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.”  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 create…We must set creativity’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.” 

 

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?  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?  Should Malevich’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?