Problems with Labels [Pre-Post-Early-Late]

Recently I've been trying to come to grips with what I consider to be a major historiographical problem which applies very directly to the time period which I have made the focus of this study. The problem lies in what we choose to call this period of Russian history. The answer that most immediately comes to the minds of many would be “Pre-Revolutionary Russia,” and admittedly this is the term that I have utilized most frequently up until now. However, the use of this term implies creates several problems with the way in which we view Russia's history, and thus how we then attempt to place the work of Chekhov into that context.

When we define the period of time before the revolutions only in terms of the revolutions themselves, it implies a degree of inevitability of the popular and Bolshevik revolutions. While Marxist theory, which views revolution as truly inevitable, would support this and certainly Soviet historians would have appreciated the placement of emphasis with this term, the realities do not support this choice. First of all, the term that is sometimes used rather flippantly, “the inevitability of history,” can only be used in a way that does not appear foolish, in the past tense. This is because at the time of any historical event, a countless number of things could take place, the result of that moment is not defined. But beyond purely philosophical issues of this approach, the use of pre-revolutionary and the predetermined nature that it implies also happens to contradict the facts of Russia at this time. The Revolutions that took place in the early 20^th Century were by no means the type of communist revolutions that Marx was such an adamant supporter of. In fact, not only was the lack of a switch to a more free, market-based, economy before the rise of communism, which is indicative of Marxist theory, but the idea the transition of power took the form of a coup and subsequent civil war also disqualifies it as an inevitable Marxist revolution. Furthermore, the Soviet's utilization of this term, painting a picture of a world leading up to their regime, is equally suspect. This is given that there was decidedly not a popular uprising of the Bolshevik's who then wrested power from the Tsar, but rather the protests and general revolutionary sentiment caused the Tsardom to collapse and only almost a year later did the Bolshevik's interrupt the creation of a new government through a constituent assembly and seize power. Sheila Fitzpatrick's characterization of the transition of power out of the hands of the Tsar is revealing: “In the days following Nicholas' abdication, the politicians of Petrograd were in a state of high excitement and frenetic energy. Their original intention had been to get rid of Nicholas rather than the monarchy.”

It seems clear that this term is insufficient to characterize the time and is probably more damaging than it is beneficial for our purposes. The question then becomes, what do replace it with? Some historians, while not really addressing this question, but recognizing a problem with the previous term, have adopted the title of “Late-Tsarist” Russia to describe the reign of Nicholas II and the transition to the revolution. While there is no arguing the fact that Nicholas II was indeed the last Tsar of Russia this does not solve the problem so much as it does invert it. So what are we left with? Simply refer to the time period by its numerical designations? Simply refer to the period as “Late 19th” and “Early 20th” centuries. Such an answer does not so much solve the problem as it does avoid it. So, in search of possible answers I turned to the world of art in Russia.

While I had, and have no hopes in necessarily finding the answer in this way, it seemed to me that perhaps, especially considering the artistic nature of the medium we are attempting to place into context, we might be well served to look at some of the artistic movements in Russia at this time as a jumping off point. 

 

Through a bit of investigation, one of the first artist movements of Russia at the end of the reign of Nicholas II was that of “The Jack [or knave] of Diamonds.” Mounded in Moscow in 1910 and functioning as a collective up until December of 1917 (a date with should not strike us as coincidental). The group began, influenced by the French Cubists, as a means for artists who had been labeled as “too leftist” to be showcased in mainstream galleries, to find places to have their work displayed. The group was fairly prolific for the few years they were in prominence and were connected with the beginnings of the early Avant-garde in Russia. The group did seem to foster a sort of revolutionary spirit and their name helped to showcase this to their contemporaries: "The title Knave of Diamonds [was regarded] as a symbol of young enthusiasm and passion, 'for the knave implies youth and the suit of diamonds represents seething blood.'” The combination of the nature of their work, their seeming desire for change and, as I mentioned, the fact that the group faltered (out of lack of need on some level, but also with many of the members moving on to the World of Art group) led them to be a leftist democratizer of the arts in Russia.

While this art movement holds some appeal as a replacement to the moniker of pre-revolutionary, I think there is something to be gained in being able to observe the change of movements. For example in the traditional sense of terms, we go from pre-revolutionary/late-tsarist Russia, into revolution and then Early Soviet Russia. However, though the Knave of Diamonds movement seemingly supported revolutionary sentiment at the time they also fade into the larger landscape of artistic movements when the revolution takes place in 1917.

Thus I think the more interesting choice lies with a pair of movements which, though stylistically in many ways inform one another, philosophically contradict one another. They are the Suprematism and the Constructivism movements.

The Suprematism or Супрематизм movement began in roughly 1915 in Moscow and was founded by Kazimir Malevich. The Movement, as defined in Malevich's 1927 work The Non-Objective World as art that is based upon “the supremacy of pure artistic feeling” and not simply on depiction of objects. Visually, artwork born out of this tradition tends to be very geometric, focusing on basic, familiar forms. [I've included a small sampling of some of Malevich's work below.]

 Interestingly, this movement places an emphasis on feeling, to borrow a term from a distinctly different tradition, an almost cathartic expression. This seems in keeping to me with the feelings conjured up when reading depictions, such as Fitzpatrick's, of the years leading up to the revolutions. Furthermore, the Suprematists saw themselves as social protestors as well. After Socialist Realism became the artistic medium allowed by the state and groups such as the Suprematists where suppressed, they still protested – albeit in a more subtle manner. I've included Malevich's 1933 self portrait, in which he is depicted rather traditionally, however if you look in the lower right hand corner he signs the piece, not with his his name, but with a small black square inside a white one.

The similar artistic movement that I would argue could be used to represent the change that took place in the wake of the revolution is that of the Constructivists. Beginning in 1919, the timing fits appropriately and though they adopt many of the stylings of the Suprematists, their artistic philosophy differs drastically. It is most easily explained in the distinctions between the two. As Malevich's book was titled “The Non-Objective World,” Constructivism on the other hand has a great deal of emphasis upon the object and most importantly the practical application of the object. Explained by some as the creation of a group of artist[s]-as-engineer. This proves interesting because of the familiar sentiment towards what will eventually be realized under Stalin and Socialist Realism, when artists were to be an “artist in uniform” and use their talents to serve the interests of the state and of Communism. Constructivism evolved even further as Communism was built up after the revolution, choosing to lend its talents and stylings to those things that it deemed productive and beneficial. I've included a poster of that era here: [to the support of the Red army during the civil war]

We see this distinction drawn out further through Malevich's defiance of this ideal:

“Art no longer cares to serve the state and religion, it no longer wishes to illustrate the history of manners, it wants to have nothing further to do with the object, as such, and believes that it can exist, in and for itself, without 'things'”

I think the distinction here, between these two artistic movements is incredible and could prove revelatory to this study. I have hunted down a copy of Malevich's text to see what else I might glean from it. However, it would seem to me that the earlier movement of Suprematism embodies true revolutionary sentiment, with an empahsis upon supreme feeling rather than practical application. Constructivism on the other hand utilizes the tools of revolutionary sentiment in order to further the goals of the State, or faith, or whatever structure they choose to support, with the emphasis upon progress. This is clarified by the fact that the Constructavists arose out of the revolution and the Suprematists, unlike the artist of the Knave of Diamonds, did not disappear in the world after the revolution, but rather fought against what they must have viewed as a bastardization of their movement.

As I said, I plan to explore this further through reading of Malevich's text, but the co-opting of these terms for our purpose seems to be an improvement over the more historically troublesome time-period designations used more commonly.