USA-CCCP. Points of Contact.
Catherine Mannick – (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov
Correspondence 1979 – 1990

“USA-CCCP. Points of Contact” describes the correspondence between Catherine Mannick and (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov; begun in 1979, it lasted for a full eleven years, until their paths ultimately parted in 1990. The letters, written in Russian, and the gifts sent both ways show how in the decade of the 1980s, the student from Boston and the Leningrad artist were supporting each other in the process of creating their places in the world. While this period saw a shift from Cold War to détente, dealing with the culture of each other’s country helped them define their own position, which affected significant aspects of their lives – studies and job for Mannick, art for Kozlov (Chapter 1).

For Mannick, the 1980s meant, among other things, bringing in line her profession as a lawyer with her love for travelling and getting to know different cultures and languages. “My life is a constant dialectic  – America-alienation/abroad-freedom, but I somehow can never find the synthesis.” (Letter 34, 1985). In this dialectic, Russia played a special role, and after her 1986 visit, she wrote: “I always receive such perspectives when I'm abroad, in particular in Russia.” (Letter 36, 1986). In 1987, she again enrolled in a graduate programme at Harvard University, this time in Russian history, because “…to immerse myself in Russian history, literature and culture, that's for me. I've spent so much time in Russia, but there were always questions – the key, at least in part, is in the past.” (Letter 43, 1988) Kozlov welcomed Mannick’s decision (Letter N, part 1, 1987), although it limited her time for travels, since she continued working at a law office to finance her studies. After her studies, she started representing U.S. businesses in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

For Kozlov, the 1980s meant experimenting with new styles in art that would display those visual and spiritual qualities corresponding to the life forces of the late twentieth century.[1] Mannick’s letters from across the ocean, as well as her occasional trips to Leningrad stimulated his synthetic worldview (Chapter 2). Kozlov was thinking on a large scale, and this drew him to America’s cultural life:

[…] all the time I think about the culture of your country, it beckons and attracts me. By what? Perhaps with its energy and movement or by you? (Letter J, 1986)[2]

Mannick’s support encouraged him to defend his right to entirely dedicate himself to art, when, again and again, the lack of money, time and space constrained his artistic projects. In the first place, he struggled to get rid of what he called “government jobs”, badly paid odd jobs he had to accept in order to avoid being accused of social “parasitism” – like many of his artists friends he was lacking a diploma from a higher art school and was therefore denied the legal status of an artist (see Letter B, 1980; Letter I, 1986; Letter K, 1986).[3] Mannick motivated him to pursue his plans:

And how are things with you, Zhenya? I so much want for you to be content and satisfied with yourself, with your work, and, in general, with your life. Believe, believe, believe in yourself.[4] (Letter 18, 1984)

While Kozlov and Mannick never discussed political matters, their friendship inspired, directly or indirectly, a chief aspect of Kozlov’s art from the 1980s – works that can be subsumed under the heading “USA-CCCP”, or, alternatively “CCCP-USA” (CCCP being USSR in Russian). These works deal with the antagonism between the two superpowers in manifold ways. In Letter P from March 1989, Kozlov wrote, “I am still interested in the CCCP-USA topic. I often return to it in my paintings.” The constructivist painting “Points of Contact” from 1989 synthesises this polarity. Although it was not among Kozlov’s gifts to Mannick, this is why it was chosen, in retrospect, as the title for the correspondence.. It will stand in the focus of the forthcoming epilogue. 

As a matter of fact, presents constituted an important feature of Mannick’s and Kozlov’s friendship. Today, Kozlov’s art and the photographic reproductions of his works in the Davis Center Special Collection make it possible to reconstruct his exceptionally rich and variegated artistic evolution in the decade of the 1980s .(Chapter 7)

At the same time, Kozlov’s letters and pictures give an insider’s account of Leningrad’s independent art and music scene of the 1980s – of artists and musicians related in one way or another to Leningrad’s avant-garde group “The New Artists”, of which Kozlov was a leading member (Chapter 6). Vintage prints and collages, many painted in Kozlov’s colourful “new wave” (Letter G) style or his elaborate “B(L)ack art” graffiti style (Letter H, Letter L), show them performing on stage, at home or in backyards.

Last but not least, Kozlov’s and Mannick’s notes on the intensifying cultural relations between the East and the West (Chapter 3), as well as Kozlov’s descriptions of the impact of perestroika on his own work and life – including the challenges arising with marketing his own art in the West – highlight several key aspects of contemporary Soviet-Russian history (Chapter 4), (Chapter 5).

The variety of questions discussed in the correspondence and the abundance of original artefacts offer multiple research topics for art-historians studying Russian art of the late Soviet period, as well as for scholars exploring different aspects of US-Soviet relations of the pre-perestroika and perestroika years.

The introductory chapters 1-7 suggest such topics, considering psychological, artistic, economic, and socio-cultural aspects of what the messages convey.

The topics are presented without a theoretical framework. Rather, the idea has been to expound and structure the information provided by the correspondence so that researchers can study the topics within the theoretical frameworks established by their respective academic disciplines. In fact, the absence of a theoretical discussion also concerns the introductory texts to the letters – they are descriptive and analytical, but do not examine contents with comparative methods. Besides, while each topic – taken per se – can be related to historical phenomena that offer certain analogies, it is unlikely that the correspondence as such can be meaningfully compared to any other American-Russian correspondence, simply because there seems to exist no other one that follows the same pattern. Put differently, while each of these topics is special, when taken together, they make the correspondence unique.

Perhaps the closest other example of an American-Russian friendship from that time (but without entailing a correspondence) is Joanna Stingray’s involvement with the protagonists of Leningrad’s music scene. After her first visit to Leningrad in 1984, the young rock singer from California returned to the place regularly, became an avid sponsor of Leningrad’s underground bands and fell in love with Yury Kasparian, guitarist of Kino, the legendary Russian rock band more >>. Their marriage in November 1987 defied Cold War limitations and became a major event for Leningrad’s art and music avant-garde. Kozlov, who had befriended drummer Georgy Guryanov more >> and had created the cover for Kino’s 1984 album Nachalnik Kamchatki more >>, attended the wedding, and by request of Catherine Mannick, gave her an exhaustive account (Letter O).

At this point, it helps to recall a key factor shaping the external conditions for an American-Russian friendship in the decade of the 1980s. The Soviet Union continued its policy of sharply restricting outgoing visas for its citizens until the very end of this decade, especially to Western “capitalist” countries. Thus, personal contacts between Americans and Russians occurred only when Americans visited the Soviet Union, having received a Soviet visa, typically as students, with the support of US institutions, as in Mannick’s case, or as tourists, like Stingray. Yet to develop a friendship across the border, with travels always taking place into one direction, required some effort (Chapter 1). What is more, communication via letters (very slow) or phone (very difficult) challenged the Soviet secret service’s spy-mania. Everybody knew that letters might be read and that telephone calls were likely to be intercepted. The correspondents therefore limited some of the information they would have otherwise passed on to each other. For instance, Mannick never confirmed a visit until she actually arrived (Letter E), while Kozlov, for his part, seldom mentioned the names of his artist friends, not even when they were seen in his pictures (Chapter 2).

This doesn't mean that the letters abound in cryptic messages or display artificial undertones; quite the contrary, they sound as natural as can be. But when analysing a correspondence, what and how something is said has been weighed against what has not been written (and how it has not been said). Although here, researchers risk being misled by their own speculations about a correspondent’s intentions, especially when, as in Kozlov’s case, not all letters have been preserved and some only in a fragmentary way (see Chronology and Archival Numbers of Letters). The theme chapters and introductory texts to the letters should minimise this risk, completing missing information with that from other sources.

[1] See also E-E Kozlov’s long-term project “Century XX”, 1989 to present more >>.

[2] Translation of (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov’s letters by Hannelore Fobo.

[3] For a detailed description of the status of an “unofficial” or “non-official” artist see: Hannelore Fobo.Timur Novikov's New Artists Lists, page 4 • The Leningrad subculture of the 1980s, 2018 more >>

[4] Translation of Catherine Mannick’s letters by herself.

[5] In Letter 6, 1980, Mannick writes, “Something with drawings by Marc Chagall will also be easy to find.”

[6] Concerning telegrams see Letter F, 1983

[7] Seven small-format works on paper from 1980/1981 were almost certainly sent with letters, since between 1979 and 1982, Kozlov and Mannick didn’t see each other. On the other hand, Kozlov’s self-portrait, a photo-collage from 1984 (KMFP_0030, Letter G), and four painted photo-collages in an A4 format from the B(L)ack art series, 1986 (KMFP_0025-0028, Letter L) could have been handed over directly when they both met in October 1984 and 1986, respectively.  .