INChUK

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles INChUK and GINChUK overlap thematically. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. HGS ( discussion ) 17:33, November 10, 2019 (CEST)
Kandinsky (3rd from right) and other members of the INChUK, probably 1920

The In stitute Chu doschestwennoy K ultury , Russian Институт Художественной Культуры ( German  Institute of Artistic Culture ) (short INKhUK , Russian ИНХУК ) was founded in March or May 1920 Institute in Moscow, within the Department of Visual Arts (ISO) of the People's Commissariat of Enlightenment . Members of the institute were various painters, graphic designers, sculptors, architects and art scholars who tried to determine the problems and future of artistic experiments in post-revolutionary Russia . As a discussion space, the institute played an essential role in the development of the Russian avant-garde and thus modern art and architecture as a whole. The INChUK was dissolved in 1924 and replaced by the GINChUK .

Structure and history

All information relates to the headquarters of the INChUK in Moscow. INChUK had branches in Petrograd (under the direction of Vladimir Tatlin ) and in Vitebsk (under the direction of Kazimir Malevich ).

Bureau

INChUK timetable (click to enlarge)

The INChUK had an elected presidium with a chairman. The chairmen were in chronological order:

Alexei Babichev was a member of almost all praesidia . The academy secretary was Varvara Stepanova at first and Nikolai Tarabukin from September 1921 to spring 1924 . The academy secretary's job was to take shorthand transcriptions of all discussions.

Sections

Under Kandinsky, the INChUK should consist of three sections. The first section should deal with the problems of the material, the second with the interaction of the arts and the third - the section for monumental art with the synthesis of the arts, it was essentially the idea of ​​the total work of art, which was often represented in the early avant-garde. Only the third section was ever established.

Working groups

The work INChUK essentially consisted of the planar meetings at which general problems were presented and discussed and the working groups in which more specific problems were developed. The INChUK went through several phases in its short period of existence. Several working groups with different ideas and orientations were formed. This repeatedly led to withdrawals and realignments of the INChUK. The development of the INChUK is shown in simplified form in the overview table.

Objective Analysis Group (November 1920 to early 1921)

The direction that Kandinsky gave the INChUK led to protests early on, particularly from former members of the Schiwskulptarch . Alexander Rodchenko in particular sharply criticized Kandinsky. On November 23, 1920, a group of objective analysis was founded (members: Alexander Rodchenko, Alexei Babitschew, Varwara Stepanowa , Lyubow Popowa , Nikolai Ladowski and others). In contrast to Kandinsky and his followers, who mainly dealt with questions of perception psychology, his critics demanded an occupation with materials, shapes and colors. In January 1921 Kandinsky and his supporters left the INChUK and Rodchenko became chairman of the presidium.

The Objective Analysis group worked according to a program by the sculptor Alexei Babichev. The discussion held from January to April 1921 on the topic of analyzing the terms construction and composition and the moment of their delimitation was important during this period . The discussion participants worked out theoretical justifications and each had to submit two drawings on the topic. The 27 surviving drawings from this discussion are now in the State Museum of Contemporary Art in Thessaloniki . The nine evening events that took place for this discussion were held in the rooms of the newly founded Museum for Painting Culture . In the course of this discussion, another split in the INChUK became apparent.

The objective analysis group seems to have come to an end with the further split, but this is not entirely clear; perhaps it was continued under Babichev, who did not join any other group.

Signatures of the members of the First Working Group of the Constructivists from a meeting on April 20, 1921.

First Working Group of Constructivists and the working group of architects (the beginning of 1921 until autumn 1921)

In 1921 the INChUK split again into two working groups, the working group of architects (later called Rationalists ; Nikolai Ladowski, Alexander Jefimow , Vladimir Krinsky , Alexander Petrow , Nikolai Docuchayev , Georgi Mapu ), which placed particular emphasis on composition, and the first Working group of constructivists ( Alexei Gan , Karl Ioganson , Konstantin Medunetzki , Alexander Rodtschenko , Gregori and Wladimir Stenberg , Varvara Stepanowa ), who saw the design in the construction. The constructivist working group was founded on March 18, 1921.

Most of the members of the First Constructivist Working Group exhibited their works at the second OBMOChU exhibition that same year , and some were also members of this artists' association.

Objectivists Working Group (April 1921 to Autumn 1921)

In April 1921, another working group, the Objectivists' Working Group, was founded (members: Alexander Drewin , Lyubow Popova, Nadezhda Udalzowa ). In May 1921 Alexander Wesnin also joined the INChUK and decided to join the working group of objectivists .

There is little knowledge about the orientation of this group.

Entry of the members of LEF and theorists of production art into INChUK

In the autumn of 1921 the active members of the artists' association LEF (Left Art Front), as well as various theorists of production art , joined the INChUK under the leadership of Ossip Brik . They sharply criticized the INChUK's previous orientation. They considered the work of INChUK for Weschtschism , (objectivity, from Weschtsch, object). The theorists of production art urged the artists to go into production itself. The working groups lost their importance and at the plenary sessions no more problems of design were discussed, but mainly sociological questions. Lectures were given by Boris Arwatow, Ossip Brik, Boris Kuschner , Nikolai Tarabukin and other theorists. On November 24, 1921, the members of INChUK decided to abandon easel painting in favor of production art. Lissitzky then left the INChUK and went to Berlin. For 1923, Sergei Senkin and Gustav Klucis are recorded as members of the INChUK .

The task of the working groups in this phase should primarily be to disseminate the ideas of production art and constructivism. For this purpose, the group of students of the architecture faculty of WChUTEMAS was founded in 1924 with students from the architecture faculty of WChUTEMAS . Members of this group are from INKhUK Osip Brik, Alexander Vesnin, Anton Lawinski , as well as the students of VKhUTEMAS Mikhail perch sealed , Vasily Simbirtzew , Nikolai Krasilnikov , Elizabeth Lawinskaja , Lidija Komarova , Jelena Semyonova u. a.

The INChUK was dissolved by the Soviet government shortly after Lenin's death in the spring of 1924. The successor organization was GINChUK .

archive

After the INChUK was dissolved, the archive became the property of Alexei Babitschew, who bequeathed it to his widow Natalja Babitschewa. 27 drawings from the discussion about construction and composition are now in the State Museum of Contemporary Art in Thessaloniki. Stenographic transcripts of eight discussions are preserved in the papers of Varvara Stepanova, Alexander Rodchenko, Alexei Babitschew, Boris Korolev and Vladimir Krinsky.

Documents

  • Wassily Kandinsky: Programma instituta chudozhestvennoj culture . In: Iwan Matza (ed.): Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let: Materialy i dokumentatsiia . Ogis-Isogis, Moscow / Leningrad 1933, p. 126-139 . [greatly expanded version of the original, unpublished program from June 3, 1920].
    • Translation in: Kandinsky: Complete Writings on Art . tape 1 . GK Hall, Boston 1982, p. 455-472 .

Objective Analysis Group

  • From the minutes of the Objective Analysis group at INChUK - the discussion “Analysis of the terms construction and composition and the moment of their demarcation”. Abridged translation of a speech by Vladimir Krinski from the Minutes in: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet Architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 587 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK.
  • From the protocols of the Objective Analysis group in INChUK - To determine the technical construction. Abbreviated translation of a speech by Nikolai Ladowski from the minutes in: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 544 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK.

First constructivist working group

  • Report No. 1. The Assembly for the Organization of the Working Group of Constructivists of Inkhuk [dated March 18, 1921] . Printed in: Selim O. Chan-Magamedow: Rodchenko: The Complete Work . London 1986, p. 289-290 .
  • Report No. 2. Meeting of the Plenum of the Working Group of Constructivists of Inkhuk [dated March 28, 1921]. Printed in: Selim O. Chan-Magamedow: Rodchenko: The Complete Work . London 1986, p. 290 .
  • Program of the Working Group of Constructivists of Inkhuk [dated April 1, 1921]. Printed in: Selim O. Chan-Magamedow: Rodchenko: The Complete Work . London 1986, p. 290 .
  • Фронт художественного труда. Материалы к Всероссийской конференции левых в искусстве. Конструктивисты. Первая программа рабочей группы конструктивистов . In: Эрмитаж . No. 13 . Moscow August 1922, S. 3–4 (Russian, This is the only contemporary publication of a document by the First Working Group of Constructivists).
    • Program of the First Working Group of Constructivists [translation of the above document]. Printed in: Christina Lodder: Art in Theory . 1992, p. 317-318 .
  • Alexander Wesnin: Credo [April 1922]. Printed in: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet Architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 547-548 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK.

Working group of architects

  • Program of the working group of architects [1921]. Abridged translation reprinted in: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet Architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 590 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK.
  • From the minutes of the working group of architects of INChUK. Abbreviated translation of a speech by Nikolai Ladowski from the minutes in: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 544 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK.
  • Wladimir Krinski: The Way of Architecture [held before the working group of architects in May 1921]. In: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 587-588 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK
  • Wladimir Krinski: [Credo, originally untitled ] [December 1921]. Abridged translation reprinted in: Selim O. Chan-Magomedow: Pioneers of Soviet Architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 588-589 . Manuscript in the archive of INChUK.

Plenary lectures

  • El Lissitzky: Prounen. Overcoming Art [held September 23, 1921] . In: El Lissitzky . Galerie Gmurzynska, Cologne 1976, p. 60-72 .
  • Alexander Rodchenko: The line . In: From surface to space. Russia 1916-24 . Galerie Gmurzynska, Cologne 1974.

literature

  • Margit Rowell: Constructions: The Moscow INKhUK. In: Margit Rowell, Angelica Zander Rudestine (eds.): Art of the Avant-Garde in Russia. Selections from the George Costakis Collection. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York 1981
  • Selim O. Chan-Magamedow: Pioneers of Soviet Architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 69-71 .
  • Maria Gough: Tarabukin, Spengler and the Art of Production. In: October. No. 93, 2000.
  • Maria Gough: The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution. University of California Press, 2005.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b Maria Gough: Tarabukin, Spengler, and the Art of Production . In: October . No. 93 , 2000, pp. 81 .
  2. ^ Margit Rowell: Constructions: The Moscow INKhUK . In: Margit Rowell, Angelica Zander Rudenstine (eds.): Art of the Avant-Garde in Russia: Selections from the George Costakis Collection . Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York 1981, p. 25 .
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g Selim O. Chan-Magamedow: Pioneers of Soviet architecture . VEB Verlag der Kunst, Dresden 1983, p. 71 .
  4. ↑ a b c d e Maria Gough: The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution . University of California Press, 2005, pp. 23 .
  5. ^ Maria Gough: The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution . University of California Press, 2005, pp. 28 .
  6. ^ Maria Gough: The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution . University of California Press, 2005, pp. 29 .
  7. ^ Maria Gough: The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution . University of California Press, 2005, pp. 32 .
  8. ^ Maria Gough: The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution . University of California Press, 2005, pp. 33 .
  9. ↑ Selim O. Chan-Magamedow: Rodchenko. The Complete Works . 1986, p. 289 .
  10. ^ A b Maria Gough: Tarabukin, Spengler and the Art of Production . In: October . No. 93 , 2000, pp. 91 .
  11. ↑ Maria Gough: Tarabukin, Spengler and the Art of Production . In: October . No. 93 , 2000, pp. 84 .