(Institute of Artistic Culture, 1920–24), an artistic organization, a creative society of painters, graphic artists, sculptors, architects, and art scholars. The institute was organized in Moscow in March 1920 as a section of the Department of Fine Arts (IZO) of the People’s Commissariat for Education (Nar-kompros). Inkhuk had its own regulations and program.

Inkhuk repeatedly changed its general orientation, organizational structure, membership, and leadership. It maintained close ties with a number of other creative, educational, and research organizations, such as the State Higher Arts and Technical Studios (Vkhutemas) and the Left Front of the Arts (Lef). Inkhuk was a discussion club and theoretical center.

The program of Inkhuk was initially influenced by the leftist trends in art (for example, abstract art). In accordance with W. Kandinsky’s program of 1920, artists affiliated with Inkhuk studied the formal devices in various types of art (for example, music, painting, and sculpture) and the uniqueness of their influence upon the viewer. In 1921 a split occurred between the supporters of this formalist program and those artists who strove to apply the results of their artistic experiments to daily practical activities. In the same year, the Lef program was developed in Inkhuk, and attention was focused upon finding a theoretical solution to the problems of constructivism and production art. Under the auspices of Inkhuk, experimental work in artistic design was conducted, and educational programs were organized at Vkhutemas.

During their affiliation with Inkhuk the leaders of the two most important schools of Soviet architecture in the 1920’s, N. A. Ladovskii and A. A. Vesnin, developed their views on art. In addition, the first working groups were organized in Inkhuk, which later became the Association of New Architects (Asnova) and the Organization of Contemporary Architects (OSA). Among the artists active in Inkhuk were B. I. Arvatov, A. V. Babichev, O. M. Brik, L. M. Lisitskii, L. S. Popova, A. M. Rod-chenko, and V. F. Stepanova.

During the years of Inkhuk’s existence, an institute similar in character was organized in Leningrad. It was known as the State Institute of Artistic Culture (Ginkhuk, 1923–27).


“Programma Inkhuka.” In Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933. Pages 126–39.
Russkoe iskusstvo, 1923, nos. 2–3.
Iz istorii sovetskoi esteticheskoi mysli. Moscow, 1967. Pages 42–43, 45–58, and 509–12 (bibliography).


References in periodicals archive ?
However, Gough is offering what she calls a "different trajectory" for Constructivism, particularly its Productivist phase, for understanding this important Soviet art movement, This new trajectory is analyzed largely through the works of Ioganson and, in particular, his interactions with INKhUK.
The debate in INKhUK over the nature of composition and construction, conducted in the early months of 1921, and the attendant drawings used to illuminate this debate are the key components of the first chapter.
Her discussion of Ioganson's position is through a synopsis of his proposal, and its accompanying drawings, for his contribution to a proposed INKhUK publication "From Representation to Construction.
Her examination, in unprecedented detail, of the debates INKhUK held throughout 1921 underscores the seriousness of artists whose own usefulness was at stake.
What is new in Gough's account is the attention she devotes to this last figure, prompted in part by the sheer intelligence of his interventions during the INKhUK debates and in part by the novelty of his nine "Spatial Constructions" (note the overall rejection of the old term sculpture).
Inkhuk, established a year earlier, had been charged with formulating the role art was to play in a tree communist society.
Rodchenko and Lyubov Popova resigned from Inkhuk to go into industry as applied artists.
In 1921, a plenary session of Inkhuk, the institute charged with formulating a role for art in a communist society, voted to condemn easel painting as "outmoded," and several of the institute's leading members left to go into industry.
At a plenary session of Inkhuk in November 1921, it was determined by majority vote that easel painting was finished as a historical possibility; that it belonged to an earlier historical moment; and that the true artistic expression appropriate to the moment was to be found in industrial and applied art.