From a historical distance, it is clear that the constructivists were essentially advocating for the creation of design education. However, at the time, only a few people understood what was meant, and the radical demand to abandon painting was very confusing for both faculty and students. In their memories, many students indicated their interest in the proposals of the constructivists but also dreamed of ‘painting with brushes’ more than anything else.

The confrontation between the constructivists and less radical artists ended with Yefim Ravdel being dismissed from his post as the rector and replaced by the much less antagonistic Vladimir Favorsky.

Favorsky, who was a graphic artist, teacher and art theorist, had studied in Moscow and Munich where he had picked up the ideas of formalism directly from the ‘Roman circle’. For the next three years, a completely different tone was set at the VKhUTEMAS. Now, much attention was paid to the general artistic level of the students, which had undoubtedly fallen during the years in which painting had been rejected.

It should be noted that Favorsky did not radically refuse all proposals of the constructivists, despite the existing sentiments to fully return to the pre-revolutionary academic system. For example, he continued the most significant innovation of the VKhUTEMAS—the core division or, as it was also called, the propaedeutic course, which was compulsory for students of all specialisations during the first two years of their education. It consisted of four disciplines: colour, graphics, volume and space. The first year of the core division was the same for all students, and in the second year, students followed disciplines in the context of their majors. This became a solid base for all departments and had a stabilising influence on the entire diverse structure of the VKhUTEMAS.

Favorsky’s attention to the general artistic level was undoubtedly beneficial, but the industrial departments, which were avidly promoted by the constructivists, were at a disadvantage. However, the formation of industrial art had been one of the most important reasons for the creation of the VKhUTEMAS in 1920. Needless to say, this eventually led to the resignation of the second rector, but almost all researchers of the VKhUTEMAS note that the three years of Favorsky’s reign were the school’s heyday.

In 1926, Favorsky was replaced by a new rector—Pavel Novitsky, a sociologist of art who, like his predecessor Yefim Ravdel, largely favoured left-wing artists and constructivists in particular. When the new rector took up his post, the first thing he did was analyse the state of affairs, and he came to the well-known, disappointing conclusion that the main task of producing artists for industry had not been fulfilled in the six years of the school’s existence.

Novitsky concluded that to compensate for this deficiency, the core division should be cut from two years to one year, which shortened the path to professional training. He also emphasised raising the prestige and importance of the industrial departments; under his leadership, for example, El Lissitzky and Vladimir Tatlin came to teach at the newly combined woodworking and metallic department.

Novitsky’s reign also saw major external changes. In particular, the increasingly industrialised economy demanded that specialists be trained in shorter periods of time. So, in 1927, the VKhUTEMAS was renamed Higher Art and Technical Institute (VKhUTEIN), reflecting an internal reform of the whole concept—accelerated training of highly qualified specialists.

All these desperate attempts to train artists for industry faster, even taking into account the complete abandonment of propaedeutic disciplines, which occurred in the last year of the school, in no way helped to instantly solve the very complex problems. The resolution of those would have taken years. Therefore, at the end of the 1920s, the VKhUTEIN failed to satisfy Stalin’s officials, and in 1930, the school was dissolved. Subsequently, some departments were attached to the corresponding specialised institutes of higher education such as architecture, painting, sculpture, printing and textile schools; other departments disappeared altogether, and the incomplete students were sent to other educational institutions.

Despite facing numerous challenges and internal contradictions, VKhUTEMAS emerged as an extraordinary institution during its decade-long existence. It played a pivotal role in shaping the stylistic and formative artistic trends that resonated throughout the entire twentieth century.

VKhUTEMAS - Moscow Bauhaus