Latviešu kreisās mākslas uzliesmojumi 20.gs. 20. un 30. gados padomju Krievijā un Latvijā
Flashes of Latvian Leftist Art in Soviet Russia and Latvia during the 1920s and 30s

Summary/Abstract: In the interwar period, the consistently developed output of leftist artists proved unacceptable and dangerous to both Soviet Russia’s and Latvia’s political elites and civic circles. This is largely evident from the previous research on this subject that has encountered numerous obstacles. Among these was either partial or complete annihilation of artists and their art during the Great Terror in Russia, the dogmatic perspective of Socialist Realism focused on meticulously realist form, direct Communist ideological connotations affecting leftist art as well as the traumatic historical experiences of Latvia and Latvians under the Soviet occupation and waves of repressions. The article is a pioneering look at the most radical leftist Latvian artists’ activities in Soviet Russia and Latvia, searching for their common denominators. In 1922 and 1923, the artist Kārlis Johansons (1890–1929) who was known in Russian avant-garde circles wanted to organise two exhibitions in Latvia with himself as well as Gustavs Klucis (1895–1938) and Aleksandrs Drēviņš (1889–1938) as participants but met with a lack of interest. Klucis and Johansons later took part in the leftist Latvian group Kref that was active from 18 November 1923 to spring 1924, uniting fine artists and writers. They not only held public evenings with discussions but also met in a working group to exchange ideas once a week. The newspaper Krievijas Cīņa that represented the Latvian section of the Russian Communist Party’s Central Committee published derisive and critical reviews, accusing Kref of imitating Lef (ЛЕФ) and doubted the functionality of Johansons’ and Klucis’ exhibited constructions, although the former was interested in the functional solutions of structures while the latter – in their agitational use. This opinion was not changed also by the international evening of leftist art in the Central Communist Club of Moscow-based Latvians with the participation of renowned Russian men of letters such as Alexei Kruchenykh (Алексей Кручёных, 1886–1968) and Nikolai Tarabukin (Николай Тарабукин, 1889–1956); only eleven people attended the event. The leader of Kref Andrejs Ronis (?) tried to defend the organisation and approached Osip Brik (Осип Брик, 1888–1945) personally, asking him to publish a response in the sixth issue of the magazine Lef in 1924 but failed. Ronis’ letter and the manuscript of the reply are the only sources of information that have come down to us from the representatives of this organisation. In Latvia, the tandem of writer Linards Laicens (1883–1938) and artist Ernests Kālis (1904–1939) took over the popularisation of leftist art in the second half of the 1920s. They were active for some time before the onset of the Great Depression paying attention to constructivist form alongside socially critical ideas. The brightest example of their cooperation was the revolutionary literary magazine of Latvian workers Kreisā Fronte published in Riga from March 1928 to December 1930 when it was closed. The Latvian magazine’s design, compared to the Russian publication Novy Lef (Новый ЛЕФ), stood out with its consistent overall image with subordinated arrangement of photographs and graphic elements as well as the rear cover used as a communication platform with the reader. Regardless of its originality, social democratic critics accused the Latvian magazine’s content and design of plagiarising Novy Lef. Most leftist artists of both countries felt misunderstood and tried to establish mutual contacts; that was more easily done in the late 1920s and early 30s when both unofficial and official cooperation between Soviet Russia and Latvia developed. Leftist Latvian authors had episodic contacts via the cultural and educational society Prometejs (1924–1937). At first, the society was active in publishing Latvian books and periodicals at its publishing house Prometejs but in the early 1930s it also oversaw the Latvian section of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Artists (IBRA) whose aim was to improve international cooperation and promote contacts with Latvia and the USA. Thus graphic works by leftist Latvian artists were sent to the IBRA and exhibited at the International Revolutionary Artists’ Exhibition in Moscow. Among the participants were the creators of the graphic album Laikmeta seja [The face of the age] that was published in Latvia in 1933 and immediately confiscated. The pictorial edition was accused of “subversion of the existing system” or “incitement to hatred among certain groups of the population” according to paragraph 129 of the Penal Law. Expressiveness and overstatement seen on the sheets of Laikmeta seja are legal and even necessary means in the visual arts used by socially active artists throughout the Western world but in interwar Latvia they were viewed as a threat to the existing system. Several authors of the album were Communist Party members involved in illegal activities; therefore, they were isolated from current events in artistic and public life. For example, in 1934 the Society for Cultural Rapprochement with the USSR organised an official Latvian artists’ exhibition in Soviet Russia but none of the graphic artists who contributed to Laikmeta seja took part in the show with its thirty-eight representatives. Physical isolation in prison did not stop their practicing of art. For example, in 1933 Ernests Kālis, imprisoned for participation in Communist organisations, designed the cover for the poet Arnolds Grants’ (real name Andrejs Ikals, 1906–1942) book Plakātains vējš published by Prometejs in Moscow. Prison conditions affected Kālis’ health and he, like Samuils Haskins (1909–1974), emigrated to Soviet Russia in the mid-1930s to undergo treatment. The newcomers became actively involved with the activities of the Prometejs fine art section but they were perceived as leftist representatives of Latvia. Instead of Soviet benefits, both encountered the directives of Socialist Realism and were arrested in 1937 and 1938 as Latvian spies. Although, unlike Drēviņš and Klucis, they escaped death during the Great Terror, they experienced confinement or exclusion from culture as “wrong” leftists, threatening or too alien to the established artistic life or political system.

• Details
• Contents