[43] Margolin, Pervyi Rabochii teatr , pp. 58–59.
[44] V. Bliumenfel'd, "Teorabota Lenproletkul'ta," Rabochii klub , no. 28 (1926), pp. 34–37.
[45] Khoral, "Na bol'nye temy," TsGALI f. 1230, op. 1, d. 1245, ll. 57–59, quotation l.59. Some of his colleagues accused him of cowardly, petty-bourgeois behavior for this statement. See ibid., ll. 50–56.
[46] "Vsesoiuznoe kul'tsoveshchanie pri VTsSPS," Rabochii klub , no. 29 (1926), pp. 51–53.
― 244 ―
pose literary montages from public documents and newspapers, urged V. M. Bliumenfeld of the Leningrad Proletkult. Valerian Pletnev believed that scripts of any kind would soon be a thing of the past.[47]
Within its own workshops and theaters the Proletkult showed no signs of adopting more conservative methods under trade union management. Although the Workers' Theater retreated somewhat from its experiments under Eisenstein, it had a completely contemporary repertoire and considered itself part of the artistic left. Production art still held sway. Workshops employed the popular method of photomontage, and Moscow studios, under the direction of Aleksandr Rodchenko, designed ingenious multipurpose furniture for clubs.[48] Festivals were a focal point for much local activity. In 1927 the Leningrad Proletkult helped to map out an elaborate three-day agenda for the tenth anniversary of the revolution. The program incorporated displays of military hardware, historical scenes from the revolution, and mass performances of physical exercises and games.[49]
Despite this evidence of vitality, the Proletkult remained on the margins of cultural life in the 1920s. During the festivities marking the first decade of the revolution, numerous reviewers gave an appreciative account of the Proletkult's contributions to Soviet culture. But the articles had the tone of a postmortem, looking back at an institution that had outlived its usefulness. In his assessment of a decade of Soviet litera-
[47] V. Bliumenfel'd, "Litmontazh," Rabochii klub , no. 32 (1926), pp. 19–26; and A. V. Lunacharskii, R. A. Pel'she, and V. F. Pletnev, eds., Puti sovremennogo teatra (Moscow, 1926), pp. 51–53.
[48] L. P., "Izo Rabota Leningradskogo Proletkul'ta za 10 let," in Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let: Materialy i dokumentatsii , ed. I. Matsa, L. Reingardt, and L. Rempel' (Moscow, 1933), pp. 279–82; Ia. Tugendkhol'd, "Sovremennyi plakat," Pechat' i revoliutsiia , no. 8 (1926), pp. 61–62; A. R., "Zapisnaia knizhka LEFa," Novyi LEF , no. 6 (1927), p. 5; and I. Chkannkov and N. Serov, "Klubnaia mebel'," Rabochii klub , no. 50 (1928), pp. 30–38.
[49] I. M. Bibikova and N. I. Levchenko, Agitatsionno-massovoe iskusstvo: Oformlenie prazdnestv (Moscow, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 162–66.
― 245 ―
ture the influential critic Viacheslav Polonskii concluded that the Proletkult had helped to awaken the creative power of the working class. "No errors by Proletkult leaders and ideologues can lessen the enormous significance of the movement, which attracted many gifted representatives from proletarian youth, if only for a short time."[50] It was clear from his tone that he felt its short time had long since passed.