1910 JEWISH BOOK PICTURES FROM THE POGROMS ZHITOMIR RUSSIAN AVANT GARDE COVER

Sefer Mishnah Chevron or the Cross - A Picture of the Pogroms against the Jews in the Recent Years, Translated by Israel Shalom Bahoslawski. Published by Eliyahu son of Avraham Kortzov. Printed in Zhitomir in 1910. Back cover with early Avant Garde illustration. Good condition. 16 pages, 8x6inch. Uncut sheet without front paper binding.

Winning bidder pays $15.00 Postage international registered air mail.
Authenticity 100% Guaranteed

Please have a look at my other listings.

Good luck!
The avant-garde (/ˌævɒ̃ˈɡɑːrd/;[2] In French: [avɑ̃ɡaʁd][3] 'advance guard' or 'vanguard', literally 'fore-guard')[4] is a person or work that is experimental, radical, or unorthodox with respect to art, culture, or society.[4][5][6] It is frequently characterized by aesthetic innovation and initial unacceptability.[7] The avant-garde pushes the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo, primarily in the cultural realm. The avant-garde is considered by some to be a hallmark of modernism.[8] Many artists have aligned themselves with the avant-garde movement, and still continue to do so, tracing their history from Dada through the Situationists and to postmodern artists such as the Language poets around 1981.[9][failed verification] The avant-garde also promotes radical social reforms. This meaning was evoked by the Saint Simonian Olinde Rodrigues in his essay, "L'artiste, le savant et l'industriel" ("The artist, the scientist and the industrialist", 1825). This essay contains the first use of "avant-garde" in its now customary sense; there, Rodrigues called on artists to "serve as [the people's] avant-garde", insisting that "the power of the arts is indeed the most immediate and fastest way" to social, political and economic reform.[10] Contents 1 History 2 Theories 3 Relation to mainstream society 4 Examples 4.1 Music 4.2 Theatre 5 Art movements 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links History The term was originally used by the French military to refer to a small reconnaissance group that scouted ahead of the main force. It also became associated with left-wing French radicals in the 19th century who were agitating for political reform. At some point in the middle of that century, the term was linked to art through the idea that art is an instrument for social change. Only toward the end of the century did l'art d'avant-garde begin to break away from its identification with left-wing social causes to become more aligned with cultural and artistic issues. This trend toward increased emphasis on aesthetic issues has continued to the present. Avant-garde today generally refers to groups of intellectuals, writers, and artists, including architects, who voice ideas and experiment with artistic approaches that challenge current cultural values. Avant-garde ideas, especially if they embrace social issues, often are gradually assimilated by the societies they confront. The radicals of yesterday become mainstream, creating the environment for a new generation of radicals to emerge.[11] Theories Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1917, photograph by Alfred Stieglitz Several writers have attempted to map the parameters of avant-garde activity. Italian essayist Renato Poggioli provides one of the earliest analyses of vanguardism[clarification needed] as a cultural phenomenon in his 1962 book, Teoria dell'arte d'avanguardia (The Theory of the Avant-Garde).[12] Surveying the historical, social, psychological and philosophical aspects of vanguardism, Poggioli reaches beyond individual instances of art, poetry, and music to show that vanguardists may share certain ideals or values, which manifest themselves in the non-conformist lifestyles they adopt. He sees vanguard culture as a variety or subcategory of Bohemianism.[13] Other authors have attempted both to clarify and to extend Poggioli's study. The German literary critic Peter Bürger's Theory of the Avant-Garde (1974) looks at the Establishment's embrace of socially critical works of art, and suggests that in complicity with capitalism, "art as an institution neutralizes the political content of the individual work."[14] Raymond Williams devotes two chapters of his book, The Politics of Modernism(1989), to a discussion of the politics and language of the avant-garde. Bürger's essay also greatly influenced the work of contemporary American art historians such as the German Benjamin H. D. Buchloh (born 1941). Buchloh, in the collection of essays Neo-avantgarde and Culture Industry (2000), critically argues for a dialectical approach to these positions.[15] Subsequent criticism theorized the limitations of these approaches, noting their circumscribed areas of analysis, including Eurocentric, chauvinist, and genre-specific definitions.[16] Relation to mainstream society Further information: Mainstream See also: Media culture and Spectacle (critical theory) The concept of avant-garde refers primarily to artists, writers, composers, and thinkers whose work is opposed to mainstream cultural values, and often has a trenchant social or political edge. Many writers, critics, and theorists made assertions about vanguard culture during the formative years of modernism, although the initial definitive statement on the avant-garde was the essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch", by New York art critic Clement Greenberg. It was published in Partisan Review in 1939.[17] Greenberg argued that vanguard culture has historically been opposed to "high" or "mainstream" culture, and that it has also rejected the artificially synthesized mass culture that has been produced by industrialization. Each of these media is a direct product of capitalism—they are all now substantial industries—and as such, they are driven by the same profit-fixated motives of other sectors of manufacturing, not the ideals of true art. For Greenberg, these forms were therefore kitsch - phony, faked, or mechanical culture. Such things often pretended to be more than they were by using formal devices stolen from vanguard culture. For instance, during the 1930s, the advertising industry was quick to take visual mannerisms from surrealism, but this does not mean that 1930s advertising photographs are truly surreal. Max Horkheimer (front left), Theodor Adorno (front right), and Jürgen Habermas in the background, right, in 1965 at Heidelberg, West Germany Similar views were argued by members of the Frankfurt School, the originators of Critical Theory, an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in their essay "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass-Deception" (1944), and also Walter Benjamin in his highly influential "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935, rev. 1939) spoke of "mass culture."[18] They indicated that this bogus culture is constantly being manufactured by a newly emerged culture industry (comprising commercial publishing houses, the movie industry, the record industry, and the electronic media).[19] They also pointed out that the rise of this industry meant that artistic excellence was displaced by sales figures as a measure of worth: a novel, for example, was judged meritorious solely on whether it became a best-seller; music succumbed to ratings charts, and to the blunt commercial logic of the Gold disc. In this way, the autonomous artistic merit, so dear to the vanguardist, was abandoned and sales increasingly became the measure, and justification, of everything. Consumer culture now ruled.[19] The avant-garde's co-option by the global capitalist market, by neoliberal economies, and by what Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle (a seminal text for the Situationist movement describing the "autocratic reign of the market economy"), have made contemporary critics speculate on the possibility of a meaningful avant-garde today. Paul Mann's Theory-Death of the Avant-Garde demonstrates how completely the avant-garde is embedded within institutional structures today, a thought also pursued by Richard Schechner in his analyses of avant-garde performance.[20] Despite the central arguments of Greenberg, Adorno, and others, various sectors of the mainstream culture industry have co-opted and misapplied the term "avant-garde" since the 1960s, chiefly as a marketing tool to publicise popular music and commercial cinema. It has become common to describe successful rock musicians and celebrated film-makers as "avant-garde", the very word having been stripped of its proper meaning. Noting this important conceptual shift, major contemporary theorists such as Matei Calinescu in Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism (1987),[page needed] and Hans Bertens in The Idea of the Postmodern: A History (1995),[page needed] have suggested that this is a sign our culture has entered a new post-modern age, when the former modernist ways of thinking and behaving have been rendered redundant.[21] Nevertheless, an incisive critique of vanguardism as against the views of mainstream society was offered by the New York critic Harold Rosenberg in the late 1960s.[22] Trying to strike a balance between the insights of Renato Poggioli and the claims of Clement Greenberg, Rosenberg suggested that, from the mid-1960s onward, progressive culture ceased to fulfill its former adversarial role. Since then it has been flanked by what he called "avant-garde ghosts to the one side, and a changing mass culture on the other", both of which it interacts with to varying degrees. This has seen culture become, in his words, "a profession one of whose aspects is the pretense of overthrowing it."[23] Avant-garde is frequently defined in contrast to arrière-garde, which in its original military sense refers to a rearguard force that protects the advance-guard.[24] The term was less frequently used than "avant-garde" in 20th-century art criticism.[25] The art historians Natalie Adamson and Toby Norris argue that arrière-garde is not reducible to a kitsch style or reactionary orientation, but can instead be used to refer to artists who engage with the legacy of the avant-garde while maintaining an awareness that doing so is in some sense anachronistic.[26] The critic Charles Altieri argues that avant-garde and arrière-garde are interdependent: "where there is an avant-garde, there must be an arrière-garde."[27] Examples Music Main article: Avant-garde music Avant-garde in music can refer to any form of music working within traditional structures while seeking to breach boundaries in some manner.[28] The term is used loosely to describe the work of any musicians who radically depart from tradition altogether.[29] By this definition, some avant-garde composers of the 20th century include Arnold Schoenberg,[30] Richard Strauss (in his earliest work),[31] Charles Ives,[32] Igor Stravinsky,[30] Anton Webern,[33] Edgard Varèse, Alban Berg,[33] George Antheil (in his earliest works only), Henry Cowell (in his earliest works), Harry Partch, John Cage, Iannis Xenakis,[30] Morton Feldman, Karlheinz Stockhausen,[34] Pauline Oliveros,[35] Philip Glass, Meredith Monk,[35] Laurie Anderson,[35] and Diamanda Galás.[35] There is another definition of "Avant-gardism" that distinguishes it from "modernism": Peter Bürger, for example, says avant-gardism rejects the "institution of art" and challenges social and artistic values, and so necessarily involves political, social, and cultural factors.[29] According to the composer and musicologist Larry Sitsky, modernist composers from the early 20th century who do not qualify as avant-gardists include Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, and Igor Stravinsky; later modernist composers who do not fall into the category of avant-gardists include Elliott Carter, Milton Babbitt, György Ligeti, Witold Lutosławski, and Luciano Berio, since "their modernism was not conceived for the purpose of goading an audience."[36] The 1960s saw a wave of free and avant-garde music in jazz genre, embodied by artists such as Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra, Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp, John Coltrane and Miles Davis.[37][38] In the rock music of the 1970s, the "art" descriptor was generally understood to mean "aggressively avant-garde" or "pretentiously progressive".[39] Post-punk artists from the late 1970s rejected traditional rock sensibilities in favor of an avant-garde aesthetic. Theatre Main article: Experimental theatre Whereas the avant-garde has a significant history in 20th-century music, it is more pronounced in theatre and performance art, and often in conjunction with music and sound design innovations, as well as developments in visual media design. There are movements in theatre history that are characterized by their contributions to the avant-garde traditions in both the United States and Europe. Among these are Fluxus, Happenings, and Neo-Dada. Art movements Abstract expressionism Artivism COBRA Conceptual art Constructivism Cubism Dadaism De Stijl Expressionism Fauvism Fluxus Futurism Happening Imaginism Imagism Impressionism Incoherents Land art Les Nabis Lyrical Abstraction Minimal art Neo-Dada Orphism Pop art Precisionism Primitivism Rayonism Situationism Suprematism Surrealism Symbolism Tachisme Universal Constructivism Viennese Actionism Vorticism Creationism Nadaism Stridentism Ultraist See also Anti-art Bauhaus Experimental film Experimental literature Experimental music Experimental theatre L'enfant terrible List of avant-garde artists Outsider art Relationship between avant-garde art and American pop culture Russian avant-garde The Yiddish Book Collection of the Russian Avant-Garde contains books published between the years 1912-1928 by many of the movement’s best known artists. The items here represent only a portion of Yale’s holdings in Yiddish literature. The Beinecke, in collaboration with the Yale University library Judaica Collection, continues to digitize and make Yiddish books available online. With the Russian Revolution of 1917, prohibitions on Yiddish printing imposed by the Czarist regime were lifted. Thus, the early post-revolutionary period saw a major flourishing of Yiddish books and journals.  The new freedoms also enabled the development of a new and radically modern art by the Russian avant-garde.  Artists such as Mark Chagall, Joseph Chaikov, Issachar Ber Ryback, El (Eliezer) Lisitzsky and others found in the freewheeling artistic climate of those years an opportunity Jews had never enjoyed before in Russia: an opportunity to express themselves as both Modernists and as Jews. Their art often focused on the small towns of Russia and Ukraine where most of them had originated. Their depiction of that milieu, however, was new and different. Jewish art in the early post-revolutionary years emerged with the creation of a secular, socialist culture and was especially cultivated by the Kultur-Lige, the Jewish social and cultural organizations of the 1920s and 1930s.  One of the founders of the first Kultur-Lige in Kiev in 1918 was Joseph Chaikov, a painter and sculptor whose books are represented in the Beinecke’s collection. The Kultur-Lige supported education for children and adults in Jewish literature, the theater and the arts. The organization sponsored art exhibitions and art classes and also published books written by the Yiddish language’s most accomplished authors and poets and illustrated by artists who in time became trail blazers in modernist circles. This brief flowering of Yiddish secular culture in Russia came to an end in the 1920s.  As the power of the Soviet state grew under Stalin, official culture became hostile to the experimental art that the revolution had at first facilitated and even encouraged. Many artists left for Berlin, Paris and other intellectual centers. Those that remained, like El Lisitzky, ceased creating art with Jewish themes and focused their work on furthering the aims of Communism. Tragically, many of them perished in Stalin’s murderous purges. The Artists Eliezer Lisitzky (1890–1941), better known as El Lisitzky, was a Russian Jewish artist, designer, photographer, teacher, typographer, and architect. He was one of the most important figures of the Russian avant-garde, helping develop Suprematism with his friend and mentor, Kazimir Malevich.  He began his career illustrating Yiddish children’s books in an effort to promote Jewish culture. In 1921, he became the Russian cultural ambassador in Weimar Germany, working with and influencing important figures of the Bauhaus movement. He brought significant innovation and change to the fields of typography, exhibition design, photomontage, and book design, producing critically respected works and winning international acclaim. However, as he grew more involved with creating art work for the Soviet state, he ceased creating art with Jewish themes. Among the best known Yiddish books illustrated by the artist is Sikhes Hulin by the writer and poet Moshe Broderzon and Yingel Tsingle Khvat, a children’s book of poetry by Mani Leyb.  Both works have been completely digitized and can be found here. Joseph Chaikov (1888-1979) was a Russian sculptor, graphic artist, teacher, and art critic.  Born in Kiev, Chaikov studied in Paris from 1910 to 1913.  Returning to Russia in 1914, he became active in Jewish art circles and in 1918 was one of the founders of the Kultur-Lige in Kiev. Though primarily known as a sculptor, in his early career, he also illustrated Yiddish books, many of them children’s books.  In 1921 his Yiddish book, Skulptur was published. In it, the artist formulated an avant-garde approach to sculpture and its place in a new Jewish art.  It too is in the Beinecke collection. Another of the great artists from this remarkable period in Yiddish cultural history is Issachar Ber Ryback. Together with Lisistzky, he traveled as a young man in the Russian countryside studying Jewish folk life and art. Their findings made a deep impression on both men as artists and as Jews and folk art remained an abiding influence on their work. One of Ryback’s better known works is Shtetl, Mayn Khoyever heym; a gedenknish (Shtetl, My destroyed home; A Remembrance), Berlin, 1922.  In this book, also in the Beinecke collection, the artist depicts scenes of Jewish life in his shtetl (village) in Ukraine before it was destroyed in the pogroms which followed the end of World War I. Indeed, Shtetl is an elegy to that world. David Hofstein’s book of poems, Troyer (Tears), illustrated by Mark Chagall also mourns the victims of the pogroms. It was published by the Kultur-Lige in Kiev in 1922. Chagall’s art in this book is stark and minimalist in keeping with the grim subject of the poetry. Chagall was a leading force in the new emerging Yiddish secular art and many of the young modernist artists of the time came to study and paint with him in Vitebsk, his hometown. Lisistzky and Ryback were among them. Chagall, however, parted ways with them when their artistic styles and goals diverged. Chagall moved to Moscow in 1920 where he became involved with the newly created and innovative Moscow Yiddish Theater. **** The Russian Revolution of 1917 had an enormous effect on Marc Chagall. The passage of a law abolishing all discrimination on the basis of religion or nationality gave him, as a Jewish artist, full Russian citizenship for the first time. This inspired a series of monumental masterpieces, such as Double Portrait with Wine Glass (1917), celebrating the happiness of the newly married Chagall and his wife Bella. As the months went by, Chagall felt the need to help young residents of his native city of Vitebsk (in present day Belarus) lacking an artistic education, and to support other Jews from humble backgrounds. The year 2018 marks the 100th anniversary of Chagall’s appointment as Fine Arts Commissioner for the Vitebsk region, a position that enabled him to carry out his idea of creating a revolutionary art school in his city, open to everyone, free of charge, and with no age restrictions. The People’s Art School, founded by Chagall in 1918, was the perfect embodiment of Bolshevik values. El Lissitzky and Kazimir Malevich, leading exponents of the Russian avant-garde, were two of the artists invited to teach at the school. Lissitzky took charge of the printing, graphic design, and architecture workshops, while Malevich, leader of the abstract movement and founder of Suprematism, was a charismatic theorist who galvanized the young students. A period of feverish artistic activity followed, turning the school into a revolutionary laboratory. Each of these three major figures sought, in his own distinctive fashion, to develop a “Leftist Art” in tune with the revolutionary emphasis on collectivism, education, and innovation. Chagall, Lissitzky, Malevich: The Russian Avant-Garde in Vitebsk, 1918-1922 traces the fascinating post-revolutionary years when the history of art was shaped in Vitebsk, far from Russia’s main cities. Through some 120 works and documents loaned by museums in Vitebsk and Minsk and major American and European collections, the exhibition presents the artistic output of Marc Chagall, El Lissitzky, and Kazimir Malevich, as well as works by students and teachers of the Vitebsk school, such as Lazar Khidekel, Nikolai Suetin, Il’ia Chashnik, David Yakerson, Vera Ermolaeva, and Yehuda (Yury) Pen, among others. ***  Art, Politics, Rivalry: How the Russian Avant-Garde Flourished in Vitebsk On view now at the Jewish Museum, Chagall, Lissitzky, Malevich tells the extraordinary story of how a radical art school in an unlikely city in Russia changed the course of art history forever. The Jewish Museum Follow Nov 29, 2018 · 3 min read More than 100 years ago, Vladimir Lenin said about the Russian Revolution, “there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” The same idea is at work in Chagall, Lissitzky, Malevich: The Russian Avant-Garde in Vitebsk, 1918–1922, now on view at the Jewish Museum. The exhibition tells the extraordinary story of an unlikely city in Russia, which in just five years, saw the rise and fall of the People’s Art School of Vitebsk, an incubator for radical artists and thinkers. Marc Chagall, Over Vitebsk, 1915–20, after a 1914 painting. Oil on canvas. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Acquired through the Lillie P. Bliss Bequest (by exchange), 1949. Artwork © Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris; image provided by The Museum of Modern Art / licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, New York The heady days following the Russian Revolution and Bolsheviks’ rise to power had an enormous effect on the Vitebsk-born artist Marc Chagall. The new communist state was defined by ideals of collectivism and equality. For the first time, the passage of a law abolishing all discrimination on the basis of religion or nationality gave him, as a Jew, full Russian citizenship. With Chagall’s appointment as Fine Arts Commissioner for the Vitebsk region, the People’s Art School was conceived in 1918. The school was open to all, charged no tuition, and recruited many students from the working-class Jewish population in the city. The stage was set to form a new Leftist art: one that would celebrate and influence the course of current events. Kazimir Malevich, Mystic Suprematism (Red Cross on Black Circle), 1920–22. Oil on canvas. Stedelijk Museum Collection, Amsterdam, ownership recognized by agreement with the estate of Kazimir Malevich, 2008 Our new video provides a glimpse of the exhibition, and an introduction to the major figures involved. Marc Chagall saw a revolution in each artist’s “inextinguishable inner voice,” manifest in his whimsical dreamscapes of Vitebsk. He invited El Lissitzky to head the School’s graphic design arm, where the trained architect used reductive shapes and colors in Soviet agitprop. Finally, Kazimir Malevich arrived from Moscow, and gathered a devoted following among students who imitated his radical abstract approach, known as Suprematism. Like all art radical movements, the People’s Art School was subject to volatile personalities and clashing ideologies. It was not destined to last, graduating its first and last class in May 1922. While the People’s Art School was short-lived, it nurtured artistic experimentation and inclusivity among the avant-garde. Jews like Chagall and the lesser-known David Yakerson enjoyed citizenship and creative privileges. Women joined the movement too, such as Cubo-Futurist Vera Ermolaeva. Ultimately torn apart by factionalism, the People’s Art School in Vitebsk had influence that dwarfed its brief lifespan. *** The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Presents Victory over the Sun: Russian Avant-Garde and Beyond Exhibition Examines Six Decades of Russian Art Posted: 13 December 2018 Jerusalem, Israel Download PDF   Opening December 27, Victory over the Sun charts the evolution of Russian avant-garde and nonconformist art over the course of the 20th century, from the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution to the collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrating the link between artistic styles and the nation’s tumultuous history. Showcasing important loans from renowned institutions including the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, and Centre Pompidou, Paris, this in-depth exhibition presents leading figures of movements that ebbed and flowed with Russia’s social and political upheaval. “Victory over the Sun brings together some of the finest examples of the Russian avant-garde movements, highlighting the indelible connection between art and politics that existed during the rise and fall of the Soviet Union,” remarked Ido Bruno, Anne and Jerome Fisher Director of the Israel Museum. “This exhibition presents a holistic approach to exploring the artistic practices that shaped and were shaped by this unique period in time.” The exhibition opens with works by pioneering avant-garde artist Kazimir Malevich. Even prior to 1917, Malevich began using abstract geometric forms to embody reality, a system he termed Suprematism. On display will be paintings by Malevich, as well as his early designs for the Futurist opera Victory over the Sun. These include a sketch introducing the Black Square, which became the most radical and influential symbol of the avant-garde’s nonobjective approach. Malevich believed that art had to play a leading role in the transforming nation, with Suprematism’s geometric abstraction serving as the ultimate expression of revolutionary ideas and creative radicalism. Also on view will be key works by the movement’s disciples, including El Lissitzky, who promoted Suprematism internationally in the early 1920s. While Suprematism was the dominant artistic movement during these early years of the Soviet state, by the late 1920s a system of government control and censorship had been put in place, and this early avant-garde movement was no longer acceptable to the regime. Replacing it was Social Realism, which remained the sole official art form from the 1930s until the collapse of the Soviet Union.  However, not long after Stalin’s death in 1953 there was a brief period known as the “Thaw.” During this time Nikita Krushchev relaxed the policies of repression, and artists were able to create stylistically diverse works, many influenced by new Western trends. Unfortunately, this freedom was short-lived and in 1962 the government reasserted its ideological control of visual culture, depriving numerous artists of any possibility of exhibiting or publishing their work. Out of this censorship rose a group of “unofficial” artists who practiced in secret, often exhibiting in their own homes. This Nonconformist Art forms the center of the exhibition. On display will be pieces by underground artists including Erik Bulatov, Michail Grobman, Ilya Kabakov, Vitaly Komar, Alexander Melamid, and Vladimir Yankilevsky, all of whom created art unofficially from the 1960s up to the 1980s. The Soviet public sphere was filled with portraits of Party leaders, ideological slogans, and propaganda posters. These ubiquitous images of the regime became the primary target for nonconformists, whose creativity was in direct contrast to the state’s official art. The need to show their art in the limited spaces of a discreet private context gave birth to new genres and techniques, introduced unusual materials, and engendered alternative ways of presenting and experiencing art. Vladimir Yankilevsky’s installation Door (Dedicated to the Parents of my Parents…) embodies this reaction to Soviet oppression through nonconventional practice. Yankilevsky uses an actual door, including the bells to different rooms, from a communal Moscow apartment. When opened, the door reveals a three-dimensional figure of a man facing yet another door. A final inner door appears to be pierced, revealing a colorful horizon framed by the man’s silhouette. As in many of Yankilevsky’s works, the door serves as a metaphor for eternal problems of human existence. It symbolizes the passage between the actual, limited social space of a real communal apartment and the imaginary endless space of artistic inner freedom. Further exemplifying the exploration of freedom and limits are paintings by Erik Bulatov, a leading nonconformist artist associated with Moscow Conceptualism. In his painting Red Horizon, the romantic view of the sea is obstructed by a red-and-gold striped band resembling a military ribbon, its flatness countering the natural landscape. For those on the beach, the red stripe represents an impenetrable barrier on the way to freedom. Also included in this portion of the exhibition are examples of what came to be known as Sots Art, a hybridization of the American term Pop Art and the contracted name for the official Soviet style, Sotsrealism. While American Pop Art played with symbols of mass consumer culture, Sots Art parodied the symbols and stock phrases of Soviet ideology. It incorporated Soviet iconography and recognizable official images (red flags, hammers and sickles) and propaganda tools (banners, posters, slogans) into anti-ideological absurd contexts. Unlike the serious tone of Yankilevsky’s and Bulatov’s work, the Sots Artists employed self-deprecation, irony, and paradox. Victory over the Sun closes with a selection of works by artists created since the late 1980s following the collapse of the USSR, including Andrei Filippov, Pavel Pepperstein, and Vadim Zakharov. Their works embody the sense of freedom that swept over the nation and created a new liberated space in which artists could acknowledge and draw from the political and artistic legacies of the past for the first time in generations.