Should Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner's internationally exhibited sculpture, made after their 1922 emigration from Soviet Russia, still count as Constructivism, or does the movement's own 1920 split already separate it into a related but distinct tendency?

The 1920 Realistic Manifesto divided the Moscow avant-garde into Gabo and Pevsner's spatial, kinetic line and the Productivist line of Tatlin, Rodchenko and Stepanova, who insisted the artist become an engineer serving industrial production. After Gabo and Pevsner emigrated in 1922, the Productivist line became dominant inside Russia and is what most historians mean by Constructivism proper, leaving Gabo and Pevsner's later work in an ambiguous position relative to the name.