Suprematist and Constructivist artists rejected figuration and used a non objective approach to space and form which greatly influenced future artists, architects and designers. Suprematism and Constructivism both grew out of political and social changes which were occurring during the revolutionary period in Russia. Both were also influenced by earlier Modern movements such as Cubism and Futurism. In this essay the connections between Malevich and Rodchenko as well as differences in their personal ideologies will be highlighted. Finally, the influence that the main artists enjoyed immediately after the Revolution and the subsequent decline of the movements will be briefly outlined.
Both movements were quite short lived due to post revolutionary changes. Suprematism had its origins around 1913. The key figure in Suprematism was Malevich , Rodchenko and El Lissitsky were just two of the artists who were drawn by his particular non objective art philosophy. Constructivism originated with Tatlin's mixed media relief sculptures which were originally inspired by Picasso's cubist collages. Although Tatlin's sculptures were geometric and non-objective he had a different aim from Malevich and therefore the artists could not work as one movement. The Constructivists were initially called the Productivist School. The aim of the Productivists was to translate “the "spirit of the machine age and the new society into a practical visual form.”1 Rodchenko was influenced to a lesser extent by Malevich and heavily by Tatlin. Rodchenko"s Black on Black paintings were a response to Malevich's White on White paintings.Tatlin's subsequent influence directed Rodchenko in a Constructivist direction and this was evident in Rodchenko's 1917 hanging constructions from the "laboratory phase". Constructivism officially emerged at the start of the 1920s although artists had previously been producing constructions and designs on paper which had utilitarian leanings.
Before the revolution Malevich had strongly articulated the aims and values held by him and other Suprematist artists. However despite resisttance against Suprematism by artist such as Tatlin, Constructivism only officially began in 1921 with the First Working Group of Constructivists. The strong ideological difference between Malevich and Rodchenko is not so easy to detect visually in earlier works. At times there are strong visual similarities between the works of Malevich and Rodchenko. Two examples that will be discussed here are Malevich's Untitled (Suprematist Painting), 1915 and Rodchenko's Composition, 1919. Although both pieces are non representational and are composed of simple shapes and lines, Malevich has produced a larger work in oil on canvas showing his continued attachment to easel painting. Rodchenchko on the other hand, has produced a much smaller design using gouache on paper. His aim was not painting for its own sake but rather as a way of exploring connections between forms and the relationships between forms and the relationship between this and real life.
In Untitled (Suprematist Painting), Malevich has painted two groups of coloured rectangles sloping diagonally against a white background. The two groups are divided by two floating diagonal lines. The top group of red, yellow, blue, green and brown rectangles are painted over the top of a large black trapezoid which is narrowing as it angles towards the top of the canvas. In Rodchenko's Composition 1919 the background is less prominent. His array of colourful overlapping shapes resemble cogs and pipes in a machine. Where as Malevich's shapes are completely flat in colour, Rodchenko has used his gouache with a dry brush technique creating tones. This gives some of the shapes a slightly three dimensional quality. The dominant shapes are the large yellow circle and a smaller orange circle below it, followed by a metallic looking, partially hidden square and a green and black diamond shape. Rodchenko's work was completed four years after Malevich's. Arwas (1993) described Rodchenko's admiration for Malevich and his work and dislike of Malevich himself back in 1916. During the year of 1916, Rodchenko decided to align himself with Tatlin and this paved the way for his later commitment to Constructivism, both as an artist/designer and as an educator.
Despite superficial similarities in the non objective compositions, the philosophies behind them were very different. “Art, Malevich believed, was meant to be useless. It should never seek to satisfy material needs. The artist must maintain his spiritual independence in order to create.” 2
Malevich wanted to challenge the way people and artists responded to the world around them. His way of issuing this challenge was to create a new reality or world within his paintings. “He wanted the world within his paintings to be no less significant than the realities of nature herself.”
3 This aim was similar to that of the Surrealists in the way they both wanted to create a second world (alternative realities) within their art. While Surrealists kept traces of the real world in their imagery Malevich was able to break away totally from imitating reality. Malevich's visual language was based on a straight line. This was because it was the opposite of reality in nature where no line is straight. The basic element of Suprematism was the square showed his rejection of themes in traditional art. The square to Malevich was full of meaning and referred to the absence of other objects and to Malevich this was a very important concept.
