Talk:Constructivism (art)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Architecture WikiProject (Rated B-Class) Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Visual arts This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale. WikiProject Russia (Rated B-Class) Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Philosophy Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Aesthetics

[edit] social purposes?

The introduction now states:

Constructivism .. dismissed "pure" art in favour of an art used as an instrument for social purposes, specifically the construction of a socialist system.

This definition is completely different from the german WPs and other european ones. Our understanding is that the "construction" in the term is not aimed at some political idea but at the construction of the respective work _out of basic elements_. In terms of graphical works these were for example circles, triangles, squares. Please, have a look into a wider range of literature and consider correcting the introduction. --Bernd-vdb 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) from Berlin, Germany

this page is primarily on Russian Constructivism, and accordingly stressed the social rather than graphical aspect of 'construction' - see Christina Lodder's book Russian Constructivism for an explanation of the differences between the two - roughly, between Constructivism as understood by Naum Gabo, or as understood by Tatlin, a difference that is actually highlighted in this article. Owenhatherley 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"accordingly" is what I and others clearly dispute. Are there any sources for the assumption that because it started in Russia around 1919 it would be connected to "social purpose"? This looks more like original research to me. --Bernd-vdb 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the assumption that because it started in Russia around 1919 it would be connected to "social purpose"? Plenty. Read any of the following:

• Catherine Cooke, Russian Avant-Garde Theories
• the Christina Lodder book mentioned above
• Maria Gough, The Artist as Producer
• Various special issues of October
• Christina Kiaer, Imagine No Possessions

or pretty much any monograph on Rodchenko, Mayakovsky or Tatlin.

All of which go into meticulous detail on exactly this question. On the other hand there's no objection to the introduction being changed to mention the aspect which stressed construction in the purely material sense (as did Gabo, as the article makes very clear) but I do object to any removal of the mention of 'social purpose', as this is an extremely well documented and crucial element of Russian, and frankly, in the case of say, Hans Richter or Hannes Meyer, Karel Teige or Moholy-Nagy, 'western' Constructivism. Owenhatherley 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but putting the 'social purpose' in the introduction while omitting the conceptional (and in no way 'material') aspect of construction (out of basic elements, be they physical, mental, aesthetical or whatever) is a biased point of view. Historic aspects might be interesting here but reducing constructivsm in art to a historic movement is simply wrong. As I am no native english speaker I will not change the article but I ask you and others strongly to think about correcting this. --Bernd-vdb 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

HI, a painter from London here. I concur with the gentleman above. Constructivism is concerned with plastic elements and not with social issues any more than it is concerned with ALL modes of building worlds using simplified, agreed upon signs. In this respect it could be conceived that it would have political implications but not just specifically socialist ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.113.77 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)