Vladimir Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International

By Anna Niederlander 

In 1919, Vladimir Tatlin proposed a monument which would inspire artists for years to come and which would remain “to this day one of the most widely known works of the Soviet avant-garde.” The monument, titled Monument to the Third International, would be a cumulation of everything Tatlin had worked towards as an artist, and was both highly symbolic, as well as having a functional purpose. Vladimir Tatlin is considered one of the most significant figures of the Soviet avant-garde, and is a founding member of the Constructivist Movement. The Constructivist Movement aimed to create an new aesthetic or style which was closely aligned with the values and objectives of the new communist society. The Constructivists emphasised building and science, and believed this should be applied to objects beyond just artworks, including architecture, fashion and mass-produced objects. Artists were no longer easel painters for the few elite, but engineers that served the entire country. The three main ideals of Constructivism were abstraction, functionalism, and utilitarianism. 

Significantly, Tatlin visited Picasso’s studio in 1913 and was extremely inspired by his collage experiments. Tatlin’s work Painterly Relief  (1914-16) is a hybrid of painting, sculpture and assemblage. Through the seemingly spontaneous juxtaposing of these different mediums, Tatlin changes the viewers perception of them. He combines the geometry of Cubism and the dynamism of Futurism. Through attempting to dissociate his works even further from traditional painting and sculpture, he created works such as Corner counter-relief (1914). Corner counter-relief evokes movement and tension through the intersecting and overlapping lines, and creates a dynamism that Tatlin believed represented modernity. He deliberately constructed the work so that it would be touching two walls and span over a corner. In traditional Russian households, religious icons were often placed in the corner of the rooms. Thus, through this specific placement, Tatlin suggests that people should worship modernity and constructivist thought. 

Vladimir Tatlin, Painterly relief, 1914-16 (https://angiedee.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/constructism/)

Vladimir Tatlin, Corner Counter-Relief, 1914, Sheet metal, copper, wood and metal attachment elements (https://www.artsy.net/artwork/vladimir-tatlin-corner-counter-relief)

The debate on how new monumental art should appear, and the question of how to realize the Leninist Plan of Monumental Propaganda was a major discussion point between the avant-garde and the Bolshevik regime. Avant-garde artists, including Tatlin, rejected the idea of traditional statues. As Radu Stern has written: “In Tatlin's eyes, it was impossible, both from moral or theoretical points of view, to accept the idea that the monument of a new type, conceived for the new revolutionary society, a socialist society in which the collective were to be placed above the individual, should glorify an individual hero, even if he was a revolutionary hero.” Tatlin believed that traditional monuments memorializing or celebrating individuals went against the very purpose of a monument, namely its permanence. A monument should represent a time and movement, and Tatlin believed this could not be encompassed by a singular person. Just like the art of the past was not suitable for the present, traditional monuments were no longer suitable for the modern urban setting. Tatlin was also greatly inspired by Velimir Khlebnikov, a Russian poet and playwright, who believed that world unification could be brought about through linguistics. Khlebnikov proposed that true unification was possible if there was a single language for everyone. Tatlin believed the same to be true for art, thus setting out to create a synthesis of the arts inspired by Constructivist thought. 

Vladimir Tatlin, Model of the Monument 3rd International. Photograph, 1919-1920. (https://www.phillips.com/article/43416956/vladimir-tatlin-monument-to-the-third-international)

Vladimir Tatlin, Monument to commemorate the Third International, 1919-20 (litho), Vladimir Tatlin / Shchusev Russian Architecture Museum / Sputnik / Bridgeman Images (https://www.phillips.com/article/43416956/vladimir-tatlin-monument-to-the-third-international)

In 1919, Tatlin was commissioned to create a monument in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) that represented the Bolshevik Revolution, and which would be the headquarters of the Third International, an organization founded by the Communist party in 1919 with the goal to spread their revolution globally. Tatlin’s goal was to create a building that both exemplified the new Constructivist aesthetic ideals and was also highly functional. Moreover, the building had to promote a world revolution to come, meaning that it had to be both locally relevant and globally inspiring. The monument that Tatlin created for the headquarters of the Third International was called Monument to the Third International, also known as Tatlin’s tower. It became his most famous work and possibly the most important work of the Constructivist movement, as it encompassed the vital aesthetics and ideals of the movement. “This curious combination of influences, a mixture of Bolshevism and "Khlebnikovism", of political activism and visionarism, of rationalism and utopianism, gave to the Monument to the Third International its astounding singularity,” notes Stern. 

Digital edit showing what Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International would look like in the setting (https://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/11.1/forum_croizier.html)

Though the tower was never realized, Tatlin produced a 20-foot wooden model of it, which was however lost in later years. The original structure was meant to be 1,300 feet tall, surpassing the Eiffel Tower. This would have made it the tallest structure in the world in its time. Digital imagery today allows us to envision how Tatlin's Tower would have looked in St. Petersburg, illustrating that the size of the structure was a symbol of power in itself. The main frame of the structure was made from metal steel and took the shape of a double helix, which was supported by diagonal girder. The material and measurements provoke a comparison to the Eiffel Tower. However, as Arthur Holitscher writes, "we have to think of the Eiffel Tower twisted by a giant.” Ralph Croizier argues that Tatlin was “deliberately setting out to show that socialism would surpass capitalism.”

Inside the tower’s main frame, four glass geometric volumes were intended to rotate at different speeds. As Stern notes, “This search for symbolism went hand in hand with his concern for kinetics.” The lowest part of the tower, which was also the largest, was intended to host the legislative meeting of the Third International or Comintern. It was in the shape of a cube and would make one revolution a year. On top of that, there would be a pyramid, which would make one revolution per month, and would host the Comintern executive meetings and offices. The third structure would be a cylinder, which would make one revolution per day, and would contain all the propaganda services, such as the press, poster and pamphlet designers. On the top was a half sphere that revolved every hour and where the Comintern radio station was located. Projectors attached to the structure would cast messages onto the clouds, which would allow for mass dissemination of information to the people. The different speeds not only related to their positions (going from slowest at the bottom to fastest at the top), but also related to the nature of the work going on within that space. The legislative element takes the most time and is the most prolonged activity, thus it is the slowest element. This is followed by executive meetings, and finally the information units was the fastest element, due to the rapid nature and large amount of news and propaganda being expelled. 

The materials of metal and glass were associated with modernity, and the intricate technology needed to build this work exemplified the modern, even futuristic goals of the communist society. The PROLETKULT, or the “proletarian culture-educational organizations”, was a cultural organization devoted to the needs of the working class. They believed that metal was the prerequisite of industrialization, and thus a symbolic material for the proletarian class. The glass shapes were meant to symbolize the Comintern’s transparency to the people. 

Tatlin completed the first model for his tower and exhibited it from November 8 to December 1, 1920 at the Petrograd SVOMAS, where he was teaching. When the work was revealed he organized an “artistic-political" presentation where he explained his project to architects, engineers, sailors, art students and Red Army soldiers. At the end of December 1920, the model was dismantled and sent to Moscow’s Central Trade's Union Council's Hall. The Eighth All-Russian Soviet Congress was being held there, and the Monument to the Third International gained the attention of numerous Bolshevik leaders and Congress members such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Lunacharsky. However, reviews of the work were both positive and negative. One major point of criticism was that the monument had numerous parts that were completely useless and thus non-utilitarian. For example, the rotating four volumes was purely symbolic, with no functional use, and it was argued that they would use up a large amount of energy, which could otherwise be used by the people in their daily life. Although the work was never realized, it was much more influential than most realized works. It inspired artists in different countries and inspired the spread of the Constructivist movement. 

Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International was described as a “gigantic, mobility-mad, multitasking, spectacle-producing communication device.” It was unrealizable, and even today the advanced engineering needed to complete such a project would put its utilitarian purpose into question. Needless to say, the price to construct such as work would be too extortionate for most countries to approve it, even today. From the start, Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International was beyond the bounds of possibility, however it symbolizes a utopian moment and an artist’s attempt to combine political agenda with artistic innovation. In the end, the Bolshevik regime rejected the avant-garde proposal in favour of more conservative ideas. Architecture followed the Neoclassical style and in 1932, Socialist Realism was named the “official” artistic practice. Interestingly, “Nothing could be further from the solid brick walls and cloistered buildings of the Kremlin. The fact that that czarist structure became the centre of Soviet Government tells a lot about what happened to the populist ideals of The October Revolution.” Forgotten in Russia, The Monument to the Third International has resurfaced in the West and remains visible with the rise of postmodern and conceptual art. It’s symbolises how an idea can be as significant, if not more significant, than the physical artwork itself. 

Bibliography: 

Architects Architecture Architectuul. “Tatlin’s Tower.” http://architectuul.com/architecture/tatlin-s-tower.

Crozier, Ralph. “Tatlin’s Tower: The Monument to the Future that Never Was.” World History Connected. https://worldhistoryconnected.press.uillinois.edu/11.1/forum_croizier.html.

Hillegas, Laura. “Constructivism Brought the Russian Revolution to the Art World.” Artsy. Last modified Jan 4, 2019. Accessed Feb 9, 2020. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-constructivism-brought-russian-revolution-art.

Phillips. “Vladimir Tatlin: ‘Monument to the Third International.’” https://www.phillips.com/article/43416956/vladimir-tatlin-monument-to-the-third-international.

Stern, Radu. “The Tower: Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International.” https://www.academia.edu/15548102/The_Tower_Tatlins_Monument_to_the_Third_International.

The Art Story. “Vladimir Tatlin Artworks.” Artists. https://www.theartstory.org/artist/tatlin-vladimir/artworks/.