DOI Artikel:
Kachurin, Pamela Jill: Purchasing power: the state as art patron in early Soviet Russia
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48915#0178
Purchasing Power: The State as Art Patron in Early Soyiet Russia
173
Between 1918 and 1920, the Purchasing Commission, which at yarious times was
composed of Kandinsky, Rodchenko, and Varvara Stepanova, acąuired 1926 works from
415 artists for 26,080,750 roubles. They bought 31 works by Malevich, 34 by Popova,
8 by Tatlin, 20 by Chagall, 32 by Mashkov, 29 by Shterenberg (the head of IZO) and
a stunning 44 works by Kandinsky. The Purchasing Commission also bought examples
of Realist art: five paintings from Abram Arkhipov, two from Boris Kustodiev, one from
Efim Cheptsov, and seven by Konstantin Yuon.18 1211 works were destined for the 30
provincial Museums of Painterly Culture across the Russian Federation, and the remainder
were to be distributed between the Moscow Museum of Painterly Culture, the Petrograd
Museum of Artistic Culture, and the Russian Museum.19 To avoid the obvious favoritism
displayed by Petrograd IZO, Shterenberg initially refused to sell his works to the Moscow
Purchasing Commission. Kandinsky appealed to Lunacharsky himself, a personal friend
of Shterenberg’s from their pre-revolutionary Parisian days, and asked him to permit the
purchase, which he duły did.20
The distribution of Futurist works to provincial towns, many without so much as an art
school, raises some important issues. Provincial museum directors were specifically
reąuesting the work of Futurist artists by name, thereby compelling the Purchasing
Commission to acąuire morę Futurist artists.21 Did the museum directors have some
preference for Futurist art? Did they believe that Futurist art would encourage
the formation of proletarian culture? Would the illiterate rural population of provincial
Russia in any way understand this art? Clearly not. As Rodchenko attested in his January
1921 report about purchasing activity, “the reąuests from the provinces are all for only
works of new art, from Jack of Diamonds and ‘leftists.’ This is explained by the fact that
works of art of the past that they have in the provincial museums are specifically
reąuisitioned.”22 Provincial museum directors apparently feared that any work of a 19th-
century artist or even certain 20th-century artists deemed historically valuable would be
confiscated by the Department of Preservation and placed in urban museums. Apparently,
there was no danger of Futurist art being confiscated, sińce it was perceived as possessing
little value and being of no historical interest.
The extraordinary sums of money spent on Futurist art bolsters the argument that the
State did indeed support Futurism, almost to the point of exclusion of all other artistic
trends, and has led art historians to conclude that Futurism had become the “official art
of the new Russia.”23 It is elear, however, that State officials initially had little control over
the activities of IZO, and no time to devote to matters of cultural evolution while ci vil war
ravaged the country’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. Artists within IZO were
operating completely independently of the State, even while they were supposedly
carrying out its cultural program with its money.
Occasionally notice was taken of Futurist excesses and condemned. The Union of
Workers of Science, Art and Literaturę in April 1919 adopted a resolution criticizing
18 Russian State Archive of Literaturę and Art (RGALI) f. 665, op. 1, d. 25,11. 2-45.
19 RGALI f. 665, op. l,d. 25,1. 2.
20 RGALI f. 665, op. 1, d. 12,1.4.
21 RGALI f. 665, op. l,d. 10,1. 1.
22 RGALI f. 665, op. l,d. 25,1. 73.
23 S. DZHARFAROVA, “The Creation of the Museum of Painterly Culture,” in The Great Utopia: The Russian and
Soviet Avant-Garde 1915-1932, New York, 1992, p. 476.
173
Between 1918 and 1920, the Purchasing Commission, which at yarious times was
composed of Kandinsky, Rodchenko, and Varvara Stepanova, acąuired 1926 works from
415 artists for 26,080,750 roubles. They bought 31 works by Malevich, 34 by Popova,
8 by Tatlin, 20 by Chagall, 32 by Mashkov, 29 by Shterenberg (the head of IZO) and
a stunning 44 works by Kandinsky. The Purchasing Commission also bought examples
of Realist art: five paintings from Abram Arkhipov, two from Boris Kustodiev, one from
Efim Cheptsov, and seven by Konstantin Yuon.18 1211 works were destined for the 30
provincial Museums of Painterly Culture across the Russian Federation, and the remainder
were to be distributed between the Moscow Museum of Painterly Culture, the Petrograd
Museum of Artistic Culture, and the Russian Museum.19 To avoid the obvious favoritism
displayed by Petrograd IZO, Shterenberg initially refused to sell his works to the Moscow
Purchasing Commission. Kandinsky appealed to Lunacharsky himself, a personal friend
of Shterenberg’s from their pre-revolutionary Parisian days, and asked him to permit the
purchase, which he duły did.20
The distribution of Futurist works to provincial towns, many without so much as an art
school, raises some important issues. Provincial museum directors were specifically
reąuesting the work of Futurist artists by name, thereby compelling the Purchasing
Commission to acąuire morę Futurist artists.21 Did the museum directors have some
preference for Futurist art? Did they believe that Futurist art would encourage
the formation of proletarian culture? Would the illiterate rural population of provincial
Russia in any way understand this art? Clearly not. As Rodchenko attested in his January
1921 report about purchasing activity, “the reąuests from the provinces are all for only
works of new art, from Jack of Diamonds and ‘leftists.’ This is explained by the fact that
works of art of the past that they have in the provincial museums are specifically
reąuisitioned.”22 Provincial museum directors apparently feared that any work of a 19th-
century artist or even certain 20th-century artists deemed historically valuable would be
confiscated by the Department of Preservation and placed in urban museums. Apparently,
there was no danger of Futurist art being confiscated, sińce it was perceived as possessing
little value and being of no historical interest.
The extraordinary sums of money spent on Futurist art bolsters the argument that the
State did indeed support Futurism, almost to the point of exclusion of all other artistic
trends, and has led art historians to conclude that Futurism had become the “official art
of the new Russia.”23 It is elear, however, that State officials initially had little control over
the activities of IZO, and no time to devote to matters of cultural evolution while ci vil war
ravaged the country’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. Artists within IZO were
operating completely independently of the State, even while they were supposedly
carrying out its cultural program with its money.
Occasionally notice was taken of Futurist excesses and condemned. The Union of
Workers of Science, Art and Literaturę in April 1919 adopted a resolution criticizing
18 Russian State Archive of Literaturę and Art (RGALI) f. 665, op. 1, d. 25,11. 2-45.
19 RGALI f. 665, op. l,d. 25,1. 2.
20 RGALI f. 665, op. 1, d. 12,1.4.
21 RGALI f. 665, op. l,d. 10,1. 1.
22 RGALI f. 665, op. l,d. 25,1. 73.
23 S. DZHARFAROVA, “The Creation of the Museum of Painterly Culture,” in The Great Utopia: The Russian and
Soviet Avant-Garde 1915-1932, New York, 1992, p. 476.