(Nie)spełniona podróż do Paryża. Kazimierz Malewicz wobec represji i polityki wykluczenia w ZSRR
An (un)fulfilled journey to Paris. Kazimir Malevich in the face of repression and exclusionary policies in the USSR

Summary/Abstract: The article focuses on the life and work of Kazimir Malevich, with particular emphasis on the circumstances surrounding his return to the Soviet Union after his exhibitions in Warsaw and Berlin in 1927. This event is situated within a broad political, artistic, and ideological context. The analysis addresses both the personal situation of the artist and the boarder transformations within Soviet culture. Particular attention is paid to the ideological tensions between Malevich’s Suprematism and the opposing currents of Constructivism and Productivism, which, in the context of the emerging cultural policy of the USSR, took on the form of ideological conflict. Suprematism, regarded by authorities as too elitist, was considered unsuitable for propaganda purposes, in contrast to Productivism, a movement rooted in Constructivist principles, which aligned more effectively with official ideological objectives. The article reveals the mechanisms through which the state apparatus marginalized the avant-garde, traces the development of the doctrine of Socialist Realism, and discusses the increasing repression of artists who did not conform to the officially sanctioned aesthetics. Particular attention is paid to the circumstances of Malevich’s two arrests: firs in 1927, upon his return from Berlin, and again in 1930. One of the central research question concerns Malevich’s decision to return to the Soviet Union in 1927. Was this decision the result of political pressure, loyalty to state policy, or personal circumstances such as the presence of his family in the USSR? The article attempts to analyze this decision through a historical and artistic lens. Another key question is whether Malevich intended to remain in exile permanently or viewed his trip as temporary or as a means of improving his financial situation. The article also reflects on Malevich’s formal transformation and his return to figurative painting in late 1920s. Was this a creative reinterpretation of his own legacy or a form of adaptation to ideological demands? It illustrates the ambivalent relationship between Malevich and the totalitarian state. The text also highlights the multilayered nature of Soviet Russia’s cultural policy, in which the international promotion of artists contrasted sharply with their marginalization within the country. The example of Malevich illustrates the ambivalent character of the relationship between the artist and the totalitarian state.

• Details
• Contents