Horkeimer, Adorno, and Benjamin, on Tatlin's Tower

Link to photo and description: http://purplemotes.net/2007/07/01/cob-12-the-art-of-bureaucracy/

What would have become known as The Monument to the Third International, Tatlin’s Tower, which never made it passed the stage of a model, epitomizes the work of the constructivists in the first half of the twentieth century. In brief, this art form strived to deny the idea (which I believe stems from Kant) of art for arts sake. Moreover, it replaced it with that the goal of celebrating the machine construction and use of materials prominent in the industrial revolution, both of which can clearly be seen in the models structure. Furthermore, noting the name of the piece, which references the subsequent communist regime after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, this art form worked to celebrate and further that political ideology.

It is hard to establish what Horkeimer and Adorno would say about this piece in light of the culture industry that they despised. Since constructivism as a whole worked to gain support for communism, would they celebrate it as inspiring this form of socialism? Or, having communism already established in Russia, would they condemn it for serving the status quo? On accord of its being a symbol of the achievement of the communist government (once again, consider its name), I personally argue the latter for Tatlin’s piece.

Consider, also, Benjamin’s final line in The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction, which prescribes the appropriate reaction to fascism, via futurism, making politics aesthetic: “Communism responds by politicizing art” (Benjamin 242). It appears that Tatlin’s tower is a prime example of this. Consequently, unlike Horkeimer and Adorno, Benjamin would look extremely favorable upon the piece.