Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism

Of the artistic movements that we have studied, Cubism is by far the most confrontational. Cubism challenges not only the form and techniques used to create art, but what art is suppose to do to the viewer and the artist. Like the other movements, Cubism created a new technique that it could be identified with. Whereas the other movements used tiny dots, large thick brush strokes, or mathematically calculated lines, Cubism used the “facet” and rigid geometric shapes to create a certain aesthetic. However, where the other movements generally follow or attempt to mimic three-dimensionality, Cubism intentionally distorts shape, three dimenensionality, and space into something that is almost unrecognizable. A key aspect of Cubism is its aggressive dissonance and ambiguity. Picasso and Braque often took fairly ordinary objects, disassembled them, and then put them back together in a way that was challenging and “structured in a baffling paradoxical system that defines immediate identification”. (209) Cubism did not attempt to create an inevitably false depiction of reality but instead created a representation of their own reality, which was contestable, subjective, and in their opinion was closer to the truth than the former. The viewer is forced to wrestle with the often uncomfortable, difficult subjects and images. Picasso’s use of African influence in his works also aided in their ambiguity, and created an element of foreignness and diverged from what was considered Western art. The cubist’s art did not attempt to explore or depict the world around them, but was a direct challenge to its contentions and standardizations. For example, Braque’s depiction of the brothel not only depicts a brothel in a fairly controversial manner, but also grossly distorts the bodies and faces of the women in the painting. Some of the body parts and directions of the subjects are unidentifiable, and the artist distorts their eyes and faces, making it nearly impossible to rely on the subject’s gaze or eye-line to interpret the meaning of the painting. The viewer must now rely on other aspects of the work, such as the title, to gain some understanding as to the artist’s intention.

The Beginnings of Modern Art

J.M. Nash introduces Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism not as revolutionary artistic movements, but rather as the extension of previous movements that were also shaped by their historical context. Cubism originated in Paris, Futurism in Milan, and Constructivism in Russia. The three movements differed in values but were similar in their aesthetic presentation.
The beginning of modern art was represented by French artists in the form of Cubism, and was led by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. Cubism was a transformation rather than a revolution; early Cubism was similar to Post-Impressionist paintings, like the works of Cezanne, while later paintings were more abstract and employed more aggressive and bold brushstrokes, over-lapping structures, and intuitive interpretation.
Futurism, which followed Cubism, was almost identical to Cubism, except in the way it tended to reflect the violence of WWI. Marinetti, the leader of the Futurist movement, created a Manifesto of Futurism in which he defined his art form as illustrating the world as it was really experienced. Artists often manifested sounds and movement as images.
Constructivism began in Russia was influenced by its predecessors, but was considered by the Russians who originated the art form as a rejection of interpretation. Constructivists considered themselves revolutionary, but hardly deviated from the abstract and interpretive techniques developed by the French and Italians. Much of Constructivist art looks like modern collages or graphic design.

These three different genres of art are distinctly different from the ones that preceded it. Art ceases to be representational and started to move towards being abstract or absolutely expressional. For example, Futurism sought to represent the nature of experience. One very interesting idea brought up was the being original is modern concept. As such, one wonders what the intention of these artists are in defying tradition. While the study of art developed to enable such bold advances to be made, the social revolutions that are occurring in these periods have to be considered in thinking about the these changes in our perspective towards art. Without dismissing the philosophy behind these genres, there is a need to question if the defining factor of these genres is simply a need to rebel against what they thought was normative. Art has also further evolved since then, and one question I wonder about is why the art today has deviated further and further away from that of the past? Is this simply a reflection of how society has changed, or a result of the need to be original. Is this need to be original stopping us from understanding art? Although I appreciate the beauty and the concept behind these movements, I find the need to rebel against the traditional very unnecessary. This is more clearly reflected in art today. It seems almost as if it is only to prove a point. Perhaps, we need to keep in mind that there is also value in art that doesn’t have a grand philosophy behind it.

Cubism, Futurism, Constructivism

After about a century of critical revolutions in art ranging from Neoclassicism to Post-Impressionism, the twentieth century gave birth to yet another heap of reform located all throughout Europe. Three prevalent movements in art during this time period were Cubism, which localized in Paris, Futurism which emerged in Milan, and Constructivism which grew up in Moscow all relatively at the same time. There lies great debate as to which movement was more original, however, there is no doubt that all three styles were—and still are—physical representations of the modern era.

J.M. Nash’s essay, Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism, provides information about each of the major artists of the movements in adequate detail. He beings with Pablo Picasso, who not only was “every inch a chief” with is intimate group of friends who happened to be artists also, but the perhaps the chief of Cubism as well (160). Cubism set out to break objects apart and are reassembled together, this time using different view points to give the object a whole different meaning. A man who stood up against as well as beside Picasso was known by the name of Georges Braque. Described as “’two mountaineers roped together’” the two artists competed against each other as well as complemented one another by simply challenging the other artist to do better in technique and style. It was very interesting and to be honest, quite odd to observe how similar the works off the two artists were however. The subject matter, the composition and also the style were almost identical in that it makes me wonder if one just simply copied whoever created a piece first and then just tweaked a few details here and there. If this were true however, originality for one or both of these Cubists is thrown out the window and almost contradicts the essence of the movement being something “new.”

Now travelling to Italy, Futurism tried to rebel against everything and anything pertaining to the past. Unlike the other movements, it thrived on publicity. Futurism had a way of ironically promoting itself, such as using the Romantic style of metaphors and images to describe itself while at the same time dismissing it in value because it was part of the past ( 179). By looking at some of the Futurist paintings, I can see why their title fits them well. For instance, the image of the dog with many legs to indicate that the dog is walking seems like an image that could be on one of the walls one looks at in Disney's Tomorrowland while waiting for one of the rides. What it also reminds me of is one of those flip books that one would have to flip several pages of the same image to make it seem like its actually moving, kind of like how a regular movie—or a “moving picture”—works today. Today, people don’t really thing anything of how a digital image actually works, but I could imagine that back then in the 20^th century, Futurist paintings were shockingly new innovations that possibly gave birth to a whole bunch of new scientific ideas involving digital media.

Constructivism in the essay was a bit confusing to me and I didn’t really get what th movement was truly about. The revolution seemed to be more about the social events occurring during its time and place rather than a new technique and style of art.

J.M. Nash portrays Cubism, Futurism and Constructivism almost as an adolescent phase in the history of art. The subtle differences between philosophies of each movement create grounds for arguments. Nash gives examples of catty insults thrown by artists, dismissing the other movements' philosophies and techniques. Each movement strives to widen the separation from the others and distinguish itself as unique, "to appear to be totally original"(159). Cubism comes across as cliquey, with inside jokes and secret meetings. Although both Picasso and Georges Braque developed Cubism, Picasso's "gang" of followers "ignored or belitled Braque's role in the genesis of Cubism"(161). Braque was exluded from their club. Futurism seems to be rebelling for the sake of rebelling. The eleven principles of the 'Founding and First Manifesto of Futurism' establish Futurism's philosophy as whatever is currently not accepted. Futurists were fighting The Man. While Cubism was a secret, exclusive movement, Futurism was confrontational. It seems that it was attention hungry, demanding attention positive or negative. As Nash says, "it lived on publicity"(177). Despite this almost childish behavior, these movements were crucial to the development of modern art, and the artists leading these movements are seen as artistic geniuses.

While each of the Cubist, Futurist, and Constructivist movements are distinguished by style, technique and a fundamental set of values, all great works are influenced by the styles that preceded them. And it is through this mode of reasoning that we are able to draw connections and trace major influences between movements. However, each artist credited with championing a "revolution" is of remarkably different character lending themselves to very different environments and social values, setting each movement apart from the rest.

By the times of Futurism and Constructivism, Cubism had a foot firmly planted in the door of modern art. Although one can easily trace the influence of Cubism in these subsequent movements, it is the personal and social implications that lead to the use of Cubism in alternate forms of expression that I am interested in. If we were to group Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism under the umbrella of "modern art" we might want to explore, what in psychology is called equifinality. To use the term loosely, equifinality is when multiple people have different life experiences that ultimately lead them to the same place. I am in no way suggesting that these styles of art are analagous, I am merely hoping to highlight the unique backgrounds that give way to such styles.

Each movement has a monumentally different foundation with a distinguished individual at the core. The ideals and techniques set in place by these individuals are representative of their specific styles which were occassionally borrowed or replicated by others. At the root of modern art, we find Cubism. This private art form was developed with an exclusive group of friends centered around a poor painter named Picasso. The author of the text, J.M. Nash, explains the "...heart of true Cubism..."(216) as spontaneous and witty. If this is, in fact, the case- how can it so easily translate to Futurism whose core values glorify violence and the destruction of knowledge? This overtly aggressive movement is characterized by a wealthy Marinetti's manifestos calling the people of Italy to action.

The Rise of Modern Art and Abstraction

Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism by J.M. Nash explores the emergence of three of the most influential and significant art movements in the twentieth century. Between these three movements there were certainly similarities and differences, and all of them developed their own characteristics that spoke to social conditions as well as aesthetic representation. Cubism as one of the early points in the trajectory of modern art emerged within an intimate circle of professional painters and writers. Picasso’s Demoiselles exemplifies a process by which Picasso went through iterations to arrive at this work suggesting experimentation, which seems to be contrary to his approach towards painting, yet the final product is an assemblage of grotesque figures with seemingly deformed bodies and detached or masked faces. Within this composition Picasso employs “ambiguous silhouettes” that contorts the bodies in a way almost incomprehensible to the viewer, which was picked up by painter Braque, who explored reduction of solid form to cubes. Certain techniques influence by Cezanne but reinterpreted by Braque include the lack of strong diagonals, the fabrication of patterns for balance, and also avoiding closed contours. The development of the facet was also incremental to Cubism.

Futurism emerges as a result Manifestos dispersed through newspapers at the beginning of WWI. Futurist artists attempted to show the world as it was experienced rather than as it stood in reality. They were interested in movement and the effect of color on the scene. Where a disarrayed composition with a sense of imbalance took hold of the picture, the goal of many futurist pieces was the experience itself. Constructivism came next, and with it came an even further abstraction whereby notions of reality were all but blurred or forgotten. Constructions by Tatlin influenced by Picasso became one of the first pieces to be truly assembled from material, and several artists emerged that attempted to construct different themes or objects.

Through these three movements, it is clear that one influenced the other, and their existence is not linear rather it is based on continual feedback loops ranging across vast distances with artists interacting with each other and also artists trying to create new forms of art. Within these movements, the idea of revolution is accomplished through a higher level of abstraction than was ever seen, and the use of spatial configurations with visual techniques became of utmost importance. Yet, as most revolutions occur as a product of social conditions, These movements arise from societal shifts or events, and as society change, so too will the arts.