László Moholy-Nagy, Composition A XXI, 1925
Ilya Chashnik - Cosmos. Red Circle on Black Plane, 1925
Herbert Bayer, Bauhaus exhibition postcard no. 11 (1923).
Kazimir Malevich, Black circle (1923).
Tours of the USSR, 1932. Intourist travel brochure released by Soviet government.
Sophie Taeuber-Arp, Composition with diagonals and circle, 1916
Ilya Chashnik - Suprematism, 1920
Iakov Chernikhov, Suprematist Composition (1922)
Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge - El Lissitzky
Created as a piece of suprematist, political propaganda, this piece of graphic design depicts the Reds ( communists & revolutionaries) beating the Whites (monarchs, conservatives, liberals, and socialists against the Bolshevik Revolution). A powerful message during the Russian Civil War.
There are creators in politics, and creative movements, that are poised for a moment in history. Hitler, on the contrary, lacked to a singular degree any Nietzschean element. Hitler is not Zarathoustra. Nor is Trujillo. They represented what Nietzsche calls “the monkey of Zarathoustra.” As Nietzsche said, if one wants to be “a master,” it is not enough to come to power. More often than not it is the “slaves” who come to power, and who keep it, and who remain slaves while they keep it.
The masters according to Nietzsche are the untimely, those who create, who destroy in order to create, not to preserve. Nietzsche says that under the huge earth-shattering events are tiny silent events, which he likens to the creation of new worlds: there once again you see the presence of the poetic under the historical. In France, for instance, there are no earth-shattering events right now. They are far away, and horrible, in Vietnam. But we still have tiny imperceptible events, which maybe announce an exodus from today’s desert. Maybe the return to Nietzsche is one of those “tiny events” and already a reinterpretation of the world. — Gilles Deleuze, in an interview with Guy Dumur, from Le Nouvel Observateur, April 5, 1967, pp. 40-41. (via sisyphean-revolt)
Deleuze’s transcendental method is a form of critique quite different from ideology. Ideology has to assume that there are real interests that are concealed: that women, say, really want to be liberated but are duped by ideology. Ideology also has to assume some normative form of the individual who awaits liberation from the imposed illusions of culture. Such an approach has a negative concept of power and the imagination; power is what oppresses or distorts an otherwise ‘real’ world, and imagination is the faculty of delusion.
From a transcendental point of view, though, we cannot assume real interests, nor some pre-social and essential individual that we might discover underneath power and images. The first step of transcendental method for Deleuze is to show how persons and interests are produced from the chaotic flows of desire. Deleuze and Guattari refer to this as ‘micropolitics’. — Claire Colebrook, Gilles Deleuze (p 92)