This dissertation is an investigation into the architectural meaning of Kasimir Malevich's suprematist works and, more specifically, into the meaning of his Architectons of horizontal and vertical constructions. A critical "rewinding" of the diverse and seemingly contradictory suprematist periods--starting with the artist's chef d'oeuvre, his Funeral-Performance and moving backwards to the figurative works, the Architectons and then, to the 1913 Black Square, in its beginnings in futurist Zaum poetry--makes patent the fragmentary nature of the meaning of those periods and introduces Suprematism-as-Architecture as the meaning of Suprematism in its entirety. Malevich's extensive written work is the guiding thread we follow in trying to demonstrate how the full meaning of Suprematism echoes, in the context of our Nietzschean world, Martin Heidegger's presentation of questions concerning building. Suprematism-as-Architecture equally opens up avenues of questioning concerning modern man's relation to the attainment of an architectural meaning, i.e., of a thinking-dwelling.

No description available.

Ce mémoire traite de l'historiographie de l'œuvre Carré blanc sur fond blanc (1918) et plus précisément, de l'homologie entre la scène artistique de l'avant-garde russe et l'univers de la fabrication d'icônes orthodoxes. Les résurgences d'un passé ritualisé dans la modernité russe constituent actuellement un point incontournable dans la littérature portant sur le corpus suprématisme, qui ne peut plus être analysé en fonction d'une grille de lecture exclusivement formelle. D'abord, le mémoire a pour objectif d'analyser ce virage qui s'effectue dans l'histoire de l'art, qui se produit à partir des années 1990, et qui se traduit par un retour des enjeux du sacré et du spirituel dans la manière de conceptualiser l'art russe du début du XXe siècle. Ensuite, dans une approche historiographique et anthropologique, le mémoire souligne les enjeux et les dispositifs visuels que partage la toile monochromique et blanche de Malévitch avec les icônes orthodoxes. Certaines découvertes scientifiques, comme la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein et les développements de la géométrie non-euclidienne, qui ont lieu parallèlement aux premiers pas de l'abstraction en Russie, seront examinées. La rupture épistémologique de la philosophie critique de l'histoire qui succède à l'apparition de ces découvertes sera également abordée, de manière à mettre en lumière comment les codes de réception des œuvres d'art se modifient en relation avec leur époque et ses mutations. Il sera démontré que, malgré l'apparition de ces nouvelles données scientifiques, un appel au sacré et aux valeurs patrimoniales se renforce en Russie, au moment critique de la Révolution d'Octobre. Dans cette perspective, l'œuvre Carré blanc sur fond blanc sera mise en relation avec les icônes de la Transfiguration, pour démontrer comment certaines structures de représentation de l'invisible, propres à l'art ritualisé orthodoxe, se trouvent réactualisées par Malévitch. Il se dégagera de cet examen que, même dans les images radicales et extrêmes dans leur dimension formelle, un lien avec un passé ritualisé est instauré. Ainsi, le mémoire abordera deux résurgences du sacré : la première, dans l'historiographie de l'histoire de l'art actuelle, et la seconde, dans l'art suprématiste de Malévitch et ses occurrences avec la tradition des icônes orthodoxes. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : suprématisme, Kasimir Malévitch, monochrome, icône, orthodoxie, abstraction, sacré, historiographie, anthropologie, formalisme

It would seem almost inconceivable that art could, of its own accord, move society towards the kind of ultimate resolution of conflict necessary for an emergence of the egalitarian paradise on earth that was proposed by most Messianic philosophies in the nineteenth century. Art continually appears to be in the process of undermining any attempt by theoretical philosophy to contain or describe it as an absolute. This seems to be the source of much of the irony of art objects and their tacit philosophical implications. We can assume then that there is a somewhat paradoxical basis for the phenomenon of art as we have come to understand it historically. Any object, in order to be meaningful, has to carry a charge. Whether this is of a magical quality or pertains, as we conventionally recognize it, to some social understanding, what we call an ideology, the art-object does not exist without meaning. It is important to realize that I am not drawing a distinction here between ordering or disordering phenomena. Destruction is equally meaningful as construction, these are not value judgments, evil is as present a phenomena as good, and probably as intrinsically human. The concept of creativity that permeates our knowledge and respect for the powers art traditionally held, are historical understandings. As a civilization, we may have done away with mythological stories of our origins, cosmogonies, etc., but we have tended to unconsciously replace them with conceptual, as opposed to imagistic, alternatives, still largely mythic in construction, although we do not popularly recognize them as such. I am using myth here in Levi-Strauss' sense of the word, i.e.: "the unconscious social truths, those principles which provide the broadest base for a society's conception of itself.”¹ One task of this thesis will be to sort out the confusion which has resulted because of the ideological entanglement with mythic (religious) and scientific conceptions that has characterized the central arguments surrounding the arts in the early years of the twentieth century. Revoluntionary Russia now appears as a particularly dense arena for the combat of extreme or polarized beliefs as to the nature of art, and the artist's responsibility relative to an emerging mass consciousness. In this context there was a comparatively conscious merger of ideological propositions into what was previously considered a uniquely aesthetic or pure art production. Such a situation was contingent to the life and work of Kasimir Malevich (1878-1935). My intention is to demonstrate the art historical antecedents to such a period relevant to Malevich’s conceptions and the relationships which interconnect the development of his aesthetic with the philosophical and political concerns of his time. The ethos in which the artist emerges is especially indivisible in this instance from… [abstract continues] / Arts, Faculty of / Art History, Visual Art and Theory, Department of / Graduate

Orientador: Nelson Alfredo Aguilar / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-12T10:48:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Nucci_Angela_M.pdf: 7815232 bytes, checksum: 25b80efe49c9c1047077c0c6b988ee38 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 / RESUMO: A obra de Kazímir Sievierínovitch Maliévitch (1878-1935) compõe um dos relatos mais significativos que se relacionam tanto ao declínio das concepções tradicionais da arte e a eclosão das vanguardas modernistas quanto ao confronto entre as diversas tendências ideológicas que marcaram a Rússia nas primeiras décadas do séc. XX. Nesse sentido, a importância de sua obra não está encerrada em um nível estritamente artístico, mas que se estende a um quadro coerente aos ideais revolucionários do período, os quais garantiam aos artistas um papel de destaque na construção da nova sociedade soviética. Quase como uma regra, após a Revolução de 1917, os artistas da vanguarda russa buscaram criar no interior das instituições de arte parâmetros científicos de pesquisa, fruição e análise das formas artísticas, ou em outras palavras, a sistematização do conhecimento artístico. A Teoria do elemento adicional em pintura criada por Maliévitch foi o eixo de seu método pedagógico. Com base em uma consistente produção teórica e prática realizada ao longo de sua vida, Maliévitch elaborou um modelo capaz de analisar diferentes culturas pictóricas do início do século XX, propondo a desmistificação do processo criativo em resposta ao suposto caráter inacessível da arte moderna, produção relevante até os dias de hoje, de interesse tanto no âmbito da história da arte como da educação estética. / ABSTRACT: The work of Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (1878-1935) makes up one of the most significatives accounts that relate not only to the fall of the traditional concepts of art and modernist vanguards birth, but also to the confrontation amongst the ideological strains which marked Russia in the first decades of the XX century. In this sense, the importance of his work is not restrained to an estrictly artistic sense, but it extends to a consistent to the period revolutionary ideals one, which vouched the artists a prominent role in the construction of the new soviet society. Almost as a rule, after the 1917 Revolution, the Russian vanguard artists pursued the creation of scientific research parameters within the art institutions, or, in short, the artistic knowledge systematization. The Theory of additional element in painting created by Malevich was the core of his pedagogical method. Based in a sound theoretical and practical production made on the course of his life, Malevich engendered a model capable of analyze different pictorical cultures of the XX century beginning, proposing the creative process desmistification in respond to the assumed unattainable form of the modern art, a production pertinent to this day, of concern not just in the art history realm, but in aesthetical education also. / Mestrado / Historia da Arte / Mestre em História

Orientador: Nelson Alfredo Aguilar / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-04T02:08:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dunaeva_CristinaAntonioevna_M.pdf: 563718 bytes, checksum: 9e1ff31ec246ac81abb6304ae37d9f1b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005 / Resumo: De Sistemas Novos na Arte (O nóvikh sistiémakh v isskûstvie), 1919, é o primeiro tratado teórico de Kazímir Sievierínovitch Maliévitch (1878, Kíiev ¿ 1935, Leningrado), um dos principais artistas da vanguarda russa, criador do suprematismo, teórico da arte, filósofo e pedagogo. No tratado Maliévitch apresenta e analisa os sistemas novos da arte: o impressionismo, o cubismo, o futurismo, a obra pictórica de Cézanne, Van Gogh e Gauguin, assim como a crítica da arte dita primitiva, a arte da Grécia clássica e a romana, o primitivismo moderno e o academismo. A crítica da arte está ligada à reflexão filosófica sobre o contexto histórico e cultural do surgimento da arte moderna e do suprematismo. O tratado está relacionado às atividades pedagógicas desenvolvidas por Maliévitch. Em 1918 ele é o professor dos Ateliês Artísticos Livres do Estado (SVOMAS ¿ Svobódnyie Khudójestviennyie Mastierskíie), em Petrogrado, e em 1919 ¿ o Mestre-Chefe dos I e II Ateliês Artísticos Livres do Estado em Moscou. Em Vítiebsk cria o grupo UNOVIS (Afirmadores da Arte Nova ¿ Utvierdítieli Nóvogo Isskûstva) e embasa o ensinamento na análise dos sistemas pictóricos. O pintor afirmava que o livro editado em Vítiebsk fora a transcrição de uma das palestras supostamente dadas em Moscou1 / Abstract: ¿On The New Systems of Art¿, 1919, it¿s a first theoretical work of Kazimir Severinovich Malevich. This Russian artist of avant-garde, philosopher and pedagogue was the creator of the suprematism. In this work Malevich introduce the new systems of modern art, such as the impressionism, the cubism, the futurism, the painting of Cézanne, Van Gogh and Gaugain; and also represent the critics on the primeval art, the classic art of Greece and Rome, the modern primitivism and academic art. This critic is connected to philosophical reflection about the historical and cultural context of the birth of modern art and suprematism. In this period of time (1919) Malevich was a professor of the State Free Artistic Workshops (SVOMAS) in Petrograd and master of the I and II State Free Artistic Workshops in Moscow. In Vitebsk he created the Affirmers of the New Art (UNOVIS) group and instructed the pupils on the new systems of the art / Mestrado / Historia da Arte / Mestre em História

Orientador: Nelson Alfredo Aguilar / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-26T21:06:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Nucci_Angela_D.pdf: 4545897 bytes, checksum: b757c0ee381a614e4de58b61e1dd3526 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 / Resumo: A presente tese tem por objetivo discutir quais seriam as ligações entre o pensamento artístico-filosófico de Kazímir Sievierínovitch Maliévitch (1879-1935) ao longo dos anos de 1920 em relação aos debates da intelligentsia russa do início do século XX, especialmente aqueles ligados à tradição filosófico-mística. A preocupação de estudar Maliévitch frente a alguns de seus contemporâneos ocorre para entender o "sentido e o espírito" de um determinado período histórico e, embora as escolhas bibliográficas revelem interesse pela Filosofia russa, não se trata de uma tese centrada no âmbito da Filosofia, mas sim da História da Arte e suas ligações com a História Intelectual e a História Cultural. Ao longo de sua trajetória, Maliévitch fez uso de conceitos relacionados à tradição filosófica como intuição, mística, não-objetividade, infinito e transfiguração. Houve, portanto, a intenção de apresentar e discutir estes termos dentro de uma coerência interna que integrasse aspectos históricos e artísticos. Desconfiando da razão iluminista e das abordagens cientificistas do conhecimento, muitos pensadores russos viam na intuição, na individualidade criativa e no espírito o caminho para um conhecimento transcendente; pensamento perseguido pelo regime soviético, que no início de 1920 determinou a prisão e a deportação para o Ocidente de uma série de intelectuais russos. Dentre este grupo é possível citar alguns dos mais destacados pensadores russos do início do século XX, como Nikolai A. Berdiáev, Nikolai O. Losski, Pável A. Floriênski e Sierguéi N. Bulgákov. Estes filósofos retomavam alguns dos debates eslavófilos do século XIX e buscavam gerar novas discussões no campo filosófico, social e cultural, frente aos contextos pré e pós-revolucionários. A partir desse panorama, buscou-se pensar em um quadro mais amplo sobre os significados de algumas das questões abordadas por Maliévitch em seus tratados e em suas obras. Em um primeiro momento, buscou-se refletir sobre a produção pictórica pós-suprematista de Maliévitch, tanto no que diz respeito a sua ligação com a tradição popular e religiosa, quanto aos problemas e significados no contexto ideológico e artístico do período soviético. Um segundo ponto discutido, refere-se aos desdobramentos dos debates místicos no projeto artístico de Maliévitch, especialmente no período em que o artista viveu na cidade de Vitebsk, a qual acolheu pela mesma época figuras da importância de Mikhail M. Bakhtin e Pável N. Miedvédiev; estudiosos que estavam ligados a discussões e associações religiosas. Em um terceiro nível, a redação concentra-se no problema da representação artística e da livre criação no quadro da reconstrução social e de um "novo homem" no período em que existia um forte enfrentamento ideológico entre as correntes produtivistas, defensoras do desenvolvimento de uma "cultura material" e as correntes não-figurativas, nomeadas como "místicas" ou "subjetivas" por defenderem valores espirituais. Por fim, buscou-se evidenciar como a questão da representação artística na obra de Maliévitch, ligada ao reconhecimento de uma verdade dissociada da concepção objetiva da realidade, estava inserida em um conjunto de ideias que ganhou proporção suficiente para se tornar uma ameaça e ser diretamente combatido pelo regime soviético / Abstract: The present thesis aims to discuss what would be the connections between the artistic and philosophical thought of Kazimir Severinovich Malevich (1879-1935) along the 1920s compared to the debates of the Russian intelligentsia of the early twentieth century, especially those related to philosophical and mystical tradition. The concern of studying Malevich before some of his contemporaries is to understand the "meaning and the spirit" of a particular historical period, and although the bibliographic choices show interest in the Russian philosophy, it is not a thesis centered within the philosophy, but on Art History and its links to Intellectual History and Cultural History. Throughout his career, Malevich made use of concepts related to the philosophical tradition, such as intuition, mysticism, non-objectivity, infinite and transfiguration. Therefore, the intention was to present and discuss these terms within an internal coherence that integrates historical and artistic aspects. Distrusting enlightenment reason and scientistic approaches to knowledge, many Russian thinkers saw on intuition, creative individuality and spirit, the way to a transcendent knowledge; idea pursued by the Soviet regime, which in the early 1920s led to the arrest and deportation to the West of a number of Russian intellectuals. Among this group we can mention some of the most prominent Russian thinkers of the early twentieth century, as Nicolai A. Berdyaev, Nicolai O. Lossky, Pavel A. Florensky and Sergei N. Bulgakov. These philosophers retook some of the Slavophiles debates of the nineteenth century and sought to generate new discussions on philosophical, social and cultural fields, compared to pre and post-revolutionary contexts. From this background, we tried to think of a broader picture of the meanings of some of the issues addressed by Malevich in his treatises and in his works. At first, we tried to reflect on the pictorial production post-Suprematist of Malevich, both with regard to their connection with the popular and religious tradition, the problems and meanings in the ideological and artistic context of the Soviet period. A second point discussed refers to the unfolding of the mystics debates in the artistic design of Malevich, especially in the period in which the artist lived in the city of Vitebsk, which hosted the same time figures of the importance of Mikhail M. Bakhtin and Pavel N. Medvedev; scholars who were linked to discussions and religious associations. On a third level, the essay focuses on the problem of artistic representation and free creation in the context of social reconstruction and a "new man" in the period in which there was a strong ideological confrontation between the productivist currents, advocates the development of a "material culture" and the current non-figurative, named "mystical" or "subjective" for defending spiritual values. Finally, we sought to show how the issue of artistic representation in the work of Malevich, linked to the recognition of a dissociated truth of the objective conception of reality, was inserted into a set of ideas that gained sufficient proportion to become a threat and be directly fought by the Soviet regime / Doutorado / Historia da Arte / Doutora em História

Most previous studies of Soviet montage cinema have concentrated on its aesthetic and technical aspects; however, montage cinema was essentially a rhetoric rather than an aesthetic of cinema. This thesis presents a comparative study of the leading montage film-makers – Kuleshov, Pudovkin, Eisenstein and Vertov – comparing and contrasting the differing methods by which they used cinema to exert a rhetorical effect on the spectator for the purposes of political propaganda. The definitions of propaganda in general use in the study of Soviet montage cinema are too narrowly restrictive and a more nuanced definition is clearly needed. Furthermore, the role of the spectator in constituting the rhetorical effectivity of a montage film has been neglected; a psychoanalytic model of the way in which the filmic text can trigger a change in the spectator’s psyche is required. Moreover, the ideology of the Soviet montage films is generally assumed to exist only in their content, whereas in classical cinema ideology also operates at the level of the enunciation of the filmic text itself. The extent to which this is also true for Soviet montage cinema should be investigated. I have analysed the interaction between montage films and their spectators from multiple perspectives, using several distinct but complementary theoretical approaches, including recent theories of propaganda, a psychoanalytic model of rhetoric, Lacanian psychoanalysis and the theory of the system of the suture, and Peircean semiotics. These different theoretical approaches, while having distinct conceptual bases, work together to build a new and consistent picture of montage cinema as a propaganda medium and as a form of political rhetoric. I have been able to classify the films of Kuleshov, Eisenstein and Pudovkin as transactive, vertical agitation propaganda and the films of Vertov as transactive, horizontal agitation propaganda. Furthermore, I show that montage cinema embeds ideology in the enunciation of its filmic text, but differs from classical cinema in trying to subvert the suturing process. I conclude that Vertov at least partly created a non-representational cinematography and that he could be regarded as being at least as much a Suprematist film-maker as a Constructivist one.