Form follows the urge to amaze

Another­work­that­outstandingly­challenged­the­notion­of­the­‘honest’­and­

functional­object­was­‘Troika’­by­the­Leningrad­glass­artist­Iurii­Biakov­–­

a­vase,­or­glass,­with­no­bottom,­placed­on­its­side.­Made­of­transparent­

colourless­glass,­it­was­decorated­with­a­stylised­image­of­three­harnessed­

horses­–­the­traditional­Russian­troika – through­sandblasting.­Shown­at­

the­exhibition­‘Decorative­Art­of­the­USSR’­in­Moscow­in­December­1968,­

this­piece,­like­Smirnov’s,­provoked­debate.­For­example,­it­inspired­the­

Leningrad­ ceramic­ artist­ Grigorii­ Kapelian­ to­ formulate­ the­ conceptual­

deconstruction­of­an­object:

if the glass is not for drinking, but for an exhibition, it can be without a bottom.

In fact, if its original purpose is lost, why should it be a container, even if only for emptiness? It can be just a solid glass cylinder. And why necessarily a cyl-inder, and why necessarily of glass?⁶⁶

At a time when VNIITE employees, following Western thinkers such as Reyner Banham, were discussing the prospects for a synthetic built envi-ronment, where functions were not tied to particular objects,⁶⁷ ‘new decor-ativists’ offered objects that were not tied to particular functions.

To be more precise, neodecorativism also had a moderate version, as exemplified by Olshevskii’s work that was discussed by Stepanian. In this version, instead of blatant impracticality, artists opted for aesthetisation, or ritualisation, of practical functions. For example, tea sets made by the art-ists of the Leningrad Porcelain Factory, such as Eduard Krimmer, Vladimir Gorodetskii, Nina Slavina and others in the late 1960s, could be both func-tional goods and feasts for the eye. Praising Gorodetskii’s set ‘Blossoming Cobalt’, critic Liudmila Kramarenko opined: ‘With this set at home, you can specially invite guests for tea, as you do for listening to music or seeing a collection of paintings.’ She also emphasised the ‘incomparable joy’ of touching a beautifully painted porcelain cup and drinking from it.⁶⁸ In this statement, joy or pleasure – visual and sensual – overshadowed ‘taste’ as 3.3 Iurii Biakov, ‘Troika’, colourless lead glass, sandblasting, depolishing, wood, 1968.

All rights reserved and permission to use the figure must be obtained from the copyright holder.

such­pleasures­would­be­available­only­on­a­limited­scale,­as­the­discussed­

objects­ were­ predominantly­ made­ by­ hand­ and­ could­ be­ produced­ only­

in­small­series­–­or­even­only­as­single­exhibition­items.­However,­when­

used­in­public­interiors,­they­would­aesthetically­and­spiritually­enrich­the­

Soviet­material­environment­–­or­so­design­professionals­believed.

The­most­vivid­pronouncement­of­neodecorativism­in­Leningrad­glass­

is­probably­Smirnov’s­‘Festive­Table’.­This­was­first­exhibited­in­1967­and­

is­a­large­composition­of­coloured,­free-blown­glass,­consisting­of­multiple­

objects,­ hardly­ attributable­ to­ customary­ categories­ (plate­ 5).­ The­ artist­

explained­ this­ work­ as­ an­ attempt­ to­ ‘create­ in­ the­ human­ soul­ a­ joyful­

sense­of­a­feast’­and­also­as­a­set­of­curiosities,­alluding­to­folklore­images,­

such­ as­ a­ bear,­ a­ rooster­ and­ various­ demons,­ as­ well­ as­ to­ traditional­

vessels­for­a­peasant­feast.^69­While­producing,­as­Irina­Uvarova­noted,­the­

overall­impression­of­a­traditional­trade­fair,^70­‘Festive­Table’­can­also­be­

seen­as­a­(self-)ironic­commentary­on­the­modern­urbanite’s­fascination­

with­tradition­and­penchant­for­spontaneous­play­as­a­retreat­from­order­

and­ rationalism­ (especially­ poignant­ given­ Smirnov’s­ position­ as­ chief­

designer­ of­ the­ Leningrad­ State­ Optics­ Institute).­ Somewhat­ poetically,­

Makarov­characterised­this­work­as­‘an­expression­of­the­contemporary­

artist’s­view­regarding­the­nature­of­artistic­glass­through­the­prism­of­folk­

understanding­of­beauty’.⁷¹­In­relation­to­the­reasonable­question­posed­by­

the­public­and­critics­concerning­the­actual­use­of­this­artwork,­Smirnov­

replied­that­he­imagined­the­‘Festive­Table’­at­an­organisation­such­as­the­

House­ of­ Friendship,­ for­ receptions­ or­ ceremonial­ dinners­ with­ foreign­

guests.­This­would­be­relevant,­the­artist­argued,­because­‘today­people­

not­only­in­the­USSR,­but­also­in­the­whole­world,­demonstrate­the­thirst­

for­ something­ amazing,­ expressive­ and­ colourful’.⁷²­ Obviously,­ and­ not­

by­accident,­Smirnov’s­explanation­of­the­‘Festive­Table’­in­the­December­

1969­issue­of­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR was­immediately­followed­by­a­

survey­of­the­work­of­the­Italian­designer­Ettore­Sottsass,­famous­for­his­

provocative­objects­that­betokened­postmodern­design.⁷³

A­large­1968­exhibition,­‘Decorative­Art­of­the­USSR’,­where­Biakov’s­

‘Troika’­ instigated­ a­ debate,­ was­ the­ triumph­ of­ neodecorativism,­ and­

was­attended­in­large­numbers.⁷⁴­Visitors’­responses­were­mixed:­some­

complained­about­the­unavailability­of­the­exhibited­commodities,­some­

found­ them­ unsuitable­ for­ daily­ use;­ others,­ on­ the­ contrary,­ praised­

their­ colourfulness­ and­ diversity,­ and­ still­ others­ wanted­ more­ sophisti-cated­decoration.⁷⁵­Approximately­two-thirds­of­the­January­1969­issue­of­

Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR featured­reviews­of­this­exhibition­and­reflec- tions­on­new­directions­for­decorative­art.­Kramarenko­positively­admit-ted­the­arrival­of­‘a­special­genre­of­decorative-unique­art’.⁷⁶­Defending­

the­ anti-­utilitarianism­ of­ recent­ art,­ Makarov­ welcomed­ the­ ‘division­ of­

labour’­ within­ Soviet­ aesthetics­ and,­ moreover,­ ascribed­ to­ decorative­

art­ a­ leading­ role­ in­ the­ synthesis­ between­ material­ objects­ and­

techni-cal­ and­ natural­ environments.­ He­ argued:­ ‘Narrowing­ its­ possibilities­ in­

producing­specifically­utilitarian­objects,­since­this­task­has­been­partially­

transferred­to­[industrial]­design,­decorative­art­broadens­its­special­rights­

in­the­synthesis,­thus­pressing­monumental­art­to­focus­on­certain­urgent­

ideological­tasks.’⁷⁷­The­concern­with­a­new­synthesis­became­a­publicly­

pronounced­ justification­ of­ decorative­ artists’­ existence­ as­ professionals­

within­the­Soviet­field­of­(cultural)­production.

Neodecorativism­signalled­design­professionals’­disappointment­with­

the­populist­aspirations­of­the­Khrushchev­era­and,­evidently,­their­tired-ness­with­the­role­of­regulators­of­mass­tastes­and­consumption­patterns.­

Turning­ from­ regulation­ to­ reflection,­ decorative­ artists­ broadened­ the­

borders­of­good­taste,­and­reconsidered­the­relationship­between­people­

and­ things­ in­ the­ age­ of­ people’s­ growing­ dependence­ on­ machines.­

However,­ these­ artists­ also­ marked­ a­ new­ social­ distinction­ based­ on­

post-functionalist­aesthetics­–­a­distinction­not­only­from­their­colleagues­

in­the­VNIITE­system­but­also­from­mass­consumers,­who­only­had­a­lim-ited­chance­to­experience­the­‘spiritual­usefulness’­of­unique­conceptual­

objects­ at­ art­ exhibitions­ or­ in­ public­ buildings.­ One­ can­ presume­ that­

neodecorativist­objects­were­produced­more­for­their­authors’­colleagues­

than­for­‘the­people’.­Neodecorativism­was­probably­more­about­symbolic­

and­economic­redistribution­in­the­Soviet­field­of­artistic­production­than­

about­bringing­amazement­and­joy­to­people’s­lives­or­achieving­a­happy­

synthesis­of­the­built­and­natural­environment.

However,­the­practitioners­of­neodecorativism­hoped­for­an­impact­on­

the­viewer/consumer.­At­the­end­of­1960,­repudiating­some­critics’­alarm­

about­ the­ crisis­ of­ Soviet­ decorative­ art,­ Smirnov­ maintained­ that­ true­

rationality­is­inseparable­from­emotional­effectiveness:­‘today­we­should­

not­“apply”­emotions­to­the­rational;­we­should­work­in­such­a­way­that­the­

rational­becomes­organically­emotional.­This­is­a­human­need,­a­human­

essence.’⁷⁸­Almost­a­year­later,­Smirnov­explained­in­his­interview­with­the­

secretary­of­the­administration­of­the­Artists’­Union­of­the­USSR, Leonid­

Karateev,­ that­ the­ meaning­ of­ his­ composition­ ‘Man,­ Horse,­ Dog­ and­

Bird’­was­an­invitation­to­contemplate­the­existential­position­of­a­modern­

human­being­vis-à-vis­nature,­expressed­through­the­combination­of­trans-parent­and­ground­surfaces­and­different­shapes­and­volumes­(plate­6).­He­

concluded:

I­offer­a­viewer­a­work­of­art,­not­a­commodity,­that­is,­I­want­to­bring­the­

viewer­ to­ the­ state­ of­ a­ non-consumerist­ attitude­ to­ it.­ I­ want­ to­ make­ him­

diverge­from­the­perception­of­the­form­of­a­useful­object­and­present­it­as­an­

object­of­advanced­emotion.­I­introduce­this­form­into­the­circle­of­the­values­

of­artwork,­not­the­values­of­everyday­life­objects.⁷⁹

From­this­perspective,­neodecorativism­seems­like­a­new,­post-­constructivist­

attempt­ to­ create­ an­ alternative­ to­ a­ capitalist­ commodity­ in­ spite­ of­ the­

stubbornness­of­Soviet­industry:­an­affective­object,­not­reproducible­on­a­

mass­scale,­but­responsive­to­people’s­longing­for­beauty­and­amazement.

Conclusion

The­avant-gardist­slogan­‘Art­into­Life’,­instrumentalised­in­Khrushchev’s­

campaign­to­modernise­the­material­environment,­was­reconsidered­after­

his­removal­from­power.­However,­rather­than­just­a­passive­reflection­of­

the­course­of­the­state­ideology,­this­reconsideration­demonstrated­the­art-ists’­urge­to­diversify­their­creative­and­professional­options.­Rather­than­

being­ the­ Party’s­ tool­ for­ mitigating­ consumer­ frustration­ and­ breeding­

nationalist­moods,­as­Chernyshova’s­analysis­suggests,­Soviet­decorative­

art­in­the­late­1960s­became­a­forum­for­commentaries­on­the­fundamental­

challenges­ of­ Soviet­ modernity.­ These­ challenges­ included­ the­ place­ of­

individuality­in­the­world­of­uniform­mass­production­and­consumption,­

the­fate­of­traditional­crafts­in­an­industrial­age,­the­role­of­diverse­folk­

motifs­ in­ Soviet­ cultural­ internationalism­ and­ the­ meaning­ of­ sincerity­

and­emotional­connection­in­a­socialist­society­guided­by­Party­dogmas.­

Working­within­the­framework­of­Soviet­institutions­and­policy­guidelines,­

decorative­artists­and­critics­of­the­1960s­advocated­for­the­personal­free-dom­ of­ artists­ and­ of­ordinary­people­without­ explicitly­ resorting­ to­ the­

language­of­human­rights­and­civil­society.⁸⁰­Simultaneously,­the­resort­to­

play­and­spontaneous­expression­as­a­means­of­handling­recent­social­and­

political­traumas­and­the­current­pressure­of­modern­rationalism­united­

Soviet­ decorative­ artists­ with­ post-war­ designers­ and­ architects­ across­

the­globe.⁸¹­Thus,­neodecorativism­was­a­response­to­both­the­Soviet­and­

the­global­situation­regarding­art­and­politics.

Notes

­1­ This­standard­formulation,­recurrent­in­Soviet­official­documents­and­press­of­the­

1960s,­first­appeared­at­the­XXIst­Party­Congress­in­1959.­‘Kontrol’nye­tsifry­razvitiia­

narodnogo­khoziaistva­na­1959–1965­gody’,­in­Vneocherednoi XXI sezd kommunis-ticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza: 27 ianvaria-5 fevralia 1956 goda. Stenograficheskii otchet. Vol. 2 (Moscow:­Gosudarstvennoe­izdatelstvo­politicheskoi­literatury,­1959),­

p.­485.

­2­ TsGALI­SPb,­f.­78,­op.­4,­d.­391.

­3­ On­the­role­of­artists­as­experts­acting­on­behalf­of­the­state,­see­Reid,­‘Khrushchev­

Modern’;­ Chernyshova,­Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era,­ p.­ 46;­

Alekseyeva,­‘Constructing­Soviet­Domesticity’,­pp.­57–8.

­4­ N.­Mikhailov,­‘Krasotu­v­zhizn’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­(1960),­1–3.

­5­ ‘Tovarishch!­K­veshcham­primer’sia’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­(1960),­20.

­6­ ‘Nuzhen­institut­khudozhestvennot­kul’tury’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 2­(1960),­

1.

­7­ Reid,­‘Khrushchev­Modern’,­26–7.

­8­ Chernyshova,­Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era,­p.­163.

­9­ Ibid.,­164–71.

10­ G.­N.­Iakovleva,­‘Sovetskaia­arkhitektura­1960-kh­gg.­i­predmetno-­prostranstvennaia­

sreda’,­ in­ Olga­ Kazakova­ (ed.),­Estetika ‘Ottepeli’: novoe v arkhitekture, iskusstve, kul’ture­(Moscow:­ROSSPEN,­2014),­pp.­338–9.

11­ For­example,­Gerchuk,­‘The­Aesthetics­of­Everyday­Life­in­the­Khrushchev­Thaw’,­

81–100;­Iakovleva,­‘Sovetskaia­arkhitektura’.

12­ Piletskii,­‘Pribory­i­mebel’,­24.

13­ Iakovleva,­‘Sovetskaia­arkhitektura­1960-kh­gg.’,­p.­342.

14­ B.­Smirnov,­‘Khudozhestvennyi­oblik­veshchi­i­sposob­ee­izgotovleniia’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­(1958),­19.

15­ N.­ Iaglova,­ ‘Khudozhnik­ promyshlennosti­ Boris­ Smirnov’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 6­(1961),­11–15.

20­ Leonid­Nevler,­‘Tut­vse­gorazdo­slozhnee’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR­3­(1963),­

29–32.

26­ Mikhail­Ladur,­‘Zametki­redaktora’, Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­(1965),­1.

27­ Ibid.

28­ Mikhail­Ladur,­‘Zametki­redaktora’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR­8­(1965),­1.

29­ Chernyshova,­Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era,­pp.­164–5.

30­ Viacheslav­Glazychev,­‘Kak­u­vsekh­ili­ne­kak­u­vsekh’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 5­(1966),­2–6.

31­ Ibid.,­6.

32­ Mikhail­Ladur,­‘Zametki­redaktora’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR­11­(1966),­1.

33­ Ibid.

34­ Viacheslav­ Loktev,­ ‘O­ dinamicheskom­ funktsionalizme’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­(1966),­6–8.

failures.­ Alekseyeva­ demonstrates­ that,­ in­ fact,­ expert­ involvement­ in­ the­ home­

continued­on­the­new­terms.­Alekseyeva,­‘Constructing­Soviet­Domesticity’,­70.

39­ Viacheslav­ Glazychev,­ ‘1968­ god­ –­ ot­ osnovaniia­ “Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR”

odinadtsatyi’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­(1968),­21.

40­ Robert­Venturi,­Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture­(New­York:­Museum­of­

Modern­Art,­1966).­It­is­safe­to­presume­that­people­such­as­Viacheslav­Glazychev,­

who­attentively­followed­Western­literature­and­had­good­reading­skills­in­English,­

became­familiar­with­this­book­soon­after­it­was­published.

41­ Dmitrii­ Segal,­ ‘Mir­ veshchei­ i­ semiotka’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 4­ (1969),­

38–41.

42­ Tom­Cubbin,­‘Postmodern­Propaganda?­Semiotics,­Environment­and­the­Historical­

Turn­ in­ Soviet­ Design­ 1972–1985’,­Journal of Design History 30.1­ (2017),­ 16–32,­

doi:10.1093/jdh/epw028;­Cubbin,­Soviet Critical Design.

43­ Mikhail­Ladur,­‘Zametki­redaktora’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 3­(1965),­1.

44­ Nonna­ Stepanian,­ ‘Unikal’nye­ obraztsy­ i­ khudozhestvennaia­ promushlennost’,­

Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 6­(1965),­2–6.

45­ Irina­Uvarova,­‘Rus’-67’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 12­(1967),­1–10.

46­ Chernyshova,­Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era,­pp.­173–4.

47­ Ibid.,­p.­182.

48­ Eric­ Hobsbawm­ and­ Terence­ Ranger,­The Invention of Tradition­ (Cambridge:­

Cambridge­University­Press,­1992).

49­ Iu.­Gerchuk,­‘Buria­v­stakane­bez­dna’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 2­(1969),­45–7.

50­ L.­Kramarenko,­‘Prazdnik­vokrug­tebia’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 12­(1969),­5;­

K.­ Makarov,­ ‘Novye­ formy,­ novye­ zhanry’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­ (1969),­

27–9.

51­ I.­ Nevskaia,­ ‘Nuzhna­ eksperimental’naia­ baza’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 3­

(1962),­8.

52­ Natalia­ Titova,­ ‘Khudozhniki­ eksperimentiruiut’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 11­

(1966),­20–2;­Gusarova,­‘Leningradskaia­keramika’,­pp.­55–8.

53­ ‘O­krasote­i­pol’ze—eshche­raz’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 11­(1969),­38–41.

54­ TsGALI­SPb,­f.­78,­op.­4.­d.­408,­l.­51.

55­ Makarov­refers­to­the­widespread­Soviet­practice­of­using­wall­and­floor­carpets­as­

both­decorative­elements­and­thermal­insulation.

56­ K.­Makarov,­‘Nashi­kriterii’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 11­(1967),­11.

57­ Titova,­‘Khudozhniki­eksperimentiruiut’.

58­ Natalia­ Malevskaia-Malevich,­ conversation­ with­ the­ author,­ St­ Petersburg,­ 18­

March­2014.

59­ Titova,­‘Khudozhniki­eksperimentiruiut’.

60­ L.­Karateev,­‘Vsesoiuznaia­vystavka­dekorativnogo­iskusstva’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 9­(1970),­6.

61­ Quoted­in­Titova,­‘Khudozhniki­eksperimentiruiut’,­21.­This­idea­received­further­

development­in­Smirnov’s­1970­book:­Boris­Smirnov,­Khudozhnik o prirode veshchei­

(Leningrad:­Khudozhnik­RSFSR,­1970).

62­ Smirnov,­Khudozhnik o prirode veshchei.

63­ Karateev,­‘Vsesoiuznaia­vystavka­dekorativnogo­iskusstva’,­6.

64­ Segal,­‘Mir­veshchei­i­semiotka’,­40.

65­ Makarov,­‘Nashi­kriterii’,­11.

66­ G.­Kapelian,­‘O­krasote­i­pol’ze­–­eshche­raz’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 6­(1968),­

2.

67­ Loktev,­‘O­dinamicheskom­funktsionalizme’;­Karl­Kantor,­Krasota i pol’za (Moscow:­

Iskusstvo,­1967).­For­a­detailed­discussion­of­this­research­at­VNIITE,­see­Cubbin,­

‘The­Domestic­Information­Machine’.

68­ L.­Kramarenko,­‘Prazdnik­vokrug­tebia’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 12­(1969),­5.

69­ Boris­Smirnov,­‘Krizis?­Chego?’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 12­(1969),­27–9.

70­ Uvarova,­‘Rus’-67’,­4.

71­ Makarov,­‘Nashi­kriterii’,­12.

72­ Smirnov,­‘Krizis?­Chego?’,­29.

73­ L.­Zhadova,­‘Ettore­Sottsass’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 12­(1969),­30–3.

74­ Kramarenko,­‘Prazdnik­vokrug­tebia’,­5.

75­ ‘Govoriat­zriteli’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR­1­(1969),­7.

76­ Kramarenko,­‘Prazdnik­vokrug­tebia’,­4.

77­ K.­ Makarov,­ ‘Novye­ formy,­ novye­ zhanry’,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 1­ (1969),­

27–9.

78­ Smirnov,­‘Krizis?­Chego?’,­29.

79­ Karateev,­‘Vsesoiuznaia­vystavka­dekorativnogo­iskusstva’,­7.

80­ However,­ there­ was­ evidently­ interaction­ between­ design­ reformers­ and­ human­

rights­activists.­Two­cases­are­well­known.­In­1968­Boris­Shragin­signed­petitions­

in­ defence­ of­ four­ Moscow­ intellectuals­ accused­ of­ anti-Soviet­ propaganda­ and­

agitation,­and­thus­lost­his­position­at­the­Research­Institute­of­Theory­and­History­

of­ Fine­ Arts;­ he­ then­ actively­ published­ in­ uncensored­ periodicals­ and­ in­ 1974­

emigrated­ to­ the­ US.­ Irina­ Uvarova,­ though­ not­ a­ human­ rights­ activist­ herself,­

belonged­to­the­circles­of­critically­minded­intellectuals­sympathetic­to­the­liberal­

dissident­movement;­in­1970,­she­married­the­dissident­writer­Iulii­Daniel.­Further­

research­is­needed­on­the­extent­and­impact­of­such­interactions.

81­ Goldhagen­and­Legault,­‘Introduction’,­pp.­11–24.

4

Im Dokument Design history and the study of materialities (Seite 129-137)