Necia Chronister
Position Paper
Kasimir Malevich, “The Question of Imitative Art”
The square
is political! At least, this is what Kasimir Malevich argues in his 1920
essay “The Question of Imitative Art.”Â
Having been criticized as an apolitical idealist, Malevich
argues in this essay that Suprematism, a movement in
art based on simple geometric shapes, expresses a kind of “economy of movement”
that defines contemporary communist society and that will ultimately unify all
people. Not only does Melavich associate Suprematism
with communism, he calls for an egalitarianism of creativity: “We are moving
towards a world where everyone will createÂ…We must set creativityÂ’s path in
such a way that all the masses will take part in the development of every
creative thought that appears, without turning it into mechanized production or
cliché” (297). This means not only
simplifying visual forms and devaluing traditional forms of representation that
require high skill levels; it also means divorcing art from its traditional
context of national identity, patriotism, class, and property.
To persuade
his readership, Malevich employs a contemporary strategy
for rallying the masses. He first
appeals to the youth, then idealizes the concept of unity and the “single man of
action” who can effect this kind of unity. Next, he juxtaposes the young with the old,
the revolutionary with the reactionary, and the innovators with the academy. He calls on the young, revolutionary
innovators to destroy the academy of imitative art: “No form of the old can
exist, for revolutionary perfection is ceaselessly bearing its being further
and further by means for our consciousness, broadening and deepening space by energic economic reasoning” (295). Further, in his attack on the academy and
call for non-imitative art, Malevich redefines
perfection in representation. Formerly,
perfection in art meant creating a mirror image of an objective reality;
perfection for Malevich means a refinement of the old
through “instantaneous action” to effect an expression of the “economy of
movement.”Â
According
to Malevich, it is through the economy of movement
that society will be united: “Economy in movement is the same for everyone,
whilst, on the other hand, everyone has different aesthetic tastes, and
therefore move towards not unity but division and
separation; contemporary life leaves this by means of communism” (296). To me, this is the most ambiguous and most
intriguing element of Malevich’s argument. Malevich couches
his argument in communist terms: the economy, the circulation of resources, is
what unifies a communist society. In
terms that we have discussed in this class, considering new technologies of
transport and communication of the period, how did people become part of the
circulation? Â Malevich
argues that an expression of this kind of movement is needed in art and is
truer to contemporary society than representational art. In a time when people are as easily
transported and circulated as goods and resources, how does this bear on the artistic
expression of the individual? Â Should MalevichÂ’s argument be understood as specific to communism,
or does it also have implications for all countries with the new
technologies? Finally, if the economy of
movement is to be expressed in art, how are we to understand basic geometric
shapes as the form of movement?