Hannelore Fobo

Timur Novikov's New Artists Lists (2018 / 2025)

Abstract

In the 1980s, the New Artists set out to conquer the public space of their hometown Leningrad. Today, as they are featured in many publications, they are considered as the city’s most important artist group from the late Soviet period. Yet there is no consensus among scholars concerning their lineup, the years of their existence, and the question of whether they should be considered as a (smaller) homogeneous group of artists sharing similar styles or as a (larger) open movement of like-minded people. To no small degree, these ambiguities result from contradictory statements made by New Artists founder Timur Novikov (1958-2002) in his articles, autobiography and lectures, where he, in addition, included not only visual artists, but also musicians, performers, and writers. Furthermore, Novikov used some “side-projects” from 1986 that partly overlapped with his concept of the New Artists to artificially increase the number of New Artists members – in the main, the “Friends of Mayakovsky Club” (Klub druzej V.V. Mayakovskogo / Клуб друзей В.В. Маяковского) and the “Folk Art Lovers Club” (Klub liubteley narodnogo tvorchestva / Клуб любителей народного творчества).

To define the question of membership, I have structured eleven of Novikov’s texts with respect to names and dates – Novikov’s New Artists lineups or “lists” – and compared them with photographs of New Artists’ exhibitions and performances, as well as other documents. Such a strictly formal approach permits defining membership on the basis of a person’s recurrent participation in collective activities without taking into account stylistic criteria. The result of this comparative analysis confirms the concept of the New Artists as a group that had consolidated by 1985/1986 with between fifteen to twenty artists whose names we find in Novikov’s autobiography from 1998.

These findings helped establishing a periodization of New Artists’ activities, separating Novikov’s earlier concept of the New Artists as a group (1982-1985) from a later one of the New Artists as a movement (1986-1989/1991). My hypothesis is that the group forms the core of the New Artists movement. I will also argue why there is no clear criteria regarding a person’s adhesion to the New Artists movement, which thus remains a question of interpretation.

Preliminary Remarks 2025

For the academic world, the Soviet Union’s multifaceted subculture, alternatively called “counter / informal / independent / underground culture”, is a highly attractive subject. Thus, the year 2024 saw the publication of two voluminous books dedicated to this topic, each with contributions by numerous scholars: (Counter-)Archive: Memorial Practices of the Soviet Underground[1] and The Oxford Handbook of Soviet Underground Culture[2]. The articles demonstrate that as more and more archival documents have been joining private and public collections, and, in part, presented online, it is now possible to examine and appreciate this phenomenon in a more comprehensive manner.

This is why I decided to have another look at my article from 2018 “Timur Novikov’s New Artists Lists”. Since its first publication, I have carried out further research on New Artists “side projects”, their national and international exhibitions, as well as on common features characterising their styles and techniques. In recent years, I have dedicated much time to a documentation which is now at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies Special Collection, Harvard University: USA-CCCP. Points of Contact (1979-1990), the correspondence between (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov, a leading New Artists member, and his American friend Catherine Mannick. The correspondence as well as the artworks and pictures belonging to it provide first-hand information about the New Artists’ quest for their place in art and their socio-cultural background.

Thus, re-reading “Timur Novikov’s New Artists Lists”, I understood that the text needed more than just a few additional notes, but had to be completely revised. At the same time, the revision allowed me to remove some errors and to correct misinterpretations in the original version. However, the main conclusions concerning the New Artists’ lineup and periodization have persisted.

Reassessing my arguments, It became once more clear to me that my formal approach to analysing New Artists membership is rather unconventional – grouping to sets and subsets Novikov’s references in his texts to artists and connecting these sets and subsets with “and” and “or” arguments, like in truth-functional propositional logic. On the other hand, having known Novikov well enough, I think he would have appreciated it: as far as I can see, no one else has ever committed themselves to analysing his statements in such a thorough manner, thus taking Novikov by his word.

Chapter 1. The New Artists: dating the group’s existence and defining its lineup. 

Regarding Leningrad’s subculture of the late Soviet period, the New Artists (1982-1989/1991) were the city’s most active avant-garde group. Starting in 1988, their works were exhibited outside their country (USA more>>, Sweden more>>, England more>>, Denmark, Hungary, Germany more>>, France more>> • more>>), where they were often hailed as representing perestroika.[3] In the 2010s, as a number of international exhibitions again demonstrated a rising interest in late Soviet subculture, they were presented in their historical context: “Club of Friends” at the Calvert 22 Foundation, London (2014) more>>, “Notes from the Underground. Art and Alternative Music in Eastern Europe 1968–1994”, Muzeum Sztuki, Lodz  (2016) and Akademie der Künste Berlin (2018) more>>, “Kollektsia”, Centre Pompidou, Paris (2017) External link>>, and “Libres Figurations Années 80”, Fonds Héléne & Èdouard Leclerc pour la Culture, Landerneau (2018) External link>>. Their art is present in international museums, including one of the world’s leading collections for contemporary art – Tate Modern, which possesses works by (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov External link>> and Timur Novikov External link>>, as well a series of Mamyshev-Monroe’s drawings from Kozlov’s collection External link >>.

Catalogue texts about the New Artists frequently draw information from the two most comprehensive publications about the New Artists, based on Ekaterina Andreeva’s research: the exhibition catalogues “Brushstroke” (The Russian Museum, 2010) and “The New Artists” (MMOMA, Moscow Museum of Modern Art, 2012 more>>).[4] Another important publication is Andrey Khlobystin’s book “Shizorevolutsiia” (2017), giving an overview on Leningrad’s culture of the 1980s and 1990s.[5]

Both authors had come in close contact with the New Artists in the late ninety-eighties and present manifold aspects of the group’s activities, turning their attention to common features in style and attitude. Yet, their rich and detailed information notwithstanding, who belonged to the New Artists at what moment is not easily understood. For instance, the cover of the New Artists’ MMOMA catalogue displays 41 names,[6] while in the catalogue’s introduction, Ekaterina Andreeva lists the names of thirteen artists for 1985[7], stating that “By the late 1980s, this company of friends passionate about painting and rock music had grown into a movement of over seventy members.” (The New Artists, p.7) Eight years later, in her introduction to the “Echos of Expressionism” exhibition catalogue, Andreeva reduces their number to five – six, if we include Novikov himself:

Тимур Новиков и «Новые художники» (Иван Сотников, Олег Котельников, Вадим Овчинников, Инал Савченков) формируют информационное поле актуальной культуры. (Ekho, p.9)
Timur Novikov and the “New Artists” (Ivan Sotnikov, Oleg Kotelnikov, Vadim Ovchinnikov, Inal Savchenkov) form the information field of current culture.[8]

Last but not least, in her article for the Oxford Handbook, “Timur Novikov and the New Artists”, Andreeva once more returns to the thirteen + one (Novikov’s) names from the New Artists catalogue, with a slight change in the next sentence “[…] had grown into a movement of over seventy artists, musicians, filmmakers, and writers” (Oxford Handbook, 2024, p. 1004). If we take as a basis the 41 names from the New Artists catalogue cover, there still remain about thirty unidentified names.

In fact, with regard to individual members, the situation is all but clear: no formal membership documented the group’s dynamic evolution. Likewise, there exists neither an official founding date nor an official date of the group’s dissolution – they must be extrapolated from group’s collective activities.

The question about the New Artists’ foundation produces a circular argument: if we wish to establish the foundation date, we need to know who was a founding member. If we wish to establish the names of the founding members, we need to define their first collective activity as New Artists.

Ekaterina Andreeva calls Timur Novikov’s and Ivan Sotnikov’s zero object from a large TEII[9] exhibition in October 1982 “the New Artists first collective action” (The New Artists, 2012, p. 7). The zero object was a rectangular opening “exhibited” in a partition wall used for displaying paintings. It created a big scandal. Thus the zero object can be considered as a Dadaist manifesto of sorts, representing, to some extent, the essence of the Novikov’s concept for the New Artists.

This definition of the foundation date may be questioned, since the “hole in the wall” was initiated by only two of the group’s early members – the others being (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov,[10] Oleg Kotelnikov and Kirill Khazanovich (see texts no 9 and no 11).[11] The first documented collective action of all five founding members actually is an exhibition at Novikov’s ASSA squat and gallery in the summer of 1984 more>>. There is another argument speaking against connecting the New Artists’ emergence to the zero object: Novikov and Sotnikov didn’t perform under the New Artists label, neither did such a label appear in the ensuing correspondence becoming part of the scandal. Because of the action’s repercussions on the Leningrad art scene, I nevertheless support Andreeva’s view. But we must admit that with regard to the group’s existence, the period between 1982 and 1984 leaves room for interpretation, even though Novikov himself referred to 1982 as the year of the group’s foundation retrospectively, for instance in his lecture from 2002 (text no 11).

Defining the group’s break-up is just as complex, but we can make a statement: it happened around 1989, when Timur Novikov, the group’s founder, turned to his next project, “The New Academy of Fine Arts”. This process took some time. “Neoacademist” paintings were first publicly presented at a party organised at the Palace of the Communication Workers in the summer of 1990 more>>. A large exhibition took place in March 1991 at the Marble Palace, at that time the Leningrad branch of the Lenin Museum more>>. Andrey Khlobystin therefore sets the end of the New Artists to the year 1991 (Khlobystin, 2017, p. 99).

Another argument supporting this dating is the project “Pirate Television”, a series of videos by Timur Novikov and “newcomers” Yuris Lesnik and Vladislav Mamyshev-Monroe (with some guest performers). It lasted from 1989 to 1991 (for a different dating see chapter 5) and may be considered as a late New Artists project. If we opt for 1991 as the end of the group’s existence, then Kozlov’s “Collection 2x3m”, starting with several New artists[12] in early 1990 (Kotelnikov, Sotnikov, Mamyshev-Monroe) and first exhibited in July 1990 on Palace Bridge, near the Hermitage, also fits the category of a New Artists collective project more>>. Besides, Khlobystin generously includes the beginning of the Rave and club music scene in 1990 to the New Artists period (Khlobystin, 2017, p. 100).

Yet Khlobystin also stresses the fact that in 1995, upon preparing the edition of the New Artists Antologiia / Anthology, a compilation of texts and poetry from the period of 1982 to 1987, Novikov decided to limit the group’s existence to 1987, when he painted Guryanov’s nude portrait in what he considered to be a neo-classical style. Accordingly, the Anthology contains few texts from 1988 or later. Novikov himself argued for such a view in his text from around 1989: “By the end of 1988, the New Artists group had for all intents and purposes ceased to exist as a group.” (Brushstroke, 2010, pp. 34/35; text no 8[13]). It is true that many activities appearing under the New Artists label after 1988, for instance their 1989 exhibition at Liverpool’s Bluecoat Gallery,[14] were simply follow-up projects – Liverpool followed Stockholm, Aarhus, and Copenhagen – but not new group activities in the sense of first-time undertakings. An exception is the exhibition from May 1989 at the Leningrad Railroad Workers Palace of Culture “И снится нам... / And We Dream of...”. It presented The New Artists Group and the “Free University” – the latter being another one of Novikov’s creations – with a lineup of fourteen artists.[15] Apart from Zakhar (Alexander Nikolaev), all participating artists had already engaged in New Artists activities earlier, many since the mid 1980s.[16] This somewhat unexpected homogeneity of group members with respect to their last “fresh” exhibition is the reason why I opt for a seven-year New Artists lifespan, from 1982 to1989.

In this way, the most restrictive view of the New Artists’ lifespan includes the years from 1984 to 1987, while the least restrictive, shared by Andreeva and Khlobystin, includes the years from 1982 to 1991.

As a matter of fact, until quite late, the group’s name wasn’t even clearly defined, as Andreeva notes: “The name ‘New Artists’ (group) is now the commonly accepted term, but there were others as well […] the ‘society’ or ‘association’ of New Artists”. (Brushstroke, 2010, p. 33).

The “Association / Society of New Artists”, in Russian “Объединение Новых Художников / Obiedinenie Novykh Khudozhnikov”, appears in Novikov's typescript catalogue “Happy New Year” next to the name New Artists (Новые художники / Novye Khudozhniki), namely with its abbreviation ОНХ (ONKh). “Association” suggests a looser configuration than “group”. Seen as a group, New Artists is a proper name, a trade mark, or brand, like that of Mitki, another Leningrad group from the 1980s which still exists today (and to which Ivan Sotnikov had close ties). Association of New Artists is closer to a generic name, like that of a trade union, admitting anyone fitting some formal, but not necessarily ideological criteria. Novikov also occasionally used “The New” group (gruppa Novye / группа Новые).

Two New Artists “hypostases” from 1986, the “Friends of V.V. Mayakovsky Club, or simply “Vladimir Mayakovsky Friends Club” (Клуб друзей В.В. Маяковского / Klub druziei V.V.Mayakovskogo), and the “Folk Art Lovers Club” (Клуб любителей народного творчества / Klub liubitelei narodnogo tvorchestva), generously absorbing New as well as “other” artists to their numerous sections, add to the confusion about who is who. This proliferation of functions and names characterised Timur Novikov’s strategy: like a jester, he provoked the court – in this case the communist bureaucracy – and mocked its institutions. At the same time, he expanded the myth of the New Artists as a “critical mass”, intending to establish the group as a serious alternative to existing institutions. While this double strategy constituted an essential part of the New Artists’ attraction, the abundance of names and activities at times exhausts the scholar.

Giving an analysis of the New Artists’ structure, Andreeva quotes from a New Artists flyer:

On a flyer for a New Artists show from 1988 or 1989 (the flyer is marked with the stamp of the “Vladimir Mayakovsky Friends Club“ – a silhouette red circle made with the lid of a photo-film canister) we read: “The New Artists are more a movement than a group. They have been in existence since 1982. No one knows the exact lineup: it is fickle.“ (Brushstroke, 2010, p. 33)

The flyer (text no 7), reprinted in Khlobystin’s book Shizorevolutsiia on p. 98, displays twenty-three names of artists (twenty-four, if we include Novikov's pseudonym Igor Potapov).[17] In all likelihood, Novikov created it for Leningrad‘s first official New Artists’ exhibition presenting the group with a printed booklet – perestroika was well under way and such extravagancies became now possible. It took place at the Sverdlov House of Culture in the spring of 1988, and Novikov’s flyer can be seen in one of A. Savatyugin’s pictures of the exhibition more >>. Novikov’s text explains that there was no selection principle of works exhibited, and that everybody brought along what they saw fit. This is obviously the reason why the list is very long and comprises several “untypical” New Artists names – Dmitry Egorov, Igor Smirnov, and German more >>.

In contrast to Novikov’s long list, the official exhibition booklet states only seven and the exhibition poster eight – “classical” – members. Their names can be read below the poster’s headline “The New Artists group” (группа «Новые художники»): Bugaev, Kotelnikov, Kozlov, Sotnikov, Novikov, Ovchinnikov, Savchenkov, and Yufit more >>. The latter is not mentioned in the booklet more >>. The Sverdlov poster also announced a programme with a round table discussion with art critics and a “creative meeting with artists, musicians, cinematographers and writers” (творческая встреча с художниками, музыкантами, кинематографистами, литераторами) that saw a performance by Valery Alakhov and Igor Verichev – the New Composers – and their friends, as well as film screenings more >>.

In 2020, I reconstructed the exhibition with the help of pictures by (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov and Alexander Savatyugin. From the 88 works displayed, 59 – two third – could be assigned to the following seventeen artists: Sergei Bugaev, Vladislav Gutsevich, Andrey Khlobystin, Maya Khlobystina, Oleg Kotelnikov, (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov, Andrey Krisanov?, Oleg Maslov and Alexei Kozin, Timur Novikov, Alexander Ovchinnikov, Vadim Ovchinnikov, Inal Savchenkov, Ivan Sotnikov, Viktor Tsoy, Igor Verichev, Oleg Zaika more >>. Most probably, Evgeny Yufit’s paintings were not on display, which suggests that Yufit contributed with his films instead. This might explain why his name is not listed in the booklet. In this way, the lineup of artists is somewhat smaller than that from Novikov’s flyer, with names partly overlapping with Andreeva’s list of fourteen artists for 1985 and the exhibition in 1989, “And We Dream of...”. We may therefore speak of a “classical” lineup. On the other hand, some of those 29 unidentified works might have been created by “untypical” New artists. Whether the factual lineup included all artists from Novikov’s flyer or whether – according to Khlobystin – the lineup was even larger, needs to be established yet.

Whatever the case, we now have the choice to speak of the New Artists as an association, a group, or a movement. Each term implies a different concept of membership. But if the lineup is fickle, as Novikov states, is it worthwhile carrying out systematic research into terminology and definitions?

In my opinion, a rigorous analysis of the group’s dynamic development in numbers, comparing Novikov’s own accounts with other documents referring to its collective activities, is a precondition to discuss the group’s concepts and attitudes. It is only when we establish who was a New artist at what moment in time, that we will be able to consider the degree of their works’ stylistic homogeneity or heterogeneity.[18] Such a “deconstructive“ proceeding opens the prospect of reconsidering for each New artist individually those stylistic features often termed as common for the entire group – e.g. recomposition, wildness, or the influence of the Russian avant-garde.

This article sheds light on some basic problems we encounter when trying to follow the group’s expansion step by step and offers a possible approach to structure the findings.