Photography in the USSR: Alexander Rodchenko and Arkady Shaikhet
Figure 1: Photographer unknown, Lenin and Stalin, 1922.
Alexander Rodchenko and Arkady Shaikhet are two artists that experimented with photography in different manners, yet they both viewed it as a medium that should be used to show praise of the machine and the industrialization of the Soviet Union. Their formal techniques differ from each other. Rodchenko incorporated his notable ‘belly-up’ technique in his work, which offered ‘unorthodox’ and controversial images in the eyes of Stalin’s regime, leading him to be targeted by the government. Shaikhet, on the other hand, remained a prominent and valued photojournalist, which may have influenced the formal elements in his photography, with one major difference to Rodchenko being his inclusion of the horizon line in his works. Shukhov Transmission Tower and Sportsmen on Red Square by Rodchenko, and The First Creche and Red Square Parade by Shaikhet demonstrate the formal differences that they incorporate in their photography. Both artists were in support of the Bolsheviks and Socialist propaganda, yet looking at a formal relationship among these works may shed light on why Rodchenko was heavily criticized and censored during the rise of Stalin’s regime in the 1930s, while Shaikhet’s work was deemed suitable for Soviet photography.
The changes occurring during the interwar period – social, political, and technological – influenced the photography being produced. In the eyes of many artists, photography was a medium to spread social change for the masses. This meant communicating the success of a new governing body, as well as promoting the benefits of industrialization and urbanization in Russia. Both artists were in support of the Bolshevik Revolution and the coup d’état that overthrew the tsar. However, it is important to note that the revolution was controversial at its core. Its ends to industrialize and modernize Russia were based in rather bloody and violent means, as it resulted in “forced labor in industry, widespread hunger in the countryside, and a network of prison camps all over the country.”[1] It also was a segue into Stalin’s regime, which closely monitored all aspects of Soviet life, including the artworks produced during this time. Thus, Rodchenko and Shaikhet had to follow certain parameters that were set in place or suffer the consequences of disregarding them. With the rise of the new Soviet regime in the early 1920s, Stalin’s rise to power, and the widespread use of technology and photography, the Soviet Union saw the camera as a tool for political means by erasing certain figures out of images and editing photographs in a way to further advance political agendas. This is seen in an altered photograph of USSR leaders Lenin and Stalin, taken in 1920 and titled after them (fig. 1). The photograph depicts the two leaders sitting side by side and enjoying each other’s company; however, the reality of their relationship was far from what is shown. It is commonly known that the two Soviet leaders had a rather incongruous relationship, with Lenin wanting Stalin removed as Secretary General of the Communist Party.
Leah Dickerman’s essay, “Camera Obscura: Socialist Realism in the Shadow of Photography,” argues, however, that the emerging genre of Socialist Realism, an art style that highlighted Communist values through ideal depictions of the proletariat and Soviet leaders, was used because its proponents were afraid photography would confuse the truth instilled in the image. As Dickerman states, the fear over photography “emerges as one of losing control of the construction of history – and by implication, of losing political power itself.”[2] Photography, unlike painting, has an enduring relationship with the truth, in that it cannot be as easily manipulated as a painting can be. With the rise of photography came the idea of ‘mechanical reproduction,’ or simply retouching photography.[3] Therefore, the Soviet Union was able to transform photography into another agent of Socialist Realism. The Lenin and Stalin photograph further proves that photography was edited in a way to depict the ‘truth’ that those in power (Stalin) wanted to maintain. As Dickerman states, the period in which Socialist Realism dominated Soviet Union art arose questions about crafting history to serve the purpose of the state, and “what emerged in lieu of attempts to eradicate historical memory altogether was a complex series of efforts at memory management.”[4] Thus, even though Stalin preferred painting over photography, he still managed to find a way to have the medium work in his favor.
Figure 2: Fedor Savvich Shurpin, The Dawn of our Fatherland, 1948.
Furthermore, Katherine Reischl notes that art and literature would follow the Soviet Union’s goal of having their own industry and production of goods; that is, the art produced would be inherently Soviet, both in style and content.[5]Socialist Realism was the dominant art style during Stalin’s reign, which conveyed this idea of true Soviet art through idealized portraits of political figures and the use of warm colored tones that added a sense of nostalgia. An example of Socialist Realism is The Dawn of our Fatherland (fig. 2), painted by Fedor Savvich Shurpin in 1948. The work depicts Stalin, dominating the foreground and in three-quarter profile view, looking off into the distance with a contemplative expression. The warm tone and the depiction of Stalin in front of what appears to be farmland creates the sense of nostalgia usually present in Socialist Realism, as the tilled land may be a reference to Russia’s past. However, the factory in the background, along with the row of power lines on the right side, coincidentally where Stalin is looking, refers to the Soviet Union’s mission of industrializing Russia and pushing it into the future. All these elements combine to create a portrait of Stalin as a crucial leader of the Soviet Union because he helped urbanized Russia.
Figure 3: Arkady Shaikhet, Komsomol at the Wheel, Balakhna, 1931.
Taking the elements of Socialist Realism into consideration, Shaikhet’s photography satisfies these stylistic elements more so than Rodchenko’s. Shaikhet’s photography contains a Soviet-influenced style through full embodiment of figures, straight and rigid lines, and the inclusion of the horizon. This is seen in two of his photographs Komsomol at the Wheel, Balakhna (fig. 3) and Red Square Parade (fig. 4), in which both images depict seemingly Soviet subject matter and use Socialist Realism techniques. However, he still incorporates elements of Soviet photography in his work. Taken in 1931, Komsomol at the Wheel, Balakhna captures a man, in what seems to be a factory setting. As stated previously, one element of Socialist Realism was to promote social and economic progress through industrialization, which Shaikhet achieves through his photograph by depicting the grandeur of the machine. As Reischl states, “Socialist Realism images were the primary vehicle by which visions of the productive power of socialist labor were easily, and deceptively, supplied.”[6] Capturing the man in action creates a sense of movement, furthering referencing the idea of progressing into an industrial future. Komsomol at the Wheel not only showcases Socialist Realism elements, but it also highlights elements of Soviet photography through the inclusion of close cropping and tilted angles. Shaikhet’s other photograph, Red Square Parade, further demonstrates an adaptation of Socialist Realism and highlights his career as a photojournalist. Again, the photograph is Soviet in subject matter, as it captures a moment of political fervor of the Soviet Union. True to being an artist, Shaikhet explored capturing images at different heights and angles, with this one being taken above the parade in order to capture the whole scene, and thus, the grandeur of the event. Unlike Rodchenko, Shaikhet was not afraid to include the horizon line, which in a way, simplifies the image so that it can be understood by the audience. By including the horizon line, he grounds the image in reality instead of attempting to abstract it.
Figure 4: Arkady Shaikhet, Red Square Parade, nd.
Comparing Rodchenko’s works to Shaikhet’s, as well as exploring his history with photomontage and Constructivism might indicate why Rodchenko’s photographs were controversial to the Soviet government. Rodchenko founded and began experimenting with Constructivism in 1915 – an art movement that created “black and white drawings based on geometric forms and traced using a ruler or compass, and from which all feeling is eliminated.”[7]Constructivists aspired to promote Soviet propaganda and strove to reflect the growing industrial society around them. Thus, Constructivism was Soviet at its core, with it being closely linked to the Bolsheviks and Communists ideals. Rodchenko viewed art as a “question of reason and construction along scientific lines” and was organized by “color, line, form and materials.”[8] By the early 1920s, he started shifting his focus to photography and implemented the same ideas in his paintings to his photographs. His perspective of art is reflected in his works, as he explored abstracted content and compositions, resulting in the ever-increasing pressure from government authorities to revert to the acceptable, conventional standards. Though his experimentation with photography is short-lived in regard to the rest of his career, Rodchenko’s photographs reflect his time spent in exploring Constructivism and photomontage.
Figure 5: Alexander Rodchenko, Shukhov Transmission Tower, 1929.
Furthermore, two photographs that encapsulate Rodchenko’s style, as well as demonstrate a stark contrast to works by Shaikhet are Shukhov Transmission Tower (fig. 5) and Sportsmen on Red Square (fig. 6). His works demonstrate his interest in introducing new ways of seeing reality around him by incorporating new and rather unconventional perspectives. As Lahs-Gonzales writes, Rodchenko’s artistic style included “Skew camera angles, tilted horizons, and industrial or urban subject matter.”[9] The most notable angle that he incorporated into his works was his signature ‘belly-up’ perspective, which captured the photograph’s subject from a low angle. Shukhov Transmission Tower demonstrates the idea of a belly-up perspective. Constructed in the early 1920s, the Shukhov Tower emulates both Soviet Union art and the country’s step toward technological progress, since it functioned as a radio tower. Rodchenko thus demonstrates his own unique photographic style while simultaneously capturing a Soviet structure that symbolizes the country’s progress to industrialize.
Figure 6: Alexander Rodchenko, Sportsmen on Red Square, 1935.
Sportsmen on the Red Square further highlights Rodchenko’s photographic techniques. As Lahs-Gonzales writes, “he constructed an image that was a combination of the Constructivist’s desire to represent the world in a new or surprising way and the heroizing utilitarianism of production art.”[10] Rather than capturing the image on a straight angle, Rodchenko titled the camera ever so slightly to the left in order to skew the picture, and in doing so, erases the horizon line from view. Rodchenko’s attention to line and form is further represented in Sportsmen on the Red Square through his careful attention in capturing the repeated lines the men’s bodies create. In fact, he looked to line as the most important element in art, as he developed lineism in 1919.[11] However, his attention to line and form in his photographs caught the eye of the government in a negative way, such that he was accused of formalism in his works. They were seen as too scientific and were deemed too complex for the general public to fully understand the image’s meaning. Eventually, Rodchenko ceased producing photographs in the 1930s due to the government’s increasing demands of implementing a conventional style in his works, and he returned to painting.[12] Nonetheless, Rodchenko’s photographs demonstrate his persistence in experimenting with skewed angles and tilted perspectives, even if he was consistently targeted by the government.
By doing a formal analysis on photographs by Alexander Rodchenko and Arkady Shaikhet, the differences in their styles and technique become apparent. Rodchenko’s style, as seen in Shukhov Transmission Tower and Sportsmen on the Red Square, incorporates tilted camera angles and skewed horizon lines, abstracting his photographs to an extent. This experimentation in composition represents his time spent with Constructivism and other abstract art movements. Because his photographs were rooted in the bases of these movements, Rodchenko was problematic in the eyes of the Soviet Government, as the official artwork of the state was cemented in Realism. Shaikhet, on the other hand, had a style that was considered closer to Socialist Realism than Rodchenko’s. As seen in Komsomol at the Wheel and Red Square Parade, Shaikhet demonstrated an interest in capturing inherently Soviet subject matter, while still maintaining an authentic photographic style that was embedded throughout his career as a Soviet photojournalist. Thus, Rodchenko and Shaikhet’s styles determined the public’s reaction, or more specifically, the government’s and whether or not their works were deemed appropriate.
Written by: Megan Cassidy
Edited by: Brooke Olson
Bibliography:
[1] Konrad H. Jarausch, “Bolshevik Revoultion,” Out of Ashes: A New History of Europe in the Twentieth Century, REV-Revised., (Princeton University Press, 2015): 127, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77dk5.9.
[2] Leah Dickerman, “Camera Obscura: Socialist Realism in the Shadow of Photography,” October
93 (2000): 152, https://doi.org/10.2307/779160.
[3] Dickerman, 141.
[4] Dickerman, 140.
[5] Katherine M. H. Reischl, “Look Left, Young Man!: The International Exchange of Photo-Narrative,” Photographic Literacy: Cameras in the Hands of Russian Author, (Cornell University Press, 2018): 152, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt21h4w12.10.
[6] Reischl, 152.
[7] "Rodchenko, Aleksandr Mikhailovich," Benezit Dictionary of Artists. 31 Oct. 2011; Accessed 30
Mar. 2023, https://www.oxfordartonline.com/benezit/view/10.1093/benz/9780199773787.001.0001/acref-9780199773787-e-00154497.
[8] Benezit Dictionary of Artists.
[9] Lahs-Gonzales, Olivia. “Photography in Modern Europe.” Bulletin (St. Louis Art Museum) 21,
no. 4 (1996): 34, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40716179.
[10] Lahs-Gonzales, 34.
[11] Benezit Dictionary of Artists.
[12] Benezit Dictionary of Artists.