Naum Gabo “The Constructive Ideal in Art” 1937 reprinted in Art in Theory: 1900-2000. ed. Harrison and Wood pp. 385-387
The constructive idea “has revealed a universal law that the elements of a visual law that the elements of a visual art such as lines, colours, shapes, possess their own forces of expression independent of any association with the external aspects of the world; that their life and their action are self-conditioned psychological phenomena rooted in human nature; that those elements are not chosen by convention for any utilitarian or other reason as words and figures are, thay are not merely abstract signs, but they are immediately and organically bound up with human emotions. The relation of this fundamental law has opened up a vast new field in art giving the possibility of expression to those human impulses and emotions which have been neglected. Heretofore these elements have been abused by being used to express all sorts of associative images which might have been expressed otherwise, for instance, in literature and poetry” p. 385-6
“The Constructive idea does not see that the function of Art is to represent the world. It does not impose on Art the function of Science. Art and Science are two different streams which rise from the same creative source and flow into the same ocean of common culture, but the currents of these two streams flow in different beds. Science teaches, Art asserts; Science persuades, Art acts; Science explores and apprehends, informs and proves. It does not undertake because its task is knowledge. Knowledge is bound up with things which are and things which are, are heterogeneous, changeable and contradictory. Therefore the way to the ultimate truth is so long and difficult for Science.
The force of Science lies in its authoritative reason. The force of Art lies in its immediate influence on human psychology and in its active consciousness.” p. 386
“In the light of the Constructive idea the purely philosophical wondering about the real and unreal is idle. Even more idle is the intention to divide the real into super-real and sub-real, into conscious reality and sub-conscious reality. The Constructive idea knows only one reality. Nothing is unreal in Art. Whatever is touched by Art becomes reality, and we do not need to undertake remote and distant navigations in the sub-conscious in order to reveal a world which lies in our immediate vicinity.” p. 387
“The Constructive idea prefers that Art perform positive works which lead us to the best. The measure of this perfection will not be so difficult to define when we realize that it does not lie outside us but is bound up in our desire and in our will to it. The creative human genius, which never errs and never mistakes, defines this measure. Since the beginning of Time man has been occupied with nothing else but the perfecting of his world. To find the means for the accomplishment of this task the artist need not search in the external world of Nature; he is able to express his impulses in the language of those absolute forms which are in the substantial possession of his Art. This is the task which we constructive artists have set ourselves, which we are doing and which we hope will be continued by the future generation.” p. 387
The Constructivist idea provides a pretty direct engagement with the proper role of Art (capital A!) in persuasion.
Successful art does not persuade in logical argument, it provides a fleeting, emotional intervention into consciousness. the Constructivists made this argument in the 30s, not as a reaction to any particular media environment per se, but also because the experience of momentary, fleeting transformation is an intrinsic good in an of itself. Successful art is impulsive and intervenes into life without trying to fully explain itself.
The language of constructivism I think has significant bearing on how folks think about efficacy in art. In the same way that other artists here deal with specific mediums and the forms of expression proper to them, the constructivists investigate what forms of expression are most proper to art rather than to formal, logical or scientific thought.
For this reason, effective art (for the constructivists) properly reframes, reorients and intervenes on discussions – but doesn’t do the discussing itself.
immediately persuasive, not because it copes well with a particular media environment, but because momentary excitement is just kinda the way to go
One Comment
Constructivism was very much about the experimental spirit of the early Soviet Union exploring the implications of dialectical materialism for the arts. The artists were looking for ways to make art a practical part of everyday working life, drawing also upon the ideas of Saint-Simon. But of course it wasn’t the only trend in Soviet art nor ‘should’ it have been.
I think it’s right that effective art “doesn’t do the discussing itself”. See for example Engels’ comment in his letter to Margaret Harkness:
“I am far from finding fault with your not having written a point-blank socialist novel, a ‘Tendenzroman’, as we Germans call it, to glorify the social and political views of the authors… The more the opinions of the author remain hidden, the better for the work of art.”
A work of art is not a political speech. It succeeds when its ideological content – and all art unavoidably has ideological content – is an organic part of the artist’s own worldview and of the work.
This is where Socialist Realism failed. Unlike Constructivism it imposed a dubious ideology (Stalinism) upon artists and tell them what was allowed. Constructivism by contrast was actively explored and initiated by artists who were entirely sympathetic to the revolution.