Windows for the world
Nineteenth-centurystainedglassandtheinternational
exhibitions,1851–1900
jasmineallen
The matter of Art
Materials,practices,culturallogics,c.1250–1750
editedbychristyanderson, annedunlop andpamelah. smith
European fashion
Thecreationofaglobalindustry
editedbyreginaleeblaszczykandvéroniquepouillard
The culture of fashion
Anewhistoryoffashionabledress
christopherbreward
The factory in a garden
Ahistoryofcorporatelandscapesfromtheindustrial
tothedigitalage
helenachance
‘The autobiography of a nation’
The1951FestivalofBritain
beckye. conekin
The culture of craft Statusandfuture
editedbypeterdormer
Material relations
Domesticinteriorsandthemiddle-classfamily,1850–1910
janehamlett
Arts and Crafts objects
imogenhart
Interior decorating in nineteenth-century France Thevisualcultureofanewprofession
ancai. lasc
Building reputations
conorlucey
The material Renaissance
michelleo’malleyandevelynwelch
Bachelors of a different sort
Queeraesthetics,materialcultureandthemoderninterior
johnpotvin
Crafting design in Italy
Frompost-wartopostmodernism
catharinerossi
Chinoiserie
Commerceandcriticalornamentineighteenth-centuryBritain
staceysloboda
Material goods, moving hands
PerceivingproductioninEngland,1700–1830
katesmith
Hot metal
Materialcultureandtangiblelabour
jesseadamsstein
Ideal homes, 1918–39
DomesticdesignandsuburbanModernism
deborahsuggryan
The study of dress history
loutaylor
generaleditors Christopher Breward
and James Ryan foundingeditor Paul Greenhalgh
Comradely objects
Design and material culture in Soviet Russia, 1960s–80s
Yulia Karpova
Manchester University Press
The right of Yulia Karpova to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
An electronic version of this book is also available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, thanks to the support of Aarhus Universitet, which permits non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the author and Manchester University Press are fully cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Details of the licence can be viewed at https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 5261 3987 0 hardback
ISBN 978 1 5261 3986 3 open access First published 2020
The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Cover image: Boris Smirnov, ‘Tea Couple’, 1966. Experimental workshop of Ceramics and sculpture factory in Lviv. © Ensemble Kuskovo.
Typeset in 10/12.5 Compatil Text by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire
List of plates viii
List of figures x
Acknowledgements xiii
Abbreviations and acronyms xvi
Note on transliteration and translation xvii
Introduction:Sovietthingsthattalk 1
1 TheaestheticturnafterStalin 24
2 Technicalaestheticsagainstthedisorderofthings 65
3 Objectsofneodecorativism 93
4 Fromobjectstodesignprogrammes 118
5 Anewproductioncultureandnon-commodities 159
Epilogue 199
Select bibliography 204
Index 210
1 DoublepagespreadinthejournalDekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR 10
(1967),40–1.Left:M.Primachenko,decorativepainting,Bolotnia,
Kievoblast,1965.Right:MikhailPosokhinetal.,COMECON
buildingatNovyiArbatinMoscow,1967.©DialogueofArts
journal.
2 Teapots‘Tundra’,USSR,porcelain,overglazepaintingandgilding,
1959.©MuseumofMoscow.
3 EkaterinaIanovskaia,setofbottlesandglasses,‘Rainbow’,coloured
andcolourlessleadglass,incising,1964–72.ProducedatLeningrad
FactoryofArtisticGlass.©YelaginPalaceMuseumofRussian
decorativeandappliedartsandinteriorofXVIII–XXcenturies.
4 BorisSmirnov,decorativesculpture,‘TeaCouple’,colouredground
andtransparentnon-leadglass,blownwithhotapplications,1966.
ExperimentalworkshopofceramicsandsculpturefactoryinLviv.
©EnsembleKuskovo.
5 BorisSmirnov,composition,‘FestiveTable’,fragment,coloured
andcolourlesstransparentnon-leadglass,colouredgroundnon- leadglass,blownwithhotapplications,1967.Producedatthe
experimentalworkshopofceramicsandsculpturefactoryinLviv.
©EnsembleKuskovo.
6 BorisSmirnov,sculpture,‘Man,Horse,DogandBird’,colourless
transparentnon-leadglass,colouredgroundandpolishednon- leadglass,blownwithhotapplications,before1970.Producedat
LeningradFactoryofArtisticGlass.©CorningMuseumofGlass.
7 Tableclockwithchime,Vesna,1963.ProducedatVladimirclock
factory.©AzatRomanovCollection.
8 Wallclock,Iantar’,1965.ProducedatOrelclockfactory.
©AzatRomanovCollection.
9 Radioreceiver,Moskvich,1963.Moscowaerophonefactory.
©AzatRomanovCollection.
10 Vase,‘Narcissus’,porcelain,colourmonochromeglaze,shapeby
AnnaLeporskaia,1962.ProducedatLeningradPorcelainFactory.
©TheStateHermitageMuseum.
11 Buranvacuumcleaner,1968.ProducedatElektromashinafactory,
Prokopievsk.©MuseumofMoscow.
12 Teapot,USSR,porcelain,1970s.©MuseumofMoscow.
13 OlgaNekrasova-Karateeva,‘CallaLilies’,chamotte,salts,glazes,
1976.Producedattheworkshopcooperativeofdecorative-applied
artoftheLeningradbranchoftheRSFSRArtFund.PhotobyMikhail
Kopylkov.©NovaiaNivaPublishers.
14 MikhailKopylkov,‘PinkDressandAutumnCoat’,chamotte,salts,
glazes,metal,1976.ProducedatKipsalaworkshop,Dzintari.Photo
byMikhailKopylkov.©NovaiaNivaPublishers.
15 VladimirTsivin,‘PeopleandObjects’,chamotte,engobe,glaze,metal,
glass,1980.Producedattheworkshopcooperativeofdecorative- appliedartoftheLeningradbranchoftheRSFSRArtFund.Ensemble
Kuskovo.PhotobyMikhailKopylkov.©NovaiaNivaPublishers.
16 OlgaNekrasova-Karateeva,‘Self-Portrait’,chamotte,enamels,glazes;
potterA.Sokolov,1984.Producedattheworkshopcooperativeof
decorative-appliedartoftheLeningradbranchoftheRSFSRArt
Fund.PhotobyMikhailKopylkov.©NovaiaNivaPublishers.
1.1 PioneercaféinteriorinthePioneerPalaceontheLeninHills,
1961.©FelixNovikov. 45
1.2 PlayroomforyoungchildreninthePioneerPalaceonthe
LeninHills,1961.©FelixNovikov. 46
1.3 Kitchenware,before1961.ProducedatthefactoriesEmal’- posudaNo.2andKrasnyiVyborzhets,Leningradoblast.
©DialogueofArtsjournal. 56
2.1 ComparativeanalysisofBritishelectricshaverthe
MilwardCourier(left)andSovietanalogueUtro(right),
1965.VNIITE,RGANTD,f.R-688,op.1–1,d.57,l.5.
©RussianStateArchiveofScientificandTechnical
Documentation. 77
2.2 VsevolodMedvedevetal.,projectforanarrayofkitchenware
andimplementsforafamilyof3–4people,1966.LFVNIITE,
TsGANTDSPb,f.R-146,op.2–1,d.77,l.91.©Central
StateArchiveofScientificandTechnicalDocumentationat
StPetersburg. 86
2.3 VsevolodMedvedevetal.,technicaldrawingofaluminium
kitchenware,1966.LFVNIITE,TsGANTDSPb,f.R-146,
op.2–1,d.77,l.90.©CentralStateArchiveofScientificand
TechnicalDocumentationatStPetersburg. 87 3.1 LeidaJurgen,waterset,‘Strings’,colourlessleadglass,
incising,1962.ProducedatLeningradFactoryofArtistic
Glass.©YelaginPalaceMuseumofRussiandecorativeand
appliedartsandinteriorofXVIII–XXcenturies. 97 3.2 BorisSmirnov,vases,‘GlassBlowers’,transparentleadglass,
sandblasting,engraving;sandblastingbyHellePyldand
R.Antonenko,engravingbyA.Soloviev,1961–63.Produced
atLeningradFactoryofArtisticGlass.©YelaginPalace
MuseumofRussiandecorativeandappliedartsandinteriorof
XVIII–XXcenturies. 98
3.3 IuriiBiakov,‘Troika’,colourlessleadglass,sandblasting,
depolishing,wood,1968.ProducedatLeningradFactory
ofArtisticGlass.©YelaginPalaceMuseumofRussian
decorativeandappliedartsandinteriorofXVIII-XXcenturies. 111 4.1 A.Kholodkovetal.,modelofalarmclockVitiaz’forRostov
clockfactory,variantA,1972.VNIITE,RGANTD,f.R-688,
op.4–1,d.21.l.7.©RussianStateArchiveofScientificand
TechnicalDocumentation. 124
4.2 A.Kholodkovetal.,modelofalarmclockVitiaz’forRostov
clockfactory,variantB,1972.VNIITE,RGANTD,f.R-688,
op.4–1,d.21.l.10.©RussianStateArchiveofScientificand
TechnicalDocumentation. 125
4.3 A.Kholodkovetal.,modelofalarmclockVitiaz’forRostov
clockfactory,variantA,controlpanel,1972.VNIITE,
RGANTD,f.R-688,op.4–1,d.21,l.9.©RussianState
ArchiveofScientificandTechnicalDocumentation. 126 4.4 VladimirRezvinetal.,modeloftherefrigeratorOKA-UShwith
acapacityof275litres,interiorview,1974.VNIITE,RGANTD,
f.R-688,op.4–1,d.52,l.11.©RussianStateArchiveof
ScientificandTechnicalDocumentation. 131 4.5 VladimirRezvinetal.,modeloftherefrigeratorOKA-UShwith
acapacityof275litres,generalview,1974.VNIITE,RGANTD,
f.R-688,op.4–1,d.52,l.10.©RussianStateArchiveof
ScientificandTechnicalDocumentation. 132 4.6 VladimirRezvinetal.,modeloftherefrigeratorOKA-UShwith
acapacityof350litres,generalview,1974.VNIITE,RGANTD,
f.R-688,op.4–1,d.52,l.13.©RussianStateArchiveof
ScientificandTechnicalDocumentation. 133 4.7 B.Korolevetal.,layoutschemeofvacuumcleanerBuran
7,1977.VNIITE,RGANTD,f.R-688,op.4–1,d.94,l.
15.©RussianStateArchiveofScientificandTechnical
Documentation. 138
4.8 B.Korolevetal.,modelofvacuumcleanerBuran7withaset
ofnozzles,1977.VNIITE,RGANTD,f.R-688,op.4–1,d.94,
l.28.©RussianStateArchiveofScientificandTechnical
Documentation. 138
4.9 DmitriiKochugovetal.,designprogrammeVtormar
(‘Secondarymaterialresources’),experimental
implementation,1984.LFVNIITE,TsGANTDSPb,f.R-146,
op.22,d.146,l.74a.©CentralStateArchiveofScientificand
TechnicalDocumentationatStPetersburg. 152
5.1 GrigoriiKapelian,sketchoftheposterforthe‘One
Composition’exhibition,1977.©NovaiaNivaPublishers. 188 5.2 AdolfOstroumov,sculpture,‘Galatea’,leadglass,
sandblasting,1977.©YelaginPalaceMuseumofRussian
decorativeandappliedartsandinteriorofXVIII–XXcenturies,
2017. 192
This book is about comradely objects – products envisioned by Soviet
designerstomakeeverydaylifeintheSovietUnionmoreconvenientand
joyful.Thecompletionofthisbookowesalottothecomradelyrelations–
withmymentors,colleaguesandfriends–thatIhavebeenluckytoenjoyat
everystageofresearchandwriting.Thisprojectalsogreatlybenefitedfrom
thesupportofdifferentinstitutions.Iexpressgreatgratitudetoallofthem.
The major part of this book project was funded by the European
Union’sHorizon2020researchandinnovationprogrammeundertheMarie
Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 700913. The early stages of my
researchweresupportedbytheCentralEuropeanUniversityinBudapest,
the Malevich Society and the German Historical Institute in Moscow. As
apostdoctoralresearcheratAarhusUniversity,Ialsobenefitedfromthe
AarhusUniversityResearchFoundationstartinggrantthatallowedmeand
mycolleaguestoformanetworkofresearchersontheinterconnectionsof
materialcultureandgenderinSovietandpost-SovietRussia.
MyearliestinspirationinthehistoryofSovietobjectscamefromthe
AlexandervonStieglitzAcademyofArtandDesigninStPetersburg,for- merlyaleadingSovietdesignschoolandthealmamatertomanyofthe
protagonists in this book. I thank Galina Gabriel and Tatiana Kovaleva,
myprofessorsfromtheDepartmentofArtHistory,forshowingmeasa
youngundergraduatethemanywaysinwhichmaterialobjectsinfluence
ourlives.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my mentors and col- leaguesintheDepartmentofHistoryattheCentralEuropeanUniversity
inBudapestforalltheencouragementtheygavemeintheearlieststages
of my research. I thank my doctoral supervisor, Marsha Siefert, for her
expertguidance,inspiringdiscussionsandunendingtrustinthisresearch
project.
Othersalsoprovidedmewithmuch-neededwisdomonlateSovietaes- theticsandmaterialcultureduringthistime.Myexternaladviser,Serguei
Oushakine, inspired me to be brave in posing theoretical questions and
attentivetoseeminglytrivialhistoricalsources.SusanEmilyReid,David
Crowley,KarlHall,SampsaKaataja,IrinaSandomirskajaandIlyaKukulin
alsosharedvaluableadvicethatcontributedtothisbook’sinception.
The major part of this book project was completed at the School of
CommunicationandCultureatAarhusUniversity,Denmark.Iamindebted
tomypostdoctoralsupervisorJakobLadegaardforhiscarefulreadingof
severaldraftchapters,aswellashisinsightfulcommentariesandkindguid- ancetoDanishacademiclife.Ihighlyappreciatethesupportofmysecond
postdoctoral supervisor, Birgitte Beck Pristed from the Department of
GlobalStudies,forhercontinualencouragement.IalsothankBirgitteand
mycolleaguefromAalborgUniversity,OlgaGurova,fortheirgreathelp
inorganisingtheinternationalconference‘TheBodyofThings:Gender,
Design and Material Culture in (Post)Soviet Russia’, Aarhus University,
8–9March2018.Thisconferencebroughttogetherscholarsfromdifferent
disciplinesandbecameaspaceforthrivingintellectualexchangethatwas
crucialinthefinalstagesofmywriting.
MypostdoctoralresearchinDenmarkgreatlybenefitedfromnumer- ous visits to the Designmuseum Danmark and its library. I thank the
librariansAnjaLollegaardandSaraFruelundfortheirgeneroushelpwith
findingrelevanttheoreticalliteratureandshowingsuchgreatinterestin
mybook.IamalsogratefultoAndersV.MunchandHans-ChristianJensen
fromtheUniversityofSouthernDenmarkandtoKristianHandbergfrom
Copenhagen University for kindly giving me the opportunity to give a
publictalkaboutSovietdesigntoaDanishaudience.
Manycolleaguesfromthefieldsofdesignhistory,arthistory,Russian
andSovietstudiesandothershavesupportedmyprojectinvariousways
–providingvaluablefeedback,suggestingsecondarysources,andasking
thought-provokingquestions.Mygratitudegoes,innoparticularorder,to
KjetilFallan,GraceLees-Maffei,TomCubbin,DariaBocharnikova,Angelina
Lucento, Maria Silina, Iliana Veinberga, Anders Kurg, Mari Laanemets,
OlgaKazakova,XeniaVytuleva,AlexandraSankova,AlyonaSokolnikova,
AzatRomanov,AlexeyGolubev,AntonKotenko,OleksandrNadtoka,Ioana
Macrea-Toma,IrinaDenischenko,BradleyGorski,EkaterinaEmeliantseva,
NataliaPetrova,OlgaKazakova,AntonSheverdiaev,AlexanderTerebenin,
NikitaBalagurov,PavelVasiliev,DmitriiKozlovandAnnaMazanik.Special
thanks go to Julia Gusarova who on numerous occasions kindly shared
uniqueandextremelyvaluablematerialsonlateSovietdecorativeart.
Thisbookwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheformerparticipants
intheSovietdesignanddecorativeartcommunitieswhokindlyagreedto
answermyquestions.IamimmenselygratefultoVladimirPaperny,Vitaly
Komar, Olga Nekrasova-Karateeva, Natalia Malevskaia-Malevich, Inna
Olevskaia, Mikhail Kos’kov, Larisa Romanova, Vasilii Gusarov, Vladimir
TsivinandMikhailKopylkov.
Ithankthetwoanonymousreviewersfortheirvaluablecommentson
thefirstversionofmymanuscript.EmmaBrennanandAlunRichardsfrom
ManchesterUniversityPressguidedmethroughthepublicationprocess,
andReynoldsHahamovitchprovidedcarefulstylisticediting.
Finally, I am grateful to Ksenia, Evgeniya, Adela and Lars for their
comradelysupportandtomyparentsforeverything.
Parts of this book have previously appeared in the following publica- tions: ‘Accommodating “Design”: Introducing the Western Concept into
SovietArtTheoryinthe1950s–60s’,European Review of History – Revue européenne d’historie 20.4 (2013), 627–47; ‘“A Glass without Bottom”:
NeodecorativisminSovietAppliedArtintheLate1960s’,Journal of Design History 3.1 (2017), 1–15; ‘Visions and Visualization of Sustainability:
LeningradDesignersinSearchofNationwideRecyclingSystem,1981–84’,
inAgaSkrodzka,XiaoningLuandKatarzynaMarciniak (eds),The Oxford Handbook of Communist Visual Cultures (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,
2019).
KhKR artistic-engineeringelaboration
LFVNIITE LeningradbranchoftheAll-UnionResearch
InstituteforTechnicalAesthetics
LOSKh/LSSKh LeningradbranchoftheArtists’UnionoftheRSFSR MOSKh MoscowBranchoftheArtists’UnionoftheRSFSR MVKhPU MoscowHigherSchoolforArtandIndustry(former
StroganovSchool)
RSFSR RussianSovietFederalSocialistRepublic Vkhutein HigherArtistic-TechnicalInstitute Vkhutemas HigherArtistic-TechnicalWorkshop
VIVR All-UnionInstituteforSecondaryResources VLKSM/Komsomol All-UnionLeninCommunistYouthLeague VNIIKS All-UnionResearchInstituteforStudyingthe
Population’sDemandforCommoditiesandtheState
ofTrade
VNIITE All-UnionResearchInstituteforTechnical
Aesthetics
This book uses the Library of Congress transliteration system, except
for firmly established forms for specific names (Gorky, Groys, Lissitzky,
Mayakovsky, Shklovsky and Ostrovsky). Unless otherwise indicated, the
translationofallRussianquotationsismyown.
‘Asilentspeechthatthingsaddresstouseverydayinanartisticlanguage
isinfinitelymoreconvincingthandozensoflecturesaboutaestheticedu- cation,goodtaste,etc.Tomakethislanguageofthingscontemporaryand
expressiveistheexcitingbutdifficulttaskofanartist.’1Thiswashowthe
SovietartcriticNinaIaglovaopenedherarticleinthejournalDecorative Art of the USSR in June 1961. Here, ‘things’ (veshchi, material objects)
appearasactiveparticipantsinpeople’slives,asagentsbyvirtueofbeing
speakers.However,their‘speech’ispossibleonlythroughthepowerof
humanagents–artists.Artinfiltratesintoeverydaylifethroughobjects;
objectsaffecteverydaylifethrough‘speech’composedbyartists;artists
educatesocietyinaestheticsthroughobjects.
The interplay between art and the quotidian, between people and
objects, described by Iaglova, has also informed recent developments
in the humanities and social sciences. The ‘material-cultural turn’ that
emerged in the mid-1980s in archaeology and anthropology converged
with critiques in other social sciences and humanities disciplines in the
followingdecade.2Inthelate1990s–2000s,thisresultedinaflowofnew
theoreticalstreamsthatshiftedscholars’focusfromdiscoursetomaterial- ityandfromhumantonon-humanagents(describedthrough‘bio-,eco-,
geo-,neuro-,necro-,zoo-concepts’,ashistorianEwaDomanskasumma- rises).3Actor-networktheory,newmaterialism,object-orientedontology,
material feminisms, thing theory and other branches of critical theory
offerdifferentreconsiderationsofthesocialandpoliticalroleofobjects.A
growingbodyofscholarshipinanthropology,archaeology,history,arthis- tory,scienceandtechnologystudies,andacrossotherdisciplines,treats
objectsnotasmereinertpossessionsorcarriersofsymbolicmeaning,but
ratherasagentsofsocialrelationsthatcommunicatewithpeopleinvari- ousways,nottheleastofwhichissensoryqualities.4
Design history and the study of materialities
This non-anthropocentric, post-humanist paradigm offers new perspec- tives to scholars of design, as well as critical and methodological tools.
Sincethe1980s,andconcurrentlywiththedevelopmentofmaterialcul- ture studies, design historians have been increasingly critical of older
interpretations that saw design as the elite activity of ‘geniuses’ which
produces the sleek and evocative masterpieces that sit in museum dis- plays.InhisseminalbookMaterial Culture and Mass Consumption (1987),
the leading scholar of material culture studies, Daniel Miller, criticised
design history as a ‘bizarre’ field of inquiry, ‘intended to be a form of
pseudoarthistory,inwhichthetaskistolocategreatindividualssuchas
RaymondLoewyorNormanBelGeddesandportraythemascreatorsof
modernmassculture’.5AsKjetilFallannotes,designhistoriansaccepted
thisreproachand,moreover,foundinittheinspirationtoexpandtheir
researchtoconsumerpractices.Thecritiquewithinthefieldofdesignhis- torywasdevelopingatthesametime.Inher1987textbook,HazelConway
criticised the so-called ‘heroic approach’ to design history, explaining
tostudentsthatjustassocialhistoriansinquireintothelivesofvarious
social strata and communities, design historians should do ‘more than
thestudyofkeyfiguresandkeyobjects’andviewdesignas‘anactivity
withinasocialandmaterialcontext’.6AdecadelaterJudyAttfield,Miller’s
student,dedicatedabooktothe‘wildthings’ofeverydaylifeandcalled
forabroadeningofthemeaningofdesigntoincludenotjustobjectsas
‘celebrities’,butalso‘thatlargerpartofthedesignedobject’sbiography
whenitisnolongersacred,whenitformspartofthedisorderedeveryday
clutterofthemundane,andjoinedthedisarrayofwildthingsthatdon’t
quitefitanywhere–theundisciplined’.7Attfield’scallprovedpopularand
by the end of the millennium everyday objects appeared central to the
historyofdesign.
Over the last two decades a significant number of monographs and
articleswrittenbydesignhistorianshaveexplorednotjusteverydaycon- sumption,asAttfieldproposed,butalsointermediarystagesbetweenpro- ductionandconsumption:manufacture,marketing,distribution,retailing
andreception.8Thispromptedtheinclusionofvariousmediatorssuchas
‘dealers,distributors,salesmanagersandproducttesters’asagentsofthe
designprocess.Manyofthesestudiesalsodemonstrateasensitivitytothe
sensoryqualitiesofobjects,9andwiththerecentturntowardsglobaland
transnationaldesignhistory,scholarshavealsoincorporatedtheroleof
materialityindesignandconsumptionoutsideoftheEuro-Atlanticworld.10 Further,therecentinterestintheenvironmentalaspectsofdesignandin
sustainability as a part of design culture has prompted inquiry into the
post-consumptionlifeofobjects,suchasdisposal,recyclingandreuse.11 Fallan argues that this latter trend in particular can benefit from new
materialist optics in reconsidering the history of interrelations between
humans,objectsandnature.12
Thisdecentralisationof‘heroic’designersandincreasedattentionto
materialityprovidesbroadopportunitiesforexaminingdesignunderstate
socialism.Whilecollectivistinstitutionalcultureandplannedeconomies
precludeddesignersfromobtainingfull-fledgedindividualrecognition,let
alonestardom,materialcultureandconsumptioncontinuouslypreoccu- piedthemindsofstateandPartyauthorities,expertsofdifferentprofiles
andordinarypeople.However,statesocialismnotonlyprovidesfertilesoil
for‘newmaterialist’and‘object-oriented’designhistories.Italsooffersa
theoreticalprecedent:theconceptofa‘comradelyobject’.Thisideadevel- oped within the Russian avant-garde of the 1920s and proved resilient,
lastingwellintothelateSovietperiod.
Comradely objects and overlooked subjects
One branch of the Russian avant-garde in the early 1920s is known as
‘productive art’ (proizvodstvennoe iskusstvo) or ‘productivism’ (proizvod- stvennichestvo).Atitscorewastherepudiationofeaselandfigurativeart
andthecritiqueoftheelevatedroleoftheartistasseparatefromindus- trial production. Artists such as Varvara Stepanova, Liubov Popova and
AleksandrRodchenko,supportedbysuchtheoristsasBorisArvatov,Nikolai
TarabukinandOsipBrik,centredaroundtheavant-gardejournalLEF(Left Front of Art),putforwardavisionoftheartistasjustoneofmanyindustrial
workersinvolvedinthemakingofanobject.Theproductivistsbelievedthat
organisingtheproductionprocesswasacrucialtaskofanartist.13Another,
nolessimportantrolewasasaproducerofusefulobjectsforthemasses
ratherthanpureartforaselectpublic.ThisvisionradicalisedtheArtsand
Craftsmovement’scallforaestheticisinglabourbyreconceptualisingartas
‘intellectual-materialproduction’,14andatthesametimeproposedanalter- nativetoacapitalistcommoditybypromotingtheself-consciouscreationof
objectsforeverydayconsumption.Inoppositiontoseductivecommodities
–orasRodchenkocalledthem,‘darkslaves’ofthemarket15–thesocial- istobjectwastobemodestandutilitarian,clearlymanifestingthewayit
wasproduced,thatis,thelabourinvestedinit.Accordingtoproductivist
theoristsandartists,thestructuraltransparencyofanobjectwouldelimi- natecommodityfetishismandstimulaterationaland‘comradely’relations
betweenpeopleandobjects.AsBorisArvatovarguedin1926,
Theexposureofthemethodsofartisticskill,theliquidationoffetishist‘mys- tery’, the transfer of these methods from the artist-producer to a consumer
–thisistheonlyconditionforthedisappearanceoftheage-oldbordersepa- ratingartandpractice.Artisticproducts,whichexistwithinbyt [everydaylife]
anddeveloptogetherwithit,thusceasetobedistinguishedfromtherankof
‘uniqueobjects’…16
In another article, Arvatov envisioned socialist objects of the future as
dynamicthings,similartoWesternobjectssuchasmovingstaircasesand
slidingdoorsinAmericanpublicbuildings,butintegratedintothesocialist
economyanddailylife.ForArvatov,thesocialistobjectwastobecome‘an
instrumentandaco-worker’.17
Christina Kiaer’s impressive study of the objects of Russian
Constructivism(anavant-gardestreamthatincludedproductivism)indi- catesthattheideaofthe‘comradelyobject’notonlyopposedthecom- modity culture of capitalist countries, but also responded to the partial
revival of market mechanisms under the New Economic Policy (NEP),
introducedbyLeninin1921asatemporarymeasuretodeveloptheeco- nomicbasisforaSovietindustryravagedbytheCivilWar.AsKiaersug- gests,NEPpoliciessuchasthelegalisationofprivatewholesaleandretail
tradeandprivatemanufacturing‘acknowledgedthatfunctioningsystems
of consumption were the necessary counterparts to modern systems of
production,andthatapathtowardsocialismthattookconsumptioninto
accountwasmorelikelytosucceedintheconditionsthattheBolsheviks
facedin1921’.TheideologicaloppositiontotheNEPinspiredtheproduc- tiviststoconfronttheproblemofconsumerdesirewithdesignsforevery- dayobjectssuchasstoves,babies’bottlesordressesthattheyviewedas
capable of ‘fulfilling or amplifying the sensory capacities of the human
organism’.18 The curtailment of the NEP in the latter half of the 1920s
andthelaunchofafull-scaleindustrialisationcampaignwasfollowedby
therestrictionofsuchculturalpoliciesandabanonindependentartistic
movements, so these comradely objects did not reach a mass audience
throughmassproductionastheproductivistshadplanned.
However,whathappenedtoproductivismafterStalin’sdeath?Inthe
late1950sSovietculturalpoliciessoftenedandopened,thoughonlymod- erately,tointernationalinfluences,andthestateproclaimedanewdedi- cationtoimprovinglivingstandards.Myhypothesisisthatthesechanges
allowed for the resurrection of the theoretical foundations of productiv- ism and the revitalisation and spread of those design philosophies into
the socialist material culture and everyday life of Soviet Russia. I will
demonstratehowtheobjectsdesignedinthelatesocialistperiod–from
dinnerware to vacuum cleaners – echoed the avant-gardist dream of a
well-organisedandsociallyimpactfulmaterialculture.
Thisbook,therefore,examinesthesecondhistoricalattempttocreate
comradelysocialistobjects,institutedasaresponsetoburgeoningWestern
consumerculturethatwasbeingusedasatoolofsoftpowerinthecultural
ColdWar.19Methodologically,Icombinetheinsightsofnewmaterialism
andrecentdesignhistorieswiththetheoreticalframeworkofSovietpro- ductivism.Inaddition,IengagewithanideafromRussianavant-garde’s
literary theory, the ‘biography of the object’, which Serguei Oushakine
readsasoneoftheprecursorstonewmaterialistthinking.20Inhis1929
essay,thecriticSergeiTretiakovcoinedtheterm‘biographyofanobject’
asaninnovativemethodforcreatingaliteraryplot.Tretiakovarguedthat
anobjectpassingthrougharangeofpeopleactsasameasureofcollec- tiveemotionsandthedynamicsofsocialrelations.21‘Objectbiographies’
resurfacedinthe1980s’‘material-culturalturn’22andinspiredaninterest
ineverydaythingsinanewcohortofdesignhistorianssuchasAttfield.
However, despite drawing on Tretiakov’s concept, it is beyond my
capacitytofollowallthestagesofthebiographiesoflateSovietobjects.
Thehistoryofconsumptionanddailylifeunderstatesocialismisabur- geoningfieldofinquirywithcontributionsfromhistoriansandanthropol- ogists.23However,fewstudiesconsiderthematerialityofobjectsandthe
interrelationbetweendesign,production,mediationandconsumption.24 This would be a challenging task, because recurrent problems in the
Sovietplannedeconomy–suchasquantitativeindicatorsofperformance,
poorsupplyofrawmaterials,andlackofcoordinationbetweenindustry
and retail trade – precluded the smooth implementation of designs into
consumption.ThiscontrastedwiththesituationinEastGermany,where
designers were moderately successful in getting their projects imple- mentedandsoastoreachpeople’shomes,asKatharinaPfütznerindicates
in her recent book.25 Accordingly, the scholarship on socialist design,
since it began in the late 1990s, has focused on normative statements
byartists,designers,architectsandcriticsconcerningwhatmakesgood
taste,andhowthiswasdisseminatedthroughmassmediaandexhibitions
inmuseumsandgalleriesandatnationalandworldfairs.Thoughidentify- ingarangeofcomplexissues,thesestudiesmostlyprovideanarrativeofa
state-sponsoreddrivetowardsfunctionalismandagainst‘petty-bourgeois’
tastes and ‘excessive’ decoration.26 These studies have mostly focused
ontheperiodofNikitaKhrushchev’sleadership,whentheSovietUnion
positioneditselfasamodernstateinter pares,encouragedthedevelop- mentofcertainmodernisttrendsinartandarchitecture,andrecognised
design as a full-fledged profession. As Susan E. Reid aptly summarises,
‘theKhrushcheverarepresentedagreatbutunevenleapforwardincreat- ingthebasisforamodernwayofeverydaylifeandaradicalstylisticreori- entationindomesticspacesandthevisualappearanceofcitiestowardsa
newaestheticofsocialistmodernism’.27
Fromthesecondhalfofthe2000s,ayoungergenerationofscholars
hasbeencomplementingandexpandingthenarrativeofthe‘Khrushchev
modern’,oftentracingdesigndevelopmentsaftertheearly1960s.They
haveexploredthetensionswithindesignreformism,identifiedearlierby
Reid:tensionsbetweenartisticindividualityandmassproduction,between
folktraditionsandadvancedindustry,andbetweenprofessionals’critical
thinkingandthenecessitytofulfilPartyguidelines.28Mybookcontributes
tothisbodyofscholarshipbyexaminingthedynamicrelationsbetween
objectsandthosehumansubjects,whohavenotreceivednearlyasmuch
attentionasWestern‘celebrity’designers.Sovietdesignersworkedascol- lectivesandrepresentativesofinstitutions,sectors,bureausandfactories
– a system that the director of the Moscow Design Museum, Alexandra
Sankova,considerstobeahistoricalinjustice.29Anonymitywastypicalof
industrialdesignersunderstatesocialism.Thenamesofdecorativeartists
were usually known from exhibitions, but the marginal status of these
artistsinSovietartisticcommunitiesdiminishedtheirsocialoutreachand
fame.
My intention, however, is not to ‘restore justice’ through a ‘heroic’
approachtoSovietdesignbyfindingsomeunrecognisedSovietRaymond
Loewy. Rather, I speak to the ongoing scholarly discussion concerning
the position of professionals under state socialism and contest the dual
imageofthemaseitherrepressed,innocentintellectuals(alabelusually
appliedtoavant-gardeartists)30orasopportunisticcollaboratorswiththe
regime.31Anumberofrecentstudiesprovideamorebalancedview,pre- sentingprofessionals’diversestrategiesfornavigatingSovietinstitutions
and ideological guidelines, and creating spaces for debate and critique
withintheofficialculture.32Likewise,IarguethatSovietartists,designers
and critics could be dedicated to the improvement of people’s every- dayliveswhilealsoseekingopportunitiesforprofessionalrecognition,or
couldadoptcertainformsofinstitutionalcritiquewithoutbecomingdissi- dents.Mydesiretoprovideanuancedpictureofpeoplewhocaredabout
household objects in difficult political circumstances is precisely what
drivestheinclusionofbothhumanandinanimateagentsinthisanalysis.
Thediscrepancybetweenthedesigners’visionsofhighlyfunctional,
rationalobjectsandtheshabby,monotonouspoolofavailablecommod- ities has become a commonplace element of studies of Soviet design.
Looking at alternative design communities, not directly related to eco- nomic guidelines, appears to be a more rewarding task than venturing
into the routine of designing household objects. Tom Cubbin’s recent
book explores precisely such an alternative community – the Senezh
ExperimentalStudio,whichwasaffiliatedwiththeArtists’Unionofthe
USSRbutwhosememberswerecriticalofinstitutionalSovietcultureand
expressedalternativevisionsofsocialisteverydayculturethroughtheir
conceptual work in interior, exhibition and graphic design.33 My book
examinestheheterogeneityofSovietdesignfromadifferentperspective:
the contesting ideas of objects, their uses, their social roles and their
powertotransmitmessagesfromdesignerstoconsumers–orthepower
tosubvertthesemessages.Tracingtheimplementationofthisvisionin
production,retailtrade,massmediaandconsumptionisataskthatwould
requireextensivearchivalandoralhistoryresearchinmultiplegeograph- ical locations: the concentration of certain industries in specific Soviet
regions meant that objects had to travel long distances before reach- ing consumers, if they ever did. An added complication is that factory
archivesrarelypreserverecordsoftheproductionofspecificprototypes.
ThefullstoryoftheproductionoflateSovietobjectsrequirestheinclu- sionofthosewhogainedevenlessrecognitionthandesigners:engineers,
technicalworkersandcraftspeopleofdifferentbackgrounds.Thisbook,
therefore,canbetakenasthebeginningofalongerstory,outlininghow
everydayobjectswereconceivedandpresentedininstitutionalreports,in
thepressandatexhibitions.
Terminological challenges
As is well known, the termdesign is broad: it may mean anything from
decorativeworktoform-givinginmassproductiontothemanywaysof
findingoptimalsolutionstocomplexproblemsintheinformationage.34 Theconceptoftheobject,onwhichthisbookiscentred,highlightsthe
materialaspectofdesignacrossmodesofproduction:differentindustries,
semi-mechanised manufacture and handicrafts. Accordingly, ‘design’ is
understoodherenotasa‘universalproject-orientedactivity’35but,instead,
in the materialist sense proposed by Judy Attfield: as ‘just one aspect
of material culture of everyday life’.36 Yet, as I have explained, unlike
Attfield’s inquiry into the post-production stages of the life of objects, I
focusonpre-productionandproductionstagesofobjects,includingother
material structures such as interiors or complexes of objects (so-called
‘designprogrammes’).
Mypreferenceinreferringtotheobject overthething asthecentral
conceptofthisbookderivesfromthenewmaterialistdistinctionbetween
two concepts that have a long tradition, beginning with Heidegger. In
short,thingsareoftenpresentedas‘larger’thanobjects,asmaterialenti- tiesirreducibletotheirfunctioninginhumaneverydaylife.Sincemybook
focusesondesignprofessionals’ideasconcerningthematerialcultureof
dailylife,object isamoreappropriateoperativeterm.However,Iusethe
term‘things’whenIneedtoemphasisethelimitsofdesigners’intentions
torationaliseconsumptionandeverydaylife.Thisdistinctionishelpfulin
analysingSovietprofessionaldiscourse,whichwasbasedonanambigu- ousvocabulary.Sovietdesignprofessionalsusuallyusedthetermveshch (pl.veshchi),whichcanbetranslatedbothas‘object’and‘thing’(thelatter
canbeusedsimilarlyinanabstract,non-materialsense).Anotherpopular
andsimilarlyambivalenttermwaspredmet,whichmeansobject,butcan
alsobeusedinthesenseof‘subject’,like‘thesubjectofconversation’.
Myaimistoidentifyandcharacterisethegradationsofmeaningbehind
eitherusageamongSovietdesigners.Forexample,inthequoteopening
this introduction, critic Nina Iaglova acknowledges the possibility that
objectsmighthaveamessagelargerthanthedesigners’intentionandthat
artistsmayactasinterpretersratherthanmastersandcreatorsofveshchi.
The interplay between the two meanings ofveshch is perhaps the most
interesting aspect of the second historical attempt to create a socialist
materialculturethatcommencedinthe1960s.
In addition to a professional design vocabulary, Soviet material cul- ture was affected by economic categories. Household objects, together
with sports equipment, musical instruments and other accessories for
leisure activities, constituted the categorytovary kul’turno-bytovogo naz- nacheniia (commodities of cultural and everyday purpose), which was a
subcategory oftovary shirokogo potrebleniia (consumer goods or com- modities). However, this terminology appeared in design professionals’
parlanceratherinfrequently,usuallywhentheydiscussedretailtradeand
consumption,thedesiredtargetsoftheirwork.Foranalyticalpurposes,I
usetheterms‘commodity’and‘consumergoods’,buttheydonotapplyto
theentireareaofprofessionalactivityconsideredinthisbook.Myfocusis
onthedifferentattemptstoaddresstheproblematicnatureofcommodity
culture in socialist society and to create non-capitalist commodities, or
evennon-commodities.
AlateSovietobjectcouldnotentirelybelongtocommodityculture.
Thiswasnotonlybecauseofitssubjectiontotheplannedeconomy,but
also because of its proximity to the category of art. The complex inter- relations between art, design and production is a crucial theme of this
book.Itposesanotherterminologicalchallenge:findingavocabularyfor
artists’effortstocreateaworldofcomradelyobjects.Thetermsdecorative art(dekorativnoe iskusstvo)andapplied art(prikladnoe iskusstvo)became
popularinRussiafromthemid-nineteenthcenturyundertheinfluenceof
the European, primarily British, movement for art reform, prompted by
rapidindustrialisationandmassproduction.InRussia,bothtermswere
associatedwiththedecorationofobjectsmass-producedforutilitarianuse
and,morebroadly,withtheestablishmentofartandindustryschoolsand
thereorganisationofpeasantcraftsmenintocooperativehandicraftwork- shopsbeginninginthe1860s,aprocessthatreacheditspeakattheturnof
thecentury.37Intheeducationofdecorativeandappliedartists,themain
emphasiswasplacedonthemeticulousstudyoftraditionalRussianand
Europeanornaments,understoodasdecisivestylisticelements.Thepro- motionofartisanalindustryalsoplayedaroleinpopularisingtraditional
ornaments.TheleftistartistsofearlyBolshevikRussia,especiallyproduc- tivists,dismissedthisapproachasbackwardanddescribeditpejoratively
asprikladnichestvo(‘cornycraft’)andukrashatel’stvo(‘kitschdecoration’).
Afterthereformofartisticorganisationsintheearly1930s,accompanied
bythecondemnationofavant-gardemovementsas‘bourgeois’,theterms
dekorativnoe iskusstvoandprikladnoe iskusstvowereusedmorefrequently,
but usually to describe minor forms of art, secondary to painting and
sculpture.AtthesametimetheSovietartisanalindustrywasinstrumen- talisedforsouvenirproductionandtoshowcasethediversityoftraditional
craftsintheSovietrepublics.38
AfterStalin’sdeath,artprofessionalshadtomodernisethisterminol- ogy.AleksandrSaltykov,anexpertonRussianreligiousartandpeasant
crafts, popularised the somewhat cumbersome termdecorative-applied art to signify the art of organising everyday life. The term appeared in
officialnamesofspecialiseddepartmentsinartists’unionsandsections
ofexhibitionsandbecamepartoftheofficialterminology.However,not
allofSaltykov’scolleaguesweresatisfiedwiththeterm,andtheoretical
objectionsandcorrectionswerecontinuallyexpressed.Manythoughtthat
applied shouldinsteadsignifythesuperficialapplicationofdecorationto
poorlymadeutilitarianobjects.Decorative art,thoughnottotallysatisfac- tory,causedfewerobjections.
Drawingthelinebetween‘decorativeart’and‘design’isnotalways
easyforahistorianofstatesocialism,andneitherwasitfortheprotag- onistsofmystory.Therefore,thechoiceoftermisconditionalinevery
instance. When speaking about the projects of the main Soviet design
organisation, the All-Union Research Institute of Technical Aesthetics
(VNIITE),Iuse‘design’asashortcutfor‘industrialdesign’–theactivity
concerned with the visual coherence, functionality, economic feasibility
and user-friendliness of industrially produced objects. In the chapters
dedicatedtotheartisticworkonlimited-editionoruniqueobjectsintradi- tionalmaterials(e.g.ceramics,glass,textiles),Ifinddecorative art tobethe
mostsuccinctterm,notleastbecausemyprotagonistschoseitasacom- promiseinterminologicalbattles.Ingeneraldiscussions,Iusetheterm
‘design’ with what Glenn Adamson et al. call an ‘ecumenical attitude’39 –thatis,inclusively.Iunderstanddesignasthecreativeworkaimedat
producing various objects. This choice of terminology is, I believe, the
mostusefulinabookcentredonthebiographyofobjectsacrossdifferent
professional settings before the consumer stage (which, in many cases,
neveroccurred).Inaccordancewiththischoice,theumbrellaterm‘design
professionals’willappearthroughoutthechapterstoincludedecorative
artists,designersandcritics.
A historical overview of Soviet design
The 1920s productivist vision of the artist as a producer of ‘comradely’
objects waned and eventually dissipated with the state’s campaign for
centralising art policies in the early 1930s. This period was marked by
rapidindustrialisationandmassmobilisation.TheSovietstatepromoted
modest luxury objects as the reward for the hard work of outstanding
workers, technical specialists and engineers; these objects were often
decoratedwithconventionalornaments.40Beginningin1932,withthe(in) famousresolutionbytheCentralCommitteeoftheCommunistParty‘On
thereconstructionofliteraryandartisticorganisations’(23April1932),41 theavant-gardistideaoftheartistasanorganiseroflifegavewaytothe
view of the artist as a collaborator with power, obedient to the tastes
of the Party leaders. Visual artists were now expected to celebrate the
Soviet‘brightfuture’inpaintings,sculpture,graphicarts,monumentalart
(frescoes,mosaicsortapestries),andbydecoratingpublicinteriors,city
squares,paradesandfestivals.Inthefieldoftransportationandmilitary
hardwaredesign,specialistsresponsiblefortheappearanceofitemsand
howthisconnotedtheirpracticalfunctionwerenotcalled‘designers’but
‘constructors’(konstruktory).42Theiractivitywasperceivedaspurelytech- nical and not aesthetic; the predominant criteria for their designs were
practicality,durabilityandeconomicconsiderations.43ThesoleSovietart
journalIskusstvodidnotpayattentiontotheirwork,asitseditorsdidnot
evenregarditasrelatedtoaesthetics.
Thisdidnotmeantheendofdesign,however.After1932,manyofthe
survivorsoftheavant-gardemovementfoundrefugeinsetdesign,book
illustration, clothing design and organising public celebrations. Soviet
industrialisationandthethrivingoftransportengineeringcreatedaneed
fordesignersofvehicleinteriors–ships,boats,aeroplanes,trams–many
ofwhomcamefromarchitecturalbackgrounds.Forexample,thearchitect
Iosif Vaks, an employee of the Leningrad Research and Project Institute
ofHouseBuildingandCivilEngineering(Lenproekt)inthe1940s–1950s,
designedinteriorsforanumberofpassengerferriesandatramcarmanu- facturedbytheLeningradcar-repairplant.44Engineeringanddecorativeart
hadlittleincommonatthattime:theformerwasorientedtosolvingutilitar- iantasks,thelattertocreatingnewsocialist‘beauty’.45Nosystematicguide- linesforcreatingdifferenttypesofmaterialobjectsexistedatthattime.46
However,thefirststepstowardsestablishingadesignprofessionin
theUSSRweremadeinthemidstoftheSecondWorldWarinthebesieged
cityofLeningrad:Vaks,thenacamouflage-makerfortheairdivisionofthe
BalticFleet,recognisedtheneedtotrainspecialistsfortherestorationof
damagedmonumentsandbuildingsafterthewar’send.InOctober1943,
with the support of the chief architect of Leningrad, Nikolai Baranov,
Vaks obtained permission from the executive committee (Ispolkom) of
theLeningradSovietofworkers’deputiestoestablishaschoolofartand
industry,basedonthemodeloftheCentralSchoolofTechnicalDrawing,
which had been liquidated in 1922.47 The LKhU (Leningrad Art School)
officiallyopened,withthesanctionoftheCouncilofPeople’sCommissars
of RSFSR, on 1 January 1944 (a year after the siege had been partially
broken).48Itwasstaffedbypre-wargraduatesfromtheIlyaRepinInstitute49 andtheSchoolofTechnicalDrawing,whohadsurvivedthewarandwhom
Vakssummonedfromthefar-flungdestinationstheyhadpreviouslybeen
evacuatedto.Notably,theenrolmentprovidedstudents–15–18-year-olds
whohadearlierbeenevacuatedfromLeningradandhadnowreturnedto
betrainedasrestorers–withaccesstofreehousing,basicclothingand
freemeals,arealprivilegeinanexhaustedcityduringwartime.50
The next step in making design a profession in the USSR was the
governmental resolution ‘On preparing cadres for art industry and art-
decorativeworks’inFebruary1945.Thisdocumentsanctionedthedevel- opment of LKhU into a larger institution, the Art and Industry School,
named after Vera I. Mukhina (known as the Mukhina School for short),
which together with the Moscow Art and Industry School (a revived
pre-revolutionaryCountStroganovSchoolofartsandcrafts)becamethe
verybestofSovietdesigneducationandguidedthethirtyart-and-industry
vocationalschoolsnationwide,withatotalof3,140students.51Aparallel
developmentoccurredinengineeringdesign,undertheguidanceofIurii
Soloviev,asonofanaircraftfactorydirectorwho,thankstohisprivileged
socialposition,couldinfluencethedecisionsofgovernmentofficials.52As
agraduateoftheMoscowPrintingInstitutein1943,Solovievcreatedand
headedtheArchitectureandArtBureauundertheaegisoftheMinistry
of TransportIndustry in December1945.53TheBureauwas responsible
for designing public transport including river boats, railway carriages,
Moscow trolley buses and, most prominently, the atomic-powered ice- breakershipLenin(designedin1953–55).54
Meanwhile, some restructuring occurred within the Moscow and
Leningrad Unions of Soviet Artists (MOSKh and LSSKh). The sector
of decorative-ornamental art in MOSKh was renamed the ‘section of
decorative-applied art’ and divided into three sub-sections: decorative-
ornamental works, textiles and applied art.55This section, like its coun- terpartinLeningrad,becameacentreforvibrantdiscussiononthesocial
significanceofform-givingtousefulobjects.Inearly1953,andincreas- ingly after Stalin’s death, when the ideological grip on artistic commu- nitiesloosened,appliedartistsarguedthattheirartwasasimportantas
paintingandsculpture,ifnotmoreso.ThelatteraffectedSovietpeople
only in museums and public spaces, they argued, while ‘decorative-
applied art’ permeates everyday life.56 Such statements resonated with
the state leadership, which had already realised in the early 1950s that
the improvement of living standards and consumer goods could be an
effective instrument for maintaining the public’s loyalty and the Soviet
Union’spositiveimagevis-à-visthecapitalistWest.57InOctober1952the
XIXthCommunistPartyCongressoutlineddirectivesforthefifthFive-Year
Plan,includingalarge-scaleexpansionofthestate’shousingconstruction
programme.58ThenewPartyregulations,adoptedattheCongress,guar- anteedtosatisfy‘theconstantlygrowingmaterialandculturaldemands
oftheSovietPeople’,59apromisethatnecessitatedintensiveinvestmentin
thedevelopmentofdecorativeart.
Acrucialintersectionbetweentheinterestsofthestateandofapplied
artistswasmasshousing.Thepost-warSovietUnionexperiencedacat- astrophicshortageoflivingspace,withbarracksandcommunalflatsas
standard homes for a large majority of urban dwellers. A new housing
programmehadalreadybeendevelopedbytheStalinistleadership,and
between1944and1954somemeasuresweretaken.InNovember1955the
Partyandgovernmentissuedaresolution‘Ontheliquidationofexcesses
in planning and building’60 that called for the development of uniform
housingcomplexes,therationaluseofmaterials,andthatrejectedfaçade
and interior decoration in favour of simplicity and economic feasibility.
Laterthehousingdecreeof31July1957recognisedtherighttohousing
of all Soviet citizens and promised to overcome the housing shortage
within10–12years.BytheneverySovietcitizenwastobeprovidedwitha
separate,thoughsmall,flat.61Peopleweregraduallymovingintotheirnew
flatsandneededtoturnthemintohomes,tofurnishthemwithappropriate
commodities,andthestateneededexpertstocontrolandguidethenew
inhabitants.
Khrushchev’s famous secret speech at the XXth Congress of the
Communist Party in February 1956 greatly affected the development of
Sovietdesign.Howeverincompletetheprocesswas,thede-Stalinisation
thatfollowedstimulatedtheliberalisationofcultureandprovidedopportu- nitiesforrethinkingSovietaesthetics.Thereweretwodirections:learning
fromcontemporaryWesternexperienceandacautiousrevivaloftheideas
of the Russian avant-garde, including productivist art. A key event for
thegenerationofprofessionaldesigndiscussionswastheFirstAll-Union
ConventionofArtists,whichtookplaceinMoscowfrom28Februaryto5
March1957.62ThisConventionnotonlycompletedtheprocessoforganis- ingtheArtists’UnionoftheUSSR.Italsorespondedtothevocalappear- anceofdecorativeartprofessionalsbygrantingthemrepresentationon
theSecretariatofthenewUnion’sgoverningboard,sanctioningtheestab- lishmentof‘committeesondecorativeart’63onthegoverningboardsofthe
Artists’UnionoftheUSSR andtheArtFund(thesocialorganisationthat
managedstatecommissionsfromartists),andfoundinganunprecedented
monthlyjournal,Dekorativnoe Iskusstvo SSSR (Decorative Art of the USSR).
Thisjournalwouldbecomeaforumfordebatesonaesthetics,societyand
cultureinSovietsocietyvirtuallyuntiltheendoftheSovietUnion.64 Thethemescoveredbythenewjournalgrewtoincludetheaesthetics
ofmachinesandappliancesatthesametimeastheUSSRwasfamously
hostingtheUSnationalexhibitioninthemidsummerof1959.Thisexhibi- tionfamiliarisedabroadstratumofSovietsociety–notjusttheattendees
butallthosewhofollowedthepresscoverage–withtheappealingimageof
Westernconsumerculture.Thismomentouseventhasbeendescribedin
detailbyseveralhistorians,particularlyemphasisingthefamous‘kitchen
debate’ between Khrushchev and the American Vice-President Richard
Nixon.Thedebatemadeobviousthesignificanceofdomesticconsump- tionasacomponentofpoliticalpower.65
By the end of the 1950s several factors had come together for the
emergenceofthedesignprofessionintheUSSR.First,Soviettradeorgan-