– 972 – DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0620 УДК 7.072.2 Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage of Kazimir Malevich: Russian and Foreign Bibliography Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina* and Marina V. Moskalyuk Dmitri Hvorostovsky Siberian State Academy of Arts Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation Received 10.05.2020, received in revised form 05.06.2020, accepted 10.06.2020 Abstract. The article considers issues related to the study of the creative heritage of Kazimir Malevich. It characterizes Russian and foreign researchers and their main works, highlights and analyzes the difference of domestic and foreign researchers’ approaches to the study of the artist’s heritage. Besides, the article reveals the basic principles used by researchers and including mainly a chronological study of life and creative biography, philosophical and art history analysis, art history and linguistic analysis of graphic sheets, attribution and technology in the works of K. Malevich, and determines the predominance of art history analysis in both Western and Russian bibliography. Keywords: Kazimir Malevich, avant-garde, Suprematism. Research area: theory and history of art. Citation: Tolstikhina, E.M., Moskalyuk, M.V. (2020). Revisiting the issues of studying the creative heritage of Kazimir Malevich: Russian and foreign bibliography. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 13(6), 972–978. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0620. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2020 13(6): 972–978 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: ekaterinamuseum@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0003-4254-8384 (Moskalyuk) – 973 – Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina and Marina V. Moskalyuk. Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage… The heritage of Kazimir Malevich invari- ably arouses interest among a wide circle of people interested in art, including the scientific community. The modern volume of art criti- cism, philosophical, cultural publications on Malevich’s work is a complex, heterogeneous field, and therefore the problem of its system- atization becomes more and more urgent. It is necessary to identify the main methodological approaches to the study of Malevich’s work in domestic and foreign humanities. Hence, the objective of this work is to analyse the main publications and study methodological ap- proaches to Malevich’s work. A review of the writings of authors who address the life and work of Malevich is further proposed not in chronological order, but in terms of impor- tance and volume of publications (although, of course, this approach is not without a certain degree of subjectivity due to the need to rank articles). In general, in the work we rely on the main works in the vast bibliography of the fa- mous artist, the value of which is generally rec- ognized today. D.V. Sarab’ianov (1923-2013), who com- prehensively studied the biography and works of K. Malevich, is an outstanding researcher of Malevich’s work in Russian art criticism, as well as his student A.S. Shatskikh, who dated Malevich’s Black Square, reconstruct- ed Februarism, and composed 5-volume col- lected works of K. Malevich. Many works of Sarab’ianov, first of all, the article Malevich in the era of the Great Change (Sarab’ianov, 1990), raise the problem of dating. In this re- gard, it is also important to note Shatskikh’s work Kazimir Malevich and Supremus Society (Shatskikh, 2009), which uses historical docu- ments that build an accurate biographical view of Malevich’s life, starting with the Februarism movement, which appeared in 1913, and ending with the 1917 Supremus Society. The basis of research is the use of general scientific meth- ods, the historical method, stylistic, philosoph- ical and art history analysis. A comprehensive methodology is nec- essary in the works of D.V. Sarab’ianov and A.S. Shatskikh, since Malevich’s biography is full of inaccuracies and contradictions; art historians clarify them through the use of his- torical materials. Philosophical, art history and stylistic analyses not only contribute to a true understanding of the facts of biography, but also open up the possibility of arranging se- mantic accents in the artist’s work. The article by E. Luk’ianov Suprematist insight of Leo Tolstoy and the philosophical revelations of K. Malevich (Luk’ianov, 2006), in which portrait as a way of transforming real- ity is considered through the prism of the main development vectors of Malevich’s creativity, seems unusual to us. This thesis unfolds in the characteristics that divide the concept of “por- trait” into a series of blocks. The portrait-ho- logram indicates the principle of holism as a reflection of the whole in parts. A portrait-re- bus speaks of the process of perceiving the world, but not of reproducing a holistic pic- ture of the world. Besides, portrait-still-life and portrait-archetype are also distinguished, when it regards the disappearance of objects, after which their archetypes remain. Here, ref- erences to exact sciences are important, first of all, physics, the idea of the fourth dimension and going beyond the boundaries of the binary system, the image of the incalculable. Separate blocks include portraits-icons and metaphysi- cal portraits. Luk’ianov uses philosophical and art history analysis and general scientific meth- ods that allow him to form an art history clas- sification of Malevich’s portraits through the prism of evidence. E.V. Basner also uses the methodology of philosophical and art history analysis in his article Painting by Malevich from the collec- tion of the State Russian Museum (Problems of the artist’s creative evolution) (Basner, 2000). E.F. Kovtun (1928-1996) also carries out the study The Beginning of Suprematism (Kovtun, 1989) in the methodology of philosophical and art history analysis. In addition, we should pay attention to the article by I.A. Azizyan (1935- 2009) Kazimir Malevich: universalism and messianism (Azizyan, 2001), in which the au- thor considers the philosophical tradition of Russian messianism, namely, the concept of all-unity by V.S. Solov’ev and the idea of an- thropodicy by N.A. Berdyaev. Justification of man by creativity is combined with the gener- al idea of Russian spiritual culture about the – 974 – Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina and Marina V. Moskalyuk. Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage… transformation of man through the transforma- tion of the world. The article uses Malevich’s philosophical treatises and works, the analysis of which allows us to draw a number of con- clusions, for example, that Malevich’s denial of the mimesis and assertion of the life-creating role of art are associated with the conscious de- nial of causal rationalism and positivism. The same principle can be seen in the comparison of black, red and white periods in the work of K. Malevich with the fundamental ontology of Martin Heidegger, which D.V. Sarab’ianov and A.S. Shatskikh in the work Kazimir Malev- ich. Painting. Theory refer to (Sarab’ianov & Shatskikh, 1993). Studies dedicated to the opera Victory over the Sun should be singled out in a separate group. The article by J. Kiblitskii Regarding the black square in the opera “Victory over the Sun” (Kiblitskii, 2000), as well as the article by T.V. Kotovich The futuristic opera “Victory over the Sun” (Kotovich, 2008) show the rela- tionship of opera and creation of Malevich’s main work The Black Square. A.S. Shatskikh and D.V. Sarab’ianov write about the same in their works. In a narrower aspect I.A. Vakar touch upon this topic in his work Academic Years of Kazimir Malevich in Moscow. Facts and Fiction (Vakar, 1990). I.N. Karasik in his article Malevich in the Judgments of Contem- poraries (Karasik, 1990) speaks of such histor- ical documents as notes by Yudin and Punin, but does not draw new conclusions of his own. Another block of research on the work of K. Malevich is devoted to the problem of attribution and the technologies that charac- terize the colourful surface of his works. For example, the article by E. Petrova Malevich’s works in the State Russian Museum and their new dating (Petrova, 2000) is devoted to that. Technological analysis allows the attribution of works and clarifies the creation date on the basis of historical documentation and scientific analysis of the colourful surface. The article by S. Rimskaia-Korsakova On the technological study of Malevich’s paintings (Rimskaia-Kor- sakova, 2000) is devoted to the same direction. It speaks of a colourful surface: colouration (colour and light), while scientific analysis, for example, images in the light, allows trac- ing Malevich’s creative career, discovering improvements and corrections made by the artist before the completion of the work. The article by O. Klenova Features of the creative method of Malevich revealed during the resto- ration of his works (Klenova, 2000) points to the knowledge gained from studying the doc- umentation from the State Russian Museum. It covers technological issues, for example, the use of varnish by Malevich, the technology of applying the paint layer in terms of the safety of work, the problem of oil breaks. The arti- cle by B.P. Toporkova From the Experience of Restoring Malevich’s Architects (Toporkova, 2000) is also of a technological nature. The new study of the heritage of K. Malevich also makes some discoveries. The recent study by the staff of the State Tretyakov Gallery of the Black Square showed that initially Malevich painted a cubofuturistic composition, and on top of it he painted a protosuprematist one. Its colours can be seen in crack patterns in the paint, explained by Ekaterina Voronina, one of the researchers on this issue, whose publication is being prepared for printing. Thus, the whole variety of domestic stud- ies of the work of K. Malevich can be divided into several blocks, such as: a diverse philosophical and art history analysis of the work of K. Malevich as a whole; philosophical and art history analysis of certain areas of creativity of K. Malevich (for example, portrait); a chronological study of the life and cre- ative biography of K. Malevich based on doc- uments; attribution and technology in the works of K. Malevich. Further, we find it important and interest- ing to compare the methodology of scientific publications on the work of K. Malevich in Russian art criticism with the methodology of foreign authors. We will pay special attention to the latest and most complete work Malevich. Tate Publishing (2014), which consists of sever- al large semantic blocks. In the first section the Icon of the New Time, the conversation about Malevich begins with the exhibition “0.10”. There is a compar- ison of The Black Square with the icon. It is – 975 – Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina and Marina V. Moskalyuk. Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage… noteworthy that the work appeals to Russian history. On the one hand, this is due to the need to immerse the European reader in a historical context that is not required in such a detailed form in domestic works. On the other hand, this is an important methodological move, which allows drawing conclusions about the development of Malevich’s work as a result of historical changes in the sociocultural environ- ment that surrounded him. A parallel is drawn between the social revolution in society and the revolution of methods and views taking place in the creative development of Malevich. An analysis of various influences on Malevich’s work is undertaken, and historical facts are used that confirm that Malevich was at an ear- ly stage familiar with the works of C. Monet, P. Gauguin, P. Cezanne, A. Matisse, P. Picasso. A thesis appears on the synthesis of Western European and Russian traditions, which allows obtaining a new quality in the works of Ma- levich. The analysis of the historical sociocul- tural situation and the analysis of biographical information are used as a way to determine the causes and consequences of the development of Malevich’s creative path. The second section of the aforementioned publication K. Malevich becomes Russian gives biographical information about the birth and family of the artist; determines the source of the development of creativity from symbolism to Suprematism as a result of the influence of the works shown by P.M. Tretyakov (icons, Rus- sian realistic art) and French art (P. Cezanne, P. Gauguin, Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis, A. Matisse and P. Picasso) shown by I.A. Moro- zov and S.I. Shchukin in Moscow. The section provides an analysis of the work of K. Malev- ich The Shroud of Christ (1908), Self-portrait (1908-1910) from the perspective of the influ- ence of French artists on Malevich. In relation to the works presented by Malevich at the 1912 exhibition, an important thesis “iconic peas- ant life” is formulated. Further, this thesis is expanded by comparison with P. Gauguin and N. Goncharova, who introduce cubism into the Russian icon. Another thesis that appears when analysing the works presented by Malevich in France, is Kazimir Malevich as a world artist. The next block is alogisms. The works The En- glishman in Moscow (1914), The Cow and the Violin (1913) are considered. Historical and art history analysis cause important observations. For example, between 1908 and 1915 Malevich borrowed from French Symbolism, Fauvism, Cubism and Italian Futurism; he is defined as tacking between styles and trends in art. In the third section Language, Space, Ab- straction, an art-philosophical analysis is ap- plied, which allows revealing the principles of Russian futurism on the basis of the opera Vic- tory over the Sun, identifying the opera as the first appearance of geometric figures in Malev- ich’s work. In conjunction with the opera, the cover Three and futuristic book design are con- sidered. Arithmetic and Grammar, rarely cited in Russian publications, is also mentioned. We also note the uniqueness of the analysis of lin- guistic principles and expressive means, which are presented in the analysis of small works by Malevich, which include font compositions. The fourth section K. Malevich as a Cura- tor considers the organization of the exhibition space for Malevich’s works at the exhibition “0.10”, which was the first to show Suprema- tist works. There is a discussion of the iconos- tasis and special characteristics of the artist’s works, which he placed at the exhibition in the red corner. The various exhibitions in which the artist participated or which were initiated by him are also indicated; the causal relation- ships of the specificity of the exhibitions and the development of the work of K. Malevich are determined. In addition, the work includes the sections Colour of the Masses, Suprematism in the Streets. Malevich in Vitebsk, Architecture, Modernism. K. Malevich draws up diagrams, From Suprematism to Supernaturalism. We note the completeness of the study, the publi- cation of rare materials and sketches, the use of the entire set of methodological tools, start- ing from philosophical and art history analysis and ending with the problems of attribution and confirmation of historical facts. Thus, we have characterized the monu- mental collective monograph Malevich. Tate Publishing (2014); we emphasize once again that philosophical and art history analysis is the leading method in it with very interesting sharp style comparisons; in addition, an introduction – 976 – Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina and Marina V. Moskalyuk. Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage… of new material in the circle of study compared to Russian art history can be noted. Let us turn to other foreign authors. In the article by Ch. Douglas On the Philosophi- cal Origins of Subjectless Art (Douglas, 1980), Malevich is included in a single historical pro- cess with the West, the significance of the art- ist’s work is brought to the global level. The author uses knowledge in the field of art histo- ry and philosophy, draws a number of conclu- sions, interfaced with cubism, Orphism, Italian futurism. Douglas also evaluates Western art ideas in comparison with Malevich’s ideas. This allows us to distinguish four aspects of the aesthetics of modernism: understanding the na- ture of sensations; the role of the psyche in the work of the artist; the idea of universal dyna- mism; the role of colour in painting. We should note that when comparing Western European trends and their theoretical basis with the work of Malevich, Douglas highlights and constantly emphasizes the new quality that Malevich re- ceives in his works. In another article Nonob- jectivity and Decorativeness (Douglas, 1993), Ch. Douglas raises the issue of decorative art as the possibility of expressing the cosmic prin- ciple and universal meanings through emblems and symbols, concluding that Suprematism is a universal form of expression, while the ground for the nonobjectivity in painting is prepared by the evolution of the ornament of decorative fabrics. In our review, we should also refer to the popular publication Malevich (Neret Gilles, 2003) by Gilles Neret (1933-2005), in which the narrative is arranged in chronology and consists of several thematic sections: roots of abstraction, the all-seeing eye, Malevich’s cosmos, waiting for the doomsday. We should note the analysis of the historical situation, in particular the influence of Western Euro- pean movements and artists on the work of Malevich. Historical and art history analysis allowed us to reveal the influence of popular print; in addition, the author analysed patriot- ic popular prints, which had never been seen in articles on Malevich’s works. The appeal to the works in pencil on paper with the texts of Olga Rozanova and the primitivism of Malev- ich is remarkable. Conducting a philosophical and art history analysis, Gilles Neret draws a conclusion about iconography, supplementing the information with expertise facts, for ex- ample, writing about the cross that is the sym- bol of Christ, which received an erotic mean- ing (horizontal line is a woman, vertical line is a man). In addition, philosophical and art history analysis allows comparing the paint- ing Workers (1933) with the icon Our Lady of Hodegetria. Thus, foreign articles on the work of Ma- levich can be characterized by highlighting the following blocks: chronological study of the life and creative biography of K. Malevich; philosophical and art history analysis, in- cluding on the basis of a comparison with Rus- sian art material of past centuries; philosophical and art history analysis, in- corporating Malevich’s work in the global art space; art and linguistic analysis of graphic works by Malevich, including the appeal of foreign authors to graphic works, sketches by K. Malevich, reproductions of which are ex- tremely rare; historical and art history analysis of the role of curatorial practice in the life and work of K. Malevich. Summing up, we can talk about the pre- dominance of art history analysis both in the Western and in the domestic bibliography of Kazimir Malevich’s work, while attribution of works and appeal to technological aspects are inherent mainly in domestic works. With all the abundance and diversity of literature, it should be noted that the final fundamental monograph, which fully includes both biographical materi- al and creative heritage, has not yet been pub- lished. The complete catalogue with updated chronological data, taking into account private collections, is no less relevant. In addition, we can also state that there is no generally accept- ed periodization of Malevich’s work. All this shows that, with the seemingly complete study of the famous Russian avant-garde artist, the problems of further research work are very ex- tensive. – 977 – Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina and Marina V. Moskalyuk. Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage… References Azizyan, I.A. (2001). Dialog iskusstv Serebrianogo veka [The art dialog of the Silver age]. Moscow, Progress and traditions, 398 p. Basner, E.V. (2000). Zhivopis’ Malevicha iz sobraniia Russkogo muzeia. Problemy tvorcheskoi evoliut- sii khudozhnika [The Kazimir Malevich’s art from the collection of The State Russian Museum of fine arts. The evolution problems of Malevich’s art]. In Kazimir Malevich v Russkom muzee [Kazimir Malevich in The State Russian Museum]. Saint-Petersburg, Palace Editions, 15-27. Douglas, Ch. (1993). Bespredmetnost’ i dekorativnost’. Voprosy iskusstvoznaniia [Nonobjectivity and decorativeness. Art issues]. In Zhurnal mezhdunarodnoi assotsiatsii iskusstvovedov [Art Critics Interna- tional Association Journal], 2-3. Moscow, AO Tsitp, 96-106. Douglas, Ch. (1980). O filosofskikh istokakh bespredmetnogo iskusstva [Concerning philosophical origin of non-objective art]. In Malevich. Khudozhnik i teoretik [Malevich. Artist and Theorist], 2-3. Mos- cow, Soviet artist, 96-106. Karasik, I. N. (1990). Malevich v suzhdeniiakh sovremennikov [Malevich judged by contemporaries]. In Malevich. Khudozhnik i teoretik [Malevich. Artist and Theorist]. Moscow, Soviet artist, 192-199. Kiblitskii, I.K. (2000). K voprosu o chernom kvadrate v opere “Pobeda nad solntsem” [Revisiting black square in the opera «Victory over the sun»]. In Kazimir Malevich v Russkom muzee [Kazimir Malevich in The State Russian Museum]. Saint-Petersburg, Palace Editions, 38 p. Klenova, O. (2000). Osobennosti tvorcheskogo metoda Malevicha, vyiavlennye v protsesse restavrat- sii ego proizvedenii [Features of Malevich’s creative method identified in the process of restoration of his works]. Saint-Petersburg, Palace Editions, 132-139. Kotovich, T.V. (2008). Futuristicheskaia opera Pobeda nad solntsem [The futurism opera «Victory over the sun»]. In Al’manakh [Almanac]. Minsk, Ekonompress. 238-243 p. Kovtun, E. (1989). Pobeda nad solntsem. Nachalo suprematizma [Victory over the sun. The beginning of suprematism]. In Nashe nasledie [Our heritage], 2 (8), 127 p. Luk’ianov, E. (2006). Suprematicheskoe prozrenie L’va Tolstogo i filosofskie otkroveniia K Malevicha [Suprematist insight of Leo Tolstoy and philosophical revelations of K. Malevich]. In Malevich. Klassich- eskii avangard. Vitebsk [Malevich. Classic avant-garde. Vitebsk]. Minsk, Ekonompress, 89-129. Malevich. Tate Publising (2014). London: AchimBorchardt-Hume, 264 p. Neret, Gilles (2003). Malevich [Malevich]. Moscow, TASCHEN, 96 p. Petrova, E. (2000). Proizvedeniia Malevicha v Russkom muzee i ikh novye datirovki [Malevich’s works in the State Russian Museum and their new dating]. Saint-Petersburg, Palace Editions, 11-14. Rimskaia-Korsakova, S. (2000). O tekhnologicheskom issledovanii kartin Malevicha [On the techno- logical study of paintings by Malevich]. Saint-Petersburg, Palace Editions, 28 p. Sarab’ianov, D.V. (1990). Malevich v epokhu Velikogo pereloma [Malevich in the era of the Great Turn]. In Malevich. Khudozhnik i teoretik [Malevich. Artist and Theorist]. Moscow, Soviet artist, 142-147. Sarab’ianov, D.V. & Shatskikh, A.S. (1993). Kazimir Malevich. Zhivopis’. Teoriia [Kazimir Malevich. Art. Theory]. Moscow, Art, 414 p. Shatskikh, A.S. (2009). Kazimir Malevich i obshchestvo Supremus [Kazimir Malevich and Supremus community]. Moscow, Tri kvadrata, 464 p. Toporkova, B.P. (2000). Iz opyta restavratsii arkhitektonov Malevicha [From the experience of resto- ration of Malevich’s architectons]. Saint-Petersburg, Palace Editions, 39 p. Vakar, I.A. (1990). Gody ucheniia Kazimira Malevicha v Moskve. Fakty i vymysly. [Kazimir Malev- ich. Academic years in Moscow. Facts and fiction]. In Malevich. Khudozhnik i teoretik [Malevich. Artist and Theorist]. Moscow, Soviet artist. 28-30. Ekaterina M. Tolstikhina and Marina V. Moskalyuk. Revisiting the Issues of Studying the Creative Heritage… К вопросам изучения творческого наследия Казимира Малевича: российская и зарубежная библиография Е.М. Толстихина, М.В. Москалюк Сибирский государственный институт искусств имени Дмитрия Хворостовского Российская Федерация, Красноярск Аннотация. В статье рассмотрены вопросы, связанные с изучением творческого наследия Казимира Малевича. Дана характеристика и изучены основные труды российских и зарубежных исследователей. Выделена и проанализирована разница подходов к изучению наследия художника у отечественных и зарубежных исследователей. Выявлены основные принципы, используемые исследователями и включающие преимущественно хронологическое изучение жизненной и творческой биографии, философско-искусствоведческий анализ, искусствоведческо- лингвистический анализ графических листов, атрибуцию и технологию в произведениях К. Малевича. Определено преобладание искусствоведческого анализа как в западной, так и в отечественной библиографии. Ключевые слова: Казимир Малевич, авангард, супрематизм. Научная специальность: 17.00.09 – теория и история искусства.