El Lissitzky The Jewish Period 9781910787960

Citation preview

El Lissitzky The Jewish Period

El Lissitzky The Jewish Period

Alexander Kantsedikas General Editor, Matthew Drutt Edited by Yeshayahu Gruber Catalogue Photographs by Sergey Tartakovsky Special Assistance by Boris Chernyakov Portions Translated by Ludmila Lezhneva

Published by Unicorn in association with the El Lissitzky Foundation and the Kroll Family Trust

Published in 2017 by Unicorn, an imprint of Unicorn Publishing Group LLP 101 Wardour Street London W1F 0UG www.unicornpublishing.org Text © Dr Alexander Kantsedikas 2017 All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the copyright holder and the above publisher of this book. Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyrighted material. The publisher apologises for any errors or omissions and would be grateful to be notified of any corrections that should be incorporated in future reprints or editions of this book. ISBN 978-1-910787-96-0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Designed by Nick Newton Design Printed in Slovenia for Latitude Press Ltd

(Note that all citations given in a short form in the footnotes appear with complete publication information in the Select Bibliography.)

Interior of the Synagogue in Druya. c.1916 See Cat. P.24 Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket). 1922 See Cat. B.60

FRONT COVER BACK COVER

IN MEMORY OF CHIMEN ABRAMSKY

This book is based partly on the following edition: Alexander Kantsedikas and Zoya Yargina, El' Lizitskii: Fil'm zhizni, 1890–1941 [El Lissitzky: A Film of Life; in Russian], 7 vols. (Moscow: Novyi Ermitazh – odin, 2004)

This edition has been made possible through the generosity of the following institutions and individuals who contributed materials and resources: Uzi Agassi (Ra'anana) Chaikov Family (Moscow) Polina Chernilovskaya (London) Matthew Drutt (New York), Director of Exhibitions, El Lissitzky Foundation (Eindhoven) Heirs of Igor Garbatov (Moscow) Sergei Grigoriants (Moscow) Amir Gross Kabiri (Tel Aviv) Nicolas V. Iljine (Frankfurt) The Israel Museum (Jerusalem) Natalya Kahan-Shabshai (Ariel) Dr. Regina Khidekel (New York) Daniel Kroll (Tel Aviv) and the Kroll Family Trust (Lucerne) Tamara and Sergei Lissitzky (Novosibirsk) The M.T.A. Foundation (Paris) Moshe Kantor Collection (Moscow) The National Library of Israel (Jerusalem) The Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts (Moscow) Sprengel Museum (Hanover) The State Tretyakov Gallery (Moscow) Tel Aviv Museum of Art Van Abbemuseum (Eindhoven) YIVO Institute for Jewish Research (New York) Arkady Zozulinsky (Paris)

7

Contents Foreword Sponsor’s Foreword

8 9

Part One: Introductory Materials

12

1 Biographical Timeline, 1890–1919 2 Constructing the New Society: El Lissitzky as an Avant-Garde Artist 3 Looking into Old Mirrors: El Lissitzky as a Jewish Artist

13

Part Two: Catalogue Raisonné

72

Pictures (Cat. P) Books (Cat. B) Publisher’s Emblems (Cat. E) Signatures (Cat. S)

73

4 5 6 7

31 49

83 131 135

Part Three: Further Sources on El Lissitzky’s Jewish Period and Biography

140

8 El Lissitzky’s Yiddish Writings

141

Materials from the Family Archives 9 Commentaries Published During the Lifetime of El Lissitzky 10 Writings by Mark (Mordukh) Lissitzky, Father of El Lissitzky 11 Interview with Sergei Lissitzky, Grandson of El Lissitzky 12 El Lissitzky’s Connection with Polina Khentova (Polia Chentoff)

154

Appendix: Comparative Analytical Tables Select Bibliography

185

Author’s Biography

203

155 161 175 181

200

Foreword The El Lissitzky Foundation is very proud to present this groundbreaking publication as its first official project. Our organization was founded in 2014 to preserve Lissitzky’s legacy, to conduct and promote research and publications on the artist, to organize and facilitate exhibitions of his work, and to work towards the establishment of a definitive catalogue raisonné of Lissitzky’s work. Alexander Kantsedikas’s book on the artist’s understudied Jewish period embodies all of the key objectives of the Foundation, and we are very grateful to him for his thoughtful and scholarly volume. His efforts re-introduce this important body of work into Lissitzky’s oeuvre, which had been lost to the dustbin of art history’s margins. We are also thankful to the team that diligently assisted his efforts, especially Dr. Yeshayahu Gruber, Academic Director, Kol Hakatuv Ltd., Jerusalem, for his conscientious editorial work; Sergey Tartakovsky for the catalogue photographs; and Boris Chernyakov for his all-around support of various details surrounding the book’s publication. We also wish to acknowledge the excellent work of Ludmila Lezhneva for her translations of selected portions of the manuscript. Nic Iljine, Special Advisor to the director of the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, provided key assistance at various stages of the project as well as the establishment of the Foundation. At Unicorn Publishing, Group, LLP, we are deeply grateful to Lord Strathcarron, Chairman, for agreeing to serve as publisher and distributor of this publication, and we are most thankful to Lucy Duckworth, Director, for acting as its in-house manager. Nick and George Newton are responsible for the handsome design of the book, and Matthew Drutt, Independent Curator and Director of Exhibitions at the El Lissitzky Foundation oversaw the design and publication process in collaboration with all of the responsible parties so that we might reach this successful occasion. No project can be successful without visionary benefactors, so we are deeply grateful to Daniel Kroll and the Kroll Family Trust for their financial generosity and moral support for our efforts. Amir Gross Kabiri and the M. T. Abraham Foundation also provided initial assistance for Kantsedikas’s work. As director of an art museum that contains one of the largest collections of El Lissitzky’s work in the West, I am particularly proud to serve as the base for the umbrella organization of the El Lissitzky Foundation and head of its Board of Directors. This book sets the bar high for the standards of excellence we hope to embody as we move forward in our endeavors. Charles Esche, Director, Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands and Chairman, Board of Directors, El Lissitzky Foundation

Sponsor’s Foreword The Kroll Family Trust is actively engaged in promoting cultural activities and publications in order to promote 20th Century Art, including our substantial collections of fine art, to broader audiences. Following in the wake of eight decades of art collecting activities, I am a third generation collector and entrepreneur who shares a passion for Russian Modernism that began with my grandfather and has been passed on to me by my father. It is therefore a great honor for us to serve as sponsors for this wonderful volume by Alexander Kantsedikas on the Jewish Period of El Lissitzky, an artist who is represented in depth in the Trust’s collections. That it breaks new ground by bringing a scholarly eye to a previously understudied aspect of this celebrated artist’s work is an added benefit; it fits neatly into our objective to not only share knowledge and objects with an international audience but also to encourage pioneering thinking in areas previously thought thoroughly researched. We are therefore most grateful to Dr. Kantsedikas and the El Lissitzky Foundation for allowing us to play a central role in bringing this important scholarship to light, and we congratulate the entire team that brought this to endeavor to fruition. In particular,I would like to thank my dear friends and colleagues Matthew Drutt, Nic Iljine and Amir Kabiri for their enormous support throughout. Without it, this publication would have never seen the light of day. The Kroll Family Trust’s other recent publishing activities have included sponsoring Dynastic Rule: Mikhail Piotrovsky and the Hermitage, by Geraldine Norman (November 2016), and Sophie’s Testament: From Hanover to Siberia, by Ingeborg Prior (April 2016), a book in Russian detailing the colorful and often tragic life of Sophie Küppers-Lissitzky, El Lissitzky’s widow. This book was also our first collaboration with the El Lissitzky Foundation. We have also played an active role in fostering cultural relations between Israeli and Russian Museums, especially the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg and The Israel Museum Jerusalem, through exchanges of collections and exhibitions in partnership with the Hermitage Museum Foundation Israel. Our commitment to empowering educational support for young students was recently manifested through collaboration with the Afterall Institute to bring a complete set of its volumes to the library of the Tel Aviv Museum of Art. As we look to the future, we hope to continue the model of cooperative ventures that have allowed us to grow from our modest origins as a family charity into one that can have a significant impact on the international cultural landscape. We look forward to continued collaboration with the El Lissitzky Foundation as it matures and to the future opportunities that have yet to present themselves. Daniel Kroll, President, Kroll Family Trust.

Lissitzky’s Yiddish period […] is an area in need of documentary research, specifically the rise and subsequent fall-off of his enthusiasm for the artistic expression of Jewish secular traditions. […] Perhaps these new interpretations will in time lead scholars back to a critical examination of Lissitzky’s work as a Yiddish artist, thus furthering our understanding of his artistic identity. – Nancy Perloff, “The Puzzle of El Lissitzky’s Artistic Identity,” in Perloff and Reed, eds., Situating El Lissitzky, 13

A Legend of Prague. 1917 See Cat. B.13.1

Part One INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS

1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

14

Biographical Timeline, 1890–1919 1890 10 (22) November.1 Lazar Lissitzky is born to the family of a trade agent in the Pochinok rail station settlement, Yelnya district, Smolensk province (Russian Empire). “At the personal request of Mordukh Zalmanov Lissitzky,2 a tradesman of Vileyka [Wilejka] living in the shtetl of Dolginovo [Dolhinov], Vilna province, I have the honor to make it known that on 10 November 1890 a son was born to this Lissitzky by his wife Sarah Leibovna.3 [The child] was named Lazar. The official act of his birth and naming were recorded in the 1890 register of births as entry No. 137 (male). [Signed] Y. Kheifets, Smolensk community rabbi.”4 1891–1898 The Lissitzky family settles in Vitebsk, where Lazar’s brother and sister are born.5 Lissitzky’s father Mark (Mordukh) is an educated man who knows several languages; writes poetry, parables, and stories; and translates poetry from German, Hebrew, and Yiddish. One of his translations is of the poem Hatikvah by Naftali Herz Imber (1856–1909) – later the national

Mark (Mordukh) Lissitzky. The artist’s father

Sarah Lissitzkaya. The artist’s mother

Excerpt from the register of births. The Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 52, p. 1)

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

15

anthem of the state of Israel. El Lissitzky will recall in later years that his father read Heine and Shakespeare in the original and inculcated in his children a taste for literature and art. Lazar’s mother is reportedly domineering and adheres strictly to Jewish religious traditions. 1899 Lissitzky moves in with his maternal grandfather in Smolensk, where he enrolls in City School No. 1. He will later write in his autobiography, “I grew up in Smolensk in the household of Grandfather, a hatter.”6 1903 Summer. While vacationing with his parents in Vitebsk, Lissitzky for the first time visits the artist studio of Yury (Yehuda) Pen.7 He probably meets Marc Chagall and Ossip Zadkine there at this time.8 Chagall will later write in a letter to Pen: “I recall how, as a boy, I climbed the steps of your studio. And the tremor [of nervousness] with which I awaited you […]. I know how many other young boys in Vitebsk and the entire gubernia [province] had their fates decided by you. […] You have trained a vast generation of Jewish artists.”9

El (Lazar) Lissitzky. Smolensk, 1906

1905 In his autobiography El Lissitzky will later recall, “At age fifteen I began to earn a living by tutoring and drawing.”10 In a later essay, “Information on the Work of the Book Artist,” he will write: “I remember that the first book I did was in 1905 – it was a revolutionary almanac that I made on a typewriter in two copies. The drawings were my own; the text I composed with a friend.”11 1908 Summer–Autumn. Lissitzky lives with his parents in Vitebsk and apparently meets Zadkine and other young artists. Zadkine will later write: “In a summerhouse in a large courtyard, where the uncle of a friend, Libakov, allowed us to stay, we spent our time drawing. We all undressed and each of us was drawn. We were still a long way from what we later became.”12

El (Lazar) Lissitzky. Smolensk, 1908

1909 Lissitzky graduates from grammar school in Smolensk and tries to enroll in the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. However, he is rejected, possibly due to the discriminatory “Jewish quota”.13 He then leaves for Germany, where he begins to study architecture at the Darmstadt Polytechnic Institute. His wife will later write: “He lived in a modest room in the home

16

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

The Trinity Church in Vitebsk. 1910 See Cat. P.1

of a working-class family. He worked tirelessly, drawing and painting in watercolours. As his monthly allowance from home was scarcely enough to live on, he earned extra money by doing examination projects for fellow-students who were either too lazy or too inept to do their testpieces for themselves.”14 1910 Lissitzky creates two architectural landscapes, The Trinity Church in Vitebsk and Tower of the Fortress Wall in Smolensk, which constitute his earliest surviving works. 1911 While studying at the Darmstadt Polytechnic Institute, Lissitzky works as a bricklayer at a local workers’ colony construction site. During vacations he goes to see monuments of medieval Jewish architecture and culture in Germany, including the 11th-century synagogue at Worms. Lissitzky’s wife will later write: “In the holidays he ventured on long trips, which took him as far as Worms. There Lissitzky made drawings of the interior of the centuries-old synagogue, in particular the lion reliefs, which were to reappear in his later Jewish illustrations. The anonymous stonemason of the Middle Ages had as much significance for this student of architecture as the great artists whose names have come down to us in history.”15 18 August. Lissitzky writes the following in a letter to a friend in Smolensk (but never mails it from Darmstadt): “I […] have been working from six in the morning till six at night. Now I’m sitting on a sofa at home, reading

Worms Synagogue. 1908

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

17

Ecclesiastes and thinking that there is more sense in this hour of sitting and reading than in a week of my work.16 If I’m finally convinced of this, I’ll send it all to hell.”17 1912 Winter. Lissitzky travels to Paris and Belgium.18 He visits museums, exhibitions, and artists’ studios. He meets Zadkine and Henri van de Velde.19 March–October. During a long visit to Russia Lissitzky works as a draftsman in the St. Petersburg office of the building contractor Brachman.20 He meets young artists and poets who champion avantgarde trends in Russian art. El Lissitzky with Ossip Zadkine. Paris, 1912

5 November. The St. Petersburg Association of Artists opens its First Exhibition of Paintings and Studies with contributions from artists of various schools and movements.21 Here Lissitzky exhibits his works publicly for the first time, alongside works by D. Burliuk, V. Mayakovsky, V. Chekryghin, O. Zadkine, and others.22 1913 Lissitzky undertakes a tour of Italy. He will later write in his autobiography, “I covered more than 1,200 kilometers in Italy on foot – making sketches and studying.”23 His cycle of drawings and prints is entitled Recollecting Italy.

Tower of the Fortress Wall in Smolensk (Turm aus der Festungsmauer zu Smolemsk). 1910 See Cat. P.2

Italian Town (Italiaanse stad). 1913 See Cat. P.5

18

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

1914 Lissitzky defends his thesis project at the Darmstadt Polytechnic Institute and graduates cum laude. July. World War I begins. Lissitzky returns to Russia via Switzerland and the Balkans. Most of his recent works are left behind in Darmstadt. 1915 Lissitzky enrolls in the Riga Polytechnic Institute (which has been evacuated to Moscow) in order to obtain a Russian degree in architecture – an indispensable prerequisite for finding employment in his trade. He will later write in his autobiography: “‘From 1915 I lived in Moscow and exhibited every year. Earlier works from Recollecting Italy were bought by collectors and in October [i.e., during the Bolshevik Revolution of October/November 1917] nationalized for the benefit of the museum fund.”24 1916 April. Lissitzky begins to work in the studio of the architect B. Velikovsky.25 Later he serves as assistant to the architect R. Klein.26 Under the latter’s supervision Lissitzky participates in the interior design of the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts. In later years his wife will recall: “Lissitzky […] showed me with pride the evidence of his collaboration in arranging those exhibits. This was in fact the groundwork for coping with the problems which he himself encountered later when organizing large exhibition projects.”27 Summer. Together with the artist I.B. Ryback,28 Lissitzky visits towns and shtetls in Belarus and Lithuania. He makes sketches and copies of synagogue wall decorations in Mohilev (Mogilev), Dubrovno, and Druya (Druja). The two artists possibly also reach Shklov and Khilkov (but not the much more distant Drohobych).29 Contrary to assorted later speculation, this private expedition is evidently not sponsored by any larger organization.30 Reproductions of El Lissitzky’s copies of paintings in the Mohilev synagogue (see Cat. P.15–16, 18–19, 21–23) will survive and become widely known. Unlike these strictly ethnographic studies, his painting after the Druya synagogue’s interior design is executed in an expressive style (see Cat. P.24; Cat. B.20.2). Watercolors and canvases by Ryback depicting synagogues in Khilkov, Dubrovno, and elsewhere will also survive. Lissitzky will later utilize the Dubrovno synagogue motif in his poster designed for the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculptures by Jewish Artists (Moscow, 1918; see

El Lissitzky as a student. c.1914

Synagogue on the Banks of the Daugava (Western Dvina) River in Vitebsk. Photograph. Early 20th century

Solntse na izlyote (Flying Sun or Spent Sun). 1916 See Cat. B.2

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

The Mohilev Synagogue. A typical example of an ordinary exterior that contrasts with the sumptuous ceiling paintings inside

19

Cat. B.26), in his cover design for Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (see Cat. B.28), and in other works. Lissitzky will later write in “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences”: “Searching for our identity, for the character of our times, we attempted to look into old mirrors and tried to root ourselves in so-called ‘folk art.’ Almost all the other nations of our time followed a similar path. And therein you have the logical explanation of why I set out one summer to go ‘among the people.’ Ryback accompanied me.”31 Autumn. Lissitzky makes his debut in book design with a cover for K. Bolshakov’s book of verse, Solntse na izlyote.32 1917 During this year Lissitzky creates the first version of his illustrations to Had Gadya (One Young Goat, a Jewish Passover tale), as well as some other graphical works on Jewish themes. February. Lissitzky contributes to a World of Art exhibition in Petrograd.33 Moyshe Broderzon’s Sikhes khulin (A Legend of Prague) is published, thanks in part to the patronage of Yakov Kahan-Shabshai, with illustrations constituting Lissitzky’s first significant work in book design.34 Lissitzky is a participant in the activities of the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle, whose program states: “Marvelous artifacts of Jewish folk art remain unknown to everyone with the exception of two or three

Interior of the Synagogue in Mohilev. Photograph. Early 20th century

Yakov Kahan-Shabshai (1877–1939). Scholar, collector, and founder of a number of Jewish cultural organizations

The Great Synagogue in Vitebsk. 1917

See Cat. P.29

20

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

populist ethnographers, who, of course, have not studied that precious material from the aesthetic, historical, and artistic point of view that is naturally appropriate. […] Similarly, many noteworthy items among the works of today’s Jewish writers and artists, who have managed to produce pieces imbued with a genuine national flavor, have remained unnoticed, unpublished, and unappreciated.”35 March–April. Lissitzky serves as secretary of the organizing committee of the Moscow Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists, for which he designs a poster and the cover of the exhibition catalogue. An introductory article in the catalogue states: “In organizing this exhibition, the Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts aims to bring together sample pieces by all more or less notable Jewish artists in Russia.36 In this way we aim to reveal, on the one hand, the Jewish contribution to Russian art and, on the other hand, the extent to which Russian art has made Jewish artists dependent on its own peculiarities and traditions. The exhibition does not aim at any concrete or predetermined results, but rather seeks to reflect every artistic trend of Russian Jewry, without making distinctions between epochs, aesthetic schools, or trends.”37 According to the Novyi put' newspaper: “On April 4 an Exhibition of Jewish Artists, organized by the Moscow branch of the Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts, opened at the Lemercier Gallery. The exhibition is extensive and consists of about 400 paintings, sculptures, and graphic works. […] More than seventy artists have contributed their works, and there are few noticeable gaps.”38 Joseph Chaikov gifts Lissitzky some of his own graphical works. Lissitzky may also meet Polina Khentova at this time, with whom he will develop a very close relationship over the next five years.39

Title Page from the Shomir Publishing House prospectus. 1917 See Cat. B.4.1

Sikhes Kholin (A Legend of Prague). 1917 See Cat. B.11.1

June. The Birzhevye vedomosti newspaper writes about Sikhes khulin (A Legend of Prague): “The book has been published in the Japanese style and is very exquisite. El Lissitzky’s drawings deserve serious attention. They convey exciting exotics, movement, and profound national features wonderfully. […] El Lissitzky attempts to forge a new path and to find a Jewish style of his own in painting. He combines old Oriental symbols and the accomplishments of contemporary painting in his own ornamental painting and on this basis reveals fascinating grotesques.”40 9 July. The artist and critic Lev Antokolsky publishes a highly positive review article in Yevreiskaya nedelya (Jewish Week): “Lazar Lissitzky, a young artist and architect, a graphic artist and designer […] is a cultured, well-educated, and ardent champion of Jewish art, in love with the olden

Polina Khentova in front of Lissitzky’s Messiah panel. Moscow 1917

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

21

times and longing for rejuvenation and joyful revival. His large decorative panel Messiah is profound and impressive in its colorful harmony, charming in its wonderful details, original and bold in its composition. […] The tremendous value of this piece lies in its decorative stylishness and affinity with [traditional] Jewish style. Another work by Lissitzky, consisting of the illustrations to M. Broderzon’s tale […], is even more important from the point of view of national art; it represents a significant step forward for Jewish book design.”41 July–August. The Apollo magazine reports: “As its first attempt the Moscow Jewish Aesthetics Circle has published an old Jewish tale, Sikhes khulin, designed and illustrated by Lissitzky.”42 In the following issue of the magazine A. Efros singles out Lissitzky’s graphical works for review.43

By the Rivers of Babylon. 1917 See Cat. B.18

September. The Yiddishe Folkspartey (Jewish People’s Party) organizes an Arts Soirée in Moscow. Lissitzky designs the sets for one of its sections and the playbill cover.44 The following month Frida Yaffe will write in her diary: “All these Lefties […] produce a strange impression. Their aspirations differ from beauty the way we see it, and their road is from form to deformation, from harmony to disharmony. True, they see in this their new form of beauty. […] All of them are united by one goal – the search for national expression and national forms. Something like a studio is being formed here along those lines, where the artists Lissitzky, Khentova, Krein, Efros, and others work. Primarily they want to set Broderzon’s Yiddish tale to music.”45 October. Shtilim (Saplings), a Hebrew magazine for children, publishes Lissitzky’s illustrations to The Legends of King Solomon, a series of tales by Chaim Nahman Bialik.46

King Solomon. 1917 See Cat. B.19.1

November. Safrut Publishing House in Moscow issues a collection of Yiddish poetry in Russian translation entitled U rek vavilonskikh (By the Rivers of Babylon), with a cover designed by Lissitzky. The Yiddish Publishing House in Kharkov issues a Kunstring (Art Ring) almanac, with a cover designed by Lissitzky. This almanac also includes reproductions of works by Lissitzky, Khentova, Chaikov, and Chagall. 16 November. The Jack of Diamonds artistic group, which includes El Lissitzky, opens an exhibition of paintings at the Mikhailova Salon (11 Bolshaya Dmitrovka, Moscow). El Lissitzky’s works are exhibited for the first time alongside those of avant-garde artists such as I. Kliun (1873– 1943), K. Malevich (1878–1935), I. Puni (1894–1956), and O. Rosanova (1886–1918).

Poster for the Jack of Diamonds Exhibition. Moscow, 1917

December. Lissitzky’s Singer and Jericho go on display at a World of Art exhibition in Moscow.

22

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

1918 Lissitzky will later remark in his “Film of Life”: “In Moscow in 1918 there flashed before my eyes the short-circuit [of the Revolution] that had split the world in two. This single blow forced the time we call the present like a wedge between yesterday and tomorrow. My efforts are now directed to driving the wedge deeper. One must belong to this side or that – there is no middle ground.”47 31 March. The third anniversary of the death of the outstanding Yiddish writer I.L. Perets (1852–1915) is commemorated in Moscow. The event playbill is designed by Lissitzky; the sets are designed by Lissitzky with Khentova and Chaikov. April–May. Lissitzky will later write in his autobiography: “I joined the Art Section formed at the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’, and Soldiers’ Deputies. I was commissioned to design the first banner of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and on 1 May 1918 the Soviet of People’s Commissars carried it on Red Square.”48 One may surmise that Lissitzky met Malevich around this time; the latter had taken charge of the Art Section of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’, and Soldiers’ Deputies in the autumn of 1917 (not long before both artists participated in the Jack of Diamonds exhibition).

In honor of Y.L. Perets. 1918

See Cat. B.25

13 June. Lissitzky receives a diploma in architecture and engineering upon graduation from the Riga Polytechnic Institute.49 13 July. N. Khardzhiev writes in a note: “The Presidium of the Moscow Soviet of Worker’s Deputies, Moscow Department of Entry Permits, has granted Lissitzky permanent residence in Moscow in accordance with a petition submitted by the Union of Applied Artists.”50

Demonstration on Red Square, 1 May 1918

25 July. The Commissariat for Jewish National Affairs of the People’s Commissariat for National Affairs writes to Lissitzky, “When we open night courses for adults, we intend to invite you to lead excursions.”51 July–August. Lissitzky contributes ten works to the Second Moscow Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. The exhibition is organized by the Moscow Circle of Jewish Writers and Artists. A review in Der Emes (The Truth) remarks, “One can see at this exhibition that […] the dreams of Jewish artists have been coming true: a genuine Jewish art is being born.”52 During this time Lissitzky moves to Kiev. There he becomes involved in the operations of the Art Section of the Kultur-lige (Culture League), whose “goal […] is to assist in creating a new Yiddish

El (Lazar) Lissitzky, late 1910s (?)

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

Art Circle. 1917

See Cat. B.20.1

23

J. Chaikov. Portrait of El Lissitzky. Kiev, 1918

secular culture in the Yiddish language, in Jewish national forms, with the living forces of the broad Jewish masses, in the spirit of the working man and in harmony with their ideals of the future.”53 J. Chaikov will later write in his memoirs: “This was the time when Soviet power in Ukraine was giving way to that of the hetman Skoropadskyi, when the ataman [Cossack chieftain] Petlyura was on the rampage, and the cruel, bloody Civil War was in full swing.54 In those years I met Lazar Lissitzky, Alexandra Exter, and other artists in Kiev and frequently associated with them.55 We were all united by a sincere and all-consuming passion for art and the desire to convey in it something of our own, daring and unusual.”56

Yidisher Folks Farlag. Kiev, 1918 See Cat. E.10

December. A commission for the organization of a Pictorial Culture Museum in Petrograd endorses a list of artists whose works are to be purchased for the collection. Lissitzky is not among the 142 artists of differing ages and schools included in the list.57

24

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

1919 During this year Lissitzky is especially active in Jewish book design, illustrating eight children’s books for a number of publishers and designing several book covers and publisher’s emblems. These publications include one of Lissitzky’s masterpieces, the design for Mani Leib’s YinglTsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy).58 Lissitzky’s other book designs include those for: Dem zeidens kloles (Granddad’s Curses, a children’s play by Tzaddok Dolgopolsky [1879– 1959]), published by the Commissariat for Jewish Affairs in Moscow in the Yiddish Theatre Library series; Sabbath in the Woods by Yakov Fikhman (1881–1958); and the Tales of Hans Christian Andersen translated into Yiddish by Der Niester (“The Hidden One,” pen name of Pinchus Kahanovich [1884–1950]). February. Lissitzky and Ryback go to Pushcha Voditsa outside Kiev, where Lissitzky finishes the final version of Had Gadya in preparation for the first exhibition of Culture League artists.59 In the early 1920s one of the founders of the League, B. Aronson, will write: “Lissitzky edited Had Gadya as a stylized lubok, in which folk spontaneity was transformed into Jewish stylistic beauty. […] His highly deliberated illustrations fit their texts perfectly. He was the first to reveal a cultural understanding of the graphical tasks and formal elements of Jewish folk art. His use of stylistic folk elements was always skillful and intelligent.”60 Along with other Kultur-lige artists Lissitzky comes to the conclusion that avant-garde forms are needed to express the national idea in art. He produces his first abstract pictorial composition, now in the collections of the National Art Museum of Ukraine in Kiev.61 Around the same time, Ryback and Aronson write: “The essence of abstract painting consists in how rather than what. Thanks to this, many contemporary Jewish artists do reveal their racial origins [in their work], even if they do not wish to stress their ethnicity. However much the artist may strive to be international in his work, if his artistic sensations are expressed in abstract form he will nonetheless be ethnic [rather than international]. For the spiritual essence of the artist always grows out of impressions imbibed within his own milieu.”62 April. Lissitzky does outdoor design projects for a Proletarian Culture Day competition called by the United Council of the Kiev Trade Unions. A report by the Art Section of the Kiev Narkompros (People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment) reads: “At the suggestion of the Art Section of the city Commissariat a new type of street sign bearing street names was

Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy). Cover of the book by Mani Leib. 1919 See Cat. B.28

Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 See Cat. B.40.3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

25

designed within two days. The job was accomplished by Lissitzky and Bogomazov. Comrade Lissitzky’s design was found appropriate and was passed on to the city commissariat.”63 With the writer Ben Zion Raskin, Lissitzky also signs a contract with Yidisher Folks Farlag of Kiev to produce eleven children’s books for its Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) series. The first five books are to be delivered to the publisher by 1 July and the rest by late September 1919. Three books designed by Lissitzky will actually be published in that series. Two of these will be slightly amended and reprinted in Hebrew in Warsaw in 1922.64 6 April. Lissitzky publishes his earliest known article in Yiddish, “Proletariat un Kunst” (“Proletariat and Art”), in the Folkstsaytung (People’s Paper) of Kiev.65 13 April. The First State Free Art Exhibition opens at the Palace of Arts in Petrograd. According to N. Khardzhiev, El Lissitzky meets Chagall during this exhibition.66 Society for Jewish Music. 1919 See Cat. B.31

1 May. Chagall meets Lissitzky in Moscow and invites him to take charge of the architecture and printing studios of the Vitebsk People’s Art School. 11 May. The Zhizn' iskusstva (Art Life) newspaper carries the following notice: “The artist Lissitzky reported on the activities of Jewish artists in Kiev over the past year to the management board of the Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts. The artist paid much attention to illustration of Yiddish children’s and folk literature.”67

Composition. 1919 See Cat. P.35

Kultur-lige emblem. Kiev, 1919 See Cat. E.12

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

26

Mid-May. Lissitzky moves to Vitebsk to teach at the People’s Art School. In 1918 Chagall had written: “The town of Vitebsk was astir. In those October days multifathomed [i.e., broadly rooted] revolutionary art was starting in this provincial backwater with a 100,000-strong population, where a certain Yuri Klever stagnated in his time and where the wretched Peredvizhniki (Itinerant Artists) movement lived out its last days.”68 Mark Chagall. Over Vitebsk. 1921–1922

Notes 1 Lazar (El) Lissitzky was born on 10 November 1890 according to the Julian (“old style”) calendar, which corresponds to 22 November 1890 according to the Gregorian (“new style”) calendar. His birthday is commonly given in the literature as 23 November; however, this is incorrect: in the 19th century the difference between the two calendars amounted to twelve days (rather than thirteen days as in the 20th and 21st centuries). 2 Mordukh Zalmanov (Mark Solomonovich) Lissitzky, the father of El Lissitzky, lived 1863– 1948. 3 The birth and death dates of Sarah Leibovna Lissitzkaya, the mother of El Lissitzky, are unknown. 4 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 52, p. 1. According to this excerpt from the birth registry, El Lissitzky’s father was called Mordukh (Mordechai). Thus, Lazar’s patronymic must have been Mordukhovich. In every known document of the Soviet period, however, El Lissitzky’s official name is given as Lazar Markovich Lissitzky. The substitution is explained by the fact that Russian Jews frequently changed Mordukh to Mark beginning in the second half of the 19th century. For example, the famous sculptor Mark Antokolsky (1843–1902) was also originally called Mordukh. (For an explanation of this practice, see Kazovsky, “Yevreiskie khudozhniki,” 167–168; for a vivid anecdote related to the case of Mark/ Mordukh Antokolsky, see Kampf, “In Quest of the Jewish Style,” 49 n. 7.) The personal archive of Ruvim Lissitzky, the brother of Lazar (El), contains an official document dated 20 March 1921 certifying the change of his own patronymic from Mordukhovich to Markovich. It is possible that Lazar officially changed his patronymic at the same or approximately the same time (in the years immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution).

5 Ruvim Markovich Lissitzky (1895–1980), the younger brother of El Lissitzky, was a pharmacist. Beginning in 1915 he lived in Moscow, except for periods of study and military service. He managed several Moscow pharmacies, including the Kremlin pharmacy in the 1930s, and authored pharmacology books and manuals published from the 1930s to the 1970s. It is not known when El Lissitzky’s younger sister Jenta was born. She committed suicide in 1925, while El Lissitzky was undergoing treatment in Switzerland. He grieved the loss of his sister, as is attested by the memoirs of S. Lissitzky-Küppers and a brief but highly emotional note found in the artist’s own archive (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 31, p. 1). 6 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17. El Lissitzky’s autobiography, now kept in the RGALI archives, was written in the late 1930s. 7 Yehuda (Yury) Moiseyevich Pen (1854–1937) was a Realist painter and graduate of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. In 1897 he opened a private drawing and painting school in Vitebsk, which in 1918 Chagall would use as a base for his newly-founded People’s Art School. El Lissitzky began to teach at this school in the summer of 1919; Malevich also did so beginning in November 1919. 8 Marc Zakharovich (Movsha Khatzkelevich) Chagall (1887–1985) was a celebrated 20thcentury painter and graphic artist. Ossip (Yossel Aronovich) Zadkine (1890–1967), a native of Smolensk, was a well-known avant-garde sculptor. 9 “Letter from Marc Chagall to Y. Pen” [in Russian], State Archive of Vitebsk Region, f. 1947, op. 1, d. 47, p. 320; quoted in Kazovsky, Artists from Vitebsk, 11. 10 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17. 11 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 14; quoted in Rubinger, ed., El Lissitzky, 81.

12 Ossip Zadkine, “El Lissitzky in Vitebsk,” in Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 397. The cited publication dates the described meeting between Lissitzky and Zadkine to 1915. However, this is doubtful, since Zadkine served in the French army during World War I. According to Ruth Apter-Gabriel, the meeting in Vitebsk might have taken place instead in 1908, when Zadkine spent the summer in Russia (ApterGabriel, “El Lissitzky’s Jewish Works,” 123). If we connect Zadkine’s memoirs to his relief portrait of El Lissitzky (which dates to 1908; see in the Biographical Timeline under Summer–Autumn 1908 and Sylvain Lecombre, Ossip Zadkine: L’oeuvre sculpté [Paris: Paris-Musées, 1994], 47), then the latter dating seems more probable. 13 In his autobiography Lissitzky explained his rejection from the Academy as due to the Jewish quota, which severely restricted Jewish matriculation at institutions of higher learning (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17). N. Khardzhiev was of a different opinion and claimed, though without referring to any source, that Lissitzky “did the examination assignment in disregard of the Academy canons” (Khardzhiev, “El' Lisitskii – konstruktor knigi,” 145). Nikolai Ivanovich Khardzhiev (1903–1996) was a student of Russian avant-garde literature and art, the organizer of El Lissitzky’s first solo show at Moscow’s Mayakovsky Museum (18–19 November 1960), and the author of several articles about El Lissitzky’s works. The archive compiled by Khardzhiev remains an invaluable source of information about Lissitzky’s life and work. However, some claims and statements provided by Khardzhiev have no independent verification. 14 Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 16. 15 Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 16. No doubt this information derives from

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

Lissitzky’s own recollections; it underscores the importance he attached to becoming familiar with medieval Jewish cultural artefacts. In his review of the Moscow exhibition of Jewish artists Lev Antokolsky wrote, as early as 1917, about the same interests and influences in Lissitzky’s life and art: “Lazar Lissitzky […], who came to Moscow during the storm of the great war, fresh from the desk of a German architecture faculty, and who had explored ancient synagogues in Germany, such as the one in Worms, rummaged through archives and Jewish chronicles […]” (Antokolsky, “Yevreiskaya khudozhestvennaya vystavka”). Lissitzky’s own article, “The Mohilev Synagogue. Reminiscences” (see ch. 8), echoes these observations. Other early Jewish sources consulted by Lissitzky may have included illuminated Hebrew manuscripts; Haia Friedberg attempted to show that he drew on such works when creating Had Gadya (Friedberg, “Lissitzky’s Had Gadia,” 292–303 nn. 5–9). 16 The Lissitzky family apparently read the book of Ecclesiastes frequently. El Lissitzky closed “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” with a quotation from Ecclesiastes 9:4 (“A living dog is better than a dead lion”). His father Mark Lissitzky used the same words at the end of his last literary piece, “A Riddle,” which was dictated shortly before his death (from the private archive of Tamara and Sergei Lissitzky). 17 An excerpt from this letter, written in Khardzhiev’s hand, may be found in the archive of the Khardzhiev-Chaga Art Foundation preserved at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (KhardzhievChaga Archive, box 206). 18 Lissitzky’s wife dated his Paris trip to the summer of 1911 (Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 19). However, this contradicts her dating of a photograph of Lissitzky and Zadkine in Paris to 1912 (in the same publication). Furthermore, an autobiographical note by El Lissitzky dates his Paris and St. Petersburg trips to 1912 (“Opis' zhizni i rabot Lazarya Markovicha Lissitzkogo,” RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 9). 19 Henri van de Velde (1863–1957) was a famous Belgian architect and interior designer. He helped to found Art Nouveau and subsequently worked as a theorist and practitioner of functionalism (rationalism) in European architecture. 20 This information is found in El Lissitzky’s work record (“Trudovoi spisok,” private collection). See also: El Lissitzky, “Opis' zhizni” (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 9); P. Nisbet, “An Introduction to El Lissitzky,” in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890– 1941, 47 n. 10. 21 The St. Petersburg Association of Artists was founded in 1912 on the initiative of young artists who belonged to various schools and movements. Out of 1,500 submitted works, 600 were selected for the exhibition. This event served as the artistic debut not only of Lissitzky, but also of Mayakovsky

27

and Zadkine. (See Severyukhin and Leikind, Zolotoi vek, 324–325.) 22 David Davidovich Burliuk (1882–1967) was a painter, graphic artist, poet, and founder of Russian Futurism. He left Russia in 1920. Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky (1893–1930) was an outstanding Russian Futurist poet and artist. Vasily Nikolayevich Chekryghin (1897–1922) was a graphic artist, painter, and leader of the Makovets association of artists.

Kopys synagogue decoration. Published in R. Bernshtein-Vishnitser, “Jewish Art in Poland and Lithuania” (see note 29)

23 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17, where the Italian journey is apparently misdated 1912. Lissitzky’s earlier “Opis' zhizni” (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 9) dates this trip to 1913. In addition, drawings by Lissitzky made during the Italian trip (now at the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven) are dated 1913. 24 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17. The mention of nationalization implies that the works passed into the hands of the Museum Fund of the People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment, which in the late 1920s and 1930s redistributed many works of art among provincial museums. Thus the given works by Lissitzky may still exist somewhere, yet to be discovered, among the holdings of former Soviet museums. 25 Boris Mikhailovich Velikovsky (1878–1937) was a Russian architect and member of the Moscow Architecture Society. He designed many buildings in Moscow, including a number of Constructivist edifices in the 1920s. El Lissitzky worked at his studio from April to November 1916. 26 Roman Ivanovich Klein (1858–1924) was a Russian architect who designed the building of the Moscow Museum of Fine Arts (now the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts), the Muir and Mirrielees trade house (now the Central Department Store [TsUM]), the Borodino bridge, and other prominent structures in Moscow. 27 Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 19. 28 Issachar Ber Ryback (1897–1935), a Jewish artist, was born in Ukraine and studied at the Kiev Art School from 1911 to 1916. Ryback was a member of several organizations devoted to Jewish art in Russia and one of the founders of the Culture League in Kiev. In the early 1920s he lived in Berlin for a while and belonged to the November Group. In 1926 he left the Soviet Union for good and settled in Paris. 29 Aronson, Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika, 68 (English translation [with some small inaccuracies] in Apter-Gabriel, Tradition and Revolution, 236). For the problematic statement regarding Drohobych, see M. Dmitrieva-Aingorn, “Evreiskie khudozhniki iz Rossii v Berline 20-x godov,” Vestnik Evreiskogo universiteta v Moskve 2/9 (1993): 168–187, here p. 174. Numerous other errors have also crept into the scholarly literature with regard to this expedition. Some have even claimed that the artists visited as many as 200 synagogues (see Kampf, “In Quest of the

El Lissitzky, Detail from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev with a Ship (see Cat. P.21)

El Lissitzky, Detail from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev with a View of Worms (see Cat. P.23)

Jewish Style,” 51–52). Such claims would appear to be groundless, if only due to the fact that this number of synagogues no longer existed in the Dniepr region of Byelorussia and eastern Lithuania where Lissitzky and Ryback traveled. Moreover, no analyst has noted that 50 km north of Mohilev, the synagogue of Kopys contained very similar decoration by the hand of the same master, as shown by the details reproduced here from R. Bernshtein-Vishnitser, “Iskusstvo u evreev v Pol'she i na Litve” [“Jewish Art in Poland and Lithuania”], in A.I. Braudo et al., Istoriia evreiskago naroda [History of the Jewish People; in Russian] (Moscow: Mir, 1914), 394. Note also that various contradictory dates have been advanced for the expedition; the time frame given here has been carefully checked against all available sources. 30 Kampf claimed that the Jewish HistoricoEthnographic Society financed the expedition of Ryback and Lissitzky (Kampf, “In Quest of the Jewish Style,” 51; see also Apter-Gabriel, “El Lissitzky’s Jewish Works,” 101–102; Ziva AmishaiMaisels, “The Jewish Awakening: A Search for National Identity,” in Susan Tumarkin Goodman, ed., Russian Jewish Artists in a Century of Change, 1890–1990 [New York: Jewish Museum – Prestel, 1995], 54–70, here p. 67 n. 75). Without referring to any source, A. Shatskikh wrote that the expedition “was paid for by the recently created Jewish Society for the Advancement of the Arts (1916), located in Petrograd” (Shatskikh, Vitebsk, 60). However, evidence for both these assertions

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

28

is lacking. According to Rachel Wischnitzer (1885–1989), the editor of Milgroym – Rimon who in 1923 published Lissitzky’s “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences,” Lissitzky stated only that he and Ryback had been “inspired by an exhibition of Jewish art in 1916 in Moscow” (Wischnitzer, “From My Archives,” 8). Meanwhile, Kazovsky erroneously implied that Ryback and Lissitzky embarked on their travels as part of the major Jewish ethnographic expedition headed up by S. An-sky (Kazovsky, “Shagal i evreiskaya khudozhestvennaya programma,” 88). Although Lissitzky certainly did know of the An-sky expedition (and apparently attended a related exhibition in Petrograd c.1916), this theory is similarly unfounded. An-sky’s expedition was conducted in Ukraine between 1912 and 1914 and was interrupted by World War I. When Lissitzky and Ryback made their trip in 1916, An-sky was participating in a charity mission in the frontline region of Galicia. Moreover, An-sky’s archives in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, and New York contain no confirmation that he even knew El Lissitzky. Irina Sergeeva more accurately wrote that the expedition was carried out in a similar spirit as An-sky’s but not as part of it (Irina Sergeeva, Arkhivna spadshchina Semena Ans'kogo u fondakh Natsional'noi biblioteki Ukraini imeni V.I. Vernads'kogo [Kiev: Dukh i litera, 2006], 202). S. An-sky (Semyon Akimovich [Shloime Zainvl] Rappoport, 1863–1920) was a well-known writer, political activist, and ethnographer. His landmark expeditions in 1912–1914 gathered an enormous collection of Jewish art, music, and other ethnographic materials. El Lissitzky later utilized one such source, a group of ornamental sheets from a pinkas (communal register) displayed at an exhibition of the expedition’s collections. The original came from Ukraine and dated from the mid-19th century. Lissitzky made use of this model in his design for the major work Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende (Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague, 1917), as well as in his title page for the Catalogue of the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculptures by Jewish Artists (1917). See: Cat. B.11.18, B.14.2, B.15.17, B.16.3, B.17.2; Kantsedikas, Semyon An-Sky, 96 (ill. 56). 31 Lissitzky, “The Mohilev Synagogue,” 9 (for the full text, see ch. 8). See also the excellent analysis of Lissitzky’s recollections in: Sokolova, “Belyi gospodin'.” For accurate information on the Mohilev synagogue, see: Pitin, “Mogilevskaya sinagoga.” 32 This work is commonly known in English as Flying Sun, though it could also be translated as Spent Sun or End of the Sun. It is one of Lissitzky’s earliest works with pronounced Futurist elements. Konstantin Aristarkhovich Bolshakov (1885–1938) was a representative of Russian Futurism in poetry and prose. An earlier book of his, Serdtse v perchatke (A Heart in a Glove; Moscow, 1913), had been designed by the leading Russian avant-garde artist Natalia Goncharova.

Lissitzky inscribed a sketch of his cover design with the following words: ”A bunch of my lines as a memento for my poet friend Konst. Arist. Bolshakov.” Thus Lissitzky evidently enjoyed friendly relations with the Futurists and was close to them. 33 The World of Art was an association of Russian artists that defied both the Academy and avantgarde styles. It was active from 1898 to 1904 and from 1910 to 1924. In 1916–1917 works by Lissitzky appeared in World of Art exhibitions in Moscow and Petrograd. 34 This work is commonly known as A Legend of Prague, though the main Yiddish title means literally Idle Chatter. Moyshe Broderzon (1890– 1956) was a Symbolist poet, playwright, stage director, and Jewish cultural activist in Poland and Russia. During the First World War Broderzon lived in Moscow and was on friendly terms with El Lissitzky and J. Chaikov, who illustrated his books. In 1917 he was actively involved in a number of Jewish cultural initiatives. Futurist drawings and woodcuts by Broderzon himself are also quite well known. Joseph Moiseyevich Chaikov (1888–1979) was a sculptor and graphic artist. Between 1912 and 1926 he designed Jewish books published in Paris, Kiev, Moscow, Warsaw, and Berlin. He was also active in Jewish art associations. Broderzon, Lissitzky, Ryback, Chaikov, and others were among the founders of the Moscow Circle of Jewish Writers and Artists and the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle. The first programmatic book published by this group was in fact Sikhes khulin by Broderzon and Lissitzky, a publication that became well known among art lovers. Sikhes khulin was dedicated to Yakov Fabianovich Kahan-Shabshai (1877–1939), a professor of electrical engineering and the founder of a private electrical engineering institute in Moscow (in operation from 1920 to 1933) who also supported a great many Jewish artists. Note that an excellent recent study by Yakov Bruk treats the critical role played by Kahan-Shabshai in the lives of Moscow Jewish artists (Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai). A dedication in El Lissitzky’s hand written on the reverse of the title page of one copy described Kahan-Shabshai as “an ecstatic Jew in his dreams and deeds.” Kahan-Shabshai also owned a copy of Sikhes khulin produced in the form of a scroll, which is now in the collections of the Book Museum of the Russian State Library (formerly the Lenin Library) in Moscow. Kahan-Shabshai additionally possessed a 1917 watercolor portrait of M. Broderzon by Lissitzky. According to C. Abramsky, Kahan-Shabshai subsidized Lissitzky’s work on A Legend of Prague (Abramsky, “Yiddish Book Illustrations,” 62). That assertion is corroborated by a note in the margins of the Kahan-Shabshai art collection inventory: “Commissioned by KahanShabshai. Script written by a sofer [Jewish scribe] under a special order for A Legend of Prague” (“Opis' khudozhestvennoi kollektsii Y.F. KahanaShabshaya,” private archive of Natalya Kahan-

Shabshai, p. 1, para. 6). For more on Sikhes khulin and Broderzon’s oeuvre in general, see Rozier, Moyshe Broderzon. Kahan-Shabshai’s collection of contemporary Jewish art, undoubtedly the most comprehensive in Russia at the time, included ten works by Lissitzky: Biblical themes, three portraits, genre compositions, and the book design. KahanShabshai continued to show interest in Lissitzky’s works after the artist turned to Abstract painting. Thus, for example, El Lissitzky’s Proun Inventory listed a work from the Kahan-Shabshai collection as no. 58 (“The Annotated Transcript of El Lissitzky’s Proun Inventory,” in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 168). The Kahan-Shabshai collection also comprehended a considerable number of works by Chagall (eighteen of which were shown at Chagall’s solo exhibition at the Galerie Lutz, Berlin, in early 1923) and by L. Antokolsky, I. Gunzburg, M. Maimon, L. Pasternak, I.B. Ryback, P. Khentova, J. Chaikov, and others. In 1924 the Moscow City Soviet (Council) refused to allot a plot of land for Kahan-Shabshai to build a Jewish art gallery. Nine years later, as recorded in his autobiography, he transferred his large collection to a Jewish museum being formed in Odessa: “In 1932 I founded a Jewish art gallery (with over 300 items), which I presented to the Mendele [Mocher Seforim] Museum of Jewish [Culture] in Odessa” (private archive of Natalya Kahan-Shabshai). The collection was apparently sent to Odessa, but its subsequent fate is unknown. It may well have been destroyed: during World War II the museum building was hit by a bomb. On the other hand, the fate of the museum’s extensive collections remains mysterious until today; perhaps one day some of the items will be rediscovered. Unfortunately, not even photographs of most of Lissitzky’s works from the Kahan-Shabshai collection have survived, so far as is known. 35 The program of the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle was published in a prospectus issued by Shomir Publishing House (Moscow, 1917). Artists associated with this Circle included Chagall, El Lissitzky, N. Altman (1889–1970), J. Chaikov, and I.B. Ryback; the art critics Y. Tugendhold (1882– 1928) and A. Efros (1888–1954) also collaborated. Shomir Publishing House was founded by the Circle for the purpose of publishing high-quality Jewish books and art albums. Lissitzky himself designed the Shomir prospectus. 36 The Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts was founded in Petrograd in November 1915 on the initiative of the sculptor Ilya Gunzburg (1859–1939). Its Moscow branch, with which Lissitzky collaborated, was formed in March 1916. The Society aimed to provide comprehensive support for Jewish artists and to popularize ethnic art. At least two directions of the Society’s operations were close to Lissitzky’s interests; namely, staging exhibitions and raising the quality of popular – primarily children’s – books. Lissitzky took an active part in two of the three exhibitions

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

organized by the Society (in Moscow in 1917 and 1918). 37 Katalog Vystavki kartin i skul'ptury khudozhnikov evreev (Catalogue of the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists; Moscow, 1917). The four works by Lissitzky in the exhibition included A Legend of Prague in the form of a scroll and the Messiah panel (also known as The Advent of the Messiah), which was purchased by Kahan-Shabshai. 38 Novy put' 13–15 (23 Apr. 1917). 39 Polina Arkadiyevna (Abramovna) Khentova (1890s–1933) was an artist and close personal friend of Lissitzky from 1917 through the early 1920s. She also contributed to the 1917 World of Art exhibition in Petrograd and to Jewish exhibitions held between 1917 and 1920. For more on her life and relationship with Lissitzky, see ch. 12. 40 Tepin, “Kruzhok evreiskoi estetiki” [“The Jewish Aesthetics Circle”], Birzhevye vedomosti (June 1917). 41 Antokolsky, “Yevreiskaya khudozhestvennaya vystavka.” 42 “Exhibitions,” Apollo 6–7 (July 1917). 43 A. Efros, in Apollo 8–10 (Aug. 1917). 44 The soirée playbill represents the first surviving evidence of a scenographic project implemented by Lissitzky. 45 “Diary of Frida Yaffe” (manuscript), 13 Oct. 1917, Igor Garbatov private archive, p. 20. Frida Yaffe (née Kaplan, 1892–1982) was the wife of Lev Yaffe (1876–1948), a Russian Jewish poet and public figure with whom Lissitzky cooperated at this time. Her handwritten diaries mention several meetings with Lissitzky in Moscow in 1917. The entry for 13 October 1917 quoted here attests to Lissitzky’s interest in the theatre. In a letter of 17 July 1917 to the writer Shmuel Niger, Broderzon also mentioned a theatre studio founded by the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle (Rozier, Moyshe Broderzon, 55). This tallies with the assertion of the Polish art critic Jerzy Malinowski, who named Lissitzky among the Jewish artists associated with the Jewish Theatre in Moscow (though without citing any sources; Malinowski, Grupa “Jung Idysz”, 49). Alexander Abramovich Krein (1883–1951) was a composer, cellist, and graduate of the Moscow Conservatory. In the period under consideration Krein was active in Jewish musical societies and maintained close links with other Jewish culture figures. Abram Markovich Efros (1888–1954) was an art critic and author of books and articles on the history of Russian and Jewish art. He was the first to write about Chagall, Altman, Jewish theatre artists in Russia, and other related themes. 46 Chaim Nahman Bialik (1873–1934) was the most famous of modern Hebrew poets. For Lissitzky’s illustrations, see Cat. B.19; Appendix, Table 3.

29

47 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 2. Lissitzky made this emotional pronouncement in 1926, in an apparent admission that he had paid little attention to the Russian Revolution in its early months. In 1917 he must have been too engrossed in Jewish art life to be active politically. 48 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17. According to some indications, Lissitzky was involved in the street decorations of central Moscow made for the 1918 May Day celebrations. A. Krusanov, among others, wrote about this circumstance (Krusanov, Russkii avangard, vol. 2.1, p. 75). However, it is doubtful that, as Krusanov asserts, Lissitzky’s banner “carried on Red Square” should be identified with “the tawdry and sugary Futurist banner […] raised in front of the Soviet house [i.e., probably, the Moscow City Soviet building]” (Y. Tugendhold; quoted in Krusanov, Russkii avangard, vol. 2.1, pp. 76, 665 n. 161). It seems unlikely that the same banner would have been carried in a demonstration and used to decorate a building. 49 El Lissitzky later wrote in his autobiography, “I defended my graduation project in architecture in 1917” (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17). However, the same archive includes his Riga Polytechnic Institute diploma in architecture and engineering, dated 13 June 1918. 50 “Fragment by N. Khardzhiev” [in Russian], Khardzhiev-Chaga Archive, box 206. 51 From the private archive of Tamara and Sergei Lissitzky. This letter makes it possible to ascertain that Lissitzky’s departure for Kiev did not take place until late July of 1918. We must disagree with A. Shatskikh’s claim that Lissitzky was sent to Kiev by the Art Section of the People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment (Shatskikh, Vitebsk, 60). From January 1918 through February 1919 the Ukrainian People’s Republic was an independent state that pursued a hostile policy towards Soviet Russia. In consequence, official business trips of this nature did not take place during those months. 52 Der Emes (11 Aug. 1918), 2. Der Emes was the Yiddish version of Pravda, the Bolshevik newspaper in Moscow. The exhibition catalogue lists ten works by El Lissitzky, including Evil Dreams (no. 137) and other paintings and graphical works (nos. 138–146). 53 Bulletin of the Central Committee of the Kultur-lige; quoted in Kampf, “In Quest of the Jewish Style,” 66. The Kultur-lige was a Jewish enlightenment organization founded in Kiev in early 1918. It united Jewish cultural figures from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, and other lands from 1918 through the 1920s. Members of the Art Section of the Kultur-lige were active in book and stage design. For further details, see: Wolitz, “Jewish National Art Renaissance,” 34–39; Ribakov, ed., Pravda istorii; Kazovsky, “Art Section,” 5–22. The most exhaustive source of information about the activities of the Art Section of the Kultur-lige is Kazovsky, Artists of the Kultur-Lige. This work

cites the manifesto of the Kultur-lige founders as evidence of their ambitions: “We want to not only draw on world culture; we want to make our contribution to it. We want to add to it not merely new searchers and makers but to fill it with the new dynamics of quest and a new original rhythm of creative work.” (Kazovsky, Artists of the KulturLige, 37, 115 nn. 28–29.) 54 Pavlo Petrovych Skoropadskyi (1873–1945), a pro-German politician, was hetman of Ukraine from April to December 1918. Under Skoropadskyi the law on the autonomy of national minorities was revoked and the previously established Jewish Ministry abolished. Symon Vasylyovych Petlyura (1879–1926) was a Ukrainian public figure and an organizer of the Central Rada, the government of independent Ukraine. He was implicated in the pogroms of 1918–1920. 55 Alexandra Alexandrovna Exter (Grigorovich; 1882–1949) was a leading Russian and Ukrainian avant-garde painter and theatre artist. She worked in Kiev, Moscow, and Paris. While in Kiev Exter collaborated with Culture League artists such as El Lissitzky, Ryback, and Chaikov. 56 Quoted in M. Shmidt, Iosif Chaikov (Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1977), 15. 57 I.L. Matsa, ed., Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let: Materialy i dokumentatsiya (Moscow: Ogiz-Izogiz, 1933), 124–136. 58 Mani Leib was the penname of the Yiddish writer Mani-Leib Braginsky (1883–1953). His YinglTsingl-Khvat, with the design by Lissitzky, was published in Kiev in 1919 and in Warsaw in 1922. 59 The first version of Lissitzky’s illustrations to Had Gadya, made in 1917, was not published in full either during the artist’s lifetime or after his death. (The originals are currently preserved in the State Tretyakov Gallery, item no. RC 1787/11–11.) Lissitzky finished another version in gouache in Kiev in early 1919 (now in the collections of the Tel Aviv Museum). He made a colored lithograph of this version with almost no alterations. The 1917 version was conceived for a children’s book, a circumstance that was reflected in both the text and the imagery of the drawings. Lissitzky’s later version of Had Gadya was directly or indirectly connected with revolutionary developments in Russia. Haia Friedberg wrote, “He tried to persuade the Jewish public that the Communist cause was just by using traditional Yiddish symbols and typical Jewish values” (Friedberg, “Lissitzky’s Had Gadia,” 294). However, revolutionary developments as perceived by Lissitzky and his Jewish associates in Kiev should not be identified too bluntly with “the Communist cause.” As a part of the Passover legend, Had Gadya was firmly linked in the Jewish national mind with the idea of Jewish liberation from a foreign yoke, return to the Promised Land, and historical survival. While Lissitzky was working on his final version for the book, bloody pogroms continued to break out in Ukraine and southern Russia, including Kiev

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 1

30

itself. All parties to the revolutionary conflicts in Russia and Ukraine, including the Bolsheviks, were involved in such pogroms. Lissitzky attached a far broader or different meaning to his work than simple association with the Bolshevik cause; namely, a faith in the national deliverance of his people. For Lissitzky, his efforts on this book became the final phase of his search for a national means of expression. After this he pursued new artistic interests. No Jewish book he designed subsequently would attain the heights of Had Gadya, which is perhaps the best-studied Jewish graphic work he created. (In addition to the Friedberg article cited above, see works in the Bibliography by S. Abramsky, R. Apter-Gabriel, A. Birnholtz, H. Kazovsky, A. Kampf, and Z. Maizels.) Note that a three-line dedication on the fly-title of a copy of Had Gadya helps to clarify certain aspects of its creation. The book is dedicated “Fur Pauline,” that is, “To Polina [Khentova]” (see ch. 12). This dedication is dated 6 February 1919, signifying that Lissitzky’s work on the book had been completed before this date. The dedication is signed with two letters, E and L, which together form the familiar El. (See Cat. B.40.2.) The same signature is found on the cover of the Tales by H.C. Andersen, which was published in Kiev at approximately the same time, as well as some other works such as Suprematist, which was completed shortly after Lissitzky had moved to Vitebsk. 60 Aronson, Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika, 72–76. Boris (Barukh, Ber) Solomonovich Aronson (1898–1980) was an artist, art critic, and one of the founders of the Culture League. In 1923 he moved to the United States, where he became

famous as a theatre artist. In addition to his Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika (Contemporary Jewish Graphical Art), Aronson published a book about Chagall in Berlin in Russian (1923) and in German (1924). 61 Lissitzky’s abstract composition made in Kiev in 1919 was first displayed in the Great Utopia exhibition at Frankfurt’s Schirn Kunsthalle in 1992 (Kanzedikas, “Ein unbekanntes Bild,” 71). See Cat. P.35. 62 I.B. Ryback and B. Aronson, “Di vegn fun der yidisher moleray,” Oyfgang 1 (1919): 124; quoted in Kazovsky, “Yevreiskoe iskusstvo,” 247. 63 Y.Y. Konduffor, ed., Kul'turne budivnytstvo v Ukrains'kii RSR. 1917–1927: Zbirnyk dokumentiv i materialiv (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1979), 97. In addition to his Kultur-lige activities, Lissitzky took part in the work of the Applied Arts Section of the Cultural Enlightenment Department of the Kiev Ministry for Public Education. It was apparently through this connection that he received the invitation to participate in the Proletarian Culture Day competition (B.Y. Frezinsky , “Il'ya Erenburg v Kieve (1918–1919)” [“Ilya Ehrenburg in Kiev, 1918–1919”; in Russian], Minuvshee: Istoricheskii almanakh 22 [Paris, 1997]: 277). Lissitzky’s project has not survived. Well-known avant-garde artists active in Kiev during this period included Alexandra Exter, Alexander Bogomazov (1880– 1930), Vadim Meller (1884–1962), and Anatoly Petritsky (1895–1964). Other Jewish artists active there at this time included B. Aronson, I.B. Ryback, P. Khentova, I. Chaikov, N. Shifrin (1892–1961), S. Shor (1897–1981), and M. Epstein (1899–1949).

64 Apter-Gabriel, “El Lissitzky’s Jewish Works,” 118. The Kinder-gortn series utilized a common cover design by Lissitzky that was slightly modified for each book. In 1919 Yidisher Folks Farlag published three books in the series in Kiev and Petrograd. A year later the same publisher reprinted them, but in a smaller print run. In April 1994 Raskin’s heirs sold Lissitzky’s original illustrations to one of the books in the series, Di Hun, Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam (The Hen That Wanted A Comb), at a Sotheby’s auction in Tel Aviv. 65 Lissitzky, “Protetariat un Kunst,” Folkstsaytung 41 (6 April 1919). For the full text, see ch. 8. 66 “Fragment by N. Khardzhiev” [in Russian], Khardzhiev-Chaga Archive, box 206. 67 Zhizn' iskusstva (May 1919), 133–134 (issued in Petrograd). 68 Marc Chagall, “Pis'mo iz Vitebska,” Iskusstvo kommuny 3 (1918): 2; quoted in Kazovsky, Artists from Vitebsk, 9. Yury Yulievich Klever (1850–1924) was a prolific artist and painter of landscapes whose “academic” artistic principles contrasted sharply with those of the Peredvizhniki. The latter movement (c.1870–1923) rejected the academic neoclassical tradition. Its members believed that art should express humanitarian ideals and promote social reform. Artists of this group, including Vasily Perov and Ilya Repin, painted realistic depictions of peasant and middle-class life that often evoked pity or attempted to inspire the oppressed to self-improvement.

2

32

Constructing the New Society: El Lissitzky as an Avant-Garde Artist Two major aspects of the works and personality of El Lissitzky help to explain his considerable popularity and influence. First, Lissitzky was a brilliant representative of the Russian and Jewish avant-garde who became well-known in the West already in the early 1920s. At that time only a few individual names associated with the Russian movement were familiar outside the country. Second, Lissitzky occupied a unique “intermediary” position within that complex and versatile phenomenon known as the avant-garde, one not dependent on the main criteria commonly used to rank his fellow artists. Unlike Kandinsky, Malevich, or Tatlin, Lissitzky did not figure as the trailblazer of one or another artistic trend. Yet at the same time he could never be characterized as a simple follower, much less an imitator, of the great artists. Lissitzky lived at a time when art was undergoing rapid development. He deeply shared the enthusiasm of avant-garde artists: it was in his nature to strive for something new. Inspired by contemporary artistic discoveries, Lissitzky treated these as a point of departure, processing new forms through his own creative system. He followed this method with Jewish graphical works, with Suprematism, with Dadaism. He cannot be characterized as belonging to any single artistic circle, whether that of Chagall, Malevich, Schwitters, or Arp. Rather, his art was post-Chagall, post-Malevich, and post-Dada. Small wonder, then, that his elder colleagues simultaneously recognized him as one of their own and also, as a rule, judged him as if from a distance. They shunned Lissitzky’s innovative radicalism and the ease with which he moved beyond what he had assimilated. Chagall, Malevich, and Schwitters all complained about El Lissitzky’s alleged apostasy from their movements. Chagall averred: “I had a student who swore fealty and devotion, who considered me almost the Messiah. But when he became a teacher, he went over to my enemies. […] He had found another god, whom he also soon betrayed and abandoned.”1 Malevich wrote in a letter to Lissitzky: “Once we arranged to work on Suprematism and wanted to write a book [together]. What now – you’ve become a Constructivist assembler? Where have you vanished to? [Before] you

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

Composition. 1919 See Cat. P.35

33

34

wanted to liberate your personality, your ‘I’. [But then] because of what I did you were afraid that I would sign – or people would attribute – all your works to me.”2 Lissitzky himself always stressed that avant-garde quests should have a creative rather than a destructive significance. He had no use for the negative thrust evident in earlier artistic explorations; he thought exclusively about the future. As he wrote with Ilya Ehrenburg in 1922: “The development of forms follows certain laws of connection. Classical forms do not frighten contemporary masters. One may learn from Pushkin and Poussin – not the restoration of dead forms, but rather the immutable laws of CLARITY, ECONOMY, and REGULARITY.”3 Lissitzky’s works evince a rare correspondence between his own personal character and the specific character of the time in which he lived. The early 20th century saw revolutionary changes in social life, and in artistic culture in particular. Lissitzky was a revolutionary in his political views, his ideology, and his attitude toward scientific, technological, technical, and artistic innovations. His aspirations to become a trailblazer relied on an extensive knowledge and a profoundly precise understanding of the goals and tasks he was to accomplish. Lissitzky was a dynamic personality and belonged to the better part of society, which lived for tomorrow. His search for new content and form prompted him to apply art more extensively and to revitalize its technical foundations. In consequence Lissitzky was able to make discoveries in various fields of art. The potential inherent in his works has yet to be exhausted. Lissitzky’s personality was not at all contemplative. He saw his vocation as centered in practical activity. Owing to this outlook he produced a multitude of first-class works in diverse fields of art, though in the end he had only a little over twenty years to work with. His best pieces furnish unmistakable harbingers of the age of relativity theory, computers, space flights, urbanization, the emergence of open society, and the erosion of borders between countries and nations. Lissitzky was open to all sorts of artistic phenomena. This openness to everything that was intriguing and essential in contemporary art underlay the gift for synthesis that is often ascribed to him. Whereas other artists would raise a blind wall of intolerance against each other’s ideas – as was the case, for instance, between Malevich and Tatlin, or the Rationalists and Constructivists in Russian avant-garde architecture – Lissitzky easily and open-heartedly pushed aside conventional distinctions and transcended artificial contradictions. The cosmic fantasy of his Prouns did not prevent Lissitzky from being simultaneously interested in industrial design; he combined work on his Figurines with illustrations for Berlin-based Jewish publications, and Pelikan advertising with Wolkenbügel design.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket). 1922 See Cat. B.60

35

36

As is the case with any artist, Lissitzky’s idiosyncrasies explain much in his oeuvre. According to his acquaintances Lissitzky possessed a peculiar combination of high and grasping intellect, of well-organized scholarly thought and keen emotionality. He seemed to be a strict and consistent rationalist, who formulated each task precisely and scrupulously calculated the ways and means of attaining the desired result. Yet in the final analysis he trusted the intuitive, irrational element in his gift. Lissitzky himself expressed this peculiar paradox in one of his letters: “One has to love what one is doing very much in order to lose one’s clear judgment just at the final moment of achievement – and then it is finished.”4 As a result of this process a poetic, metaphorical work came into being, intriguingly mysterious both for the viewer and the artist himself. In all likelihood the particularly appealing aspects of Lissitzky’s works represent an outward manifestation of his special creative process. His deep absorption in his work was made possible by the fact that scrupulously thought-out and rationally organized creative work was balanced and combined with a kind of free play that entertained the artist himself. Lissitzky found both devotion and distraction in his work. In a sense he was a narrow-minded person: he did not seek any diversion outside his work, either in other activities or in casual socializing. He paid attention exclusively to what stimulated his creative energies. He treated friends and even loved ones, such as his wife, primarily as colleagues. His inner world would therefore have been sad and limited had it not been so intrinsically versatile and rich in nature. Although outwardly his life was devoid of spectacular events and transformations, as an artist Lissitzky brimmed over with creative work and accomplishments. The dreamy drive evident in Lissitzky’s personal manifesto, which he termed his Lebensfilm (“Film of Life”), found concrete expression in his artistic work.5 The list of his creative works known today, though far from complete, is very considerable. Lissitzky worked constantly, eliciting both admiration and controversy. As soon as he finished one project he would undertake another. Even more frequently he would work simultaneously on different projects: while executing one, he would meditate on another. Alternating between these different modes enabled him to procure some rest while working and to further his creative impulses. Following the chronicle of Lissitzky’s life enables one to feel the rhythm and intensity of his work and to sense the mechanism whereby he was able to accomplish stupendous tasks – to all appearances easily and almost instantly. A. Shatskikh aptly described this special characteristic: “In a general sense, this is a quality virtually unique to Lissitzky – each new type of art, each genre that he created emerged in a ‘readymade form.’”6

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

Front cover from Ukraynishe Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales). 1922 See Cat. B.59.1 LEFT

Cover for Arba'ah Teyashim (Four Billy Goats). 1922 See Cat. B.64.1

RIGHT

37

Lissitzky possessed a constant and distinctive need to be working on highly intensive undertakings. His personal life, troubles both minor and major, and even a serious disease that plagued him for decades were all overshadowed by his work and seemingly went nearly unnoticed. He regretted not completing every project that he had been forced to abandon for one reason or another. As a result his legacy is strikingly diverse, encompassing graphic works, architecture, painting, book design, experimental photography, exhibition design, scenography, advertising, and political photomontage. These different fields cannot at all be said to represent sequential career stages in Lissitzky’s life; rather, the manifestations of his efforts and talents accumulated and developed in multiple spheres simultaneously. Accordingly, the present book adopts the approach encountered in Lissitzky’s “Film of Life” manifesto, a brief document characterized by sequences of events and works, impetuous movements and shifts, ups and downs. His progression from Jewish art to the Prouns (together with the hope they expressed for a constructive renewal of the world), his involvement in the social programs of Soviet Russia with its starryeyed, futuristic propaganda (in the areas of new architecture and public enlightenment) – all these activities represented a logical outgrowth of his own nature. Lissitzky thus expressed social activism and the aspiration to solve huge social and political problems through avant-garde art forms. For him the tasks of social and artistic renewal and world restructuring were inseparable. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Lissitzky did not confine himself to purely artistic experimentation, nor did he separate artistic objectives from other aspects of cultural and material life. He never formulated a hierarchy of values to follow but instead mixed them

38

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

all together constructively. This characteristic of his approach to life was to determine the nature of his works from the outset. The artist himself defined this chief characteristic of his approach to creativity in his 1924 photomontage self-portrait, which he named The Constructor. The portrait is indisputably conceptual. Its weighed content and form make it possible to assert that Lissitzky, then in his glory days, saw and wanted to see himself precisely as depicted. Even though he was famous primarily as an artist, he chose geometric, constructivist dividers as his main instrument and symbol. Such dividers would recur in his works and to serve him for decades in all of the aforementioned spheres of art (as well as others). Lissitzky had no formal training as an artist. He studied architecture in Germany and Russia and liked to call himself an architect, although he did not work long in that field and perhaps was not at his best in it. His interests lay just as much in devising a method as in the possibility of creating something with its help. Whether designing a painting, building, book, exhibition, photogram, or page of type, Lissitzky relied on two basic qualities: analysis (of material, meaning, and form) and heuristics (of thought and artistic feeling). This counterpoint method enabled Lissitzky to cope with any artistic task, the content of which became simply an excuse to demonstrate his individuality. One might argue that his greatest success consisted in discovering his own specific gift via his particular creative method. By discarding everything of secondary importance, Lissitzky could identify what was most fundamental with incredible ease. His work almost seems to comprise a string of lucky strikes devoid of any agonizing quests. Nearly every piece of his encapsulates more than meets the eye. Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 LEFT Inner book cover See Cat. S.25 CENTRE Inner book cover See Cat. S.26 UPPER RIGHT Handwritten Yiddish dedication on blank page See Cat. S.27 Mayselekh (Tales). See Cat. S.22

LOWER RIGHT

1919

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

39

Lissitzky was a designer in his artistic outlook and work method. His approach led to intuitive serendipity, but this was always preceded by precise formulation of the task and comprehensive analysis of the means of accomplishing it. In his method Lissitzky aimed at both tectonic harmony and invention. He attached tremendous importance to upgrading the modern creative process; artistic, scientific, and technical ideas and terms figured side by side in his arguments, without ever contradicting each other. This is not to say, however, that Lissitzky was a mathematician of arts. Serious design work requires (and, in turn, sharpens) intuition. The rationalism undoubtedly present in Lissitzky’s method does not irritate; in some unfathomable way it becomes transformed into elegance. Perhaps the “El” in El Lissitzky’s highly expressive name should be taken primarily as standing for elegance, which represents such a characteristic element of his entire oeuvre. Everything he did was simple, transparent, and devoid of any pretense or affront – at a time when the latter features had largely contaminated contemporary art. As an artist Lissitzky was always true to himself – consistent and serious, but not dogmatic. The sum total of his works demonstrates a complex logical development that reflected both his time and his own bright individuality. He is recognizable in utterly diverse forms of art, be they Jewish graphical works, Constructivist architecture, abstract paintings, or political photomontage. Lissitzky was always inimitable: he might do what others were doing, but he would do it in his own way. A certain quirk of the mind might be said to be present in his art; his artistic inventions were embodied in perfect form like a flawless silk thread. The different periods of Lissitzky’s work differ so much from one another that it may seem at first glance that he was highly conflicted and disorganized. However, a closer examination of his legacy reveals that his artistic evolution was absolutely natural. The decades in which his generation lived saw dramatic transformations. Childhood passed in a patriarchal social atmosphere; youth was keynoted by Romantic ideas that Lissitzky’s milieu associated with the search for national identity. These were followed by the euphoria of revolutionary transformations in society and art and the consequent false fervor of building a bright future by trampling on millions of people, as well as catastrophic collisions both within the country and abroad during World War II. With such a historical backdrop to his life it is hardly surprising that Lissitzky’s art collectively furnished a multifaceted rather than a univalent reflection of his time. Lissitzky, who was not inclined to live in an ivory tower but did build his own castles in the air, found it impossible to remain impassive in art. An unemotional attitude would inevitably have ended in insincerity

40

and led to formalism, no matter how realistic and especially abstract a form its appearance might have taken. Lissitzky was an open-hearted man possessed of an unadulterated passion for social transformation; in such conditions, his art was destined to mirror the vagaries of the time in which he lived. The universality and multifariousness of artistic culture in the first half of the 20th century manifested themselves with rare authenticity and fullness in Lissitzky’s work. His civic activity, susceptibility to novelty, and

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

A Legend of Prague. 1917 4 pages See Cat. B.11.3–6

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

41

sincerity in his work predetermined the multifaceted and changeable nature of his output. Lissitzky’s broad aspirations and amazing ability to produce masterpieces in absolutely different fields of art grew out of these characteristics. He combined a multitude of artistic ideas and aspirations but happily escaped the pitfalls of feeble imitation and eclecticism. He was able to do so while traversing different exploratory paths because he always searched out the essential heart of a given artistic phenomenon before adapting it. In every field of his work Lissitzky left behind one or more pieces ranked among the highest achievements of 20th-century art. His Legend of

Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1917 Cover See Cat. B.37.1

42

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1918–1919 Four illustrations See Cat. B.39.2, B.39.3, B.39.6, B.39.11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

43

Had Gadya (One Young Goat). Title page with handwritten inscription by El Lissitzky. 1st ed. (Kiev: Kultur-lige, 1919) See Cat. B.40.3

Prague and Had Gadya, the Prouns and the Figurines, the poster entitled “Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge” and his design for Mayakovsky’s book Dlya golosa (For the Voice), the Lenin rostrum and Wolkenbügel, the photomontage self-portrait known as The Constructor and the exhibition designs for Proun Space, the Abstract Cabinet and the Soviet pavilion at the International Press Exhibition in Cologne – all these have become textbook staples. His works are of interest and value to professionals and ordinary viewers alike: Lissitzky knew how to be exquisitely elitist and popularly attractive simultaneously. His art is comprehensible and democratic – far from a common occurrence when speaking of the avantgarde. He was a creator of national Jewish style and a Russian avantgarde artist. He remained cosmopolitan throughout his career, asserting the international spirit of contemporary culture in his works (not only in declarations). While calling for collective actions in art, he recognized no state or artistic borders. He urged Jewish artists to take up contemporary means of expression and, together with Ehrenburg, founded the trilingual

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

44

magazine Veshch/Gerenstand/Objekt in Berlin. Lissitzky conceived the Die Kunstismen anthology; he promoted the Russian avant-garde in the West and Western accomplishments in Russia. Lissitzky’s contemporaries were fully aware of his role as an innovator in art and a maker of international style. In the words of Hans Schmidt (1893–1972), a Swiss architect and urban planner who was a friend of Lissitzky and worked with him in the 1920s and 1930s: “For us he symbolized the artistic personality. He was the representative of an idea which was all the world to us. We felt like a league of conspirators, and I remember Lissitzky’s dictum that we ought, like the architects of the Italian Renaissance, to go out into all lands and demonstrate our ideas in our work.”7 Mart Stam (1899–1986), a Dutch architect who cooperated with Lissitzky in the mid-1920s and worked in the Soviet Union as an urban planner in the 1930s, recalled: Lissitzky was so certain and convinced that the next generation would build really new cities, new houses, new palaces – he was possessed with enthusiasm to assist at the birth of a new language of form. […] Lissitzky was a man full of enthusiasm, bubbling over with ideas his one desire in everything he did was to help in benefiting a future generation in creating a richer environment.8 Later scholars have concurred in their identification of the unique talents of El Lissitzky. S.O. Khan-Magomedov wrote: “Lissitzky was probably the most typical and clearest example of an integrative artist. With extreme sensitivity, he selected all the novel elements that furthered the emergence of the new style. The bent for polemical negativism typical of adherents of the individual approaches was alien to him. We can discover none of the traits of partisan exclusionism in him.”9 P. Nisbet added: “That Lissitzky was a crucial link between personalities, between movements and between countries in the first three decades of this century is clear. […] For some, he is a twentieth-century incarnation of the Renaissance Man, a universal genius untrammelled by limitations of genre or nationality.”10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

45

Ausshtelung fon Bilder un Skulpturn. 1918 See Cat. B.26

Although at times declaratory, much of what Lissitzky wrote as a theorist remains of considerable importance for comprehending the artistic processes of that period. As mentioned, Lissitzky was always fully engrossed in whatever he was doing at the moment and considered it supremely important and immutable. Lissitzky the artist agreed perfectly with Lissitzky the person – a circumstance that may seem trivial but is actually far from common. It was easy and natural for him to be so focused. Most people who worked with him respected and loved him. On the other hand, several who were irritated or puzzled by his integrity and fervor shunned him. Without exaggeration one may say that quite a few like-minded artists avoided Lissitzky due to his highly charged inner world and its effects. As part and parcel of his quirky nature, Lissitzky was an idealist in life, in politics, and in art. Although a dreamer by nature, he preferred to tackle concrete rather than abstract artistic problems. He was after tangible results, perhaps a result of his architectural training. This drive led him to design and produce dozens of books, magazines, ads, and posters. He constructed exhibitions en bloc as finished works of art rather than individual paintings that might one day appear in hypothetical exhibitions. Similarly, he quit doing architectural designs when it became clear that they would not be translated into reality. Prouns became his artistic dream; like any other dream, they did not ever have to be realized in actuality. They were embodied already in Lissitzky’s paintings and graphical works. He reified Proun ideas in his architecture, book and exhibition designs, and theatre projects to the extent possible with the means available at the time.

46

Today Prouns can be implemented more fully and with greater inventiveness with the help of holography and computers. Tomorrow may open up new means and forms of implementing them. With regard to the practice of art, however, Lissitzky thought little of projects that did not lead to actual results. He spoke with contempt of a sculptor who only sketches rather than working with his material, and of those who only design furniture instead of building it. He recalled with delight his work on Dlya golosa at a Berlin printing house, how he personally transferred Prouns and Figurines onto lithographic stone, or still earlier Malevich’s books in Vitebsk and his work on the SSSR na stroike magazine from the concept to the final paste-up. His multifaceted interests corresponded to the many aspects of his gift, his vast professional experience, and his unquenchable thirst for creative work. After plunging into a stream of life or artistic impressions, he summed up the result in another work, apparently never experiencing any difficulties in any process or at any stage. He had an exceptionally sharp eye and knew how to implement his project impeccably. Quite a few characteristics and methods of his work were carried over from one stage to another. For instance: elements of Constructivism and Suprematism were present in his Jewish graphical works; the rudiments of his architecture were found in Prouns; and the basic principles of his exhibition design carried over to his photographic experiments. In following his own path he anticipated, and sometimes even mapped, trends that would be realized only by future generations. His works include elements of op art, kinetic art, conceptualism, and computer graphics. Lissitzky lived a short, impetuous, and highly prolific life. His lot was often unmerciful: he died before his time, had little joy in life, was gravely ill, and like many avant-garde artists in Russia experienced ruthless totalitarian censorship in his later years. His works were forgotten in his homeland for more than half a century, and the Nazis blacklisted him in Germany where he had studied and enjoyed working. Having objectively recognized his true place in the spiritual and artistic culture of the first half of the 20th century, the Kulturträger obscurantists of Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany feared Lissitzky and forbad the exhibition of his best works. Lissitzky’s works and archive have survived and been published fairly completely, thanks to the amazing loyalty of his wife, Sophie LissitzkyKüppers, and their son Jen. Exiled from Moscow to Novosibirsk in 1944, Sophie and Jen managed to preserve El Lissitzky’s remaining works and his personal archive.11 These preserved materials give us an idea of what he managed to accomplish even in a quarter-century of energetic efforts. Today Lissitzky’s works may be found in dozens of major museums

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

47

and private collections. They have been published in numerous books and catalogues. Every one of his works has been highly sought after; nonetheless, some previously unknown material was discovered in the course of writing this book. The diversity of Lissitzky’s creative interests has sometimes inhibited efforts to present a more or less complete picture of his legacy. Scholars have even worked out a special structure or division of labor for studying Lissitzky’s works: students of Jewish art focus on his early period, avantgarde art historians stick to the early 1920s, and those interested in his architecture and design analyze them from within the context of those fields and their trends. Last but not least, Lissitzky’s politically motivated work in magazines, albums, posters, and large exhibition designs has been studied primarily as a social rather than an artistic phenomenon, even though this approach does not do full justice to his work. The present book takes into consideration this fragmented nature of Lissitzky studies and seeks to overcome its limitations to some extent. Although it does not aspire to exhaustive coverage, this publication does aim to present with maximum objectivity the currently available biographical information on El Lissitzky, to provide an outline of the main stages of his work, and to publish his critical articles on art. The appendix of comparative analytical tables systematizes some of Lissitzky’s artistic material and should allow the reader additional insight into the artist’s method. The leitmotif of Lissitzky’s art – indeed, of his entire life and work – is the idea of restructuring the world and building a new society. Lissitzky was not alone in this goal: many of the best artists of his generation, both inside and outside Russia, regarded themselves as party to this revolutionary task. Art had not addressed itself in such a straightforward and sincere way to world transformation since the Renaissance. The world inherited by avant-garde artists seemed decrepit and devoid of a future. The idealism with which they responded to this situation was just as sincere as were their delusions. Lissitzky’s adherence to the utopian vision went hand in hand with an utter abandon in searching for ways to realize it. During this search he had neither the inclination nor the time to look around in other directions and be distracted by other phenomena. The surrounding reality seemed to him unworthy of attention. As might be expected in this human world, reality debunked his naïve idealism and did not let it go unpunished. And yet he remained a happy artist because his art was free from pettiness and independent from the vanity and squalor that abounded in his time. Lissitzky believed in the future and expressed this faith in his works, which consequently possessed the power to aid in overcoming contemporary adversities. The widespread interest in his works today

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 2

48

indicates a certain integrity of 20th-century artistic culture, with its apparently rebellious and controversial character. The best artists of Lissitzky’s generation looked with hope to the future, and their hope has stayed with us.

Notes 1 Mark Shagal [Chagall], Moya zhizn' [My Life; in Russian] (Moscow: Ellis Lak, 1994), 140. 2 K.S. Malevich, “Pis'mo k L.M. Lisitskomu (1924),” Experiment / Eksperiment: A Journal of Russian Culture 5 (1999): 152–154, quote on p. 153. 3 El Lissitzky and Ilya Ehrenburg, “Blokada Rossii konchaetsya,” Veshch 1–2 (Mar.–Apr. 1922): 1–4, quote on p. 2 (EMPHASIS in the original). 4 Letter to S. Küppers (1 Aug. 1925); quoted in Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 65. 5 “Der Lebensfilm von El bis 1926,” RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 2. Published in Russian in: Kantsedikas and Yargina, El' Lisitskii: Fil'm zhizni, xi–xii. 6 Shatskikh, Vitebsk, 126. 7 Hans Schmidt, “Memories of L. Lissitzky (1966),” in Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 398. 8 Mart Stam, “El Lissitzky’s Conception of Architecture (1966),” in Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 394.

9 S. O. Khan-Magomedov, “Novyi stil', ob”emnyi suprematizm i prouny,” in Nemirovskaya, ed., Lazar' Markovich Lisitskii, 37. 10 P. Nisbet, “An Introduction to El Lissitzky,” in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 13. 11 Sophie Lissitzky-Küppers (1891–1978) was an art historian, critic, artist, and educator. She married El Lissitzky in 1927 and co-authored many publication designs with him in the 1930s. Their son Jen Lazarevich (Boris) Lissitzky (b. 1930), a photographic artist and cameraman, worked in film studios in Siberia (from the Urals to the Russian Far East). In 1967 Sophie Lissitzky-Küppers published the compilation El Lissitzky, Maler, Architekt, Typograf, Fotograf: Erinnerungen, Briefe, Schriften (Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1967). The English edition (El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts) was first published in the same year (London: Thames and Hudson, 1967; republished in 1980 and 1992). Ten years later she and her son co-edited the volume Proun und Wolkenbügel: Schriften, Briefe, Dokumente (Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1967). The first of these publications received numerous editions

in various languages and remains to this day the main source of information on El Lissitzky’s life and work. The Lissitzkys also systematized El’s works and archive, part of which they handed over to the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts (RGALI) and the State Tretyakov Gallery of Moscow. The reverence demonstrated by Lissitzky’s widow and son for his works can be regarded as unprecedented for that period; in point of fact, their books were the first to be written in Russia in the postwar period not only on Lissitzky, but on Russian avant-garde art in general. Jen Lissitzky translated a number of articles and letters by his father that have been quoted in the present publication. On the initiative of Sophie and Jen Lissitzky, El Lissitzky’s works from their private collection were exhibited in December 1967 in Novosibirsk. Two years earlier (13 October 1965) Novosibirsk TV had aired Jen Lissitzky’s program entitled “El Lissitzky Takes the Floor.”

3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

50

Looking into Old Mirrors: El Lissitzky as a Jewish Artist Searching for our identity, for the character of our times, we attempted to look into old mirrors and tried to root ourselves in so-called “folk art.” – El Lissitzky, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences”

The initial stage of Lissitzky’s work prior to his departure for Vitebsk in 1919 is usually described as his “Jewish period.” Indeed, most of Lissitzky’s works from that period relate to his active involvement in Jewish artistic life and the search for a Jewish national style. In following this path he created several works that are now justly regarded as his masterpieces. This is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that Lissitzky made the earliest of his Jewish works when he was already twenty-five years old, no longer a novice. In the absence of his very early works it is impossible to know much about his original orientation prior to his studies in Darmstadt and his recognized Jewish period. His earliest known sketches, which date from 1910, already bear the imprint of a professional eye and an architect’s skill. At the same time, they do not yet reflect that free searching and unexpectedly original perception of objects that are characteristic of his mature talent. It is unclear why Lissitzky was not admitted to the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts. It is possible, as some have asserted, that he drew the Discobolus in disregard of Academy canons and was disqualified for this reason. Lissitzky himself claimed that he was the victim of discrimination on the basis of the Jewish quota.1 Today it is hard to judge whether Lissitzky simply gave a poor showing, was unwilling to comply with the strict guidelines of the Academy, or fell prey to the quota. Note, however, that there is no necessary contradiction between the two main explanations. In 1909, when Lissitzky sought admittance to the Academy, the higher educational establishments of Moscow and Petersburg operated according to a three-percent Jewish enrollment quota. Frequently the means of enforcing this quota consisted in excessive faultfinding.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

51

Whatever its causes, Lissitzky’s inability to enroll in the St. Petersburg Academy led to his studies in Germany and consequent contacts with West European culture. This was perhaps fortuitous, as his European experience would play a great role in his future and alter his choice of vocation. By the summer of 1909 Lissitzky knew that he wanted to be an artist, but within a few months he enrolled as an architecture student at the Darmstadt Polytechnic Institute. Though these two professions may be related, the differences between them are far too great to be ignored when analyzing the course of Lissitzky’s career. As a rule, Lissitzky preferred to call himself an architect ever after. A professional architect’s particular method of perceiving tasks (including those unrelated to architecture) figured in his art as a crucial and perhaps even decisive factor. Three major characteristics indispensable to the architect stand out in particular: a) spatial and tectonic thinking; b) a constructive approach that integrates a conceived artistic idea with its representation on paper as a project and its implementation in actual construction; and c) the merging of the different aspects and possibilities of artistic practice in this concept-project-object (thanks to which architecture operates as a synthesis of different arts). In Lissitzky’s case these characteristics may even have determined his most fundamental practices and attributes, thus rendering the artist and the architect inseparable or even virtually indistinguishable. The RGALI archive contains a sketch by Lissitzky bearing the inscription, “To Velemir [sic] Khlebnikov.” Characteristically, Lissitzky recorded his ideas on the same sheet of paper, along with the sketch and inscription: “The experiment with movable cities to be closed with such a shock; and if it is not housing that is to move across the earth, but we stop bodily motion on earth with respect to space, [then] we will get the inner ball moving with the atmospheric husk staying still. Then we will be able to bring a number of points close to each other.”2 Although Lissitzky’s reasoning here sounds somewhat vague, it perceptibly echoes in equal parts two key aspects of his formation: his passion for the idea of spatially restructuring the world and his enthusiasm for Futurist forms of expression. By the time Lissitzky returned to Russia in 1914, the idiom of Art Moderne (the Russian equivalent of Art Nouveau and Jugendstil) already seemed outdated in every filed of art. It remained current only in architecture and applied graphic arts. It was perhaps for this reason that Lissitzky began to show increasingly less interest in architecture after his return to Russia. He would take it up again only a decade later – and then as a most radical reformer. As for Futurism, it reached its peak in Russian art precisely while Lissitzky was carrying out his studies in Germany. Though this trend never became crucial to his creative career, Lissitzky did

52

pay tribute to it in some works of his Darmstadt period and the early years after his return to Russia.3 The influence of Futurism lurks in his Italian landscapes and is evident in a 1914 illustration (or scenographic sketch) for Gabriele D’Annunzio’s La Nave. One may observe a certain affinity between this work and Alexander Rodchenko’s sketch of scenery for Oscar Wilde’s The Duchess of Padua, made in the same year. Over the following decades Lissitzky and Rodchenko would develop in parallel, although Rodchenko would be far ahead in avant-garde pursuits.4 The impact of Futurism is also felt in a considerable number of the Jewish graphical works that formed the core of El Lissitzky’s activity between 1916 and 1919. It is thanks to these works that Lissitzky has been ranked among the leaders of a small but exceedingly bright and fruitful circle of contemporary Jewish artists in Russia. This group was destined to imbue Jewish art with a charge the like of which it had never received before (or, perhaps, since). Although Jewish artists belonging to the Paris school and those within German Expressionism made well-known contributions, in no case did they set themselves the monumental task that united Lissitzky and his associates in Russia: to develop a Jewish national style. The joint efforts of the circle to which Lissitzky belonged aimed at determining artistic forms that would express the spiritual and aesthetic specificity of the Jewish ethnic character. These artists intended their works of art to be circulated primarily among Jewish communities, in all their diversity. Such a task could not be attempted without encountering serious difficulties. For various reasons Jewish art in Russia had previously developed almost exclusively within decorative and applied forms. The causes of this ranged from the influence of the Ten Commandments (the prohibition of “graven images” was sometimes interpreted as excluding or at least restricting the possibilities for representation of living creatures) to the staunch official limitation of Jewish participation in professional artistic activity (which Lissitzky apparently experienced personally). The Russian Empire restricted Jewish residence almost entirely to an area called the Pale of Settlement. Within this region, located largely within the territories of current-day Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, and Moldova, Jewish artists had developed considerable skill in traditional handicrafts – the manufacture of ritual silver items, cast bronzes, tombstone carvings, weaving, embroidery, manuscript illumination, pottery, faience, and glass making.5 Striking wooden synagogues throughout Eastern Europe (especially in Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, and Poland) housed magnificent paintings and woodcarvings; nonetheless, it was not until the turn of the twentieth century that they came to be recognized as an important cultural phenomenon.6 In Lissitzky’s day Jewish national art was to a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

53

considerable extent comprised of primitive folk art. Lissitzky and his associates found in this Jewish folk art a source of inspiration for their own pursuits, much as M. Larionov (1881–1964), K. Malevich, N. Goncharova (1881–1962), and other contemporary representatives of the Russian avant-garde discovered and drew inspiration from popular prints. Old Jewish synagogues, cemeteries, and illuminated manuscripts had attracted Lissitzky’s attention already during his student years in Germany. We have already mentioned his reported interest in the 13th-century synagogue of Worms.7 After his return to Russia Lissitzky discovered the Mohilev synagogue paintings, an outstanding example of Jewish national art. Lissitzky’s excellent copies, made in 1916, were published together with his accompanying article in the Yiddish-Hebrew art journal Milgroym – Rimon. It may be that no other concrete work of art ever elicited such an excited reaction from Lissitzky: No, the surprise I felt was utterly different from the surprise I experienced on my first visits to the Romanesque basilicas, the Gothic chapels, or the Baroque German, Italian, and French churches. Perhaps when a child awakens in a cradle protected by netting on which insects and butterflies have settled and the whole is bathed in sunlight – perhaps his feeling might be akin to ours. […] The focal point of the entire decorative scheme is the vault. At the western entrance stand two gigantic lions and behind them two peacocks. The lions hold two inscribed tablets, the lower of which is dedicated to the master himself. The three north and the three south panels feature a frieze, unfolding scenes of creatures who devour and other creatures who are being devoured. On the earth below, water[;] and in the sky above, stars burst into flowers. In the waters fish are snatched up by birds. On the ground a fox carries a bird in its mouth. A bear climbs a tree for honey. Birds carry snakes in their bills. All these running and flying animals are humans. Under their quadruped or feathered disguises they peer with human eyes. This is a striking feature of Jewish folk-art.8 The Mohilev synagogue paintings had been made in the 18th century by the master artist Chaim ben Yitzchak Halevi Segal of Slutsk (whom Chagall thought was his great-grandfather) They represent a brilliant example of primitive folk art. Since the synagogue was subsequently destroyed, Lissitzky’s copies constitute the only remaining evidence of the magnificence of its paintings. Thanks to them, it is possible to trace the Mohilev synagogue decorations as a historical monument of Jewish art and an example of how the creative genius of a people may be passed on across generations (as from Segal to Chagall to Lissitzky).

54

Lissitzky returned to the theme of the synagogue decorations in subsequent years, ever more resolutely overcoming his habit of stylizing – the easiest course when working with “exotic” material. Judging solely by the internal logic of the development of his oeuvre, Lissitzky appears to have remained somewhat unsatisfied with his explicitly Jewish works. No direct documentary evidence supports this view; nonetheless, it may hold some weight and should be countered with the retrospective observation that these works unquestionably occupied a significant place in the art of the period. In itself the sphere of application chosen by Lissitzky in those years was quite essential to Jewish culture. He and his associates belonged to what may be termed the second generation of Jewish artists in Russia, those born in the last quarter of the 19th century. At the time professional Jewish art had developed largely within the forms of figural painting and sculpture and consisted of works of an “easel” nature. From the outset the new generation of Jewish artists, whose national interests were manifest primarily in the themes they chose, dispelled preexisting prejudice about the lack of artistic abilities among Jews. Supported by democraticallyminded representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, the Jewish artists of Lissitzky’s generation upheld their right to creativity within the existing trends of Russian art.9 Lissitzky’s contemporaries and associates took another step forward by championing a national path of artistic creativity. This led them to the quest for a Jewish national style, the renunciation of “easel” painting as a primary form, and the attempt to address the different strata of the Jewish public through book and magazine illustrations.10 As these artists came themselves from small towns and shtetls, they understood only too well that their prospective viewers hardly ever visited museums, knew nothing of exhibition openings, and did not hang paintings on their walls. It was for this reason that they focused on book design, opting above all for children’s books – a gratifying media for artists who could simultaneously nurture their future audience. After regulations restricting the publication of Yiddish books in Russia were abolished in 1915, Jewish artists faced the task of cultivating book design on a par with the best Russian publications. Without exaggeration one may assert that Lissitzky’s design for Moyshe Broderzon’s Sikhes khulin (A Legend of Prague) was the first to reach this goal, being conceived and printed as a collector’s item based on handmade design. This publication carried on the tradition of exquisite books begun by the World of Art association of artists, to whose exhibitions Lissitzky had contributed works previously. Twenty of the 110 or so numbered lithograph copies of Sikhes khulin were produced in the form of scrolls and hand-painted by Lissitzky

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

Interior of the Synagogue in Druya. c.1916 See Cat. P.24

55

personally. In the remaining copies only the title page was colored.11 The idea and to some extent the composition of this unique work drew on the ancient tradition connected with the handwritten religious Scroll of Esther (Megillat Ester). Despite bans on certain forms of visual representation, this alone among the books of the Hebrew Bible did not mention the Name of God and was therefore permitted to be illustrated not only with ornamental elements but also with artistic scenes depicting the plot of the book. Lissitzky was undoubtedly familiar with excellent illustrations to the Esther scroll that had been created by Jewish masters of Western Europe in earlier centuries and published by his time. He also made clever use of the tradition of wrapping religious scrolls inside precious fabrics and preserving them in special cases. The scrolls of A Legend of Prague were wrapped in brocade with golden cords and placed inside exquisitely carved wooden boxes. According to the author, they had the appearance of a rare and valuable collector’s item. From a stylistic point of view, this work exemplifies a fine combination of Russian and West European Art Moderne features, on the one hand, with the tradition of medieval Hebrew

56

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

La Nave. c.1914

See Cat. P.10

Reminiscence of Ravenna (Erinnerung an Ravenna). 1914 See Cat. P.9

manuscript illumination, on the other. It contains barely perceptible signs of avant-garde influence. Unlike Lissitzky’s illustrations to D’Annunzio’s La Nave or his cover for Solntse na izlyote, no Futurist tendencies are manifest here. Each of the fifteen pages of A Legend of Prague

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

57

encompasses a piece of text masterfully set within an ornamental frame. Stylistically, the effect is to create a fairy-tale space. A Legend of Prague was the first publication undertaken by the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle in Moscow in 1917. The program of this Circle declared: “The work of the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle […] is of intimate rather than common nature, because first steps are always exacting and subjective. That is why the circle produces its publications in small batches of numbered copies available to book lovers. They are published painstakingly and with a broad use of contemporary book printing techniques.”12 Lissitzky’s design for A Legend of Prague manifested the essence of this approach in graphical form. The principles expressed in the Circle’s program represented a set of underlying prerequisites determining the nature of the book’s design. To implement these principles, the artist drew on more fundamental sources, sanctified by the millennia-old history of Jewish culture. The Jewish people have often been called the “People of the Book” or, more precisely, the people of the Holy Scriptures. Under conditions of a centuries-long Jewish dispersion the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures came to symbolize the history and hopes of the Jewish people. While availing themselves of book printing soon after its invention in the 15th century, Jews retained their customary pious attitude toward the handwritten scroll. The production of Biblical scrolls was an art in itself, one that required the text to be copied by a specially qualified sofer (Jewish scribe) and the traditions for which had been passed on from generation to generation (and continue thus up to the present day). Lissitzky and others drew from the expressive calligraphy of the ancient Hebrew alphabet as expressed in the scribal tradition, imbuing it with artistic importance in its own right. In 1924 Boris Aronson analyzed El Lissitzky’s works at length in his Contemporary Jewish Graphics. He wrote in part: “The Hebrew letter is already a graphic element which preserves its uniqueness everywhere, namely, its geometrical simplicity, its reserved character, its completeness and unusual capacity to be connected to its neighbor, forming the complete, viscous arabesque of the line. […] The Hebrew letter represents by itself that rudiment out of which it is possible to develop the ornamental pattern.”13 Lissitzky used the Hebrew script in precisely this manner in his design for the scroll of A Legend of Prague. He actively exploited Hebrew script in every one of his subsequent books and industrial design projects, which advanced the development of 20thcentury book design. In a bid to emphasize the text itself, which had been composed by Broderzon with aesthetic panache, Lissitzky enlisted the services of a professional scribe and opted for an ancient type of square

58

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

Solntse na izlyote (Flying Sun or Spent Sun). 1916 See Cat. B.3

script. The exquisite calligraphy of the written text forms a natural bond with the patently stylized pictures. The three figures of the poet, the artist, and the scribe that appear on the cover of the scroll-book emphasize the importance of all three in its production.14 A Legend of Prague was Lissitzky’s first major undertaking in book design and also his first great success. Critics noted it both as an excellent work in itself and a touchstone in the evolution of a national style. It was not by chance that this integral work of art came to form the basis of a musical production and determine the latter’s stylistic elements. A Legend of Prague may have been the only illustrated Jewish book in Russia at the time to receive multiple re-editions (by various Moscow publishers) and to be emulated for decades on end.15 Between 1917 and 1919 Lissitzky completed some thirty Jewish projects in book design. These include: nine illustrated books; some individual drawings; covers for books, collections, sheet music, and exhibition catalogues; and also publisher’s emblems. It is known that Lissitzky received another commission from the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle,

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

59

for The Lamentations of Jeremiah as translated by Abram Efros. However, the fate of this project is unknown. The 1917 prospectus of Shomir Publishing House listed a total print run of 100 copies, to be hand-painted by the artist. Nonetheless, no trace of the work itself has been found.16 In addition to A Legend of Prague, Had Gadya (One Young Goat) was among Lissitzky’s most successful works of this period. Unlike Broderzon’s poetic legend, Had Gadya had a simple traditional text that formed part of the Passover legend (the Haggadah). In Lissitzky’s time this text was well known to every Jew, since it was customarily repeated each year at the close of the Passover meal. The simple parable tells in allegorical form the story of the centuries-long struggle of the people, with a happy ending that gives hope for deliverance. The Passover Haggadah has a more extensive and deeply rooted tradition of illumination than any other work of Jewish literature, one that dates back to the medieval period. Lissitzky is known to have seen a brilliantly illuminated Haggadah manuscript during the period of his studies in Germany.17 His work with this text was therefore intimately connected to his vision and program. Lissitzky was occupied with Had Gadya for two years. His earliest sketches were made in Moscow in 1917, and the final lithographed version was completed in Kiev in 1919. It was presented at a Kultur-lige exhibition after Lissitzky had already left for Vitebsk.

Detail from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev. 1916 See Cat. P.23

60

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

A Legend of Prague. 1917 6 pages See Cat. B.11.7, B.11.8, B.11.10, B.11.11, B.11.14, B.11.19

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

61

Some analysts have suggested that Lissitzky’s Had Gadya illustrations and other of his works produced around the same time are so similar to Chagall’s graphic works that one may even speak of a “Chagall period” in his career.18 However, this is the result of a superficial analysis of the two artists’ activities and an oversimplified understanding of the processes informing the nascent Jewish art in Russia. Chagall unquestionably figures as the greatest Jewish artist of the generation. He was ahead of all his contemporaries in searching out a national artistic character, and he happily combined this task with an evolution of fairly original imagery in his paintings. Even while living in Moscow, Paris, or New York, Chagall in some phantasmagoric way remained in the Vitebsk of his childhood. Whatever he painted could beseen only through a Vitebsk window and only with Chagall’s eyes. He is therefore inseparable from the true shtetl spirit and traditional folk life. His paintings are full of folkloric reminiscences – but they have little to do with the traditions of Jewish fine and folk arts. Chagall constructed his imagery exclusively for himself: his profoundly personal, sensual painting was in no need of development and was shut off from all outside contacts. By contrast, Lissitzky searched for ways to develop a Jewish style that would be created through joint efforts and would be accessible for each and every person. For him Chagall’s work represented but one rather questionable modification of that style. Moreover, the names assigned to the artists’ works in catalogues imply that the themes of Lissitzky’s paintings, displayed at the World of Art and the Jewish Artists exhibitions in Moscow in 1917 and 1918, had little or nothing in common with Chagall’s genre of magical poetry. Lissitzky gleaned his themes from the Bible, as is evident in such works as The Prophet, Jericho, and Messiah. Only a black-and-white reproduction of Messiah has survived. It consisted of a large decorative panel, nearly two meters in height, in which one can observe the influence of the German Jugendstil, of the World of Art artists, and of Russian icon painting – but not of Chagall. Had Lissitzky continued working along these lines, viewers might have come to see another unexpected side of this highly versatile artist. However, he consciously gave up painting to focus wholeheartedly for several years on all forms of Jewish book design, from exquisite collector’s editions to mass-produced children’s books and even shortlived playbills for charity soirées and concerts. Lissitzky himself believed that style had to be based on the firm foundation of national art traditions, but also sifted through the mind and individual imagination of every artist. Given such conditions highly dissimilar artists – such as Chagall, Altman, Ryback, Chaikov, and Lissitzky himself – could work together in the field of Jewish culture without difficulty. This vision of a broad, joint project was partially implemented.

62

A sizeable group of artists with absolutely distinct talents did collaborate, giving birth to the unfortunately short-lived phenomenon of specifically Jewish art in revolutionary Russia. In Lissitzky’s works the use of specific compositional techniques and imaginative methods gleaned from the national artistic heritage figured primarily as a semantic component; in general he did not resort to direct quotation.19 In this connection one may profitably compare the sheet music covers designed almost contemporaneously by M. Maimon, L. Pasternak, and Lissitzky. Moisey Lvovich Maimon (1860–1924) was a member of the Academy of Painting and the first person in the history of Russian art to turn to the Jewish theme. In 1914 he designed a template cover for music books for the St. Petersburg Society for Jewish Music. Two years earlier, the artist Leonid Pasternak had designed the cover for the Jewish Folk Melodies series on a commission from the music publisher P. Yurgenson. The designs by Maimon and Pasternak appear to fit within the Jewish tradition. They combine the whole gamut of national ornamentation with a stylized script. However, these compositions followed the prescriptions of Ivan Bilibin (1876–1942) and remained eclectic.20 By contrast, Lissitzky’s designs for music covers, published by the Society for Jewish Music, offer not merely a composite version but rather a qualitatively new and modern version of Russian Jewish graphical art. The same may be said of his designs for the catalogue of the Jewish Art Exhibition in Moscow in 1917 and for A Legend of Prague. Lissitzky used the same medium as Maimon and Pasternak – the traditional design of title pages as seen in 18th- and 19th-century Jewish publications – but utilized it to accomplish a different artistic task. The works Lissitzky created during his Jewish period constitute a vivid manifestation of his gift as a master of drawn illustration. His Jewish book illustrations – which ranged from the most exquisite and unique, such as A Legend of Prague, to the most common, as for the Kinder-gortn book series – reveal Lissitzky as an excellent draftsman and a fine stylist. He unerringly chose the proper artistic techniques to determine the book’s image in keeping with the particularities of the given text. His chosen techniques differ so dramatically from one work to another that at times it becomes difficult to discern the same hand in his variegated book illustrations. In fact, we can hardly speak of a single style when describing Lissitzky’s book illustrations. This sets him apart from other book designers of the period, such as V. Konashevich (1888–1963), P. Pavlinov (1881–1966), K. Rudakov (1891–1949), and V. Favorsky (1886–1964). Lissitzky’s stylistic mastery as manifest in this period is unquestionable. Subsequently, however, he would prefer to follow the latest developments in book design.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 Two illustrations See Cat. B.40

63

Lissitzky began to focus on Jewish graphic works in 1916. His last Yiddish book design was published in Berlin in 1923. For the sake of convenience this relatively brief period may be divided into three stages. The first was characterized by exquisite drawing and the desire to create beautiful books, the pinnacle of which was reached with A Legend of Prague. The second stage coincided with Lissitzky’s extensive designing of children’s books in Kiev between 1918 and 1919. In these works he manifested a more expressive manner with pronounced Futurist tendencies. The final lithograph version of Had Gadya represents the crest of these pursuits. During this stage Lissitzky also developed an interest in Cubist and Abstract forms. In retrospect this may be seen as a transition to the Suprematist works of his later Vitebsk period. However, even after he did turn to Suprematism and Prouns, Lissitzky still retained an interest in Jewish graphic works. The third and final stage of his Jewish graphical art took place in the early 1920s. At this time Lissitzky designed a magazine cover for Kultur un Bildung (Culture and Education; Moscow, 1920) and a number of Jewish books published in Warsaw and Berlin. Already in the midst of his Jewish period Lissitzky had begun to abandon Jewish art per se in favor of tackling new tasks. This shift became

64

evident during his stay in Kiev and perhaps even earlier, when he lived in Moscow. Thus, Lissitzky is known to have designed a banner in spring 1918 for the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Naturally, this work was not made in the Jewish style. Even Lissitzky’s best-known Jewish work, Had Gadya, provides evidence of the first obvious clash between his old and new interests. A comparison of the sketches he made in Moscow in 1917 with the final lithograph version he completed in Kiev two years later reveals a distinct evolution of interests. The Moscow watercolors are narrative and exclusively figural. They constitute entertaining illustrations of a tale, enhanced by a cheerful color scheme. The Kiev lithographs preserve only the sequence of episodes and the overall composition. Unlike the earlier sketches, they are keenly expressive, reserved in coloration, and accented with geometrical shapes that sometimes dominate the imagery. The second sheet (not counting the title page), which is marked with the second Hebrew letter ‫( ב‬bet), is dominated by an angle and a parabola. These shapes form a collision in meaning, one also present in Lissitzky’s later works. The interior of the Had Gadya portfolio is made up of a combination of geometrical shapes and clearly attests to the artist’s interest in non-figural painting.21 It is evident that Lissitzky envisioned new artistic paths for himself precisely during the period when he was in contact with A. Exter, A. Bogomazov, A. Petritsky, and other avant-garde artists in Kiev. This is corroborated by a canvas kept for decades in the storerooms of the Kiev Museum of Ukrainian Art (now the National Art Museum of Ukraine). It was displayed for public view for the first time in 1992 in Frankfurt at the Great Utopia exhibition. This work, entitled Composition (see Cat. P.35) is an abstract painting of deep mellow tones with collage inserts made up of printed Jewish texts. It bears every sign of a trademark Constructivist painting, a feature that would become uncharacteristic of the later Lissitzky. Quite probably it was not the only such work he made in Kiev: relatively few of the artist’s works from this time of great activity have survived. Considering that it took Lissitzky only two days to design a new type of street sign (an effort judged superior to that of Bogomazov),22 he may well have produced a vast number of works at this time. It seems almost certain that the street sign project was executed in the wake of the Revolution in the spirit of the new avant-garde aesthetics. However, even in this we must confine ourselves to conjecture, an illustration of the extent to which Lissitzky’s works of the period have been lost.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

The Advent of the Messiah. 1916 See Cat. P.25

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

65

Thus, it is actually somewhat surprising that Lissitzky did not turn decisively from Jewish graphical art to abstract forms earlier in his career. He was always sensitive to novelty in art, and only his programmatic focus on the tasks of national Jewish art can explain his “falling out” of the mainstream of Russian avant-garde art between 1914 and 1918. At this time many new phenomena and trends emerged within Futurism – a movement with which Lissitzky felt an affinity – but he seemingly overlooked them. Some studies on the artist’s later evolution have advanced various suppositions as to whether he visited one Abstract exhibition or another. It may be unclear which specific projects he saw, but it seems impossible that he could have entirely failed to observe the unusual and powerful artistic phenomena being born all around him.23 As mentioned, Futurist elements play an obvious role in Lissitzky’s scenographic illustration for D’Annunzio’s La Nave (1914). Two years later he designed a cover for K. Bolshakov’s book of verse, Solntse na izlyote, a patently Futurist piece. Characteristically enough, one of the poems in this book (dated 1913) was dedicated to Lissitzky. Although the dedication may well have been composed later, this evidence indicates at any rate

Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) book series logo. 1919 See Cat. B.45

66

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

Original cover and illustration from Di Hun Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam (The Hen That Wanted a Comb). 1919 See Cat. B.52.1, B.52.6

that Lissitzky belonged to the Futurist circle in which Bolshakov was a leading figure.24 The publication of the first volume of Strelets (Sagittarius; Petrograd, 1915) took place around the same time; it represented a Futurist compilation with contributions from the notable Russian avantgarde artists D. Burliuk, Nikolai Ivanovich Kulbin (1868–1917), Aristarkh Vasilievich Lentulov (1882–1943), Olga Vladimirovna Rosanova (1886– 1918), and Maria Mikhailovna Sinyakova-Urechina (1898–1984). These

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

67

Original illustration for Ukraynische Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales). 1919– 1922 See Cat. B.58.3

same artists took part in the Futurist Jack of Diamonds exhibition, where Lissitzky’s works were also exhibited.25 Atypically for Futurist publications, Strelets enjoyed a relatively large print run and was widely circulated in literary and art circles. Given his associations, Lissitzky must have held it in his hands at some point. Lissitzky may have seen and noted a black-and-white reproduction of A Portrait of an Englishwoman by Percy Wyndham Lewis (1882–1957), which was discussed in the 1915 Strelets almanac.26 That picture is stylistically closest to Lissitzky’s future Prouns. Its three-dimensional geometrical shapes are directly associated with Suprematist shapes. It may well be that this work (and possibly others by Lewis) became known to Russian artists of the period. If so, it may have had a direct impact on Rosanova’s shift away from Cubo-Futurism, which she demonstrated in Strelets, to her experiments with three-dimensional Suprematism, the earliest of which date to 1916. As for Lissitzky himself, he seems to have maneuvered around these and other reefs of the avant-garde. Instead he went back to the forms of expression featured in the World of Art exhibitions, masterfully developing

68

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

them within Jewish graphical works. It seems that this endeavor occupied his full attention for a period of time: this kind of “blind” or blinkered intensity was rather peculiar but also absolutely typical of Lissitzky. His character prompted him always to remain wholeheartedly loyal to whatever specific idea he was preaching at the moment. Lissitzky would continue to manifest this characteristic repeatedly in his future life and work. In 1919 Lissitzky was by no means alone in the new creative aspirations he discovered in Kiev in 1919. Other Jewish artists of his circle, such as Altman, Aronson, Ryback, and Chaikov, were also turning to abstract

Cover for Elfandl (The Elephant‘s Child). 1922 See Cat. B.63.1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

69

forms. In their minds this shift was linked with the possibility of conveying national Jewish elements in art more directly and immanently at a subconscious level. In this they were apparently mistaken. Small wonder that their manifestos were far more resolute than their new works. The use of Constructivist and then Suprematist idioms in painting marked a radical change for Lissitzky. His creative interests now surpassed national boundaries. In addressing supranational tasks he felt his work pertained to the destiny of his entire generation in the stormy 20th century. At the end of his article on the Mohilev synagogue, Lissitzky quoted Ecclesiastes, “A living dog is better than a dead lion.” This reference should be recognized as the keynote of his pursuits in Jewish art. As Art Moderne and Futurism remained the stylistic foundation of Jewish graphical works, Lissitzky’s interest in these trends waned. This may have been among the causes of his gradual abandonment of Jewish art per se. By devising and implementing his version of a collective model of contemporary national art in a relatively large number of works, Lissitzky accomplished the task that he had at one time set for himself. Subsequently he lost some of his earlier zeal for Jewish graphic works but continued to create them for some time – perhaps a compromise with the naturally persisting nationalist sentiment or a result of the mundane need to earn his daily bread. In 1927, having already attained broad international repute as an artist, Lissitzky wrote: “Every invention in art is a single event in time, has no evolution. With the passage of time different variations of the same theme are composed around the invention, sometimes more sharpened, sometimes more flattened, but seldom is the original power attained. So it goes on until, after being performed over a long period, this work of art becomes so automatic-mechanical in its performance that the mind ceases to respond to the exhausted theme; then the time is ripe for a new invention.”27 At a certain point Lissitzky exhausted the possibilities he saw in Jewish graphical works. In the spring of 1919 he arrived in Vitebsk as in some sense a new artist. Despite the opinion of many art historians to the contrary, he had already begun to embark on the road to Abstract art.28

Notes 1 See the Biographical Timeline under the year 1909. 2 RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 17, p. 2. Velimir (Viktor Vladimirovich) Khlebnikov (1885–1922) was an outstanding Russian poet and one of the founders and theorists of Russian Futurism. (In this record Lissitzky spells his name Velemir.) No other known documents confirm Lissitzky’s acquaintance with Khlebnikov. However, Lissitzky’s

contacts with other leading Russian Futurists are well known, among them Konstantin Bolshakov, Osip Brik (1888–1945), Alexei Kruchenykh (1886–1969), Vladimir Mayakovsky, and Viktor Shklovsky (1893–1984). Note that Lissitzky’s written expression of his conception is actually close in meaning and in style to a note recorded by Khlebnikov at approximately the same time (15 September 1918): “Given an ideal gravitation

force / among the points of some globe, / all points should flow together into one point, / and the globe (a body of three dimensions) should become a body of zero dimensions = a point.” (Velimir Khlebnikov, “Iz dvukh tetradei [1913–1914; 1918–1919],” Experiment / Eksperiment: A Journal of Russian Culture 5 [1999]: 51–55, quote on p. 55.)

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

70

3 Lissitzky contributed works to the exhibitions of the Jack of Diamonds artistic group in 1916–1917. The poster reproduced on p. 21 (of an exhibition that opened in Moscow in November 1917) confirms the artist’s own statement to that effect (RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 17). The Jack of Diamonds association of Russian artists was active from 1910 through 1917 and was responsible for generating a number of avant-garde trends in Russian painting and graphic arts. 4 Alexander Rodchenko (1891 – December 3, 1956) was a Russian artist, sculptor, photographer, and graphic designer who was one of the founders of Constructivism. 5 See Kantsedikas et al., eds., Masterpieces of Jewish Art, vols. 1–6. 6 See G.G. Pavlutsky, “Starinnyya derevyannyya sinagogi v Malorossii” [“Old Wooden Synagogues in Ukraine”; in Russian], Istoriia russkogo iskusstva [Russian Art History, ed. I. Grabar'] 8 (1909): 377–382; Z.N. Yargina, Derevyannye sinagogi / Wooden Synagogues [in Russian and English] (Moscow: Image, 1994). 7 See the Biographical Timeline under the year 1911. 8 Lissitzky, “Mohilev Synagogue”; quoted in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 56. Rachel Wischnitzer, the editor of Milgroym – Rimon, later recollected: “Lissitzky wrote his article on the Mogilev [Mohilev] synagogue paintings in Yiddish, illustrated with his own copies. All the other contributors on art topics, including myself, wrote in German.” (Wischnitzer, “From My Archives,” 7.) Lissitzky’s original copies of the Mohilev synagogue decorations have unfortunately not survived. However, they were reproduced in the journal alongside the publication of his article and reprinted subsequently in many books on the cultural heritage of East European Jewry. They remain among Lissitzky’s most frequently reproduced works. 9 Until the mid-19th century there was no question of professional Jewish art; almost no professional Jewish artists existed. It was not until the second half of the 19th century that professional Jewish art began to develop, with the participation of progressive Russian intellectuals. These included the notable religious philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900) and the writer Maxim Gorky (1868–1936). The role played by Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906), a well-known art theorist and art critic, deserves special mention. In one of his articles Stasov wrote: “Nowadays only utterly blind and ignorant people may be permitted to repeat the earlier absurdities about Jews lacking artistic talent and being barred by nature itself from the common efforts of all nations in art. […] The Jewish tribe is so talented and capable in multiple areas that, as soon as you unshackle these people, they immediately rush forward with irrepressible, impetuous force and contribute new, fresh, burning elements into the collection of European genius, knowledge,

and creativity.” (V.V. Stasov, Sobranie sochinenii, 1847–1886 [St. Petersburg: Stasyulevich, 1894], vol. 1, p. 304.) In 1903 Stasov and Baron David Gunzburg published the seminal album entitled L’Ornement hébreu (Berlin: Calvary, 1903). It included reproductions of ornamentation from medieval Jewish manuscripts in the collections of the St. Petersburg Public Library. This album launched Jewish art studies in Russia. As Jewish artists began to emerge within Russian art, the most prominent names were those of the sculptor M. Antokolsky (1843–1902) and the artist I. Levitan (1860–1900). Both of them gained publicity at home precisely as Russian artists, even though each did address himself to Jewish themes (Antokolsky to a greater and Levitan to a lesser extent). Even artists who dealt predominantly with Jewish themes in their works, such as I. Asknazy (1856–1902) and M. Maimon (1860–1924), failed to gain extensive recognition within Jewish communities. Most Russian Jews had no connection to professional artistic culture and knew nothing of these artists. This is borne out by the polemic between the outstanding Jewish poet Chaim Nachman Bialik and the artist Leonid Osipovich Pasternak (1862–1945). Pasternak was a member of the Academy of Painting who illustrated Leo Tolstoy’s books, made portraits of Jewish writers and public figures, did genre pictures and drawings of Jewish life in Russia as well as Palestine landscapes, and was the father of the famous poet and writer Boris Pasternak (1890–1960). Commenting on Pasternak, the preeminent Hebrew nationalist poet Bialik reproached Jewish artists for being out of touch with their people: ”Where were you when your people were languishing in trials and tribulations and when they were cast down under the pressure of their suffering? Why did you not come to put your shoulder next to theirs to ease the burden or your mouth with theirs to the cup of poison?” He further urged: “We demand from them [i.e., Jewish artists] their presence in our midst, their every movement, the entire flow of their force, the entire might of their life, and the entirety of their being, together with all their sins and righteous deeds, their mistakes and bad intentions. So that their trunk and roots will be in our garden – this is what we want.” Pasternak retorted, “It [i.e., Jewish art] is still non-existent, and it can only exist in its native land – for every national art emerges from and thrives on its own native life.” (Quoted in: I. Kovel'man, “Evreiskie svyazi Leonida Pasternaka,” God za godom 5 [1989]: 400–412, quotes on pp. 406, 407, 411.) In response to Bialik’s passionate appeal, artists of Lissitzky’s generation and circle, who had set themselves the task of developing national art, turned to its most democratic forms – book illustration and stage design. Lissitzky would later write: “Considering the disparity between the energy spent on it and its scope of influence, the individual picture has become a luxury item. The printed sheet has won the artist over and begun to kill it.” (El Lissitzky, “Khudozhnik v proizvodstve,” in M.O. Shenderovich,

ed., Vsesoyuznaya poligraficheskaya vystavka: Putevoditel' [All-Union Polygraphic Exhibition: Guidebook; in Russian] [Moscow: Krasnaya Presnya, 1927], part 2, p. 4.) 10 A circular of the period reads: “The Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts has set itself the task of promoting the development of artistic taste among the broad masses of the Jewish people. An invaluable factor in this respect consists of the appearance of printed matter, including its decoration with vignettes, headbands, tail-pieces, illustrations, and so forth. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that this aspect of printing has so far been completely neglected by publishers serving the Jewish masses.” (From the Kantsedikas private archive.) 11 Some discrepancy exists between the data given in the colophon of A Legend of Prague and the figures provided in the Shomir Publishing House prospectus. The colophon tells of 110 copies, some of them published in the form of scrolls. The prospectus asserts that 20 copies were in the form of scrolls and 80 in the form of books containing a painted frontispiece. It is unfortunately impossible to have complete confidence in the veracity of either version. One of the scrolls preserved in the State Tretyakov Gallery was only partially hand-painted, while a book copy presented by Lissitzky to A. Efros was fully painted. Perhaps this copy originated as a scroll and was then refashioned into a book. The wooden boxes in which the scrolls were enclosed may be divided into three known groups, each of which follow a distinct program of ornamentation. The simplest wooden cases have a narrow decorative band. The second group additionally contains the inscription “‫“( ”שיחת חולין‬Sikhes khulin”). Boxes of the third type are decorated with the carved figure of Shomir (i.e., shamir, the legendary worm or material that, according to the Talmud, cut the stones used in constructing Solomon’s Temple). Lissitzky portrayed this legendary creature in a Futurist style; his image differs from the graphical representation of Shomir in the publisher’s prospectus. Some of the scrolls bear dedications signed by Lissitzky and attesting to the fact that they were either purchased by or presented to Jewish notables. Well-known copies include those owned by Y. Kahan-Shabshai, the bibliophile Yulius Gens, the patron and public figure Lazar Motylev, the literary critic Moisei Belenky, Lissitzky’s brother Ruvim, Polina Khentova, and others. In 1982 one of the scrolls was presented to Teddy Kollek, the mayor of Jerusalem, on the occasion of his 70th birthday. That copy is now housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. 12 Shomir Publishing House prospectus, p. 2. The same prospectus states: “Other works being readied for publication include: Ecclesiastes, as translated by L. Vygodsky; The Book of Folk Art; Studies of Jewish Artists; and books of legends and tales ornamented by M. Chagall, N. Altman, L. Lissitzky, J. Chaikov, S.B. Ryback, Shifrin, and

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 3

others.” The ambitious program was implemented in part by other publishers in subsequent years. 13 Aronson, Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika (Contemporary Jewish Graphics), 47–48; English translation supplied from: Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution, 235. Aronson was a Kultur-lige artist; his book was published in Russian in Berlin in 1924. Here he echoes observations made by Iekhezkel Dobrushin (1883–1953), a Yiddishist ideologist and leader of the Art Section of the Kultur-lige. Dobrushin had remarked: “Generally speaking, the letter in a Jewish book plays an independent graphic role. For instance, a printed page, [or] a sheet from an old Jewish book, comprises a complete picture – every part of which, owing to the diversity of letter shapes, has its own peculiar physiognomy.” (Quoted in Kazovsky. Artists of the Kultur-Lige, 78). This statement clearly expresses Lissitzky’s own views and practice in organizing the printed page, as seen in A Legend of Prague and his designs for Veshch, Merz-Nasci, and Mayakovsky’s Dlya golosa. 14 Some have suggested that Lissitzky himself copied the text for the edition of A Legend of Prague. However, this is a mistaken assumption. As noted earlier, the Kahan-Shabshai archive contains evidence that a professional sofer was involved in producing this work (see p. 28 n. 34 and p. 157). Additional confirmation of this fact was provided by B. Aronson, who was certainly in a position to have been well informed about the matter, as well as by Lissitzky’s wife (Áronson, Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika, 68; LissitzkyKüppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 14). 15 The Moscow publishers Shomir, Nashe iskusstvo, Haver, and Lebn all printed A Legend of Prague in 1917. Subsequent engraved editions consisted of bound, unnumbered copies in which the title page remained uncolored. In its first collector’s edition Shomir Publishing House characteristically included parallel Yiddish and Russian texts in the colophon, thus addressing a non-Jewish as well as a Jewish readership. A facsimile black-and-white edition of A Legend of Prague was published in Israel in the 1970s. M. Faigenblum’s designs in the 1940s and 1950s for Yidbuch Publications (Buenos Aires) represent a striking example of the influence exerted by A Legend of Prague. One of these designs, for a Yiddish edition of Three Chassidic Legends by I.L. Perets (Buenos-Aires, 1949), literally copied the style and composition techniques of A Legend of Prague. 16 The Shomir Publishing House prospectus mentions that Lissitzky’s graphic ornamentation was to appear with The Lamentations of Jeremiah. There are grounds for believing that Lissitzky had already started work on this project. Otherwise it is unlikely that it would have been included in the list of in print and forthcoming titles given in the prospectus, which Lissitzky himself designed. Somewhat later the Yevreiskii mir magazine

71

(No. 1, 1918) announced the appearance of The Lamentations of Jeremiah with illustrations by Nathan Altman. However, the publication could not have been ready yet even then, because Efros did not finish his translation for the edition until 1921.

El Lissitzky,” in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 47 n. 21.

17 See Kampf, “In Quest of the Jewish Style,” 52.

25 See the Biographical Timeline under 16 November 1917.

18 Such an opinion was voiced by N. Khardzhiev (Khardzhiev, Konstruktor knigi, 147). Some Western scholars have followed suit, including for example Ziva Amishai-Maisels (“Chagall and the Jewish Revival,” 85) and Yve-Alain Bois, who wrote, “The Lissitzky who created Khad Gadya incorporated Chagall’s motifs in a rather servile manner” (Bois, “El Lissitzky,” 165). However, a comparison between Lissitzky’s Jewish books and Chagall’s works gives the lie to these assertions. Chagall’s works rest on a deeply personal and expressive conception of the life and customs of a Jewish shtetl in Russia at the turn of the 20th century. By contrast, Lissitzky drew on Jewish art traditions going back to antiquity and the Middle Ages, as well as modern Jewish folklore. There is no doubt that the two artists influenced each other (the influence did not go only in one direction). V. Rakitin pointed out that Chagall used a motif from a Proun painted by Lissitzky in late 1919 or early 1920 (when Chagall still headed the Vitebsk Art School) in his sets for the 1920 Moscow Jewish Chamber Theatre production of Agenty (Agents, after Sholom Aleichem). See Rakitin, “Eeny Meeny Miney Mo …,” 72. 19 For a comparison of Lissitzky’s book covers with traditional examples of 18th- and 19thcentury Jewish manuscript designs made within the Russian Pale of Settlement, see Kantsedikas, Semyon An-Sky, as well as the copious collection of Jewish manuscripts and old printed books in the archive of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Vernadsky National Library, Kiev. 20 Ivan Yakovlevich Bilibin (1876–1942) was an illustrator and stage designer most inspired by Slavic folklore. He participated in the World of Art (Mir iskusstva) movement and in productions of the Ballets Russes. 21 Ruth Apter-Gabriel remarked, “The dustjacket shows a new artistic language: here Lissitzky has essentially abandoned figuration and the Jewish world and entered into the world of abstraction” (Apter-Gabriel, “El Lissitzky’s Jewish Works,” 116). Note also that Lissitzky’s book covers for the Yiddish version of the Tales of Hans Christian Andersen (Kiev, 1919), Ben Zion Raskin’s Di Hun, Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam (Kiev and Petrograd, 1919), and other books evince a combination of figural and abstract forms. 22 See the Biographical Timeline under April 1919. 23 In this connection, and with regard to the overall issue of Lissitzky’s apparently abrupt “conversion” from one type of art to another, see the comments by P. Nisbet in his “Introduction to

24 Like other Futurist poets, K. Bolshakov tried his hand at painting. He contributed a work entitled Malyar L (House-Painter L) to the First Russian Art Exhibition in Berlin (1922).

26 Z. Vengerova wrote about Windham Lewis and his colleagues as follows in her article entitled “Angliiskie futuristy” (“English Futurists”): “They replaced every color with a stubborn blanc et noir, which corresponded to the synthetic idea of space slashed by a whirlwind. They have just as insistently established the naked geometry of forms, which puts an end to ornate roundness, waviness and minuteness. […] In houses decorated by Wyndham Lewis and his associates there is a tiresome replacement of individual details with a striving after a geometrical pattern.” (Z. Vengerova, “Angliiskie futuristy,” Strelets, ed. Aleksandr Belenson [Petrograd, 1915]: vol. 1, p. 95.) 27 El Lissitzky, “Our Book (1926)”; quoted in Lissitzky-Kuppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, 360. 28 Some scholars, including especially Alan Birnholz, have argued that Lissitzky’s later work continued to be very heavily influenced by Jewish motifs and traditions. In the opinion of the present author, such interpretations are exaggerated. Although Lissitzky did not entirely reject Jewish traditions, other artistic principles played a greater role in his later work. Regarding Lissitzky’s use of Hebrew letters in his famous Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket, Cat. B.59–60), Chimen Abramsky writes: “The American art historian, Alan Birnholz[,] completely misunderstood this, thinking that it was a Kabbalistic text: obviously not knowing Hebrew, he invented an unfounded theory of the influence of Kabbalah on Lissitzky.” (Abramsky, “Yiddish Book Illustrations,” 66, 70 n. 5.) Moreover, as Birnholz himself admits: “Were he alive today, El Lissitzky […] would disagree most vehemently [with my interpretation]. […] Lissitzky considered himself a modern, revolutionary, avant-garde artist who had successfully and completely broken with the past.” (Birnholz, “El Lissitzky and the Jewish Tradition,” 130. See also Birnholz, “El Lissitzky” [dissertation].) Note that after a certain point in his life, Lissitzky’s work designing Jewish books stemmed more from financial than artistic considerations. A somewhat more balanced perspective (but one that still stresses a continued Jewish influence) may be found in: Christina Lodder, “Ideology and Identity: El Lissitzky in Berlin,” The Russian Jewish Diaspora and European Culture, 1917–1937, ed. Jörg Schulte, Olga Tabachnikova, and Peter Wagstaff (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 339–364. See also Nisbet, “Introduction to El Lissitzky,” in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 47 n. 21.

Part Two CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ This section represents the first comprehensive attempt at producing a catalogue raisonné of all known artistic and typographical works by El Lissitzky during his Jewish period. The catalogue includes all works found in museums and private collections, as well as additional published and archival material. In cases when a work has been lost and only the name or some other identifying information is known, we present the documentary evidence that proves the past known existence of the work in question. Despite the thorough research that has gone into the creation of this catalogue, it is still possible that some works by Lissitzky have not yet been discovered. The Khardzhiev archive kept at RGALI may possibly contain additional works but remains closed to researchers. Lissitzky’s son Jen recently contributed materials to the Sprengel Museum in Hanover; these items are likewise unavailable for examination at the present time. All works published for the first time in this catalogue are accompanied by relevant details concerning their current location or other details constituting evidence of the work’s existence. All works originally created in color have been reproduced here in color, with the unavoidable exception of those that have been lost. The catalogue also includes earlier and later works by Lissitzky that are of direct relevance for tracing the creative processes in effect during his Jewish period. The following publications, for which full details may be found in the Bibliography, have been utilized comprehensively in the preparation of this catalogue raisonné: Shmeruk, ed., Pirsumim yehudiyim; Ratner and Kvitni, Dos Yidishe bukh; Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution; Nisbet, “A Summary Catalogue of Typographical Work by El Lissitzky,” in Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 177–202; Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts. References to these publications (listed by author’s/editor’s name and page/item number) appear in the catalogues where necessary or helpful for identification of the work in question.

4

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

74

Pictures (Cat. P)

Cat. P.1

Cat. P.2

Cat. P.3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

75

Cat. P.4

Cat. P.1 The Trinity Church in Vitebsk (Die Dreieinigkeit-Kirche zu Witebsk). 1910 Pencil, chalk, and gouache on paper on cardboard 30.0 × 37.7 cm Inscription underneath the image in Lissitzky’s hand: “Architekturaufnahme / Die Dreieinigkeit-Kirche zu Witebsk (Anfang des XVIII jahr.) / (Sogenannte ‘Schwarze’ Kirche) / Stud. arch. Lasar Lissitzky” [“Architectural view / The Church of the Holy Trinity in Vitebsk (early 18th century) / (The so-called “Black” Church) / Architecture student Lazar Lissitzky”] Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 219 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Cat. P.5

Cat. P.2 Tower of the Fortress Wall in Smolensk (Turm aus der Festungsmauer zu Smolensk). 1910 Chalk, gouache on paper on cardboard 24.0 × 32.0 cm Inscription underneath the image in Lissitzky’s hand: “Zeichnung nach der Natur / Turm aus der Festungsmauer zu Smolensk (1604) / Stud arch Lasar Lissitzky” [“Drawing from nature / Tower of the fortress in Smolensk (1604) / Architecture student Lazar Lissitzky”] Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 220 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Cat. P.3 Head (Kop). 1912 Sepia, ink on paper 25.3 × 22.5 cm Likely a portrait of O. Zadkine Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 221 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Cat. P.4 Study of a Tree (Boomstudie). c.1913 Indian ink on paper 21.8 × 16.8 cm Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 222 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Cat. P.5 Italian Town (Italiaanse stad). 1913 Pencil, chalk, and gouache on paper 32.4 × 24.0 cm Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 223 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

76

Cat. P.6

Cat. P.7

Cat. P.8

Cat. P.9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

Cat. P.10

Cat. P.13–14

77

Cat. P.11

Cat. P.12

Cat. P.6 Ravenna. 1913 Pencil, chalk, and gouache on paper 31.8 × 23.7 cm Inscription underneath the image in Lissitzky’s hand: “Ravenna / MCMXIII / Lasar Lissitzky” [“Ravenna / 1913 / Lazar Lissitzky”] Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 224 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Cat. P.10 La Nave. c.1914 Watercolor Stage design for The Ship by D’Annunzio Uzbekistan State Museum of Arts, Tashkent

Cat. P.7 Pisa. 1913 Sepia on paper 24.9 × 32.5 cm Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 225 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Cat. P.8 Venice (Venezia). 1913 Watercolor on cardboard 26.6 × 34.5 cm Inscription underneath the image in Lissitzky’s hand: “Venezia / 13 / Lasar Lissitzky” [“Venice / 1913 / Lazar Lissitzky”] Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 226 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Cat. P.9 Reminiscence of Ravenna (Erinnerung an Ravenna). 1914 Etching on paper 33.9 × 36.6 cm Collection Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, cat. no. 227 Photograph by Peter Cox, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Cat. P.11 Ibern brik (Over the Bridge). 1915 Watercolor with frame and glass Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item no. 171 Lost Cat. P.12 Dead Prophet. 1915 Watercolor mounted under glass Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item no. 182 Lost Cat. P.13–14 Head of a Jew. 1915 Two watercolors Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item nos. 84–853 Lost

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

78

Cat. P.15

Cat. P.16

Cat. P.17

Cat. P.18

Cat. P.19

Cat. P.20

Cat. P.21

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

79

Cat. P.22

Cat. P.15 “Lion,” A Zodiacal Sign from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev, 18th Century. 1916 Black chalk and watercolor on paper 22.0 × 24.5 cm Copy of a Zodiac painting on the ceiling of the Mohilev synagogue. First published (with title in English as given above) as an illustration to Lissitzky’s article, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” (1923), p. 13 Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Cat. P.16 “Lion” from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev, 18th Century. 1916 Black chalk and pencil on paper 35.5 × 22.3 cm Copy of a wall painting above the entrance of the Mohilev synagogue. First published (with title in English as given above) as an illustration to Lissitzky’s article, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” (1923), p. 12 Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Cat. P.23

Cat. P.17 The Serpent in the Garden of Eden. 1916 Black chalk and watercolor on paper 35.5 × 22.0 cm Copy of a decorative motif for a Torah crown or tombstone Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 17 Cat. P.18 Sagittarius. 1916 Black chalk and watercolor on paper 22.0 × 23.3 cm Copy of a Zodiac painting on the ceiling of the Mohilev synagogue Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Cat. P.19 Peacock. 1916 Black chalk, watercolor, and gouache on paper 22.3 × 26.7 cm After a wall painting on the west side of the Mohilev synagogue Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Cat. P.20 Sea Horse and Bird. 1916 Indian ink, watercolor, and pencil on paper 20.8 × 27.0 cm After a painting in the Druya synagogue Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Cat. P.21 Detail from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev with a Ship, 18th Century. 1916 Copy of a wall painting in the Mohilev synagogue. First published (with title in English as given above) as an illustration to Lissitzky’s article, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” (1923), p. 11 Lost; reproduced from the published copy Cat. P.22 Detail from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev on the Dniepr with Birds and Snakes, 18th Century. 1916 Copy of a wall painting in the Mohilev synagogue. First published (with title in English as given above) as an illustration to Lissitzky’s article, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” (1923), p. 5 Lost; reproduced from the published copy Cat. P.23 Detail from the Decoration of the Synagogue of Mohilev with a view of Worms: North-East Side, 18th Century. 1916 Copy of a wall painting in the Mohilev synagogue. First published (with title in English as given above) as an illustration to Lissitzky’s article, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” (1923), p. 8 Lost; reproduced from the published copy

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

80

Cat. P.24

Cat. P.26

Cat. P.25

Cat. P.27

Cat. P.29

Cat. P.28

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

81

Cat. P.30

Cat. P.31

Cat. P.24 Interior of the Synagogue in Druya. c.1916 Oil on wood and mixed technique 62.9 × 76.8 cm Khidekel Family private collection, New York

Cat. P.27 Builder. 1917 Indian ink and pencil with frame Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item no. 946 Lost

Cat. P.25 The Advent of the Messiah. 1916 Oil on canvas Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item no. 72. Purchased by Y.F. Kahan-Shabshai at the Exhibition of Jewish Artists in Moscow in April 1917 Published as an illustration to L.M. Antokolsky’s article, “The Jewish Art Exhibition in Moscow,” Yevreiskaya nedelya [Jewish Week] 27 (9 July 1917), pp. 38–394 Lost; reproduced from the published copy Cat. P.26 Portrait of M. Broderzon. 1917 Watercolor and Indian ink with frame and glass Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item no. 565 Lost

Cat. P.28 Town Square. 1917 Oil on canvas (unmounted) Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F. KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item no. 957 Lost Cat. P.29 The Great Synagogue in Vitebsk. 1917 Hand-colored linocut on paper 34.0 × 54.0 cm Inscription in Lissitzky’s hand on lower left side: “Лисицкий / гравюра / 1917 / Витебская / синагога” [“Lissitzky / Engraving / 1917 / Vitebsk / synagogue”] Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Cat. P.32

Cat. P.30 Decorations for Jewish Art Soirée. 1917 Private collection, Moscow Attested in the playbill of the Jewish Arts Soirée, Moscow, 26 September 1917; see Cat. B.23 Lost Cat. P.31 Chief. 1917 Attested in the catalogue of the World of Art exhibition in Petrograd, item no. 174 Lost Cat. P.32 Jericho. 1917 Attested in the catalogue of the World of Art exhibition in Petrograd, item no. 175 Lost

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 4

82

Cat. P.33 Gathering Firewood. Late 1910s Indian ink and whitening applied with drawing pen and brush, with outline and border 10.2 × 24.7 cm Calendar design for November and December The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-3771. Gifted by A.A. Sidoroff in 1969 Cat. P.34 [Embroidery by Polina Khentova]. 1919 150 × 96 cm Sergei Grigoriants private collection, Moscow After Lissitzky’s copies of motifs from the Mohilev synagogue and his illustrations for children’s books

Cat. P.33

Cat. P.35 Composition. 1919 Oil on canvas and collage 71.0 × 58.0 cm National Art Museum of Ukraine, Kiev Cat. P.36 Graphical works on parchment. 1920 Attested in the catalogue of the Jewish Art Exhibition in Kiev organized by the Art Section of the Kultur-lige, p. 13, item no. 77 Lost

Cat. P.34

Cat. P.35

Notes

Cat. P.36

1 May have been included in the Moscow 1918 Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. See Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 116 (no. 32).

5 May have been included in the Moscow 1918 Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. See Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 116 (no.38).

2 May have been included in the Moscow 1918 Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. See Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 116 (no. 33).

6 May have been included in the Moscow 1918 Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. See Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 116 (no. 37).

3 May have been included in the Moscow 1918 Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. See Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 116 (no. 34–35).

7 May have been included in the Moscow 1918 Exhibition of Paintings and Sculpture by Jewish Artists. See Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 116 (no. 36).

4 See also Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 117 (no. 39).

5

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

84

Books (Cat. B)

Cat. B.1

Cat. B.2

Cat. B.3

Cat. B.4.1

Cat. B.4.2

Cat. B.4.3

Cat. B.4.4

Cat. B.5–10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

85

Cat. B.11.2

Cat. B.11.1

Cat. B.11.3

Cat. B.1 Revolutionary Almanac. 1905 Typescript collection with drawings made as a student in Vitebsk (2 copies) Literature: Lissitzky-Küppers, p. 16; Nisbet, cat. no. 1905/1; cf. RGALI archive, f. 2361, op. 1, d. 58, p. 14 Lost Cat. B.2 Solntse na izlyote (Flying Sun or Spent Sun). 1916 Sketch of the cover design for Sol'ntse na izlete: Vtoraia kniga stikhov, 1913–1916 [Spent Sun: Second Book of Poems, 1913– 1916] by Konstantin Bolshakov Pen and wash Includes personal dedication from the artist to K. Bolshakov G. Costakis private collection Literature: Lissitzky-Küppers, plate 6; Nisbet, cat. no. 1916/1

Cat. B.3 Solntse na izlyote (Flying Sun or Spent Sun). 1916 Book cover of Sol'ntse na izlete: Vtoraia kniga stikhov, 1913–1916 [Spent Sun: Second Book of Poems, 1913–1916; in Russian] by Konstantin Bolshakov (Moscow: Tsentrifuga, 1916) 23.6 × 19 cm; 480 copies Literature: Nisbet, cat. no. 1916/1 Cat. B.4 Shomir Publishing House prospectus. 1917 Printed prospectus of Shomir Publishing House, established by the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle (Moscow: Shomir, 1917) 16.5 × 12.7 cm; 4 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow Cat. B.5–10 A Legend of Prague. 1917 Six original illustrations for Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon Colored Indian ink

Attested in the Inventory of the Y.F.KahanShabshai Collection Gifted to the AllUkrainian Museum of Jewish Culture in Odessa on 11 April 1932, item nos. 6–11 Lost Cat. B.11 A Legend of Prague. 1917 Title page, colophon, inscribed dedication to Lazar Evgenievich Motylyov, 15 additional pages, and wooden scroll case with ornamentation by the artist (E.L.) from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir [previously called Nashe iskusstvo], 1917) Watercolors, zincography on paper, and hand-carved wood 22.8 × 385.5 cm; 20 numbered scrolls (this copy no. 4) and approximately 90 bound books Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2405; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 118; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 72; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

86

Cat. B.11.4

Cat. B.11.5

Cat. B.11.6

Cat. B.11.7

Cat. B.11.8

Cat. B.11.9

Cat. B.11.10

Cat. B.11.11

Cat. B.11.12

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

87

Cat. B.11.13

Cat. B.11.14

Cat. B.11.15

Cat. B.11.16

Cat. B.11.17

Cat. B.11.18

Cat. B.11.19

Cat. B.11 (continued) A Legend of Prague. 1917 Title page, colophon, inscribed dedication to Lazar Evgenievich Motylyov, 15 additional pages, and wooden scroll case with ornamentation by the artist (E.L.) from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir [previously called Nashe iskusstvo], 1917) Watercolors, zincography on paper, and hand-carved wood 22.8 × 385.5 cm; 20 numbered scrolls (this copy no. 4) and approximately 90 bound books Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2405; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 118; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 72; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

88

Cat. B.12.1

Cat. B.12.2

Cat. B.13.2

Cat. B.13.1

Cat. B.14.1

Cat. B.14.2 Cat. B.15.1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

89

Cat. B.12–13 A Legend of Prague. 1917 Two examples of title page and wooden scroll case (with unique ornamentation) from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir [previously called Nashe iskusstvo], 1917) Watercolors, zincography on paper, and hand-carved wood 22.1 × 400 cm (no. 12) 20 scroll copies

Cat. B.15.2

Cat. B.15.3

Cat. B.15.4

Cat. B.15.5

Cat. B.15.6

Cat. B.15.7

Cat. B.14 A Legend of Prague. 1917 Book cover and colophon of Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir [previously called Nashe iskusstvo], 1917) 22.8 × 29.5 cm; approximately 90 bound books (this copy no. 28) Museum of Jewish Art and History, Paris Cat. B.15 A Legend of Prague. 1917 Title page and 16 additional pages with illustrations from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir [previously called Nashe iskusstvo], 1917) Watercolors and zincography on paper (title page) and monochromatic zincography on paper (additional illustrations) 22.8 × 29.5 cm; approximately 90 bound books (this copy no. 52) Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2405; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 118; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 74; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

90

Cat. B.15.8

Cat. B.15.9

Cat. B.15.10

Cat. B.15.11

Cat. B.15.12

Cat. B.15.13

Cat. B.15.14

Cat. B.15.15

Cat. B.15.16

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

Cat. B.15.17

91

Cat. B.16.1

Cat. B.16.2

Cat. B.17.1

Cat. B.17.2

Cat. B.16 A Legend of Prague. 1917 Book cover, title page, and colophon from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Leben – Haver – Nashe slovo, 1917) Linocut on paper and monochromatic zincography on paper 18.0 × 18.6 cm Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 73; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/1

Cat. B.17 Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts. 1917 Printed cover and title page of Katalog Vystavki kartin i skul'ptury khudozhnikov evreev [Catalogue of the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculptures by Jewish Artists; in Russian] (Moscow: Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts, 1917) 16.2 × 12.0 cm; 16 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow The exhibition took place in Moscow in April 1917

Cat. B.16.3

Cat. B.15 (continued) A Legend of Prague. 1917 Title page and 16 additional pages with illustrations from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir [previously called Nashe iskusstvo], 1917) Watercolors and zincography on paper (title page) and monochromatic zincography on paper (additional illustrations) 22.8 × 29.5 cm; approximately 90 bound books (this copy no. 52) Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2405; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 118; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 74; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

92

Cat. B.18

Cat. B.19.1

Cat. B.19.3 Cat. B.19.4

Cat. B.19.2

Cat. B.19.5 Cat. B.19.6

Cat. B.19.7

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

93

Cat. B.19.8

Cat. B.19.10

Cat. B.19.9

Cat. B.18 By the Rivers of Babylon. 1917 Front and back covers of U rek vavilonskikh [By the Rivers of Babylon; in Russian] edited by L.V. Yaffe (Moscow: Safrut, 1917) 23.5 × 18.5 cm; 5,000 copies Literature: Apter-Gabriel, plate 12; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/5 Cat. B.19.12

Cat. B.19.11

Cat. B.20.2

Cat. B.20.1

Cat. B.19 King Solomon. 1917 One full illustration and 11 vignettes from “Solomon and Ashmedia” (part of Meagadot ha-melekh Shlomo [The Legends of King Solomon; in Hebrew]) by C.N. Bialik (published in Moscow in Shtilim [Saplings], no. 6–7 [Oct. 1917]) 25.8 × 19.5 cm Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 341; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 77; Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/4 Cat. B.20.1 Art Circle. 1917 Journal cover of Kunstring: Literarish kinstlerisher almanakh [Art Circle: A Literary-Artistic Almanac; in Yiddish], no. 1 (published in Kharkov) 26.0 × 18.2 cm; 68 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow Literature: Nisbet, cat. no. 1917/2 The same journal issue also includes reproductions of four works of art by M. Chagall, L. Lissitzky, P. Khentova, and J. Chaikov Cat. B.20.2 Interior of the Synagogue in Druya. Reproduction of a lithograph by the artist, published in Kunstring: Literarish kinstlerisher almanakh [Art Circle: A Literary-Artistic Almanac; in Yiddish], no. 1 (published in Kharkov) See also Cat. P.24

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

94

Cat. B.21

Cat. B.22

Cat. B.23

Cat. B.25

Cat. B.24

Cat. B.26

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

Cat. B.27

Cat. B.21 Art Circle. 1917 Journal cover of Kunstring: Literarish kinstlerisher almanakh [Art Circle: A Literary-Artistic Almanac; in Yiddish], no. 1 (2nd ed., published in Kharkov) Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow Cat. B.22 Art Circle. 1919 Journal cover of Kunstring: Literarish kinstlerisher almanakh [Art Circle: A Literary-Artistic Almanac; in Yiddish], no. ‫ב‬ [2] (published in Kharkov) 15.5 × 23.0 cm; 222 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow Literature: Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/9 Cat. B.23 Kunstovend. 1917 Playbill cover for the Arts Soirée of the Yidishe Folkspartey [Jewish People’s Party] on 26 September 1917, Moscow 21.9 × 16.7 cm; 4 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow

95

Cat. B.28.1

Cat. B.24 Yidishe Folkspartey. 1917 Election poster for the Jewish People’s Party in Moscow (in Yiddish and Russian) Museum of Jewish History in Russia, Moscow Cat. B.25 In honor of Y.L. Perets. 1918 Front and back covers of Programn fon Groysen Troyer Tog tsum 3 Yortsayt fon Y. L. Perets [Program of the Celebration upon the Third Anniversary of the Death of Y. L. Perets; in Yiddish] 22.0 × 16.5 cm; cover and 4 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow The event took place in Moscow on 18 March 1918 Cat. B.26 Ausshtelung fon Bilder un Skulpturn. 1918 Poster for the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculptures by Jewish Artists (in Yiddish, Russian, and Hebrew) Museum of Jewish History in Russia, Moscow The exhibition took place in Moscow in July–August 1918

Cat. B.27 The Life and Work of Paul Gauguin (NoaNoa). 1918 Printed title page from Zhizn' i tvorchestvo Polya Gogena [The Life and Work of Paul Gauguin; in Russian] by Y. Tugendhold, 2nd ed. (Moscow: Mayakovsky, 1918) 1000 copies Cat. B.28 Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy). 1919 Book cover, title page, and 12 additional illustrated pages from Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat [The Mischievous Boy; in Yiddish] by Mani Leib (Kiev – St. Petersburg: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) 25.8 × 20.8 cm Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2538; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 593; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 79; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/7

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

96

Cat. B.28.2

Cat. B.28.3

Cat. B.28.4

Cat. B.28.5

Cat. B.28.6

Cat. B.28.7

Cat. B.28.8

Cat. B.28.9

Cat. B.28.10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

97

Cat. B.28 (continued) Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy). 1919 Book cover, title page, and 12 additional illustrated pages from Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat [The Mischievous Boy; in Yiddish] by Mani Leib (Kiev – St. Petersburg: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) 25.8 × 20.8 cm Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2538; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 593; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 79; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/7

Cat. B.28.11

Cat. B.28.12

Cat. B.29 Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy). 1922 Book cover and title page [and 10 additional illustrated pages not shown] from YinglTsingl-Khvat [The Mischievous Boy; in Yiddish] by Mani Leib, 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Kultur-lige, 1922) 24.4 × 19.4 cm; 2,000 copies (with an additional print run of 2,000 smaller copies) Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 104; Nisbet, cat. no. 1922/1 Cat. B.30 Yidisher Folks Farlag. [1919–]1920 Catalogue cover for Yidisher Folks Farlag [Jewish People’s Publishing House] (Kiev – St. Petersburg: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1920) The same design had appeared earlier as the same publisher’s emblem in its Prospectus no. 1 (Kiev: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919); see Cat. E.9

Cat. B.29.1

Cat. B.29.2

Cat. B.30

Cat. B.31

Cat. B.31 Society for Jewish Music. 1919 Series cover for sheet music of the Society for Jewish Music This exemplar: J. Engle, “My Father’s Melody” (Moscow: Obshchestvo evreiskoi muzyki, 1919) 35.0 × 26.0 cm

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

98

Cat. B.32.1

Cat. B.32.2

Cat. B.32.3

Cat. B.33.1

Cat. B.33.2

Cat. B.32.4

Cat. B.33.3

Cat. B.33.4

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

99

Cat. B.32 Dem Zeydns Kloles (Grandfather’s Curses). 1919 Front and back covers and 2 additional illustrations from the published one-act children’s comedy Dem Zeydns Kloles [Grandfather’s Curses; in Yiddish] by Tsadok Dolgopolski (Moscow: Tsentraln Yidishn Komisariat, 1919) 14.3 × 38.0 cm; 32 pp. Published in the Yidishe Teatrale Bibliotek (Jewish Theatre Library) series Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2439; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 575; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 83; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/6

Cat. B.34.1

Cat. B.34.2

Cat. B.33 Shabes in Vald (Sabbath in the Forest). 1919 Title page and 3 illustrations from Shabes in Vald [Sabbath in the Forest; in Yiddish] by Jacob Fichman (Kiev: Kiever Farlag, 1919) 15.7 × 11.8 cm; 18 pp. Published in the Shul Bibliotek (School Library) series Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2574; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 84; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/8 Cat. B.34 Shabes in Vald (Sabbath in the Forest). 1924 Title page and 3 illustrations from Shabes in Vald [Sabbath in the Forest; in Yiddish] by Jacob Fichman, 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Kulturlige, 1924) Published in the Shul Bibliotek (School Library) series

Cat. B.34.3

Cat. B.34.4

Cat. B.35 Mayselekh (Tales). 1919 Book cover of Mayselekh [Tales; in Yiddish] by Hans Christian Andersen, translated by Der Nister (Kiev: Kiever Farlag, 1919) 21.7 × 14.5 cm; 190 pp.; 2,000 copies Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 85; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/2 Cat. B.36 Mayselekh (Tales). 1921 Book cover of Mayselekh [Tales; in Yiddish] by Hans Christian Andersen, translated by Der Nister, 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Kultur-lige, 1921) 20.1 × 15.0 cm; 320 pp.; 3,500 copies Literature: Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/2

Cat. B.35

Cat. B.36

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

100

Cat. B.37.1

Cat. B.37.2

Cat. B.37.3

Cat. B.37.4

Cat. B.37.5

Cat. B.37.6

Cat. B.37.7

Cat. B.37.9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

101

Cat. B.37 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 19171 Cover and 10 illustrations with text in Yiddish Watercolor, Indian ink, pen, bronze powder, and appliqué on paper and cardboard 30.0 × 26.0 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1787/1–11 Cat. B.38 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1918–1919 Series illustration no. 1: Gekoyft der tate far tsvay gilden ayn tsigele [Father Bought a Young Goat for Two Zuzim] Watercolor, gouache, Indian ink, and pencil on paper 27.9 × 22.8 cm Formerly in the Salome and Eric E. Estorick private collection, London Cat. B.37.10

Cat. B.37.11

Cat. B.38

Cat. B.39.1

Cat. B.39.2

Cat. B.39.3

Cat. B.39 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1918–1919 Cover and 10 illustrations with text in Yiddish Gouache, Indian ink, and pencil on paper 28.0 × 22.9 cm Tel Aviv Museum of Art

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

102

Cat. B.39.4

Cat. B.39.5

Cat. B.39.6

Cat. B.39.7

Cat. B.39.8

Cat. B.39.9

Cat. B.39.10

Cat. B.39.11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

103

Cat. B.40.1

Cat. B.40.2

Cat. B.40.1 Outer and inner sides of book jacket (cover) 27.9 × 77.4 cm (opened) Cat. B.40.3

Cat. B.39 (continued) Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1918–1919 Cover and 10 illustrations with text in Yiddish Gouache, Indian ink, and pencil on paper 28.0 × 22.9 cm Tel Aviv Museum of Art

Cat. B.40.4

Cat. B.40 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 Cover, dedication, title page, and 10 illustrations with Yiddish text Color lithographs on paper 1st ed. (Kiev: Kultur-lige, 1919) 27.9 × 25.8 cm Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2520; Ratner and Kvitni, cat. no. 581; Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 90; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/1

Cat. B.40.2 Handwritten Yiddish dedication to Pauline2 on blank page: “‫וואדיצוו‬-‫ פוטשט‬/ ‫ א"ל‬/ ‫פוור פווליען‬. 6.2.1919.” [“For Pauline / E.L. / PushchaVodytsia”] Cat. B.40.3 Title page with handwritten inscription by El Lissitzky (copy gifted to Abram Efros), Moscow, 30.5.1919 Cat. B.40.4 Series illustration no. 1: Father Bought a Young Goat for Two Zuzim

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

104

Cat. B.40.5

Cat. B.40.6

Cat. B.40.7

Cat. B.40.8

Cat. B.40.9

Cat. B.40.10

Cat. B.40.11

Cat. B.40.12

Cat. B.40.13

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

105

Cat. B.40.5 Series illustration no. 2: Then came the Cat and Ate the Young Goat Cat. B.40.6 Series illustration no. 3: Then Came the Dog and Bit the Cat Cat. B.40.7 Series illustration no. 4: Then Came the Stick and Beat the Dog Cat. B.40.8 Series illustration no. 5: Then Came the Fire and Burned the Stick

Cat. B.41.1

Cat. B.41.2

Cat. B.40.9 Series illustration no. 6: Then Came the Water and Quenched the Fire Cat. B.40.10 Series illustration no. 7: Then Came the Ox and Drank the Water Cat. B.40.11 Series illustration no. 8: Then Came the Butcher and Slew the Ox Cat. B.40.12 Series illustration no. 9: Then Came the Angel of Death and Slew the Butcher Cat. B.40.13 Series illustration no. 10: Then Came the Holy One, Blessed Be He, and Smote the Angel of Death

Cat. B.41.3

Cat. B.41.4

Cat. B.41.5

Cat. B.41.6

Cat. B.41 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1923 Cover, title page, and 10 black-and-white illustrations with Yiddish text 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Kultur-lige, 1923) 18.1 × 17.7 cm; 12 pp.; 1000 copies Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2520; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 91; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

106

Cat. B.41.7

Cat. B.41.8

Cat. B.41.9

Cat. B.41.10

Cat. B.41.11

Cat. B.41.12

Cat. B.42

Cat. B.43

Cat. B.44

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

107

Cat. B.41 (continued) Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1923 Cover, title page, and 10 black-and-white illustrations with Yiddish text 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Kultur-lige, 1923) 18.1 × 17.7 cm; 12 pp.; 1000 copies Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2520; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 91; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/1 Cat. B.42 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). c.1918–1919 Series illustration no. 8: Then Came the Butcher and Slew the Ox Lithograph As reproduced in Der Rabbi von Bacherach [The Rabbi of Bacharach; in German] by Heinrich Heine (Cologne: Eugen Diederichs, 1978), p. 63 Cat. B.43 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1918–1919 Portfolio of woodcuts Attested in Exhibition Catalogue no. 4, p. 14, of “El Lissitzky 1890–1941,” held at Modern Art Oxford, 12 June – 10 July 1977 Current location unknown (previously in private collection)

Cat. B.45

Cat. B.44 Kultur-fond stamp. 1918 Stamp design for the Mendele – Perets – Sholom Aleichem Jewish Cultural Foundation Cat. B.45 Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) book series logo. 1919 Pen and Indian ink Published by Yidisher Folks Farlag (Kiev – St. Petersburg, 1919) 14.5 × 13.4 cm; on paper 27.1 × 21.4 cm Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow

Cat. B.46.1

Cat. B.46 Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 19193 Front and back covers and 10 additional illustrations from Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner [The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin] (Kiev: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) Published in the Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) series 15.8 × 11.0 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2723; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 92; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/5

Cat. B.46.2

Cat. B.46.3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

108

Cat. B.46.4

Cat. B.46.5

Cat. B.46.6

Cat. B.46.7

Cat. B.46.8

Cat. B.46.9

Cat. B.46.10

Cat. B.46.11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

109

Cat. B.47

Cat. B.48.1

Cat. B.48.2 Cat. B.49.1

Cat. B.46 (continued) Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 19193 Front and back covers and 10 additional illustrations from Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner [The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin] (Kiev: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) Published in the Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) series 15.8 × 11.0 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2723; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 92; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/5

Cat. B.47 Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 1920 Front and back covers of Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner [The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin], 2nd ed. (Kiev: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1920) 15.8 × 11.0 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2723 Cat. B.48 Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 1922 Book cover and additional illustration from Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner [The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones;

in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin], 3rd ed. (Warsaw: Kultur-lige, 1922) 15.8 × 11.0 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2723 Cat. B.49 Ha-tochen, ha-tochenet ve-avne hareichaim (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 1922 Front and back covers and 11 additional illustrations from Ha-tochen, ha-tochenet ve-avne ha-reichaim [The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones; in Hebrew] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin], 4th ed. (Warsaw: Tarbut, 1922) 21.0 × 16.9 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 93; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/5

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

110

Cat. B.49.2

Cat. B.49.3

Cat. B.49.4

Cat. B.49.5

Cat. B.49.6

Cat. B.49.7

Cat. B.49.8

Cat. B.49.9

Cat. B.49.10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

111

Cat. B.49.11

Cat. B.49.12

Cat. B.50.1

Cat. B.50.2

Cat. B.50.3

Cat. B.50.4

Cat. B.50 Der Ber (The Bear). 1919 Title page and 8 additional illustrations from Der Ber [The Bear; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin] (Kiev – St. Petersburg: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) Published in the Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) series 19.8 × 16.0 cm; 12 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2721; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 94; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/3

Cat. B.50.5

Cat. B.49 (continued) Ha-tochen, ha-tochenet ve-avne hareichaim (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 1922 Front and back covers and 11 additional illustrations from Ha-tochen, ha-tochenet ve-avne ha-reichaim [The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones; in Hebrew] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin], 4th ed. (Warsaw: Tarbut, 1922) 21.0 × 16.9 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 93; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/5

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

112

Cat. B.50.6

Cat. B.50.7

Cat. B.50.8

Cat. B.51.1

Cat. B.50.9

Cat. B.51.2

Cat. B.51.3

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

113

Cat. B.51.4

Cat. B.51.5

Cat. B.51.6

Cat. B.51.7

Cat. B.50 (continued) Der Ber (The Bear). 1919 Title page and 8 additional illustrations from Der Ber [The Bear; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin] (Kiev – St. Petersburg: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) Published in the Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) series 19.8 × 16.0 cm; 12 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2721; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 94; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/3

Cat. B.51 Di Hun Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam (The Hen That Wanted a Comb). 1919 Original front and back covers and 6 additional illustrations for Di Hun Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam [The Hen That Wanted a Comb; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin] Indian ink and collage with printed text on eight sheets (two of which are joined) 10.5 × 13.5 cm Sold at Sotheby’s in Tel Aviv on 15 April 1998

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

114

Cat. B.52.1

Cat. B.52.2

Cat. B.52.3

Cat. B.52.4

Cat. B.52.5

Cat. B.52.6

Cat. B.52.7

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

115

Cat. B.52.8

Cat. B.52.9

Cat. B.53

Cat. B.54

Cat. B.52.10

Cat. B.52 Di Hun Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam (The Hen That Wanted a Comb). 1919 Original front and back covers and 9 additional pages with illustrations from Di Hun Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam [The Hen That Wanted a Comb; in Yiddish] by Uncle Ben Zion [Ben Zion Raskin] (Kiev – St. Petersburg: Yidisher Folks Farlag, 1919) Published in the Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) series 11.0 × 15.0 cm; 16 pp. Literature: Shmeruk, cat. no. 2722; ApterGabriel, cat. no. 95; Nisbet, cat. no. 1919/4 Cat. B.53 Vitebsk Committee for Combatting Unemployment report cover. 1919 Original lithograph on tracing paper, pasted onto cardboard 22.0 × 27.8 cm Signed with the artist’s Yiddish initials; additional inscription on right side underneath the image: “4-17/XII” The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1911 Literature: Nemirovskaya, ed., Lazar' Markovich Lisitskii, pp. 43, 116 (no. 13)

Cat. B.55

Cat. B.54 Vitebsk Committee for Combatting Unemployment report cover. 1919 Printed report cover 21.8 × 16.9 cm Vitebsk, 1919 Literature: Nemirovskaya, ed., Lazar' Markovich Lisitskii, p. 129 (no. 11) Cat. B.55 The Herald of Cultural Cooperation. 1920 Sketch for a book cover Indian ink on paper Signed with the artist’s Yiddish initials Literature: Lissitzky-Küppers, plate 41 Lost

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

116

Cat. B.58.1 Cat. B.57

Cat. B.56

Cat. B.58.2

Cat. B.58.3

Cat. B.58.4

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

117

Cat. B.58.5

Cat. B.58.6

Cat. B.59.1

Cat. B.56 Kultur un Bildung (Culture and Education). 1920 Journal cover of Kultur un Bildung: Organ fon der Yidisher Apteilung ba dem Bildung Komisariat [Culture and Education: Organ of the Jewish Department of the Commissariat of Education; in Yiddish] (Moscow, 1920) 25.6 × 16.8 cm; 80 pp. Igor Gorbatov private collection, Moscow Cat. B.57 Young Woman at Spinning Wheel. 1919– 1922 Original illustration with outline and border, for the book Ukraynishe Folkmayses [Ukrainian Folktales; in Yiddish], translated by Leib Kvitko

Indian ink, pen, and brush 32.5 × 25 cm Indecipherable Yiddish inscription in graphite pencil on right side underneath the image (includes the number “7”) The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow Cat. B.58 Ukraynishe Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales). 1919–1922 7 original illustrations for the book Ukraynishe Folkmayses [Ukrainian Folktales; in Yiddish], translated by Leib Kvitko Indian ink on paper 28.5 × 22.0 cm Inscription on right side (Cat. B.57.1) underneath the image in Yiddish: “Ukrainian Folktales L. Kvitko”

Cat. B.58.7

Cat. B.59.2

Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 96–102 Cat. B.59 Ukraynishe Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales). 1922 Front and back covers and 10 additional illustrations from Ukraynishe Folkmayses [Ukrainian Folktales; in Yiddish], translated by Leib Kvitko (Berlin: Jewish Section of the Commissariat for Public Education, 1922) 21.5 × 16.0 cm; 88 pp. Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 103; Nisbet, cat. no. 1922/17

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

118

Cat. B.59.3

Cat. B.59.4

Cat. B.59.5

Cat. B.59.6

Cat. B.59.7

Cat. B.59.8

Cat. B.59.9

Cat. B.59.10

Cat. B.59.11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

119

Cat. B.61

Cat. B.60

Cat. B.59 Ukraynishe Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales). 1922 Front and back covers and 10 additional illustrations from Ukraynishe Folkmayses [Ukrainian Folktales; in Yiddish], translated by Leib Kvitko (Berlin: Jewish Section of the Commissariat for Public Education, 1922) 21.5 × 16.0 cm; 88 pp. Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 103; Nisbet, cat. no. 1922/17

Cat. B.60 Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket). 1922 Original illustration for Shest' povestei o lyogkikh kontsakh [Six Stories with Easy Endings; in Russian] by Ilya Ehrenburg Indian ink and collage on paper, with Hebrew/Yiddish letters 43.5 × 24.1 cm Boris and Lisa Aronson Collection, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Cat. B.61 Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket). 1922 Illustration from Shest' povestei o lyogkikh kontsakh [Six Stories with Easy Endings; in Russian] by Ilya Ehrenburg (Moscow – Berlin: Helikon, 1922) 20.2 × 13.8 cm; 168 pp. Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 106; Nisbet, cat. no. 1922/12

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

120

Cat. B.62.1

Cat. B.62.2

Cat. B.62.3

Cat. B.62.4

Cat. B.62.5

Cat. B.62.6

Cat. B.62.7

Cat. B.62.8

Cat. B.62.9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

Cat. B.62.10

Cat. B.62 Elfandl (The Elephant’s Child). 1919–1922 12 original illustrations for Elfandl [The Elephant’s Child; in Yiddish] by Rudyard Kipling Indian ink, pen, and brush on paper The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item nos. PC 1728–1737, PC 1741–1742 Literature: Nemirovskaya, ed., Lazar' Markovich Lisitskii, pp. 116–117 (nos. 32–43) Cat. B.62.1 Aunt Ostrich 12.5 × 14.9 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1730 Cat. B.62.2 Uncle Giraffe 14.2 × 19.1 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1731 Cat. B.62.3 Aunt Hippopotamus 8.9 × 14.9 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1732

121

Cat. B.62.11

Cat. B.62.12

Cat. B.62.4 Uncle Baboon 12.6 × 20 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1733

Cat. B.62.9 The Elephant’s Child Tests his Long Nose 28.7 × 27.5 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1728

Cat. B.62.5 The Elephant’s Child and Kolokolo Bird 27.4 × 28.6 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1734

Cat. B.62.10 The Elephant’s Child Meets his Relations 28.5 × 27.5 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1742

Cat. B.62.6 The Elephant’s Child at Limpopo River 30.5 × 28.7 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1735

Cat. B.62.11 The Elephant’s Child Punishes Uncle Baboon and Aunt Ostrich 28.6 × 27.5 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1741

Cat. B.62.7 The Elephant’s Child Asks the Crocodile What He Eats for Breakfast4 28.7 × 27.5 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1736 Cat. B.62.8 The Elephant’s Child, Crocodile, and BiColored-Python-Rock-Snake 28.7 × 27.5 cm with outline and border The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1729

Cat. B.62.12 Three Elephants (End) 27.4 × 28.7 cm with outline and border Includes Russian word “конецъ” (removed in published version) The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1737

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

122

Cat. B.63.1

Cat. B.63.2

Cat. B.63.3

Cat. B.63.4

Cat. B.63.5

Cat. B.63.6

Cat. B.63.7

Cat. B.63.8

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

123

Cat. B.63.9

Cat. B.63.10

Cat. B.63.11

Cat. B.63.12

Cat. B.63.13

Cat. B.63.14

Cat. B.63.16

Cat. B.63 Elfandl (The Elephant’s Child). 19225 Cover and 15 pages with illustrations from Elfandl [The Elephant’s Child; in Yiddish] by Rudyard Kipling (Berlin: Shevln Farlag, 1922) 28.1 × 22.2 cm (this copy held in the library of The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) Literature: Nisbet, cat. no. 1922/18

Cat. B.63.15

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

124

Cat. B.64.1

Cat. B.64.2

Cat. B.64.3

Cat. B.64.4

Cat. B.64.5

Cat. B.64.6

Cat. B.64.7

Cat. B.64.8

Cat. B.64.9

Cat. B.64.10

Cat. B.64.11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

125

Cat. B.64.12

Cat. B.64.13

Cat. B.64.14

Cat. B.64.15

Cat. B.64.16

Cat. B.64.17

Cat. B.64.18

Cat. B.64.19

Cat. B.64 Arba'ah Teyashim (Four Billy Goats). 19226 Front and back cover and 18 pages with illustrations from Arba'ah Teyashim [Four Billy Goats; in Hebrew] by Ben Zion Raskin (Warsaw: Tarbut, 1922) 20.7 × 25.5 cm Literature: Nisbet, cat. no. 1922/2

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

126

Cat. B.65.1

Cat. B.65.2

Cat. B.65.3

Cat. B.65.4

Cat. B.65.5

Cat. B.65.6

Cat. B.65.7

Cat. B.65.8

Cat. B.65.9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

Cat. B.65.10

Cat. B.65.13

127

Cat. B.65.11

Cat. B.65.12

Cat. B.65.2 Peasant Beating a Fur Coat 23.5 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1719

Cat. B.65.8 Meeting of the Animals 23.5 × 21.4 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1724

Cat. B.65.3 Violinist 23.5 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1720

Cat. B.65.9 Peasant with a Horse 23.2 × 21.4 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1717

Cat. B.65.4 Wandering Piper 23.1 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1721

Cat. B.65.10 Jonah and the Whale 23.2 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1727

Cat. B.65 Vaysrusishe Folkmayses (White Russian Folktales). 1919–1922 13 original drawings with outline and border for Vaysrusishe Folkmayses [White Russian Folktales; in Yiddish], translated by Leib Kvitko Indian ink, pen, and brush on paper The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item nos. PC 1715-1727

Cat. B.65.5 Thieves of the Crown 23.6 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1723

Cat. B.65.11 Man without Arms and Man without Legs 23.5 × 21.3 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1726

Cat. B.65.6 Magic Bean 23.5 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1722

Cat. B.65.12 Baba Yaga in her Mortar 23.1 × 21.4 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1715

Cat. B.65.1 Boy Playing 23.2 × 21.5 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1718

Cat. B.65.7 Tom Thumb 23.5 × 21.45 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1725

Cat. B.65.13 Father and Son 23 × 21.4 cm The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, item no. PC-1716

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

128

Cat. B.66.1

Cat. B.66.2

Cat. B.66.3

Cat. B.66.4

Cat. B.66.5

Cat. B.66.6

Cat. B.66.7

Cat. B.66.8

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

129

Cat. B.66.9

Cat. B.66.10

Cat. B.66.11

Cat. B.66.12

Cat. B.66.13

Cat. B.66.14

Cat. B.66.15

Cat. B.66 Vaysrusishe Folkmayses (White Russian Folktales). 1923 Front and back covers and 14 illustrations from Vaysrusishe Folkmayses [White Russian Folktales; in Yiddish], translated by Leib Kvitko ([RSFSR]: Jewish Section of the Commissariat for Public Education, 1923) 20.8 × 14.5 cm; 102 pp. Literature: Apter-Gabriel, cat. no. 108; Nisbet, cat. no. 1923/1

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 5

130

Notes 1 For the sake of thematic unity all of Lissitzky’s works and publications connected to Had Gadya made in the period 1917–1923 have been juxtaposed together as Cat. B.37–43. 2 I.e., Polina Khentova. See ch. 12. 3 For the sake of thematic unity four editions of this book have been juxtaposed together as Cat. B.46–49. 4 Thus in the catalogue of the State Tretyakov Gallery: Nemirovskaya, ed., Lazar' Markovich Lisitskii, p. 117 (no. 38). In Kipling’s tale: “What He Eats for Dinner.” 5 These illustrations were published under the pseudonym Kraft. 6 These illustrations were attributed in the published work to Uriel Kahana, which in this case may be a pseudonym for Lissitzky. The thematically similar Had Gadya (One Young Goat) undoubtedly represents one of the most famous works of Lissitzky’s Jewish period, but the creation of Arba'ah Teyashim (Four Billy Goats) remains much more mysterious. The book itself was one of eleven written by Ben Zion Raskin that Lissitzky had agreed to illustrate according to a contract signed in 1919. Several

publications on Lissitzky’s work mention the cover and illustrations of Arba'ah Teyashim, including: Lissitzky-Küppers, El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts, ill. 15; Tschihold; Kazovsky. However, the title page clearly attributes these works to another artist, Uriel Kahana, and hence the book Me-'achrone Ha-dor: 'Uri'el Kahan'a, 'Adrikhal, Tsayar, Me'atsev [From the Last of the Generation: Uriel Kahana, Architect, Painter, Designer; in Hebrew] (Ra'anana: Kahana, 2003) also includes them as part of the

latter’s oeuvre. In 1922, when Arba'ah Teyashim was published in Warsaw by Tarbut, Uriel Kahana (1903–1965) was 19 years old and on his way to Palestine. Only a year later he graduated from the Herzliya Hebrew Gymnasium. In 1933 Kahana earned a diploma in architecture from University College London. During his career he was not known for book illustrations. Hence the question of whether these particular book illustrations should be attributed to Kahana or Lissitzky remains controversial until today. Those who attribute the illustrations to Lissitzky point to a high degree of correspondence with his recognized style of the period. On the other hand, these illustrations do not necessarily reach the same artistic level. To add to the enigma, the 2003 publication on Kahana has a cover photograph very similar to the photograph of Lissitzky with a pipe in the mid-1910s (see p. 2). With regard to Arba'ah Teyashim, Yoram Kahana writes in that edition: “The cover illustration in red and black is influenced by the Cubist and Futurist styles of the period, in a manner similar to Picasso, Braque, or Gris” (Me-'achrone Ha-dor, p. 35). He does not mention Lissitzky at all. We include the artwork in our catalogue with these caveats.

6

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 6

132

Publisher’s Emblems (Cat. E)

Cat. E.1

Cat. E.2

Cat. E.5

Cat. E.6

Cat. E.7

Cat. E.8

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 6

133

Cat. E.9

Cat. E.10

Cat. E.11

Cat. E.12

Cat. E.13

Cat. E.14

Cat. E.1 Logo of the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculptures by Jewish Artists. 1917 See Cat. B.17 Cat. E.2 Shomir Publishing House (Moscow). 1917 See Cat. B.4 Cat. E.3 Shomir Publishing House (Moscow). 1917 From Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir, 1917) See Cat. B.4 Cat. E.4 Shomir Publishing House (Moscow), executed in wood. 1917 Hand-carved on wooden scroll case from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish] by Moyshe Broderzon (Moscow: Shomir, 1917) See Cat. B.12

Cat. E.5 Safrut Publishing House (Moscow). 1917 See Cat. B.18 Cat. E.6 Yidish Farlag (Kharkov). 1917 From Kunstring: Literarish kinstlerisher almanakh [Art Circle: A Literary-Artistic Almanac; in Yiddish], no. 1 (published in Kharkov) Cat. E.7 Helikon Publishing House (Moscow). 1918 Includes art by Marc Chagall Cat. E.8 Mendele – Perets – Sholom Aleichem Jewish Cultural Foundation (Kiev). 1918 See Cat. B.44 Cat. E.9 Yidisher Folks Farlag (Kiev – St. Petersburg). 1918 See Cat. B.30

Cat. E.10 Yidisher Folks Farlag (Kiev). 1918 Cat. E.11 Kinder-gortn (Kindergarten) book series. 1919 Published by Yidisher Folks Farlag (Kiev – St. Petersburg) Cat. E.12 Kultur-lige. 1918 (On reverse of image shown in Cat. B.37.1) Cat. E.13 Kiever Farlag (Kiev). 1919–1920 (?) From Royte Blitn [Red Blossoms; in Yiddish] by D. Hofstein Cat. E.14 Tarbut Publishing House (Warsaw). 1922 From Arba'ah Teyashim [Four Billy Goats; in Hebrew] by Ben Zion Raskin (Warsaw: Tarbut, 1922) See Cat. B.64

El Lissitzky as a student. c.1914

7

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 7

136

Signatures (Cat. S)

Cat. S.1

Cat. S.2

Cat. S.4

Cat. S.3

Cat. S.5

Cat. S.6

Cat. S.7

Cat. S.8

Cat. S.9

Cat. S.10

Cat. S.11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 7

137

Cat. S.12

Cat. S.13

Cat. S.15

Cat. S.16

Cat. S.1 Tower of the Fortress Wall in Smolensk. 1910 See Cat. P.2

Cat. S.14

Cat. S.7 Interior of the Synagogue in Druya. c.1916 See Cat. P.24

Cat. S.13 Kunstovend. 1917 See Cat. B.23

Cat. S.2 Ravenna. 1913 See Cat. P.6

Cat. S.8 Solntse na izlyote (Flying Sun or Spent Sun). 1916 See Cat. B.2

Cat. S.14 Yidishe Folkspartey. 1917 See Cat. B.24

Cat. S.3 Pisa. 1913 See Cat. P.7

Cat. S.9 A Legend of Prague. 1917 See Cat. B.11.2

Cat. S.4 Venice. 1913 See Cat. P.8

Cat. S.10 Jewish Society for the Promotion of the Arts. 1917 See Cat. B.17.2

Cat. S.5 Reminiscence of Ravenna. 1914 See Cat. P.9 Cat. S.6 Reminiscence of Ravenna. 1914 See Cat. P.9

Cat. S.11 King Solomon. 1917 See Cat. B.19.1 Cat. S.12 Art Circle. 1917 See Cat. B.20.1

Cat. S.15 In honor of Y.L. Perets. 1918 See Cat. B.25 Cat. S.16 Ausshtelung fon Bilder un Skulpturn. 1918 See Cat. B.26

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 7

138

Cat. S.17

Cat. S.18

Cat. S.19

Cat. S.20

Cat. S.21

Cat. S.22

Cat. S.23

Cat. S.24

Cat. S.25

Cat. S.26

Cat. S.27

Cat. S.28

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 7

139

Cat. S.17 Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy). 1919 See Cat. B.28.1 Cat. S.18 Yidisher Folks Farlag. 1918 See Cat. E.9 Cat. S.19 Society for Jewish Music. 1919 See Cat. B.31 Cat. S.29

Cat. S.20 Shabes in Vald (Sabbath in the Forest). 1919 See Cat. B.33.4 Cat. S.21 Mayselekh (Tales). 1919 See Cat. B.35 Cat. S.22 Vitebsk Committee for Combatting Unemployment report cover. 1919 See Cat. B.53 Cat. S.23 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1918–1919 See Cat. B.39.1 Cat. S.24 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 Inner book cover See Cat. B.40.1 Cat. S.25 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 Inner book cover See Cat. B.40.1 Cat. S.26 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). 1919 Handwritten Yiddish dedication on blank page See Cat. B.40.2 Cat. S.27 Had Gadya (One Young Goat). c.1918–1919 See Cat. B.42 Cat. S.28 Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones). 1919 See Cat. B.46.1 Cat. S.29 Kultur un Bildung (Culture and Education). 1920 See Cat. B.56

Part Three FURTHER SOURCES ON EL LISSITZKY’S JEWISH PERIOD AND BIOGRAPHY

8

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

142

El Lissitzky’s Yiddish Writings This chapter presents English translations of four articles written in Yiddish by El Lissitzky. The first, entitled “The Proletariat and Art,” was published in the Kiev Folkstsaytung (no. 41) on 6 April 1919. “The City of the Commune” appeared in the Vitebsk newspaper Der Shtern (The Star) on 24 April 1920. “The Conquest of Art” was published in 1922 in the Warsaw literary-cultural journal Ringen (Links), no. 10, pp. 32–34. “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” appeared in Yiddish and Hebrew in 1923 in the Berlin bilingual journal Milgroym – Rimon (Pomegranate), no. 3, pp. 8–13.

“The Proletariat and Art” (“Proletariat un Kunst”), 1919 A suppressed spirit engenders perpetual rebellion. The history of art of all times and periods constitutes a chronicle, a record of objects created by humans. We customarily term these objects “works of art.” However, this is not the history of some evolutionary process. It is only the techniques of art that advance in every age. [In terms of artistic expression,] the caveman’s art of 30,000 years ago is no more primitive than our own. After a certain time, that culture ended. A new one appeared and created new artistic objects with different forms and different tendencies. Now we are living through an enormous new earthquake. It is not the earth itself that is burning, but rather its spirit – humanity – in order to soar upwards again, like the phoenix, to a new culture. This new culture will be the culture of the proletariat. Yet what does that mean, the “culture of the proletariat”? Nowadays people connect the culture of the proletariat to a conception of engineering and mechanical methods – a kind of factory production of spiritual as well as material valuables. To us, the artists, they propose first of all “to mechanize our souls, to learn to love in accordance with the four basic arithmetic operations; and only after that to draw pictures” (Finik). No.

Eliezer Lissitzky, “Proletariat un Kunst.” 1919 Provided by YIVO Institute for Jewish Research (New York)

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

143

Vitebsk Committee for Combatting Unemployment report cover. 1919 See Cat. B.54

The worker for the sake of the machine – this is not proletarian culture, but rather bourgeois culture! The machine for the sake of the worker – that is proletarian culture. And if one is not inclined to make allusions to the assorted rubbish that he had to produce for others, he will instead set about producing the little that is necessary for himself. And then the machine, in his hands, will become like a trained animal – and he himself will become an artist. Then we, the artists, will leave our studios – we’ll throw away our wooden palettes and our thin little brushes. We shall betake ourselves to the noisy hangars of the factories. We’ll take a machine in our hands, and it will become our palette. The machine will become our brush and our hammer. And in this universal work of all the masters, we will scoop up all the strength and rhythm of the machine. This will imbue us once again with the power of expression that was possessed by our ancestors 30,000 years ago. Then a new artistic object will be created – the fruit of a new culture, the child of this new culture and of its synthesis. For it must finally become clear to us that the possibilities of artistic expression are not limited to a four-cornered canvas covered in paint, a fragment of hammered marble, or a cast bronze.

144

The new culture will comprise also a new form. This will not be merely a single object, doomed to be forgotten in the collection of some patron or museum as today. Rather, a master’s every new work will produce thousands upon thousands of originals. And, unraveled as a front, they will distribute to all generations the good news of the perpetually rebellious soul of stubborn humanity.

“The City of the Commune” (“Di Shtot fon der Komune”), 19201 The city is the new system of the new communal life of the people. The city is becoming a center of collective exertion, a radio sail [transmitter] that sends out explosive signals of creative actions into the world. We see no vital elements of the future City of the Commune in the unplanned city of our [current] withering life. The architectural workshops of the People’s Commissariat for Education and numerous committees for government buildings are engaged in monstrously strange work. They propose and develop projects for “workers’ quarters,” thus isolating the workers in the suburbs; projects for “comfortable” houses for “peasants”; plans for a new Moscow with the Kremlin in the center and designated commercial, industrial, administrative, working, etc., districts. All this manifests creative impotence and a perpetuation of the old life of the tsarist, aristocratic, and bourgeois world. These projects aim to continue the perpetuation of the fenced-off chivalric city, where knights kept their cattle and chattels safe from enemies. This medieval city subsequently expanded into a city of shops and workshops. It eventually produced the modern city of universal trades, factories, palaces, dwellings, illuminated squares, dark lanes, fuming smokestacks, and the suffocating smell of gasoline. Is the City of the Commune to be a mere extension of this loathsome city? Architecture represents the materialization of the inner spiritual order of humankind in any given era. A new order is conveyed by means of a new image. Community, organization, and expedience constitute the foundation of our new time. This is the foundation of the future City, where there will be no more wonderful “private” houses. Streets will be streamlined with the precision of canals; the city will become a place of movement rather than a place of residence and bedrooms. There will be no factories, palaces, or shops here – no administrative, cultural, or industrial districts – there will be only a creative depot, a park of uniform growth. The construction of this new city will be as simple as that of bees building their beehive. It will be founded on calculation and clarity, the absolute antithesis of the helter-skelter hell of the modern American city.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

145

The Herald of Cultural Cooperation. 1920 Sketch for a book cover See Cat. B.55

Are not we, who have proved ourselves strong enough to avoid death while surviving trenches, tanks, and blinding beams, capable of reconstructing life and building a sun for the night to replace the sun of the day? Human strength is infinite. One has only to invite in armies of new creators, and a powerful reverberation of creativity will resound the world over. And we will come to that City, the foundation of which is in the Earth and which rises above it.2 It gives answers to all question of movement. Dynamic architecture will create a new theater of life, because at every moment we will be able to integrate this city with every new plan. The task of architecture – that is, the application of space and time – will thus be accomplished in a perfect way. We will be able to produce these forms through art. Even as in Suprematism art extends beyond the boundaries of a picture, so too in the city square we will find the foundation from which all forms of material life can sprout. Therefore, our picture will be neither an embellishment nor an illustration, but rather a grain of life, from which life itself will grow and which itself has been sown by life. Hence, the City of the Commune will enable us to take the first step toward the world of community and infinity. UNOVIS 19203

“The Conquest of Art” (“Das Govr zayn di Kunst”), 19224 All art is mortal, not just individual works, but art in its totality. A day will come when a portrait by Rembrandt will wither – the painted canvas will be whole, but the eye which responds to that very language of forms will vanish. – Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West We leave behind us rainbows of our traces, in the awareness of new floods.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

146

I Moldering minds with blind eyes stand amidst the storm which rages around modern art, and cry: “The world of beauty is going under! The world of beauty is going under!” What they see in modern art seems wild and absurd to them. But why don’t they judge so charitably the doings of modern science, of modern technology – for here the revolutions are more profound, more powerful! They want to encompass and comprehend the results of a thousand-year growth in one second, and if the artist requires an effort of two or three seconds, then a savage outcry and agitation begins, and dead dogs and living lions rush together into a single heap. To all those who wish to respond to the new art, we say that it is not enough to stare at it with one’s eyes; one’s whole head must be turned in a different direction. Cézanne led the artist out of the life-cinema, where he had sat by a little crevice, searched out moon-love [and] roses, leavened with his own temperament and baked little pictures. They would then be exhibited and later sold to become icons of sentimental feeling for sympathetic bachelors, mild young ladies, upstanding fathers and genteel mothers. Cézanne discovered the essence of the painter; the man through whom a stream of colors flow, who channels this seething river and gives it form. Cézanne approached the canvas like a field which one tears open, fertilizes, sows, and then cultivates one’s painterly fruit. True, Cézanne still believed in the art enshrouded by museum roofs, but with his creation he himself freed us from it. And we saw him standing by his work-bench with a stream of burning color in him, with a heart that beat in time, with hand poised to move the brush – but at the moment when the fruit should have dropped from his creative womb, the dead water of reason would flood him, and the still-born would be marinated in the little picture. This is where the green faces came from, the red trees and black clouds. The painter who had to give his color, would use objects as canvasses, like mannequins, and hang upon them what rushed out of him. Cézanne too still painted still-lifes, landscapes and people, but for him they were already only canvasses. The color which runs through his skies, waters, lawns and faces is his. II Cubism began to shatter the foundations, began to shatter the object. The bottle was made in order to be drunk from. If the painter paints it, then we can’t drink from the painted bottle. That is, the painter must have something different than the bottle. But what? Its color, the quality of its material (texture), its form; and it is precisely all this that can be

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

147

much more acutely expressed in paint when one assembles on the canvas all these elements not in the order required for drinking, but in that required for the picture, for its life, for painting. A world had been shattered. Its elements, gathered together, had begun to be assembled into a new painterly edifice of the straight, the curved, planes, extension, color and textures. Painting had come into its own. The canvas became a symphony of all contrasts and a harmony of instruments, wood, brass, strings, of drums, bells and cymbals. The painter realized that he was terribly constrained by the paint manufacturer with the enslavement of his cubes [sic], that every material has its painterly quality and these must be brought directly onto the canvas. Thus labels, pieces of newspaper, bits of sand, chalk and so on appeared on the canvas. The image as such began to be annihilated. III

Alexander Archipenko, Female Figure. 1920 Published in H. Arp and E. Lissitzky, Die Kunstismen 1914–1924 (Zürich: Eugen Rentsch Verlag), as no. 40. Whereabouts unknown

Painting creates its own realm for its world. On the path to infinity from the Gothic, it has created its golden banner: Renaissance, perspective, impressionism, quivering paint-specks. Cubism began to turn from the depth to the surface of the canvas and create its composition up against our eye. Tatlin in Russia walked this path.5 He began to create from material (wood, tin, cardboard) an artistic composition emerging in front of the plane of the canvas or board. But this was a localized-painterly approach (ortik-molerischer tsugang) for the eye, highlighted only by the tactile sense. The painter’s unmediated working of the material impregnated him with new goals, he began to relate critically to his place in the creative collective and realized that the engineer, for example, was ahead of him; he [the engineer] discovers, he creates the new in nature, but the artist – only what already exists. The artists, who had begun working with materials and raised edifices of Cubist construction, believed they were creators, discoverers, materialists – that is, modern people. But they failed to notice that they remained old-fashioned Romantics, because their approach to the material was the same as to paint – the beauty side, the aesthetic side. And just then, in Western Europe, where they had only heard about us, where they had still seen nothing of what had been created over the past seven years, they labeled this pure painterly movement with the name “instant art” (momentne kunst),6 a term we don’t know how to understand; art which competes with machines, or describes machines, or builds machines. But regardless – on the path of conquest over art, this is one of the most significant milestones.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

148

IV In 1915 in [St.] Petersburg Kazimir Malevich exhibited a black square. A black square painted on white canvas. This was the foundation of Suprematism. What kind of worldview, of world-conception found its expression in Suprematism? The bearer of colorful whirlwinds, the artist – the painter cleared out of his winged path all the bases of things on which he had previously hung his colors. He gave color independence; he made the painting objectless (onzahklekh). He went out to pure creation. The Suprematists said: as the flower, which is clearly colored [and] distinctly defined, [which] mimics nothing and describes nothing except itself, grows out of the earth, so must the painting blossom out of the artist. The painting must not be a reproduction, but a work. The modernity of Suprematism, in distinction to objectless art (Kandinsky’s, the Abstrakte Malerei in Germany, simultaneism in France) emerged in its organization and in its new painterly expression of space. Suprematism brought to its end the Kazimir Malevich, 1915, Black Square, oil on canvas, 79.5 × path to infinity, which went through perspective. It broke 79.5 cm. State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow through the blue arch of heaven and escaped into white boundlessness. The Suprematist colored masses swim like planets in white cosmic space. But thereby it raised the illusoriness of the painting to the maximum. It established in the place of beauty a different measure – economy.

“The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences” (“Vegn der Mohilever shul”), 19237 It was sometime between 19-- and 1916. By the calendar, not so very long ago – and yet it seems like ages ago. A few pioneering Jewish artists carried their craft to the eastern border of the Pale [of Jewish Settlement]; that is to say, they discovered that if you put pencil or charcoal to paper or brush and paint to canvas, the result was a picture. And the youth began to play the artist. Groups sprang into existence, the groups formed “schools,” and above all were – problems. A generation of heder boys, whose education fell short of Talmudic studies, was nonetheless saturated with acidity of analysis. And we, who had just barely learned how to handle pencil or brush, began to anatomize not only nature around us, but ourselves as well. Who really are we? What is our place among nations? And what is our culture?

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

149

What should be the nature of our art? All this activity began in several shtetlekh of Lithuania, Byelorussia, and Ukraine, and continued on to Paris. And this movement met its end, not its beginning as we thought at the time, in Moscow at the “First Exhibition of Jewish Artists” in 1916. Searching for our identity, for the character of our times, we attempted to look into old mirrors and tried to root ourselves in so-called “folk art.” Almost all the other nations of our time followed a similar path. And therein you have the logical explanation of why I set out one summer to go “among the people.” Ryback accompanied me. Stories circulated about the synagogue of Mohilev and we set out in that direction. First we stopped in Kapust [Kopys]. We were told that the synagogue of Kapust is of the same type as that of Mohilev and that it was decorated by the same craftsman. But all we found in Kapust were heaps of cinders and some charred bricks from the foundation. A few rotting beams had been designated for the construction of a new synagogue to replace the old one that had burned down. The town in its entirety had been leveled by fire and no trace remained of its antiquities. We continued on our journey until we arrived in Mohilev. From the distance of the Dniepr we saw a tall black structure, moderate in size, resembling a granary – a synagogue. But it appeared to be in the outskirts of town and could not be that synagogue. We reached the shore and headed into town. We were directed to some “beautiful” stone synagogues with boudoir lamps and freshly painted cornices and panels in the style of a provincial movie palace. A couple of hours later we found it. The synagogue was on the shore of the Dniepr, but sat in a “basin” and was therefore hidden from view. This was truly remarkable: Synagogues were always built so that they would dominate the surrounding valleys. Such was the case in Druja [Druya], in Dubrowna, and in other shtetlekh. The synagogue in its entire massiveness and in particular its roof gave the town its characteristic profile in much the same way as castles and cathedrals identified European cities. The style of the Mohilev synagogue (simple, clear-cut, I would say, classical) resembled Christian basilicas: a prominent central nave with windows on top and two low aisles to the north and south. But as distinct from Christian churches, the aisles are not open but entirely set off from the center, which is reserved for men. The women’s section is in the aisles; only a small aperture up high connects them with the men. This is in the old tradition. Such an aperture enabled us to view the decorations in the oldest synagogue in Germany (13th century) in Worms. There too the men’s and women’s sections are on the same level with only a small window in the wall separating the two. A woman posted at this window would follow the cantor and the other women repeated after her.

150

A tombstone in the Worms cemetery (14th century) identifies such a lectress. Galleries for women are a more recent device. Now there is a gallery for women in Mohilev too, and the aisles have new tenants. One of them is occupied by a beadle, a wood-turner who with his wood-shavings and little stove will surely set the synagogue ablaze some day. The other aisle houses a heder. But the character of the structure is determined by the central nave with its vaulted ceiling and the adjoining wings with their steep roofs and tiny windows. The synagogue is closed midday. We found the beadle who opened it for us. No – the surprise I felt was utterly different from the surprise I experienced on my first visits to the Romanesque basilicas, the Gothic chapels, or the Baroque German, Italian, and French churches. Perhaps when a child awakens in a cradle protected by netting on which insects and butterflies have settled and the whole is bathed in sunlight – perhaps his feeling might be akin to ours. The walls are of solid oak wooden beams, which ring out when you knock on them. Above the walls a vaulted ceiling of wooden rafters resembled a tent whose connective seams are visible. No disguises, no frills. The work of the carpenter is in full view, but the painter has done his work so skillfully with the aid of just a few simple colors that a whole great world comes to life, blossoms forth and fills this small cube. The entire interior space of the synagogue is decorated beginning with the backs of benches which extend along the length of the wall, up to the very top of the building. The synagogue has a square ground plan which passes into an octagonal vault closely resembling a skull-cap. The transition between the square and the octagon is achieved by triangular pendentives. The walls and the ceiling are articulated with a powerful sense of composition. This is the very opposite of the primitive; it is the product of great culture. What is its origin? On an inscription full of restrained enthusiasm, the master of this work, Segal, says: “Many years have I wandered about this living world …” It is told that he decorated [at least] three synagogues, in Mohilev, Kapust, and Dolhinov [Dolginovo]; another place is also mentioned. When his work was complete, he fell from his scaffold and died. This is a story that every shtetl claims for itself; the people of Mohilev claim that he died in Mohilev, the people of Kapust that he died in Kapust, the people of Dolhinov the same. The last two synagogues were destroyed by fire, that of Dolhinov a long time ago. My father used to tell me that he remembered having seen at Dolhinov an enormous fresco depicting the burial of Jacob, which included horses, coaches, the sons of Jacob, Egyptians, etc. We cannot verify this testimony today, but the story is

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

Interior of the Synagogue in Mohilev. Photograph. Early 20th century

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

151

typical in its evaluation of the painter. So great was his work that to have remained alive would have only diminished his stature. His life work done, his soul no longer had any reason to remain in his body. The focal point of the entire decorative scheme is the vault. At the western entrance stand two gigantic lions and behind them two peacocks. The lions hold two inscribed tablets, the lower of which is dedicated to the master himself. The three north and the three south panels feature a frieze, unfolding scenes of creatures who devour and other creatures who are being devoured. On the earth below, water[;] and in the sky above, stars burst into flowers. In the waters fish are snatched up by birds. On the ground a fox carries a bird in its mouth. A bear climbs a tree for honey. Birds carry snakes in their bills. All these running and flying animals are humans. Under their quadruped or feathered disguises they peer with human eyes. This is a striking feature of Jewish folk art. Doesn’t that lion’s head in the Zodiac of the synagogue resemble the face of a rabbi? Above the frieze an enormous ornamental plant fans out in a ring around the entire vault. Higher still there is a circle of cartouches of an Oriental, I might say, a Moorish style, and within the circle an intricate rope design reminiscent of Leonardo da Vinci’s engraving for his Academy. I recall having seen a similar design on the ceiling of a castello also attributed to da Vinci. Lined up above that are the signs of the Zodiac, twelve compositions within circles linked together as an integral whole. This painting of the Zodiac is quite original and in some of its aspects laconic and powerful. So, for example, Sagittarius is represented by only two hands: one hand holds the bow, the other pulls taut the string. This is the “powerful arm,” the “avenging hand” of the Bible. And above this at the apex of the “skullcap” a three-headed eagle, an amalgam of the Russian and the Polish eagles. In the east, above the Holy [Torah] Ark, lions again, but here they hold up the Tablets of the Law. Suspended beneath them is a large curtain draping the Ark. On the north side of the Ark a panel depicts a bewitched city engulfed by a dragon and next to it, the Tree of Life; on the northwest side, Jerusalem and the Tree of Knowledge. Of the triangular pendentives that mask the transition between the vault and the walls: the one on the north-west has the Behemoth; the one on the north-east, a wild goat; on the south-east, the Leviathan; on the south-west, an elephant with a saddle on its back. On the walls, tablets with inscriptions, pictures of holy vessels from Solomon’s Temple, ornaments and all manner of living creatures. The artist’s treasure-trove of formal invention is inexhaustible. One can see

152

how everything flows as from a horn of plenty and how the hand of the virtuoso never flags but maintains a steady pace of creativity. On the back of the Ark I discovered the first sketch done with a brush, which served as a basis for the entire decorative scheme and the subsequent color organization. This outline was drawn by a master of vast accumulated experience whose brush is completely controlled by his will. The general color scheme is pearly-amber with scattered red brick flecks. It lives and breathes according to the prevailing light. The windows are high in all the four walls. As the sun moves round hour after hour, it casts a continually changing light on the decoration, which is particularly striking on the ascending portion of the vault. This endows the whole with a continuously varying play. Despite its transparency the painting is quite dense. Ochre, lead white, vermillion, green give the impression of weight, though less noticeably in the cooler tones of blue and violet. But what is the origin of this spring? Where did this cloud drink to pour forth such wonderful rain? Let the scholars flounder as they navigate the sea of art history. I can only cite the following from my own field of observation. Every synagogue always had a small library. The cases hold some of the oldest editions of the Talmud and other religious texts, each with frontispieces, decorative devices, and tailpieces. These few pages fulfilled the same function in their time as illustrated journals do it our own day: they familiarized everyone with the art trends of the period. I once saw a tombstone with the following bas-relief: a bear standing on his hind legs holding a flowering acanthus ornament. In a heap of loose pages from Amsterdam editions of the 16th and 17th centuries, preserved (in a genizah) in the Druja [Druya] synagogue, I saw a drawing of this very motif. There can be no doubt that the sculptor of that bas-relief borrowed from that same tailpiece. Another example: the carving and entire composition of the many tiered Arks will be found in the Renaissance and Baroque frontispieces of Jewish religious texts. These frontispieces served as models for the Jewish carver just as the works of Villon and Palladio served the architects. There still remains the question of the national character of these paintings. We leave that to the psychologists and the ethnographers. We want to point out, however, that the kinship of the work, [which is] displayed so generously on the walls and the ceiling of the Mohilev synagogue, with the contemporary styles employed by other nations should force us to give serious thought to the matter. The Italian Fairoventi built the Uspensky Cathedral inside the Kremlin while his compatriot Aloisio built the Kremlin itself. It was the Phoenician Hyram who built the Temple of Solomon.8 Such examples are endless.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 8

153

Today, when the mark of a cultured people is its printed literature, magazines, newspapers, its own theatre, art, music, etc., we too may be considered a cultured people. All that we lack is a distinguished genealogy. If that is the sole reason that we crawl back through our past and if this explains our concern with “folk-creativity,” then it were better to do without such culture. Not necessary. And today when the technique of reproduction is so highly developed and the presses work with such speed, if this trend gains wide dissemination and infects some would-be artists who pick up this once genuine folkexpression and take to stylizing it, and powdering it, and splitting it into bits and pieces, and then present this hodge-podge as a new art and culture – then it were better to do without such culture. Not necessary. That which is called art is created when one is least conscious of creating it. Only then does it remain a monument of culture. Today art is being created by those who fight against it. To us the living dog is more precious than the dead lion.9 We know that when the dog dies he becomes a lion.

Kultur-fond stamp. 1918

See Cat. B.44

Notes 1 Translated from the Yiddish original by Arkady Zeltser of Jerusalem. 2 This statement may have been intended as a conscious counterpoint to religious notions of a “heavenly city.” Compare, e.g., Hebrews 11:10: “For he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” 3 UNOVIS (“Champions of the New Art”) was the name of a group of Russian artists headed by Kazimir Malevich.

4 English translation reproduced from Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 59–61 (with slight modifications). 5 Vladimir Yevgrafovich Tatlin (1885–1953), a painter and architect, was an outstanding figure in the world of the avant-garde and Constructivism. 6 “Instant art” is almost certainly an error for “machine art.”

7 English translation reproduced from Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 55–59 (with slight modifications). For an excellent analysis of Lissitzky’s recollections, see: Sokolova, “Belyi gospodin'.” For accurate information on the Mohilev synagogue, see: Pitin, “Mogilevskaya sinagoga.” 8 See 1 Kings 5. 9 An allusion to Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 9:4.

MATERIALS FROM THE FAMILY ARCHIVES

9

156

Commentaries Published During the Lifetime of El Lissitzky This chapter presents English translations of selected writings about the art of El Lissitzky that were published already during his lifetime. L.M. Antokolsky’s article, “The Jewish Art Exhibition in Moscow,” was published on 9 July 1917 in Yevreiskaya nedelya (Jewish Week), no. 27, pp. 38–39. The Russian text in the prospectus of Shomir Publishing House also appeared in 1917; it represented a programmatic declaration by the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle (see Cat. B.4). Boris Aronson’s book Contemporary Jewish Graphical Art (Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika) was published in Berlin in 1924 by Petropolis.1

L.M. Antokolsky, “The Jewish Art Exhibition in Moscow,” 1917 Lazar Lissitzky, a young artist and architect, graphic artist and decorator who came to Moscow in the storm of the great war straight from a German architecture school, has studied the oldest synagogues of Germany, such as that in Worms, rummaged through archives and Jewish chronicles, and traveled on foot across Italy. He is a cultured, welleducated, and ardent champion of Jewish art, in love with olden times and longing for rejuvenation and joyful revival. His large decorative panel Messiah is profound and impressive in its colorful harmony, charming in its wonderful details, original and bold in its composition, and in general cozy, soothing, and caressing. From the point of view of its idea and concept the picture is magnificent. However, as for execution and the manner of conveying the inner meaning of the subject and its idea and mystical content, it is somewhat lightweight and vague, still bearing an imprint of modernist Europe. For all his passionate love for his people the artist has too little knowledge of the messianic movements of the truly Hasidic shtetl environment, and this is felt in the picture. Despite its apparently great merits and winning artistic beauty, the picture has not quite achieved the task it set out to accomplish. The work’s tremendous value lies in its decorative stylishness and approximation of the Jewish style. Lissitzky has also created illustrations to M. Broderzon’s tale, Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende [Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague; in Yiddish;

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 9

157

see Cat. B.5–16]. This piece is even more important from the point of view of national art; it represents a significant step forward for Jewish book design. Compared with Lilien, Lissitzky is more original and braver in his national aspirations. In this work he is far more resolute in breaking with all sorts of Secession movements than he was in Messiah. The drawings frame the pages of the text in a diverse and fanciful manner. They are adorned with bright lubok-like colors and gold. The tale itself is charming, breeding naïve and at the same time exuberant fantasy. It is written in a sonorous Jewish vernacular with words that chant and almost dance. Lissitzky’s decorative design matching this text on a deep level, attaining the best possible external form to accompany it. Despite the intricacy and fancifulness of the stories, the illustrations are no less stylish that the other vignettes and decorations that adorn the text along with the most wonderful script written on parchment by a real sofer [Jewish scribe]. The cover, paper, and overall outward appearance – often so valuable in the production of a book – are all perfectly balanced here. In sum, I should say, this work expresses the very best notions of Jewish style.

Shomir Publishing House prospectus, 1917 The artistic editions offered for subscription below are the first links in a chain of books that are being prepared for publication by the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle. The work of the Circle is focused exclusively on works that bear the indisputable imprint of national distinctiveness and have hitherto been ignored. Self-analysis and growing national individuality, love for the distinctive nature of one’s own culture, and an inspired search for those sources of beauty that have nurtured the people’s artistic past – all these are growing with every passing hour and shedding new light on much of what has remained unnoticed or been thought worthless. Even astounding monuments of Jewish national creativity have remained unknown to all save two or three ethnographic specialists in folklore. Naturally, such scholars have not approached this precious material from the aesthetic and art historical point of view, which it so richly deserves. The fabulous poetry found in the Holy Scriptures has yet to become the subject of unhindered aesthetic admiration; so far the power of religious orthodoxy has been replaced only by the hegemony of scholarly exegetics. The latter may be just as respectable in its particular aims as is religious ritual, but also equally remote from a genuine appreciation of the fiery beauty of that divinely inspired art with which the cup of Biblical literature brims.

158

In precisely the same way, much that is noteworthy in the creative work of contemporary Jewish artists of the word and of physical forms has likewise gone without notice, distribution, or proper evaluation. Yet these artists have succeeded in creating items endowed with a real aroma of national distinctiveness. At present the work of the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle inevitably bears a private and intimate character. First steps are always selective and subjective. That is why the Circle has chosen to issue limited editions of numbered copies. These editions are published with all possible attention to detail and take advantage of the diverse array of techniques that the current state of the art of printing has placed at the disposal of book lovers. The Circle’s future work may enable it to step outside this confinement and engage in activities on a broader scale. We have just published the Tale of M. Broderzon [i.e., Sikhes Kholin; see Cat. B.5–16] with the graphic ornamentation of L. Lissitzky. A monograph on The Art of Marc Chagall written by Abram Efros (pen name Rosstsy) and Y. Tugendhold is currently in press. Preparations for the publication of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, translated from Ancient Hebrew into Russian in accordance with the original meter by A. Efros and ornamented by L. Lissitzky, are nearing completion. Other works being readied for publication include: Ecclesiastes, as translated by L. Vygodsky; The Book of Folk Art; Studies of Jewish Artists; and books of legends and tales ornamented by M. Chagall, N. Altman, L. Lissitzky, J. Chaikov, I.B. Ryback, Shifrin, and others.

Boris Aronson, Contemporary Jewish Graphical Art (excerpts), 19242 Lissitzky approached the task of copying artifacts from a professional viewpoint; he exactly reproduced the synagogue decorations in Mohilev, Shklov, Druya, and Kapust [Kopys]. Similarly, Ryback worked on copying the tombstones in Orsha, in the provinces of Podolia and Volhynia, while Elman worked on copying silver objects and synagogue carvings. Each of these artists became a researcher in the formal principles of the popular style. But when artists of this type wish to do something of their own, they cannot avoid copying folk art exactly. Thus Lissitzky publishes Sikhes Kholin [see Cat. B.5–16], which is an imitation of a scroll; in other words, a scribe writes a text for him, imitating the style and form of the scrolls, which are to be kept in special wooden cases. For this edition, Ryback makes a book cover which is a copy of a Galician lubok, adding to this a figure of a deer which he had previously copied from a tombstone, as

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 9

159

well as Hebrew letters from an antique scroll. For Chaikov as well, a scribe writes a text of the Song of Songs. He even includes the entire first sheet of the popular folk edition in his own portrait. The first period of copying the folk style was of short duration. Elements of folk art were perceived cursorily and formal origins remained undiscovered. The artists were looking only for some exterior features which eventually could help them to create a new, nationalistic visual art. The second period, that of stylization, was more fruitful. Elements of folk art were adapted to a modern idiom. Lissitzky edited Had Gadya as a stylized lubok, in which folk spontaneity was transformed into Jewish stylish beauty. Elements that had no prototype in Jewish folk art (cats, dogs) were freely interpreted without adding specific Jewish features. Lissitzky also created works for the publishers, Folks Farlag and Kulturlige, in which he incorporated traditional Jewish motifs such as columns, deer, lions, and candlesticks. […] Another characteristic feature of this period of stylization is its graphic quality. For stylization, linearity played an important role. However, this linearity may be of naturalistic rather than ornamental character. So, for example, Chaikov is preoccupied not with the rhythm of line but with its anatomical place, not with the composition of color patches but with the filling of space by figures. On the other hand, in the art of Lissitzky, patches of color are essential. His highly deliberated illustrations perfectly fit their texts. He was the first to reveal a cultural understanding of the graphic tasks and formal elements of Jewish folk art. His use of stylistic folk elements was always skillful and intelligent. […] Young artists have grown up on the elements of his [Chagall’s] art and, therefore, Chagall’s influence is traceable in the work of each of them. And if the elements of Chagall’s art became the banner of the artistic revival, and if they became a cliché, Chagall should not be blamed. Because these elements, later to become a synonym for Jewish life, are indeed discovered and created by Chagall. But what is important is that they never had an independent function in his art, forever remaining just the parts of his integral organic creation. His multifaced images, his all-comprehending scope (which rejects nothing, however small), his enchanted, spontaneous world, all comprise the monumentality of Chagall’s creative personality.

Notes 1 An additional article by L. Lozovik, entitled “Lazar Lissitzky,” reportedly appeared in the Menorah journal in 1926 (but has not been located). The periodical in question concerned itself only with Jewish artists.

2 English translation reproduced from the version of Luba Freedman (abridged by Malka Jagendorf) in Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution, 235–238 (slightly modified).

Page from Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy). 1919

See Cat. B.28.3

10

162

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

Writings by Mark (Mordukh) Lissitzky, Father of El Lissitzky This chapter presents English translations of a group of essays on Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice by El Lissitzky’s father, who was known variously as Mordukh (Mordechai) and Mark. These writings lend insight into the family background of the artist and the cultural environment within which he grew up. In this respect they can contribute to a reconstruction of the biography of El Lissitzky himself. The versions below have been translated from the unpublished Russian typescript copy preserved in the private archive of Tamara and Sergei Lissitzky. The compositions all appear to date from 1945; “Two Avengers” is dated 20 October 1945. Words in square brackets and notes to these texts have been added by the editor.

“William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice” (“‘Venetsianskii kupets’ V. Shekspira”) Embarking on an analysis of this enigmatic play, let us begin by saying that many people have long mistakenly thought, and some still think, that the author’s aim was to portray a confrontation between two representatives of different faiths – Antonio the Christian and Shylock the Jew – as if to demonstrate the noble habits of the Christians as opposed to the bestial instincts of the Jews. At performances of the play this delusion has often embittered some spectators while confusing and bewildering all well-intentioned people. Even should we proceed down this erroneous path, however, the opposite picture might emerge. It would seem that Shakespeare intended this play to be a satire of Christianity, because nearly every Christian who figures in the work is “hardly worthy to unlace Shylock’s shoes,” to quote Heinrich Heine, with respect to his or her actions, lifestyle, and moral qualities in general. Yet both the former and the latter interpretations only serve to cast an unjustified shadow over the shining memory of the great Shakespeare. As will be shown below, his aim was in fact altogether different. We call this play enigmatic because at first glance its entire plot may seem absolutely mythical; all the events of this story appear incredible and improbable.

Mark (Mordukh) Lissitzky. The artist’s father

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

163

Let us begin from the beginning. Antonio, a merchant of Venice, is always trying to humiliate the Jew Shylock, without any provocation from the latter. He spits on his gabardine, calls him a dog, and berates him in every other way possible. The arrogant Antonio wishes to help his friend Bassanio, who lacks ready cash and is unable to borrow 3,000 ducats from any of his numerous friends in his native city. Despite his prejudice Antonio sends Bassanio to, of all people, Shylock, the person he has repeatedly insulted. Serving as the loan’s guarantor, he will sign without a twinge of conscience the most shameful and humiliating bond. A primitive banker by occupation, Shylock the Jew conducts his operations on the Rialto (a trading street). A smart and sensible man, he sarcastically reminds Antonio of his insults and questions him [Act 1, Scene 3]: “Hath a dog money? Is it possible a cur can lend three thousand ducats?” Still, he intends to meet his enemy halfway, to make him a loan and even “take no doit of usance.” But the haughty Antonio manifests his abusiveness even at this point in the story. Shylock becomes vexed and makes Antonio seal a bond according to which Shylock will be entitled to cut off “an equal pound” of Antonio’s flesh should he not repay the loan within three months. Could a Jew of the Middle Ages, well aware that the laws of the land were not always on his side – what is more, a Jew who, given his upbringing, temperament, and faith, would be neither capable of bloodletting nor foolish enough to expect any court in the world to enforce the exaction of such a senseless forfeiture – decide to act in such a mad way? What is going on here? Bassanio, meanwhile, who as it is already owes money to Antonio and is not repaying it, is not ashamed to take the 3,000 ducats – despite the fact that this deal is what we might call dubious and requires his benefactor to risk his own life. Is such behavior normal? So too with the judge who has the chance virtually to re-enact the judgment of Solomon by uttering just one word: “Cut.” Can a sensible man believe that Shylock would indeed cut off living human flesh in public? Even the rabid anti-Semite knows that such is not to be. Later, we learn that the duke of Venice who sits in judgment does not know the laws of the land thoroughly, until Portia, disguised as a doctor of laws, expounds them to him. And finally, can capital punishment really be applied to such a sham attempt? If so, then why not put Antonio, who of his own free will faces certain death, on trial for attempted suicide? Lastly, why not also call to account the notary who consciously made himself a party to this criminal affair? Turning to the moral qualities of the characters in this play, we know that Shylock lends money on interest, but there is no evidence of his being an evil usurer. On the contrary, we know that he selflessly makes a loan to his worst offender and for the time being patiently endures all

164

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

Original typescript with handwritten corrections from Mark Lissitzky‘s article, “William Shakespeare‘s The Merchant of Venice.” August 1945

sorts of humiliation from Antonio. As he puts it: “For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.” Thus, Antonio can be said to be Shylock’s inferior rather than superior both morally and intellectually. He is a reckless and short-sighted man who makes a living by exploiting poor sailors who risk their lives on long journeys in order to make their master rich, an idler whiling away his time in the company of carefree fast livers. Nothing good can be said of Bassanio or the others either. Shylock does not find his trade of moneylending reprehensible because under the laws of that time a Jew could choose only between that and reselling old clothes. To justify himself when speaking with Antonio, he cites the Biblical story of the patriarch Jacob who, oppressed by his knavish father-in-law Laban, resorted to a wily strategy. Shylock concludes: “And thrift is blessing, if men steal it not.”

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

165

The deadline comes and goes, but Antonio fails to repay his bond. Shylock takes the matter to court and demands that his claim be fully satisfied according to the contract; i.e., with a pound of Antonio’s flesh. Distraught over the loss of his only daughter, stolen gems, and an invaluable gift from his late wife, Shylock hopes to find in court at least a little bit of human sympathy from some side and to secure at least a modicum of censure against his offender Antonio. And what does he get? Nothing but mockery, malice, the “justice” of Biblical Sodom.1 Yet we must agree that such a upstanding and intelligent man as is Shylock (in Shakespeare’s portrayal) cannot behave so extravagantly, as it seems to us, and indeed cut off a pound of Antonio’s flesh. Therefore, guided by common sense, we may take the liberty of supposing that the author had the following in mind for the role of Shylock. At first Shylock is glad in his heart of hearts that his enemy needs his help. He decides to do him a favor in the hope that Antonio will stop harassing him. But when Antonio is ready to take the money while continuing to abuse him brazenly, Shylock decides to exact a painful and clever revenge. He lends Antonio the required sum without any advantage to himself, thus depriving Antonio of any grounds for accusing him of greed or even profit-seeking. At the same time he makes him seal a bond that is most damaging to the proud merchant’s dignity. Shylock did not even think, and could not have thought, of making use of the agreed-upon forfeit – indeed, could a rich man like Antonio, with his major business operations and the threat of such grave consequences, conceivably fail to repay him within three months? It follows that Shylock was satisfied to ridicule his enemy at least for once and did not think beyond that. However, the careless Antonio lets his chances slip through his fingers. His business ventures fail, and his friends – as the saying goes – last only until the rainy day comes. Antonio misses the payment deadline, and Shylock naturally avails himself of the opportunity to sue Antonio so as to make public his antagonist’s demise. He is satisfied with the dreadful panic Antonio experiences when faced with the agony of imminent death. Shylock knows in his heart of hearts that Antonio’s fear is unfounded, because he has no intention of cutting his flesh. Yet with his sundry grudges weighing on him, Shylock revels in the short-lived moral revenge he has concocted. When offered a settlement ten times the original sum, he proudly rejects it and with feigned gravity demands nothing but a pound of flesh. No longer disgraced or humiliated, he is the epitome of grand, triumphant revenge. Shylock is symbolically avenging not only his own personal injuries, but also the prevalent insults against the entire Jewish people. Observe his heated diatribe addressed to Salarino [Act 3, Scene 1]: “He hath disgraced me, and … scorned my nation, … cooled

166

my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. … If you prick us, do we not bleed? … If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge.” One feels that Shakespeare, the great genius of an artist, sympathizes more with Shylock than with his opponents. The playwright seems to deliberately sustain Shylock’s stubborn but feigned resentment to the utmost for theatrical effect. He intends to expose the singular counsel for the defense – Portia, [an embodiment of] the Jesuitical resourcefulness and chicanery of the priests of Venetian justice. Subsequently, Shakespeare reveals the glaring injustice of the harsh sentence that cannot but evoke tears of empathy with Shylock in every honest viewer. As Heinrich Heine wrote in his critical article on The Merchant of Venice, entitled “Jessica”: “When I saw this play presented in Drury Lane, standing back of me in the box was a pale British beauty who violently wept at the end of the fourth act and frequently cried: ‘The poor man is wronged!’” If there are tragic moments in this sad comedy, we will find them not where people blinded by anti-Semitism saw them, but rather on the opposite side. The ill-starred fate of the hapless Shylock is pathetic and tragic. In his closed-off life he cherished but three treasures which, according to him, alone made his existence happy: secure wealth, his only daughter, and the faith of his fathers. By the end of the play arrogant and unscrupulous leeches and a prejudiced court have deprived him of all. If seen with impartiality, this play may serve as an excellent moralizing lecture for bourgeois society on how people should not behave. For Shylocks the world over it presents a lesson of the old world: “Don’t fight the strong, nor take the rich to court!” But in our socialist country, where everybody is equally strong and equally rich, this play may be of special importance. It is a mirror in which our past is clearly reflected, as Heine aptly characterized Shakespeare’s hidden idea in this play. Shakespeare portrayed the oppressor in the person of Antonio and the oppressed in the person of Shylock. He showed that when the oppressed loses patience and, convinced of the justice of his own cause, thinks the moment propitious for triumph over his enemy – and indeed challenges him – then he, the oppressed, is nonetheless defeated as the weaker party. Despite being in the right, he has all his attempts ruthlessly suppressed. By contrast, the Soviet people have with the help of their brilliant leaders and selfless Titan fighters once and for all defeated their oppressors – the autocracy and the bourgeoisie. Seeing their own grim past in this play, they may appreciate their happy present even more, not to mention their bright prospects in the future.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

167

“Two Avengers” (“Dva Mstitelya”), 20 October 19452 I am satisfied. I have seen your confusion, your trepidation. … This is enough. … I leave you to your conscience. – Alexander Pushkin, “The Shot” The great genius Pushkin, who was not exactly a philosemite, gave a relatively complementary evaluation of the persecuted Jew Shylock. He wrote: “Shakespeare’s Shylock is stingy, quick-witted, vindictive, a loving father, and sharp-witted.” The only [really] negative trait in this description is vindictiveness. But if Pushkin himself believed that Shylock indeed intended to cut off a pound of Antonio’s flesh, he would not have hesitated to write bloodthirsty instead of vindictive. Pushkin was well aware of Antonio’s emotional suffering in anticipation of his potentially imminent deadly pain, as well as his disgrace and humiliation in the presence of the judges, his acquaintances, and all of his former admirers. This terror and shame were no less agonizing than bodily torture, which Shylock himself – to judge by common sense – never intended and of which he could not even conceive, knowing that to cut flesh off a living man was impracticable, unnatural, punishable, and not at all witty. The improvised scene in court was designed to cause a particular panic and shock in the heart of the arrogant Antonio. Shylock stands and whets his knife, paying no attention to the accusations of cruelty leveled against him. The others insist on the presence of a surgeon; he refuses. Offered ten times the original sum of the loan, he rejects it. The table holds a balance to weigh out the flesh. Shylock continues whetting his knife. This pretense might well have convinced the perspicacious Pushkin of Shylock’s sharp wit and the logic of his revenge. Most probably, that impression gave Pushkin the idea of creating his own sharp-witted avenger, Silvio (in his story “The Shot”). Silvio, who has old scores to settle with a well-known count over a duel that began long ago but was never finished, now hears from his informer that the count has married. He decides to carry the tricky business to its conclusion. To make his enemy’s suffering especially agonizing, Silvio chooses an appropriate time, place, and setting in order to carry out his premeditated plan of revenge – but without any bloodshed. He comes to the count unexpectedly during the happy days of his honeymoon and finds him at his magnificent castle in a luxuriously furnished study. The count is in the company of his beloved young wife, who is terribly frightened. After a stormy and distressing explanation, Silvio follows the rules of the duel and aims his pistol at the count. However, he intentionally fires at a picture instead. In farewell he hurls the triumphant

168

words that I have taken the liberty of using as an epigraph above. It is equally applicable to the two avengers [Silvio and Shylock].3

“Epilogue: A Tale of Three Criminals” (“Epilog: Skazka o tryokh prestupnikakh”) I kept re-reading Heinrich Heine’s article “Jessica” over and over again with great attention. I was greatly impressed by the scene in which Heine comes to the synagogue, as it were to look for Shylock. He recognizes the long-suffering martyr and hears this doting father sob, “Oh, my Jessica!” Deeply moved, at one point I fell asleep and had a dream that on Yom Kippur I decided to go to the synagogue in the hope of meeting Shylock. I arrived there and looked around. The synagogue was full of people praying, prayers being whispered in devotion, soft sighs, and stifled crying. The people were mostly elderly men with gray hair and beards, nearly all of them wrapped in white cloaks with blue stripes which made them look alike. I began to walk through the rows, thinking that perhaps I would recognize the stranger by his clothes. Indeed, I noticed a gabardine of exotic cut on one of these wrapped-up, living mummies. The words of his prayer sounded somewhat foreign and incomprehensible. I decided to watch this exceptional figure and keep an eye on him till the end of the service. Dusk fell, the first stars appeared, and the service was over. People were hurrying home for the feast following the day of fasting and prayer. My stranger unhurriedly packed his tallit and prayer-book in his bag. The man sitting next to him, apparently driven by curiosity, observed the stranger just as closely as I, then shook his hand in keeping with the old custom. He greeted him with “Sholom aleichem” [“Peace to you”] and started to ask where he was from, what his name was, what the purpose of his visit was, etc. In broken Hebrew the stranger answered: “I am from Venice, and my name is Shylock. At home a rich Christian merchant constantly harassed me as a Jew, insulted me, and did me a great deal of harm. A friend of his seduced my only beloved daughter and took her away, stealing a lot of money and gems from me. And when I complained in court about the harm I suffered, I was charged with attempting to spill Christian blood and sentenced to death unless I renounced my faith and adopted Christianity. Here I am, deprived of my only daughter and my wealth, seeking refuge among you. Now, of course, I’d be happy to know what your name is and who you are to take such an interest in me.” “I believe it a great piece of luck to get to know you; we have a good deal in common,” said the other man. “I spent a long time behind bars suspected of having killed a Christian boy for religious reasons and faced

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

169

penal servitude. Celebrated lawyers and great scholars came out in my defense and proved me to be completely innocent. In the end, owing to the honesty and impartiality of the jurors, I was acquitted by the district court. My case made a stir the world over. My name is Mendel Beilis. A variety of circumstances – religious, national and political – were intertwined in my trial.4 This is hardly the right place or time to go into details. May I invite you, Mr. Shylock, to walk to my place for dinner and a heart-to-heart talk?” At that point the last worshipper approached us and pleasantly greeted us in French. However, seeing that we did not understand him, he switched to English. I was fluent enough in English to maintain our communication. “I am Captain Dreyfus,” the newcomer introduced himself. We were all delighted to meet him, and I introduced my new friends to him. He shook our hands warmly and exclaimed: “I’m so happy to have a chance to see in person my famous comrades in misfortune! I am the only Jew to have held a position of responsibility in the French Army General Staff. My service achievements brought upon me the envy and spite of some of my colleagues, who plotted against me. I was court-martialed on charges of treason for allegedly having sold important military secrets to an enemy state. Despite proof of my innocence I was sentenced to be stripped of my military rank and exiled to Devil’s Island, where I spent years in grave physical and moral suffering. Many servicemen of different ranks, most of the world press, and the best representatives of all walks of life were outraged by my undeserved punishment and unanimously demanded a retrial. As a result of that pressure a new investigation into my case was called, with a new jury. After all the facts were scrupulously checked, the court martial became convinced of my innocence, acquitted me, and restored my honor. Although justice triumphed, the public’s conscience was satisfied, and my enemies were put to shame, none of this could reverse my weakened health, lost years, and ruined life!5 Your case, Monsieur Shylock, is not closed yet and sooner or later your maltreatment, the reasonableness of your revenge and the injustice of your trial will be proven and recognized by all! The name of the immortal Shakespeare, who created you for the instruction of the sinful world, will be glorified a hundredfold. The three of us are fatal victims of racial enmity and indeed guilty of no crime, except being descended from Shem. We bravely say to every antisemite, be his antisemitism overt or hidden, that we are not ashamed of our forefather. We blush only at the fact that our ancestor Shem had a brother, an impudent rascal called Ham, and that some of his descendants are little better than he. As offspring worthy of their despicable primogenitor, these knights, with their attempts to slander and malign us, only reveal their hereditary impropriety.”

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

170

Availing myself of the opportunity, I asked Shylock: “When Bassanio asked you for a loan, you kept repeating sotto voce, ‘Three thousand ducats; ‘tis a good round sum. Three months from twelve; then, let me see; the rate …’ [Act 1, Scene 3]. What does this mean, ‘from twelve’?” “That’s simple. I wanted to estimate offhand the interest on a three-month loan at an annual rate of twelve percent in order to know the cost of the pleasure of lending that sum gratis to the willful cock Antonio.” At that I woke up.

“Afterword” (“Poslesovie”) When the present article was in manuscript, a major authority on Shakespeare looked it over and summed up his opinion as follows: “There are some sound thoughts in Comrade Lissitzky’s article about The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare’s Shylock is, of course, not the devil incarnate. However, most of the assertions are extremely simplified and subjective. For instance, it is quite questionable that Shylock was only trying to intimidate Antonio by threatening to cut off a pound of his flesh.” I admire this impartial opinion and will try as far as possible to correct these shortcomings. In my article I wanted to expound on Heinrich Heine’s hypothesis that Shakespeare himself thought the trial of Shylock to be biased and unjust. Shakespeare needed the trial to result in precisely the outcome he chose in order to show that in the majority of cases of judicial proceedings between the strong and the weak, the weak party ends up defeated and even punished, no matter how just his cause. I daresay Shakespeare’s sympathy is more with Shylock than with his opponents. To prove the point, let me quote the denunciatory remarks that the author puts into Shylock’s mouth (in Act 3, Scene 1): He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

171

us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. [And then again in Act 4, Scene 1:] What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? You have among you many a purchased slave, Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules, You use in abject and in slavish parts, Because you bought them: shall I say to you, Let them be free, marry them to your heirs? Why sweat they under burthens? let their beds Be made as soft as yours and let their palates Be season’d with such viands? You will answer ‘The slaves are ours:’ so do I answer you: The pound of flesh, which I demand of him, Is dearly bought; ‘tis mine and I will have it. It is no accident that the author included next to no people of conscience among those who persecute Shylock. Most of them are fast livers, hypocrites, and sycophants. They grovel, especially before Antonio, so long as they can make good at his expense. However, as soon as he is bankrupt, they all abandon him. Bassanio is the main culprit of this misfortune – he makes use of Shylock’s money, which has been secured by the bond of his best friend Antonio, but forgets that the time will come to repay the loan and that his friend may suffer badly. It was not until the time of trial, when money could no longer help, that Bassanio gushed out promises and was even ready to sacrifice his young wife (Act 4, Scene 1). Lorenzo, another close friend of Antonio’s, had stolen away Shylock’s daughter Jessica about a month before the loan repayment was due. We know that Jessica herself stole a great deal in cash and gems from her father (Act 2, Scene 6 [as well as Act 2, Scene 8 and Act 4, Scene 1]). This Lorenzo thinks little of the plight of his friend Antonio. He prefers to go with Jessica to Genoa, where in one night they spend fourscore ducats. As for my arguments that all the while Shylock was only scaring Antonio and never thought of actually cutting off his flesh, they still carry considerable weight even if they are not entirely satisfactory. Who

172

could supply irrefutable evidence that Shylock indeed wanted nothing but flesh? Let me repeat: Like any clever person, Shylock saw clearly that the court would not allow a man to be cut up alive in its presence. Who hasn’t witnessed an argument between two embittered people when one of them, thinking him/herself to be hurt unfairly, raved in a fit of fury: “I swear I’ll crush this rascal’s head, kill him, and rip him to pieces!”? You are sure that this is nothing but an empty threat; but the one screaming, like Shylock, is in a frenzy and finds satisfaction in these threats. I have stated that it was an unjust trial and, to avoid being subjective about the source of all these troubles, I am going to prove that the most mediocre barrister could have defended Shylock and refuted every sophistry and argument of Portia. When the latter demands the harshest punishment for Shylock, the defendant might have countered: “Your honors, you find Shylock’s bond sealed by Antonio genuine and subject to be executed precisely, and when Bassanio asks you to show mercy for Antonio in your verdict, you say that a breach of a foreigner’s right may upset good relations with other nations (Act 3, Scene 4). Thus, you are very punctilious about the foreign reaction. Let me, your honors, draw your attention to the fact that by your definition of Shylock as a non-Christian and alien for the purposes of judgment you only contradict yourself, and in this case the trust of the international trading community will indeed be undermined. Please bear in mind that my client Shylock is the victim and therefore raving but so far has not so much as touched Antonio’s flesh. You recognize the bond as valid and want to avail yourself of the fact that the bond says nothing about his having the right to shed blood. But Shylock’s rejoinder is to inquire whether the bond states that this is forbidden. That is why I will be so bold as to point out that legally the bond has no force. This deal between Shylock and Antonio has been effected in contravention of the law and is not subject to execution. For such an illegal act Shylock, Antonio, and the notary should be fined equally at the discretion of the court, and there is no criminal responsibility to speak of. Only such justice can do credit to our glorious city.” Numerous critics have written in their time about The Merchant of Venice, all of them asserting that Shylock was the most powerful figure in this play. Though they all agree that he had reasons to be indignant, still he is accused of inordinate cruelty. Why not agree that his revenge consisted of nothing but threats? It is highly probable that Shylock himself was the first to be aware that the bond was meaningless and unlawful. When he heard in court how sacrosanct Portia held that deed, we imagine that due to his habit of talking to himself (see Act 1, Scene 3; Act 4, Scene 1) he exclaimed, “A Daniel come to judgment! … O wise and upright judge!” But to himself he said: “What a weasel! O Daniel, silly boy.”

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

173

In his pithy description Pushkin spoke of Shylock’s wit: “Shakespeare’s Shylock is stingy, quick-witted, vindictive, a loving father, and sharp-witted.” We hope that this thorough and comprehensive analysis of the innermost idea of the immortal author of The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare, will convince every sensible person that Shylock is no monster, no bloodthirsty fiend, but rather a badgered victim of racial enmity. Comrade readers, to dispel the sad impression left by this fatal medieval drama, let me tell you a joke about a similar case of biased and perverted justice – a case that ends well, and is funny and comical. (Here the manuscript breaks off.)

Original typescript of Mark Lissitzky‘s translation of the Jewish anthem “Hatikvah” (“The Hope”) into Russian. 1948(?)

Notes 1 Compare Genesis 19. 2 The typescript also contains what appear to be two earlier versions of this essay or section. The second of these earlier variants is dated 4 September 1945. This section was originally intended as a Prologue. 3 A handwritten note added at the end of this essay or section reads: “Silvio from Pushkin’s story ‘The Shot’ / Shylock from Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice.”

4 The notorious trial of Menahem Mendel Beilis in 1913 resulted from an antisemitic blood libel in the Russian Empire and caused an international uproar. 5 Alfred Dreyfus was a French officer accused of treason at the end of 19th century in another scandalous antisemitic affair, approximately as described in his narrative here.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 10

174

El Lissitzky with his siblings. Before 1900

El Lissitzky with his brother Ruvim. Smolensk, before 1909

11

176

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 11

Interview with Sergei Lissitzky, Grandson of El Lissitzky The following interview with Sergei Lissitzky, grandson of El Lissitzky, was conducted on 16 May 2014 in Caesarea (Israel) by Alexander Kantsedikas. A.K. I want to ask you about things we do not find in archives. In the context of my book about Lissitzky’s work during his “Jewish period” it is important to understand the particulars of family life and interests. Can you start from the very beginning, when your memories take you back to your grandfather and great-grandfather? Mark (Mordukh) was from Vileyka [Wilejka], wasn’t he? What did he do for a living? S.L. Even from family lore it is difficult to determine today what Mark did for a living. Judging by the education his children received, he wasn’t poor. Most likely he engaged in commerce, but for understandable reasons they tried not to speak about it in the family [in Soviet times]. A.K. Was his work connected with sales and the glassworks that abound in those parts? S.L. Quite probably. [El Lissitzky’s brother] Ruvim told me that greatgrandpa couldn’t complete his university education because the Russian Empire only allowed a limited number of Jewish students to enroll in Russian universities. However, he did complete a course in pharmaceutics at the medical department of Kazan University in November 1915. Had it not been for the First World War, the Revolution of February 1917, and the October coup that followed, he apparently might have become a prosperous druggist. Such were the plans Mark had. It isn’t known for sure how many children Mark had. But it is known that some time after Eliezer had been born, Mark and his brother set out for America to seek their fortune in the USA. They had no relatives there. It is not known from where they departed – Poland, Germany, or Odessa – but they settled in the Western United States, in Tucson, Arizona. Very soon they started a business producing ink and stationery and selling paper products. They fared well, and Mark decided to summon his family to join him in the US. The family was living then in Smolensk. Judging by the

Ruvim Lissitzky (on the right), in the front lines. 1941

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 11

177

photographs, neither great-grandpa nor great-grandma belonged to the Hasidim, but they observed the [Jewish religious] traditions in the family. In photographs from the period of World War II we see Mark wearing a tubeteyka [as a kippah]. Family legend has it that Mark’s wife visited the local rabbi and received his advice to live where G-d had ordained them to live, causing her to refuse to go after her husband. Mark returned to Russia while his brother remained in the US. I don’t know if his brother was married at that time or not. A.K. When I studied Ruvim’s archive, which you were so kind as to lend me, I came across Mark’s translations of Heine and Shakespeare and from Hebrew into Russian. This means that he had a good command of English and German. How did he become such an intellectual in an ordinary family? Or was this because he had prepared to go to America? S.L. I think it was a traditional Jewish value to have a good education. After all, Ruvim’s wife, Leonida Vakhtel, had graduated from a classical gymnasium and also had a perfect command of English. A.K. So your great-grandfather’s family did not follow him to the US, and Mark returned to Russia. His brother remained in the US, didn’t he? S.L. Yes, his daughter visited the USSR in 1936 and met Ruvim and, possibly, Eliezer in Moscow. In 1962 Ruvim tried to find his relations in the US. And there is an answer from the Russian consulate that no relations were found. Although after emigrating from the USSR my father did find his cousin Josephine in the US in 1989. A.K. There have been allegations that Lissitzky created some antireligious works.1 S.L. I know nothing of Lissitzky’s anti-religious works. Jen called his father a conformist with respect to the Soviet regime. In my opinion, El Lissitzky never went beyond his personal positions and could not have offended religious feelings. A.K. Lissitzky decided to marry a German. Could the family have disapproved of that decision? S.L. It did. As, for that matter, did Sophie’s family deplore her decision to marry a Jew.

Mark Lissitzky with Ruvim‘s wife, Leonida Wachtel. 1941

A.K. Nevertheless, Lissitzky’s mother went with her son to the railway station to meet the unwanted daughter-in-law, didn’t she?

178

S.L. She did, but not in order to receive her as a family member. That incident shows all of her implacability, as do, perhaps, the drama of Jenta2 and her own refusal to follow her husband to America. To all appearances she was a very difficult person even for those near and dear to her. In the years we were in contact Ruvim never mentioned his mother. There is no evidence of where she was buried. I can’t even remember anyone ever mentioning when she died. A.K. Lissitzky appreciated that Polina Khentova and his wife Sophie shared his ideas about his work. Did his shift after his Jewish period have anything to do with his move from Khentova to Sophie? S.L. Quite possibly. By that time Sophie was a person with a fairly developed taste, cultivated by both education and the salon of her late husband Paul Küppers. She was won over by what Lissitzky did in his postJewish period. A.K. Did your grandma continue to admire Lissitzky [as an artist], or did she have only a memory of him as a husband? S.L. The memory of her husband boiled down to talk about Jen being left without a father. As for the rest, it was a monologue about the Big Artist and memories of their joint work and the stunning time it had been. And the monograph she wrote was her tribute to the Artist. A.K. What does the name Jen mean? Is it in any way related to Jenta, the name of Eliezer’s and Ruvim’s sister? S.L. Yes, it is. Ruvim often remembered her with great warmth. They called her Jenya at home. She died tragically. In memory of her Eliezer called his firstborn Jen. A.K. Many explain Lissitzky’s tuberculosis by the fact that he had allegedly shot himself over Khentova, injuring his lung. S.L. His TB was caused by the hardships and starvation of the early years of the Civil War, by meagre and irregular nutrition and lack of treatment. A.K. Do you know anything about his faking hanging himself and asking his friend to take a photograph of him? That photo was then shown to Khentova and caused their breakup. What did the family say about it? S.L. I don’t remember any family talk about that. More likely, it was a different story. Lissitzky did a photomontage. That was more like him and like what he did during that period. It wasn’t all that dramatic. Rather it must have been a joke. As for Khentova … Ruvim spoke very warmly about

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 11

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 11

179

her. Many works that she had made after Lissitzky’s drawings and sketches were kept in Ruvim’s family. A.K. Did they ever talk in the family about the members of the Jewish National Aesthetics Circle, including Chaikov? S.L. I don’t remember. The move to Vitebsk must have put an end to any of that. Lissitzky needed work that would give him money and rations. Neither architecture nor sculpture could provide that then. Sophie said next to nothing about that period. A.K. The Jewish period ended with the move to Vitebsk. Yet his love for drawing was still there, wasn’t it? S.L. It was. We see that in his letters that are full of funny drawings and caricatures, as well as later in the self-made books for little Jen. Paul and Hannie were older. A.K. There is a feeling that Lissitzky was seen as a special man. Some people recollect that he exercised a powerful influence on people. Could these be just romanticized memories or is this appraisal based on the understanding of his high position in art (by Khardzhiev and others)? Or was it the impression he himself produced with his personality? S.L. I think the latter is true. After all, he had remarkable qualities such as an innovative spirit, vigor, and perfectionism in his work. He could certainly have made it in America. A.K. Regarding the Jewish period in El Lissitzky’s work, did they say anything about that in the family? S.L. We can only read about that today. Lissitzky was very polyphonic: he sought and found a chance to think and work in various spheres. Suffice it to recall his friendship with Dziga Vertov and their joint work in combining picture and sound in the cinema. A.K. One more question. How close was Ruvim to him? S.L. Ruvim cared very much about his brother, who wasn’t a practical man. For Ruvim his brother was a man of a different stratum, a man of Arts. The Jewish theme was what united them. During that period Ruvim provided his brother shelter in a room at the Martha and Mary Convent, next to the pharmacy he managed there. Lissitzky gifted one of the copies of Sikhes Kholin he had colored by hand [see Cat. B.5–16] to his brother Ruvim.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 11

180

Notes 1 Seth Wolitz attributed the cover design of the anti-religious journal Der Apikoyres (The Apostate or The Atheist), no. 3 (1931), to El Lissitzky. (Seth Wolitz, “Experiencing Visibility and Phantom Existence,” in Susan Tumarkin Goodman, ed., Russian Jewish Artists in a Century of Change, 1890–1990 [New York: Jewish Museum – Prestel, 1995], 14–15.) However, the journal itself contains no such attribution. Moreover, other illustrations in the same issue are attributed to an artist with the initials .‫ב‬.‫( ש‬Sh.B.). (Our deep thanks to the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research [New York]

for checking the issue in question and providing this information.) Lissitzky’s own political views favored the Yiddishe Folkspartey (Jewish People’s Party) founded by Simon Dubnow and Yisroel Efroikin, rather than the Bolsheviks. The artist is not known to have produced any anti-religious works, and it is our belief that he did not. The cover design in question has not been included in our catalogue raisonné. 2 El Lissitzky’s sister Jenta committed suicide in 1925.

12

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 12

182

El Lissitzky’s Connection with Polina Khentova (Polia Chentoff) Polina Arkadiyevna (Abramovna) Khentova (1890s–1933) was an artist and close personal friend of Lissitzky from 1917 through the early 1920s. She graduated cum laude from the Brussels Royal Academy of Arts shortly before the First World War and worked in Munich and Paris. Together with Lissitzky, Khentova contributed to the 1917 World of Art exhibition in Petrograd and to Jewish exhibitions held between 1917 and 1920. Lissitzky’s influence is felt in some of her works; for instance, in her illustrations to the Tales of A. Afanasiev. Khentova also embroidered a panel of Lissitzky’s Jewish graphical motifs (1917; see Appendix, Table 4). After breaking off her relationship with Lissitzky in Berlin in 1923, Khentova moved to Paris and then London. The following brief biography of Polina Khentova has been translated from: O.L. Leikind, K.V. Makhrov, and D.Y. Severyukhin, Khudozhniki russkogo zarubezh'ya, 1917–1939: Biograficheskii slovar' [Russian Émigré Artists: A Biographical Dictionary; in Russian] (St. Petersburg: Notabene, 1999), 590.

Polina Khentova (?) and El Lissitzky. c.1918/1919 (?)

P. Khentova. Paris, 1923. Photograph by Man Ray

P. Khentova, Self-portrait. Kunstring: no. 1 (published in Kharkov)

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 12

P. Khentova, Painting. 1920s

183

P. Khentova, Sculpture. 1920s

P. Khentova, Cover design of Skazki Afanas'eva (Afanasiev‘s Tales; in Russian). Berlin: Slovo, 1921

Khentova, Polina Arkadiyevna. [Born] 1896 ? (Vitebsk); [died] 21 March 1933 (London). A painter and graphic artist. Khentova attended a secondary school in Vitebsk and then moved to Moscow with her parents. She developed an interest in drawing and sculpture; went to Brussels and enrolled in the Royal Academy of Fine Arts, from which she graduated with honors. She worked in Munich and Paris. On the eve of the First World War she returned to Russia and lived outside Moscow. Khentova contributed genre paintings and portraits to the World of Art exhibition (Petrograd, 1917), the 24th exhibition of the Moscow Association of Artists (Moscow, 1918), and the Exhibition of Paintings and Sculptures by Jewish Artists (Moscow, 1918). In 1920 Khentova left for Berlin via Kiev. She gave private lessons in painting and did portraits and book illustrations on commission. She is known to have designed the following books: the Tales of A.N. Afanasiev, The Gabrieliad (Gavriiliada) by A.S. Pushkin, La Ronde (Reigen) by A. Schnitzler, and Tolstoy for Children. In 1921 she sent her works to the Paris Salon d’Automne. In 1923 Khentova settled in Paris. At first she earned a living by giving occasional lessons, making dolls, and performing in the cinema as a supporting actress. In 1925 she contributed to an exhibition of Russian artists at the Café de la Rotonde. Between 1926 and 1928 she exhibited paintings and graphic works at the Salon d’Automne and became a member there. She met British art lovers who helped her to obtain commissions for book illustrations

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | 12

184

Comparison of illustrations by El Lissitzky (left; from Vaysrusishe Folkmayses, see Cat. B.66.2) and P. Khentova (right; from Skazki Afanas'eva)

and for organizing exhibitions in Paris (at the English bookshop in Montparnasse) and London. In 1929 Khentova created the illustrations for a bibliophile edition of A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy by L. Sterne. In 1930, with the support of the English artist Edmond Kapp, who became her husband, Khentova moved to London, where she held solo exhibitions at the London-based Brandon Davies Gallery (1930, paintings) and Bloomsbury Gallery (graphic works). She died after surgery for a brain tumor (according to her death certificate, she was thirty years of age). For more on Polina Khentova, see: S. Charchoune, “Polina Khentova,” Chisla [Numbers] 9 (1933): 188–189; A.M. Remizov, “Neizdannyi ‘Merlog,’” ed. Antonella d’Amelia, Minuvshee: Istoricheskii al'manakh [The Past: An Historical Almanac; in Russian], vol. 3 (Paris: Atheneum, 1987): 199–261; Bruk, Yakov Kagan-Shabshai, 166–169; H. Furst, “Exhibition of Miss Chentoff’s Works,” Apollo 12 (1930): 77.

Inscription in the book Dlya Golosa (For the Voice) by V. Mayakovsky. 1923. Last known greeting from Lissitzky to P. Khentova

Appendix: Comparative Analytical Tables

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

186

Table 1: Lissitzky’s Copies of Synagogue Ornamentation in Mohilev “The artist’s treasure-trove of formal invention is inexhaustible. One can see how everything flows as from a horn of plenty and how the hand of the virtuoso never flags but maintains a steady pace of creativity. On the back of the [Torah] Ark I discovered the first sketch done with a brush, which served as a basis for the entire decorative scheme and the subsequent colour organisation. This outline was drawn by a master of vast accumulated experience whose brush is completely controlled by his will. The general colour scheme is pearly-amber with scattered red brick flecks. It lives and breathes according to the prevailing light.” – El Lissitzky, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences,” 19231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mohilev Synagogue. Early 20th-century photograph Detail of decoration from Mohilev Synagogue. Early 20th-century photograph Worms. Copy of Mohilev synagogue decoration. 1916 Birds. Copy of Mohilev synagogue decoration. 1916 Lion (Zodiac sign). Copy of Mohilev synagogue decoration. 1916 Ship. Copy of Mohilev synagogue decoration. 1916 Lion. Copy of Mohilev synagogue decoration. 1916

Journal cover of Milgroym – Rimon (Pomegranate), no. 3 (1923)

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

187

1

4

2

5

3

6

7

188

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

Table 2: Traditional Jewish Art Reflected in Lissitzky’s Work “Let the scholars flounder as they navigate the sea of art history. I can only cite the following from my own field of observation. Every synagogue always had a small library. The cases hold some of the oldest editions of the Talmud and other religious texts, each with frontispieces, decorative devices and tailpieces. These few pages fulfilled the same function in their time as illustrated journals do in our own day: they familiarised everyone with the art trends of the period. I once saw a tombstone with the following bas-relief: a bear standing on his hind legs holding a flowering acanthus ornament. In a heap of loose pages from Amsterdam editions of the 16th and 17th centuries, preserved (in a genizah) in the Druja [Druya] synagogue, I saw a drawing of this very motif. There can be no doubt that the sculptor of that bas-relief borrowed from that same tailpiece. Another example: the carving and entire composition of the many tiered Arks will be found in the Renaissance and Baroque frontispieces of Jewish religious texts. These frontispieces served as models for the Jewish carver just as the works of Villon and Palladio served the architects.” – L. Lissitzky, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences,” 19232

1

1–5 Examples of traditional Jewish art 1a–5a Works by Lissitzky 1 Megilat Ester (Scroll of Esther). Italy, 18th century 1a Scroll of Sikhes Kholin (A Legend of Prague) with text by Moyshe Broderzon. 1917 2 King David. Miniature from the Kennicott Bible. Spain, 1476 2a King Solomon. Illustration for The Legends of King Solomon by C.N. Bialik. 1917 3 Kabbalistic amulet. 19th–20th century 3a Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket). Illustration for Shest' povestei o lyogkikh kontsakh (Six Stories with Easy Endings) by Ilya Ehrenburg. 1922 4 Decorative headpiece from a Bible manuscript. Spain or Provence, 2nd half of 14th century 4a Back cover of Ukraynishe Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales) translated by Leib Kvitko. 1922 5 Silver tas (shield) for a Torah scroll. Ukraine or Russia, 19th century 5a Emblem of Yidisher Folks Farlag (Jewish People’s Publishing House). 1919 6 Abraham Neu, Lithograph of the Interior of the Worms Synagogue. 1843 6a Interior of the Synagogue in Druya. c.1916 (see Cat. P.24)

1a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

189

2

3

4

5

2a

3a

4a

5a

6

6a

190

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

Table 3: Lissitzky’s Hebrew Alphabet

The Hebrew letters marking the eleven sections of C.N. Bialik’s tale “Solomon and Ashmedai” (from The Legends of King Solomon, as published in Shtilim, no. 6–7, 1917) are used as numerals and thus comprise the first letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Lissitzky’s designs using these letters may be regarded as one of the earliest attempts in contemporary Russian Jewish art to produce a decorative Hebrew alphabet. 1–11 Illustrated Hebrew letters (used as numerals) in The Legends of King Solomon by C.N. Bialik. 1917

Children Studying the Alphabet. Illustration for Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy) by Mani Leib. 1919

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

191

4

3

2

1

8

7

6

5

11

10

9

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

192

Table 4: Embroidery by Polina Khentova after Graphical Works by Lissitzky This embroidery by Khentova was based on a selection of Lissitzky’s graphical art made over the course of his Jewish period: from his copies of decoration in the Mohilev synagogue (1916) until the final version of Had Gadya (Kiev, 1919). Lissitzky dedicated the latter to Polina Khentova (see Cat. B.40.2). 1–5 Details of Khentova’s embroidery (see Cat. P.34) 1a–5a Corresponding motifs in Jewish graphical works by Lissitzky 1 Bird 1a Hebrew letter daleth. Illustrated section heading for The Legends of King Solomon by C.N. Bialik. 1917 2 Deer 2a Detail from the cover of U Rek Vavilonskikh (By the Rivers of Babylon) edited by L.B. Yaffe. 1917 3 Ship 3a Detail from a copy of Mohilev synagogue decoration. 1916 4 Fish 4a Detail of an illustration from Sikhes Kholin (A Legend of Prague) with text by M. Broderzon. 1917 5 All-Seeing Eye 5a Detail of an illustration from Had Gadya (see Cat. B.40.13). 1919

[Embroidery by Polina Khentova]. 1919. See Cat. P.34

1

1a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

193

2

3

4

5

2a

3a

4a

5a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

194

Table 5: Avant-Garde Prototypes in Lissitzky’s Jewish Graphical Art During his Jewish period Lissitzky already began to use motifs and compositional methods in his graphical works that were to become typical of his later avant-garde art. “Contemporary Jewish artists, however, failed to forge a new style. Generally speaking, each national style contradicts the whole atmosphere in which the dynamism, mechanics and fragmentation of our age play such an important role. … The patterns of the antique lion received a new look, but a new form was not found. Creation of style went against the direction of time.” – B. Aronson, Contemporary Jewish Graphical Art, 1924 1–5 Jewish graphical works by Lissitzky 1a–5a Avant-garde works by Lissitzky 1 1a 2 2a 3 3a 4 4a 5 5a

Cover of Mayselekh (Tales) by Hans Christian Andersen, translated into Yiddish by Der Nister. 1919 Globetrotter In Time. From the Figurines portfolio. 1923 Shifs Karta (Ship Ticket). Illustration for Shest' povestei o lyogkikh kontsakh (Six Stories with Easy Endings) by Ilya Ehrenburg. 1922 Hand with a Pair of Compasses. Photogram. 1924 Cover of Kunstring: Literarish kinstlerisher almanakh (Art Circle: A Literary-Artistic Almanac). 1917 Monument to Rosa Luxemburg (Proun). 1919–1920 Detail from the cover of Di Hun Vos Hot Gevolt Hoben a Kam (The Hen That Wanted a Comb) by Ben Zion Raskin. 1919 Proun. From the First Kestner Portfolio, sheet 2. 1923 Cover of Ukraynishe Folkmayses (Ukrainian Folktales) translated by Leib Kvitko. 1922 Proun 88. c.1923

1

1a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

195

2

3

4

5

2a

3a

4a

5a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

196

Table 6: Similarities in the Works of El Lissitzky and J. Chaikov

J. Chaikov. Portrait of the Architect El Lissitzky. 1919

For decades Lissitzky and Chaikov shared common interests in their artistic careers, beginning with their early pursuit of a Jewish national style, continuing with their developing enthusiasm for avant-garde forms, and concluding with their attempts to implement a social mandate. In 1918–1919 they both designed Yiddish books in Kiev; during the first half of the 1920s they produced works in Berlin that represented the cutting edge of contemporary art. Subsequently, Lissitzky enlisted Chaikov’s services when designing the Pressa exhibition in Cologne (1928) and the Hygiene exhibition in Dresden (1930).

1

1–5 Works by El Lissitzky 1a–5a Works by J. Chaikov 1

Emblem of Yidisher Folks Farlag (Jewish People’s Publishing House). 1919 1a Emblem of Kultur-lige exhibition. 1920 2 King Solomon. Illustration for The Legends of King Solomon by C.N. Bialik. 1917 2a King Solomon. 1912 (?) 3 Cover of Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy) by Mani Leib. 1919 3a Cover of Der Galaganer Hon (The Arrogant Rooster) by P. Markish. 1922

1a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

197

4 4a 5 5a

Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge. Poster. 1920 Cover of Di Kupe (The Heap) by P. Markish. 1922 Lenin Tribune (architectural project). 1920–1924 October Tower. 1927

2

3

4

5

2a

3a

4a

5a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

198

Table 7: Parallels Between El Lissitzky and Other Jewish Artists “And today when the technique of reproduction is so highly developed and the presses work with such speed, if this trend gains wide dissemination and infects some would-be artists who pick up this once genuine folkexpression and take to stylising it, and powdering it, and splitting it into bits and pieces, and then present this hodge-podge as a new art and culture – then it were better to do without such culture. […] To us the living dog is more precious than the dead lion. We know that when the dog dies he becomes a lion.” – El Lissitzky, “The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences,” 19233 Lissitzky’s Jewish graphical art provides evidence of mutual interaction and influence with the creative work of several contemporaries, including M. Chagall, N. Altman, J. Chaikov, and I. B. Ryback. Subsequent generations of Jewish artists often drew on Lissitzky’s experience, carrying on and at times literally copying the style and methods he had used in his better-known works.

1

1–5 Works by Lissitzky 1a–5a Works by other Jewish artists 1 1a 2 2a 3 3a 4 4a 5 5a

Synagogue. Detail from the cover of Yingl-Tsingl-Khvat (The Mischievous Boy) by Mani Leib. 1919 I.B. Ryback. Synagogue. From the Shtetl portfolio. Berlin, 1923 Study for Proun 5A. 1920 M. Chagall. Detail of sets for the Moscow Yiddish Theater production of Agentn (Agents) by Sholom Aleichem. 1921 Illustration for Der Milner, di Milnerin un di Milshtayner (The Miller, His Wife, and their Millstones) by Ben Zion Raskin. 1919 Yuly Ganf. Illustration for the primer Moya Knizhka (My Little Book). Vilno, 1920s Sketch of an illustration for Had Gadya. Moscow, 1917 N. Gutman. Illustration for the Passover Haggadah. Tel Aviv, 1936 Plate from Sikhes Kholin: A Prager Legende (Idle Chatter: A Legend of Prague) with text by Moyshe Broderzon. 1917 M. Faigenblum, Plate from Three Hassidic Legends. Buenos Aires, 1949

1a

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Appendix

199

2

3

4

5

2a

3a

4a

5a

Notes 1 English translation reproduced from Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 57. 2 English translation reproduced from Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 58. 3 English translation reproduced from Nisbet, ed., El Lissitzky, 1890–1941, 59. For the full text of Lissitzky’s article, see ch. 8.

200

Select Bibliography This bibliography includes only the most relevant sources for investigation and further reading on El Lissitzky’s Jewish period. Other works not included here have been cited with full publication information in the notes.

ARCHIVES Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI), Moscow The State Tretyakov Gallery archives, Moscow Khardzhiev-Chaga Art Foundation archive, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam Private archives and collections

PUBLISHED WORKS Abramsky, Chimen. “El Lissitzky as Jewish Illustrator and Typographer.” Studio International 172.882 (Oct. 1966): 182–185. –––. “Yiddish Book Illustrations in Russia: 1916–1923.” In: Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution, 61–70. Amishai-Maisels, Ziva. “Chagall and the Jewish Revival: Center or Periphery.” In: Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution, 72–98. Antokolsky, L. “Yevreiskaya khudozhestvennaya vystavka v Moskve” [“The Jewish Art Exhibition in Moscow”; in Russian]. Yevreiskaya nedelya, no. 27 (9 July 1917). Apter-Gabriel, Ruth. “El Lissitzky’s Jewish Works.” In: Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution, 101–119. –––. “Un passé qui renaît, un futur qui s’évanouit: Les sources de l’art populaire dans le nouvel art juif russe.” In: Futur antérieur, 52–83. –––. ed. Tradition and Revolution: The Jewish Renaissance in Russian Avant-Garde Art, 1912–1928. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1987. Aronson, Boris. Sovremennaya yevreiskaya grafika [Contemporary Jewish Graphical Art; in Russian]. Berlin: Petropolis, 1924. Berlewi, Henryk. “El Lissitzky in Warschau.” In: J. Leering and W. Schmied, eds. Lissitzky [exh. cat.]. Eindhoven: Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum, 1965–1966, pp. 61– 63. Birnholz, Alan. “El Lissitzky.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1973. –––. “El Lissitzky and the Jewish Tradition.” Studio International 186.959 (Oct. 1973): 130–136. Bois, Yve-Alain. “El Lissitzky: Radical Reversibility.” Art in America 76.4 (Apr. 1988): 160–181. Bruk, Y. Yakov Kagan-Shabshai i ego Evreiskaiya khudozhestvennaya galereya. Moscow: Tri kvadrata, 2015. Dymshits, Valery. “Eliezer Lissitzky, A Jewish Artist.” In: Miriam Querol, ed. El Lissitzky: The Experience of Totality [exh. cat.]. Madrid: La Fabrica, 2014, pp. 121– 137.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Select Bibliography

201

Friedberg, Haia. “Lissitzky’s Had Gadia.” Journal of Jewish Art 12–13 (1986–1987): 292–303. Futur antérieur: L’avant-garde et le livre Yiddish (1914–1939). Catalogue d’exposition: Musée d’art et d’histoire du judaïsme, 11 février – 17 mai 2009. Paris: Musée d’art et d’Histoire du Judaïsme, 2009. Kampf, Avram. “In Quest of the Jewish Style in the Era of the Russian Revolution.” Journal of Jewish Art 5 (1978): 48–75. Kantsedikas [Kanzedikas], Alexander. Semyon An-Sky. The Jewish Artistic Heritage: An Album. Moscow: RA, 1994. –––. “Ein unbekanntes Bild von Lissitzky.” In: Wolter, Bettina-Martine, and Schwenk, Bernhart, eds. Die große Utopie: Die russische Avantgarde 1915–1932. Katalog der Ausstellung Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt, 1. März bis 10. Mai 1992. Frankfurt am Main: Schirn-Kunsthalle, 1992, p. 71. –––. and Z. Yargina. El' Lisitskii: Fil'm zhizni, 1890–1941 [El Lissitzky: A Film of Life; in Russian]. 7 vols. Moscow: Novyi Ermitazh – odin, 2004. –––. et al., eds. Masterpieces of Jewish Art. Vols. 1–6. Moscow: Image, 1992–2001. Kazovsky, Hillel [Grigory]. Artists from Vitebsk: Yehuda Pen and his Pupils / Khudozhniki Vitebska: Ieguda Pen i ego ucheniki [in Russian and English]. Moscow: Imidzh, 1991. –––. “The Art Section of the ‘Kultur-Lige.’” Jews in Eastern Europe 3.22 (1993): 5–22. –––. The Artists of the Kultur-Lige / Khudozhniki Kul'tur-Ligi [in Russian and English]. Moscow – Jerusalem: Gesharim, 2003. –––. “Shagal i evreiskaya khudozhestvennaya programma v Rossii.” Vestnik evreiskogo universiteta v Moskve 1 (1992): 83–96. –––. “Yevreiskie khudozhniki v Rossii na rubezhe vekov.” Vestnik Yevreiskogo universiteta v Moskve 3/10 (1995): 166–189. –––. “Yevreiskoe iskusstvo v Rossii, 1900–1948: Etapy istorii” [“Jewish Art in Russia, 1900–1948: Historical Stages”; in Russian]. Sovetskoe iskusstvoznanie 27 (1991): 228–254. Khan-Magomedov, Selim. Lazar' Lisitskii. Moscow: Gordeev – Russkii avangard, 2011. Khardzhiev, N. “El' Lisitskii – konstruktor knigi” [“El Lissitzky, Book Designer”; in Russian]. Iskusstvo knigi 3 (1958–1960 [1962]): 145–161. Krempel, Ulrich. El Lissitzky – Sophie Lissitzky-Küppers: Von Hannover nach Moskau / From Hanover to Moscow. With trans. Michael Wolfson. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2015. Krusanov, A. Russkii avangard, 1907–1932: Istoricheskii obzor. 3 vols. Moscow – St. Petersburg: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1996–2003. Lissitzky, L. “Vegn der Mohilever shul” [“The Mohilev Synagogue: Reminiscences”; in Yiddish (and Hebrew)]. Milgroym – Rimon 3 (1923): 8–13. Lissitzky-Küppers, Sophie. El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992 [previously published 1967, 1980]. –––. El Lissitzky, Maler, Architekt, Typograf, Fotograf: Erinnerungen, Briefe, Schriften. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1967. –––. and Lissitzky, Jen, eds. Proun und Wolkenbügel: Schriften, Briefe, Dokumente. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1967. Malinowski, Jerzy. Grupa “Jung Idysz” i żydowskie środowisko “Nowej Sztuki” w Polsce, 1918–1923. Warsaw: Polska Akademia nauk – Instytut sztuki, 1987.

202

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period | Select Bibliography

Nemirovskaya, M.A., ed. Lazar' Markovich Lisitskii, 1890–1941: Vystavka proizvedenii k stoletiyu so dnya rozhdeniya. Moscow: The State Tretyakov Gallery, 1990. Nisbet, Peter, ed. El Lissitzky, 1890–1941: Catalogue for an Exhibition of Selected Works from North American Collections, the Sprengel Museum Hanover, and the Staatliche Galerie Moritzburg Halle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Art Museums – Busch-Reisinger Museum, 1987. Perloff, Nancy, and Reed, Brian, eds. Situating El Lissitzky: Vitebsk, Berlin, Moscow. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2003. Pitin, Aleksandr. “Mogilevskaya sinagoga na Shkolishche.” Shagalovskii mezhdunarodnyi yezhegodnik (2003): 23–33. Rakitin, Vassili. “Eeny Meeny Miney Mo …” In: Vitali, Christoph, ed. Marc Chagall: The Russian Years, 1906–1922. Frankfurt am Main: Schirn Kunsthalle, 1991. Pp. 68–72. Ratner, Zalmen, and Kvitni, I. Dos Yidishe Bukh in FSRR far di Yorn 1917–1921 [The Jewish Book in the RSFSR in the Years 1917–1921; in Yiddish). Kiev: Institut for Yidisher Kultur ba der Alukraynisher Visnshaftlekher Akademye, Bibliyologishe Komisye,1930. Ribakov, M.O., ed. Pravda istorii: Dialnist' evreiskoi kulturno-prosviytnits'koi organizatsii “Kulturna Liga” u Kievi (1918–1925). Dokumentiv i materialiv. Kiev: VIPOL, 1995. Rozier, Gilles. Moyshe Broderzon: Un écrivain yiddish d’avant-garde. Saint-Denis: Presses universitaires de Vincennes, 1999. Rubinger, Krystyna, ed. El Lissitzky: Ausstellung vom 9. April bis Ende Juni 1976, Galerie Gmurzynska, Köln. Cologne: Galerie Gmurzynska, 1976. Severyukhin, D.Y., and Leikind, O.L. Zolotoi vek khudozhestvennykh ob''edinenii v Rossii i SSSR, 1820–1932: Spravochnik. St. Petersburg: Chernyshev, 1992. Shatskikh, Aleksandra. Vitebsk: The Life of Art. Trans. Katherine Foshko Tsan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. [Russian edition: Vitebsk: Zhizn' iskusstva, 1917–1922. Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, 2001.] Shmeruk, Chone ed. Pirsumim yehudiyim bi-Vrit Hamo'atsot, 1917–1960: Reshimot bibliografiyot [Jewish Publications in the Soviet Union, 1917–1960: Bibliographies; in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1961. Sokolova, Alla. “‘Belyi gospodin’ v poiskakh ekzotiki: Yevreiskie dostoprimechatel'nosti v putevykh zapiskakh i iskusstvovedcheskikh ocherkakh (XIX – nachalo XX veka).” In: Oleg Budnitskii, ed. Russian-Jewish Culture / Russko-evreiskaya kul'tura. Moscow: Rosspen, 2006, pp. 406–436. Wischnitzer, R. “From My Archives.” Journal of Jewish Art 6 (1979): 6–15. Wolitz, Seth L. “The Jewish National Art Renaissance.” In: Apter-Gabriel, ed., Tradition and Revolution, 34–39.

El Lissitzky | The Jewish Period

203

Author’s Biography Alexander Kantsedikas was born in Kuybyshev (now Samara) in 1941 and lived in Vilnius for much of his early life (1944–1964). After graduating from Vilnius State University, he worked for editorial offices and publishers while simultaneously gathering research materials on Lithuanian folk art. In 1970 he defended his dissertation in Art History and Criticism at the Institute of Art Studies (Moscow) on the topic of “Modern Folk Sculpture of Lithuania.” From 1971 to 1985 Dr. Kantsedikas worked as a senior research fellow and department head at the Scientific Research Institute of Art Manufacture (Moscow). During these years he published (as author or contributor) the following works: Lithuanian Folk Sculpture (Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1974); Art and Handcraft (Moscow: Izobrazitel'noe iskusstvo, 1977); Old Wooden Sculpture of Perm (Perm: Permskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1985). In 1990 Dr. Kantsedikas published jointly with Tatyana Razina and Natalya Cherkasova the trilingual album-monograph entitled Folk Art in the Soviet Union (English ed.: New York, Abrams; French ed.: Paris, Chêne; German ed.: Cologne, DuMont). Beginning in the mid-1980s Dr. Kantsedikas actively involved himself in the collection and analysis of materials related to the traditional Jewish artistic heritage of the territories of the (former) USSR. In 1994 he published the album Semyon An-Sky: The Jewish Artistic Heritage (Moscow: RA). From 1998 to 2003 he served as compiler and scholarly editor of the bilingual (Russian-English) Masterpieces of Jewish Art series, published in seven volumes in Moscow and Tel Aviv. In 2003 he also published a volume entitled Jewish Traditional Art (Moscow: Dom evreiskoi knigi). Dr. Kantsedikas has devoted much of the last twenty-five years to an intensive study of the work of El Lissitzky. Together with his wife, Prof. of Architecture Zoya Yargina, he published the first Russian-language monograph on the artist’s oeuvre, entitled El Lissitzky: A Film of Life, 1890–1941 (7 vols.; Moscow: Novyi Ermitazh – Odin, 2004). Since 1992 Dr. Kantsedikas has lived and worked in Israel.