The Design Approach of El Lissitzky - Essay Example

How The Ethical And Ideological Views Of The Soviets During The Russian Revolution Of 1917-1921 Affected The Design Approach Of El Lissitzky Introduction The Russian Jew, Lazar Markovich Lissitzky, better known as El Lissitzky, was not just an artist, designer, photographer, teacher, typographer and architect in one; he was also a devoted follower of the communist movement that was rising in Russia as a result of the Revolution. El Lissitzky was an important part of the Russian avant grade, playing several key roles. For example, together with his mentor Kazimir Malevich, he was instrumental to the development of Suprematism, which is an art movement that unarguably started in Russia and later went on to create a fusion between Suprematism, Constructivism and Neo-plasticism. He designed several exhibition display and propaganda for the Soviet Union and experimented with several techniques and styles that set him apart from other artist, in creativity, and later paved a niche for him through the 20th century (Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980; Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum and El Lissitzy, 1990). Lazar Markovich Lissitzky, a Jew, started as an artist early in life copying and illustrating Yiddish children's books. His efforts were basically aimed a promoting the Jewish culture in Russia, in line with the several changes taking place after the country's anti-Semitic laws were repealed. Starting at the age of 15, he began teaching, a duty that he never strayed far away from, for the most part of his life (Friedberg, 1987). He taught in a variety of positions, schools, and artistic mediums, spreading and exchanging ideas at a rapid pace. The ability to imbibe people's ideas and at the time same influencing them, was his unique trait. This trait was exhibited when he met and worked with Malevich in heading the suprematist art group UNOVIS, when he developed a variant suprematist series of his own, Proun, and further still in 1921, when he took up a job as the Russian cultural ambassador in Weimar Germany, working with and influencing important figures of the Bauhaus and De Stijl movements during his stay (Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum and El Lissitzy, 1990). Also, in his later days, he significantly influenced and brought several innovations to the fields of typography, exhibition design, photomontage, and book design. He produced several internationally recognised works. This continued until his deathbed, where in 1941 he produced one of his last known works - a Soviet propaganda poster rallying the people to construct more tanks for the fight against Nazi Germany (Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980). However, the entire career and works of El Lissitzky was inspired by his belief that art should serve the needs of the society and that the artist should be an agent of change. From this perspective, it can be argued that his innovations in the world of art were driven by his resolve to serve societal needs, or affect the lots of the people, giving his devotion to the communist movement (Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980; Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum and El Lissitzy, 1990). This essay therefore, intends to examine the life and work of El Lissitzky with a view to analysing the impacts and effects that the ethical and ideological views prevalent during his days, especially during the Russian Revolution had on his approach to art and design. To achieve this purpose, this essay will be structured thus: the first section of this essay shall briefly describe the history of El Lissitzky and the rise of the Proletarian Culture to provide a background understanding of his early days and perhaps his motivation. The second section will describe the several popular works of this artist and attempt to critically examine the influence of the prevalent soviet ideological of the time, on such work of art. Also, by looking at how his approach to art and design metamorphosed from the early days of illustrating Yiddish books to his later days in typography, on would gain an insight into how prevalent ethics and ideological perspectives influenced his approach to, and direction of artistry. The concluding section of the essay will sum up what has been said thus far and attempt to establish the position of the writer. El Lissitzky was born on the 23rd of November, 1890 in a small Jewish town called Pochinok, which lies 5okm southeast of Smolensk in the former Russian Empire. During his childhood, he lived and studied in the city of Vitebsk, now part of Belarus, and later spent 10 years in Smolensk living with his grandparents and attending the Smolensk Grammar School. Always expressing an interest and talent in drawing, he started to receive instruction at the age of 13 from Jehuda Pen, a local Jewish artist, and by the time he was 15 began teaching students himself When he was 19yrs old [in 1909] he applied to study art in an art academy in Petersburg. However, the law under the Tsarist regime of that period only allowed only a limited number of Jewish students to attend Russian schools and universities. So, despite the fact that he passed the entrance exams, he was rejected admission [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980]. Like many other Jews living in the Russian Empire at the time, Lissitzky went to study in Germany. He left the Russian Empire the same year to study architecture and engineering at a Technische Hochschule in Darmstadt, Germany. During the summer of 1912, Lissitzky, in his own words, "wandered through Europe", spending time in Paris and covering 1200 km on foot in Italy, teaching himself about fine art and sketching architecture and landscapes that interested him [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980]. In the same year, 1912, El Lissitzky made his first success as an artist when his pieces were included for the first time in an exhibit by the St. Petersburg Artists Union; though he remained in Germany till the outbreak of World War I, when like most of his people, he was forced to return home. After the war, El Lissitzky returned to Moscow and attended the Polytechnic Institute of Riga. He received an architectural diploma from the school and immediately started assistant work at various architectural firms [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980; Perloff and Reed, 2003]. During this period, the Provincial Government repealed the Decree prohibiting the printing of Hebrew letters following the downfall of the openly anti-Semitic Tsarist regime. This stimulated El Lissitzky's interest in Jewish culture. Thus El Lissitzky soon devoted himself to Jewish art, exhibiting works by local Jewish artists, travelling to Mahilyow to study the traditional architecture and ornaments of old synagogues, and illustrating many Yiddish children's books. These books were El Lissitzky's first major foray in book design, a field that he introduced several innovations during his career [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980; Mayakovsky and El Lissitzky, 2000]. El Lissitzky's first major designs appeared in the 1917 book Sihas hulin: Eyne fun di geshikhten (An Everyday Conversation), where he incorporated Hebrew letters with a distinctly Art nouveau flair. His next book was a visual retelling of the traditional Jewish Passover song Had Gadya (One Goat), in which Lissitzky showcased a typographic device that he would often return to in later designs. In the book, Lissitzky integrated letters with images through a system of colour coding that matched the colour of the characters in the story with the word referring to them. In the designs for the final page (Fig1), Lissitzky depicts the mighty "hand of God" slaying the angel of death, who wears the Tsar's crown. This representation links the redemption of the Jews with the victory of the Bolsheviks [Perloff and Reed, 2003; Mayakovsky and El Lissitzky, 2000]. In 1919, upon receiving an invitation from fellow Jewish artist Marc Chagall, Lissitzky returned to Vitebsk to teach graphic arts, printing, and architecture at the newly formed People's Art School - a school that Chagall created after being appointed Commissioner of Artistic Affairs for Vitebsk in 1918. Chagall also invited other Russian artists, most notably the painter and art theoretician Kazimir Malevich and Lissitzky's former teacher, Jehuda Pen [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980]. Having been influenced by impressionism, primitivism, and cubism, Malevich started developing and aggressively advocating his ideas on suprematism. He replaced the classic teaching program with his own and disseminated his suprematist theories and techniques school-wide. Chagall advocated more classical ideals and Lissitzky, still loyal to Chagall, became torn between two opposing artistic paths. Lissitzky ultimately favoured Malevich's suprematism and broke away from traditional Jewish art. Chagall left the school shortly thereafter [Mayakovsky and El Lissitzky, 2000; Bowlt, 1989]. The absence of Chagall gave Lissitzky the liberty to subscribe fully to suprematism and, under the guidance of Malevich, helped further develop the movement. Some of his most famous works derive from this era, with perhaps his most famous being the 1919 propaganda poster "Beat the Whites with the Red wedge" [Fig2]. Russia was already going through a civil war at the time, which was mainly fought between the "Reds", who were the communists and revolutionaries, and the "Whites" who were the monarchists, conservatives, liberals and socialists who opposed the Bolshevik Revolution. The imagery of the red wedge shattering the white form, simple as it was, communicated a powerful message that left no doubt in the viewers mind of its intention. The piece is often seen as alluding to the similar shapes used on military maps and, along with its political symbolism, was one of Lissitzky's first major steps away from Malevich's non-objective suprematism into a style of his own [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980; Mayakovsky and El Lissitzky, 2000; Bowlt, 1989]. Explaining the rationale behind his art style, Lissitzky stated that "The artist constructs a new symbol with his brush. This symbol is not a recognizable form of anything that is already finished, already made, or already existent in the world - it is a symbol of a new world, which is being built upon and which exists by the way of the people" [Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980]. During this period Lissitzky proceeded to develop a variant suprematist style of his own, a series of abstract, geometric paintings which he called Proun (pronounced "pro-oon"). Proun was essentially Lissitzky's exploration of the visual language of suprematism with spatial elements, utilizing shifting axes and multiple perspectives; both uncommon ideas in suprematism. Suprematism at the time was conducted almost exclusively in flat, 2D forms and shapes, and Lissitzky, with a taste for architecture and other 3-dimensional concepts, tried to expand suprematism beyond this. His Proun works (known as Prounen), spanned over a half a decade and evolved from straightforward paintings and lithographs into fully 3-dimensional installations. They also laid the foundation for his later experimentations in architecture and exhibition design. While the paintings were artistic in their own right, their use as a staging ground for his early architectural ideas was significant. In these works, the basic elements of architecture - volume, mass, colour, space and rhythm - were subjected to a fresh formulation in relation to the new suprematist ideals [Bowlt, 1979; Lissitzky-Kuppers, 1980] Although, Lissitzky was partly influenced by his contact with several art styles, especially cubism, impressionism and constructism, The October 1917 Russian revolution however had a profound effect on him. Apparently due to his devotion to Soviet and communism ideology, Lissitzky saw the artist as a worker and not a producer of work of leisure. This therefore shifted his emphasis towards designing functional constructions which could benefit the emerging Proletarian Culture in the new Soviet State [Smith, 1999; Mally, 1990]. The movement for proletarian culture started its spread across Soviet Russia in the early years of the revolution and it came with a complex social and intellectual heritage. It was most directly inspired by the theories of the left Bolshevik intellectual Aleksandr Bogdanov, who believed that the proletariat had to found a new cultural system, that is, a new morality, a new politics, and a new art, in order to succeed against the old elite. But proletarian culture proved to be an expansive slogan that easily bore many other meanings. It appealed to workers who were eager to break all ties with intellectuals and to cultural radicals who wanted nothing to do with Russia's past. It also inspired liberal reformers who hoped to share their knowledge of classic Russian culture with the masses. Russian socialism, in its varied manifestations, was simultaneously a political and an educational movement. Intellectual socialist leaders keenly felt the rift between themselves, as representatives of privileged and cultured society, and the Russian masses, who were essential for a successful political upheaval. They hoped to transcend this divide by educating the masses to perceive their true interests. By doing so they believed that they were preparing the masses for radical political change. The educators had laudable goals. They tried to convey some knowledge of Russian high culture to their students, while at the same time convincing them of the need for revolution. Yet despite these good intentions, there were strains between the teachers, who conceived of themselves as the bearers of culture (kul'turtreger ), and their students, cast in the role of willing and grateful recipients [Mally, 1990]. Aleksandr Bogdanov's theory of proletarian culture was conceived as a way to transcend this tension. Inspired by his own experiences in populist circles, Bogdanov believed that it was possible to enlighten workers without dominating them. His purpose was not primarily to transmit political theory or high culture. Rather he hoped to encourage workers to take control of the socialist movement themselves. This unique didactic process would allow the proletariat to formulate its own class ideology and morality, which was eventually to serve as the basis for the socialist society of the future. Moved by their own desire to reach the people, many intellectuals devised popular educational projects in the early twentieth centuries. Philanthropists, liberals, populists, and socialists of all persuasions turned in increasing numbers to become teachers in evening classes, Sunday schools, open universities, and clubs. Their efforts also encouraged a popular educational press that aimed to bring scientific knowledge, contemporary literature, and a sense of cultural community to the labouring population at large. Proletarian culture also loosely described these endeavours. The intelligentsia was bringing culture, the finest artistic and scientific accomplishment of their society, to the working classes. They hoped to share this precious heritage and imbue the people with a sense of political and social responsibility [Smith, 1999; Mally, 1990]. For aspiring worker-intellectuals educated in study groups and, after 1905, in institutions affiliated with the labour movement, proletarian culture was an expression of their aim to challenge the cultural predominance of the intellectual elite. Some workers openly rejected the intelligentsia's aid and claimed that self-education was their goal. Although the members of these circles usually aspired to the fruits of high culture, they also encouraged their fellow workers to express their own artistic views and to criticize "bourgeois culture" and the class that sustained it. When the Proletkult emerged in 1917 all these unlikely collaborators could claim some responsibility for its formation. Bogdanov and his allies moulded Proletkult ideology to reflect their commitment to proletarian cultural leadership. The movement incorporated the participants in union clubs, people's universities, and self-education circles and reflected the ambivalent attitudes of these participants toward bourgeois culture and the intellectuals who possessed it. It also attracted part of the staff and the clientele of the liberal adult education movement, with its inclusive, democratic approach to education. These diverse understandings of culture, politics, and the proletariat both shaped and limited what the Proletkult became [Smith, 1999; Mally, 1990]. Friedberg [1987] recalls that Lissitzky approach to design was affected by his desire to persuade his fellow Jews of the justice of the Communism, as was practiced in the post-revolution Russia. According to this author, this fact is exemplified by his use of traditional language, Yiddish, characteristic Jewish symbols and values in his works. A typical example was the Had Gadya story. In 1919, two years following the beginning of the revolution, Lissitzky painted a series of watercolours describing the story of Had Gadya. Not part of a complete illuminated Haggadah, the sequence was intended to stand alone, carrying a message which transcends the message of Passover. It was a show of support for the Bolshevik's Soviet victory, conceived of as the victory of the weak over the strong, the good over the bad, as the victory of amended justice. According to Friedberg [1987] the painting of these series exposes the tension in Lissitzky's own ideological stance: his acknowledged rootedness in Judaism and his attraction to the new and better world promised by the Communists. He always wanted to serve the cause of the society. His believe that the artist should work for the general work was always present in most of is pierces. Furthermore, Friedberg [1987] explained that through the Had Gadya story, Lissitzky appears to be proposing to Jews of Russia a religious-political message, in which the Revolution is the fulfilment of Judgment Day and the redemption of the Jews [Friedberg, 1987]. This fact can be attested to by analysing some of his works, especially some scenes from the Had Gadya. In scene 9 of the Had Gadya story, Lissitzky chooses to depict the Angel of Death as a king, as death was commonly conceived in non-Jewish European art. On his head he wears a crown, made of a dome-shaped skullcap surrounded by three painted shapes, rounded at the top and resembling the leaves around a budding flower. This shape recalls Russian folklore depictions of the Tsar's crown. With this simple crown shape, Lissitzky creates an identity between the Angel of Death and monarchism, the Russian monarchy in particular. The political implications are made clear in the last painting of the series. In Scene 10 ("And the Holy One, Blessed be He, came and smote the Angel of Death"), where the Angel of Death with a crown on his head is seen lying dead at the bottom of the painting. The symbolism is clear: the Tsarist regime is dead. Lissitzky greatly believed in the idea of creating art with power and purpose; art that could invoke change. It would not be an overstatement, therefore, to state that most of his pierces and approach to art was primarily influenced by his devotion to, and believe in the cause of the Soviet state that resulted from the Revolution of 1917. Through his later his days, a significant portion of his work was Soviet propaganda. During this period, he started working for the propaganda magazine USSR im Bau (USSR in construction), where some of his most wild experiments with book design was produced. Each issue focused on a particular topic important to Stalin at the time - a new dam being built, constitutional reforms, Red Army progress and so on. Conclusion Throughout his career, Lissitzky advanced a number of methods, ideas, and movements that had a large and significant impact on contemporary art - particularly in the fields of graphic design, exhibition design, and architecture, partly because of his constant expansion and experimentation into many different mediums and styles, and his spirit of innovation in them [Monuments of the Future, 2000]. With his efforts towards the advancement of art, Lissitzky worked tirelessly for ways to better life with art. For that purpose he chose to study architecture in his youth; an artistic medium that directly affects and contributes to society. He was an ardent supporter of the Communist ideology and devoted a great part of his life and energy in its service. Through his Prouns, Utopian models for a new and better world were developed. This approach, in which the artist creates art with socially defined purpose, could aptly be summarized with his edict "das zielbewute Schaffen" - "the task oriented creation" [Glazova, 1990]. In his later years he brought revolutionary change to exhibition design, garnering him respect internationally as well as prestige within his own country and government. In exhibition and propaganda design, he found an area where he could apply his creative forces in the service of society. As Lissitzky-Kuppers [1980] puts it, to official Russia, El Lissitzky was and perhaps, still is known as the man who designed the first flag for the new Soviet regime and who, though was fatally ill, in 1945 executed the poster "Make More Tanks", in which photomontage ingenuity was greatly used. Whereas outside Russia, he is known as one of the pioneers of constructivism, and as a seer who maintained that works of art should not exist as separate objects but must work for and become part of the society. References Bowlt, John E (1979). Silver Age: Russian Art of the Early Twentieth Century. Newtonville, MA. Bowlt, John E (1989). Some Thoughts on the Conditions of Soviet Art History. The Art Bulletin , Vol 71, No 4 pp542-550. College Art Association. Friedberg, Haia (1987) Lissitzky's Had Gadia. Journal of Jewish Art, Vol. 12 the Centre for Jewish Art:Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Glazova, Anna (1990) El Lissitzky in Weimar Germany. Available online. Retrieved 7th Nov, 2006 from http://spintongues.vladivostok.com/glazova27eng.htm Lissitzky-Kuppers, Sophie (1980). El Lissitzky, life, letters, texts. Thames and Hudson. Mally, Lynn (1990). Culture of the Future: The Proletkult Movement in Revolutionary Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mayakovsky, Vladimir; and El Lissitzky (2000). For the Voice (Dlia golosa). The MIT Press. Monuments of the Future (2000). Getty Institute: Designs by El Lissitzky. Retrieved 7th Nov, 2006 from http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/digitized_collections/lissitzky/index2.html Perloff, Nancy; Reed, Brian (2003). Situating El Lissitzky: Vitebsk, Berlin, Moscow. Getty Research Institute. Smith, Dave (1999), Soviet Constructivism. Available online. Retrieved 7th Nov, 2006 from http://users.senet.com.au/dsmith/constructivism.htm Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum and El Lissitzy (1990). El Lissitzky, 1890-1941: Architect Painter Photographer Typographer. Municipal Van Abbemuseum. ISBN 90-70149-28-1. Appendix Fig I The last page from Had Gadya by El Lissitzky, 1919 Fig II "Beat the Whites with the Red wedge", by El Lissitzky, 1999 Read More