In his treatise on Suprematism, Kazimir Malevich criticises transcendentalism and contrasts it with transcendence. Malevich is critical of the transcendental paradigm, as he essentially turns out to be a platonist. Pavel Florensky also criticizes transcendentalism – that precedes Malevich in time. Florensky views Kant as rooted in a “human” perspective and matches him with Plato. Florensky’s proposal, like Malevich’s later, is to return the transcendent. By comparing Florensky’s work on aesthetics and Malevich’s theory of new art, one sees that both authors criticize the illusionistic character of perspective and European painting. Florensky continued the concept of “reverse perspective” in iconography. Malevich argued that his fellows felt a close connection to the icon. It is also known that both Florensky and Malevich taught at art institutes (GINHUK and VKhUTEMAS) and worked to protect cultural heritage. In the theoretical works on metaphysics and art, the positions of Malevich and Florensky converge, as both were platonic. Thus, it is important to compare these figures in their different guises in order to identify the features of the revolutionary era.