Fashion under socialism cannot be characterized from a single perspective; throughout the period of Communist rule, multiple discourses surrounding consumption and production often existed simultaneously. Generally, fashion discourses in the USSR can be divided into the narratives of utopian dress, socialist dress, everyday fashion, and nationalistic dress (although, these categorizations are inextricable and often overlapping) which frame dress through discourses to meet the needs of state and consumer.[1] Within utopian dress, a category that implies the use of material culture in symbolizing utopian futurity, the most influential movement was Constructivism. The artistic avant-garde approach was a response to capitalism and Lenin’s New Economic Policy, both of which countered socialist political and economic systems. In a society faced with dynamic vicissitudes throughout most of the 20th century, Constructivism endeavored in the early 1900s to modify and radically restructure the value of material goods through the transfiguration of aesthetics, as well as through attempts at mass production. Retroactively, the designs can be studied for their semiotic representations. An analysis of Constructivist fashion as material culture, through which facets of production, consumption, and materiality are considered, allows this movement to be evaluated for its contribution to Soviet sociopolitical life. In turn, Constructivism’s ultimate failure can reveal a wider failure of the Socialist state in meeting consumer needs.
To adequately approach an analysis of Constructivist fashion, a sociological understanding of fashion as material culture must be expanded upon. Fashion can be understood as a physical means through which to create and reflect cultural meaning. The consumption of fashion as a material good represents values of the consumer and is central to the construction of identity and selfhood. Fashion can be seen as a text in which one can observe the values associated with social identities through their visual expression; concurrently, fashion “can be a vehicle for socialization and social control or, alternatively, for liberation from cultural constraints.”[2] Beyond its semiotic value, fashion and clothing are material, and material has materiality. The “dimension of wear,” writes Daniel Miller, cannot be overlooked in the examination of fashion as material culture.[3] This dialectical interaction between the wearer and the clothing reinforces the individualized sensory and identity-making experience of wearing fashion, and leads Miller to conclude that fashion is a “mediation between the individual and that which lies outside them.”[4] Latour’s actor-network theory, which posits a connection between the material and the semiotic, is helpful in interpreting clothing as a significant feature in the construction of selfhood, writes Sophie Woodward, and “agency emerges through the material/human assemblages that are taken to constitute the network.”[5] Understanding fashion from a material culture perspective considers the materiality and physicality alongside value, symbol, and representation.
Crane and Bovone suggest that an examination of fashion as material culture must include five distinct modes of analysis.[6] First, an analysis of semiotic practices (e.g. texts, discourses, symbols) must be conducted. Material culture produces and contributes to discourse, and, therefore, fashion maintains and produces various discursive frameworks, requiring the interpretation of symbolic meaning. Second, there must be “an analysis of systems of cultural production in which symbolic values are attributed to material culture” through collective actions. This includes the consideration of garment makers and firms that produce garments for consumption. A third mode of analysis is the communication of symbolic values through the media to consumers, including through advertisements and propaganda that impart the ideology of the brand (e.g. socialism, the state). A fourth mode is an analysis of the attribution of symbolic values to material culture by consumers and their responses to said values, i.e. how consumers understand dress in the formation of identity. Last of the modes of analysis are cross-national studies of symbolic values expressed in material goods, evaluated in order to reveal cultural differences; under socialism, this can be done between other socialist or non-socialist countries. This progression of analysis across these five modes accounts for how to read material culture production and consumption.
This sociological framework for fashion as a text of material culture identifies the importance of contextualizing dress within both the symbolic and physical realms, and enables an analysis of Constructivist fashion under socialism that accounts for its significance. Constructivism emerged in the early 20th century primarily as an avant-garde art movement, and spread as an ideological restructuring of interactive fields including fashion, architecture, and more widely consumptive practices. Constructivists rejected the traditional—and culturally popular—notions of excess, decoration, and conspicuous consumption; as dedicated socialist thinkers, Constructivist artists were heavily influenced by socialist ideology regarding material, use, and function. Constructivist art, therefore, consisting of experimental and conceptual structures, was founded on the principles of tektonika (“tectonics,” or the appropriate use of material within communist society), construction (the use of material for an intended purpose), and faktura (the conscious use of material in construction and production).[7] Constructivist art, differentiated from Suprematism and Cubism, concentrated on the functional use of art and its service to the state and political regime. The most well known artists in the movement, Vladimir Tatlin, Aleksandr Rodchenko, El Lissitzky, Naum Gabo, and Antoine Pevsner, emphasized the material, spatial, and temporal contexts of their art; the Constructivist style mirrored Cubism, and was characterized by dynamic geometry and flatness, while three-dimensional sculptures were constructed from industrial materials like metals, wire, and plastic.
Notably, Constructivists were heavily influenced by Marxist ideology surrounding commodity fetishism. A central theme of Capital focuses on the historical construction of inequity as a result of capitalism and capitalist production, which, according to Marx, overworks the working class in favor of the ruling capitalist class.[8] Commodity fetishism describes the obfuscation of social relations of production, that is, relations among people and their labor appear as relations among material goods. The domination of social relations by monetary value is the result of surplus value, in which the exploitation of workers is ignored in the idolization and pseudo-worshipping of objects.[9] Marx called for the radical restructuring of economic and political systems through the proletariat class, with revolution being the only conceivable catalyst for change.[10] His rejection of capitalism formed the foundation of Constructivist production, not only of art, but of the mode of production. Socialism in Eastern Europe initially embraced the restructuring of production, and consequently the reshaping of consumption, which conditioned the environment for the creation of Constructivist fashion.
A relatively unobserved element of the wider Constructivist movement, Constructivist fashion adhered to the artistic movement’s thematic principle rejecting capitalist—and by extension, Western—cultural values. Two leading Constructivist artists, Liubov’ Popova and Varvara Stepanova, incorporated Marxist themes in their visual art and fashions and understood that to fully exemplify the Socialist Revolution, Constructivist aesthetics and values must extend to the sphere of fashion.[11] Constructivist fashion is characterized by its functionality and simplicity, rather than fetishized for its luxuriousness or signifying of wealth. Geometric patterns (see Appendix 1) are most commonly featured and exemplify this simplicity as a move away from ornateness. The first designs, utilitarian overalls, were originally intended as stage costumes for theater, referred to as prozodezhda, or production clothing, which demonstrated a considerable shift away from extravagance and opulence. Popova constructed costumes for The Magnanimous Cuckold (1922) (see Appendix 2) and Stepanova for The Death of Tarelkin (1922) .[12] They intended for the unembellished and geometrical prozodezhda to both typify mechanized theatrical motion and be useful and comfortable garments for the actors in their daily lives.
Beyond garments for artistic endeavors, the prozodezhda existed as symbolic dress and idealized signs of the socialist body. “Constructivist design was […] devoted to the production of a certain substance of a positive nature, a certain functional readiness to act,” writes art historian Ekaterina Dyogot.[13] In pictures and paintings of Constructivist dress, the wearer typically is posed in a diamond shape, legs apart and arms wide or placed on the hips, as if to signify a readiness to mobilize, work, act, or be of use (see Appendixes 2-5). The primary goal “was to abolish alienation in the structure of the thing-commodity, picture-commodity, body-commodity. This was intended to create a new space of total freedom and comradeship, ultimately a ‘new way of life.’”[14] These garments, as socialist symbols, exemplified the model citizen’s role as active participant in the construction of a more equal, prosperous society. By wearing clothing that enabled, rather than constricted, physical activity, a socialist citizen could be more productive and contribute to the greater good. Popova and Stepanova’s designs, as symbols, imagined a society of radical androgyny, egalitarianism, and efficiency.
Constructivist designers recognized the materiality of their designs and their power and responsibility as producers of material goods. While a majority of Constructivist designs did not come to fruition, Stepanova and Popova extracted Constructivist themes from their costumes and art in order to change the fashion system by producing mass market goods.[15] They promoted mass-production as a means of ensuring a modern system that empowered consumers and producers, and adhered to the socialist principle of economic equality wherein every consumer would equally access a useful garment. Mass production implies homogenization, although this uniformity in dress intended to recall Marx’s revolutionary class, rather than a stagnant and subservient public. Popova and Stepanova were tasked with designing clothing for mass production at the First State Cotton-Printing Factory in Moscow between 1923-1924, and intended that Constructivist fashion would promote a change in the production of material goods.[16] In total, 150 different fabrics were designed, and about two dozen were realized through production.[17] Stepanova wrote about Constructivist fashion in the Constructivist journal Lef, dictating that stitching, buttons, and material must be revealed on garments as a demonstration of the significance of production, as “the stitching of a sewing machine industrializes the production of a dress and deprives it of its secrets.”[18] Transparency was a tool to humanize mass-production and bridge the gap between producer and consumer as an cooperative interaction. “Constructivism conceived subject-object relations in terms that privileged political will over sexual desire, means of production over processes of signification,” writes Bartlett.[19] Through transparent production, the connection between the material form and its purpose were overtly revealed.
The practicality of Constructivist fashion, in addition to its attention to materiality and production, defined its fundamental purpose beyond the symbolic realm. The garments were made to be worked in, allowed for easy mobility, and most importantly, presented no attempt at displaying social distinction. The mundanity, simplicity, and exclusively geometric patterns were not solely intentional aspects of design, but also the result of limitations in production. The cotton factory’s printing presses, dying laboratories, and obsolete technology imposed restrictions that Popova and Stepanova tried to utilize to their advantage: “the vibrating opticality of the Constructivist fabric patterns […] was meant to convey the invention and creativity of the industrial production process through its very visual form.”[20] To combat commodity fetishism and the detachment of factory worker and consumed material, Popova and Stepanova hoped to represent the dynamism of production through their clothing, to demonstrate that intricate processes involving human labor resulted in the construction of consumable goods; they infused within the geometric patterns “the animation of its makers.”[21] These values tying together art and industry were conveyed through advertisements and propaganda posters, and predominantly through plays and performances. Constructivist artists sought complete involvement in all aesthetic industries, promoting unity between formerly disjunctured disciplines.
Of paramount importance to Constructivist designers was the reconstruction of gender relations and roles. As female artists and designers in male-dominated structures, their radical involvement in socialist creative fields situate their desire to alter hegemonic norms. Fashion, as the field often does, had negatively connoted femininity, frivolity, and commercialism. As socialists, Popova and Stepanova recognized the historical connections between modern fashion and capitalism, as well as the division of gender in the private and public spheres, and, therefore, attempted to counter these associations through Constructivism. “Woman has to cease to be a thing, a commodity, the object of a picture,” writes Dyogot, and with women as creators, such transformation occurred, albeit provisionally.[22] Many Constructivist designs, though notably not all, were unisex, and the boxy garments especially de-emphasized, de-naturalized, and un-sexed the female torso. Popova’s costume design in Appendix 2 completely flattens the female body, seemingly removing the breasts as an act of desexualiztion. The body shape disappears in the boxy garments, reflecting the “avant-garde’s puritanical negation of the body as an erotic instrument.”[23] Notably, this negation took the masculine-presenting body as default. The Constructivists viewed the body as a tool that can be disciplined through biomechanics, and clothing, therefore, was but a necessary layer. In Appendix 4, the sports clothes are rigid and simple, with patterns to identity the sports teams. In Appendix 5, a self-portrait caricature of Stepanova, the muscular figure wears the simple, geometric outfit similar to Popova’s in Appendix 2. The mass-produced constructivist garments reflected this erasure of the feminine gender, although, as consumer goods, they were forcibly made less radical in their intention to modify cultural standards and more closely attentive to market demands.
Stepanova’s acclaimed sports designs offer a fascinating depiction of women tied to the Constructivist value of egalitarianism. Appendix 3 depicts young students performing in Stepanova’s An Evening of the Book (1924) wearing uniform costumes designed by Stepanova. Unlike women in the public spheres of the USSR, these performers wear bifurcated jumpsuits, rather than skirts. The geometric patterns, cropped hair, and postures create absolute uniformity, almost militaristic stances. The women appear as futuristic warriors, a ‘disciplined collective machine.”[24] The students wearing the costumes are changed by the garments, both by the dynamism of production transposed through the physicality of the material and by the deconstruction of binary conventions. As a refusal of the prescribed gender regulations, Stepanova’s androgynous vision signifies Constructivism as a symbolic movement, although Constructivists vehemently rejected the idea of fashion as a material object that can possess greater meaning than its materiality and use value. Though this analysis has largely been premised on the notion that dress is symbolic, Constructivism regarded aesthetics not as representative but as useful. In addition to the symbolic nature, Constructivist clothing proposed a restructuring of society with clothing as a means and a tool to transform failing systems.
While Constructivism flourished in avant-garde social circles, and while attempts were made to allow Soviet consumers access to these designs, Constructivists ultimately failed in their endeavor to reshape the value of material in an increasingly globalized world. Constructivist garments were produced during Vladimir Lenin’s era of the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in 1923, which brought incongruent capitalist measures, like free-market economy and for-profit businesses, to the developing socialist society.[25] State-owned enterprises competed alongside private businesses, which, similarly to a fully capitalist economy, resulted in saturated markets, rampant competition, and the continued widening of social classes. For the fashion industry, this reintroduced luxury and materialism through consumption. The female body was again a site of consumption and conspicuousness, as the NEP woman was slender, over decorated, and the absolute simulacrum of the bourgeoisie.[26] Constructivism exalted the original revolutionary values of egalitarianism and Marxist anti-materialism, yet these ideas were at odds with NEP, and, therefore, the Constructivist goal could not be carried out.
Constructivist material goods themselves failed to meet consumer demands because they lacked comfort and individualism. The materiality was unable to convey the revolutionary symbolism, thus this failure instantiated larger failures of the state. Popova and Stepanova were instructed to adjust their designs to be more practical for consumers, which is ironic considering Constructivism’s innate practicality. The designers were hired at the First State Cotton-Printing Factory as a way for the private producer to turn a profit. Nevertheless, the designers were unable to match the efficiency, speed, and technological advancements craved by consumers, many of whom envied Western products. Production was slow due to dated machinery, and, compared to luxury goods, the designs were lackluster. Christina Kiaer quotes social thinker Boris Arvatov, who wrote in 1925 that Soviet goods, including Constructivist dress, lacked “elegance, fashion, originality, stylishness, contemporaneity, chicness, pleasantness, and even opulence.”[27] Failure to maintain Western fashion’s (thereby fashionable fashion’s) speed caused Popova to return to designing fashionable clothing within the fashion market, most famously her flapper dress, which mirrored Western styles in its silhouette and fine detailing.[28] Separately, an ontological failure in Constructivist designs stemmed from the manner in which the designs, in their absolute rigidity and geometric linearity, actually removed any trace of individual desire and erotic sexual freedom, drawing citizen consumers away. While Popova and Stepanova hoped to transform the cultural value of material goods, the economic context, consumers’ disinterest, and their products’ lack of appeal contributed to Constructivism’s failure.
Constructivism, therefore, was unable to flourish; nevertheless, the Constructivist values, rooted deeply in the Socialist Revolution, carry a significant legacy, and account for the tremendous depth of scholarly research on the subject. Analyzing Constructivist fashion through a discourse of material culture allows for the avant-garde movement to be recognized for its—albeit unsuccessful—undertaking to emphasize an “interactive relationship between the new socialist person and the new socialist everyday objects.”[29] As noted earlier, Crane and Bovone’s five analytical frameworks embody all aspects of material culture, including the material as a text, the consideration of production and labor, the media’s portrayal of the material, the consumption of the material by consumers, and cross-national studies of comparable materials; these modes allow for Constructivism’s far reach to be evaluated.
The aim of this paper is to analyze Constructivist fashion in a holistic narrative in order to demonstrate its unique cultural prominence and ultimate telos of using dress as a locus for ideological restructuring. Constructivism magnifies the traditional fashion system’s multifarious problems, mainly as a system that values social distinction through consumerism rather than human labor. Interestingly, while fashion has historically been ambivalent toward consumption, Constructivist values can be seen today in the growing interest in ethical production and sustainability, though sustainability is also notably utilized as a marketing tool to garner market share and profit. Constructivist fashion was more than a sartorial expression of artistic discourse – it was a total, comprehensive instrument designed to alter social relations.
Appendix
Appendix 1: Varvara Stepanova, weaving sample of final version of fabric, 1923-1924
Appendix 2: Liubov’ Popova, costume design for the play The Magnanimous Cuckold, 1922.
Appendix 3: Students in sports clothing designed by Varvara Stepanova, 1924.
Appendix 4:Varvara Stepanova, sport clothes, 1923.
***
[1] Djurdja Bartlett, Fashion East: The Spectre that Haunted Europe (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010), 1-12.
[2] Diana Crane and Laura Bovone, “Approaches to material culture: The sociology of fashion and clothing” Poetics 34,4 (2005): 320.
[3] Daniel Miller, “Introduction,” in Clothing as Material Culture, edited by S. Küchler and D. Miller (Oxford, England: Berg, 2005), 15.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Sophie Woodward and Tom Fisher, “Fashioning through materials: material culture, materiality and processes of materialization,” in Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty 5,1 (October 2014): 4.
[6] Crane and Bovone, 321-324.
[7] John Merriman and Jay Winter, editors, Europe Since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2006).
[8] Karl Marx, “Section 4: The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof,” in Capital: Volume One (1867).
[9] Marx.
[10] Marx.
[11] Bartlett, 15.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ekaterina Dyogot, “Creative Women, Creative Men, and Paradigms of Creativity: Why have there been great women artists?” in Amazons of the avant-garde: Alexandra Exter, Natalia Goncharova, Liubov Popova, Olga Rozanova, Varvara Stepanova, and Nadezhda Udaltsova, ed. John Bowlt, (New York: Abrams, 2000), 123.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Bartlett, 15.
[16] Christina Kiaer, Imagine no possessions: The Socialist Objects of Russian Constructivism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 90.
[17] Alexander Lavrentiev, Varvara Stepanova, The Complete Work (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988), 81.
[18] Bartlett, 16.
[19] Ibid., 24.
[20] Kiaer, 101.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Dyogot, 122.
[23] Nicoletta Misler, “The Body of the Avant-Garde,” in in Amazons of the avant-garde: Alexandra Exter, Natalia Goncharova, Liubov Popova, Olga Rozanova, Varvara Stepanova, and Nadezhda Udaltsova, ed. John Bowlt, (New York: Abrams, 2000), 123.
[24] Kiaer, 114.
[25] Kiaer, 106.
[26] Bartlett, 36.
[27] Ibid., 108.
[28] Ibid., 24.
[29] Ibid., 22.