Sacred Stories: Religion and Spirituality in Modern Russia

14. Malevich’s Mystic Signs: From Iconoclasm to New Theology

14 Malevich’s Mystic Signs: From Iconoclasm to New Theology Alexei Kurbanovsky Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (1878–1935) was an innovator as well as a prophet, as profound in his theoretical insights as he was radical in reforming conventional painterly language. His work, as artist and cultural theorist, was deeply engaged with the crisis and searching in spiritual life of his time. In a brochure printed to coincide with “0.10:The Last Futurist Painting Exhibition,” held in Petrograd in December 1915, Malevich wrote: “All former and contemporary painting before suprematism, and sculpture, the word, and music were enslaved by the form of nature, and they await their liberation in order to speak in their own tongue and not depend upon the intellect, sense, logic, philosophy, psychology, the various laws of causality and technical changes in life.”1 One could observe that, at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, notions of uncertainty and doubt invaded theoretical thought and artistic creative discourse.There appeared an open abyss between experimental sciences, which were grounded in testing and observation of natural facts, and those fields of knowledge where interpretation predominated. And this abyss grew even deeper as a result of vulgar, nonreflective positivism that penetrated into philosophy from natural sciences. That system of analytical thought, in spite of its operational possibilities, had no basis in the process of reason’s selfreflection . Philosophy appeared an easy prey for critical skepticism—before thinking could arrive at certain conclusions by way of reflection upon the process that gave birth to these very conclusions. Some important thinkers, as well as artists, both in Russia and Europe, analyzed this situation and predicted it would change slowly. Alexander Benois, the influential Russian art critic and artist, wrote: Along with individualism, and depending on it, the long-derided idealism acquired new life in the [18]80s. . . . Materialism, which provided 358 an amazingly simplistic explanation of life, could satisfy no longer. . . . All social teachings have lost their charm, and the mystical spirit of poetry, the eternal striving to abandon the chains of mundane prose, have come back to life with a new force.2 Another important young painter, Igor Grabar, observed that “people feel the necessity for something to replace the broken religion, and, getting nothing, they find nothing better than to turn back to it. Positivism is trembling, and metaphysics clears itself a road in the sphere of modern philosophy.”3 Both artists were referring to various activities that were taking place in the Russian religious-philosophical sphere. The way out of the positivist dead end was at that time associated with renewed quests of spirituality, religion, and aesthetics . Art was considered an important field into which relevant methods of theoretical thought were projected. Conversely, if we compare actual artistic tendencies of that time to contemporary spiritual and intellectual projects, we find each illuminating the other, revealing essential characteristics of the spiritual moment. It is generally accepted that at the turn the century European and Russian art passed through a series of stylistic phases that ruined traditional representationalpractices .Thesubjectofartisticperception,whoserighttoanautonomous bodily experience was positively asserted in impressionism and dramatically challenged by post-impressionism and symbolism, was deeply compromised by cubism’s rejection of the single perspective viewpoint and by its integration of the spectator’s gaze into a picture.And then the subject was completely eliminated by technical progress—by “the new iron and the machine life, the roar of automobiles,theglitterofelectriclights,thewhirringofpropellers,”asMalevich putit4 —afactnoisilycelebratedbyinternationalfuturism.Tomaintainitsimportance , painting was forced constantly to demonstrate innovation. This was the logical conclusion of the ideology of scientific and industrial progress, which penetrated all spheres of thought. Still, the unyielding, accelerated tempo of formal inventiveness was unusual. In contrast to classical art history, which was based on stylistic factors, the early-twentieth-century avant-garde, proceeding fromitsownnotionsof “means”and“ends”inart,introducedstrategicdifference asthemostessential.5 Thismeantthathencefortheveryartistmustdrawhisown conclusions from every successive stage of imminent painterly evolution. The aim of this essay is to sketch the evolution of Malevich’s creative thinking . I intend to show that the artist was well aware of some important theoretical issues discussed in contemporary philosophy and aesthetics. His own development followed from the overthrow of old forms of authority—social, artistic, and other (what could be termed “iconoclasm”)—to the formulation of strong Malevich’s Mystic Signs 359 360 Alexei Kurbanovsky ideological dogmas which merit description as a “new theology.” Malevich’s choice seems logical and symptomatic for...