Art or Politics? Role of Abstract Art in formation of Cold War d

Asseeva Elena E.
Art or Politics? Role of Abstract Art in formation of Cold War doctrine// In reviewing for Cold War Studies Journal (Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA). December 2002.


 Abstract Expressionism collapsed very suddenly back in the spring of 1962, in Paris as well as New York. It is true that it had begun to lose its vitality well before that, but nevertheless it continued to dominate the avant-garde scene, and by the time of its final retreat from that scene it had led art for close to twenty years. The collapse of Abstract Expressionism was as sudden as it was because it was long overdue, but even had its collapse come five or six years earlier (which is when it should have come) the span of time over which Abstract Expressionism held its leadership would still have been over the average for art styles or movements within the last century and a half.
Greenberg Cl. New Art in the Sixties
Lecture in Contemporary Art delivered at the University of Sydney, 1968


The opposition “art-political power” was one of the moving forces for the artists as well as the source of reflection for the politicians since the Renaissance epoch. But only during the XX century the art, here the abstract art, became the esthetical movement that tried to isolate itself from the matters of politics and always became the point of political thoughtful attention. Abstract Art is the most contradictory movement in XX century history of art. It’s contribution to the ideological currents, political changes and development of American, European and Russian Vanguard is still a biggest enigma of 20th century. A. Bogdanow, N.Punin, A.Lunacharskiy linked the power of new art with governmental targets in attempts to build a new society in Russia. Also A.Lunacharskiy was among those who proclaimed the formalism in art and started the whole era of disgrace for any demonstration of novelty in Soviet Union. M. Shapiro, C. Greenberg and H.Rosenberg underlined the ability of abstract art to break the race and religious limits and to be a unifying element for people. But it was C. Greenberg, who has called Abstract Expressionism the “radically” American Style in painting , emphasizing its superiority over French and European Art. In both cases it was an abstract art that appeared to be a source of a number of discussions and, as a result, stereotypes and misunderstandings. Non-objective art was for decades the point where crossed the political and esthetical interests in USA as well as in Soviet Union. And it was an Abstract Art that turned out to be an instrument of applying of some political doctrines during the Cold War period.
The crucial idea of this article is to revise the development and environment of the abstract art in Russia and USA during the time of the “Iron Curtain”. The “Iron Curtain” period, which is considered to be the time from the beginning of Cold War(1946) to the Soviet Perestroika(1985), is most likely a whole epoch of difference in ideology in Soviet Union and North America. In that way it could be more properly to understand the entire XX century (from 1917 to 1985 as well) as a time of mutual alienation, but on the other hand as a period of perpetual movement of our cultures to each other. Correctly enough was the opinion of Russian historian B.Kargalitsky, that “USSR gave the birth of modernization race. The XX century could be named the American century as well as the Soviet one” . Political slumps, sudden changes, desire to break with ethnical limits and the steady attempts to be the first - all of these factors could be a certain description of political climate in both of these countries which were constructing quite opposite formations during the XX century.
The Abstract Art unequally developed in these countries. It witnessed not only the brisk flights and governmental support but also the periods of critical attacks and oblivion. Total distribution of abstract art throughout the world was evident for those who lived at the first part of century. But the most remarkable contribution not only to the history of art styles but also to the to the social order, public opinion and cultural politics was made by Russian and American Abstract Art only. American and Russian cultures strangely assimilated the language of Abstract Art and turned it into the myth rather than to the ordinary art history. American Abstract Expressionism was the most influential art-movement of 40-70th with its combination of practice and clear theory, which still is a source of inspiration and reflection for contemporary artists. The early Russian Avant-Garde with its strong abstract tradition was one of the most daring experiments of the XX century. The abstract art in both of the countries was rather a source of forming of cultural politics not only within the state but also abroad.


Abstract Method of Creation. The ideology of abstract art.

Abstract Art is a way of meditation and perception and no needs to retell the history and theory of it. Abstract Art always strove towards the leaving the frames of Art to the realm of philosophy, to be Beyond of Art, as we could see an the utmost significant works, as Malevich’s “Black Squire”, for instance. The latter was one of the reason of its extinguishing as a movement in painting, but the beginning of it as an interdisciplinary concept that lead us to the understanding of Abstract Art’ endowment to the ideology at XX century. The theoretical core here is the development of “abstract method of creation in its historical evolution from Classical Greece to Contemporary Art and Design and its interpretation in Russian Abstract Art practice..
“Abstract method of creation” ( fr. àbstractivisme from lat. àbstractio) always existed in art process and appeared when artist was trying to convey “ineffable” information by means of visual art. In the first case this is a method of expression of informational level staying above our reality (Martin Heidegger’s conception of creation), which was maximally embodied in abstract art of XX century and consisted before in secular and religious art ( combination of art as an intuitive basis and philosophy as a cognitive one). At the second case, this is a method addressed to the basic matrixes of human consciousness in Applied Arts (ornament, industrial art, design) which are easy for the mass distribution and perception(combination of piece of art as a unique creation and visual schemes that could be easy disseminated). Assuming the external, upper spheres to be a conceptual core of art work, the Abstract Art approached the realm of ideology whatever it was- religion or building of Utopian New Societies. But dislike any art that expressed the interests of society, the Abstractionism did it more theoretically then by methods of painting.
But what is important here is that the tendency to the art expansion in a short space of time was included in simple scheme of formal language. The most significant aspect of such total distribution of non-objective art was also its loyalty to the cultural and ethnic differences. K. Malewitch as well as M. Shapiro foretold the “art–style that could be rather international than national”. And both of the thinkers were agree that “art has to draw people together but not to differentiate cultures by principle of uniqueness” .
All of the figures of vanguard, from W.Kandinsky , P.Mondrian to H.Rosenberg, insisted upon the lack of interest in the isolated form of art . The basic target of art, according to their opinion, was to express new ideas and feelings and to present clearly what was only on the horizon of thought. K.Malevitch dreamed about the total dominion of Suprematism in the “artistically reorganized new society” . Oddly enough, Meyer Shapiro, the most significant theorist of “autonomy” in abstract expressionism, wrote that “esthetic feelings could be a starting point of radical thought, aesthetics can sublime the imperfections of this world and criticize it ” . The latter was mostly adopted from the Marxism theory.

Traditions and sources of abstract language in Russia and USA. Influence of national cultural specific on formation of it.

History is never what it seems to be. Everything has to be viewed from a distance. There were stones in shape of cube, sphere and cone instead of figures of gods in Phoenician temples by astonishment of Greeks and Romanians . The ancient Jewish religion was not too different from neighboring origins during its first times. The development of monotheism based on the Middle East honor of abstract symbols and its doctrine of refusal of idols was the point that connected the idea of abstract language with the whole theory of aesthetics.
All European - style countries were mesmerized by denial of art subject in the first part of XX century. It was a common tendency and it is absolutely impossible today to attribute a right of First Non-Object Picture to one single nation. Probably historians of art will write later that nidus of abstract painting was in the mind of humankind, but every nation had its own national sources for it. Its own separate sources for appearing so similar art in various places. But despite the position of Abstractionism as a “challenger” in Modern Arts of the first part of XX century, its emergence was highly connected with folk and archaic sources, in other words with national roots, that consisted a unique stem of abstract painting in every separate culture.
American and Russian cultures strangely assimilated the language of Abstract Art and turned it into the myth rather than to the ordinary art history. One could say that Russian non-objective painting was developed in symbioses with Russian revolution and disappeared as soon as enthusiasm of revolution was displaced by dictate of Stalinism. But it is a superficial viewpoint. Revolution was only the catalyst of new art, not its cause. Speaking of the traditions of abstraction in Russian Art, it is important to point out that abstraction for the Russians was a Weltanschauung, world-view more than style of art. Russian “suprematizm” and further totalitarian style were more kind of religion than style of art. Russian interpretation of world around was foundation of paradox of abstract painting here. A. Nakov writes that Malevich and Mondrian draw up their own systems in 1910, and they have not already operated with forms but with universals . A system was laconic on the surface - no objects, only holiness of the rhythm of the plain lines and planes.
Notwithstanding the Russian nonfigurative art (konstruktiwism by Tatlin and Rodchenko, suprematism by Malevitch, luchizm by Goncharowa and Larionow, industrial art by L.Popowa) is often supposed to be a “stepchild” of European School, strong and lively folk traditions here are obvious for those who try to discover the sources of abstract way of thinking in Russian Culture. The roots of non-objective art in Russia were also in widely disseminated before revolution influences of isixasm . On the other hand, the traditions of paganism were still alive in the XX century in the culture of folk balagan, in the annual folk cults and in primitive and applied art. The mix of different ethnic art traditions and the rather oriental than western interpretation of world around were the basic foundations of abstract painting in Russia.
The mail uniqueness of Russian avant-garde as well as the reason of such rapt attention and interest from the West was in its balancing between western rationalism, eastern metaphysics and ineradicable, brute paganism of national Russian culture. “The heart of strategy of Russian futurism was not in refusal of West, but in proclaiming it to be the special case of East…The motto of Russian avant-garde was the “density of the incomprehensible ” The sources of Russian abstractionism are in the folk art, in lubok(cheap folk print), in ornament of wooden sculpture, in toy- in other words in everything that was not exposed to the numerous western influences. The Russian futurists very carefully studied the folk art). Moreover, the “basic elements of Malevitch art – cross, circle, squire – are the basis of canonical composition on icon ”
The collective world view was peculiar to Russian culture and that feature underlined such philosophers-slavophiles as S.Khomiakow, N.Chernishewskiy, S.Trubetslkoy. The anonymous art was also widely in practice in Russian Icon Painting, that collected the textual meaning and visual image. The leaders of first Russian Avant-Garde such as K.Malevitch, M.Larionow, N.Goncharowa, V.Tatlin appealed to the Icon Scheme in their practice. It was expressed in using of the local colors, the reversal perspective, the assembling of text and image, in the wooden basis but mainly in meaning that they put in it.
The icon was also the unprecedented piece of art where were composed the visual image compelling the different moments of time and the textual part that was the special interpretation. K. Malevitch, for instance, linked his art conceptions directly with national religious practice and his theoretical treatises were sources of anxiety for such leaders of New Soviet Aesthetics as N.Punin and A.Lunacharskiy, inspire of the fact that his art searches was highly appreciated by latter. A. Lunacharskiy greeted the new formal painting which, in his opinion, could change the classical stereotypes and break the obsolete values.
The religious component of late-Byzantine isixasm caught by K. Malevitch( in his understanding of creator as the “minister of signs” and the Creation as the “supreme liturgy”, cult process that is able to express the ineffable truth unusual for human being) was the invisible prevalent constituent of implicit ideology of Russian Abstract Art of the first as well as the second part of the XX century. The idea of expression of ineffable senses, the crucial basis of abstract method, was taken by Russian avant-garde from antique Byzantine books through unofficial religious worships and practices. The latter was the cause of that special conceptuality of Russian art, its literary content and exaggerated philosophical part as if authors tried to convey some ideas via their art.
“Every image makes visible the hidden senses and shows it”(Ioann Damaskin). The Russian Abstract Art was conceptual by define and from the beginning, since it put at the first place the visual expressing of ideas in its attempts to change the world around but not the formal quality of art. Under the changing of the world was implied not only industrial art, but also art political: the politics, philosophy and art are fused in many of Malevitch’s texts. We see in Russia the very rash development of Abstract, where the painting went trough the transformation to the Creativity, breaking the limitsa between the different forms of art to the Liturgy as a“ rhythm and temp that are brought to light the God”(Maletitch K. About the Poetry). And after it such art became mixed with philosophy and conceptual art, where the piece of art turned to the text, message.
From the other hand, the painting were fusing with industrial art, about what Malewitch told as about “supreme utilitarian mind”, comparing it with “miracle”. The latter has a lot in common in many points with understanding of Creation and Thing in Eastern Culture, where the thing is “endless in Time and Space”.
Actually, the one of the basic peculiarities of Russian Art was its moral orientation: it was always striving toward the changing of humankind and reality. That is why the ideology became the distinguishing feature of Russian Art, and of Russian Abstract Art as well.
 Thus, the abstract art in Russia , only appearing in 1910th in face of K.Malevith, V.Tatlin, M.Larionow, A.Rodchenko and others, was the result of a long process of the diffusion of national folk and religion practices that were contextual predominantly, and the latest formal discoveries of European New Painting. Such contextual meaning that was implicitly contained in Russian Abstract Picture and developed by the leaders of Russian school of avant-garde differed exactly the local abstract art practice from less literary and more formal European one. The “Balck Squire ”(1915) by K.Malevitch that collected the maximum of sense and minimum of visual form, was probably the first example of Russian Conceptualism of XX century.
As to American Abstract Art it emerged from process of cultural convergence in what Native American, Latin American, Afro-American and South Pacific have been enjoined with the European traditions so ethnocentrically privileged by formalist apologists for U.S. American Abstract Artists borrowed the famous method of “automatism ” not so much from French surrealists as from Native Indian Art. Abstract Expressionism encountered this technique at several significant exhibitions by MOMA at 1937-1940th, dedicated to the Mexican and Indian Art Traditions that opened the pre-Columbian mural painting and the huge pictograms from Uta canyons to the mass public. The exhibitions were visited and thoroughly examined by Polloc, Grekhem, Paalen and Newman, the most remarkable figures of American Abstract Art . J.Polloc himself attributes his famous method of “dripping” to the discoveries he made looking at the Indian technique of spontaneous painting. European influence was significant but not comprehensive. Existentialism and Psychoanalysis only offered the theoretical basis for such individual and subjective art, which was in most aspects different from the collectivist creativity of Russian Avant-Garde. Thus, the non-objective painting in U.S. was by define the multicultural style of art that was assembling different traditions and influences . In the 1930th Meyer Schapiro rejected the possibility of any national “American Art” as an insidious idea. He observed that such a claim would constitute , at best, a veil of fictions unity in a highly stratified society with considerable racial, class and gender divisions. Owing to these circumstances, Shapiro noted that the designation of “American Art ” would simply publicize the singular interests of those at the top of the economic structure, who, because of attendant political power in a comparably disproportionate amount, would simply speak for everyone else, as if there really were a homogeneous national culture. As subsequent events attests, Schapiro’s point was both quite accurate and largely ignored. Indeed, Clement Greenberg has even insisted that the term “Abstract Expressionism” be replaced by the title “American-Type Painting”
Thus, looking at the evolution of the Abstract in both of the countries we could point out that nonfigurative painting in USA as well as in Russia , in spite of common opinion, was totally different in its inner structure from the one in Europe. American Abstract Expressionism only took the theoretical platform from European Art and improved it, developing the technique found partly in national folk art. The same was the formal language of art, but the philosophical qualities were endlessly different. American Abstract Expressionism collecting different art-styles gathered from different parts of the world was formerly the phenomenon that tried to get rid of national borders and limits. M. Schapiro’s theory (that was partly deduced from Marxist aesthetics) anticipated the appearance the common language of art that could be able to connect nations then to be only a new style of art technique. M. Schapiro considered the abstract painting to be such a way of communication. In Russia and USA the abstract painting was a conception at the first turn, that was subconsciousnessly endowed by unusual for art tasks by its leaders, and only at second the artistic practice. It could exactly clarify the paradox of mutual impact of political will and abstract art movement during the century that has already become the history for us.

Development of abstract art in Soviet Union and U.S. during the postwar period. Ideological impact of abstract painting.

The postwar abstract painting in Soviet Union developed along with nonofficial or nonconformist art and was suppressed by canonical taste as a constituent of it. Abstract Art in Russia, where the nonfigurative painting firstly was admitted by official aesthetic as a label of novelty, was finally prohibited as harmful and bourgeois rudiment. But it appeared again as only political press become lighter.
 America and Soviet Union moved impetuously to each other after the Stalin’s death (the illustrations here could be a publishing of number of books of American writes and “America” magazine, presentations of American Art in Russia, visits by Nixon and Khruschev, etc.) Oddly enough, the post-war abstract painting in Soviet Union unconsciously compared itself with its American prototype, notwithstanding the strong native traditions, forgotten for the period of time. Moreover, there appeared the whole movement imitated the American technique of “dripping ” represented by such artists as A.Zwerev, M. Kulakov, W. Slepian and others. It was partly a fashion, partly a repetition what was made by American Abstract Expressionism, but the difference was at the inner context of such creative activity. Mostly it was an ideological and political context. The appearance of American Abstract Expressionism is the most productive source of stereotypes and generalizations in hiXX century history of art. As usually, a lot of these stereotypes were taken sincerely by Russian artists and had an influence on development of postwar Abstract Art in Russia.
The situation in postwar period was extremely difficult for Abstract Art in Russia. The nonfigurative painting that firstly was admitted by official aesthetic as a label of novelty was prohibited as harmful and bourgeois rudiment at 1930th. But it re-appeared after the Second World War in Soviet Union as only political press become lighter and its the second birth brought to it also the new qualities. Oddly enough, the post-war abstract painting in Soviet Union unconsciously compared itself with its American prototype, notwithstanding the strong native traditions, forgotten for dozen of years. Moreover, the whole movement appeared which was imitating the American technique of “dripping ”( represented by such artists as A.Zwerev, M. Kulakov, W. Slepian and others). It was partly a fashion, partly a repetition that was made by American Abstract Expressionism, but the difference was at the inner context of such creative activity.
There was a strong and rich Abstract Art movement in Post-War Soviet Union besides the well-known Soviet Realism and Non-Conformism. The post-war Non-Objective Art was alien to the circle of radical non-conformists and was prohibited by official cultural policy. Such double misunderstanding and, as a result, negative and indifferent position towards the Late Soviet Abstract Painting in Russia as well as abroad resulted in series of old-fashioned generalizations. But on the other hand, such lack of attention to the abstract tendency became a source of its unique “introversion”. The abstract art in that period became the instrument of conveying the metaphysical ideas that were a source for inspiration for artists in atheistic society. The Post-War Abstract Painting was a unique phenomenon of Russian Art that combined the qualities of Conceptual Art and Abstractionism and was developed in specificity of Post-Modernism epoch.
Actually at the same period (1950th )MOMA started the supporting program for Abstract Expressionism in US and that art-current became the official American brand abroad for several postwar years. Thus, we are facing a paradox when the Abstract Art appeared to be a marionette for official opinion (and formation of that opinion) in the countries that were the opposite sides of Iron Curtain. As a result the Abstract Art was playing the strange odd role in art process and world cultural policy during the second part of XX century. In United States once rejected as a “left ” movement , the abstract art has finally become the politically approved tendency. In Russia once accepted as an official art after the Revolution, Non-Figurative painting was banned for the half of the century. Nobody knows how the history of non-objective vanguard could turn if political power would not have interfered it.
C. Greenberg underlined in his lecture delivered at the University of Sydney on Friday 17 may 1968, that “… avant-garde art in the latter 40's and in the 50's was one, not many, in terms of style is now pretty generally recognized. Lacking the perspective of time, we find it harder to identify a similar stylistic unity in the art of this decade. It is there all the same. All the varied and ingenious excitements and "experiments" of the last years, large and small, significant and trivial, flow within the banks of one, just one period style. Homogeneity emerges from what seemed an excess of heterogeneity. Phenomenal, descriptive, art-historical–as well as qualitative–order supervenes where to the foreshortening eye all seemed the antithesis of order” .
As to American Art, the issue “how US stole the idea of European Abstract Art ” have been widely discussed till recently , despite the fact that nonfigurative art appeared in USA at the same time as in Europe . Also there were a great number of stereotypes, imposed on public opinion by governmental system and most often it were the artists who followed and become hostages of such misunderstanding.
The most serious stereotype is that American Abstract Art was assiduously proclaimed and “made” by American government as a “banner of Western cultural liberalism and democratic capitalism” and was actively supported by FBI. It can be correctly, but only in such degree as it would be said that Russian Abstract Art was a manifest and a representative of new Soviet Culture during the 1920th . The paradoxical and repressive content, the peculiar brand of “developed capitalism along with North American hegemony ” were tied to the Abstract Expressionism by politicians at the end of 50th with beginning of Cold War hysteria in the world . Never before artists faced the situation that their creative works were used as a political instrument by supreme bureaucratic machinery without their knowledge. Once was it made by new Soviet Regime, and then it was repeated in tree dozens years in USA. (This situation repeated those in Russia when the government supported New Art and it was extending for the first four years after the revolution. Nonfigurative art, once proclaimed as representative of New Soviet Society and New Soviet Man, was used as an instrument to get rid with the Past and was rejected as only it coped with such an exorbitant task )
From that view point these two cultures are extremely similar with only difference that the Soviet Government ultimately chose the social realism and tried to get rid of abstract art as soon as possible at the middle of 1920th. As to the Abstract Art in USA, it lost its revolutionary content as only it was accepted officially at 50th .
The “extremely chaotic and bourgeois movement” , as the Abstract Art was presented from behind the Soviet part of “Iron Curtain” by official aesthetics, was initially “Left” in the United States. Taking into account that the ideological leaders of Abstract Expressionism such as Greenberg and Shapiro were generally accepted in North America as Socialists, who were sharing the Marxism ideas, the abstract art in USA was leftist movement in art by default It was absolutely different from how it was presented by official Soviet Aesthetics that followed the “fable” that was offered by officials. Most of all, the leading sector of USA government decided to restrict two times the number of exhibitions of “dissident artists” at the beginning of 50th. Under the “dissidents” were implied the abstract painters. And only at the end of 50th the government changed its viewpoint and started the supporting program, that proclaimed the Abstract Expressionism, the marginal and nonconformist formerly, to be nearly the official national art-movement.
The second wave of the negative attitude toward the Abstract Expressionism in US began at 70th with appearance of number of critics who were strictly against it ( because of the political reasons again). Max Kozloff proved the fault of Nelson Rockefeller and K.Greenberg, the leaders of MOMA during the 50-60th, who imposed the propaganda of abstract art abroad . At the same time the essay by Eva Cocroft asserted that “Abstract Expressionism was used by MOMA and supreme power by purpose as a symbol of political freedom for the remote areas” . Factually such manipulations appeared to be the only reason of the American progressive art’s turning from abstract painting, blamed for all possible sins , toward Pop-art at 60th. And as usually the artists were those who paid off for the critics’ mistakes by oblivion and neglect. (This situation repeated those in Russia when the government supported New Art and it was extending for the first four years after the revolution. Nonfigurative art, once proclaimed as representative of New Soviet Society and New Soviet Man, was used as an instrument to get rid with the Past and was rejected as only it coped with such an exorbitant task )
From that view point these two cultures are extremely similar with only difference that the Soviet Government ultimately chose the social realism and tried to get rid of abstract art as soon as possible at the middle of 1920th. As to the Abstract Art in USA, it lost its revolutionary content as only it was accepted officially at 50th .
The “extremely chaotic and bourgeois movement” , as the Abstract Art was presented from behind the Soviet part of “Iron Curtain” by official aesthetics, was initially “Left” in the United States. Taking into account that the ideological leaders of Abstract Expressionism such as Greenberg and Shapiro were generally accepted in North America as Socialists, who were sharing the Marxism ideas, the abstract art in USA was leftist movement in art by default It was absolutely different from how it was presented by official Soviet Aesthetics that followed the “fable” that was offered by officials. Most of all, the leading sector of USA government decided to restrict two times the number of exhibitions of “dissident artists” at the beginning of 50th. Under the “dissidents” were implied the abstract painters. And only at the end of 50th the government changed its viewpoint and started the supporting program, that proclaimed the Abstract Expressionism, the marginal and nonconformist formerly, to be nearly the official national art-movement.
Both of countries, which were the important centers of abstract art during the XX century, still have a lot of difficulties in understanding of art and the world outlook of each other. But I believe that Russian abstract painters of 50th and 60th could agree with Clement Greenberg who thought that “art as art takes place away from life as lived, is experienced as other than the life world… And this otherness is part of art’s gift” even being on the other side of the Iron Curtain. And painters of American school of abstract painting could agree with Kazimir Malevich, who stated that “what is more important for us in art is no sincerity but truth”.
The vanguard, a phenomenon that usually throws away the cannons and spurns the common opinion, became paradoxically accepted and supported officially.
In Russia once accepted as an official art, the non-figurative painting was rejected for the half of the century. In United States once rejected as a “left ” movement, the abstract art has become the politically approved tendency. Nobody knows how the history of non-objective vanguard could turn if political power would not have interfered it. But the paradox why the politicians chose such an “abstract” art as Abstractionism to be an instrument of providing their will at XX century (or it was the abstractionism that tried to solve the political problems) is still a biggest enigma of our time.
 But the paradox why the politicians chose such an “abstract” art as Abstractionism to be an instrument of providing their will at XX century (or it was the abstractionism that tried to solve the political problems) is still a biggest enigma of our time.

Asseeva Elena E.
Center Associate at Davis Center
for Russian and Eurasian Studies,
Harvard University.
Ph.D. St. Petersburg University of Humanities and Social Sciences .
Specialization in Russian Modern
and Contemporary Art.
Member of Professional Design Union (Russia)
Member of AQUENT design agency (USA).



©Asseeva Elena