Lifei Xu
Position
Paper
Kasimir Malevich, “The Question of
Imitative Art”
Having
written this article in 1920 with a belief that imitative art and Suprematism are binaries of the old and the new art, Kasimir Malevich renounces that
old form arts can represent the contemporary economic and political trend. He
attempts to promote the new art of creative construction, specifically Suprematism, and confirms that it is the only artistic
means by which the masses are able convey the revolutionary nature of his
contemporary events.Â
Malevich observes
in the contemporary movement that the avant-gardes of economics and politics have
struggled to build up a new economic utilitarian world in which all humanity as
unity, instead of scattered individuals, is able to obtain rights and liberty. He
believed that the economic principle is crucial to construct such a
contemporary new territory. From this perspective, the economic measure should therefore
be applied to all forms of expression.
One of the
most salient characteristics of MalevichÂ’s argument in
this article is his intention to underline SuprematismÂ’s
intimate relation with this economic principle that he believes will lead all humanity
to unity. From his perspective, the academicism of old art depends on aesthetic
tastes varying individually, thus leading towards division instead of unity.
Imitative art blocks the path of unity also because it has depended heavily on
nationalism. In contrast, the new art expresses the economic principle of
unity, because creativity, as the essence of Suprematism,
is universal to all men. In this regard, the new art arises under the
contemporary measure of economics, along with the revolutionary currents of the
contemporary movement.
On the
other hand, he argues that the hardship confronting the emergence of the new
art is contrary to the creative path the economic development has taken. In
art, the old style is celebrated as valuable, beautiful and skillful, whereas
the innovative nature of modern art is overlooked and stifled by the state,
society and the critical press.Â
In
actuality Malevich observes that the young force of new
art has kept alive regardless of the harsh censorship. 1910 witnesses CubismÂ’s
confrontation of imitative art. The October Revolution partly recognizes the
artistic forerunners. Nevertheless, these achievements are not satisfying to Malevich. He denies the possibility of uniting two opposing
forms, namely the creative construction of the new art and the representation
of the old. Â
My critique
concerns that Malevich has pushed his argument a bit
too far in promoting modern art as the only means of representation. According
to him, creativity leads to the path of unity of all humanity, and creative
construction only belongs to the new art. He thus implies that the new art is
the only means of expression under the measure of economics. With his binary
take on the old and the new art, Malevich refuses the
fact that creativity is inherent in both, no matter whether he labeled them as imitative
or creative, representation or creative construction. In
this article, he reasonably announces that “people [who] think only
academism can produce real art… [are blind] to their own perfection” (295). However,
by determining to destroy old style art, is himself also somewhat blind to his own
perfection of modern art?
Malevich
stated that the form of academism as representation cannot convey “the actual
force of red”. (297)  My
questions are what does he mean by this “actual force of red” and do you find that
Suprematism has succeeded in conveying it? If so, by what means?