Kazimir Malevich’s Negative Theology and Mystical Suprematism

Abstract

This article examines Kazimir Malevich’s Suprematist art in the context of negative (apophatic) theology, as a crucial tool in analyzing both the artist’s theoretical conclusions and his new visual optics. Our analysis rests on the point that the artist intuitively moved towards recognizing the ineffability of the multidimensional universe and perceiving God as the Spiritual Absolute. In his attempt to see the invisible in the formulas of Emptiness and Nothingness, Malevich turned to the primary forms of geometric abstraction—the square, circle and cross—which he endows with symbolic concepts and meanings. Malevich treats his Suprematism as a method of perceiving the ineffability of the Absolute. With the Black Square seen as a face of God, the patterns of negative theology rise to become the philosophical formula of primary importance. Malevich’s Mystical Suprematism series (1920–1922) confirms the presence of complex metaphysical reflection and apophatic thought in his art. Not only does the series contain icon paraphrases and the Christian symbolism of the cross and mandorla, but it also advances the formulas of the apophatic faith of the modern times, since Suprematism presents primary forms as the universals of “the face of the future” and the energy of the non-objective art.

Slavic and Eastern-European Visuality

“…See also (Cortenova and Petrova 2000b). For general observations, see also (Mudrak 2015;Sakhno 2021;also Blank 1995;Bowlt 1986Bowlt , 1991Bowlt , 2008Sarabianov 1993, pp. 7-21).…”

“…32-33). 8 Among the academic studies of Kazimir Malevich's mystical symbolism and apophatism that have been published in the recent decades, the following are to be recommended: (Bering 1986;Bowlt 1991;Goryacheva 2020;Ichin 2011;Krieger 1998;Kurbanovsky 2007;Milner 1996;Mudrak 2016;Marcadet 2000;Rostova 2021;Spira 2008;Sakhno 2021;Tarasov 2002;. 9…”

“…Alexandra Shatskikh, in one of her essays, also notes the proximity of quietism Arts 2023, 12, 10 and Hesychasm with a reference to Malevich's philosophy (Shatskikh 2000), suggesting that because of Malevich's monist worldview, active mystical dialogue with the deity, the idea of the inner prayer could be essentially rather foreign for the artist. Shatskikh argues Malevich would be more in tune with and congenial to the concept of Zen Buddhism taken from the Mahayana Buddhist canon; the scholar perceives the idea of nirvana as a space of general serene Nothingness as very similar to Malevich's idea of 'an Absolute Objectless Nothing' (Shatskikh 2000; see also Sakhno 2021).…”