Boris Asaf'ev and the Soviet Musicology - E-thesis

Futurism developed in Italy and in Russia almost simultaneously. Russian Pre-
Revolutionary Futurist scheme was divided into four groups that had occasional ties
with eachothers: The Cubo-Futurists, Ego-Futurists, The Mezzanine of Poetry and
Centrifuge. The Cubo-Futurists differed from their Western counterparts not only in that
they had different set of poetic devices but also that their vision of poetic universe had
its roots in the Slavophile ideology of the preceding century. Their aesthetics had its
roots in irrationalism and its emphasis was on speed, dynamism, and simultaneity that
reflected the poetic perception of a chaotic universe. 28 As Lawton has stated, the main
difference between the Futurist and Symbolist ideas was that the Futurists didn’t
perceive chaos in negative terms, as a disruption of order, but as a natural condition.
Whereas Symbolists escaped from the chaos to the ideal world beyond everything,
Futurists recognized only surrounding world and made new rules that would fit the
reality of a chaotic universe. The Ego-Futurists manifested in their Prologue Ego-
Futurism Italian Futurist Filippo Marinettian (1876–1944) idea that “the poetry of the
past is inadequate to express the spiritual life of a contemporary individual and that
technological reality requires a new rhythm in poetry and a new orchestration of
sounds.” 29 Futurists devaluated Aleksandr Puškin (1799–1837) and rejected the reason
and logic.
Lawton has divided Russian Futurism into two distinct phases: “the first bearing an
anarchic-revolutionary character with a tinge of romanticism, typical of the historical
avant-garde; and the second marked by an unsuccessful effort to embrace the
Revolution and build the culture of the future communist society” 30 . The Post-
Revolutionary Futurist scheme was divided into Company 41˚ and Left Front of the
Arts (Lef). The latter competed with other literary groups (Proletkult, The Divide,
Imaginists and Contructivists) over the title “the representatives of the true proletarian
literature”. However, the Lef had difficulties because it was aesthetics-oriented,
Bohemian and it had an antisocial past. Allthough the Commisar of Education Anatolij
Lunačargskij (1875–1933), who was sympathetic toward the avant-garde, supported
28 Ibid., pp. 8, 11, 17.
29 Ibid., pp. 8, 21.
30 Ibid., pp. 11–12, 21.
11