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. 

 

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. 

 

In actuality Malevich observes that the young force of new art has kept alive regardless of the harsh censorship. 1910 witnesses Cubism’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.  

 

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?