Talk:Constructivism (art)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Visual arts (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Definition?[edit]

Is it just me, or does this page do an awful job of actually describing Constructivism? It gives a fairly good history and describes certain interactions with other movements and developments, but unless you already know about Constructivism, it would appear to me that this page would be of little help in describing exactly what Constructivism is all about... --patton1138 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

social purposes?[edit]

The introduction now states:

Constructivism .. dismissed "pure" art in favour of an art used as an instrument for social purposes, specifically the construction of a socialist system.

This definition is completely different from the german WPs and other european ones. Our understanding is that the "construction" in the term is not aimed at some political idea but at the construction of the respective work _out of basic elements_. In terms of graphical works these were for example circles, triangles, squares. Please, have a look into a wider range of literature and consider correcting the introduction. --Bernd-vdb 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) from Berlin, Germany

this page is primarily on Russian Constructivism, and accordingly stressed the social rather than graphical aspect of 'construction' - see Christina Lodder's book Russian Constructivism for an explanation of the differences between the two - roughly, between Constructivism as understood by Naum Gabo, or as understood by Tatlin, a difference that is actually highlighted in this article. Owenhatherley 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"accordingly" is what I and others clearly dispute. Are there any sources for the assumption that because it started in Russia around 1919 it would be connected to "social purpose"? This looks more like original research to me. --Bernd-vdb 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the assumption that because it started in Russia around 1919 it would be connected to "social purpose"? Plenty. Read any of the following:

  • Catherine Cooke, Russian Avant-Garde Theories
  • the Christina Lodder book mentioned above
  • Maria Gough, The Artist as Producer
  • Various special issues of October
  • Christina Kiaer, Imagine No Possessions

or pretty much any monograph on Rodchenko, Mayakovsky or Tatlin.

All of which go into meticulous detail on exactly this question. On the other hand there's no objection to the introduction being changed to mention the aspect which stressed construction in the purely material sense (as did Gabo, as the article makes very clear) but I do object to any removal of the mention of 'social purpose', as this is an extremely well documented and crucial element of Russian, and frankly, in the case of say, Hans Richter or Hannes Meyer, Karel Teige or Moholy-Nagy, 'western' Constructivism. Owenhatherley 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but putting the 'social purpose' in the introduction while omitting the conceptional (and in no way 'material') aspect of construction (out of basic elements, be they physical, mental, aesthetical or whatever) is a biased point of view. Historic aspects might be interesting here but reducing constructivsm in art to a historic movement is simply wrong. As I am no native english speaker I will not change the article but I ask you and others strongly to think about correcting this. --Bernd-vdb 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

HI, a painter from London here. I concur with the gentleman above. Constructivism is concerned with plastic elements and not with social issues any more than it is concerned with ALL modes of building worlds using simplified, agreed upon signs. In this respect it could be conceived that it would have political implications but not just specifically socialist ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.113.77 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

      • I always understood constructivism to refer to a utilitarian movement with socialist leanings. To support this, see [1] For an alternate reading citing more maerialist aims, see [2] (Library barcode needed). Franciselliott (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)