Дипломная работа на тему "ТЮМГУ | The dynamic mobilization of тне visitor ат тне soviet pavilion aт''pressa"(Cologne, 1928) / динамическая мобилизация посетителя в советском павильоне на выставке печати «пресса» (Кёльн, 1928)"

Работа на тему: The dynamic mobilization of тне visitor ат тне soviet pavilion aт''pressa"(Cologne, 1928) / динамическая мобилизация посетителя в советском павильоне на выставке печати «пресса» (Кёльн, 1928)
Оценка: отлично.
Оригинальность работы на момент публикации 50+% на антиплагиат.ру.
Ниже прилагаю все данные для покупки.
https://studentu24.ru/list/suppliers/Anastasiya1---1326

Описание работы

МИНИСТЕРСТВО НАУКИ И ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования
«ТЮМЕНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ» ШКОЛА ПЕРСПЕКТИВНЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ (SAS)
РЕКОМЕНДОВАНО К ЗАЩИТЕ В ГЭК

ВЫПУСКНАЯ КВАЛИФИКАЦИОННАЯ РАБОТА
бакалаврская работа
ТНЕ DYNAMIC MOBILIZATION OF ТНЕ VISITOR АТ ТНЕ SOVIET PAVILION AТ''PRESSA"(COLOGNE, 1928) / ДИНАМИЧЕСКАЯ МОБИЛИЗАЦИЯ ПОСЕТИТЕЛЯ В СОВЕТСКОМ ПАВИЛЬОНЕ НА ВЫСТАВКЕ ПЕЧАТИ «ПРЕССА» (КЁЛЬН, 1928)

50.03.01 Искусства и гуманитарные науки Профиль ««Культурные исследования»

Тюмень 2023

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Federal Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education
«UNIVERSITY OF TYUMEN» SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES
RECOMMENDED FOR А DEFENSE IN SEC

UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
ТНЕ DYNAMIC MOBILIZATION OF ТНЕ VISITOR АТ ТНЕ SOVIET PAVILION AТ'PRESSл'(COLOGNE, 1928) / ДИНАМИЧЕСКАЯ МОБИЛИЗАЦИЯ ПОСЕТИТЕЛЯ В СОВЕТСКОМ ПАВИЛЬОНЕ НА ВЫСТАВКЕ ПЕЧАТИ «ПРЕССА» (КЁЛЬН, 1928)

50.03.01. Art and Humanities Major «Cultural Studies»

Тюмень 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
INTRODUCTION 5
CHAPTER 1. THE SOVIET PAVILION AT PRESSA 10
CHAPTER 2. EXHIBITION IN CONSTRUCTION 14
CHAPTER 3. THE DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE PAVILION 16
CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC EXHIBIT TYPES 25
CONCLUSION 38
BIBLIOGRAPHY 41
APPENDICES 1-28 45

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Comintern The Communist International (Kommunisticheskii internatsional)
Gosizdat State Publishing House of the RSFSR (Gosudarstvennoe izdatel?stvo RSFSR)
Narkompros People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment of the USSR (Narodnyi komissariat prosveshcheniia SSSR)
Narkomtorg People’s Commisssariat of Trade of the USSR (Narodnyi komissariat vnuntrennei i vneshnei torgovli SSSR)
Sovnarkom The Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR (Sovet narodnykh komissarov SSSR)
Vkhutemas Higher Art and Technical Studios (Vysshiye khudozhestvenno-tekhnicheskiye masterskiye)
VOKS All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (Vsesoiuznoe obshchestvo kul’turnoi sviazi s zagranitsei)

INTRODUCTION
In 1928, the Soviet Pavilion at Pressa, an international exhibition of the press in Cologne, Germany, caused a sensation due to its innovative approach to design and propaganda. The pavilion was filled with dynamic installations, moving exhibits, electric lightbulbs, transparent fabrics, and modern materials that strongly impressed the audience (Figure 1). The pavilion’s unique approach to showing the press in the Soviet Union was observed by many visitors and was interpreted as a major accomplishment of Soviet propaganda. Numerous reviewers and journalists in the international press expressed their shock and terror in response to the content and design of the exhibition space, and the pavilion’s cutting-edge technologies and materials were frequently mentioned as outstanding features that contributed to its overall impression. After the conclusion of the six-month exhibition, the pavilion’s state commissioner Artemii Khalatov (1894-1938), the director of the State Publishing House, reported to the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom), the top executive body of the early Soviet government about the Pressa exhibition:
“Pressa showed with full power that the USSR lives in the present and the future, but that the capitalist world lives in its historical past. Hence, the museum character of the bourgeois pavilions, the satiated exhibits of antiquity. The living press, the press as the organizer of the masses, the press reflecting the creation of the masses, such was the pavilion of the USSR, and this is what determined its specific gravity and its exceptional success” [GARF, f. 5283(VOKS), op. 6, d. 34, l. 29].1
Khalatov characterizes the Soviet Union as a future-oriented country, undergoing radical transformation during the construction of socialism, and the Soviet pavilion as a “cast of modernity,” meaning that the pavilion is seen as a reflection of the modern ideas and values that the Soviet Union was trying to promote, and it captures the essence of what was considered progressive and
1 Artemii Khalatov, report to Sovnarkom, January 4, 1929.
innovative in that society. The Soviet pavilion at Pressa represented the energy of a new epoch, and the Soviet exhibits “could be recycled to become commonplace items in the routines of daily proletarian life” [Mudrak, p. 86].
The spectrum of responses to the Soviet pavilion at Pressa emphasized its dynamic forms, the spatial dynamism, and extensive use of movement. The creation of a dynamic and mobile environment, including mechanically moving exhibits, challenged the traditional way of organizing exhibition space with its orientation toward the artifacts of the past. The Soviet pavilion employed a new type of visual environment that made an indelible impression on the viewers. An important milestone in the history of exhibition design, the Soviet pavilion at the Pressa exhibition has been analyzed from the perspective of art history, cultural history, design history, and photography.
Two general approaches may be identified in the scholarship on the Soviet pavilion. The first can be characterized as a macro approach, which examines the whole pavilion to investigate patterns. Igor Riazantsev and Mary Anne Staniszewski have considered the features of the self-enclosed interactive environment that affected viewers emotionally and encouraged them to participate. Riazantsev claims that incomprehensibility and dynamism were the main factors that caught the viewers’ attention and sparked their interest in the theme of the exhibit [Riazantsev, p. 41]. According to Staniszewski, the Soviet pavilion at Pressa was a visually communicated public spectacle that gave rise to a new discipline within the field of exhibition design [Staniszewski, p. 50]. She claims that the spectator had a stage-like experience that engaged them in creating the meaning of the Pressa installation [Staniszewski, p. 48]. Benjamin Buchloh similarly observes the visitor’s emotional engagement with the environment. He claims that the pavilion’s content created conditions for simultaneous collective perception [Buchloh, p. 82-119]. Therefore, there is solid ground to claim that the Soviet pavilion stimulated the viewer’s perception by situating her in a self-enclosed environment where she became
radically involved in the transformation of the Soviet Union. The second approach tends to describe or analyze the Soviet pavilion’s techniques at the micro level of individual displays. Jorge Ribalta considers the Soviet pavilion as a photographic space based on a dynamic conception of vision. In particular, he examines the visual effect created by the photofrieze (Figure 2). According to him, this monumental photomontage was a key element of the exhibition because it referred to both mural painting and documentary film [Ribalta, p. 17]. Buchloh also notes the significance of the photofrieze as an iconic representation of the mass audience [Buchloh, p. 95]. As mentioned previously, this representation sparks collective perception and affects the spectator emotionally.
Another key issue in the scholarship concerns the pavilion’s relationship to Soviet ideology. One group of researchers considers the pavilion as deliberate and bold state propaganda, while the other claims that the notion of propaganda was not so deliberate and unambiguous. Buchloh writes that Lissitzky aimed to find a visual form that would unite the needs of the masses and the spirit of the historical epoch [Buchloh, p. 100]. Therefore, the Soviet pavilion is another example of Soviet state propaganda. However, for Yve-Alain Bois, Lissitzky’s propaganda intentions are not so definite. He positions Lissitzky as an artist who did not deal directly with a specific political context but subverted its codes to the receptacle of a certain ideological tool [Bois, p. 169]. In other words, the state propaganda appeared in the Soviet pavilion not as a necessity but as a side effect. However, Bois’s claim is unsustainable in relation to the Soviet pavilion because it simplifies the complexity of the pavilion and its organization due to the Lissitzky-centered approach.
The scholarly literature also addresses the issue of the Soviet pavilion’s introduction of exhibition techniques that were subsequently taken up by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Buchloh stresses the international influence of Soviet design and its development as a tool of totalitarian propaganda [Buchloh, p. 109]. Ulrich Pohlmann describes what innovations were taken from the Soviet pavilion and appropriated by Italy and Germany. He claims that one factor of its propagandistic success with the Western audience was the argumentative power of photographic images [Pohlmann, p. 54]. The cultural historian Marla Stone has examined the appropriation of Soviet techniques in Fascist Italy. While Pohlmann focuses on techniques that were borrowed, Stone concentrates on the ideas that were spread in Italy via these techniques. The artist Mario Sironi was greatly influenced by Lissitzky’s pavilion at Pressa, which subsequently had a notable impact on the design of the Exhibition of the Fascist Revolution a few years later [Stone, p. 223-224]. All the techniques were used to emulate the effect on the viewer similar to the Soviet pavilion’s one. The visitor became a heroic participant in the Fascist revolution and experienced a cult-like transformation. The method was used to celebrate the fascist regime and create a unified image of the Italian national identity [Stone, p. 228].
The reviewed literature incorporates the Soviet pavilion at the Pressa exhibition into larger cultural processes, such as cultural internationalization, the rise of mass politics, and the impact of new technologies on exhibition design. The shared cultural premises lead to commonalities in the interpretation of the Soviet pavilion, but it is still difficult to construct a comprehensive understanding of the experience of the Soviet pavilion. Partially, the reason is that there has not been sufficient truly international scholarship on what was an international exhibition. Non-Russian scholarship is based on sources available in German and English, which is largely limited to sources connected closely to Lissitzky. Another issue is the very fixation on Lissitzky and the Soviet avant-garde, which leads to odd claims about the ideological nature of the pavilion. In my study, I work with a much broader range of sources — Soviet archival documents and collections of international press clippings.
This thesis contributes to the discussion of the Soviet pavilion at Pressa a closer analysis of the role of dynamism as a propaganda method for the mass mobilization of visitors to the Soviet pavilion. It examines specific dynamic features of the pavilion, the techniques that operated in the exhibition’s self-enclosed
environment, and considers how movement was conceptualized. The exhibition techniques stimulated viewers to take part in an immersive propaganda spectacle. The pavilion was staged and had a narrative structure that set interaction algorithms for the viewers, ascribing to them a specific role. My analysis of the dynamic environment of the pavilion employs reviews in the German press, Soviet archival documents from the planning of the pavilion, and photographs of the pavilion interior.
I begin by examining the context of the Soviet pavilion and the interconnection of the Soviet press and dynamism and then discuss the preparations for the exhibition. The core of the thesis provides the imagined path of a visitor moving through the pavilion, beginning in the dynamic environment of the main floor and then moving up to film screening room on the second floor. Let’s start our tour.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The Ne boltai! Collection, Prague. Photographs collection.
2. Evgenov, Semen Vladimirovich // RGALI F. 3114.
3. Gus, Mikhail Semenovich // RGALI F. 2808, d. 1, ed. khr. 257, l. 15.
4. Khardzhiev, Nikolai Ivanovich // RGALI F. 3145, op. 1, ed.khr. 570, l. 1.
5. Lisitskii, El’ // RGALI F. 2361, d. 1, ed.khr. 12.
6. Telegrafnoe agentstvo Sovetskogo Soiuza // GARF. F. 4459, Op. 38c, d. 21, l. 20-28.
7. Vsesoiuznoe obshchestvo kul’turnoi sviazi s zagranitsei // GARF F. 4459, Op. 6. d. 34, 1. 5-30.
8. Vsesoiznyi tsentral’nyi sovet professonal’nykh soiuzov // GARF F. 5451, op.12, d. 661, l. 16.
9. Boltianskii, Grigorii. Lenin i kino. Moscow: Gosizdat, 1925. P. 176
10. Balakhovskaia, Faina. Politicheskii dizaini: Vystavochnye proekty Lisitskogo. In El Lisitskii = El Lissitzky, edited by Tat’iana Goriacheva, 84–94. Moscow: Tretiakovskaia galleria; Evreiskii muzei i tsentr tolerantnosti, 2017. P. 544.
11. Baroque Art and Architecture Movement Overview // The Art Story.
12. Bois, Yve-Alain. El Lissitzky: Radical Reversibility // Art in America. 1988. v. 76, no. 4. P. 160–181.
13. Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. From Faktura to Factography // October: The MIT Press: journal. 1984. Vol. 30. Р. 82-119.
14. Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Frieze | Architecture // Encyclopedia Britannica.
15. Eisenstein, Sergei. Selected Works: Writings, 1922-34. Vol. 1 / Ed. by R. Taylor. London: BFI Publishing; Indiana University Press; Bloomington and Indianapolis. 1988. 334 p.
16. Kuiper, Kathleen. Salomonica | Architecture // Encyclopedia Britannica.
17. Lissitsky, El. The Future of the Book // New Left Review. 1926. v. 41, no. 1. P. 39-44.
18. Lissitzky, El. Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution. Translated by Eric Dluhosch. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1989. P. 246.
19. Lissitzky-Kuppers, Sophie. El Lissitzky: Life, Letters, Texts. Translated by Helene Aldwinckle and Mary Whitall. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968. P. 340.
20. Maybee, Julie E. Hegel’s Dialectics // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
21. Milner, John. Vladimir Tatlin and the Russian Avant-Garde. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1983. P. 220.
22. Mudrak, Myroslava. “Environments of Propaganda: Russian and Soviet Expositions and Pavilions in the West.” In The Avant-Garde Frontier: Russia Meets the West, 1910-1930, edited by Gail Harrison Roman and Virginia Hagelstein Marquardt, 65-101 p. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1992. P. 348.
23. Pohlmann, Ulrich. “El Lisstzky’s Exhibition Designs: The Influence of His Work in Germany, Italy, and the United States.” In El Lissitzky: Beyond the Abstract Cabinet: Photography, Design, Collaboration, edited by Margarita Tupitsyn, 52–64 p. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
24. Riazantsev, Igor. Iskusstvo sovetskogo vystavochnogo ansamblia, 1917-1970. Moscow: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1976. P. 322.
25. Ribalta, Jorge, ed. Public Photographic Spaces: Exhibitions of Propaganda, from Pressa to the Family of Man, 1928-55. Barcelona: Museu d’art contemporani de Barcelona, 2008. P. 317.
26. Staniszewski, Mary Anne. The Power of Display. New Haven; London: MIT Press, 1998. P. 150.
27. Stone, Marla. Staging Fascism: The Exhibition of the Fascist Revolution // Journal of Contemporary History. 1993. Vol. 28, no. 2. P. 215–43.
28. Strigalev, Anatolii. “From Painting to the Construction of Matter.” In Tatlin, edited by Larissa Zhadova, translated by Maria Julian, 13–44. London: Thames and Hudson, 1988. P. 214.
29. Union der Sozialistischen Sowjet-Republiken: Katalog des Sowjet-Pavillons auf der Internationalen Presse-Ausstellung Koln 1928. Cologne: Komitee des Sowjet-Pavillions, 1928.
30. Wolf, Erika. USSR in Construction: From Avant-Garde to Socialist Realist Practice. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 1999. 74 p.