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.
What would resolve this A settled art-historical consensus, or a majority scholarly convention, on whether the movement's name properly extends past its own founding split would resolve the classification question; none currently exists in the sources consulted.
OpenArt historyTate