Seven Rotations 1-6 (1979) by Dóra Maurer
Show Hide image

Hip to be square: suprematism at the Whitechapel Gallery

Adventures of the Black Square at the Whitechapel Gallery is a fascinating examination of an artistic phenomenon.

In 1915 in Petrograd, the recently renamed St Petersburg, Kazimir Malevich unveiled one of art’s most adaptable and enduring motifs. In a show ponderously entitled “The Last Futurist Exhibition of Painting 0,10” he displayed a painting of a plain black square on an empty white background. The picture, hung high in a corner of the gallery – the place usually occupied in Russian homes by an icon – was designed to announce a birth and a death. The birth was that of his new movement, suprematism (from supremus), and the death was nothing less than that of the history of painting.

Into that black void would disappear, he hoped, the bourgeois values of art. “I’m happy that my square’s face can’t be compared to any master or period,” he wrote. “I didn’t obey the fathers and I’m not like them.” Malevich saw his new style as part of the wider Soviet project and his black square as presaging the utopian future: jump through it, he said, and “the free white sea, infinity, lies before you”. There the detritus of traditional art, all those “bits of nature, madonnas and shameless nudes”, would be replaced by “pure painting composition”. His empty square in fact held a lot of aspirations, political, spiritual and artistic.

The afterlife of Malevich’s innovation is the subject of an inventive exhibition at the Whitechapel Gallery in London, “Adventures of the Black Square: Abstract Art and Society 1915-2015”. It traces the many reincarnations of Malevich’s original and tracks the way both its form and its meaning have been adapted over the succeeding century by artists as varied as Piet Mondrian and Carl Andre, Aleksandr Rodchenko and Dan Flavin. According to Malevich, “painting died, like the old regime, because it was an organic part of it”, but what the exhibition proves most forcibly is how spectacularly wrong he was. Ironically, his Black Quadrilateral, an attempt to break from the art of the past, has become a historical artefact in its own right, the founding image of a new tradition and a point of reference for legions of later artists. Geometric abstraction has real-world uses.

The curators have divided this exploration of Malevich’s square under four themes – Utopia, Architectonics, Communications and the Everyday – which between them show how his picture was repurposed for everything from construction and graphic art to industrial and textile design. Its range, too, became global: from Russia it quickly spread, first to Europe through the Bauhaus and then, aided by innumerable magazines and printed manifestos (also on show), to South America, which adopted abstraction as a way of breaking from the colonial past.

The journey was, among other things, one of disappointment, too. For the early Soviets geometrical shapes were inherently democratic and the ideal basis from which to fashion a new architecture. Yet later generations saw them as impersonal and the optimism turned to pessimism. A wonderfully skilful black-and-white drawing by Iakov Chernikhov of 1925 shows a fantasy building composed entirely of blocks and grids – a noble edifice fit for the workers. Seventy years later Keith Coventry’s seemingly abstract painting of ten yellow rectangles floating in space is in fact the ground plan for the Sceaux Gardens Estate in Camberwell, south London, an example of just how un-utopian many modernist social housing schemes were.

A similarly dispiriting trajectory can be observed in the way Malevich’s immaculately simple Black and White: Suprematist Composition of 1915 was reused in 1999 by Rosemarie Trockel, switching the black and white and woven in wool with the words “Cogito, ergo sum” stitched in. Malevich’s clarion call has become yet another plaything for clever-clever postmodern artists to mess around with.

As the century progressed, Malevich’s square lost not just its ideology but its original colour, the black being replaced by the full spectrum. That makes this exhibition a surprisingly joyous one visually, filled with invention and bright shades, from Josef Albers’s 1963 Homage to the Square in four tints of yellow to equally vivid geometrical riffs by Peter Halley and Andrea Büttner. While many of the later painterly derivations can trace their inspiration back to 1915 the curators see echoes everywhere and not all are convincing – Hannah Starkey’s 2006 photographs of office foyers and Sarah Morris’s 2008 video of Beijing show a geometrical precision that has nothing to do with Malevich’s model.

Even if the second half of the Whitechapel exhibition, dealing with the mid-1960s onwards, lacks the rigour of the first part, which deals with the early years when the square hadn’t yet been tugged into more whimsical shapes, this is a fascinating and worthwhile examination of an artistic phenomenon. It proves there was and is nothing square about the square.

Runs until 6 April.

Michael Prodger is an Assistant Editor at the New Statesman. He is an art historian, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Buckingham, and a former literary editor.

This article first appeared in the 23 January 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Christianity in the Middle East

Flickr/Alfred Grupstra
Show Hide image

How will future videogame makers design a grand strategy game about the 21st century?

With the diminishing power of nation states, and the lack of conventional warfare, what would a 21st-century grand strategy game look like?

In the world of historical strategy games, it always seems clear how to win. Paint the map your colour. Raise your flag over the capitals of your rivals. Pave the streets of your cities with gold. Games based around statecraft in olden times will tend to have diverse objectives, they usually focus on the greatness of a nation in the traditional senses of the word: military might, technological advancement, religious and cultural hegemony. These same priorities hold up from the times of the Roman Republic to the Cold War.

Yet if games designers in the future were to look at the world of today, how would they interpret the actions of modern governments? Do the same goals as before apply or have we moved on? Are the objectives of contemporary societies different, and if so, just what would a player in a game of 21st-century grand strategy be trying to achieve?

One thing is for sure, the conventional measures of success in historical grand strategy games don’t stack up so easily in a modern setting.

War, for instance, has always been a staple part of historical games and it remains a preoccupation of contemporary society too. In the 15 years of the 21st century, Britain has invaded two countries, conducted armed interventions in three more and is even now lining up the procurement of new fighter jets, new aircraft carriers and new nuclear weapons at incredible expense. So we can safely say we do not live in a peaceful age.

But despite having all this firepower and the political will to bring it to bear at the drop of a dossier, war doesn’t seem to serve Her Majesty’s Government in the way it does in either the history books or the strategy games. There is no territory to be won and no rival great powers being thwarted – only air strikes, occupations and teetering puppet governments.

Indeed the only country whose military adventures bear any resemblance to the old-timey way of doing things is Russia, with Putin perhaps the last of the breed of world leaders who still thinks swapping out the flags on municipal buildings constitutes a legitimate redrawing of national boundaries. Given his famous distrust for technology it seems quite likely he didn’t get the tersely worded Tweet from Obama about how that kind of thing isn’t supposed to work anymore.

On the economic side of things the approaches opted for by governments today don’t fit with the historical mind set either. Nations are no longer trying to get rich for their own sake. Privatisation relinquishes the assets of the state in return for a temporary financial gain and long term loss of revenue. Deregulation and poor tax enforcement bleeds capital overseas. It is here we see perhaps the key difference between games where you play as The State itself and real countries, countries run by people who have bank balances of their own and competing party financiers to appease.

The idea of running a country for the purpose of making that country wealthier and then reinvesting that wealth back into the country by developing assets and infrastructure has gone out of the window. Simultaneously both the leftwing model of a state run for the benefit of its citizens and the rightwing ideal of a country mastering its economy to become a more powerful force on the world stage have been quietly phased out. Outsourcing and tax havens suggest that there is no longer room for patriotism in economic policy – unless you’re China, of course, but it wouldn’t be much of a game with only one nation playing it.

On a technological front there was the space race, and there have even been games built around it. But in the 21st century, the urgency and the sense of competition has been lost. Rovers on Mars, probes on comets and space stations tend to be viewed in a spirit of collective human achievement, partly because of the collaborative nature of modern space exploration, and also, I suspect, because lots of people in those fields are Star Trek fans.

The idea of going to Mars so you can stand on the surface of another planet and tell the Communists to stuff it no longer appeals as much as that whole "pushing back the scientific boundaries for the benefit of all life of Earth" deal. It is laudable, but not ideal for games built around competing with other countries.

In the 21st century grand strategy game, we wouldn’t be looking to conquer the world, we wouldn’t be looking to buy it and we wouldn’t be looking to leave it in our technological wake either. So what does that leave? What would 21st-century grand strategy look like?

It could be argued that we’ve moved beyond the era of nation states as the bodies driving world affairs, and such a game might reflect that. Maybe something more akin to a Crusader Kings game would be the way to go, with the player taking the role of an individual – a connected political blueblood, perhaps, like an oligarch, a CEO, an activist turned politician, a drugs baron or a terrorist leader. Or maybe we would play not as an individual, but as an organisation, for example the CIA, ExxonMobil, Isis, Amnesty International or the Solntsevskaya Bratva.

It may be that we never see the present day immortalised in a strategy game, at least outside of that passing phase in Civilization where everything is either settled down or exploding in nuclear fire. Perhaps we’re destined to nestle into a historically obscure crack between the tumult of the 20th century and something spectacular or horrible yet to come. It is nice to think, however, that the times we live in are at least interesting and that maybe we’ll get to see it all laid out in a game one day, if only to find out what winning the 21st century would look like.

Phil Hartup is a freelance journalist with an interest in video gaming and culture