9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture

http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 1/10
. . Modernist Architecture . .
A Database of Modernist Architectural Theory


Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of
Architecture (1928)
If we examine the painting of the first quarter of the 20
th
century we immediately notice two
trends: objective and non-objective.
These two trends differ both formally and in their Weltanschauung and attitude to art.
Corresponding to the different types of Weltempfang there arise various artistic classifications.
In the objective trend there exist various stages: the first stage is figurative; it perceives the
model as such. In this stage we see objects in their artistic expression as they are.
In the second stage the subject or model is only a means of communicating the artists experience in
works of art. What is more, all the objects, or nature, are artistically unified by the tone passing
through them.
[8]
In the third stage we see how as the result of a particular artistic Weltempfang there occurs
artistic deformation of phenomena; hence follows the disintegration of the object into separate
pictorial elements. They create a new order which is called the cubic form of revealing artistic
expression.
At this stage the object itself is not considered as such, and as such it is not the content of
artistic skill; it exists only as the sum of unorganized painterly elements.
Next come two variants of the fourth stage of communicating Weltempfang: they are called non-
objective.
In one of these types we see the total eclipse of the object and have a work of pure painterly
Weltempfang.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 2/10
The other non-objective type is not only the revelation of artistic Weltempfang but also of a
whole series of the dynamic, static, magnetic, and other elements which exist in nature.
To this non-objective type belongs Suprematism.
From this short analysis we see that in the first two stages of revealing sensations form is not a
problem and does not have the same importance as in the third stage and, particularly, in the
non-objective stages.
These two figurative stages deal exclusively with the form of objects, i.e. forms with the help of
which objects are created on the canvas as such.
In the non-objective stages, on the other hand, form plays an important role, since without form
it becomes impossible to convey any kind of Weltempfang.
In the non-objective stages one is not dealing with the representation of phenomena as such, but
with the communication of definite sensations which exist in the phenomenal world.
In the non-objective stages there comes to the fore the question of creating the forming
element with which to communicate sensations.
Thus the problem of form arises only in the new non-objective art. This is why the non-
objective arts have had to rid themselves of the [9] contents of various ideologies and also of the
entire material side of everyday life, the system of which has been developing on a basis harmful
to painting. Thus, for example, the table, house, motor, wedding, marriage did not develop as a
result of peoples perceiving life artistically and expressing elements of this perception, as a
revelation of artistic Weltempfang, in the form of a table.
The table, in common with all objects of a technical purpose, has practical utilitarian functions,
and therefore the content of such objects is functionality; and all the elements of the worlds
material constitute a firm functional order.
Thus the system of artistic perception of the functional order of the object may happen not to
correspond to the artistic perception of the object, as one is dealing not with the functional content
of a table but with its artistic content.
The critics have regarded this trend as abstract, at the basis of abstract art, parting from
practical, concrete life.
But in reality non-objective arts cannot be abstract, as they are the most concrete of all, both by
their very nature and in their expression of a particular Weltempfang.
On the contrary, from the point of view of an artistic Weltempfang, every object is abstract and
demands concrete artistic definition in a work of art.
Thus the non-objective category consists of several trends or forms of expression: Cubism,
Futurism, Suprematism, and others, which may in turn be subdivided into a considerable number
of groups.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 3/10
Cubism, for example, already has five formal types of non-objective artistic perception.
These five types can be divided into two means of expression: spatial and that of easel-painting.
In the spatial method actual space serves as a means of expression.
The spatial method of expressing artistic perception begins at the fourth stage of Cubist culture.
This stage has immense importance for us, since here is revealed a new relationship between
artists and the [10] elements around them that influence the solution of architectural problems.
Besides, the artist begins to perceive all materials, without exception, as artistic elements, i.e. glass,
wood, roofing, iron, etc., are all regarded in the same way as the artists palette.
The search for the abstract and for a clearly expressed Weltempfang have led the artist-painter to
a study of the interrelation of materials, to a desire to exploit their natural contrasts; thus is
explained the principle of the collage in Cubism.
The addition to the palette of various materials made the artist enter the dimension of space,
where he could unite all the materials in one manifestation.
Thus it can be seen that three-dimensional work with various materials demands the study of
technology and in particular of the principles of construction.
Now a term is appearing in painting to construct rather than to compose.
One may say that construction has acquired paramount importance in the work of artists of the
fourth type of Cubism. It was necessary to find constructive methods for each type of artistic
form, since without this it is impossible to define the elements of materials.
Hence a number of artists have been called Constructivists; they are expected to create
constructions for the functions produced by life.
Thus the question of artistic form in painting seems to become irrelevant, as the questions of form
as such and form as a reflection of artistic perception are not discussed.
Hence in the fourth stage of Cubism one path is open: that of abstract Constructivism. It reveals
both the artistic world of perception and the functional world of construction.
When one considers art from an exclusively functional point of view, i.e. with regard to its
utilitarian role in life, the first thing that clearly defines itself is the formal interrelation of
functions. And if this is so, then one must see the functional, constructive role of art as an
exclusively applied one.
[11]
And because this role is applied, questions of the problem of form recede and the
interdependence of functions comes to the fore.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 4/10
Since constructivism considers that its expression can only be developed when regarding the role
of function in the everyday sense in life, it is purely applied and as such cannot exist. Its
artistic production is limited by the working role of a particular function, but as it recognizes
artistic work there arises the question of artistic form; for this reason the new journal SA (Modern
Architecture) appeared not as an art journal or a journal of purely functional mechanics but as an
architectural journal, that is to say a journal of a new artistic form.
The pure expression of a particular Weltempfang is another type of non-objective-constructive art.
One cannot use this type of art for any functions appearing in human life, but only for its
immediate purpose.
Now let us examine yet another group representing an aspect of artistic form known as
Suprematism. This non-objective group confirms the fact that only after liberation from certain
functions of life that do not belong to art can one create an artistic form as such, and that
utilitarian functions have one role in life, the functions of art a different one. Both have the right
to their own non-objective existences alongside the existence of objects in museum collections.
Suprematism has two methods of revealing the elements of perception: the spatial method and
the easel method: space and canvas are the places where they appear
The problem of form has played and still plays an immense part in Suprematist art. Without it, it
is impossible to reveal any of the elements of perception: color, dynamic, static, mechanical,
motive, etc.
It can thus be seen that the first essential is to create one objective element of form, with the help
of which one can express perceptions by changing the relation of one to another.
Thus in Suprematism there exists an element which has various names depending on
circumstances.
[12]
For example: the invariable forming, the supplementary forming, the deforming. It is called
deforming if the relations of the elements in Cubism are reconstructed into Suprematism. Each
such term expresses an action of some kind.
The objective invariable forming element acquires enormous importance in the general
development of Suprematist form. Many individualities can work on this form. They help to
reveal their sharpened sensation to others and to create a diversity of form characteristic of a
particular individuality, without abandoning the Suprematist style.
It seems to me that to understand the architectural face of a period, if one is dealing with the form
of a period, one cannot do without such an invariable element; throughout history all architectural
epochs have always had an invariable forming element of Weltempfang and architectural form.
Many architects revealed it whilst at the same time retaining individual characteristic in their
different ways of creating the invariable forming element. In any field of art a trend having its
own forming element can lead to a school, a current style.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 5/10
But schools and trends cannot depend on any individual, nor on the functional role of life.
On the contrary, the functional aspect ideally, once linked with any such trend, becomes the form
of the latter. Linked with Suprematism [13] it becomes a Suprematist form or antique,
Romanesque, gothic, etc.
Art and the functional side of utilitarian life will not merge into one image or form. They are two
entirely different human functions. Today we can create a building in the form of antique
architecture, without regard for the fact that the functional side of life has changed.
The examples of antique architecture which have been preserved speak of their great art but do
not speak of the functional perfection of life of those that lived in them.
The value of art is great, not because the functional side of life played a part in it, but because this
form of pure art s now set aside from life and preserved in museums, as a non-objective,
invariable treasury of art as such. One can say that the unchanging values of forms of art is the
only thing that continues to be valued regardless of changes in economic conditions.
On the contrary, all types of economic relations are devalued by a new form revealing their
imperfections. Changes in economic relations take place because they have no invariable forming
element.
The political and academic economists have not yet managed to find an economic objective
element to form relations. This is because none of the functions of life, with the exceptions of art,
are constant, and so cannot play a decisive role in the form of art.
If the functional side of life had an influence upon the form of art, then with a decline in the
quality of the functional side of life the form of art would also experience a decline. But in reality
the opposite occurs: the functions of the majority of sides disappear, but art retains its value
unchanged. Museum collections, where are concentrated all forms of human expression, testify to
this: the form of art and the form of utilitarian functions are quite different. From the comparison
we see that the forms like art will be valued today, whilst the others will merely have the value of
human imperfection.
Thus all that is created by art remains for ever, and neither time nor new types of social relations
can alter it.
[14]
Art liberated in museums from utilitarian functions lives on and maintains an unbroken link with
humanity at all stages of its existence.
We have the idea that art is something that gives form to the functional side of life. It is as though
art were an actor, playing some figure from life. This conception is false since it is impossible to
form any function of life: forming it we do not really form it but merely place it in an order
established by some form of art.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 6/10
For this reason objects like chairs, tables, crystalware, porcelain, etc. are preserved in museums,
because some function is contained in them and not because they are examples of artistic form.
The museum preserves not their utilitarian but their artistic function. The artist does not design
the functional side of life, but his perception of a function of life: for example, Dynamic Futurism
is the perception of a whole series of movements.
Not without reason is art divided into two types: applied and pure art.
The role of applied art was intended to be to give form to objects of utilitarian character making
them both pleasant and useful.
If art of the highest order, that is to say pure art, formed utilitarian functions then these functions
could be done away with by the establishment of elements of pure art. (For example the pure
type of Cubism).
There would result not a utilitarian object but a work of art to be examined but not touched by
hand.
From such a division one can see that man makes various attempts to embellish the function of
utilitarian form, so that in addition to its utilitarian purpose it may also have artistic value. But
unfortunately this is impossible to attain, since only that which cannot be touched can be sacred.
If one were to remove from the utilitarian-artistic objects in museums their artistic form one
would have to the remaining skeleton of pure purpose. From this example we see that art cannot
be applied to or combined with utilitarianism resulting from human economic relations.
The influence of economic, political, religious, and utilitarian phenomena on art is the disease of
art.
At some stage the evaluation of art from the viewpoint of economic conditions will cease, and
then the whole of life will be seen from the viewpoint of art, constant and invariable.
And it is only from such a viewpoint that we can create constant objects, i.e. the world as an
unchanging complex of elements.
The 20
th
century is rich in problems of form, not only in art but also in economic conditions. The
most significant development in art has been its change to non-objectivity and its liberation from
the content that for thousands of years had been attached to it. Cubism, Futurism, and
Suprematism have established an immediate link with the world, revealing its sensations.
New art is in the sharpest opposition to that part of the functional role of life which is holding art
in leash.
The 19
th
century may be considered to mark the burning down of arts flame, the sparks of which
have been extinguished in the morass of economic conditions, in various science, historical events,
etc
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 7/10
The formlessness of time has arrived. In the place of artistic form appeared the construction of
utilitarian, profitable functions which totally rejected art, and in particular architecture, as an
artistic form.
The 20
th
century is marked by sharp opposition on the part of painters and poets to objectivity.
The former arrived at non-objectivity, the latter at zaumnost [Khlebnikov] (against both of
which the objectivists and politicians have again raised their banner).
General calm reigns in the field of architecture. Cowardly architects have been unable to rise up
and abandon the speculative building demanded by lifes speculators in order to extend the front
of new architecture. One might say that to this day they remain on the front of naked
utilitarianism, hindering with all the means at their disposal the movement of new architecture as
an artistic form.
It was felt that new architecture as an artistic form had no role to play in our times. Only a small
avant-garde of architects under pressure from and caught up with the new artistic form in
painting is now [16] beginning to extract itself from the heel of speculators and profiteers and to
move towards artistic form.
There is beginning, a renovation of life through artistic form.
From a comparison of the form of new architecture with that of Suprematism, we see that it is
closely linked with the problem of artistic form.
What is more, one can even find an affinity in the same Suprematist forming element.
By this I do not mean to say that the new architecture of the West is Suprematist, but I can say that
new Western architecture stands on the road to Suprematist architectonics.
Characteristic examples can be found in the new architectural work of such artist-architects as
Theo van Doesburg, Le Corbusier, Gerrit Rietveld, Walter Gropius, Arthur Korn et al.
Analyzing new architecture we find that it is under the influence of plane painting, i.e. of
artistic form containing the plane element.
For this reason contemporary architecture gives the impression of being two-dimensional.
We can feel the same thing in the various stages of development of Cubism and Suprematism.
From these architectural examples we see that they have the same forming or additional element
of Suprematism as in painting. This element can serve as the factor that singles out the form of
new architecture from contemporary architecture.
Insofar as new architecture has the feeling of pictorial two-dimensionality the architects must
work on their architectural massif. New architecture is still on the way to the establishment of
an order or motif which, being developed, could bring a period of new classical architecture.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 8/10
But the line is not yet clearly defined, and is, besides, subject to two influences of Asiatic
architecture and European painting. This allows for an element of eclecticism to occur.
[17]
New architecture is distinguished from Suprematist architecture by the latter and also by the
order of elements in Suprematist architecture.
This is clearly felt when one compares the two forms of Western new architecture and
Suprematist architectonics. The architectonics Alpha of horizontal building and Gota of
vertical reveal those features, which, it seems to me, ought to be in the new architecture. (See
the Alpha of Malevichs dynamic Suprematism and the architectonics of the artist N.M.
Suyetin).
Because of its formal similarity contemporary architecture may be divided into characteristic
types: individual and collective. New architecture, as a form, I attribute to collective elaboration,
on which not only architects but also artists who are basically painters are working. The collective
of new architecture consists of a large number of people. This latter fact makes me think that our
architectural period has even in immediate link with antique architecture, in its methods and even
in its attitude to life.
In the classical architecture of the past there was also an invariable forming element present,
which was worked on by many architects.
They were united by the same objective forming element that we now find in the new Suprematist
architecture.
Now, as then, with the help of the same forming element which creates an architectural
expression of life, the architect is able to reveal his own personality. This latter feature alters
neither form nor style but merely produces an individual nuance.
Thus painting in the 20
th
century has discovered a new additional forming element which has
led us to the problem of form in architectonics and thence to new Suprematist architecture.
Throughout the world the dictatorship of speculators in pursuit of profit has disfigured life, thus
destroying art. Artistic culture has been replaced by speculation; but the new art, architecture,
and painting of today is an indication that we are on the threshold of a great new classical age in
art. Our contemporaries must understand that life will not be the content [18] of art, but rather that art
must become the content of life, since only thus can life be beautiful.
In the total process of human development we may not that the very best monument to any age is
its art.
Every part of any work of architectural form, or of any other art form, is one of its most beautiful
elements.
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 9/10
Any other side of life represents either evil or a clot of blood. Not one engineer, military leader,
economist, or politician has ever managed to achieve in his own field a constant, beautiful forming
element such as that achieved by the artist.
From Nova generatsiia, No. 2, 1928. Pgs. 116-124
~ by Ross Wolfe on August 29, 2011.
Posted in architecture, art, Russian avant-garde
Tags: architecture, art, Constructivism, Kazimir Malevich, Suprematism
4 Responses to Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem
of Architecture (1928)
1. [...] easel method: space and canvas are the places where they appear. Malevich, Kazimir.
Painting and the Problem of Architecture. Translated by Xenia Glowaki-Prus and Arnold
McMillin. Essays on Art, 1915-1933, Volume 2. Pg. [...]
The Spatiotemporal Dimensions of Abstract Art and the Genesis of Modernist Architecture The
Charnel-House said this on August 31, 2011 at 8:22 pm | Reply
2. [...] easel method: space and canvas are the places where they appear. Malevich, Kazimir.
Painting and the Problem of Architecture. Translated by Xenia Glowaki-Prus and Arnold
McMillin. Essays on Art, 1915-1933, Volume 2. Pg. [...]
The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde (Roughly
the First Half) The Charnel-House said this on September 1, 2011 at 2:14 am | Reply
Mealtime & More: A Dogs Ful Life
http://bit.ly/1AzQohA
http://bit.ly/1AzQohA
About these ads
9/18/2014 Kazimir Malevichs Painting and the Problem of Architecture (1928) | Modernist Architecture
http://modernistarchitecture.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/kazimir-malevich%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpainting-and-the-problem-of-architecture%e2%80%9d-1928/ 10/10
3. [...] the easel method: space and canvas are the places where they appear. Malevich,
Kazimir. Painting and the Problem of Architecture. Translated by Xenia Glowaki-Prus and
Arnold McMillin. Essays on Art, 1915-1933, Volume 2. Pg. 11. [...]
The Spatiotemporal Dimensions of Abstract Art and the Genesis of Modern Architecture by Ross Wolfe
(guest blog) patternsthatconnect said this on September 11, 2011 at 9:37 am | Reply
4. [...] easel method: space and canvas are the places where they appear. Malevich, Kazimir.
Painting and the Problem of Architecture. Translated by Xenia Glowaki-Prus and Arnold
McMillin. Essays on Art, 1915-1933, Volume 2. Pg. [...]
The Graveyard of Utopia: Soviet Urbanism and the Fate of the International Avant-Garde The
Charnel-House said this on November 22, 2011 at 5:48 pm | Reply

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. The ChaoticSoul Theme.
Follow
Follow Modernist Architecture
Powered by WordPress.com