Towards more degrees of freedom

In­1965­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR introduced­an­editorial­–­clearly­mod-elled­on­the­British­journal­Design – which­became­a­platform­for­express-ing­ doubts­ about­ the­ principles­ of­ modern­ Soviet­ design­ and­ offerwhich­became­a­platform­for­express-ing­

solutions.­In­the­very­first­editorial,­Mikhail­Ladur­openly­lamented­the­loss­

of­the­‘great­mystery­of­art’­in­pursuit­of­rationality­by­‘the­admirers­of­the­

aesthetics­of­numbers­and­compasses’.²⁶­‘Mystery’­was­no­longer­rejected­

as­ being­ fake­ or­ fetishistic­ but­ was­ instead­ seen­ as­ necessary­ for­ art­ to­

remain­humanistic­and­responsive­to­people’s­complex­emotions:

a­true­artist­will­never­remove­the­outer­covering­of­an­image­in­order­to­show­

the­harmony­of­ligaments,­tendons­and­neurons­of­an­object.­So­why­does­the­

naked­function­of­our­world­of­objects­now­claim­the­dominant­place­in­our­

soul,­why­do­I­have­to­admire­only­the­perfectly­ideal­harmony­of­a­mathemat-ical­formula?²⁷

A­few­months­later,­Ladur­added­that­unified­houses,­flats­and­commod-ities­ implied­ unified­ consumers­ and­ thus­ jeopardised­ diversity,­ a­ fun-damental­ characteristic­ of­ humanity.­ ‘Our­ [Soviet]­ people­ are­ different,­

and­ we­ should­ not­ make­ them­ identical­ by­ means­ of­ art.’²⁸­ Terms­ such­

as­ ‘emotions’,­ ‘spirituality’,­ ‘depth’,­ ‘width’,­ ‘diversity’­ and­ ‘complexity’­

became­more­frequent­in­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR editorials­over­time,­

and­often­appeared­in­such­open­questions­to­its­readers.

Moreover,­many­of­the­journal’s­articles­on­domestic­interiors­allowed­

for­ the­ agency­ of­ consumers­ in­ making­ their­ own­ decisions­ in­ organis-ing­ their­ homes.­ Chernyshova­ interprets­ this­ tendency­ as­ evidence­ of­

the­ government’s­ rejection­ of­ Khrushchev-era­ egalitarianism­ regard-ing­ taste­ and­ possessions,­ and­ as­ an­ example­ of­ the­ beginnregard-ing­ of­ the­

‘Brezhnev-era­ domestic­ counter-revolution’­ that­ tolerated­ traditionalism­

and­conservative­tastes­as­opposed­to­modernist­design­ideals.²⁹­However,­

I­ suggest­ that­ design­ professionals­ were­ not­ entirely­ obedient­ enactors­

of­the­state’s­changing­ideological­guidelines.­They­were­able­to­use­the­

political­and­economic­situation­for­their­own­benefit,­initiating­a­debate­

over­ the­ relations­ between­ consumers­ and­ experts,­ and,­ through­ this,­

reflecting­ on­ fundamental­ questions­ of­ personal­ freedom.­ For­ example,­

Viacheslav­Glazychev,­a­connoisseur­of­Western­industrial­design,­called­

readers’­attention­to­the­problem­of­home­decoration­in­the­May­issue­of­

Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR from­1966.³⁰­He­recognised­the­dual­nature­

of­a­home­interior:­standardised­and­yet­individual.­For­him,­this­duality­

was­a­socio-psychological­problem.­As­Glazychev­admitted,­even­though­

Soviet­people­were­more­or­less­equal­in­terms­of­income,­there­existed­

different­ social­ strata­ defined­ by­ education,­ cultural­ habits,­ the­ prestige­

of­ one’s­ profession,­ etc.­ These­ strata­ had­ varying­ tastes­ and­ consumer­

preferences,­which­could­not­be­satisfied­by­standard­domestic­‘comfort’.­

However,­Soviet­people­in­general­demonstrated­the­growing­propensity­

for­ handmade­ home­ decorations,­ which­ echoed­ the­ similar­ trend­ in­ the­

capitalist­West.­Irrationality­and­spontaneity­needed­to­be­recognised­as­

normal­ human­ traits.­ However,­ Glazychev­ argued,­ specialists­ ought­ not­

to­ let­ things­ go­ freely:­ ‘designers­ need­ to­ elaborate­ a­ simple­ and­ effec-tive­system­of­small­element-blanks­[elementov-zagotovok]­for­assembling.­

Professional­applied­art­and­modernised­folk­crafts­should­provide­a­wide­

choice­of­irrational­decorative­objects.’³¹ ­All­the­rest­was­up­to­the­con-sumer.­ In­ Glazychev’s­ view,­ specialists­ would­ be­ better­ to­ abstain­ from­

rigid­recommendations.­Instead,­their­job­was­to­carefully­plan­for­‘spon- taneity’.­This­proposal­can­be­interpreted­as­the­disavowal­of­the­dictator-ship­of­taste,­but­also­as­its­development­into­a­more­sophisticated­form.

Glazychev’s­article­quickly­garnered­criticism­from­Ladur­in­another­

editorial.­From­his­more­authoritative­position­as­the­journal­editor,­Ladur­

claimed­that­bringing­DIY­activities­to­a­standard­flat­could­only­‘slightly­

conceal­uniformity’.³²­Rather­than­giving­a­ready­recipe­for­coping­with­

individual­ consumers’­ wishes,­ Ladur­ urged­ the­ professional­ community­

–­ applied­ artists,­ designers­ and­ architects­ –­ to­ carefully­ reflect­ on­ this­

problem.­ He­ did­ not­ speak­ explicitly­ of­ taste,­ but­ warned­ against­ the­

dictatorship­ of­ functionalism,­ even­ in­ its­ disguised­ form,­ and­ raised­ the­

problem­of­‘the­connection­of­architecture­and­environment’­that­had­to­

be­solved­both­by­architects­and­by­inhabitants.­Ladur­suggested­looking­

for­‘some­kind­of­different,­not­constraining­standards’.­Ironically­adopting­

the­term­from­the­exact­sciences,­he­urged­designers­to­create

a­great­number­of­‘degrees­of­freedom’­for­a­person,­with­trust­in­her,­and­with­

the­confidence­that­she­can­properly­deal­with­them­and­use­them­to­express­

her­individual­rational­and­aesthetic­preferences,­probably­for­things­that­exist­

only­for­the­sake­of­beauty,­but­not­for­making­one­look­like­one’s­neighbour.³³ In­1966,­in­addition­to­Ladur’s­editorials,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR introduced­ another­ platform­ for­ debate­ –­ the­ section­ ‘Problems’.­ The­

first­appearance­of­this­section­included­a­polemical­article­by­a­young­

architect­ and­ theorist­ Viacheslav­ Loktev,­ ‘On­ Dynamic­ Functionalism’,­

that­explicitly­connected­the­flexibility­of­the­material­environment­with­

the­freedom­of­a­consumer.³⁴­Loktev­argued­that­the­functions­of­­material­

structures­ (from­ cities­ to­ consumer­ objects)­ change­ much­ faster­ than­

their­ forms­ in­ the­ contemporary­ world,­ and­ that­ the­ latter­ hinder­ the­

development­ of­ these­ very­ functions.­ The­ result­ is­ disintegration­ and­

chaos,­when­conservative­forms­are­not­adequate­to­consumers’­needs.­

‘The­dynamism­of­needs­is­not­satisfied,­because­the­mechanism­of­the­

interconnection­of­the­factors­that­define­the­direction­in­which­the­pop-ulation’s­taste,­interests­and­needs­develop­is­not­studied.’³⁵­Designers,­

Loktev­ complained,­ work­ on­ discrete­ objects,­ disregarding­ systems,­

and­are­not­interested­in­consumer­feedback.­As­a­result­of­such­‘blind­

designing’,­most­of­the­produced­commodities­remained­unsold.­Loktev­

believed­that­random­commodities­do­not­guarantee­flexible­use­and­thus­

deny­a­consumer’s­creativity­and­self-expression;­moreover,­such­objects­

‘deform­the­developing­needs’.­As­a­solution­to­this­problem,­Loktev­sug-gested­elaborating­‘flexible­spacious­structures­and­ensembles­of­objects’­

and­ controlling­ them­ through­ cybernetic­ models.­ He­ claimed­ that­ the­

precise­ mathematical­ calculation­ of­ the­ interaction­ of­ elements­ within­

a­ system­ as­ well­ as­ the­ system’s­ interaction­ with­ other­ systems­ would­

allow­the­management­of­their­development,­thus­preventing­the­chaos­

of­ forms­ and,­ in­ addition,­ stimulating­ ‘a­ consumer’s­ maximal­ creative­

participation­in­forming­his­own­objective-spatial­environment’.³⁶­Today’s­

designers­and­applied­artists­‘arrogantly­impose­…­standard­level­tastes­

and­a­single­manner­of­living­on­the­endless­diversity­of­people’s­charac-ters’.­Control­over­flexible­systems,­which­Loktev­called­the­‘method­of­

dynamic­functionalism’,­on­the­contrary,­presupposes­consumers’­active­

participation­in­correcting­object­systems.­Simultaneously,­Loktev­adds,­

‘by­modelling­dynamic­systems,­we­can­manage­consumers’­initiative’.³⁷­ This­is­the­credo­of­a­‘taste­expert’­adjusted­to­the­age­of­cybernetics:­the­

consumer­is­given­freedom­of­taste,­but­this­freedom­is­to­be­managed­

by­the­designer.

Thus,­ in­ Soviet­ design­ theory­ of­ the­ mid-1960s,­ not­ only­ was­ the­

household­object­made­dynamic,­as­Boris­Arvatov­had­said­it­should­be­in­

1925,­but­the­concept­of­consumer­taste­became­more­dynamic,­too.­While­

design­professionals,­continuing­Khrushchev’s­policy,­saw­themselves­as­

responsible­for­guiding­consumer­behaviour,^­this­guidance­became­more­

flexible.³⁸­As­Glazychev­summarised­in­1968,­the­‘journal­managed­to­get­

rid­of­the­illusory­simplicity­of­convenient­schemes,­underwent­the­difficult­

break­with­habitual­notions­and­proceeded­to­new­pursuits’.³⁹

This­ ‘difficult­ break’­ was­ not­ purely­ a­ matter­ of­ Soviet­ political­ and­

economic­circumstances.­It­was­also­a­response­to­the­global­crisis­of­mod-ernist­ aesthetics­ in­ the­ mid-1960s­ and­ design­ professionals’­ fascination­

with­‘complexity­and­contradiction’­(to­quote­the­title­of­Robert­Venturi’s­

seminal­1966­book,­which­was­most­likely­known­in­design­circles­in­the­

USSR),⁴⁰­that­would­culminate­in­postmodernist­architecture­and­design.­

Another­important­catalyst­for­change­was­the­recent­emergence­of­Soviet­

semiotics­and­its­growing­influence­on­designers,­who­were­receptive­to­

the­idea­that­objects­have­communicative­functions­and­‘speak’­with­con-sumers­in­a­specific­language.⁴¹

Consequently,­ the­ role­ of­ tastemaker­ and­ organiser­ of­ the­ socialist­

material­environment­became­more­challenging.­While­obviously­adjust-ing­to­the­new­economic­policies­of­the­state,­applied­artists­pursued­their­

professional­aim­of­giving­more­nuance­to­their­professional­credos­and­

granting­more­importance­to­artistic­intuition­and­spontaneous­creativity.­

One­manifestation­of­the­latter­position­was­the­Central­Educational­and­

Experimental­Studio­of­the­Artists’­Union­of­the­USSR,­established­in­1964,­

which­emphasised­the­artistic­rather­than­the­engineering­component­of­

design.⁴²­Decorative­artists­working­in­the­traditional­spheres­of­textiles,­

metalwork,­ceramics­and­glass­proposed­yet­another­manifestation.

Im Dokument Design history and the study of materialities (Seite 121-124)