An excerpt from the book "Be Active, Viewer!" for Beginners / Skillbox Media

The Garage Museum of Contemporary Art is presenting Andrei Efits's new book, "Viewer, Be Active! How Museums Told Art in the 1920s and 1930s." We are pleased to share with you an excerpt from the chapter "Full Notices, Feuilletons, Written Paper," which examines how approaches to art labeling evolved in the early years of the Soviet state.

"Starting around 1923, we began posting explanations for works of art; at first they were brief, but then they became increasingly detailed," noted Nikolai Mudrogel, senior curator at the Tretyakov Gallery, in his memoirs. Alexey Fedorov-Davydov reports that the first use of explanatory labels was at exhibitions at the Museum of Fine Arts dedicated to the tenth anniversary of the Revolution. This etiquette, ironically called "written paper" or "white sheets," was long despised by true museum professionals, who did not want it in their permanent collections. Some museums even opposed the use of small plaques with the artist's name and the painting's title placed on the frame. However, this format eventually found its way into cultural institutions thanks to political, educational, and thematic exhibitions. These events, in turn, contributed to the emergence of a new trend in museum literature—mass leaflets. It's noteworthy that the majority of such exhibitions were often initiated not by museum researchers, but by tour guides and representatives of tour agencies who interacted with a wide audience.

It's no coincidence that Fedorov-Davydov associated his first mention of labeling with exhibitions showcasing the achievements of contemporary art. In 1928, a correspondent for Krasnaya Gazeta reported on an exhibition dedicated to contemporary art where explanatory notes were placed next to each exhibit—short lines explaining "what the artist wanted to convey and what means he used." Thus, David Zagoskin, commenting on his work "Lomovik," noted that he strove to create "a static, frontal image of a working man, confident in his abilities," which was achieved through "a generalized, monumental interpretation of forms."

Exhibition texts were inextricably linked with the explanations provided by representatives of the AKHR. At a 1925 meeting of the movement, journalist Lev Sosnovsky expressed the need for exhibitions to be accompanied by accompanying material, emphasizing the importance of descriptions for each work, as well as the context of events and information about the characters. "The caption has acquired a unique significance, unprecedented in the history of art," noted participants in a discussion held at the Communist Academy in 1926, adding that "the heroism of the proletarians depicted by the AKHR members can only be understood through the caption," poking fun at the "feuilletons."

Fedorov-Davydov emphasized the significant influence the experience of re-exhibition had on art museums, especially in the context of historical and everyday museums such as those in Peterhof. For example, the exhibition "The Collapse of Autocracy," created by Semyon Geychenko and Anatoly Shemansky in 1927 at Nicholas II's Lower Dacha, utilized special information displays and was considered exemplary. Fyodor Schmidt noted that it is precisely in museum interiors, supplemented by photographs, documents, and newspaper clippings, that art begins to "speak," transforming into "documentary art." Beginning in the mid-1920s, palace museums often featured introductory rooms decorated with diagrams, posters, and leaflets. However, such elements were not widely used in art museums. In 1930, Fyodorov-Davydov characterized them as "a subconscious desire to allocate a separate space for Marxism in the museum," which left the exhibits without proper explanation. At the same time, so-called "additional displays," originating from historical and everyday museums, became significantly more popular in art museums. For example, in the early 1930s, the Hermitage's exhibition of French art featured a display dedicated to France's economic performance before the French Revolution, as well as the characteristics of conflicting classes, crowned by a slogan from Engels's "Anti-Dühring."

Historian Konstantin Grinevich championed the importance of detailed labeling. In 1925, he conducted a "Marxist" re-exhibition of the Chersonesos Museum, building on the idea of the so-called "self-speaking museum." At the beginning of the tour, visitors were informed by a poster explaining how to properly view the exhibition. A map of the halls with signs directed visitors along the optimal route, and under each exhibit were inscriptions containing brief descriptions for the general public and more detailed information for specialists.

In 1925, Grinevich voiced his concerns about the dissatisfaction of workers and peasants associated with the Hermitage and proposed placing notices at the entrance to the museum's halls—short texts that would introduce visitors to the works on display. When he visited the Hermitage in 1928 as an inspector, working in the museum department of Glavnauka, Grinevich noticed that the labels indicated only the country, art school, artist's name, and century, and sometimes only the artist's name. This led to the fact that "due to a lack of information about artists and various movements, visitors had difficulty understanding the significance of the Hermitage collection."

The concept of a "self-speaking museum" became a topic of active discussion during a speech by Nikolai Mashkovtsev, who presented new approaches to organizing exhibitions in art museums at a meeting of the museum department of Glavnauka in 1928. The deputy director of the Tretyakov Gallery expressed concern that excessive labeling could distract visitors. A year earlier, he had already raised the issue of excessive text and guidebooks, which are perceived by viewers "not only as an information source, but also as a methodological aid." This ultimately contributes to the audience's complete passivity, turning them into readers who only occasionally look up from their books. Nevertheless, the discussion participants agreed that information labels are necessary for "inexperienced visitors." Art historian Abram Efros described "explanatory tables" as a temporary solution that would eventually lose its relevance as the cultural level of museum audiences increased. The discussion resulted in a methodological letter from the People's Commissariat of Education, which recommended that museums indicate the name and years of the artist's life, as well as the title of the work. Mudrogel N. "Memories of the 58th Anniversary of the Tretyakov Gallery" // Novy Mir. 1940. No. 7. P. 180.

Fedorov-Davydov, A. Soviet Art Museum. Moscow: OGIZ-IZOGIZ, 1933. Page 44.

The Cultural Revolution: Three Directions. "The First Date" // Krasnaya Gazeta (morning issue). November 16, 1928. No. 316. P. 4.

Expand list

Sosnovsky, L. "Dare, Akhrovtsy!" // 4 Years of the AKhRR. 1922-1926. Moscow: AKhRR Publishing House, 1926. P. 25.

The report by I. L. Mats entitled "AKhRR, Realism and Proletarian Art", which took place on November 28, 1926, contains several key statements. Perelman and Pertsev also took part in the discussion, which added variety to the remarks and opinions expressed at the meeting. The document is kept in the archives of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, collection 350, inventory 2, files 91, sheet 49.

Fedorov-Davydov A. Soviet art… P. 51

Schmidt F. Museums of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (translated by V. Bondarchuk) [1930] // Research in Museology. 2012. Issue 2 (6). P. 201.

Fedorov-Davydov A. Exposition of art museums. Co-report // Proceedings of the First All-Russian Museum Congress. Volume 1. The specified work. Page 81.

Piotrovsky B. B. «History of the Hermitage». Moscow: Iskusstvo, 2000. Page 502.

Grinevich K. New Museum: The Chersonesus Museum as the First Example of the Implementation of Marxist Concepts in the Creation of Museums. Sevastopol: Chersonesus Museum, 1928. Pp. 10–12.

Grinevich K. Research of our museums (continued) // Life of Art. 1925. Issue 16. P. 13.

12. Report on the trip to Leningrad and Tver of the deputy head of the museum department of the Main Science Directorate of the People's Commissariat of Culture K. E. Grinevich, conducted from March 9 to 15, 1928. AGE. F. 1. Op. 5. D. 913. L. 1–9.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide the requested information.

The minutes of the meeting of the educational and consultative conference dedicated to art museums and held under the auspices of the museum department of the Main Science Directorate of the People's Commissariat of Culture were recorded on June 15, 1928. The document is kept in the State Archives of the Russian Federation, collection A2307, inventory 13, file 12, pages 23 and 24 reverse.

Methodological letter of the Main Directorate of Science on the issue of effective identification of museum collections for the purpose of serving them to a wide audience (No. 50/001/95 of July 18, 1928) // Weekly Bulletin of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR. 1928. Issue 31. Pages 21–23.

You will find a lot of fascinating information about design in our Telegram channel. Join us!

An excerpt from the book "Be Active, Viewer!" for Beginners

Contents: