Aleksandr Deineka (1899-1969) : an avant-garde for the proletariat

October — Association of New Forms 

of Artistic Labor Declaration

1928

 

At the present time all art forms must define their positions at the front of the 

socialist Cultural Revolution.

We are profoundly convinced that the spatial arts (architecture, painting, sculp-

ture, graphics, the industrial arts, photography, cinematography, etc.) can escape 

their current crisis only when they are subordinated to the task of serving the 

concrete needs of the proletariat, the leaders of the peasantry, and the backward 

national groups.

In participating consciously in the proletariat’s ideological class struggle against 

hostile forces and in supporting the rapprochement of the peasantry and the na-

tionalities with the proletariat, the spatial arts must serve the proletariat and the 

working masses in two interconnected fields:

— in the field of ideological propaganda (by means of pictures, frescoes, printing, 

sculpture, photography, cinematography, etc.);

— in the field of production and direct organization of the collective way of life (by 

means of architecture, the industrial arts, the designing of mass festivals, etc.).

The main task of this artistic service to the proletarian needs of the revolution is 

to raise the ideological, cultural and domestic level of the backward strata of the 

working class and of those workers who are undergoing an alien class influence; 

their level would be raised to that of the avant-garde, revolutionary industrial pro-

letariat, which is consciously building the socialist economy and culture on the 

bases of organization, planning and highly developed industrial technology.

These principles have already been stipulated as the basis of the whole socio-

economic structure of our government, and only art has remained behind in this 

respect, because of the narrow, professional artisan traditions it has preserved. 

The most pressing task today is to eliminate this disproportion between the devel-

opment of art and the socioeconomic development of our country.

For those artists who are fully aware of these principles, the following immediate 

tasks await:

1. 

The artist who belongs to the epoch of the proletarian dictatorship regards 

himself not as an isolated figure passively reflecting reality, but as an active fighter 

at the ideological front of the proletarian revolution; this is the front that, by its ac-

tions, is organizing mass psychology and is helping to design the new way of life. 

This orientation compels the proletarian artist to take stock of himself continually 

in order to stand with the revolutionary proletarian avant-garde at the same high 

ideological level.

2.  He must submit to critical examination all formal and technical artistic 

achievements of the past. Of especial value to proletarian art are the achieve-

ments of the last decades, when the methods of the rational and constructive 

approaches to artistic creation, which had been lost by the artists of the petty 

bourgeoisie, were restored and developed considerably. It was at this time that 

artists began to penetrate the creation of dialectical and materialist methodology, 

of which artists had not been aware previously, and of the methods of mechanical 

and laboratory scientific technology; this has provided a great deal that can and 

must serve as material for the development of proletarian art. However, the fun-

damental task of the proletarian artist is not to make an eclectic collection of old 

devices for their own sake, but with their aid, and on new technological ground, 

to create new types and a new style of the spatial arts.

3.  The ultimate orientation of the artist who would express the cultural interests 

of the revolutionary proletariat should be to propagate the world view of dialecti-

cal materialism by the maximum means of expression within the spatial arts, and 

to design materially the mass, collective forms of the new life. In the light of this, 

we reject the philistine realism of epigones; the realism of a stagnant, individualis-

tic way of life; passively contemplative, static, naturalistic realism with its fruitless 

copying of reality, embellishing and canonizing the old way of life, sapping the 

energy and enervating the will of the culturally underdeveloped proletariat.

We recognize and will build proletarian realism that expresses the will of the ac-

tive revolutionary class; a dynamic realism that reveals life in movement and in 

action and that discloses systematically the potentials of life; a realism that makes 

things, that rebuilds rationally the old way of life and that, in the very thick of the 

mass struggle and construction, exerts its influence through all its artistic means. 

But we simultaneously reject aesthetic, abstract industrialism and unadulterated 

technicism that passes itself off  as revolutionary art. For art to aff ect life creatively, 

we emphasize that all means of expression and design must be utilized in order 

to organize the consciousness, will and emotions of the proletariat and of the 

working masses with maximum force. To this end, the organic cooperation of all 

spatial art forms must be established.

4.  Proletarian art must overcome individualistic and commercial relationships, 

which have dominated art up until now. While we reject the bureaucratic con-

cepts of the “social commission,” which has gained ground over recent years, we 

do seek social commissions from consumer collectives; these order works of art 

for concrete objectives and participate collectively in the preparation of artistic 

objects. In this respect the industrial arts are assuming more importance, since 

they are proving to be durable and eff ective in collective production and con-

sumption.

5.  In order to obtain maximum results we are attempting to concentrate our 

eff orts on the following vital points:

a)   rational construction, problems of new residential accommodation, social 

buildings, etc.

b)   artistic design of objects for mass consumption manufactured by industry

c)  artistic design of centers for the new collective way of life: workers’ clubs, 

reading rooms, canteens, tearooms, etc.

d)  organization of mass festivals

e) art 

education

We are firmly convinced that the paths we have indicated will lead to the intensive 

development of creative strength among the masses. We support this develop-

ment of mass creative aspiration, since we know that the basic process or the 

development of the spatial arts in the USSR is advancing because of the proximity 

of the independent art of proletarian art circles, workers’ clubs and peasants to 

highly qualified professional art, and is maintaining the level of artistic technology 

identifiable with the industrial epoch.

Fundación Juan March

378

In advancing along these paths, proletarian art leaves behind the slogan of the 

transitional period—“Art to the Masses”—and prepares the ground for the art of 

the masses.

In acknowledging organization, rationality and collectivism as the basic principles 

of the new artistic and cultural construction in the country of the proletarian dic-

tatorship, the October Association establishes a definite working discipline for 

bringing together its members on the basis of the above principles. These prin-

ciples will need a more thorough elaboration in the association’s subsequent cre-

ative, ideological, and social activity.

In issuing the present declaration, we disassociate ourselves from all existing art 

groups active in the field of the spatial arts. We are prepared to join forces with 

some of them as long as they acknowledge the basic principles of our platform in 

practical terms. We greet the idea of a federation of art societies

1

 and will support 

any serious organizational steps in this direction.

We are embarking at a time of transition for the development of the spatial arts 

in the USSR. With regard to the basic forces active in modern Soviet art, the 

natural process of artistic and ideological self-determination is being hampered 

by a number of unhealthy phenomena. We consider it our duty to declare that 

we reject the system of personal and group patronage and protection for indi-

vidual artistic trends and individual artists. We support wholly the unrestricted, 

healthy competition of artistic directions and schools within the areas of techni-

cal competence, higher quality of artistic and ideological production and stylis-

tic researches. But we reject unhealthy competition between artistic groups for 

commissions and patronage of influential individuals and institutions. We reject 

any claim by any one association of artists to ideological monopoly or exclusive 

representation of the artistic interests of the working and peasant masses. We re-

ject the system that can allow an artificially created and privileged position (moral 

and material) for any one artistic group at the expense of other associations or 

groups; this is a radical contradiction of the Party’s and the government’s artistic 

policy. We reject speculation on “social commissions,” which occurs beneath the 

mask of revolutionary theme and everyday realism, and which replaces any seri-

ous eff ort to formulate a revolutionary world view and world perception with a 

simplified interpretation of a hurriedly invented revolutionary subject.

We are against the dictatorship of philistine elements in the Soviet spatial arts 

and for the cultural maturity, artistic craftsmanship, and ideological consistence 

of the new proletarian artists, who are quickly gaining strength and advancing to 

the fore.

The ranks of the proletariat, progressive, active, and artistically concerned, are 

growing before our very eyes. Mass art summons the vast masses to artistic in-

volvement. This involvement is linked to the class struggle, to the development 

of industry and to the transformation of life. This work demands sincerity, high 

qualifications, cultural maturity, revolutionary awareness. We will dedicate all our 

strength to this work.

The October Association

John Bowlt 

The October Association of New Forms of Artistic Labor (“Oktiabr’”) was founded in 1928, 

but its one exhibition did not open until June 1930, in Moscow. October encompassed vari-

ous artistic activities, although it concentrated on the industrial and applied arts—and this, 

together with its emphasis on the proletariat and on contemporaneity, recalled the ideas of 

Proletkul’t and constructivism. This is confirmed by the association’s list of members and 

by the cosignatories of this declaration, who included: representing poster art and book 

design—Aleksandr Alekseev, Mecheslav Dobrokovskii, Vasilii Elkin, Paula Freiberg, Paul Ir-

bit, Gustavs Klucis, Alois Kreichik, Nikolai Lapin, El Lissitzky, Dmitrii Moor, Diego Rivera (in 

Moscow 1927–28), Nikolai Sedelnikov, Sergei Sen’kin, Solomon Telingater, Béla Uitz, Viktor 

Toot and, temporarily, Aleksandr Deineka; representing architecture—Aleksei Gan, Moisei 

Ginzburg, Pavel Novitskii, and two of the Vesnin brothers, Aleksandr and Viktor; represent-

ing film and photography—Sergei Eisenstein, Aleksandr Rodchenko and Esfir Shub; and 

Alfred Kurella, Ivan Matsa and Aleksei Mikhailov—theorists of the group.

Deineka, Klucis, Lissitzky, Rodchenko, Sen’kin and Varvara Stepanova were represent-

ed at its sole exhibition.

2

 A collection of October declarations and articles by members 

entitled 

Izofront. Klassovaia bor’ba na fronte prostranstvennykh iskusstv,

3

 was scheduled 

to appear at the same time as the exhibition, but the adverse political and artistic climate 

dictated a number of prepublication changes. When the collection finally appeared in late 

1931, the publishers were careful to emphasize in their separate insert and apologetic pref-

ace that the collection was being published as “material for creative discussion” despite 

its numerous “vulgar, materialistic mistakes.” In 1932 October was accused of “abolishing 

art”;

4

 in the same year October was, in any case, dissolved as a result of the above decree.

The text of this piece, “Oktiabr’. Ob’edinenie khudozhestvennogo truda. Deklaratsiia,” 

was first published in 

Sovremennaia arkhitektura.

5

 In 1931 a second general declaration, 

entitled 

Bor’ba za proletarskie pozitsii na fronte prostranstvennykh iskusstv [The Struggle 

for Proletarian Class Positions on the Spatial Arts Front], was published as a separate pam-

phlet in Moscow. Apart from this, there were three other specific declarations: one by the 

National Sector of October (dated 1929), which rejected the idealization of pre-revolution-

ary art forms and cultures, thereby opposing AKhR’s support of nineteenth-century realist 

traditions; the Program of the Photo Section of October (dated 1930), which rejected the 

“abstract” photography of such artists as László Moholy-Nagy and saw the value of pho-

tography to lie in its “actuality,” stipulating, moreover, that all members should be linked 

with industrial production or with collective farms; and an Open Letter (dated 1930) from 

the young artists’ section of October (Molodoi Oktiabr’) to the central presidium of the As-

sociation of AKhR Youth (OMAKhR, see p. 339) criticizing the latter’s passive, documentary 

interpretation of proletarian reality.

— JB

1.  The reference is to the Federation of Associations of Soviet Artists (FOSKh), founded in June 1930. This was an 

organization that sought to unite the many, often contradictory, art groups still active, and it managed to encom-

pass AKhR, OST and RAPKh, as well as two architectural societies, the Association of Contemporary Architects 

(OSA) and the All-Union Association of Proletarian Architects (VOPRA). FOSKh issued its own journal—

Brigada 

khudozhnikov (Moscow, 1931–32).

2 

For review, see 

Iskusstvo v massy 7 (Moscow, 1930): 9–16.

3 

P. Novitskii, ed.,

 Izofront. Klassovaia bor’ba na fronte prostranstvennykh iskusstv (Moscow-Leningrad, 1931).

4  See responses of the Russian Association of Proletarian Artists (Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia proletarskikh khudozh-

nikov, RAPKh) to the resolution “On the Reconstruction” (pp. 383) in 

Za proletarskoe iskusstvo 9/10 (Moscow 

1932); reprinted in 

Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let, ed. Ivan Matsa (Moscow-Leningrad, 1933), 650.

5 

Sovremennaia arkhitektura 3 (Moscow, March 1928): 73–74.

Declaration originally published in Russian as “Deklaratsiia ob”edineniia Oktiabr’,” 

Sovremennaia arkhitektura 3 (Mos-

cow, March 1928): 73

–74. The four declarations were published in P. Novitskii, ed., Izofront. Klassovaia bor’ba na fronte 

prostranstvennykh iskusstv, 135–60, and are reprinted in Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let, ed. Ivan Matsa (Moscow-

Leningrad, 1933), 608–16, 619–23; the first declaration and that of the National Sector are reprinted in V. Khazanova, 

comp., “Iz istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury, 1926–1932,” 

Dokumenty i materialy (Moscow, 1970), 117–18, 121–22. For a 

German translation see 

Zwischen Revolutionskunst und Sozialistischen Realismus: Dokumente und Kommentare. 

Kunstdebatten in der Sowjetunion von 1917 bis 1934, ed. Hubertus Gassner and Eckhardt Gillen (Cologne: DuMont, 

1979), 172–74.

The version of the declaration here has been reproduced by permission, with minor changes, from “October—As-

sociation of Artistic Labor Declaration,” in 

Russian Art of the Avant-Garde: Theory and Criticism 1902–1934, ed. and 

trans. John E. Bowlt, rev. and enlarged ed. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1988), 273–79. 

Introduction originally published in German as “Oktjabr’ – Vereinigung der Arbeiter in neuen Arten der Kunsttätigkeit,“ 

in 

Zwischen Revolutionskunst und Sozialistischen Realismus: Dokumente und Kommentare. Kunstdebatten in der 

Sowjetunion von 1917 bis (see above), 172–74.

The version of the introduction here has been translated from the German original by Andrew Davison. 

Fundación Juan March

The Reconstruction of 

Artistic Life in the USSR

1928

D43

Alfred Kurella 

. . . Two preconditions are necessary for developing the question of the recon-

struction of artistic life in the Soviet land: 

1)

Critical analysis of the structures of the artistic life of capitalism.

2)

Indication of the new quantitative and qualitative factors, determinative

of the new purpose and new consumer basis of art following the October

revolution.

In the present article, we will attempt to provide the one and the other in broad 

general terms . . .

With the appearance of the bourgeoisie on the scene of history we witness the 

unprecedented blossoming of numerous branches of the spatial arts. Bourgeois 

art develops, which we almost were accustomed to regard as “art in general.” . . .

In these conditions the main interest of “the world of art” centers on those forms 

of the spatial arts which correspond most closely to the conditions of the mar-

ket, that is, easel painting, sculpture and graphics. Because they make “valuable 

unique objects,” which may easily be moved and collected . . .

After all, the type of artist is changing. The entire growing preponderance of 

genres intended for the individualistic emotion of a private bourgeois consumer 

summons to the forefront artists who perceive the surrounding world with special 

delicacy (a person, nature, things) and are able to express these individualistic 

feelings in the best manner. The type of artist who wants only to “portray” or 

“express his inward nature” prevails. Receding into the background is the artist 

who wants to organize things, to create something new, to lead his consumers. 

Big “personalities,” creators, head up the world of art. They are almost idolized by 

the average person who understands art, who still barely dares to raise his gaze 

to the icy summits of creativity. 

With such artistic baggage, we crossed from pre-October Russia to the Soviet 

Union. When we look back, we notice that practically all of this has been invari-

ably preserved: the commodity production of artistic goods; the proportion of 

various types of art and within them their various genres; the reliance upon a 

private consumer; the types of artists. In other words, the entire structure of the 

artistic life of capitalism. Only the art dealer has disappeared, and the old private 

client-patron has partially gone off  duty. 

In the course of the first ten years an entire generation of young artists has grown 

up, closely tied with the new socialist construction and wishing to participate 

actively in it. Yet they cannot find a place for themselves. Instinctively, they do not 

want to walk down the old paths. However, they cannot find new paths. The ma-

jority of them desert art and disappear from combat at this sector of the cultural 

revolution . . .

The new consumers diff er from the old in the numeric sense. Here we talk about 

millions, while the old consumers of art numbered in the thousands. To serve 

them as the old were served is utterly impossible. Where would we get millions 

of “unique objects,” paintings, statuettes, etc., able to “adorn” the private apart-

ments of these millions? The mass consumer requires mass provision. Individu-

alism is replaced by collectivism. Already this contradicts the entire practice of 

bourgeois artistic life. 

Yet, more important are the qualitative diff erences of the needs of the new con-

sumer. This new consumer represents classes, which are only slowly being elevat-

ed after centuries-old political oppression and cultural hunger. This new consum-

er does not have organs for the perception of those delicate emotions which were 

the main subject of art, which served the cultural stratum of the old ruling class. 

The new consumer must first build the material basis of his new life. He trans-

forms his everyday environment, or he supplements it, beginning with calico for 

a new dress and finishing with an entirely new 

izba [log house]. Exactly in these 

areas he puts forth new demands on art. He has been accustomed to art being 

part of everyday life. As it was for his forebears, he saw this among the old masters 

of the land. Every year the concrete demand for new houses, furniture, shoes, 

dishes, materials, etc., etc. increases. 

This is the main sector of artistic demand 

of our days.

However, there is one important qualitative diff erence for the new consumer of 

art. These millions are not a shapeless sum of individuals, but rather they are orga-

nized and form collectives. In these collectives and around them an entirely new 

life is unfolding. It is the collectives, which at the present time very often are still 

rather disconnected and drab, yet which become more and more animated, that 

in some respects replace the old individual consumers. Yet only in some respects. 

The life of the new collectives is impossible to compare with the life of the old 

merchants, entrepreneurs and individual collectors. Their needs concerning art 

are essentially diff erent. It is impossible, for example, to expect some club, some 

social organization or some living cooperative to purchase a prepared “market” 

painting, made for an unknown consumer. Yet in practice, this does happen in 

some places. However, experience shows that such pictures do not “grow” on 

their consumers. After a brief period of time, they usually no longer attract at-

tention and grow tiresome. The needs and artistic interests of the new collective 

consumer are more defined, concrete, and at the same time more complex than 

the needs of the collector-aesthetes of olden times. The new collective consumer 

himself desires to participate in the work on the object, which will bring the con-

sumer closer to the new collective life. 

The existing needs of a private, personal character of individual workers and 

peasants retreat into the background before these qualitatively new needs. The 

taste of the masses is raised on art that is collectively consumed. In the end, 

the visitor to the new clubs and other communal buildings and the participant in 

the newly created and artistically designed celebrations will, when organizing his 

own private environment, emulate the new art that is concentrated in the centers 

of the new collective everyday life . . .

. . . We cannot allow in an industrial country based on socialist principles and 

utilizing the newest technique to design objects for everyday use in a style char-

acteristic of the philistine of the latter half of the last century. 

Here we need to clarify something mentioned above, about the disintegration of 

the spatial arts in the period when the capitalist market ruled over art. 

Yes, in the huge majority the spatial arts disintegrated along the line of adaptation 

to the artistic market of bourgeois society. They aimed at the gratification of the 

needs of a very delicate stratum of consumers from the ruling class, access to 

which lay through the art market. 

The distinctive structure of artistic life under capitalism arose under these condi-

tions. 

Yet this new mass consumer of art, who has come to the fore among us thanks to 

the October Revolution, did not fall suddenly from the sky. This multi-million mass 

that already existed under capitalism already had specific needs. 

While it constituted not even one-hundredth part of those needs that we are 

faced with today and while it completely lacked the needs of the new qualitative 

moments that only opened to us after October, it made itself felt in its own way. 

The concentration of people in large cities, advances in the area of social legisla-

tion and public health won by the workers’ movement, the rise of the general cul-

tural needs of the masses, the necessity of implementing a “regime of economy” 

and, lastly, the progress of technology—all have pushed the ruling class towards 

exploring new methods in work and in the spatial arts. As a consequence of this, 

we already have the beginnings of new development in various areas of the spa-

tial arts under capitalism. These beginnings, which appeared not only in individ-

ual arts (in architecture, furniture, textiles, the ceramic industry, etc.) but also in 

the “ideological” arts (painting, graphics, posters, cinema), represent significantly 

valuable material for the new proletarian art. 

Originally published in Russian as Alfred Kurella, “Rekonstruktsiia khudozhestvennoi zhizni v SSSR,” 

Sovetskoe 

iskusstvo 7 (June 1928): 18–23. For a German translation see Zwischen Revolutionskunst und Sozialistischen Realis-

mus: Dokumente und Kommentare. Kunstdebatten in der Sowjetunion von 1917 bis 1934, ed. Hubertus Gassner and 

Eckhardt Gillen (Cologne: DuMont, 1979), 174–77. 

The version here has been translated from the Russian original by Erika Wolf.

Fundación Juan March