Response to the âProgram of the First Working Group of Constructivistsâ by Alexander Rodchenko and Varvara Stepanova
'Art in Context' - one of our courses as part of the Design Program at Stanford, we are learning about the history of design practices and theories through reading, writing, and discussion. Below is my first attempt at an analysis paper of such kinds. I chose to write about the 'Program of the First Working Group of Constructivists' by Alexander Rodchenko and Varvara Stepanova. I wanted to briefly touch upon how the political and social state of Russia shaped the Constructivist Art movement. So here it is.
The year was 1919, it was just a few months post the end of the World War I. Russia was right in the middle of its Civil War. The year 1919 also saw the birth of two influential schools of thought - Bauhaus in Germany and Constructivism in Russia. The two artistic movements shaped the fields of art, architecture, industrial design, graphic design and typography that were to come.
          The seeds of the constructivist movement were laid by Vladimir Tatlin in 1919. Russian artist, sculptor, photographer and graphic designer Alexander Rodchenko was one of the founders of the constructivist movement. He taught at the Vkhutemas (Higher Technical-Artistic Studios) from 1920 to 1930. During this time, along with his wife Varvara Stepanova, who also was an artist, he wrote the âProgram of the First Working Group of Constructivistsâ in 1922. The âFirst Working Group of Constructivistsâ is what they, along with similar minded artists, writers, architects and designers referred to themselves as. The âProgramâ was articulated in the paper which was almost meant as a declaration of the change in the policy and aims of the school to the Russian society of the day. More specifically, the paper seemed to be written for the schools fellow instructors as well as for its students to align their work to.
The thoughts in the paper marked a shift from art as a practice for self expression towards the practice of art for social purposes. Looking at the experts, one finds that they were setting themselves a task of translating study or experimental work into practical, usable solutions for the society. According to them, implementation of this change would entail study of three major disciplines - Tectonics (the structure or the design), Faktura (the material) and Construction (the physical or social function). They talked about using materials in such that they stay true to their nature (faktura) to create a form or design (tectonic), that caters to a physical and / or a social function (construction).
Setting themselves this task of harshly translating from pure art to practical objects and services seems justifiable if one considers the post war society Russia was in at the time and its needs. There was a need to create a completely new art culture, redefine its purpose to suit the needs of the day amongst the Constructivists. This art culture may not seem applicable in todays time but was definitely relevant to the time it was written in.
The paper also stressed on the intensive study of materials, using them for their innate properties and expanding their realm by including to intangible entities like time, space, colour and light as materials too. This strong emphasis on materials could be a direct influence of the Futurist Movement and a backlash against the Art Nouveau that preceded Constructivism.
The First Working Group of Constructivists also spoke about their tasks as a group. First, to theoretically and practically prove this shift in the school of thought. Secondly, to publish regular papers, brochures, create designs and organise exhibitions that talk about and publicise the activities of the group. And finally, they âdeclare warâ on âartâ saying that art in the way it was before, is unsuitable for their Constructivist school.
The tone of voice in the paper suggests a sense of solemnity, through the use of scientific terminology. It was probably written as such to place it as far from art as possible. Throughout the paper, art is looked down upon and an uncompromising war is declared against it. The use of such harsh language can also be attributed to the papers post war context.
The paper indeed gives a very insightful understanding of the social and political effects of The World War I on the art culture in Russia. Thus, to understand it correctly one must view it in the context that it was written in.
