Post on 05-Sep-2020
1
Copyright © 2018 Nikolaos Bogiatzis
The Contemporary Artistic Relevance of Soviet Constructivism
The emergence of Soviet Constructivism as a revolutionary creative movement in the 1920s
was a decisive turn in the historical avant-‐garde. Influenced by the October Revolution of
1917 and the building of a new, communist society, the Constructivists brought art theory
and practice to a new terrain that challenged art's meaning, content, and its very existence.
The urgency to respond to the revolutionary demand of the ‘social building’,1 led them to
raise ‘the question of the methods of artistic labour, instead of the question of form’,2 and
subsequently to denounce art and to focus on the production of objects.
The legacy of Soviet Constructivism in contemporary art could be traced through various
artistic approaches; however, my intention is to locate contemporary critical responses and
then investigate convincing artistic practices with emancipating possibilities in the neoliberal
era, in relation to canonical works of the Constructivist aesthetic.
In January 1920, Aleksei Gan, who cannot easily be categorised in terms of his artistic
practice as he was involved in various cultural activities inside the avant-‐garde circles,
grasped the critical writings of Michail Larionov and Kazimir Malevich.3 Gan was interested
in the relationship between art and the Revolution and tried to open new artistic paths in
1 Boris Arvatov, ‘Art and Production in the History of the Workers’ Movement: Art and the October Revolution’. in Art and Production (1926), ed. by John Roberts and Alexei Penzin (London: Pluto Press, 2017), p. 84. 2 Ibid., p. 85. 3 For Malevich’s Suprematism as abstract revolution, his theory of non-‐objectivity and his relation to Constructivism, the State, and the Revolution see Nikolaos Bogiatzis, ‘Kazimir Malevich: Suprematism and Non-‐Objectivity in Revolutionary Times’ (unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University, 2017), https://nikolaosbogiatzis.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/kazimir-‐malevich-‐suprematism-‐and-‐non-‐objectivity-‐in-‐revolutionary-‐times/
2
accordance with the communist ideal. His friendship and creative interaction with Aleksandr
Rodchenko and Varvara Stepanova led to the formation of the First Working Group of
Constructivists on March 1921, which also included four other artists: Karl Ioganson,
Konstantin Medunetskii, Georgii and Vladimir Stenberg.4 The group was organised within
the Moscow Institute of Artistic Culture or INKhUK, and its programme was written in the
same year by Gan. The basic proclamation was the synthesis of art and industry and the
intention of the artists to create useful objects via intellectual and material production
based on the principles of tektonika / faktura / construction.5
One year later, in 1922, Gan published Constructivism; in his theoretical exposition of the
new movement, Gan attempted to explain and justify Constructivism’s approach.
Interestingly, the book declared war not only on traditional art but on art itself; it began
with a passage from Marx’s and Engels’ Communist Manifesto and later, very simplistically
one could note, Gan, claimed that: ‘As soon as we approach art, we stop being Marxists’.6
Overall, in the first part of the publication, Gan tried to convince the reader -‐ and the Party -‐
that the new communist epoch needed new forms and means of expression, as this was
dictated by the emerging culture of work and intellect.7 Further, Gan counterposed the
traditional forms of visual art with the latter; sculpture should give way to the object’s
4 Christina Lodder, ‘Aleksei Gan: A Pivotal Figure in Russian Constructivism’. in Constructivism (1922), by Aleksei Gan (Barcelona: Tenov, 2013), p. XXV. 5 Ibid., pp. XXV-‐XXVI. 6 Aleksei Gan, ‘Constructivism’. in ibid., p. 12. 7 However, regarding the nature of culture after the Revolution, Lenin was adamant that all modern history experience and revolutionary struggle of the proletariat since the appearance of the Communist Manifesto should be taken into account. Moreover, the major achievements of the bourgeois epoch and those of the thousand years of the development of human thought and culture should not be left behind under communism. Nikolaos Bogiatzis, in op. cit., pp. 47-‐48.
3
spatial resolution; painting could not compete with photography; architecture could not
stop the emergence of Constructivism which is connected with work and everyday life.8
Indebted to Bukharin’s Theory of Historical Materialism, Gan continued by stressing that the
socially meaningful artistic work should be productively connected with science and
technology, and subsequently explained the function of tektonika / faktura / construction:
‘While tectonics encompasses the fusion of the ideological and formal and produces a unity
of idea as a result, and faktura is the state of the material, construction reveals the process
of structuring itself’.9
It is important to highlight the existence of different opinions inside the First Working Group
even if, finally, they all agreed on Gan’s programme. The nine sessions which were held at
Moscow’s Museum of Painterly Culture, or MZhK, attest to the members’ different
Constructivist positions.10 Furthermore, in additional meetings, there were different
approaches and objections about the triptych tektonika / faktura / construction.11 However,
all members embraced social utilitarianism and an anti-‐art credo. One should also
distinguish between the members of the First Working Group and the practice of artists like
Naum Gabo, who aimed at an art which would positively influence society from an idealist
perspective. Gabo’s practice was a formalist version of Constructivism, as it was indebted to
8 Aleksei Gan, in op. cit., p. 36. 9 Ibid., p. 62. 10 Maria Gough, ‘Composition and Construction’. in The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: California University Press, 2005), pp. 39-‐41. 11 Maria Gough, ‘In the Laboratory of Constructivism’. in ibid., pp. 71-‐73.
4
mankind’s creative genius12 and was located away from the historical materialist
perspective of Gan and his fellow members of the First Working Group.
It is in the work of artists or, to put it more adequately, producers like Gan and Rodchenko
and other Constructivists like Lyubov’ Popova and Vladimir Tatlin,13 that one could
encounter the most critical works of the Soviet era; that is, the ones that attempted to put
art-‐into-‐life. Consequently, I would argue that by negating the traditionally autonomous
character of the avant-‐garde, and by infusing art into life, Soviet Constructivism managed to
be the vanguard of the avant-‐garde. Therefore, the task of exploring the contemporary
artistic relevance of Soviet Constructivism becomes more demanding, if one would want to
proceed with reference to the most critical works of that certain historical period.
Constructivism wanted to participate in the praxis of life, the building of the communist
society and its new culture and it was interdependent with the mode of social production.
Consequently, to trace the artistic relevance of its most interesting historical manifestation
under the prism of the neoliberal era, one should locate the topos of critical art today.
Hence, I will first look at one of Tatlin’s major works and then investigate its legacy in
contemporary times.
12 Christina Lodder, ‘"English" Abstraction: Nicholson, Hepworth, and Moore in the 1930s'. in Art of the 20th Century: Art of the Avant-‐Gardes ed. by Steve Edwards and Paul Wood (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 280. 13 Interestingly, Tatlin was considered the ‘father of Constructivism’ but he never called himself as such; however, he claimed that he was its founder. Christina Kiaer, ‘Everyday Objects’. in Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism (Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 2005), p. 43 and p. 279.
5
Tatlin’s Model for the Monument to the Third International14 was exhibited in Moscow in
December 1920, and paved the way for the emergence of Constructivism. It was supposed
to be a functioning building and the base of the Communist Third International, or
Comintern. The structural materials would be iron and glass; it was a construction that
negated the architecture of the past and symbolised the new social order, as it
commemorated the Revolution and pointed to the emergence of the new communist
society. The Monument was planned to be a machine construction with rotating volumes
and moving parts, and as Tatlin claimed, he was ‘combining purely artistic forms with
utilitarian intentions’.15 He accordingly declared: ‘Distrusting the eye, we place it under the
control of touch’.16 Tatlin’s declaration is not a naïve claim but a critical shift in the artistic
practice of Soviet avant-‐garde and also in the broader context of the avant-‐garde, which
actualises a progressive theory that sought to emphasise the material over the visual.
While in the second decade of the twentieth century, and through the work of pioneering
cubists George Braque and Pablo Picasso, we encounter the first application of construction
to artistic production, it is Tatlin’s work which produces a critical rupture with traditional
forms; hence the importance of his artistic practice.
The Monument is independent of any particular materials as it is self-‐sufficient through its
utilitarian nature and scope; Comintern was the international organisation of communist
parties that promoted world revolution; the four internal glass volumes would be the base
14 Figure 1: MoMA, Vladimir Tatlin: Model for Pamiatnik III Internatsionala (Monument to the Third International) (1920) (no date), < https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/?work=226 >, [accessed 10 April 2018]. 15 Christina Lodder, ‘Soviet Constructivism’. in op. cit., p. 366. 16 Christina Kiaer, in op. cit., p. 41.
6
of the different Comintern’s agencies and would rotate at different speeds. However, the
choice of the structural materials of iron and glass were not picked accidentally; they were
vital elements of the dynamic new epoch, that is, certain kind of materials which were
essential to the social meaning of construction. Therefore, I suggest that what is critical in
the Monument is the radical coordination between the artistic and the social.17 Tatlin clearly
indicated this coordination in 1920, when he stressed: ‘What happened from the social
aspect in 1917 was realized in our work as pictorial artists in 1914, when "materials, volume,
and construction" were accepted as our foundations'.18 Consequently, the criticality of
Soviet Constructivism lies in its relationship with the radical social context that emerged and
the interaction between the two.
Investigating Soviet Constructivism’s contemporary artistic relevance without distancing
from Tatlin’s Monument, Dan Flavin’s ‘Monument’ for V. Tatlin19 was one in the series of
forty-‐five works made in the period between 1964 and 1990. Flavin used pre-‐fabricated
fluorescent tubes to create a tower-‐like structure that required being plugged in and
switched on to produce light. The element of irony was evident comparing Flavin’s simplistic
object and Tatlin’s construction, as the former ironically challenged the supposed
permanence and durability of the latter. Furthermore, in Tatlin’s Monument, the material of
17 ‘Construction is a rational-‐instrumental process with historically specific social, material and technological conditions’. Peter Osborne, ‘Art Space: Construction and Expression’. in Anywhere or Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art (London and New York: Verso, 2013), p. 154. 18 Vladimir Tatlin, ‘The Work Ahead of Us’ (1920). in Russian Art of the Avant-‐Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-‐1934 ed. by John E. Bowlt (New York: The Viking Press, 1976), p. 206. 19 Figure 2: Tate, Dan Flavin: ‘Monument’ for V. Tatlin (1966-‐1969) (no date), < http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/flavin-‐monument-‐for-‐v-‐tatlin-‐t01323 >, [accessed 11 April 2018].
7
glass symbolised the transparency of the revolutionary government and the clear
conscience of the proletariat;20 on the contrary, in Flavin’s Monument, one could not stare
directly into the white fluorescent lights.21
Although inspired by Tatlin’s practice, Flavin’s work provided an artistic response which is
characterised not only by irony and even humour,22 but with scepticism as well. Soviet
Constructivism aimed at efficiency by using the rational and motivated use of materials; the
third principle of construction as explained in Gan’s Constructivism, was meant to give form
to the concept by the use of processed material;23 there were a certain logic, order, and
motivation behind each construction. Flavin's series of monuments instead, were
characterised by chance and a sceptical absence of motivation which functioned as the
negation of modernism’s viability. Consequently, Flavin’s work attested to the ideological
failure of the Constructivist project. Further, Soviet Constructivism aimed at the integration
of artistic labour into the totality of a social construction that would lead to communism; by
taking away its revolutionary and social-‐utilitarian logic and keeping only its formalist
structure, Flavin essentially negated Soviet Constructivism’s ideological and anti-‐aesthetic
nucleus.24
The question that emerges is, if Flavin’s ironic and sceptic approach provides the exclusive
way, or if there are alternative contemporary artworks that can provide an adequate
20 Christina Lodder, in op. cit., p. 365. 21 Brandon Taylor, ‘Constructivism Now’. in After Constructivism (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), p. 224. 22 Tate, in op. cit. 23 Aleksei Gan, in op. cit., p. 62. 24 Therefore, Flavin also produced a method of ‘inactive history’ which Taylor mentions. Brandon Taylor, in op. cit., p. 224.
8
response to the former approach. Next, after looking at Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club, I will
focus on Chto Delat’s relevant Activist Club as one of these responses.
The Workers’ Club25 was designed by Rodchenko and was made for the ‘International
Exhibition of Modern Decorative and Industrial Arts’ which was held in Paris in 1925.26 It
was meant to promote the social ethos and values of the USSR, as the Workers’ Clubs were
the places where the proletariat used to relax, communicate, and absorb the culture of the
new society. The ‘Lenin Corner’ was obligatory and signified the importance of the
communist ideology; it included a picture of Lenin and his name written in letters of
squares, and a poster celebrating his life. The prevalent colours in the Workers’ Club were
red and black -‐ the colours of the Revolution -‐ and the furniture was made by wood; there
was a sense of strict economy in materials and mode of production, and an authentic
functionalism in all areas of the construction.
Rodchenko’s work was made in accordance with the principles of tektonika/ faktura/
construction; however, although Constructivism embraced the machine aesthetic and the
new technology, the presence of wood implies that Rodchenko had to come to terms with
the hard economic reality of the period. The fall of 1921 brought the institution of the New
Economic Policy, or NEP, which for many revolutionaries meant a regressive ideological
25 Figure 3: The Charnel-‐House, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Lenin Workers’ Club in Paris (1925) (29 May), < https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/05/29/aleksandr-‐rodchenko-‐lenin-‐workers-‐club-‐in-‐paris-‐1925/ >, [accessed 12 April 2018]. 26 Christina Lodder, in op. cit., p. 375.
9
retreat to capitalism.27 This critically transitional period of the NEP brought an accordingly
critical shift in Soviet Constructivism’s character. Therefore, I would argue that the route
from Tatlin’s Monument to Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club signals the shift from the creative
experimentation to the realisation of the pragmatic constraints of everyday reality.
It is true that Constructivism in its revolutionary manifestation could appear as a form of
unfreedom comparing to the aesthetically unlimited scope of formalism;28 it is also true that
the merging and solidification of new social forms became a constraint upon forms of
construction, and experimentation retreated back to the non-‐utilitarian realm.29 Bearing
these in mind, I suggest that the shift from the creative experimentation to the realisation of
the pragmatic conditions of everyday life and the practicalities of social production is not a
retreat, but a progressive sublimation of art-‐into-‐life. Accordingly, in the itinerary from the
Monument to the Workers’ Club, I would situate the potential for a radical possibility of an
emancipatory mass culture, contra to Bürger’s view of an enthralling and subjugating art,30
or Adorno’s negation of the rationality of construction.31
27 A considerable number of Bolsheviks saw the institution of the New Economic Policy as the ‘New Exploitation of the Proletariat’. Christina Kiaer, ‘The Socialist Object’. in op. cit., p. 19. 28 Peter Osborne, in op. cit., p. 155. 29 Ibid., p. 156. 30 Peter Bürger, ‘On the Problem of the Autonomy of Art in Bourgeois Society: The Negation of the Autonomy of Art by the Avant-‐Garde’. in Theory of the Avant-‐Garde (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. 54. 31 Theodor W. Adorno, ‘Paralipomena’. in Aesthetic Theory (1970), ed. by Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann (London and New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 304.
10
Moving into the contemporary period, Chto Delat’s Activist Club32 is an on-‐going art project
which is based on the production of space. In the past, the project took the form of a
specially constructed space for kino-‐club and reading table, the publication of a newspaper
issue called Chto Delat “Make Film Politically”, and a discussion based on the newspaper’s
issue.33 Influenced by Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club, Chto Delat, whose members also define
themselves a Workers’ Group, produced a space which could be seen as the contemporary
equivalent of Rodchenko’s project. The strict economy in materials and mode of production
and the functionalism in all areas of the construction remained, while the historical ‘Lenin
Corner’ was substituted by a contemporary version, where posters of other art-‐activist
initiatives like Park Fiction’s work in Hamburg, Germany, were promoted.34 The red and
black colours of the Revolution were still present, and in the video projections, there were
talks about effective forms of protest and the revolutionary dialectic of the current
moment.
Dmitry Vilensky, one of the members of Chto Delat, stressed their intention that the group’s
activities were not meant to be restricted by the spaces of art institutions; further, he
highlighted that the museum space was only the arena which they could use temporarily as
a place that they could spread their propaganda of ideas and values.35 Chto Delat’s Activist
32 Figure 4: Chto Delat, Activist Club /2007-‐ / (no date), < https://chtodelat.org/category/b7-‐art-‐projects/installations/a_8/ >, [accessed 13 April 2018]. 33 Ibid. 34 For the case of Park Fiction, see Grant H. Kester, ‘Park Fiction, Ala Plastica, and Dialogue’ and ‘Park Fiction: Desire, Resistance, and Complicity’. in The One and The Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2011), pp. 24-‐29 and pp. 199-‐210. 35 Dmitry Vilensky, in op. cit.
11
Club follows the legacy of Constructivism, Productivism, and Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club,
whose basic aim was to create a new political audience through the construction of the
space in a way that enabled the creation of a didactic narrative. Consequently, the new
aesthetic that emerged was based on a dialectic perception of the world that negated
bourgeois fetishist consumption and considered artefacts not as objects of decoration but
of a radical transformation of the every-‐day.36
Chto Delat’s declaration is reminiscent, although less poetic and polemical, of the manifesto
made by the First Working Group of Constructivists in 1921. The latter declared ‘the
communist expression of material constructions and irreconcilable war against art’.37 Chto
Delat, ‘demanding the (im)possible…[wants] to move away from the frustrations occasioned
by the historical failures to advance leftist ideas and discover anew their emancipatory
potential’.38 Subsequently, the group believes that capitalism is not a totality and locates
the alternative in the micropolitics and microeconomies of human relationships and creative
labour; the historical becoming of the emancipatory alternative is communism, and the
synthesis of theory and practice can provide the communist decoding of capitalist reality.39
Chto Delat recognises the importance of the intellectual and artistic avant-‐gardes of the
twentieth century and aims at the triptych of engaged thought/ political action/ artistic
innovation. Moreover, the group situates the task of contemporary art in the unmasking of
36 Ibid. 37 First Working Group of Constructivists, ‘Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group’ (1921). in Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the Field ed. by Helen Armstrong (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), p. 24. 38 Chto Delat, ‘A Declaration on Politics, Knowledge, and Art’ (2008). in op. cit., < https://chtodelat.org/b5-‐announcements/a-‐6/a-‐declaration-‐on-‐politics-‐knowledge-‐and-‐art-‐4/ >, [accessed 14 April 2018]. 39 Ibid.
12
the current system’s ideological control and manipulation of the people. Accordingly, an
autonomous contemporary art must be able to exist and be produced outside of the art
institutions, as part or in the centre of events, in the streets, the squares, and in
communes.40
Looking at Flavin’s Monument and Chto Delat’s Activist Club, it is easy to distinguish
between two different approaches towards the legacy of Soviet Constructivism. In Flavin’s
work, there was an emphasis given to the formalist structure as a creative response to
Tatlin’s Monument. Despite the critical aspect of his work, Flavin omitted the revolutionary
and anti-‐aesthetic nature of Soviet Constructivism, that is its social-‐utilitarian and
ideological aspect. Therefore, by producing an inactive history and by cutting off, or to be
more precise, by neutralising – anaesthetising this specific attribute of Soviet
Constructivism, Flavin negated its emancipatory legacy.
On the other hand, Chto Delat’s work stayed attached to the Constructivist spirit and nature
more adequately. The Activist Club followed Rodchenko’s Workers’ Club logic and tradition
and the three principles of tektonika/ faktura/ construction, and did not exclude the social-‐
utilitarian and ideological nature of Soviet Constructivism. The group attempted and, to a
considerable extent, managed to create a different type of public space where people could
interact and use their free time creatively, by watching grassroots films and by engaging into
educational activities such as reading, theoretical analysis, and discussion in accordance
with the existing social centres and social forums.
40 Ibid.
13
Like Soviet Constructivism, Chto Delat’s on-‐going art project attempts to bring art-‐into-‐life
and to develop an emancipated aesthetic experience that liberates the consciousness of
both the artist and the viewer. As the group stresses, in a time of reaction, the place of
revolutionary art is in direct opposition and negation of the populist logic of the culture
industry, and in the articulation of a new mode of emancipated sensuality.41 Consequently, I
would argue that it is in the work like Chto Delat’s that the legacy and relevance of Soviet
Constructivism could be met more convincingly, and could also open possibilities for a
critical art practice in a dialectic with the every-‐day and the social, without overlooking the
constrictions and the failures of the historical avant-‐garde in general.
41 Furthermore, ‘In the contemporary conjuncture, the self-‐negation essential to arts development happens outside institutional practices'. in ibid.
14
Figure 1
15
Figure 2
16
Figure 3
Figure 4
17
Bibliography
Adorno, W. Theodor, Aesthetic Theory (1970), ed. by Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann
(London and New York: Continuum, 2002)
Arvatov, Boris, Art and Production (1926), ed. by John Roberts and Alexei Penzin (London:
Pluto Press, 2017)
Bogiatzis, Nikolaos, ‘Kazimir Malevich: Suprematism and Non-‐Objectivity in Revolutionary
Times’ (unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University,
2017)
Bolt, John E., Russian Art of the Avant-‐Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902-‐1934 (New York:
The Viking Press, 1976)
Buchloh, Benjamin H. D., ‘Cold War Constructivism’ (1986). in Reconstructing Modernism:
Art in New York, Paris, and Montreal 1945-‐1964 ed. by Serge Guilbaut (Cambridge, MA, and
London: The MIT Press, 1992), pp. 85-‐112
Bürger, Peter, Theory of the Avant-‐Garde (Minneapolis and Manchester: University of
Minnesota Press and Manchester University Press, 1984)
Chto Delat, Activist Club /2007-‐ / (no date),
< https://chtodelat.org/category/b7-‐art-‐projects/installations/a_8/ >, [accessed 13 April
2018]
Chto Delat, A Declaration on Politics, Knowledge, and Art (2008) (no date),
< https://chtodelat.org/b5-‐announcements/a-‐6/a-‐declaration-‐on-‐politics-‐knowledge-‐and-‐
art-‐4/ >, [accessed 14 April 2018]
Edwards, Steve and Paul Wood (eds). Art of the 20th Century: Art of the Avant-‐Gardes (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004)
18
First Working Group of Constructivists, ‘Who We Are: Manifesto of the Constructivist Group’
(1921). in Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the Field ed. by Helen Armstrong (New
York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), pp. 22-‐24
Foster, Hal, ‘Some Uses and Abuses of Russian Constructivism’. in Art into Life: Russian
Constructivism 1914-‐1932 ed. by Richard Andrews (New York: Rizzoli, 1990), pp. 241-‐253
Fried, Michael, ‘Art and Objecthood’ (1967). in Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews
(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 148-‐172
Gan, Aleksei, Constructivism (1922), (Barcelona: Tenov, 2013)
Gough, Maria, The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution (Berkeley, Los
Angeles, and London: California University Press, 2005)
Kiaer, Christina, Imagine No Possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism
(Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 2005)
MoMA, Vladimir Tatlin: Model for Pamiatnik III Internatsionala (Monument to the Third
International) (1920) (no date),
< https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/?work=226 >,
[accessed 10 April 2018]
Osborne, Peter, Anywhere or Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art (London and New
York: Verso, 2013)
Osborne, Peter, The Postconceptual Condition: Critical Essays (London and New York: Verso,
2018)
Tate, Naum Gabo (no date),
< http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/naum-‐gabo-‐1137 >, [accessed 10 April 2018]
Tate, Dan Flavin: ‘Monument’ for V. Tatlin (1966-‐1969) (no date),
19
< http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/flavin-‐monument-‐for-‐v-‐tatlin-‐t01323 >, [accessed 11
April 2018]
Taylor, Brandon, After Constructivism (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014)
The Charnel-‐House, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Lenin Workers’ Club in Paris (1925) (29 May),
< https://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/05/29/aleksandr-‐rodchenko-‐lenin-‐workers-‐club-‐in-‐
paris-‐1925/ >, [accessed 12 April 2018]