(E-E) Ev.g.e.n.i.j ..K.o.z.l.o.v Berlin |
|
home // E-E // biographie // art // eros // Leningrad 80s // Valentin Kozlov // 2 x 3m // events // sitemap // kontakt /
 / |
(E-E) Ev.g.e.n.i.j ..K.o.z.l.o.v Berlin |
|
home // E-E // biographie // art // eros // Leningrad 80s // Valentin Kozlov // 2 x 3m // events // sitemap // kontakt /
/ |
(E-E) Evgenij Kozlov: Leningrad 80s • No.115 >>
Letter P (March 1989) – Perestroika Hot News Letter P is dated 17/III/1989, which means that it was written approximately a year after the preceding Letter O. It is one of Evgenij Kozlov’s longer letters and was sent in an ordinary airmail envelope. Apparently, neither art nor pictures went with it – at least, the text has no references to enclosures. The time that elapsed between Letter O and Letter P is unusually long, and during this period, Kozlov received four of Mannick’s letters – Letter 42 (written April 1988), Letter 43 (June 1988), Letter 44 (August 1988) and Letter 45 (December 1988).[1] Yet none of them mentions the reception of a letter from Petrodvorets/Peterhof. As a matter of fact, Letter P begins with an apology:
The interesting news Kozlov announces describe the new opportunities brought along with perestroika – both for the international promotion of his art and for Soviet people in general, the latter exemplified with a list of twenty-six “hot news” which make up the second part of the letter. Kozlov’s Christmas letter actually did arrive, as Mannick confirms in her answer to Letter P from April 1989 (Letter 46), but it has not been preserved. By all means, there seems to have been a break in Kozlov’s correspondence that lasted for almost a year, which is quite unusual, considering the frequency of his letters in previous years. On the other hand, it didn’t come completely unexpected to Mannick. In her answer to Letter O from April 1988, she had written, “I completely understand that you can’t write often, I am in the same situation – my studies demand 100% of my time.” The part of Letter O she refers to is missing, and we can therefore only assume that already at the beginning of 1988, Kozlov explained that he was short of time because of his art.
1988 had indeed been a very prolific year for his art. The variety of new styles and techniques is impressive, and Kozlov often merged (hyper-)realistic and non-realistic painting on different materials. He sewed irregular borders around large-format canvases more >> and experimented with painting through gauze, a printing technique similar to that of a monotype silkscreen print more >>.
He created numerous objects, for instance his “Art from the USSR / Art for the USA” bus-stop signs more >>. Portraiture also stood in the focus of Kozlov’s attention more >>, and among his portraits is his emblematic “Portrait of Timur Novikov with Arms consisting of Bones” more >>. He continued experimenting with constructivist shapes he had first worked out in 1987 and, using a felt-lined cutlery tray, made the prototype for his painting from 1989 “Points of Contact” from the USA-CCCP series more >>.
If being engaged in art caused Kozlov’s prolonged silence, it might not have been the only reason. Mannick had written him in April 1988 that she couldn’t make it to the Soviet Union in 1988, which probably made him set his mind on other things. Last but not least, in June 1988, she told him of her forthcoming wedding with her boyfriend in September; she had known him for a couple of years and had written of him earlier see Letter I. This, of course, affected what Kozlov could expect from their friendship, and when he finally answered, he came to the point:
Although a certain alienation can be felt in these lines, it didn’t keep Kozlov from sending Mannick one of his pictures as a wedding present. We know of this fact because in August 1988 (Letter 44), Mannick wrote that Marina, a common friend asked to take his present to the States, had left it behind; perhaps it was too large to be smuggled out of the Soviet Union.[2] In fact, Kozlov had no intention at all to stop writing, and he expresses his feelings with the imprint of a kiss at the beginning of the letter, followed by the line “It’s me who kissed you with this funny kiss”. He is also looking forward to Catherine Mannick’s next visit, now announced for June 1989, although he doesn’t exclude the possibility that he might be somewhere else, since the political changes provided him with such chances.
And if my financial affairs become positive now, which is quite likely, or I get an invitation from a gallery, which is also possible now, then I will go off immediately. I very much want to relax and change surroundings. The USA also fell into the circle of my interests (or plans), because negotiations are already underway on an exhibition of Modern Soviet art in your country. Most likely it will be New York or Los Angeles.[4] We'll see. (p.2) Kozlov’s optimism to see his financial situation finally getting better is based on his participation in a number of international exhibitions during the previous months:[5]
Though these exhibitions didn’t bring him money, they brought him some prominence.
Kozlov didn’t mention Liverpool, where “Perestroika in the Avant-Garde” took place at the end of January / beginning of February 1989; it had his painting “Star” printed on the festival poster more >> • more >>. But it looks as if his international career had indeed started rather promisingly.
After Sotheby’s legendary Moscow auction of Soviet art on 7 July, 1988 – in the main, with contemporary art from Moscow – the western market for this segment could be expected to expand. Inside and outside the country, new art agents and dealers turned up, and they sometimes competed with each other.[8] However, it is not clear which was the Moscow gallery Kozlov had signed a contract with, nor whether this led to any sales of his works. At any rate, it cannot have led to a long-lasting business relation, since in his biography, there is no further reference to a Moscow gallery. Likewise, nothing is known about the auction house in West Berlin or Kozlov’s selection of nine canvases and a sculpture for this specific auction, except that for the artist himself, the increased demand on his works had an unpleasant side effect:
Concerning his art, there had always been a discrepancy between what Kozlov intended to do and what circumstances allowed him to do. But with the new opportunities, this gap was getting even larger.
While conditions were far from being ideal, his artistic imagination and willpower were unlimited.
 It looks somewhat eccentric to group aliens, nude painting and the СССР-USA topic as subject matters for paintings. But in Kozlov’s body of works, none was ephemeral, just that “visitors from outer space” belong to the larger context of cosmos. “Cosmos” can be understood in two ways. The first, more obvious, is its presence in various paintings. Kozlov’s composition “Love for the Cosmos”, constitutes an important example; it was is executed on a bus-stop sign in 1989 and on a 2 x 3 m canvas in 1990; in 2023, the painting joined the Tate Gallery Collection more>>. With his series, "E-E Classic (НЛО-UFO)” from 2014/2015, the artist pursued a different approach, rendering homage to his fellow artists and creative people close to him more>>.
The second, more general aspect of “cosmos” finds its expression in Kozlov’s letter with the description of his twofold artistic position – developing an idea both from the perspective of people and from the perspective of aliens. At first glance, this concept might appear bizarre. It finds a more elaborate form in his manifesto from 1991 “Two Cosmic Systems”, where the artist distinguishes between a view and understanding of art according to the laws of the Earth and a view or perspective from space. The latter is an “as if” approach — “as if the artist had been born in space and had completed their complete path of development and formation solely in it”. It is crucial to understand how these two systems interrelate in art: “Though it is possible to think in such terms, the only way to follow how it develops is via one’s feelings, whereby desire and inspiration lead to a natural merging of the two systems […] This is the natural process of the development of art.” more>> From here it follows that, to Kozlov, “cosmos” is more than the three-dimensional space that can be conquered physically.[10] This sets his concept apart from what is today known as Russian cosmism, although his fascination with physical objects from outer space cannot be denied. Remarkably, in his list of “hot news”, UFOs appear twice:
✮ On T.V., they showed declassified American information about a UFO that crashed over one of the American military bases 30 years ago. They showed the corpses of aliens — biological robots. (p.5) Visitors from outer space and their encounter with human beings – Close Encounters of the Third Kind, to quote the title of Stephen Spielberg’s film from 1977 – have been a universal topic of literature and film for decades, better known as Science Fiction.[11] In the Soviet Union, science fiction – in Russian научная фантастика, literally scientific fantasy – was a highly popular genre,[12] not only because of the Sputnik and Gagarin,[13] but because it bordered on the occult and paranormal. Like in the United States, the secret service conducted research about such phenomena.[14] While perestroika did not by itself cause interest into the fantastic, it unleashed all kind of speculation about the results of such research. Kozlov’s reference shows that with perestroika, declassified information from the (former) enemy made it to the Soviet media, thereby supporting a view that Encounters of the Third Kind were more than fantasy. Kozlov’s “hot news” list actually encompasses the fantastic in multiple ways, and the references to UFOs are only the most obvious. Other points may appear less spectacular; for instance, the news that there are now Soviet farmers. Kozlov uses the English loanword “fermer” which stresses the entrepreneurship of a farmer, as opposed to the more general term krestianin, peasant. This is fantastic insofar, as with forced collectivisation at the end of the 1920s, peasants had become kolkhozniks, factually employed workers on socialist farms. However, the question of individuals enjoying the right of disposal over state property had not been resolved yet. Kozlov continues, “the state cannot decide for how long to lease land to them – for 5 years, for 10, or for eternal use.” (p.4) By March 1989, perestroika was well under way, but Kozlov is not analysing the current situation like a journalist. Rather, he offers a remarkable selection of what he thinks might interest his friend, bearing in mind what she knows about the country – in short, memorable occurrences, collected in a cabinet of curiosities of sorts. An asterisk precedes each item, and the list ends with “and so forth”, which means that it could be continued. The compilation is rather eclectic and includes some statements of a strictly personal character, which thus acquire the status of breaking news, for instance “Solar activity began to affect me very strongly. I haven’t been able sleep for days.” (p.6) A closer look allows the separation of those twenty-six news into three categories. The first expresses the spirit of glasnost, of freedom of expression. “Declassified information” belongs to it, and with these new liberties, history is being revised.
Into the same category fall the news that the name of Zhdanov has been removed from the Leningrad State University and from squares (p.5), that Estonia[15] has received the right to display its national flag (p.5), and that in the press and on T.V., people demand the release of photo albums with the tsar’s family (p.6). Likewise, marginalised issues are no longer being tabooed:
A second category is news from economics; it includes the example of independent farmers. However, the top reference for the state of affairs in economics is the black market exchange rate of the dollar to the rouble:
One to ten is about double of what was paid for one dollar in 1988, but only half of what it would cost in 1990. To no little degree, this price increase was caused by the increasing number of Soviet citizens travelling abroad with dollars.[16] But the real hot news was based on rumours: The rouble might become convertible, followed by a sizable number of exclamation and question marks – ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ? ! ! ! ! – and Soviet citizens might be able to officially use it (p.4).[17] The shortcomings of socialist economy are striking, which Kozlov comments with some sarcasm:
The shortage of cassettes provides another example – cassettes are essential for copying western music. Kozlov’s hope is on the emergence of joint ventures with capitalist companies:[18]
The advantage of a capitalist market system can no longer be denied.
The gradual introduction of a market economy brings artists new opportunities, as the first part of the letter shows. Kozlov cites another one: artists freely paint and sell their works in the streets of Leningrad, for instance on Nevsky Prospekt (p.5). Yet new challenges demand new skills, as written above: “It seems I need a manager.” This topic appears once more in his hot news list with the statement that schools for managers have opened (p.6).
The third category concerns cultural diversification and opening towards the West. News of this kind are a Frank Zappa concert (p.5), the first beauty contests – Miss Leningrad, Miss Moscow, Miss USSR (p.6) – and the first solo exhibition of Dali’s works in Moscow (p.5), which Kozlov visited. Western culture and music appear on TV more often (p.4), and an American team, most likely students at the Leningrad State University, participates in the popular game show What? Where? When? (p.5)
Kozlov’s conclusion is clear-cut:
Kozlov’s belief that the population was almost unanimously supporting perestroika doubtlessly reflects his personal attitude towards perestroika, since, as can be seen, it made Kozlov’s own life “become much freer”. Yet it disregards serious public criticism of Mikhail Gorbachev’s ambitious reform programme, which became apparent no later than in 1988.[19] On the other hand, Kozlov’s appraisal of Gorbachev as “the hope of the whole world” is well founded. Gorbachev initiated a policy of detente and arms control, and in December 1987, the Soviet General Secretary and US President Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). It is no wonder that in March 1989, Kozlov wrote, “I am still interested in the CCCP-USA topic”. In the course of 1989, he reinterprets his allegorical composition “Points of Contact” from 1988 on a large format on jute. The catalogue text from Kozlov’s solo exhibition “USA. CCCP. CHINA” (2018) explains the polarity between the two superpowers as being overcome see introduction:
The Fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 was no longer an allegory – it was the outward manifestation of this polarity being overcome. Among all of Soviet / Russia’s leaders, Gorbachev is the only one to whom Evgenij Kozlov relates in a positive way. When in 1998, the Berlin House of Representatives asked the artist to paint Gorbachev’s portrait for the Gallery of Honorary Citizens of Berlin, he accepted, although he doesn’t normally accept a commission for a painting. Interestingly, the deputies of the Berlin parliament also decided to create points of contact between the USA and the Soviet Union. In 1999, Kozlov’s portrait of Mikhail Gorbachev External link>> was displayed next to that of Ronald Reagan, and some years later, a portrait of George Bush senior joined it on the other side.
In this way, E-E Kozlov’s portrait of the first and only Soviet president can now be seen between those American presidents who were in office during Gorbachev’s political leadership. In our times, however, a positive relationship between the two superpowers, based on their dialectical interdependence, again belongs to the realm of artistic imagination. Hannelore Fobo, 7 November 2023 [1] Kozlov received them approximately three weeks after they were sent see introduction. [2] Marina, however, did bring Kozlov Mannick’s presents. Kozlov ends his letter “Thank you, Katya, for those wonderful things that you sent me with Marina. I wear them with pleasure.” [3] From Kozlov’s New Artists group, the first to travel regularly were Timur Novikov and Sergei Bugaev. Starting with the Stockholm in August 1988, both artists visited many exhibitions – together, and later separately. They were in close contact with foreign organisers and curators, which helped them to promote the New Artists as group, as well as themselves individually. [4] In 1988 and 1989, Joanna Stingray organised several exhibitions of the New Artists, her Leningrad friends, in Los Angeles See Letter O. [5] In 1991, Kozlov compiled a list of all his national and international exhibitions, and the year 1988 sees an overall increase in numbers. With regard to international exhibitions, he largely relied on information and printed material Timur Novikov and Sergei Bugaev passed on to him. Not surprisingly, his list is largely congruent with those exhibitions displaying his name in Ksenia Novikova’s Chronicle, a documentation of New Artists exhibitions she created with the help of Novikov’s archive. The Chronicle, published in the catalogue for the 2012 New Artists exhibition at the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, is an exceptionally important source for researchers. Yet a more detailed analysis of the Chronicle events and exhibitions shows that Novikov’s documents are not always reliable. In some instances, Kozlov’s name appears in the Chronicle line-up of artists, although none of his works was actually displayed (e.g. Seven Independent Artists from Leningrad at the Young Unknowns Gallery, 1988 more>>), while in other cases, the opposite is true: his works were displayed, but his name is not in the line-up of artists (Exhibition of Banners at the Tate Gallery Liverpool, 1989 more>>). [6] According to Kozlov’s list and Ksenia Novikova’s Chronicle, a New Artists exhibition took place at the West Berlin Raab Gallery in September 1988. [7] Most likely, ”London” refers to Art 89 at the Business Design Centre, London, February 1989 (Kozlov’s list and Chronicle). No further information available. [8] Already in July 1987, Björn Lyrvall, vice-consul at the Swedish Consulate in Leningrad, stressed the importance of getting ahead with Stockholm’s Kulturhuset project, since there was now a risk of losing the New Artists to other curators:
The mention of film recordings most probably refers to the film “ASSA”, featuring Sergei Bugaev in one of the main roles see Letter N Part 2>>. [9] In Kozlov’s 1991 list, there is no Berlin auction, nor is there any such auction in Ksenia Novikova’s Chronicle. Where Kozlov’s paintings ended up in case the auction didn’t take place at all is another question. [10] In philosophical terms, Kozlov’s concept might be explained as that of merging impulses from two different realms, where “cosmos” represents the realm of timelessness and “earth” the aspect of time as a succession of moments. The Russian verbal system (and that of other languages) renders this twofold concept by distinguishing between an imperfective and a perfective aspect of an action. [11] The title of Spielberg’s film obviously inspired the New Composers, Kozlov’s friends, to their 1989 video-lecture Контакты Третьего рода, “Contacts of the Third Kind”, presented by the Science Fiction Creative Society they had founded at the Leningrad Planetarium around 1987. Kozlov was asked to create a logotype for their club more>>. [12] The history of “alien” movies actually starts in 1924 with a Soviet production, Aelita, where the crew of a spaceship sent to Mars meets with the local civilisation (in the end, it all appears to have been nothing more than a daydream). [13] The success of the Soviet space programme also had an impact on the first large Russian rave party in December 1991– Gagarin Party. The venue was the Cosmos pavilion at the VDNKh, (Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy), Moscow. [14] See also Empire and Magic. Sergey Kuryokhin's “Pop-Mekhanika No. 418” (1995) [15] Kozlov writes Эстония, Estonia, as if speaking of an independent state. [16] Soviet citizens obtaining travel visas to capitalist countries were allowed to exchange and legally take with them up to 200 roubles at the official exchange rate of 1.6 (in 1989), which brought them an incredible 320 dollars, while the same amount of dollars sold for 3200 roubles on the black market. Hard currency exceeding the limit of 200 roubles had to be bought on the black market and smuggled out. Accordingly, the official value of the rouble, fixed by the Soviet state at an arbitrarily high level in view of foreign tourism, led to a drain in the dollar reserve when travelling started to go the other way. The discrepancy between these exchange rates eventually became a serious problem for the country’s economy, and in November 1989, the Soviet government devaluated the rouble. See also Esther B. Fein. Soviet Official Explains Ruble Devaluation, New York Times, Oct. 28, 1989 External link>>. [17] The rouble became convertible in 1992. [18] A Soviet law from 1987 allowed foreign capital investment in the form of joint ventures. [19] For instance, with Nina Andreyeva’s essay “Не могу поступаться принципами” (I cannot forsake my principles), published in Sovetskaya Rossiya in March 1988.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
see also (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov, Catherine Mannick, and Hannelore Fobo papers, 1979-2022 (inclusive) Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies Special Collection Harvard University>> Published 11 November 2023 Last updated 17 November 2024 |
|
home // E-E // biographie // art // eros // Leningrad 80s // Valentin Kozlov // 2 x 3m // events // sitemap // kontakt /
|
