Anastasia Gacheva

Art as theOvercoming ofDeath: FromNikolai Fedorovto the Cosmistsof the 1920s

Russian cosmism – a trend in Russianphilosophical thought of the second half of thenineteenth through the first half of the twentiethcentury – is one of the original variations ofinternational cosmism. Its founder is NikolaiFedorov, the author of The Philosophy of theCommon Task. We can distinguish two of its mainbranches: a natural-scientific (Sergei Podolinsky,Nikolai Umov, Vladimir Vernadsky, AlexanderChizhevsky, N. G. Holodnyi, V. F. Kuprevich) and areligious-philosophical one. The latter includesnot only Fedorov’s followers of the 1920s throughthe 1930s (Alexander Gorsky, Nikolai Setnitsky,and Valerian Muravyov), but also such majorfigures of Russian religious philosophy asVladimir Solovyov, Sergei Bulgakov, NikolaiBerdyaev, and Pavel Florensky. KonstantinTsiolkovsky’s cosmist philosophy and the“Vsemir” (Allworld) teachings of AlexanderSukhovo-Kobylin occupy a special place in thecosmist “family of ideas.”đđđđđđđđđđRussian cosmism regards the interrelationsbetween humankind and cosmos, microcosm,and macrocosm in a projective, active-creativesense. Humankind, according to this school ofthought, is not just a spectator of the world, ofearth’s vast expanse, of the majestic panoramaof the starry sky, but also an active participant inthe process of the world’s creation. A human is acreature on whom the fates of history and thefinal destinies of the universe alike depend. AsFedorov puts it, “Born by the tiny earth, aspectator of the boundless space, a spectator ofthe different worlds which are part of this space,must become their resident and master.”1đđđđđđđđđđThe cosmist aesthetic is closely bound withthe theme of immortality. By pronouncing that“life is good, and death is evil,”2 that “immortallife is the true good, while death is the true evil,”3Fedorov not only unites the category of good withthe category of life, as well as ethics withontology; he also interprets life as striving toascend towards immortality, as participating inwhat Vladimir Solovyov, in one of his laterarticles, would call “a cosmic growth.” Fedorovinvites us to “imagine the great joy of those whoare resurrecting and those who are resurrected,a joy in which goodness, truth, and beauty arepresent in their full unity and perfection.”4 In thisway Fedorov completes the trinomial ofAlexander Baumgarten, the famous father ofaesthetics. Baumgarten’s “truth” – “goodness” –“beauty” in Fedorov are complemented with afourth category of “perfection.” Тhe same imageof elevating being to a perfect state is found inPavel Florensky:

The image of Sophia is Mother, Bride, andWife of the image of Christ-Man. She is hisequal, she awaits his care, caress and

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

01

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

Universal booth for transportation (1928) by Georgi Tichonowitsch Krutikow.đSchusev State Museum of Architecture, Moscow.đImage from the book„Architektur für die russische Raumfahrt,” (DOM Publishers, 2013). Copyright:đPhilipp Meuser

02/1

2

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

impregnation by spirit. Man-Husband oughtto love the World-Wife, to be united withher, to cultivate her and to tend to her, torule her and to direct her towardenlightenment and spirituality, to guide herelemental might and chaotic drives towardscreativity, so that her creaturely nature maygive birth to the primordial cosmos.5

Man’s relation to the world here appears as anaesthetic relation. This is not a passive“contemplation” of the beauty of being, but acosmicization of the world: a creative act thatconsists of overcoming the dark, chaoticelements of nature – that shapeless monstrosity– which is a trait of its “fallen” state and whichmanifests itself in death, decomposition,devouring, displacement.đđđđđđđđđđNikolai Fedorov and Sergei Bulgakov heldthat the task of human creativity is to assist in“restoring the world to the splendor ofincorruptibility it had before the Fall.”6 VladimirSolovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Nikolai Setnitsky, andValerian Muravyov were developing the idea of“continuous creation.” This idea became areligious-philosophical counterpart to the notionof active, directed evolution that was developedby cosmism of the natural-scientific bent. Theact of divine creation here exceeds the firstseven days and extends to the entire process ofthe world’s development, from the initial Edenicstate in which the world is imbued with thepotentiality for a benevolent maturation andstrives for an absolute (its ideal program, so tospeak), to the transfiguration of the entireuniverse into a Divine Kingdom. History isunderstood as the “eighth day of creation,” inwhich the active role is given to humanknind.đđđđđđđđđđBeauty in the philosophy of cosmism is notan aesthetic category, but an ontological one.Beauty is a measure of creation’s perfection, itsspirituality, goodness, and fullness. It is one ofthe crucial characteristics of the divine plan ofbeing. Fedorov, Solovyov, Bulgakov, andFlorensky all agreed on that. Solovyov definesbeauty as a complete union between idea andform, between spirit and flesh. Beauty forSolovyov is “spiritual flesh” that restores andgives new life to the classical ideal ofkalokagathia. He paints the development of theworld as a “gradual and persistent” process ofthe embodiment of the divine spark in chaoticand formless matter: first in the nonorganicsphere (water, rocks, minerals), then in plantsand animals (a process that is accompanied byunavoidable sufferings and the dead ends of“unfinished sketches of unsuccessfulcreations”), and, finally, in humankind, whobecomes an absolute form for being and spirit.7The world’s ascent toward perfection from now

on should move along the line from humanity todivine-humanity and from matter to divine-matter, from the “cruel life” of postlapsariannature, with its “double impenetrability” ofthings and phenomena (they cannotsimultaneously occupy the same point in spaceand supersede each other in time), toward thestate of the “absolute unity” and “universalsyzygy.”đđđđđđđđđđThe theory about the ontology of beauty,about its being “as much of an absolutefoundation of the world as Logos,”8 wascomprehensively developed in the sophiology ofSergei Bulgakov. In Philosophy of Economy: TheWorld as Household (1912) he defines Sophia(Divine Wisdom) as a composite ideal image ofthe world and humankind – an image that iseternally contained in God, in beauty, in glory,and in imperishability. Divine wisdom “soars”over the world, illuminating it with divine lightand connecting it with a living thread to God.9 Itdoesn’t abandon the created world even after theoriginal sin and continues to guide humankindand nature towards the restoration of lost unity.Bulgakov holds that art is most receptive to the“sophiological foundation of the world.” Bycreating in beauty, by aiming to realizemagnificent images, the artist becomes aconduit for the light of divine wisdom andilluminates matter through it, “revealing creationin the light of transfiguration.”10đđđđđđđđđđCosmists of the natural-scientificorientation also tend to regard beauty as a kindof entelechy of the world, as an ideal thatimparts a necessary initial impulse to thecosmogonic process and then continues tosustain it, keeping it on the necessary course.Nikolai Umov, a physicist and a philosopher,defined beauty as a visible manifestation of afundamental property of the living matter that hecalled harmony (stroinost’). According to Umov, ahuman being is the highest embodiment of suchharmony. Acutely sensitive to every instance ofdisharmony, striving to increase harmony in allspheres of life, humankind imparts the name“beauty” to all instances of harmony. A sense ofbeauty is a regulator of human behavior in theworld; it guides people towards the realization oftheir evolutionary purpose: to conquer chaos,death, and entropy, to be cosmisators of aboundless universe, to become true “apostles oflight.”11đđđđđđđđđđFedorov, who gave a comprehensivedescription of cosmist aesthetics in ThePhilosophy of the Common Task, strove tounderstand the ultimate problems and aims ofart by turning to its origins, to primordialantiquity, to the dawn of humankind. He wasconvinced: the principle impetus to what we callart was given by the awareness of mortality, by

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

03

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

Theophanes the Greek’sđfresco in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Savior on Ilyina street in Novgorod, 1378.

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

the feeling of loss and longing for the deceased.Art, according to Fedorov, is born by the grave;the creative impulse begins with grief. Throughphysical necessity, humans who bury their deadgive them new life in the shape of monuments,and aim to recreate them through painting orsculpture – to restore them to existence, if onlythrough representation. Fedorov emphasizesthat art, in its origins, is an attempt at “artificialresurrection”: by following a genuine heartfeltemotion, it restores what through “a physicalnecessity” was buried in the ground.đđđđđđđđđđThe protest against mortality, the hunger forimmortality and resurrection, bestowed an initialimpulse to human creativity. Fedorov remarksthat it was out of a feeling of loss, out of protestagainst death that the first artistic monumentsappeared. They were intended to recreate theimage of the deceased through painting orsculpture, to restore his or her likeness at leastas a representation.đđđđđđđđđđAmong the diverse, always aphoristic andfigurative definitions that Fedorov gives to art,there is the following: art as “a countermeasureagainst the Fall.” Fedorov illustrates thisdefinition with the example of architecture. Itscreations are extended vertically, visiblydemonstrating defiance of the law of gravity. Thislaw embodies for Fedorov the force of nature’snecessity, which leads all organic and inorganicbodies towards decay, sin, and death.Architecture gathers and artistically organizesnatural matter and creates out of it a new,perfect, and harmonious world. Architecturalspace is ruled by different laws – the lawsdeveloped and applied by humankind itself.đđđđđđđđđđIn this way, the aesthetics of cosmismemphasize a projective, transformative propertyof art. Art realizes in a small-scale, preliminary,and “experimental” manner the principle ofregulation that, Fedorov was convinced, shouldbecome the foundation for human activity in theworld. This principle is radically opposed to theconsumerist attitude toward the world, to theexploitation of earth’s resources, which distortsnature rather than bringing harmony into it.Present-day art for Fedorov should be anexperimental antecedent to the future universalcreativity that will truly transform life. We find asimilar thought in Vladimir Solovyov. He stressesthe prefigurative quality of artistic reality: it hasthe power to reveal the image of the future world,a world in which the “dark force” currently ruling“material reality” would be overcome. Art iscalled to become a “prophecy” about the futureHeavenly Kingdom, a “transitional link betweenthe beauty of nature and the beauty of the futurelife.”12đđđđđđđđđđThe transformative, regulatory property ofart is most distinct in “sacred” religious art. Here

it adopts the necessary power and directionalforce and is wholly oriented toward the highergoal. Fedorov writes a lot about the symbolism ofthe temple. It embodies a religious and artisticmodel for the transfiguration of the universe; it is“a project of the world as it must be, that is, aproject of the new earth and the new sky, filledwith a force that is neither destructive normortifying, but all-constructive and life-building.”13 Fedorov regards the liturgy that takesplace within its walls – the holy communion ofbelievers, united in a collective prayer for thedead – as a model for the future liturgy that willtake place outside of church, for the universalcollective task of transfigured humanity that willrestore life to those “from whom it receivedlife.”14đđđđđđđđđđUsing the example of art to demonstrate theprinciple of regulation – the mature, trulycreative attitude toward and ability to act in theworld – Fedorov points out art’s doubleorientation. It is directed not only outside,toward surrounding life, but also inward, towardthe nature of humankind itself.đđđđđđđđđđHumans, for Fedorov, are not only creativebut also self-creating creatures. And “the firstact” of his self-invention is to adopt a verticalposition.15 Thus, long before the erection ofmonuments, temples, and architecturalconstructions, humankind marked its arrival intothe world by a radical opposition to the force ofgravity – a force that aims to drive every creatureinto prostration, that does not allow anyone torise above prescribed limitations – and declareditself above any animal fate. Religious, devoutstriving toward the sky, toward the universe andGod, became humankind’s first artistic impulseand act. This artistic act was not aimed atcreating a second reality; it was not an attemptat symbolic resurrection. Instead, it was an act ofself- and life-creation: “In assuming a verticalposition, as with every act of self-overcoming, aman or the son of man becomes an artist and anartwork – he becomes a temple … This is theaesthetic interpretation of life and creation.Moreover, not only is it aesthetic, it is alsosacred. Our life is an act of aesthetic creativity.”16đđđđđđđđđđThe religious act of rebellion, of theovercoming of the self, opens a long history ofhuman artistic self-creation. Its apogee,according to Fedorov, should be a complete, notonly moral, but also physical transformation of aperson, the acquisition of a new and immortalnature (“a spiritual body,” to use St. Paul’sdefinition). This for Fedorov is the mostimportant part of Christian activity in the world;it fully reveals the divine plan for humankind tobecome a creator, a being who is good,conscious, and free. (Fedorov repeatedlyemphasizes that “only a self-created creature

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

05

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

Ivan Kramskoy,đSomnambulant(Сомнамбула), 1871. Oil oncanvas. Photo: WikimediaCommons

may be free.”)17 This is the highest form of art;this is the art of a divine transfigured humanity,or, as Fedorov writes, of a “theoanthropourgical”humanity. This art “consists in God creating manthrough man himself.”18đđđđđđđđđđHumans, therefore, are not only thesubjects of artistic creativity, but also objects towhich artistic energies are applied. Already inthe 1920s this thesis would receive specialattention from Vasily Chekrygin, a Russian avant-garde artist who was close in spirit to theRussian cosmists. Chekrygin is the author of“Resurrection: A Migration of People into Space,”a series of graphic works, sketches for the futurefrescoes of the Cathedral-Museum of theCommon Task. Chekrygin, like Fedorov, placeshumankind at the center of the new synthetic art– universal in its intended scope and scale – thepurpose of which would be to “build Paradise.”19A human being for Chekrygin is both a subjectand an object of art. In Chekrygin’s terms, he is acreation and, simultaneously, a creator. He is anembodiment of the “highest synthesis of theliving arts,” “a living painting, sculpture,architecture, and music.”20 He is a living, albeitso far incomplete and imperfect, artisticcreation, who is destined to overcome himselfand to become a regulator and a creator of his

own still mortal nature. In the end, humankind isbound to become a builder and helmsman of theentirety of creation.đđđđđđđđđđAchieving “complete symphonicity,”immortality, restoration from death – all theseare the composite parts of the “art of reality.”According to Fedorov, the art of reality shouldreplace the then-current “art ofrepresentations,” which Fedorov reduced tosomething capable only of creating a “second,”artistic “reality.” Such art of representations canovercome entropy and death only on the scale ofan “immortal masterpiece.” It freezes time not inthe real duration of being and history, but in thespace of a painting. It resurrects the likeness ofthe deceased not in the living flesh, but only inlanguage, sculpture, or on a canvas. To remain onthe level of the creativity of “deadrepresentations” would mean to castrate art, tohobble it, to profane its true task, to turn it intoan aesthetic folly, into a mere pastime that doesnot commit anyone to anything. However, if wedeeply ponder a myth that contains all ofhumanity’s innermost desires – for instance, themyth of Pygmalion and Galatea, so beloved bythe artists of the modernist epoch – then it willbecome clear that the creation of this secondreality, no matter how perfect it may be, no

06/1

2

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

A Russian textbook for elementary school children titledđThe Miracle of Lifeđ(1992).

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

matter how much aesthetic admiration it mightelicit, is not the genuine goal of art. Its goal is lifeitself – a perfect life, built according to the lawsof beauty and harmony, a transfigured andincorruptible life not wounded by the sting ofdeath.đđđđđđđđđđSome time later, while analyzing theessence of a creative act and the meaning ofinspiration, Alexander Gorsky, a philosopher-cosmist, would emphasize that a creator of anartistic image is striving to project and to fix inreality a vision and intuition of a “new perfectnature,” which is “better and fuller than the onewe are chained to,” which doesn’t satisfy us.21And we mustn’t stop with anticipations andintuitions alone. We must be reborn, we mustshroud ourselves with this new image andrebuild our mortal body in accordance with it.đđđđđđđđđđThus, the theme of art as life-creationenters the aesthetics of cosmism. Its sphere isno longer the world of imagination and fantasy,but the entire universe, all “celestial and nowsoulless starry worlds, which regard us coldlyand almost sorrowfully.”22 Cosmists believe thatart should “embody the absolute ideal not inimagination alone, but in reality. It mustspiritualize and transform our real life.”23đđđđđđđđđđIn his Supramoralism, Fedorov gives thefollowing picture of the cosmic art of the future:the “sons of man” having, at last, reached “theage of Christ,” having mastered the laws of thestructure and function of matter, having learnedto overcome the forces of decay, will transformthese worlds, will unite them “into an artisticwhole, into an artwork, the collective compositeauthor of which will be, in the likeness of theHoly Trinity, the entirety of humankind as thecomposite of all resurrected and recreatedgenerations.”24 Art would then truly resurrect andrestore the image of the deceased – not on wood,stone, or canvas, but already in reality, in theindestructibility of the union of spirit, soul, andthe physical body. The human body itself – nowimperfect, not self-sufficient, and mortal inprinciple – will be the new object of art.đđđđđđđđđđThe main thesis of Russian cosmism is thefollowing: the laws of artistic creativity, whichproduce the world of perfect, beautiful forms,should become the laws of reality itself; theymust actively create life. Fedorov writes that“aesthetics is a science about the restoration ofall sentient beings who used to populate the tinyearth (this drop that has reflected itself in theentire universe and that has reflected the wholeof the universe in itself), so that they canspiritualize (and govern) all enormous celestialworlds, which are now devoid of rationalbeings.”25đđđđđđđđđđHowever, this enormous task cannot beaccomplished by means of a present-day art that

is nothing but a plaything. Achieving this taskwould require overcoming the limitations of art,creating art with a new kind of integrity andcapacity for harmonious and synthetic activity.Such an art would be simultaneously world-building and expressive; it would influencereality at the very same time as it dresses it up inwonderful forms.đđđđđđđđđđThe most important stage on art’s pathtowards achieving a new mature state is its closecollaboration with scientific thought. Science,unlike art with its whimsical fantasy, does notproduce ideal images. Instead science studiesthe properties of the real world, deeply examinesreality, while organizing and systematizinghumanity’s labor according to the laws that it hasuncovered. Fedorov asserts that without thefastidious labor of learning that science takesupon itself, the artistic management of the worldwould be impossible.đđđđđđđđđđHowever, to get fully united with art,science itself must be radically broadened andmorally transformed. It must advance beyondisolated tests and experiments conducted in theconfines of a laboratory and instead begin anexploration on a new truly universal scale. Itmust work not in the service of mutualdestruction, not in the name of the ideals of thesociety of consumption, not for the profit of aselect few, but for the salvation and regulation oflife. It will befall science to chart the pathstoward realizing the project of the perfect worldthat is revealed in the highest instances of art.đđđđđđđđđđDuring the 1920s and 1930s, Fedorov’sfollowers, such as Gorsky, Setnitsky, andMuravyov, continued to develop the idea ofsynthesizing science and art, knowledge andcreativity. Such a synthesis felt especiallyrelevant to the people of that epoch, whoexperienced world and civil wars,postrevolutionary devastation, and hunger. All ofthese thinkers posed the question of whether artand science had the right to focus exclusively ontheoretical and aesthetic activity at the timewhen humanity faced global, planetary, andcosmic problems and tasks.đđđđđđđđđđWhile emphasizing idealized collaborationbetween science and art, cosmists of the 1920salso wished to add labor and religion to thisequation. Religion rules, for it is the creativity ofthe ideal. Art that is founded on an idealorganizes science effectively and dynamically,while “coordinating, systematizing, and guidingall the analytical, research, and experimentalactivity of humankind.” Science, in turn, impartsreal organization to “all human labor” and guidesit toward the “transfiguration and humanizationof nature,” resurrection, and life-creation.26đđđđđđđđđđThe philosophical and aesthetic views ofValerian Muravyov developed in the context of

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

08

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

Deviant art userđAnestazy’sillustration in honor ofTsiolkovskiyđThe Dreamer fromKalugabyđ(date unknown).

life-creationist aesthetics. He conceptualizedfuture culture as a cumulative, synthetic activity,the aim of which was to conquer space and timeand to establish the “cosmocracy andpantocracy” of the human kind. Muravyovbelieved that overcoming the existing dividebetween the types of activities which enact a“symbolic” transformation of reality (literature,painting, music, architecture), and those “whichchange the world around us in actuality and notjust in thought or imagination,” to be the firststep toward this culture. Among the latteractivities he counted “economy, industry,agriculture, technology, medicine, eugenics,practical biology, pedagogy,” etc. Muravyov wasconvinced that both symbolic and practicalcultures must be united and organized within aunified plan of cosmic construction.27đđđđđđđđđđAt the same time, Muravyov particularlyemphasized those directions of applied sciencewhich deal with “the question of the biologicalenhancement of man,” and with “thetransformation and rejuvenation” of his physicalnature. In the future, Muravyov argued, it wouldbe these trends that would give rise to “a specialkind of art of enhanced anthropology –anthropotechnology or even anthropourgy.”28Such an art would be capable of putting to active

use the accomplishments of medicine,chemistry, and genetics in order to creativelytransform people‘s physical constitutions.đđđđđđđđđđPerhaps, in the future, new constitutionswould be invented, which would be absolutelyfree from the negative aspects of organic mattertoday. New bodies would be created, whichwould possess far greater plasticity, might,agility. They would move at great speed withoutany external devices, they would sustainthemselves through photosynthesis and wouldnot be affected by the laws of gravity to theextent that they affect physical bodies today. Atthe same time, they would think, feel, sense, andbe able to act remotely.29đđđđđđđđđđIn his daring dream, Muravyov evenanticipated the possibility of humanitycultivating a new kind of life, ushering into theworld sentient, thinking creatures not through“unconscious birth,” but through a collectiveeffort of “symphonic” creativity: “Just asmusicians in an orchestra attune and harmonizewith each other and just as symphonic unitygradually emerges through a combination ofinspiration, temperament, and technique, soshould the creators of a new man unite in asingle harmonious pursuit of the new humanideal.”30

09/1

2

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

đđđđđđđđđđThe aesthetics of cosmism, with itsdemands for the integrity of art and thesynthesis of science and art in the name of thecommon task, were significantly different fromthe trends of the Russian avant-garde, whichalso insisted on the artistic transformation oflife. Avant-garde artists envisioned thistransformation happening either along anartistic – and only an artistic – path, or along ascientific and technological path. They likenedthe work of an artist to that of an engineer ordesigner, and art to production. AlexanderGorsky, while criticizing symbolism’s theurgicutopia, was right to point out the fantastic andutopian nature of the desire to surpass realitythrough individual, instantaneous, Prometheandrives, to overcome the curse of illness throughart alone. At the same time, Russian cosmistsemphasized that the problem of “life and art”could not be resolved merely by calling for theunity of art and production. For art’s mostimportant and specific quality – itstransformation and immortalization of reality, itsability to represent ideals of world andhumankind in an image – disappears once art isreduced to mere craft, to the manufacturing ofthings. Vasily Chekrygin understood this well. Bydefending, in a discussion with fellow artists, thenature of the creative act, he drew attention toyet another particularity of art: unliketechnology, it does not build or construct, butrather constantly gives birth to its creations. Artis not mechanistic, but organic. Masterpieces ofengineering genius – the most sophisticated,precise instruments and machines, monumentalconstructions, and clever devices – astonish uswith their “ugly, unnatural constructiveness.”“Technical construction (of contemporaryinstrumental weaponized technology) does notcarry within itself the traces of artisticconstruction” – a construction that, whileembodying in itself new qualities previously notfound in nature, still preserves natural plasticity,elegance, and beauty.31đđđđđđđđđđFor this reason, cosmist thinkers foundedthe Organizatsya mirovozdeistivya (Organizationof world-transformation), which was meant toencompass all types of creative human activity,all spheres of theoretical and practicalapplication – on the creative principle found inart. Art opens before humanity an opportunity tomove away from the present instrumental,technical progress, which acts upon nature onlyfrom outside, by use of mechanisms andmachines, to a new, mature type of progress thatwould be organic, that would transform andspiritualize the world through a living, non-mediated touch.đđđđđđđđđđIn conjunction with this last point, it isimpossible not to mention Alexander Gorsky’s

ideas, expressed in his tractatus on aesthetics,entitled “An enormous sketch” (1924) and furtherdeveloped in his letters from the late 1930s andearly 1940s. By turning toward the study of theartistic process and by drawing on concepts frompsychoanalysis, as well as from various spheresof art (primarily music and literature), Gorskycame to the conclusion that a profoundconnection and psycho-physiological proximityexists between creative and erotic arousal.Gorsky described the particular autoeroticism ofan artist. This autoeroticism is nourished by adeep-seated striving for perfection and integrity.It carries within itself “a dream of a new body,” ofharmony, beauty, and spirituality. The work ofartistic imagination is directed by an “eroticadmiration of one’s own body in its totality,” by adesire “to see a different … more attractiveimage of oneself, an image that would containthe best elements of the earlier appearance nowsupplemented by the new and previously missingones.”32đđđđđđđđđđThe eros of enhancement, of transfigurationand elevation, this passionate striving toward anideal, is present within the artistic drive on anunconscious, profoundly intuitive level. However,its role in art is tremendous. It is this very eros ofenhancement that is the source of thatmysterious “lyrical excitement” which is sodifferent from “everyday” arousal in itspurposefulness and regulatory and constructiveforce. Gorsky believed that a new type oferoticism is born through transformationsstimulated by this excitement. This eroticism ismagnetic and dispersed. Arousal isn’t limited tothe sexual sphere, but spreads throughout theentire organism. It forms around itself apowerful, energetically charged atmosphere, a“magnetic force field” of sorts. This erotic cloudsurrounding the body gives rise to a feeling ofwholeness, completion, and joyful omnipotence,and soon the artist’s entire being is alight with astriving for creativity. Through this creativity, life-transmitting energy finds release.đđđđđđđđđđEros in art constructs not only bodies; italso constructs the world. It is directed towardthe harmonization of the spiritual and physicalappearances of humankind as well as its naturaland cosmic environment. The creative act opens,“for an organism, the possibility to limitlesslyexpand the sphere of its vibrations by freelyemanating into space and boldly shaping andtransforming the finest structural nets of thesurrounding matter by its waves.”33 Gorskyadmits that this possibility is still only embryonicat the (then-)current stage of art, but stressesthat its evolution is advancing steadily from anindirect and mechanical to an immediate,organic, and “miraculous” influence: “so that thecreative act … will resemble the birth of a new

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

10

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

living being,” so that artistic images will appearon nature’s canvas independently, without theassistance of hands and instruments, so thatdiverse natural elements and forces willcompose a harmonious whole under theinfluence of smooth streams of energy directedby the creative will.34đđđđđđđđđđInspired by Plato’s teachings on thecosmogenic force of eros, Fedorov’s idea of“positive chastity,” and the ideas expressed inVladimir Solovyov’s The Meaning of Love, Gorskyplaces before art the task of regulating eroticenergy. Until now, this energy has either beensquandered in sexual acts and reproducingthrough childbirth short-lived mortal life, or insearching for sublimation in artistic creativity,which can create only dead albeit beautifulthings. Gorsky, on the other hand, demands thatan unconscious, chaotically boiling sexual energybe introduced into consciousness. His reasoningis partially based in the teachings of yoga.However, his main inspiration (which he boldlytranscends) is the experience of the Christianwanderers. Gorsky believes that self-control, thelabor of attention, sobriety, and spiritualconcentration – all those elements which are atthe core of hesychastic “intelligent action” –shouldn’t block erotic centers, but, on thecontrary, must illuminate them with the lightgained through prayer. It must direct the mightyforces of eros toward constructive, resurrective,and “body-building” goals.đđđđđđđđđđThe metamorphosis of erotic energy,according to Gorsky, is one of the main stagesthat humanity must pass through to achieveintegral, perfect nature – “a new body,” in whichnothing unconscious or blind remains, buteverything is spiritualized and subjugated toreason and moral sensibility. This erotic energyis, at the same time, a necessary condition forart’s transition from the stage of anticipation andprophecy towards actual comprehensive life-creation. By achieving a quality of full“organicism” (Fedorov’s term), by mastering all ofits living forces and energies, humanity as awhole, and each person individually, will be ableto multiply life in reality and not justsymbolically, to reproduce it “by means differentfrom those of unconscious animality.”35đđđđđđđđđđThe philosophy of cosmism, in itstheoretical ideas and views on art, had asignificant impact on the culture – and inparticular Russian culture – of the twentiethcentury. The influence of Fedorov’s speculationsabout resurrection, Tsiolkovsky’s cosmist ideas,and Vernadsky’s notion of the noosphere can betraced in the works of Valery Briusov andVladimir Mayakovsky, Nikolai Kliuev and SergeiYesenin, Velemir Khlebnikov and NikolaiZabolotsky, the poets of the “Smithy” and

“cosmist” groups, the biocosmists, MikhailPrishvin and Maxim Gorky, Andrei Platonov andBoris Pasternak, Chinghiz Aimatov, Anatoli Kim,and others. The aesthetics of Russian cosmisminfused the artistic strivings of the Russianavant-garde (Andrei Belyi, Vyacheslav Ivanov,Kazimir Malevich, Vasily Chekrygin, PavelFilonov, and others). However, this is a topic for aseparate conversation.đđđđđđđđđđ×Translated from the Russian by Anastasiya Osipova.

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

11

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT

đđđđđđ1N. F. Fedorov, Sobraniesochineny (Collected works), vol.4, t.T.2 (M., 1995), 243.

đđđđđđ2Ibid., 136.

đđđđđđ3Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), vol. 4, t.T.1(M., 1995), 390.

đđđđđđ4Ibid., 136.

đđđđđđ5P. A. Florensky, Sochinenya(Works), vol. 4, t. T. 3(1) (M.,2000), 440.

đđđđđđ6Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), vol. 4, t.T.1(M., 1995), 401.

đđđđđđ7V. S. Solovyov, Sochinenya(Works), vol. 2, t.T.2 (M., 1988),358 and others.

đđđđđđ8S. N. Bulgakov, Svet nevecherny:Sozertsanya i umozrenya (Thelight of the unknown:Contemplation and speculation)(M., 1994), 219.

đđđđđđ9S. N. Bulgakov, Filosofyahoziaistva; Bulgakov, Sochinenya(Works), vol. 2, t.T.1 (M., 1993),158.

đđđđđđ10Bulgakov, Svet nevecherny (Thelight of the unknown), 306.

đđđđđđ11N. A. Umov, Evolutsya fizicheskihnauk i ee ideinoe znachenye (Theevolution of the physicalsciences and their ideologicalsignificance); Umov, Sobraniesochineny (Collected works), T.3.(M., 1916), 517.

đđđđđđ12Solovyov, Sochinenya (Works),vol. 2, t.T.2, 398.

đđđđđđ13Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), vol. 4, t.T.1,159.

đđđđđđ14Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), vol. 4, t.T.1(M., 1995), 401, 297.

đđđđđđ15Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), T.2, 249.

đđđđđđ16Ibid., 116.

đđđđđđ17Ibid., 229.

đđđđđđ18Ibid.

đđđđđđ19V. N. Chekrygin to N. N. Punin,February 7, 1922; Sovetskoeiskusstvoznanie (Soviet artstudies), 1976, vol. 2, 330.

đđđđđđ20

Ibid.

đđđđđđ21A. K. Gorsky, “Ogromnyi ocherk”(An enormous sketch); Gorskyand N. A. Setnitsky, Sochinenya(Works) (M., 1995), 242.

đđđđđđ22Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), T.2, 202.

đđđđđđ23Ibid., 404.

đđđđđđ24Fedorov, Sobranie sochineny(Collected works), T.1, 401.

đđđđđđ25Ibid., T.2., 231.

đđđđđđ26A. K. Gorsky, Organizatsyamirovozdeistivya (Organization ofworld-transformation); Gorskyand Setnitsky, Sochinenya(Works), 166, 179.

đđđđđđ27V. N. Muravyov, Vseobshaiaproizvoditel’naia matematika(Universal productivemathematics); Muravyov,Sochinenya (Works), vol. 2, book2 (M., 2011), 133.

đđđđđđ28Ibid., 137, 138.

đđđđđđ29V. N., Muravyov, Kul’turabudushego (Culture of thefuture); Muravyov, Sochinenya(Works), vol. 2, book 2, 177.

đđđđđđ30Ibid., 175.

đđđđđđ31Gorsky, Organizatsyamirovozdeistivya (Organization ofworld-transformation); Gorskyand Setnitsky, Sochinenya(Works), 164.

đđđđđđ32Gorsky, “Ogromnyi ocherk” (Anenormous sketch); Gorsky andSetnitsky, Sochinenya (Works),200, 204.

đđđđđđ33Ibid., 193–94.

đđđđđđ34Gorsky and Setnitsky,Sochinenya (Works), 200, 277.

đđđđđđ35Gorsky, Organizatsyamirovozdeistivya (Organization ofworld-transformation); Gorskyand Setnitsky, Sochinenya(Works), 153.

e-fl

ux jo

urna

l #89

— m

arch

201

8 đ A

nast

asia

Gac

heva

Art

as

the

Ove

rcom

ing

of D

eath

: Fro

m N

ikol

ai F

edor

ov to

the

Cosm

ists

of t

he 1

920s

12

/12

03.12.18 / 18:46:06 EDT