The general aim of my research is to compare two seemingly similar and yet quite different movements of Constructivism in the field of visual arts in Estonia and Slovenia during the second half of the 1920s. By exploring three relevant aspects of both movements, my intention is to identify the main similarities and differences which characterize the processes and problems related to the adaptation and translation of radical artistic ideas and strategies within the context of a small culture. Three relevant aspects are briefly outlined in the following text, providing an overview of what the project is about.
The Group of Estonian Artists (GEA), traditionally classified as cubist-constructivists, was officially registered in December 1923. It stood out from other unions of artists in Estonia due to its radical ideas and a relatively long life span — the last exhibition took place in 1932, but the group existed until 15 November 1940, when all artistic organizations and groups were abolished by the Soviet occupation regime. Compared to the long life span of GEA, the appearance of Constructivism in Slovenia was a brief but definitely more intensive moment of radical artistic activity beginning with the first Constructivist exhibition in 1924 and reaching its peak with the so-called Trieste Constructivist Space in 1927.
The first aspect I am interested in relates to the question how artists in Estonia and Slovenia came across Constructivist ideas and how these mediated meanings found their way into local art scenes. My main focus is on the role of internationally published magazines since, during the 1920s, there was a remarkable increase in the number of published literary and general cultural magazines in Europe which all tried to respond to the actual need for cultural journalism in society. Magazines have had considerable impact on modern society and played a crucial role in shaping the social and cultural forms of the 20th century. While, historically speaking, the magazine as a physical object lacked a unique visual format, it became an ideal medium for artistic exploration. After the end of World War I many young artists and designers came together in groups that ignored national boundaries; for example, artists from many countries participated in the 1922 Constructivist Congress in Düsseldorf. Such international meetings gave rise to small periodicals and reviews, further promoting experimental design ideas. Series of creative revolutions in the field of visual art and design followed and questioned long-held values and approaches to organizing architectural space as well as the role of art and design in society. Internationally published art periodicals undoubtedly transmitted new ideas into local art scenes and, for example, the artists in Tallinn and Ljubljana adopted and also transformed the ideas (re)presented in periodicals such as Der Sturm, Vesch/Gegenstand/Objet, De Stijl, and Bauhaus. If the magazine may be considered as one of the main means of transmitting ideas and principles of new art movements, then direct contact with Constructivism and avant-garde movements is no less important. It is interesting to see how direct contact in the case of Avgust Černigoj shaped the face of Constructivism in Slovenia, whereas the members of GEA did not have any direct contact with the Bauhaus school, and therefore their comprehension of Constructivism depended much more on mediated meanings.
The second aspect is related to the means and media chosen by the artists who were interested in using Constructivist ideas in representations of their works. The magazine as a medium was perceived as a channel or a means to reflect and represent culture and common cultural values. The importance of the periodical magazine in general lies in its transmission of information, knowledge and tastes, keeping in mind its role as a commodity as well as a cultural artefact. The question that interests me is how artists chose and used the means and techniques of media according to their own interests, and, conversely, how the selected media limits and affects the "artistic message" by submitting it to the inner norms and functions of media discourse, and how the editorial preface or a published manifesto determines the modes of representation of works of art in a particular magazine.
Slovenian and Estonian artists saw international visual communication as a priority, and while no such magazines were launched in Estonia, the Slovenian magazine Tank offered a way to enter new forms of communion. One may say that the magazine as a medium offered artists the opportunity to give a voice to their new ideas and to express oppositional and critical views on art and culture in general. In their written works, GEA members Jaan Vahtra and Märt Laarman ‘theorized' and manifested the aims and principles of the group. This was an essentially new aspect of art writing in Estonia, as self-explanation and justification of the chosen trend and manifesto had been previously unknown in the local art life. Constructivists in Slovenia wrote and published manifestos and explained their artistic aims as well; however, in both cases the desired success remained out of reach, even though artists believed that this strategy was the right one.
The third aspect regarding the Constructivist movements in Estonia and Slovenia outlines a complex situation of being in opposition to local culture. Writing about and working with radical transnational ideas at a time when the official cultural policy supported rather conservative and nationalist-minded artistic discourses was considered a potential threat from the very beginning, and while no serious attempts were made to restrain the Constructivists activities in Estonia, the situation was completely different in Slovenia, where the active counteraction against the Constructivists managed to cut through the roots of the movement quite effectively.
The common aspect of both movements is the adoption of a radical ideology aimed at breaking away from traditionalism. At the same time, the main difference between the two phenomena is that the general public did not perceive the activities of the GEA group as a "threat" — either in political or cultural sense — whereas the circumstances in Slovenia were quite the opposite. Estonian art critics made no connections between radical avant-garde tendencies (for example between the GEA and the Russian avant-garde), and GEA members did not make any direct political/ideological claims in their writings or works of art. The general attitude towards the GEA was apolitical, and art criticism did not raise any questions regarding particular political/ideological ideas behind the group's writings or works of art. Instead, the Constructivist movement itself was discussed as a phenomenon in terms of aesthetical innovation, which, in turn, was understood in a broader context of the tendencies in modern art. Thus, in connection with the GEA's exhibitions, the critics discuss the aspects of form and purity in the group's art, and conclude that, despite the lack of recognizable objects and pretty pictures, the work of the GEA group is of great importance in the general development of art. One could say that, despite the artists' wish to do something radically new and to be in total opposition to the local art scene, the general public refused to see the radical nature of the ideas the group was actually working with. In short, although the members of the GEA perceived themselves as being in total opposition, the general public did not share the same perception.
The three aspects outlined above are, of course, all very complex, and no simple answers are to be found at once. At the same time, however, these aspects offer an interesting point of view or a basis for studying the various forms and "faces" of international Constructivism during the 1920s. Hopefully the comparison between the two Constructivist moments in Estonia and Slovenia will open up some new perspectives on the role and importance of these avant-garde movements in the context of a small culture.

Merle Tank (b. 1984), PhD student at the Estonian Academy of Arts, Department of Art History, is currently studying the reception and activities of the cubist-constructivist movement — the Group of Estonian Artists (GEA) — in Estonia. She has conducted research on the development of aesthetic ideas between 1917 and 1928, which began with an article published in 1917 and is considered the starting point of professional art criticism in Estonia; the development ended with the writings of GEA and the acceptance of the Group's activities (Merle TANK: An Insight into Estonian Art Writing 1917—1928. From Hanno Kompus to the Group of Estonian Artists, Studies on Art and Architecture = Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi, 19/1—2, 2010; summary in English: http://ktu.artun.ee/arh/pdf/ktu_2010_19_1_2_177_180_tank_sum.pdf).
Her PhD dissertation discusses avant-garde artists' writings on art, publications and cultural manifestos in the period 1916—1930. The aim of the thesis is to explore the reflections of international avant-garde movements in the context of a small country's culture. During her PhD studies, she carried out independent research at the Art History Department/University of Ljubljana in autumn 2009 (funded by the Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme "DoRa") and spring 2012.

Splošni cilj mojega raziskovanja je primerjava dveh na prvi pogled podobnih konstruktivističnih gibanj na področju vizualnih umetnosti v drugi polovici dvajsetih let dvajsetega stoletja v Estoniji in Sloveniji. Preučila bom tri glavne vidike obeh gibanj in tako opredelila glavne podobnosti in razlike, značilne za procese in probleme, povezane s prilagajanjem ter prevajanjem radikalnih umetniških idej in strategij v okviru majhnega kulturnega prostora. V tekstu so na kratko opisani trije pomembni vidiki in namen projekta.
Skupina estonskih umetnikov, ki jih običajno štejemo med kubiste-konstruktiviste, t. i. The Group of Estonian Artists (GEA) (v izvirniku sicer Eesti Kunstnikkude Rühm), je bila uradno ustanovljena decembra 1923 in je zaradi svojih radikalnih idej ter razmeroma dolge življenjske dobe izstopala glede na druga združenja umetnikov. GEA je zadnjič razstavljala leta 1932, obstajala pa je do 15. novembra 1940, ko je sovjetski režim razpustil vse umetniške organizacije in skupine. V primerjavi z dolgo življenjsko dobo skupine GEA je bil konstruktivizem v Sloveniji kratek, toda nedvomno intenzivnejši moment radikalne umetnostne dejavnosti, ki se je začel s prvo konstruktivistično razstavo leta 1924 in dosegel vrh v t. i. Tržaškem konstruktivističnem ambientu leta 1927.
Prvi vidik, ki me zanima, se navezuje na vprašanje, kako so se umetniki v Estoniji in Sloveniji srečali z idejami konstruktivizma ter kako so se ti posredovani pomeni prebili na lokalne umetniške scene. Pri raziskovanju se osredotočam predvsem na vlogo mednarodnih revij, saj je v dvajsetih letih dvajsetega stoletja v Evropi prišlo do velikega porasta števila literarnih in splošnih kulturnih revij, ki so se poskušale odzvati na dejansko potrebo po kulturnem novinarstvu v družbi. Revije so pomembno vplivale na sodobno družbo, saj so igrale ključno vlogo pri oblikovanju družbenih in kulturnih oblik dvajsetega stoletja. Čeprav z zgodovinskega vidika revija kot fizični objekt še ni imela ustaljene vizualne oblike, je postala idealen medij za umetniško raziskovanje. Po prvi svetovni vojni se je mnogo mladih umetnikov in oblikovalcev združilo v skupine, ki se niso menile za državne meje, na primer konstruktivistični kongres v Düsseldorfu leta 1922, na katerem so sodelovali umetniki iz številnih držav. Takšna mednarodna srečanja so spodbudila nastanek manjših periodičnih publikacij in pregledov, kar je porajalo nadaljnje eksperimentalne oblikovalske ideje. Sledila je vrsta ustvarjalnih prebojev na področju vizualnih umetnosti in oblikovanja, ki so podvomili o dolgoletnih vrednotah in načinih urejanja arhitekturnega prostora ter o družbeni vlogi umetnosti in oblikovanja. Mednarodno uveljavljene revije so na lokalne umetniške scene nedvomno prinašale nove ideje, na primer umetniki v Talinu in Ljubljani so prevzemali in preoblikovali ideje, s katerimi so se srečali v revijah, kot so Der Sturm, Vesch/Gegenstand/Objet, De Stijl in Bauhaus. Če revijo štejemo za eno glavnih sredstev za posredovanje idej in načel nove umetnosti, potem lahko rečemo, da neposreden stik s konstruktivističnimi in avantgardnimi gibanji na splošno ni nič manj pomemben. Zanimivo je videti, kako je v primeru Avgusta Černigoja neposreden stik oblikoval konstruktivizem v Sloveniji, medtem ko člani skupine GEA niso imeli neposrednih stikov s šolo Bauhaus in je bilo zato njihovo dojemanje konstruktivizma veliko bolj odvisno od posredovanih pomenov.
Drugi vidik je povezan s sredstvi in mediji, ki so jih za predstavljanje svojih del izbirali umetniki, ki so se zanimali za konstruktivistične ideje. Revija kot medij je bila v očeh umetnikov kanal oziroma sredstvo za predstavljanje in reflektiranje kulture in skupnih kulturnih vrednot. Pomen periodičnih revij je v prenosu informacij, znanja in okusov, upoštevati pa moramo tudi vlogo revij kot proizvodov in kulturnih artefaktov. Zanima me, kako so umetniki izbirali in uporabljali sredstva in tehnike, povezane z mediji, v skladu s svojimi interesi in kako je izbrani medij omejeval in vplival na »umetniško sporočilo«, ko ga je podredil notranjim normam in funkcijam medijskega diskurza, ter kako je predgovor urednika ali objavljeni manifest določal načine predstavitve umetniških del v neki reviji.
Slovenski in estonski umetniki so mednarodno vizualno komunikacijo videli kot prednostno nalogo. Medtem ko je slovenska revija Tank ponujala možnosti za nastanek novih umetnostnih zvez, se v Estoniji takšne nove revije niso pojavile. Lahko bi rekli, da je revija kot medij ponujala priložnost za izražanje idej in nasprotovanja oziroma kritičnih pogledov na umetnost in kulturo na splošno. Člana skupine GEA Jaan Vahtra in Märt Laarman sta v svojih pisnih delih teoretizirala ter manifestirala cilje in načela skupine. To je bil bistveno nov vidik umetniškega pisanja v Estoniji, saj so bili samopojasnjevanje in utemeljevanje izbranega trenda ter manifest pred tem v lokalni umetnosti nepoznania. Slovenski konstruktivisti so prav tako pisali in izdajali manifeste ter pojasnjevali svoje umetniške cilje; a vendar v obeh primerih cilj ni bil dosežen, kljub temu da so umetniki mislili, da uporabljajo pravo strategijo.
Tretji vidik v zvezi s konstruktivističnim gibanjem v Estoniji in Sloveniji priča o zapletenem položaju umetnikov, ki so bili v razmerju do lokalne kulture v opoziciji. Pisanje in operiranje z radikalnimi nadnacionalnimi idejami v času, ko je uradna kulturna politika podpirala precej konservativne in nacionalistične umetniške diskurze, sta se že od začetka dojemala kot potencialna grožnja. Medtem ko v Estoniji nikoli niso resno poskusili ustaviti konstruktivističnih aktivnosti, so bile v Sloveniji okoliščine povsem drugačne, saj je aktivna reakcija, usmerjena proti konstruktivistom, precej uspešno presekala korenine gibanja.
Skupni vidik obeh gibanj je prevzem radikalne ideologije, da bi se prekinilo s tradicionalizmom. Hkrati se gibanji razlikujeta v tem, da širše občinstvo dejavnosti skupine GEA ni dojemalo kot »grožnjo« — niti v političnem niti v kulturnem smislu —, medtem ko so bile v Sloveniji okoliščine povsem drugačne. Estonski umetnostni kritiki niso vzpostavili povezave med različnimi radikalnimi avantgardnimi težnjami (na primer med skupino GEA in rusko avantgardo) in tudi sami člani skupine GEA v svojih literarnih in umetniških delih niso izražali neposrednih političnih/ideoloških trditev. Odnos do skupine GEA je bil nepolitičen, umetnostni kritiki se niso spraševali o posebnih političnih/ideoloških idejah v pisnih in umetniških delih skupine. Namesto tega so konstruktivistično gibanje kot pojav obravnavali v smislu estetskih novosti, ki so bile razumljene kot del širšega konteksta teženj moderne umetnosti. Tako so kritiki v zvezi z razstavami skupine GEA razpravljali o obliki in čistosti njene umetnosti ter sklenili, da so dela te skupine v kontekstu splošnega razvoja umetnosti pomembna, čeprav niso vključevala podob prepoznavnih predmetov ali všečnih slik. Lahko bi rekli, da širše občinstvo — kljub prizadevanjem umetnikov, da bi ustvarili nekaj radikalno novega in se postavili v opozicijo proti lokalni umetnostni sceni — ni prepoznalo radikalne narave idej skupine. Torej, medtem ko so člani skupine GEA sebe dojemali kot radikalno nasprotje, pa jih širše občinstvo ni videlo na ta način.
Seveda so vsi trije opisani vidiki zelo kompleksni in preprostih odgovorov ni mogoče takoj najti. Vseeno ti vidiki ponujajo zanimivo stališče oziroma osnovo za razumevanje različnih oblik in obrazov, ki jih je konstruktivistično gibanje pokazalo v dvajsetih letih. Upam, da bo primerjava slovenskega in estonskega konstruktivističnega gibanja odprla nove perspektive za preučevanje vloge in pomena avantgardnih gibanj v kontekstu male kulture.

Merle Tank (roj. 1984), študentka doktorskega študija na estonski Akademiji umetnosti, Oddelek za umetnostno zgodovino, preučuje sprejemanje in aktivnosti kubistično-konstruktivističnega gibanja oziroma skupine The Group of Estonian Artists (GEA) v Estoniji. V preteklih letih je raziskovala razvoj estetskih idej v Estoniji med letoma 1917 in 1928 — ta se je začel s člankom, ki je bil objavljen leta 1917 in ga štejemo za začetek strokovne umetnostne kritike v Estoniji, končal pa se je z literarnimi deli skupine GEA in s sprejetjem njenih dejavnosti (Merle TANK: An Insight into Estonian Art Writing 1917-1928. From Hanno Kompus to the Group of Estonian Artists, Studies on Art and Architecture = Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi, 19/1-2, 2010; povzetek v angleščini: http://ktu.artun.ee/arh/pdf/ktu_2010_19_1_2_177_180_tank_sum.pdf).

V svoji doktorski disertaciji Merle Tank obravnava pisna dela umetnikov o umetnosti, publikacije in kulturne manifeste avantgarde v obdobju med letoma 1916 in 1930. Cilj disertacije je preučiti, kako so se mednarodna avantgardna gibanja odražala v kontekstu kulture majhne države. V okviru doktorskega študija je jeseni leta 2009 (financirano s strani: Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme "DoRa") spomladi leta 2012 opravljala samostojno raziskovalno delo na Oddelku za umetnostno zgodovino Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani.