LISSITZKY AND SUPREMATIST SPACE
El Lissitzky had discovered a new way to look at various spatial systems that were already in place. In his work he also defined new spaces, which he referred to as Imaginary and Irrational. By fusing Suprematist ideas within Russian Constructivist practices of the time, he created his solution to spatial issues that he saw, called Suprematist Space. He explains these through the use of mathematics as a metaphor. An example use of this space is the Proun Room (Lissitzky, 1923). His explanation of his new systems against the previous systems in place was done only to create a legacy for himself and fulfil his ideal of becoming an Avant-Garde artist. His mathematical metaphors helped to logically explain the merit in current and new spatial ideas.
All of the concepts that he highlighted were built upon what had previously existed, but also helped to explain ideas outside of these systems. The Planimetric and Perspective systems were heavily used in art from the 1920s. The limitations of Perspective Space, he explained as only working from the viewer being in a single correct angle, and that it tried to create the illusion of infinity, which is a concept outside of human rationalisation. With audiences viewing works with binocular vision, these issues are emphasized. This he justified through using a mathematical metaphor of sequencing the objects’ position in relation to each other in terms of size and placement in a picture. However Cubist works such as Ma Jolie (Picasso, 1911-12) could not be explained with the mathematical patterns of the Planimetric arithmetic system, or the Perspective geometric series (Lissitzky 1993, 305). This is why he came up a system of saying that the vividness of these works, which allow certain shapes’ colours to stand out among the rest, is Irrational Space. This he explains with the use of i in mathematics meaning the irrational number of √-1 and that even though it does not exist in nature, it still encodes extra information when used in Quantum Wave Mechanics and modern physics. His other concept of Imaginary Space explains how shapes and perspectives are formed in the movement of lit objects. Lissitzky then wrote about Suprematist Space, which involves utilising the visual pyramid to infinity in negative and positive (on either side of the work), with no central point or horizon line (Bois 1990, 27). This fusion of mathematics and art has been seen throughout history with other authors. An example of this is Panofsky, who wrote that our representation of reality has now been misaligned through Perspective Space, and that the only true reality is mathematic space and universal form (Iverson 2005, 196). Lissitzky used his mathematical analogies to solve various issues within spatial systems. His spatial concepts were often linked to positions on time.
Lissitzky’s notions on time help justify his new spatial systems. He says that audiences indirectly perceive time when viewing immobile works such as paintings or even his architectural art. This is because humans only perceive the passage of time through the movement of objects (Lissitzky 1925, 306), and it is not possible to portray this real movement in static works. This is similar to Flusser’s idea of time being only perceived in sequential narratives, whilst image codes are viewed subjectively. This means that people, when seeing works are only viewing history based from past experience and thus he questions if the passage of time is ever in the direct historical narrative sense (Flusser 2002). It can be seen then that all of the spatial systems require past knowledge for audiences to understand why they see space between 2D objects in a work, and not just the Planimetric Space as said by Lissitzky (1925, 303). This questions whether Imaginary Space can exist within a static work whilst the viewer is experiencing the passage of time, or if in fact they are indirectly perceiving time only as they change viewing position (Debelius, C. A. 2002, 189). This then justifies the need for his version of Suprematist Space, as by having multiple perspectives, the viewer perceives the passing of time more accurately while looking at static works. These ideas are seen in his works, which draw from multiple movements from the time.
Lissitzky’s use of ideas from both Russian Constructivists and Suprematists was radical to the usually opposing movements. The Suprematist ideals of the time were pioneered by painter Kazimir Malevich (Levinger 1989, 227).These were mainly associated with spiritual transcendentalism of imagining the spatial impact of 2D compositions of 3D spatial works and reliefs. The Constructivist manifesto was to pull away from the aestheticism of art and to use form as a tool as a practise for social purposes by creating useful 3D constructions. Lissitzky fused these two ideals in his Proun works to create what he called the Suprematist space. He was interested in the “supremacy of pure sensation” though him working in real rather than illusionary space was related to the agenda of Constructivism (Forgacs 2003, 54). In doing this he needed to reconcile the simple oppositions that were between these two groups in the mediums that they chose to use. He went about doing this by drawing upon multiple modes of spatial systems including 2D Suprematist, Perspective and Planimetric, in the placement of the reliefs and shapes in works such as Proun Room. Coupling this with the impact of the construction itself seemed to please both movements. Kallai describes that “(Proun) is a preparation for a new synthesis of real and illusionist methods of creating space” (in Debelius 2002, 184). His study of architecture as well as his interest in art and mathematics helped to logically bridge the gap between these two groups. By appealing to the Constructivists usefulness and the harmony being sought in Suprematism he said that mathematics was the "purest product of man's creativity: a creativity which does not repeat (reproduce), but creates (produces)" (Levinger 1989, 228). Lissitzky went against the current movements and systems of space in order to discover an Avant-Garde idea.
The way he challenged the Perspective Spatial system that was used by artists of the time was only done so that he could be recognised for his efforts, and his methods in doing this can be questioned. Before writing his seminal work A(rt) and Pangeometry in 1925, he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. It can be seen that whilst his works such as Proun Room were already made before then, the publication of his work was merely done to be in the time of discovering new ideas and thus, to be remembered. Proun Room “asserted itself as the authentic, valid artwork of the present and the future” (Forgacs 2003, 69). This is seen in the way that he utilised ideas of the Perspective system in his work, even if only to visually trick viewers. He would borrow from movements whilst still being against them. Lissitzky utilised ideas found in German artist Eric Buchholz’s studio apartment work A Coloured Room (1922), which was already using Constructivist concepts (Dawson 1996, 11) in his work, Proun Room released the very next year. This is not to say that Lissitzky’s work was not any less important to art history, it might just serve to explain his motives for doing so. It seems that Proun Room was well received and was not a case of new knowledge being unaccepted in explained in Plato’s The Simile Of The Cave (Plato, 1974). His work was even used in propaganda posters such as Beat The Whites With The Red Wedge (1919), to further secure his place in history. “For Lissitzky, the ‘cosmic space’ of the Prouns came to symbolize the utopia he envisioned in the new social order of the Revolution” (Birnholz 1973, 439). It can be said then that his motives for his work were narcissistic though revolutionary.
It is seen that the work of Lissitzky brought about huge change in art history. He did this by fusing the ideals of opposing movements Constructivism and Suprematism, seen in his seminal work Proun Room. His analysis of the current spatial systems as well as his discovery of new ones had narcissistic, as well as revolutionary motives, with unethical methods.
REFERENCE LIST
Birnholz, A. C. “Notes On The Chronology Of El Lissitzky’s Proun Compositions.” In The Art Bulletin 55 (3): 437-439. Accessed September 6, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3049132 .
Bois, Yve-Alain. 1990. “From Minus Infinity To Plus Infinity: Axonometry or Lissitzky’s Mathematical Paradigm.” In El Lizzitzky, 1890-1941: Architect, Painter, Photographer, Typographer, edited by Jan Debbaut, 27-33. Eindhoven: Municipal Van Abbemuseum.
Dawson, Layla. 1996. “The Unknown Constructavist.” In The Architectural Review 200 (1194): 11-12. Accessed September 6 2013. http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/201191003?accountid=13380
Debelius, C. A. 2002. “Proun Studies.” In Session 7 Persistent Modernisms, by Robert Mellin. 184-194. Montreal: McGill University. Accessed September 4, 2013. http://www.mcgill.ca/files/architecture/ACSA-Session7.pdf
Flusser, Vilem. 2002. “Line and Surface.” In Writings by Flusser. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Forgacs, Eva. 2003. “Definitive Space: The Many Utopias of El Lissitzky’s Proun Room.” In Situating El Lissitzkyedited by Nancy Perloff and Brian Reed. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
Iverson, Margaret. 2005. “The Discourse of Perspective in the Twentieth Century: Panofsky, Damisch, Lacan.” Oxford Art Journal 28 (2): 193-202. Accessed September 4, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4500016
Levinger, Esther. 1989. “Art And Mathematics In The Thought Of El Lissitzky: His Relationship To Suprematism and Constructivism.” In Leonardo 22 (2): 227- 236. Accessed September 6, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1575236
Lissitzky, El. 1919. Beat The Whites With The Red Wedge Propaganda poster. Image. Accessed September 6. 2013. http://www.designishistory.com/1920/el-lissitzky/
Lissitzky, El. 1923. Proun Room. Image. Accessed September 3, 2013. http://monoskop.org/images/thumb/7/7a/El_Lissitzky_PROUN_Room_1923.jpg/800px-El_Lissitzky_PROUN_Room_1923.jpg
Lissitzky, El. 1993. “A And Pangeometry”. In Art In Theory 1900-1990: An Anthology Of Changing Ideas, edited by Harrison, Charles and Wood, Paul, 303-307. Oxford: Blackwell.
Picasso, Pablo. 1911-12. Ma Jolie. Image. Accessed September 5, 2013. http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79051
Plato. 1974. Plato: The Republic. Translated by Desmond Lee. Harmondsworth: Penguin Publishing.
