Talk:Constructivism (art)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ytutu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition?
Is it just me, or does this page do an awful job of actually describing Constructivism? It gives a fairly good history and describes certain interactions with other movements and developments, but unless you already know about Constructivism, it would appear to me that this page would be of little help in describing exactly what Constructivism is all about... --patton1138 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

social purposes?
The introduction now states:
 * Constructivism .. dismissed "pure" art in favour of an art used as an instrument for social purposes, specifically the construction of a socialist system.

This definition is completely different from the german WPs and other european ones. Our understanding is that the "construction" in the term is not aimed at some political idea but at the construction of the respective work _out of basic elements_. In terms of graphical works these were for example circles, triangles, squares. Please, have a look into a wider range of literature and consider correcting the introduction. --Bernd-vdb 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) from Berlin, Germany

this page is primarily on Russian Constructivism, and accordingly stressed the social rather than graphical aspect of 'construction' - see Christina Lodder's book Russian Constructivism for an explanation of the differences between the two - roughly, between Constructivism as understood by Naum Gabo, or as understood by Tatlin, a difference that is actually highlighted in this article. Owenhatherley 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "accordingly" is what I and others clearly dispute. Are there any sources for the assumption that because it started in Russia around 1919 it would be connected to "social purpose"? This looks more like original research to me. --Bernd-vdb 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the assumption that because it started in Russia around 1919 it would be connected to "social purpose"? Plenty. Read any of the following: or pretty much any monograph on Rodchenko, Mayakovsky or Tatlin.
 * Catherine Cooke, Russian Avant-Garde Theories
 * the Christina Lodder book mentioned above
 * Maria Gough, The Artist as Producer
 * Various special issues of October
 * Christina Kiaer, Imagine No Possessions

All of which go into meticulous detail on exactly this question. On the other hand there's no objection to the introduction being changed to mention the aspect which stressed construction in the purely material sense (as did Gabo, as the article makes very clear) but I do object to any removal of the mention of 'social purpose', as this is an extremely well documented and crucial element of Russian, and frankly, in the case of say, Hans Richter or Hannes Meyer, Karel Teige or Moholy-Nagy, 'western' Constructivism. Owenhatherley 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but putting the 'social purpose' in the introduction while omitting the conceptional (and in no way 'material') aspect of construction (out of basic elements, be they physical, mental, aesthetical or whatever) is a biased point of view. Historic aspects might be interesting here but reducing constructivsm in art to a historic movement is simply wrong. As I am no native english speaker I will not change the article but I ask you and others strongly to think about correcting this. --Bernd-vdb 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

HI, a painter from London here. I concur with the gentleman above. Constructivism is concerned with plastic elements and not with social issues any more than it is concerned with ALL modes of building worlds using simplified, agreed upon signs. In this respect it could be conceived that it would have political implications but not just specifically socialist ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.113.77 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I always understood constructivism to refer to a utilitarian movement with socialist leanings. To support this, see For an alternate reading citing more maerialist aims, see  (Library barcode needed). Franciselliott (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Constructivism (art). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024234226/http://www.moma.org:80/collection/details.php?theme_id=10955&section_id=T019195 to http://www.moma.org/collection/details.php?theme_id=10955&section_id=T019195

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Aelita screenshot.jpg

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media
— Assignment last updated by Ceiap (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Constructivism (art" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructivism_(art&redirect=no Constructivism (art] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * HI, unsure how to comment on the redirect site as a section has not been added for discussion. Can you explain why this page was redirected? Slacker13 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)