the nation’s vast majority worked crippling hours in factories, whilst increasingly repressive measure were taken to ensure that
the workers met Stalin’s monumental and unyielding targets.
Below is an extract of a speech that Stalin delivered in 1935 on the ‘Backwardness of Russia’
It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo
must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers
and peasants of the USSR. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world.
To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature
of the history of old Russia was the continual defeats she suffered because of her backwardness…All beat her – because of her backwardness, because of her
military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because to do so was
profitable and could be done with impunity. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak – therefore you are wrong; hence you can be beaten
and enslaved. You are mighty – therefore you are right; hence we must be wary of you.
That is why we must no longer lag behind.
In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people,
we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this,
you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik temperament in building up its socialist economy. There is
no other way…
We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us.That is what our
obligations to the workers and peasants of the USSR dictate to us.
In ten years at most we must make good the distance that separates us from the advanced capitalist countries…It is time to put an end to the rotten line of noninterference in production. It is time to adopt a new line, one corresponding to the present period – the line of interfering in everything. If you are a factory manager
– interfere in all the affairs of the factory, look into everything, let nothing escape you, learn and learn again. Bolsheviks must master techniques. It is time
Bolsheviks themselves became experts. In the period of reconstruction, technique decides everything. And a business executive who does not want to study
techniques, who does not want to master technique, is a joke and not an executive.
It is said that it is hard to master technique. That is not true! There are no fortresses that Bolsheviks cannot capture. We have solved a number of most difficult
problems. We have overthrown capitalism. We have assumed power. We have built up a huge socialist industry. We have transferred the middle peasants on to
the path of socialism. We have already accomplished what is most important from the point of view of construction. What remains to be done is not so much: to
study technique, to master science. And when we have done that we shall develop a tempo of which we dare not even dream at present.
And we shall do it if we really want to.
What affect does applying this provocative title to the exhibition of new Russian art at the Saatchi Gallery have?
We immediately consider the consequences of Russia’s modern history on the work of contemporary artists. In addition we think of
Russian society, culture and politics in relation to and how it may differ from the West.
Using the title of the exhibition as a starting point, we can begin to think of some broad ideas and themes that emerge in the artists’
work.
Here are some key words that can prompt discussion when looking at and thinking about the exhibition.
Memory
Dictatorships
Truth
Repression
Democracy
Power
Recovery
Capitalism
Irony
Past/Future
Communism
Displacement
Considering the present
Identity
Society
Humour
Nationality
Politics
Propaganda
Key Themes
Memory: Nika Neelova, Janis Avontins, Anna Parkina
Memories are illusive and can be fragmented. They can be personal, when considering our own lives and histories, or they can be
collective, when thinking about what a group of people, cultures or societies have in their shared memories. We can think about how
memories and histories affect the present and how they will impact on our future actions. These are some of the ideas that several of
the Russian artists consider in their work. Nika Neelova uses the materials she works with as the starting point to consider memory, by
using reclaimed materials each element of her sculpture holds its own history and has been on a journey. Janis Avotins creates
haunting images where impressions seem to appear and fade at the same time. Anna Parkina draws on recognizable Soviet imagery to
evoke memories of her native country and the Soviet era.
Identity: Boris Mikhailov, Sergei Vasiliev
How do we represent ourselves? How might others see us? Identity can be thought of as collective or individual. Is it possible to detect
a distinctive Russian identity emerging from the exhibition. Sergei Vasiliev exposes the self conscious collective and individual identity
of the Russian criminal underworld, whilst Boris Mikhailov chronicles the abandoned working class, who are perhaps less aware of their
own identities. Both of these artists use a form of documentary to expose identity, whilst other artists create identity trough their artistic
style.
Political Commentary: Gosha Ostretsov, Irina Korina, Vikenti Nilin, Valery Koshlyakov
Boris Mikhailov speaks of the ‘ruins of the ex-Soviet empire’, which is a theme tackled by many of the artists’ work. In the last 20 years
the political system in Russia has changed dramatically, the consequences of which are still major concerns. Gosha Ostretsov uses
comics and pop imagery to create an alternate world allowing him to comment on contentious political issues. Irina Korina uses found
objects to create a sculpture that evokes classical architecture whilst playing on ideas of capitalism and its new found home in the
capital city of Russia. Vikenti Nilin sets up uneasy photographs of Russian citizens that reflect on the nations feelings towards the sate
of politics in Russia.
Russian avant-garde: Liudmila Konstantinova, Anna Parkina, Yelena Popova, Sergey Pakhomov
The Russain avant-garde developed during the first quarter of the 20th century, it included styles such as Suprematism and
Constructivism. The influence of this artistic era was widespread and very popular. However, during the Soviet Union, art related to
Russian avant-garde was dismissed and quashed by the Soviet government and, as a result, was rarely considered by the majority of
Russians. In this exhibition we see many recognizable elements of the Russian avant-garde surfacing in the artists’ work. This could be
a means of reflecting on the success of the Russian modern masters or perhaps the artists are looking to reinvent the ideas
surrounding the Russain avant-garde.
Key Artists
Gallery 1: Sergei Vasiliev, Russain Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia, 2010
Sergei Vasiliev worked as staff photographer for a newspaper in Chelyabinsk for thirty years, during which time he was also a prison warden. From
1948, a fellow worker, Danzig Baldaev, had begun cataloguing the extensive range of designs made by prisoners onto their skin. These homemade
tattoos, scraped and inked into skin with melted book heels, urine or blood, contained a range of coded messages against the Soviet regime and
about the prisoners’ crimes.
Although this kind of tattooing was illegal, the KGB realised what a resource Baldaev’s project could be for their criminal files and eventually brought
in Vasiliev to supply hard evidence of the designs’ authenticity. Thanks to their combined efforts, the secret police, and now us, know more about
the iconography of this underground artistic phenomenon. Far from being isolated illustrations from a catalogue in a tattoo parlour, Vasiliev’s
photographs, taken between 1989 and 1993, are a humanizing record that places the faces and bodies of the owners (at one point one in five of the
Soviet population) right at the centre of the project.
Living in the Soviet Union as children and young people profoundly affected many of the artists in this exhibition. It may be
useful to consider their situations and individual stories when looking at why or how they came to make their work.
In Danzig Baldaev’s case, his father was denounced as an Enemy of the People and as a result Baldaev grew up in a children’s home.
An Enemy of the People could be executed, imprisoned, forced into labour camps or expelled for not conforming to communist rule. As
an adult Baldaev was given the job of a prison guard watching over men and women, some of whom imprisoned for the same reasons
as his father. Baldaev came to document the tattoos of the prisoners to continue his father’s work as an ethnographer. Baldaev was
allowed to continue his work of sketching and documenting the tattoo designs because, in his own words, "They [the KGB] realised the
value of being able to establish the facts about a convict or criminal: his date and place of birth, the crimes he had committed, the
camps where he had served time, and even his psychological profile".
The photographs that you see here in the Gallery were taken by Badaev’s colleague, Sergei Vasiliev, who photographed the men and
women in prison and reform settlements at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
What do tattoos mean to us today?
In contemporary culture tattoos are understood as decoration, a form of body art, with this they may hold personal or specific meaning.
How do the tattoos of Russian criminal tattoos compare? How do the tattos differ in their purpose?
These tattoos are visual manifestations of the resistance of each person to authority; they often display anger or bitterness towards
communist power. The tattoos here can also represent status. Prisoners with tattoos that ‘boasted’ false credentials had their tattoos
forcibly removed by fellow inmates.
What do you think about these tattoos? Are they an art form? Could they be a form of communication?
Many of the tattoos are symbols; in the history of western art symbols have a strong tradition as visual methods of communication.
Typically symbolism was used in religious paintings to tell stories to the masses, in regal portraits to convey leadership qualities or by
wealthy families as a marker of power and status.
As symbols of the prisoner’s status and identity, the quality of the tattoo was very important, even though they were produced with
rudimentary, makeshift implements. The best tattoos were known to be produced in a prison in Urals so criminals often tried to get
transferred to that specific prison.
In Vasiliev’s photographs, how do symbols represent these people and form their identity? Why might the prisoners have chosen
images to represent their ideas or who they are?
Can you think of other examples where secret codes or symbols have been used by tribes or groups of people?
Think about the style of the photographs and the poses of the prisoners. What kind of image do we get of the prisoners?
Would you agree that there is a sense of compassion for these people? Despite their criminal status, there is a sense that they have
suffered at the hands of a ruthless and unjust system.
The clues below will help you unravel some of the symbolism:
Tigers = aggression
Skulls = criminal authority
A cat = the bearer is a thief
Crosses on the knuckles = the times the bearer has been
convicted
Swastika = refusal to accept the rules of prison authority
These are translations of some of the quotes:
‘I live in sin / I die laughing’.
‘O Lord, forgive me for the tears of my mother’
‘If I can’t crush them with my strength / I will crush them with my rage’
‘Communism only produces victims’.
‘Grins’ - depictions of communist leaders in obscene or comical
position = defiance against the communist rule
Rose on the shoulder = the bearer turned 18 in prison
Tattoos on the face = the prisoner doesn’t expect to ever go free
Tattoos on the feet = the bearer is tired and tired of walking
Below are examples of the sketches made by Danzig Baldeav in ‘Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia’ by Steidl/Fuel
published by Thames and Hudson.
Gallery 3: Gosha Ostretso, Sex in the City, 2008, Mixed media
Gosha Ostretsov’s multimedia practice is informed by early avant-garde art movements, contemporary fashion and, above all, comics. Working in
the Paris fashion world in the 1980s and ’90s, Ostretsov became involved with costume-art and performance, and his interest in comic-strip and
superhero culture led him to make grotesque latex masks, which have since then played a central role in his exploration of power.
Comics have not yet been assimilated into Russian art and are not considered the medium with which to convey anything serious. Ostretsov
knowingly subverts this in works such as Sex in the City (2008). Crude graffiti and symbols of interrogation and torture abound in Criminal
Government (2008) in which cells hold realistic figures in bloodied business suits, some with limbs missing and all with abstract-shaped heads. In
this fantasy comic-book world, government officials are dehumanized and punished, or pushed to suicide, like prisoners of war.
The comparatively sober Wounded Deer (2012) is playfully reminiscent of decapitated communist-era statues, of pieces found and re-arranged into
a junkyard-style re-formation of history.
Gosha Ostretsov’s work is heavily based on social and political commentary. As a means of exploring this subject he has created
a narrative that runs through most of his art work. Ostretsov creates an alternative society which is ruled by the ‘New Government’. In
this world superheroes are artists who attempt to take control from the impenetrable New Government, whose leaders are concealed in
mechanical looking latex masks. Here art is an active power against the political force of the New Government. This story of the New
Government allows Ostresovto to criticise aspects of his own culture and society.
Why may an artist create a fictional place to reflect and comment upon real life? Can you think of other writers and artist who are
famous for doing this? Often writers, such as George Orwell, set their stories in the future or use characters that may not be humans as
a way of distancing the story from real life whilst also creating a strong parallel. Can you recognise the symbols or fictional devices that
Ostresovto uses?
Comics are effective at telling stories because of their identifiable and clear visual language, they form a strong aspect of popular
culture across the world. In the Soviet Union, however, Ostretsov explains that ‘comics were prohibited as capitalist propaganda’
because they were such a key feature of Western society. Like many things that were prohibited in the Soviet Union, a secretive,
underground culture developed and it is this aspect that enticed Ostretsov. He says, ‘Cartoons were not pop but protest’.
Many of his characters are masked. Have a closer look at the masks. Why might Ostretsov have masked some of his characters?
How would you describe the masks? In Ostretsov’s narrative, leaders of the New Government never appear in public without their
masks which means that leaders can change without the masses knowing, they are unidentifiable and as such avoid the dangers of the
‘personality cult’. This creates a sinister and unnerving view of power.
Gallery 5: Nika Neelova, Scaffolds Today, Monuments Tomorrow, 2012, Burnt and waxed wood, paper and ink 200 x 150 x
400cm
Nika Neelova makes sculptural installations out of reclaimed architectural features and burnt timber. Disassociated from their original
use and re-composed in her new arrangements, these old beams, casts and worn ropes exude their own original energy as well as
their heritage.
Principles of Surrender (2010) is constructed out of six burnt wood posts which, with its slight cantilevers, support beams and mortise
and tenon joints, resembles age-old vernacular architecture. Tied to the platform created by these posts are huge bell clappers which
the artist has cast in wax infused with ash, creating an enormous congregation of bell pulls. Scaffolds Today, Monuments Tomorrow
(2011) disturbingly reads both as a seaside pier and a platform used to hang people.
Neelova’s works open up the distorted manner in which the past is read by the present, and what she refers to as “the historical
memory that is embedded in materials.”
Take a closer look at the materials Nika Neelova has used. The materials can give us many of the clues that we need to think about
these pieces and discuss them. What are the different materials she has used? What adjectives would you use to describe them? How
might they feel to touch, what do they smell of?
Neelova has a fascination with discarded objects. She begins her sculptures with materials that are damaged, eroded, or ruins of
past architectural structures. Neelova sees discarded objects as containing a history, a narrative that can be unraveled or created by
the artist and viewer. She is careful therefore, never to force materials to look old, she only allows time or natural processes to erode
her materials. As such her work is about memory, time, and history. Neelova comments, “I’m interested in representing spaces which
capture the transience of time and contain a sense of lost experiences”
Imagine that the materials have been on a journey. Neelova says of her work “I often choose to use reclaimed architectural features
and reclaimed timber because of the historical memory that is embedded in these materials. Belonging to a different time and a
different place, they carry a story of a past life.”
Ask yourself these questions
Where they part of another structure?
Who destroyed the materials?
How have they been used?
What have the materials witnessed?
Who used them?
Who looked at them?
Where did the artist find them?
Why were they destroyed?
How were they transported?
Neelova often burns the materials she uses. This may symbolize the end of the journey; it is their final stage of transformation. By
turning practical materials into a work of art, you are giving them a new chapter in their story; but perhaps as a work of art it is their final
chapter and burning them is their final state.
The sculptures are the result of extensive sketching, note making and models, which alludes to the process of developing
ideas that are reshaped and manipulated over time.
On the scale of her work, Neelova is careful to highlight architectural elements without making the sculptures themselves on a
grandiose scale. She says,“I keep the scale to natural proportions so the viewer inhabits the work as they would the architecture, so it
does have a physical conversation with the viewer, and is also a fragment which refers to being part of something bigger.”
For Neelova these works represent elements of her own history. As a child she moved from Russia and never settled in one place,
which has affected her sense of place and permanency. However, she does not want her works to be overly introspective; rather she
wants a larger audience to recognise the elements in her work, therefore alluding to a collective memory.
Neelova’s journey of her younger years has influenced the aesthetic of her work, to the extent that she comments, “I feel the very
different Russian culture is still strong in me, though I have adapted to the West. I find I have both roughness and polish in the work,
both the overwhelming baroque exuberance of Russia together with the more minimal, condensed and refined culture here. Both are
somewhat distorted in my interpretations, but nevertheless very present and important.”
Galleries 7 & 8: Boris Mikhailov, Case History, 1997-1998, A set of 413 photographs
Please note some of these images are unsuitable for students below 18 yrs.
Boris Mikhailov, probably the most influential photographer working in Russia today, has spent decades documenting the social condition of
individuals living in the Soviet Union and the aftermath of its collapse. Case History (1997-1998) comprises 413 photographs of people in his
hometown of Kharkov, in the Ukraine, taken between 1997–98, ten years after the dismantlement of the Soviet system. Fifteen years on, it is still a
startling chronicle of the extremes of life on the streets for suddenly destitute members of society – the abandoned working class, young and old,
chronically poor, and newly homeless individuals who fell through the cracks of a system now without a net, failed by the promises of Perestroika
and capitalism.
A carnival of desperate characters, whether under the influence, lost or larking about, his Goya-like players put a face to the anonymous despair of
a public ideology gone bankrupt. It is one of the most frank documents of the human condition in times of desperation.
Learning more about Boris Mikhailov’s personal experience during and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union allows us to
contextualize these works, helping us to come to terms with the harrowing images.
Boris Mikhailov worked in a factory whilst training himself to be a photographer. During his time there, the government employed him to
make an educational film of his factory and shortly after this the KGB found nude photographs of his wife that he had taken. As a result
he was dismissed from his job. These are the beginnings of his career as a photographer.
What kind of image does Mikhailov build up of the citizens of his hometown? How important was it for Mikhailov to take these
photographs? Does this take Mikhailov out of the role of an artist and into the position of a social documenter? Mikhailov’s photographs
provide a stark and unflinching insight into these large communites of people, how much would we know of these communites without
his work? ‘Case History’ helps us understand the complexities involved in the argument for the change of political systems.
The artist says, “What happened on the ruins of the ex-Soviet Empire is still unique. Motivations are different. These guys’ shabbiness
is the mirror of the ruin and disappointment of a much larger number of people, most of whom no longer feel safe and wealthy as in the
Soviet era; many people’s ideals are gone forever, others have simply gone mad! I have taken pictures of them and I have enjoyed it,
and maybe the whole world has a better understanding of the post-communist dramas through these sequences taken directly after
nature.”
Mikhailov’s photographs are intimate scenes taken in the areas people live in, some with no clothes on, some in states of delirium.
Are these moments private, do these people have privacy? These photographs ask us to consider when private moments should
become public concern.
Mikhailov comments on the difficulty and necessity to photograph these people, “I tried to capture the feeling of their
helplessness, of their social oppression; I once witnessed a scene whereby a strong young man caviled at a poor guy passing by and
kicked him hard. I even thought I had heard the poor man’s bones break. Nobody noticed it, either those nearby, or the militia man
patrolling close by. I felt guilty, as I often feel guilty of things I see and take pictures of.”
Gallery 9: Dasha Shishkin, Not Sad, Just Sighing, 2012, Acrylic and pastel on Mylar 152.5cm x 213cm
Driven by line, Dasha Shishkin’s colourful drawings display an inventiveness and confidence not limited to fluid draughtsmanship. Her large-scale
compositions on Mylar are inhabited by a multiplicity of scenes and characters, bordering on the comical and the grotesque. Crowded into
vertiginously patterned interiors, her blank-faced figures of elegantly clad women sit cross-legged, stand behind counters, talk among themselves as
in a ball or ponder alone, lingering in erotically charged poses as if morphing into each other in a dream fantasy.
Colour is a crucial element in her pictures, laying down a neon, sugary context and constant energetic distraction from the odd nonchalance of her
carnival players, as seen in What Does It Matter To Her Ever Creating Womb If Today Matter is Flesh And Tomorrow Worms (2012). Survival Takes
A Good Memory (2012) is like a coloured-in surrealist children’s book or Schiele on acid. Not Sad, Just Sighing (2012) again depicts a high society
cast in Dior gowns and chic pencil skirts, and in the distance a desert.
Look at the titles, how do they relate to the images they have been attached to? From a young age Dasha Shishkin has spoken both Russian and
English and enjoys playing with words and their meanings. These titles almost seem unrelated to the art works, in fact she sees the title as a happy
distraction to the works. In the same way as our own names do not tell people about who we are and what we do, she thinks that the titles of the art
works can be detached from their subject matter. Shishkin says, ‘Titles are like the cherry on the cake’.
The playful element of her work is important. Shishkin aims to introduce humour into her work (in fact she imagines that Rowan Atkinson’s
character, Mr Bean, is always at her side when creating her art!)
With an aesthetic focus on line which is filled with bright, block colour, it seems as if this style is depicting a story, like an illustration, however, it is
difficult to detect a continuous narrative in her work. Instead these are more akin to fantasies; they have a mysterious, sometimes surreal element to
them. In some places it looks as if she has doodled and repeated shapes. Her doodles allow her work to become close to abstraction in parts. She
is conscious of her doodles though, and maintains control over them whilst she explores the mediums she is working with.
Similar to Nika Neelova, Shishkin finds that her materials direct her work and trigger new ideas. She treats her materials and mediums as
experiments that influence the choices she makes. Her approach is to say ‘what if’? As a result her works are made from wallpaper, crayons, ink,
wrinkled paper, fabric, torn canvas. The works here are mostly on Mylar (semi-transparent plastic sheeting) she often draws on one side and paints
on the other, which is typical of her experimental methods of working.
Do these works look particularly feminine, can you notice any male figures in this works? How are women portrayed in these images? Do you think
Shishkin has a particularly feminine style in her mark making or use of colour?
Female Russian artists in the last 100 years occupy an interesting position as the history of feminism differs significantly to feminism in the West.
Whilst feminism was taking force in the West during the 1970s, in Russia women were already expected to work full time whilst baring the
responsibility for the domestic sphere. Due to the differing constraints put upon women and that they were not able to fight for equality in the same
way, feminist art could not develop. In the unofficial art communities women often partnered with men to be able to make artwork. In the immediate
post Soviet era there was a disdain for empowered female artists as they were seen to look back to the memories of aggressive Stalinist
bureaucrats. Is it possible to detect residues of this history impacting on some of the female artists in this exhibition?
Gallery 10: Valery Koshlyakov, Grand Opera, Paris, 1995, Tempera on Cardboard 420 x 500cm
Valery Koshlyakov makes large-scale cardboard paintings and collages of architectural monuments which offer a re-reading of the symbols of
empire. Covered in paint drips, his flattened-box panels look wet, urgent, quickly rendered, and they show his iconic subjects, from a Soviet stadium
to a gothic cathedral, as a madman’s fantasy.
The five-metre wide Grand Opera, Paris (1995) depicts its subject in a myriad of unfinished details, washes and vigorous brushstrokes that turn the
solid structure into a half-idealized, half-non-existing precarious castle in the air. High-rise on Raushskaya Embankment (2006), painted with
tempera on cardboard, is evocative of an avant-garde architectural masterpiece, yet the painting’s flimsy support, in contrast with the monumentality
of its subject, hints at the irony of a failed utopia. Koshlyakov takes his imagery from ancient ruins, sculpture and modern government buildings, but
the monumental scale of his works suggests a particularly charged reference – that of Stalin-era murals and political myth-building.
Koshlyakov is one of the artists that addresses what Boris Mikhailov calls, ‘The ruins of the ex-soviet empire’.
What kind of image does Koshlyakov create of Russia’s major cities and some of their most well known monuments? These are not just
the major cities of Russia, however, Koshlyakov also depicts well known views of international cities. Why do you think Koshlyakov
represents these cities alongside Russia’s? Many of the artists in this exhibition are looking at concerns that are specifically Russian;
Koshlyakov is casting a wider net that comments on ideas related to the old empire and how these monuments sit alongside today’s
society.
Koshlyakov trained as a set designer, can you see the influence of his training in his works here? The scale of the structure and the
execution of the scenes could appear as if backdrops to a play. The scenes are not accurate depictions, rather they give an impression
of a city that verges on fantasy.
Look at the process and aesthetics of Koshlyakov’s work. How would you describe his style? Ask yourself these questions:
What type of paint is used?
Is there perspective in the works?
Does it look sturdy or flimsy?
What colours are used?
What is the impact of light and shade?
How does the subject of the works contrast with the materials?
How would you describe the size of the works?
What affect does the size have on the way you feel about the works?
How much control of the medium is there?
How would you describe the brushstrokes?
How accurate is the work?
What material is the paint applied to?
How is the paint applied?
How are the final pieces constructed?
Discussion Points and Activities
1. Choose one artwork, stand a meter away from the work (without touching!) and create a view finder with your
hands. Either describe or sketch what you see in your close up. Now stand 6 paces away from the work and
sketch or describe what you see.
2. Choose an artwork that you would normally walk past. Stand in front of it and really look at it. What happens?
3. What is the title of the artwork and how is this relevant to the work?
Sometimes the title will tell you more about the work, or give you a key word to interpret it effectively.
4. What is the art made from? How many different materials have been used? Are the materials new or recycled?
In this show artists have used a range of materials from broken glass to cardboard boxes to pickled vegetables – how do these materials
impact the meaning of the work? The choices made by the artist reflect the kind of ideas they want to portray.
5.
How does size play a part in your experience of the piece?
A very small artwork might come across as delicate, fragile or unimposing. A large sculpture or painting might come across as overwhelming
or monumental.
6. What effect does the choice of colour have on your thoughts about the work?
7. Is there a clear message the art work is trying to get across? Political? Religious? Propaganda? Story-telling? Social injustice?
8. Do any of the works in the exhibition remind you of works that you have seen elsewhere by other artists? How do they differ / how are they
similar? Think in terms of technique, style, composition or materials. What elements are similar / different?
9. If you could hang 3 works together in one room from this show, which works would you choose?
Why would you choose to put them together – what links would you draw between the works? Might they address similar issues? Or share
artistic techniques? Or look good formally when hung near each other (i.e. on a purely visual level)?
Suggested Reading
Bown, Matthew, Contemporary Russain Art, Phaidon Press, 1998
Grinberg, Markov, Soviet Era, Damiani, 2012
Frozen Dreams: Contemporary Art From Russia, ed. Hossein Amirsadeghi, essays Ekaterina Bobrinskaia, Alexandra Danilova, Eleanor
Heartney, Thames and Hudson, 2011
Iron Curtain Graphics: Eastern European Design Created without Computers, ed. Atelierul de Grafica, Die Gestalten Verlag
2012
Valery Koshlyakov, ed. Cecelia Casorati, Electra, 2003
Walker Shaun, Girls of Moscow / Boys of Moscow, Capri Publishing, 2012
Suggested Websites
http://www.theartstory.org/movement-suprematism.htm
http://www.theartstory.org/movement-constructivism.htm
http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/constructivism/
http://www.calvert22.org/
http://www.mmoma.ru/en/about/
http://4th.moscowbiennale.ru/en/
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/country/Russian%20Federation
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/index.html
Glossary
Soviet Union (USSR)
The socialist state run by the Communist Party between 1922 and 1991, capital Moscow. A union of 15 Soviet republics including what we now
know as Russia and the Ukraine. Many of the artists in this exhibition were around to witness the breakup of the Soviet Union and its influence can
be seen throughout.
Stalin, Joseph 1878-1953
The title of the exhibition is a quote taken from a speech made by Joseph Stalin who was the Premier of the Soviet Union between May 1941 and
March 1953. He began his career as a member of the Social Democratic Labour Party in 1901 and ending up taking on the hugely powerful role of
General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1922. Throughout his time as Soviet political leader, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions.
However he was regarded as a shrewd and capable strategist whose influence was immeasurable. After his death and a gradual shift in public
opinion and freedom of speech, attempts were made to erase Stalin’s image from the Soviet Union. Statues and portraits were removed from public
places, and towns, streets and parks named after him were changed – Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd in 1961. This process was part of Nikita
Khrushchev's programme of de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.
Lenin, Vladimir 1870-1924
Vladimir Lenin was Premier of the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1924, more than 15 years before Stalin’s term. Although he appointed Stalin as
General Secretary of the Communist Party and initially counted him as a close supporter and ally, towards the end of his life great suspicion and
conflict arose between the two men resulting in Lenin accusing Stalin of attempting to seize power over the party from him.
Perestroika
A political movement begun in the 1980s associated with the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his ‘glasnost’ plan for reformation. It was meant
to restructure the Soviet Union socially, politically and economically. Although perestroika was intended to create freedom (i.e. allowing the
publication of previously banned books such at Nineteen Eighty Four, and the encouragement of private ownership and profitability in Soviet
industry and agriculture), it led to social unrest and ultimately the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
Cold War (roughly between 1947-1991)
The long period of antagonism between the West (led by the US and NATO allies) and the Communist world (led by the Soviet Union). The tension
manifested itself in the development and subsequent possession of nuclear arms by the opposing superpowers and with constant rivalry in the field
of technology such as the so-called ‘space race’. The effect of the Cold War and its legacy is evident in much of the art of the period and Russian
art since.
Socialism
A theory of social organisation which advocates the ownership and control of capital, land etc in the community as a whole.
Capitalism
An economic system which is based on investment and ownership of means of production, distribution etc. Exchange of capitalist wealth is made
and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations as opposed to state or co-operatively owned groups.
Utopianism
The belief in a society which is essentially founded on idealistic or impracticable schemes of political and social reform.
Propaganda
The term used to describe information that is spread deliberately in order to promote or harm a certain person, group, movement etc. Images are a
very powerful tool in terms of propaganda and the role of Russian artists in national or government propaganda has been large and varied.
Agitprop
A Russian term specifically coined to describe pamphlets, illustrations, films and other art forms that were designed with an explicit political
message in mind.
Socialist Realism
A style of art which originated in the Soviet Union and then spread to other socialist countries, Socialist Realism
generally served to depict a strong image of the working class and the struggle for its emancipation. This often
entailed representation of contented workers, peasants living happily in their communes and images of a young, fit
Joseph Stalin thus offering an idealised view of the Soviet Union. Socialist Realism was the officially approved
style of art there for over 60 years and any Soviet art that did not fit within its parameters was subject to heavy
censorship. Not to be confused with Social realism which refers to art whose subject matter is of general social
concern.
An image typical of Socialist Realism, entitled Roses for Stalin
Sots-art (short for Socialist Art)
Sots-art, sometimes referred to as ‘Soviet Pop Art’ emerged in the 1970s as a reaction to the officially permitted Socialist Realism that had been
implemented by the government. Sots-art subverted the official style by making subtle changes to already accepted images of Socialist Realism.
The two founding pioneers of the movement were Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid who initially worked for an advertising company that
produced the authorized government propaganda. They tweaked well known Soviet symbols and slogans and would replace images of Stalin and
Lenin with images of themselves as an attack on accepted authority.
Constructivism
Originating in Russia in 1919, Constructivism was a movement which believed in using art and architecture for social purpose
rather than as autonomous practice. For example the work of Constructivist artists was used as propaganda for the Bolshevik
government. The influence of the constructivists can be seen in the work of many contemporary Russian artists and had a
profound impact on graphic design and the emergence of the Bauhaus movement in the early 20s. The aesthetics of
Constructivism centre around bold lines and shapes, fragmented images and a strong yet restricted palette. Its heavy use of
slogans and symbolism made Constructivism an ideal medium for political propaganda.
Key artists: Kurt Schwitters, Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir Tatlin, László Moholy-Nagy, Naum Gabo
Kurt Schwitters Das Unbild 1919
Suprematism
A movement founded in Russia by the artist Kazimir Malevich in the early twentieth century, Suprematism was similar to
Constructivism with its use of clean lines and geometric forms. However it was not used as a social or political tool in the same
way, instead Malevich wanted the movement to lead to "supremacy of pure feeling or perception in the pictorial arts." In 1913,
Malevich was asked to come up with designs for the ‘first Futurist opera’ Victory over the Sun. He produced a set of anti-realist
costumes which were brightly coloured and made up of bizarre geometric shapes.
Kasimir Malevich Suprematism: Self-Portrait in Two Dimensions1915
Futurism
Futurism was a movement that took off in Russia in the early twentieth century whichprioritised concepts of the future such
as technology, speed, youth and a growth in urban development. Like Constructivism, Futurism was very much about
creating a certain image of the nation, in this case one of rapid growth and technological power. In this sense we can look
upon the work of certain Futurist artists as a kind of propaganda in its own right.
Key artists: KseniyaBoguslavskaya, Ivan Klyun, Mikhail Menkov, Ivan Puni and Olga Rozanova
Natalia Goncharova, Cyclist, 1913
Minimalism
A general term referring to art which is as stripped down to its essential elements as is possible (and the simplest things have
maximum effect). Mainly associated with post WW2 art in the West although has its roots in Russian Constructivism.
Geometric and abstract in nature, the influence of the Constructivists is clear in contemporary Minimalist art.
Kazimir Malevich Black Square 1915