The artist as producer, the artist vs. production

Although­this­clash­of­opinions­in­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR may­seem­

abstract,­it­essentially­revolved­around­the­problem­of­bringing­decorative­

art­closer­to­the­reality­of­Soviet­daily­life­and­consumer­culture­without­

damaging­its­artistic­quality.­The­concerns­of­people­such­as­Osmolovskii,­

Gerchuk­ and­ Kamenskii­ did­ not­ just­ stem­ from­ their­ stubborn­ vision­ of­

decorative­ art­ as­ ‘applied’­ and­ ‘utilitarian’,­ but­ from­ the­ discrepancy­

between­the­Brezhnev­government’s­celebration­of­socialist­consumption­

and­the­systemic­failures­of­Soviet­light­industry­to­provide­desired­goods­

to­everyone.­Prime­Minister­Aleksei­Kosygin’s­reforms­were­intended­to­

boost­ production­ by­ introducing­ some­ flexibility­ and­ incentives­ for­ the­

workers,­but­they­proved­untenable­and­were­abandoned­by­1970.­While­

commitment­to­citizens’­prosperity­was­Brezhnev’s­strategy­to­oppose­the­

voluntarism­of­his­predecessor­and­maintain­his­own­popularity,­the­qual- ity­of­consumer­goods­could­not­steadily­grow­because­of­systemic­indus-trial­flaws,­such­as­outdated­equipment,­poor­supply­of­materials,­and­the­

ongoing­prevalence­of­quantitative­plan­indicators­that­precluded­qualita-tive­improvement.­At­the­same­time,­as­Natalia­Chernyshova­demonstrates­

in­her­study­of­Brezhnev-era­consumption,­by­the­1970s­Soviet­people­had­

grown­more­familiar­with­Western­consumer­goods­through­exhibitions,­

films,­literature­and­because­of­the­increasing­number­of­imported­goods­

from­Western­and­Eastern­Europe,­however­limited.­This­made­them­more­

discriminating­and­demanding­consumers­who­were­not­willing­to­simply­

grab­whatever­the­shops­were­selling.­They­wanted­more­and­expected­the­

government­to­be­true­to­its­promises.²⁶

Given­this­change­in­Soviet­consumerism­in­the­1970s,­bold­experi-ments­by­decorative­artists­might­have­indeed­appeared­as­nothing­more­

than­ self-gratification,­ annoying­ consumers.­ It­ was­ clear­ that­ simple­

appeals­to­the­social­duty­of­artists­would­not­change­the­situation­without­

a­ significant­ improvement­ in­ the­ condition­ of­ artists’­ work­ in­ industry.­

Therefore,­the­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR editorial­team­understood­that­

it­ was­ not­ enough­ to­ publish­ disputes­ among­ artists­ or­ to­ reiterate­ the­

1920s­slogan­‘into­production’­repeatedly.­In­the­early­1970s,­it­seemed­

necessary­ instead­ to­ highlight­ the­ major­ tensions­ between­ artists­ and­

other­ factory­ employees­ and­ detail­ the­ urgent­ problems­ of­ production,­

in­ order­ to­ find­ possible­ solutions­ to­ the­ ongoing­ professional­ conflicts­

at­factories­and­render­artists’­bursting­creativity­actually­useful­in­mass­

production.

In­1970­the­journal­covered­ a­conference­held­ as­ a­joint­event­with­

the­Jubilee­exhibition­that­was­dedicated­to­the­problem­of­artistic­labour­

in­industry.­Organised­by­the­Soviet­Academy­of­Arts,­the­Artists’­Union­

and­the­Ministry­of­Culture­of­the­USSR,­the­conference­brought­together­

artists­working­in­factories,­art­critics­and­government­officials­from­var-ious­levels.²⁷­In­his­welcoming­speech,­the­president­of­the­Academy­of­

Arts,­sculptor­Nikolai­Tomskii,­brought­up­the­troubling­dilemma­of­Soviet­

decorative­art:­the­general­increase­in­artistic­creativity­and­the­quality­of­

designs­ had­ little­ actual­ effect­ on­ mass-produced­ products.­ He­ more­ or­

less­ reiterated­ the­ official­ view­ that­ decorative­ art­ was­ creative­ work­ in­

the­ service­ of­ the­ economy,­ according­ to­ which­ no­ daring­ design­ could­

go­‘merely’­to­an­exhibition­or­be­placed­in­a­public­interior.­All­success-ful­ works­ of­ decorative­ art­ must­ ‘necessarily­ go­ into­ production­ and­ be­

available­either­in­limited­edition­or­in­large­circulation’­and­thereby­offer­

‘everyday­ joyful­ companionship’­ to­ people.­ However,­ this­ would­ not­ be­

possible­until­both­the­financial­and­technological­profiles­of­industry­were­

determined­by­stylistic­tendencies­and­quality­standards.­Such­a­hierar-chy­ of­ settings,­ in­ turn,­ was­ possible­ only­ by­ giving­ artists­ more­ power­

in­decision-making.­The­chief­artist­(glavnyi khudozhnik)­should­have­the­

status­of­art­director­at­a­factory,­equal­in­status­with­a­technical­director.­

The­position­of­the­artist­in­industry­must­finally­be­solidified­by­a­consist-ent­decree,­and­all­factories­producing­household­objects­must­institute­

an­official­position­of­‘artist-productivist’­–­here,­Tomskii­used­the­exact­

term­as­it­had­been­used­in­the­1920s.­Leonid­Karateev,­the­secretary­of­

the­Artists’­Union,­added­that­unique­experimental­works­and­prototypes­

for­mass­production­were­‘the­two­inseparable­sides­of­one­whole­process­

of­ the­ development­ of­ Soviet­ decorative­ art’.­ The­ glass­ artist­ Svetlana­

Beskinskaia­made­some­practical­requests:­more­room­for­creative­work­

in­ factory­ workshops,­ the­ artists’­ right­ to­ have­ free­ copies­ of­ their­ own­

work,­and­regular­industrial­design­exhibitions­in­addition­to­decorative­

art­exhibitions.­The­main­suggestions­of­the­conference­were­forwarded­to­

the­relevant­ministries.²⁸

The­ discussion­ progressed­ to­ the­ next­ stage­ in­ 1973,­ when­ the­

Academy­of­Arts­hosted­an­exhibition­for­Russian­artistic­glass­factories­

and­ the­ Leningrad­ Factory­ of­ Artistic­ Glass­ celebrated­ its­ 25th­ anniver-sary.­ The­ problem­ of­ art­ in­ production­ now­ involved­ material,­ financial­

and­administrative­aspects.­Since­the­mid-1960s,­glass­art­had­been­the­

leading­arena­of­innovation­in­Soviet­decorative­art­and­the­most­noticea-ble­material­used­in­neodecorativism.­Boris­Smirnov,­thanks­to­his­daring­

1960s­experiments­with­surprising­and­defamiliarising­objects,­appeared­

in­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR as­ the­ driving­ force­ behind­ glass­ as­ an­

avant-garde­material.­While­other­glass­artists,­too,­did­receive­attention­

in­the­journal­in­the­1960s,­the­1973­issues­presented­for­the­first­time­a­

comprehensive­panorama­of­artists’­profiles­which­included­current­social­

and­economic­challenges.­Congratulating­the­Leningrad­Factory­of­Artistic­

Glass­–­the­leading­producer­of­unique­and­limited-edition­lead­glass­items­

–­on­its­25th­anniversary,­the­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR editorial­team­

emphasised­ the­ importance­ of­ good­ management­ for­ maintaining­ effi-cient­cooperation­between­different­specialists.­Honouring­such­veterans­

of­the­1920s­and­1930s­Russian­avant-garde­as­the­previously­mentioned­

Smirnov­ and­ Eduard­ Krimmer,­ a­ student­ of­ Kazimir­ Malevich,­ who­ had­

worked­for­the­factory­since­its­opening­in­1948,­the­editorial­presented­

their­work­as­artists­as­being­inextricable­from­the­administrative­skills­of­

the­factory’s­director­Ivan­Dmitriev­and­art­director­Ekaterina­Ianovskaia.²⁹­ It­was­thanks­to­Dmitriev’s­expertise­as­a­professional­chemist,­the­edito-rial­stated,­that­the­factory­was­approved­by­the­Ministry­of­Trade­in­the­

late­1940s­to­start­working­on­lead­glass­production­that­was­costly­and­

labour-intensive,­but­also­visually­impressive.­In­1965­Dmitriev­obtained­

permission­ for­ the­ factory­ to­ end­ the­ production­ of­ regular­ glassware­

altogether­and­become­a­specialised­producer­of­high-quality­lead­glass-ware.³⁰ ­This­new­specialisation­entailed­the­‘steady­expansion­and­updat-ing­ of­ the­ variety­ of­ goods’­ and­ strengthened­ the­ Leningrad­ factory’s­

tradition­of­close­cooperation­between­artists,­manufacturing­technicians­

and­craftspeople­–­­glassblowers,­grinders­and­engravers.³¹

The­Leningrad­Factory­of­Artistic­Glass­became­the­first­in­the­Soviet­

glass­ industry­ to­ test­ the­ Kosygin­ reforms­ by­ introducing­ welfare­ and­

bonuses­for­innovations­in­design­and­technology.­As­a­result,­the­factory’s­

production­was­completely­updated­by­the­early­1970s,­and­even­though­

the­government­discontinued­the­reforms­on­the­all-Union­level,­Dmitriev­

continued­to­stimulate­technological­and­artistic­modernisation­in­the­fac-tory.­ As­ the­ art­ critic­ Nikita­ Voronov­ stated­ enthusiastically,­ ‘the­ artists­

could­ [better]­ see­ their­ goal­ when­ their­ ideas­ became­ embodied­ in­ real­

objects’­–­not­only­due­to­the­greater­freedom­in­planned­targets,­but­also­

due­to­Dmitriev’s­introduction­of­‘creative­days’,­when­artists­could­focus­

on­their­experiments,­and­by­increasing­the­number­of­research­trips.³²­ For­ her­ part,­ Ianovskaia­ demonstrated­ a­ striking­ combination­ of­ artistic­

and­managerial­skills,­giving­‘keen­attention­to­each­artist’­and­channel-ling­ their­ different­ personalities­ towards­ common­ practical­ goals.³³­ The­

cumulative­ effect­ of­ economic­ incentives,­ the­ support­ for­ artistic­ exper-imentation,­ and­ the­ cooperation­ between­ different­ specialists­ made­ the­

Leningrad­ Factory­ of­ Artistic­ Glass­ a­ role­ model­ for­ the­ Soviet­ artistic­

industry:­ the­ factory­ provided­ limited-edition­ and­ medium-scope­ collec-tions­ for­ retail­ trade­ while­ also­ receiving­ numerous­ awards­ at­ domestic­

and­international­exhibitions.³⁴

The­tone­of­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR in­the­editorial­suggested­that­

even­ though­ Ianovskaia­ and­ Dmitriev­ were­ outstanding­ managers,­ they­

were­ not­ unique:­ every­ administrator,­ with­ due­ effort,­ could­ raise­ their­

factory’s­ production­ to­ the­ same­ level­ of­ success.­ In­ the­ meantime,­ the­

factory­ administration­ could­ boast­ to­ foreign­ delegations:­ ‘Objects­ that­

are­true­works­of­art­had­been­recently­considered­exhibition­pieces,­but­

now­they­are­available­for­wide­consumption.’­Leningrad­lead­glass­–­or­

‘Leningrad­ crystal’­ –­ became­ an­ internationally­ known­ brand­ not­ only­

through­exhibitions­but­also­through­high-quality­household­goods­avail-able­almost­everywhere­–­at­least­in­all­major­cities­–­from­Ukraine­to­the­

Russian­Far­East.­Moreover,­the­factory­leadership­was­sure­to­note­that­

‘people­in­Italy,­the­Netherlands,­Sweden­and­Finland­can­buy­goods­with­

the­label­of­the­Leningrad­Factory­of­Artistic­Glass’.³⁵ ­By­the­time­the­gov-ernment­increased­the­import­of­goods­in­an­effort­to­mitigate­the­growing­

consumer­crisis,³⁶­the­practice­of­exporting­goods­–­even­though­on­a­very­

limited­scale­–­was­already­outstanding­and­benefited­the­factory’s­repu-tation­within­the­Soviet­Union.­While­this­success­story­may­sound­like­a­

typical­case­of­Soviet­exaggeration,­the­archival­records­of­a­consultation­

of­ factory­ employees­ and­ trade­ workers­ in­ 1973­ demonstrates­ that­ the­

latter­were­satisfied­with­the­timely­supply­and­high­quality­of­the­prod-ucts,­although­they­still­identified­areas­for­further­improvement.³⁷

This­ success­ story­ by­ no­ means­ obscured­ the­ ongoing­ tensions­

between­artists­and­other­workers­in­factories.­On­the­contrary,­it­provided­

a­convenient­opportunity­to­highlight­them.­Praising­the­scope,­diversity­

and­clear­composition­of­the­exhibition­‘Artistic­Glass­of­the­Factories­of­

the­ Russian­ Federation’­ that­ had­ grown­ out­ of­ the­ 1970­ conference­ on­

artists­in­industry, Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR urged­its­readers­to­‘think­

about­ unresolved­ problems’.­ ‘When,­ at­ last,­ will­ glass­ factories­ produce­

medium­and­large­editions­of­the­objects­which,­just­like­exhibition­items,­

demonstrate­the­hard­work­and­fantasy­of­artists?’­inquired­the­editorial,­

directly­ addressing­ the­ Soviet­ Ministry­ of­ the­ Industry­ of­ Construction­

Materials.³⁸

To­lend­credence­to­this­issue,­the­journal­published­artists’­answers­

to­a­questionnaire­it­sent­out­–­artists­currently­employed­at­different­glass­

factories­–­over­several­issues­in­1973­and­1974.­The­questions­proceeded­

from­the­general­to­the­particular:­from­the­meaning­of­the­medium­(the­

expressive­potential­of­glass­and­its­role­in­shaping­the­environment)­to­

individual­creative­goals,­to­the­artist’s­relationship­with­production­(‘How­

do­you­manage­to­work­both­on­unique­pieces­and­on­prototypes­for­mass­

production­at­the­same­time?’),­to,­finally,­future­plans­and­projects.­The­

first­question­revealed­the­affective­relation­of­an­artist­to­his­or­her­mate-rial:­the­intertwined­recognition­of­its­‘thing-power’­and­the­will­to­master­

it.­This­dialectic­was­made­especially­vivid­in­the­response­by­Adolf­Kurilov,­

an­artist­at­the­famous­Gus’­Khrustal’nyi­factory­(Vladimir­oblast):­glass­

‘can­ be­ cut,­ moulded,­ faceted,­ etched,­ blown,­ engraved,­ glued,­ frosted,­

and­fused­with­ceramics;­one­can­paint­over­it­with­a­brush­and­draw­on­

it­with­carbide­pencil­…­It­can­be­opaque,­transparent,­coloured­and­col-ourless.­I­do­not­know­what­other­material­has­equal­capabilities.’­Glass­

‘intrudes’­into­the­environment­as­‘boldly’­as­do­wood,­metal­and­ceramics,­

and­can­eventuate­not­only­as­dinnerware­or­windows,­but­as­‘entire­walls­

and­ skyscrapers’.­ Here­ Kurilov­ alluded­ to­ the­ strong­ utopianism­ of­ the­

Russian­avant-garde,­revived­during­the­recent­obsession­with­modernist­

clarity­and­transparency.

Other­responses­feature­more­intimate­and­less­‘corporeal’­visions­of­the­

material:­according­to­the­Leningrad­factory­artist­Aknunii­Astvatsaturian,­

glass­is­an­‘amazingly­poetic­material’­that­can­take­any­form,­while­for­the­

Moscow­artist­Svetlana­Beskinskaia,­glass­was­the­medium­for­transmit-ting­one’s­thoughts­and­feelings.³⁹­Boris­Smirnov,­who­was­usually­very­

attentive­to­the­sensory­qualities­of­glass,­gave­a­strikingly­anthropocentric­

answer:­glass­by­itself­is­no­more­special­than­any­other­material,­because­

it­is­always­the­artist­who­has­the­upper­hand­and­who­must­stay­‘above’­

the­material.

When­ it­ came­ to­ the­ ‘unique­ vs.­ mass-produced’­ dilemma,­ all­ the­

responses­leaned­towards­some­sort­of­compromise.­For­Kurilov,­the­design­

of­mass­prototypes­was­‘labour’,­while­unique­works­were­the­expression­

of­‘a­soul­singing’.­When­the­soul­is­out­of­songs,­an­artist­should­turn­to­

massovka­(a­rather­pejorative­term­for­mass­production).­So,­according­to­

Kurilov,­mass­production­was­not­a­noble­duty­but­a­constant­obligation.­

He­ added,­ however,­ that­ production­ plans­ sometimes­ interrupt­ creative­

work­ on­ unique­ pieces,­ pressing­ an­ artist­ to­ resort­ to­ mass-producible­

prototypes.­This­would­obviously­mean­silencing­the­singing­soul.⁴⁰ Other­responses,­though,­were­more­positive­towards­prototypes­for­

mass­production.­Svetlana­Beskinskaia,­the­chief­artist­of­the­Glavsteklo­

(Main­ Administration­ of­ the­ Glass­ Industry)­ at­ the­ Soviet­ Ministry­ of­

Industrial­ Construction­ Materials­ and­ the­ secretary­ of­ the­ board­ of­ the­

Soviet­Artists’­Union,­characterised­the­work­of­a­factory-employed­artist­

as­a­‘single,­seamless­process’:

When­working­on­a­unique­piece,­I­find­new­solutions­for­mass­objects.­The­

work­on­a­mass­object­[massovoi veshch’iu]­is­a­necessary­training­of­creativity,­

and­the­rigidity­of­the­factory­conditions­charges­and­activates­the­thinking.­I­

consider­production­the­best­and­only­basis­for­the­true­tempering­of­an­artist.

Using­the­popular­term­from­the­1920s–1930s­–­‘tempering’­(zakalka)­–­

Beskinskaia­presented­a­modernised­version­of­the­myth­of­the­New­Soviet­

Person­ shaped­ by­ hard­ work­ and­ education.⁴¹­ This­ argument,­ however,­

was­less­motivated­by­personal­beliefs­and­more­by­Beskinskaia’s­status­

at­ Glavsteklo,­ which­ she­ headed­ in­ 1966­ and­ wherein­ she­ initiated­ the­

‘Resolution­on­artists­in­the­glass­industry’­that­secured­benefits­for­artists­

and­gave­them­access­to­research­trips.­Dedicated­to­strengthening­ties­

between­artists­and­technical­workers­in­factories,⁴²­Beskinskaia­needed­

to­present­industrial­production­as­beneficial­and­even­necessary­for­one’s­

growth­as­an­artist.­She­even­stated­that­her­dream­was­to­find­an­end­to­

the­seemingly­interminable­debate­over­‘mass­vs.­unique’.­Beskinskaia­had­

belonged­to­the­staff­of­the­Diat’kovo­glass­factory­(Briansk­oblast).­Her­

colleague­at­this­factory,­Viktor­Shevchenko,­seconded­her­opinion­on­the­

indivisibility­of­unique­and­mass-producible­objects­in­design:­‘I­believe­

an­artist­who­cannot­establish­good­relations­with­production­is­also­inca-pable­of­solving­the­simplest­creative­task.’­Likewise,­Stepan­Moiseenko,­

an­ artist­ from­ an­ older­ generation­ at­ the­ Vosstanie­ factory­ (Chudovo,­

Novgorod­ oblast’),­ optimistically­ noted­ that­ what­ is­ unique­ today­ can­

become­ mass­ production­ tomorrow,­ claiming­ that­ he­ always­ worked­ on­

unique­pieces­with­mass-reproducibility­and­broad­availability­in­mind.⁴³ A­particularly­noteworthy­part­of­this­discussion­was­the­relationship­

between­ artists­ and­ industrial­ workers,­ who,­ possibly­ alluding­ to­ the­

1920s,­were­often­called­‘productivists’­(proizvodstvenniki).­Many­artists­

called­for­closer­cooperation.­Leida­Jurgen,­one­of­a­cohort­of­Estonian­

artists­ who­ had­ joined­ the­ Leningrad­ Factory­ of­ Artistic­ Glass­ in­ 1955,­

argued­ that­ only­ a­ team­ of­ specialists­ from­ various­ professional­ back-grounds­ could­ successfully­ solve­ the­ problems­ of­ artistic­ glass­ produc-tion.­The­Moscow­artist­Vladimir­Filatov­called­for­building­a­relationship­

of­artists­with­industry­on­the­basis­of­‘mutual­respect­and­understand-ing­ of­ [common]­ interests,­ aims­ and­ needs’.­ Smirnov,­ who­ worked­ in­

many­ different­ areas­ of­ art­ and­ design­ simultaneously,­ acknowledged­

glassblowing­ as­ the­ truest­ embodiment­ of­ creativity.­ He­ described­ his­

cooperative­work­with­a­glassblower­as­‘the­most­interesting:­this­is­an­

exceptional­ opportunity­ to­ directly­ and­ naturally­ enrich­ art­ by­ incorpo-rating­the­artistry­of­the­glassblower,­naïve­and­free,­untouched­by­the­

informational­ chaos­ from­ different­ channels,­ from­ which­ an­ artist­ has­

no­means­of­relief’.­This­romanticisation­of­a­craftsperson’s­unalienated­

labour,­free­from­the­baggage­of­art­theory,­may­be­seen­as­condescend-ing­rather­than­respectful.­However,­it­does­make­the­glassblower­more­

visible­in­the­professional­discussion.­In­her­cultural­history­of­glass­in­

Russia,­ Julia­ Chadaga­ analyses­ glassblowing­ in­ new­ materialist­ terms,­

as­ a­ site­ of­ affinity­ between­ the­ human­ body­ and­ the­ material,­ of­ ‘cor-poreal­ associations’­ that­ glass­ often­ produces.­ She­ cites­ the­ historian­

Isobel­Armstrong­who­‘juxtaposes­the­invisibility­of­the­glassblower­with­

the­unseen­bubbles­left­in­the­glass­as­traces­of­the­worker’s­breath,­his­

presence’.⁴⁴

For­ Smirnov,­ this­ corporeal­ presence­ of­ a­ glassblower,­ symbolically­

presented­ in­ his­ 1961–62­ ‘Glassblower’s­ triptych’­ (figure­ 3.2),­ was,­ in­ a­

way,­superior­to­the­intellectualism­of­the­artist,­but­only­in­combination­

could­the­two­be­used­to­produce­high-quality­objects.­Even­though,­as­

critic­Alla­Pavlinskaia­noted,­Smirnov­always­insisted­that­he­was­‘not­a­

glass­artist­but­an­artist’­(ne stekol’shchik, a khudozhnik),­he­also­was­con-tinuously­fascinated­by­folk,­amateur­and­‘primitive’­art,­as­is­apparent­in­

his­1970­book­Artist on the Nature of Things.⁴⁵­In­her­article­celebrating­

Smirnov’s­70th­birthday,­Pavlinskaia­regarded­this­alleged­contradiction­

as­a­sign­of­his­professional­strength:­‘The­simplicity­and­naivety­of­folk­art­

looks­surprising­in­the­works­of­such­an­intellectual­artist.­But­this­fascina-tion­is­not­accidental,­and­it­is­devoid­of­artificiality­and­stylisation,­which­

are­ so­ frequently­ found­ in­ today’s­ art.’⁴⁶­ The­ embrace­ of­ folk­ simplicity­

made­Smirnov’s­work,­as­it­were,­immune­from­the­‘capriciousness’­that­

alarmed­quite­a­few­art­critics­at­the­time.

After­ quoting­ factory­ artists­ who­ had­ participated­ in­ the­ 1973­ glass­

show,­Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR dedicated­ an­ entire­ issue­ (October­

1973)­to­the­problem­of­the­mass­production­of­household­objects.­This­

special­issue­was­opened­by­an­article­by­the­VNIITE­design­theorist­Leonid­

Pereverzev.­The­article­began­by­asserting­the­importance­of­thing-power:

the­ready­objects,­like­all­other­products­of­human­activity,­gain­relative­inde-pendence­and­start­living­by­their­own­principles.­People­have­to­comply­with­

these­principles­as­long­as­they­have­no­possibility­to­change­the­structure­of­

the­ artefactual­ world­ [veshchnoho mira]­ in­ the­ direction­ they­ find­ desirable­

and­necessary.

However,­Pereverzev­went­on,­the­structure­of­human–object­interrelations­

depends­on­a­complex­network­of­factors,­including­individual­and­group­

identity,­ social­ status,­ and­ production­ conditions­ and­ economic­ goals.­

Moreover,­while­many­artists­were­praising­handicraft­as­more­symboli-cally­potent­than­mass­production,­only­the­latter­can­be­the­‘main­source­

of­objects’­in­the­contemporary­world.­While­acknowledging­the­flaws­of­

Soviet­industry,­which­often­refused­to­accept­new­prototypes,­Pereverzev­

cautioned­readers­against­blaming­outright­‘engineer-­productionists’­for­

the­poor­quality­of­Soviet­goods.­‘Instead’,­he­suggested,­‘we­should­ask­if­

artists­and­designers­recognise­their­share­of­responsibility­for­the­defor-mation­and­de-aesthetisation­of­the­contemporary­artefactual­world,­and­

if­ they­ use­ all­ their­ knowledge,­ skills­ and­ capacities­ to­ solve­ this­

if­ they­ use­ all­ their­ knowledge,­ skills­ and­ capacities­ to­ solve­ this­

Im Dokument Design history and the study of materialities (Seite 187-198)