"My Five Year Old Could Do That!"
Looking at art that enrages - Part 1 continues
An earlier Russian artist, who worked in his native country, stands accused of creating his own type of enraging art. It enraged Hitler, who thought it was degenerate. Kazimir Malevich’s Black Square is often cited as an example of how ridiculous art has become, and has been the butt of many jokes in the media. The image of the black square painted on a white background is famous world-wide. What is perhaps less widely known is the serious nature of the criticism this work has attracted.
KAZIMIR MALEVICH 1878-1935
Black Square was first exhibited by Malevich in December 1915 at The Last Futurist Exhibition 0.10 [Zero-Ten] in St Petersburg. This is where Suprematism, founded by Malevich made its debut as he presented his new art in a display of 39 precisely installed paintings.
Painted in 1915, Black Square was his first Suprematist work, and how he displayed it at the exhibition conveys a lot about how Malevich viewed this painting as a vitally important piece of art.
It hung in a dominant position in the top corner of the exhibition room, above his other paintings, the right edge against one wall; the left edge against the other it straddled the two walls and declared itself at the apex of his display. Perhaps even more significantly, this is the same way the most sacred icon would be hung in a Russian home. By suggesting a connection between his Black Square and a holy icon in this way, Malevich was accused of blasphemy by art critic Alexandre Benois. At the time [pre-Russian Revolution] it attracted a lot of attention, some good; but many were disgusted.
Suprematism, Malevich’s version of purely abstract art based on geometric forms was a radical move. This art was not representational – depictions of nature had to be abandoned to produce a purer form of painting. Virgins and Venuses didn’t fit into Malevich’s new art; perhaps also explaining his motive for placing Black Square in the “icon corner”. His Suprematist art was to replace even those traditional and representational sacred figures. I suspect his aim wasn’t blasphemy, [he was religious – even mystical] but rather to stress how his new art of Suprematism was purer and more powerful that what had been before; more forceful than even the most revered icon.
Black square’s importance to Malevich and the art world is complex. In June 1915 Malevich stated “I have transfigured myself into the zero of forms, passing over to Suprematism, to the new painterly realism, to the non-figurative creation.” This moment of transfiguration is expressed in Black Square. Many have interpreted the painting as a symbol declaring the “end of painting”; that is needed to bring forth a new, broader concept of art. For others, including Malevich, the Black Square is the true spirit of Suprematist art in one significant artwork. It isn’t about an end, because with it comes a new beginning.
In the pamphlet that accompanied the 0.10 exhibition Malevich lays out his reasoning behind the new art. Ironically, Malevich himself could dish out criticism and this text is full of contempt for the traditional art academies: “the rubbish-filled pool of Academic art”; the “torture chamber of the Academies.” The artists who follow the traditional path he describes as “dull and impotent” with “cowardly consciousness and meagre creative powers”.
Drawing from Malevich’s own writing on Suprematism, he describes his first Suprematist painting, as “the beginning of true essence.” He likens the innovation of Suprematism to getting behind a painted face in the theatre: we can’t recognize the actor as his true face is hidden, but like a piece of art the actor doesn’t require a face at all - all he feels on stage is his experience behind the mask. His face is hidden and unnecessary. He puts it even more succinctly in "The savage saw neither his external image, nor his inner condition.” All he had was technique: one limited avenue to explore.
Malevich recognizes that it was primitive man who first tried to depict himself, and then began the long and limiting artistic tradition of realistic representation and trying to paint nature and “things”. Hitler was against this turn away from naturalistic representation.
The new and direct form of representation is feeling. For Malevich, the white background of his painting equals “the void” and the black square is “feeling”. As he believed every object has a static facade and an inner dynamic, (I imagine like the molecules in metal which vibrate but are not visible to our eyes) there is a question of an unperceivable interaction or exchange going on between the square and the void. How is the square placed in relation to the void, is it close to us or is it distant but large? Are we looking at Malevich’s essence of art: feeling coming out of the void, or is it more cosmic than that? Are we looking at a spirit/energy interacting with the void? Is Black Square in the icon corner because it is cosmic energy? Is it in fact God? The shape of a square signified to Malevich a starting point “Before it, there were naive deformities and copies of nature.” A square is like an innocent pure form which he describes as a “royal infant”. Is the painting Creation?
Malevich was concerned with intuition, space and movement. By removing the object, space could be more than the picture surface; movement could be more than the gallop of a horse, because even the movement of red would be depicted. Intuition would speak clearly coming from nothing, not from utilitarian reason. Removing the object would allow the artist to convey more.
The view that Malevich’s paintings are rudimentary, and could be easily produced, even by a 5 year old misses the bigger picture. We have to look at other factors. Firstly, Malevich was a theorist and a thinker. His paintings might appear simplistic but they are the result of an ongoing exploration of his ideas. The texts he produced show a genuine commitment to his study, and reflect his interest and cleverness in exploring art theory. We can also sense his charismatic personality.
Another factor that is important here is the time and place. The 0.10 exhibition was in old Russia, before the Russian Revolution in 1917. His calling for a new art on a higher plane where feeling is more important than the object has been said to parallel the way the Revolution got rid of the old system. The climate that was driving political and social change was being felt in other areas such as the arts. Black Square could be seen as a revolutionary symbol; a banner for change. Did Malevich mean it to have a political connotation? He produced three other variations of the Black Square. It seemed to mark for him a time when he needed to forcefully present his work, and in each case the colour, design and texture were altered. That it was “new” each time appeared important to him.
The progressive ideals that helped create Malevich’s Suprematism, also promoted his theories to others. The post-Revolution Soviet government installed Malevich and other progressive artists in influential teaching and administration roles. Russia was leading the way in terms of modern abstract art.
Malevich’s true genius will be baffling to those who think he couldn’t paint.
Art is the means by which life reflects on, transforms and indeed creates its values; human life without it would not properly be human at all.
Antony Gormley
Quicklinks
EXTRAS
Malevich painted four versions of Black Square from 1915 to the early 1930s.
From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism: The New Realism in Painting, to Absolute Creation is the pamphlet that accompanied the 0.10 exhibition.
Images that accompanied original article:
Black Square By Malevich © The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
Malevich Wallpaper Cartoon © Vladstudio
Patriotic propaganda postcard by Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Mayakovsky Museum of Modern Art, New York