Ronald Hunt

  • The Constructivist Ethos: Russia 1913–1932 (Part II)


    Eistenstein produced some of his most remarkable works at the Proletcult Arena in Moscow. If in literature Proletcult was soon identified with an emergent social realism clearly and openly opposed to Constructivism, in other fields such as theatre and film it embraced that same avant-garde. Eisenstein came to Proletcult in 1919 from the front where he had worked on the agit-trains. Under Pletnyov he produced an agit-prop, Jack London’s The Mexican. It was Eisenstein’s first excursion into the field, but it was a notable one; the sets were typically Constructivist, the costumes clearly

  • The Constructivist Ethos, Part I

    E. H. CARR—WRITING ON DOSTOEVSKY—has said something which seems to me is worthwhile bearing in mind when considering any aspect of Russian culture. “The Russian mind will accept no principle and no convention until he has explored its very foundation, and if he finds that the first stone has not been well and truly laid, he will recklessly pull down the whole edifice about his ears. The assertion of a principle is of infinitely more importance to the Russian mind than any practical results which may flow from it.” The conventions and principles queried and pulled down by the Constructivists were

  • Yves Klein

    OUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO AN ARTIST––to the mention of his name––may frequently be preceded by some kind of recurrent image. At this juncture, my ideas of Yves Klein are preceded by an image he mentions in a film scenario. The image is of a beautiful woman’s flesh, greatly magnified; she is perspiring, and in close-up her pores, with their flowing juices, appear like a volcanic landscape. For me it has become something of a symbol. To pin it down––to say it reminds me of Klein’s monogolds (and the way they move in response to the presence of our bodies); or that I enjoy the metaphor of the

  • The Picabia/Breton Axis

    THE PICABIA/BRETON AXIS PASSES THROUGH, focuses and illuminates certain problems of 1922. In this year the relationship between the two was at its closest. For Breton, emerging from the aura of Dada, Picabia was one of the figures on whom the coming culture would undoubtedly rest. Picabia for his part, despite his eternal opposition to organization, would support Breton in several important ways and willingly lend his ideas to Breton’s projects. The year is, of course, crucial in the thread of development that binds Surrealism to Dada. Dada was the springboard from which Breton and his confreres