Review of the book by Kuba Snopek "Belyaevo Forever: Preservation of the Intangible", published by Strelka Press, can be read here … Excerpt from this book republished with the kind permission of Strelka Press.
When I first got acquainted with the work of Dmitry Aleksandrovich Prigov, with his artistic method, I got the feeling that Moscow conceptualism and the Soviet version of modernist architecture have some common features. A more detailed acquaintance with the ideological basis of Soviet modernism convinced me that there was both a philosophical and aesthetic relationship between the works of architects and artists of those years.
What nature was this relationship? What are we dealing with in the works of conceptual artists - with admiration for modernist architecture or, on the contrary, with its harsh criticism? How deep was this connection between architecture and art - do artists refer only to the outer side of the works created by architects, or do they explore the philosophical foundations of the way of thinking inherent in the modern era, that is, the way of thinking of these architects? And finally, could the Soviet microdistrict be a source of inspiration for the conceptualists - or was it only a working material that they deconstructed or subjected to creative transformation?
Conceptualists appeared after the construction of the first microdistricts had already been completed. The Khrushchev experiment began in the mid-1950s. Its first phase lasted for about a decade - until the moment when Khrushchev was replaced by Brezhnev. If we also take into account the inertia inherent in architecture (the years that separate the first developments from the completion of construction), it turns out that the wave of architecture, inspired by Khrushchev's ideas, fully materialized until the end of the 1960s. The artist Yuri Albert dates the emergence of Moscow conceptualism around 1971-1972, when the first works of Ilya Kabakov and Komar and Melamid were created. By this time, Khrushchev's abstract ideas had already taken on very concrete outlines in the form of the first large microdistricts. The architects with whose hands they were built were a generation older than the conceptualists. So, for example, Yakov Belopolsky was born in 1916, Dmitry Alexandrovich Prigov - in 1940. Moscow conceptualists were the same age as those architects who either openly criticized modern architecture, or - at least - saw its shortcomings and attempted to reform it.
What did the microdistrict development look like in this time perspective? Its rapid appearance on vast territories that until recently were suburbs, in place of fields and villages, was undoubtedly a relevant and important topic: microdistricts could be despised or loved, with which all elements (even as different as an inscription on glass or residential new buildings) seem similar? Or is it rather an admiration for the new interpretational possibilities that are opening up in the new, modernist world? The criticism of "heroic modernism" that could be heard from postmodern architects (contemporaries of the conceptualists) was usually much harsher - in comparison, the position of conceptual artists seems complex and ambiguous. It seems that artists are more likely to deconstruct the surrounding modernist landscape and use some of its elements for their artistic purposes, rather than completely condemn it. Some of its components were completely incorporated into works of art, and some only echoed in them. What components have conceptualists noticed and used? First of all, modernist rationality.
She apparently admired conceptual artists. Often the language of their works includes geometric shapes and numbers. In Collective Actions performances, the number often plays a special role, and the action itself often has to be repeated a certain number of times. "Elementary Poetry" by Andrei Monastyrsky is replete with figures, graphs and diagrams - and looks more like a work in physics than poetry. Newspapers - this logically and hierarchically organized tool for disseminating information - are often used as backgrounds in Prigov's graphics. gave birth to absurd situations. Artists interpreted this in their own conceptual manner. In the works of Collective Action, absurdity often became a way to ridicule the political situation. Artists wrote funny statements on banners very similar to those used in official propaganda. But they hung them not in a public place, not in the center of the city, but in the middle of the forest, where no one could see them.
However, the absurdity of this new architecture was not always brought out by artists in order to criticize it. Eric Bulatov's Do Not Lean is a good example of a more subtle approach. In this picture, the massive, rectangular inscription “Do not lean” (well known to every passenger of the Moscow metro) visually merges with the landscape on the horizon and hangs between the sky, field and forest - either letters or houses in a remote area. What is this, a criticism of total unification, thanks to which all elements (even as different as the inscription on the glass or residential new buildings) seem to be similar? Or is it rather an admiration for the new interpretational possibilities that are opening up in the new, modernist world?
The criticism of "heroic modernism" that could be heard from postmodern architects (contemporaries of the conceptualists) was usually much harsher - in comparison, the position of conceptual artists seems complex and ambiguous. It seems that artists are more likely to deconstruct the surrounding modernist landscape and use some of its elements for their artistic purposes, rather than completely condemn it. Some of its components were completely incorporated into works of art, and not which only echoed in them. What components have conceptualists noticed and used?
First of all, modernist rationality. She apparently admired conceptual artists. Often the language of their works includes geometric shapes and numbers. In Collective Actions performances, the number often plays a special role, and the action itself often has to be repeated a certain number of times. "Elementary Poetry" by Andrei Monastyrsky is replete with figures, graphs and diagrams - and looks more like a work in physics than poetry. Newspapers - this logically and hierarchically organized tool for disseminating information - are often used as backgrounds in Prigov's graphics.
Another feature of modern Soviet architecture, which is reflected in conceptualism, is the totality of the approach. One of the pillars of Soviet modernism was the so-called integrated development. This implied that the microdistrict was designed according to some kind of holistic, all-encompassing plan and that all its components - houses, schools, kindergartens, roads, parks, etc. - were built at the same time. Obviously, this meant that its only investor - the state - retained total control over the design of the living environment of citizens. The totality, which in architecture expressed itself as the totality of normalization and standardization, also has a parallel in the art of that time. The installations that artists began to create in the early 1980s are the best illustration of this. Since it was difficult for conceptual artists to access official showrooms, they organized exhibitions at their homes. In 1983, Irina Nakhova painted the walls and floor in her apartment. Thus, she created a new object - an image, inside which you could go. Nakhova's "rooms" became the forerunners of Ilya Kabakov's "total" installations. For Kabakov, a total installation is a materialization of the illusion of penetrating deep into the picture. “… He [the viewer] is both a 'victim' and a spectator who, on the one hand, surveys and evaluates the installation, and on the other hand, follows the associations, thoughts and memories that arise in himself, engulfed in the intense atmosphere of the total installation ". "The art of installation is an incredibly effective tool for immersing the viewer into the object that he is observing."
