2015, № 1 (176)

Zhiryakova A.D., Nazarov Y.V. THE INTERCONNECTIONS AND CONTRASTS OF THE CONCEPTS OF SHAPING BY V. E. TATLIN AND K. S. MALEVICHThe present article compares the spiritual and professional provisions of the two dramatically different approaches to form-making by Vladimir Tatlin and Kazimir Malevich, leaders of the Russian avant-guard art, from the point of view of modern design. The social and cultural aspect of avant-guard ideas appearance and development in Russia’s art during the Revolution are analyzed. The articles how show futuristic ideas boosted the development of new form-making ideas in the Russian culture in general and in plastic art in particular. VladimirTatlin’s famous masterpieces are used as examples to demonstrate the artist’s aspirations aimed at finding the universal language of the form. Some extra emphasis is put on the artistic discovery of the importance of using the person’s tactile senses while working on the form. It is stated that the visual and the tactile contact is nothing but doubling the attention to the quality of the object’s surface, which can help to find the form, now that modern products are becoming very small. Tatlin held that the artistic intuition coupled with the technique of using the material’s properties in a rational manner will make it possible to create objects that are ideal in the matter of shape. This created a new branch in design development. By carefully reading Tatlin’s works we can assert that man is the primary being in the new reality he creates. The facts that all the products are proportional to people and the environment they live in; there is an increasing attention to the properties of materials as well as to the surface finish and texture and all the objects are becoming absolutely biomorphically similar to people, which can be viewed the guidelines for designers to act. The instruction is unique primarily because it is universal. Looking at the 20th century art in Russia from the perspective of form making in modern design (issues, rules and development prospects), we can assert that the concept of zero form is the main sense-making idea that was put forward by Kazimir Malevich, the father of suprematism. Suprematism’s key value is the pathos of liberating art from picturalism. Instead of design in some specific objects, Malevich tried to ‘fully reorganize the Earth’s surface in a new way’, to guess the form without a form, and to predict the zero point as the origin for the search of a new form, using the new principles. As Malevich put it, the planes of suprematism are ‘the plans of future spacious objects’. The antifunctionalistic nature of suprematism which finds its manifestation in the principle of tridementionality has the character of non-objective generality. Non-objective objects comply with the right-angled geometry. The ultimate conceptualism of the design is manifested through the tough geometrism. The general depiction of large-scale objects accounts for the inexpediency of further details. Scalein Malevich’s concepts has no numerical value, which makes it a universal template for future objects of any size. Both artists laid the foundation for the new design paradigm of the 20th century which intends to continue its development in the 21st century. Theirfindingsinform-makingarethebasisforthedevelopmentofnumerous branches in design and architecture and are waiting to be applied by future experimentalists in project design.Key words: Form-making, futurism, constructivism, suprematism, the tangible world, art intuition in engineering, zero form.

Download

References:

1. Aronov, V. The Ulm School of Design. — Art Studies № 3-4. — The State Institute for Art Studies, Moscow: 2007, pp. 343-384, 373, 380.

2. Bryusov, V. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow of Russian Poetry // The Print and the Revolution. 1922. Book Seven — pp. 54-56.

3. Gropius, V. The Opening Ceremony Speech at the Ulm Higher School of Form-Making.– Gropius, V. The Boundaries of Architecture. Moscow, 1971, p. 250 (as translated by V. Aronov).

4. Zhadova, L. Suprematic Order: the Soviet Architecture History Issues. — Moscow, 1983, — pp. 34-37.

5. Ikonnikov, A. The 20thCentury Architecture. Utopias and Reality (In Two Volumes). — V.1. Moscow: The Progress-Traditsia Publishing House, 2001. — pp. 276-277, 286, 288-289.

6. Kruchenykh A., The Word As It Is. — Moscow, 1913.

7. Kurierova, G. The Italian Design Model. Project and Research Concepts of the Second Half of the 20th Century. — Moscow, 1993. — p. 154.

8. Lavrentiev, A. The Constructivism Laboratory. Chapter Experiment 1. Moscow, 2002. — 288 pages — p. 27.

9. Literary Heritage. — Moscow, 1958. — v. 65, p. 599.

10. Malevich, Kazimir On New Systems in Art. — Vitebsk, 1919 — pp. 2-4.

11. Sarabianov, D., Shatskikh, A. Kazimir Malevich: Painting, Theory. — Moscow, 1993 — pp. 232, 234.

12. Barkhin, M., Yaralov, Y. Masters of Soviet Architecture on Architecture. Selected Excerpts from Letters, Articles, Speeches, and Works. (In Two Vilumes) — V. 2: The Soviet Architecture. — Moscow, The Iskusstvo Publishing House, 1975, pp. 62,75, 76, 77, 78.

13. Monakhova, L. The Aesthetic Stereotype Formation of Object Forms in Art Nouveau // VNIITE. Artistic Design History Papers. —Moscow, 1972. —p. 142.

14. Punin, N. A Review of the Latest Trends in Petersburg Art //Russkoye Iskusstvo Magazine, 1923, № 1. p. 18.

15. Garden of Judges II. — St. Petersburg, 1913.

16. Somov, Y. Arrangement in Engineering and Technology. — 3rdedition: revised and enlarged. — Moscow: The Mashinostroenie Publishing House (MashGiz), 1987. — 288 pages: p. 17, 18.

17. Khan-Magomedov, S. Architecture of Soviet Avant-Guard. (In Two Books) — Book 1: Form-Making Problems. Masters and Trends. — Moscow: The StroyIzdat Publishing House, 1996. — 709 pages: pp. 44, 85, 86, 87, 89, 104, 107, 109, 235.

18. Shklovsky, V., On Texture and Counter Reliefs // The Zhizn Iskusstva. — 20 October 1920.

19. Moles, A. L’Objetet Kitsch. — Communications. 1969, N 13. pp. 105-129.

About this article

Author:

Year: 2015

Editor-in-chief

Sergey Aleksandrovich
MIROSHNIKOV

© Электронное периодическое издание: ВЕСТНИК ОГУ on-line (VESTNIK OSU on-line), ISSN on-line 1814-6465
Зарегистрировано в Федеральной службе по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций
Свидетельство о регистрации СМИ: Эл № ФС77-37678 от 29 сентября 2009 г.
Учредитель: Оренбургский государственный университет (ОГУ)
Главный редактор: С.А. Мирошников
Адрес редакции: 460018, г. Оренбург, проспект Победы, д. 13, к. 2335
Тел./факс: (3532)37-27-78 E-mail: vestnik@mail.osu.ru