Constructivism
Grigorii Barkhin, Izvestiia newspaper building in Moscow (1926-1928)
.
Some have noted the formal similarities between the original conception of Grigorii Barkhin’s Izvestiia newspaper building in Moscow and Walter Gropius’ proposed Chicago Tribune tower in Chicago. Barkhin himself attested to the latter’s influence on his own project. The initial plan for the building would have featured a base covering about a quarter of a city block, supporting a tall high-rise section that jutted suddenly skyward from it.
Owen Hatherley parsed their relationship several years back on his Kino Fist blog:
The Soviet skyscraper designs of the 1920s were strippings and rationalisations of the USA’s huge, atavistic fantasy-palaces. Aware of the mystificatory absurdity of a Woolworth Building, the extension of the Gothic up into the sky, the USSR’s early architects took their cue from the factories behind the facade. In one particularly memorable instance, this centred on the 1922 competition for the Chicago Tribune skyscraper. Bauhaus director Walter Gropius proposed a tower based on the printworks at the back, extending their modules into a futurist vision of cool, precise technology. It was ridiculed, of course, in favour of flying buttresses and Gothicky ornament. So in another act of plunder, the Soviet architects Grigori and Mikhail Barkhin proposed to build a slightly modified version of Gropius’ Chicago in Moscow for the Izvestia newspaper — and got it built, albeit drastically reduced.
We’ll return to this reduction later.
Walter Gropius and Adolf Meyer: Competition submission for
Chicago Tribune tower (1922). Model, dynamic perspective.
Grigorii Barkhin, original plan for Izvestiia building (1926)
A more proximate source of inspiration for Barkhin’s design (drafted 1926) was likely the Vesnin brothers’ Palace of Industry competition entry from 1923, which came a year after Gropius’ 1922 piece. One immediately notices the even greater similarities between them.
Here again there was some influence of Gropius’ project on the Vesnins’. (Both ultimately went unrealized). Indeed, there would later be some controversy when the rationalist architect Nikolai Dokuchaev accused his constructivist colleagues at VKhUTEMAS, the Vesnins, of copying the tower by Gropius. Dokuchaev further insinuated that there was some ideological contamination as a result, with some of the capitalist ideology of the Chicago Tribune proposal seeping into the structurally similar Palace of Labor. Moisei Ginzburg, by then chief theoretician of the OSA group, eventually intervened by pointing out the completely different functional contexts of the two buildings, while admitting their superficial resemblance.
The Vesnin brothers’ unrealized proposal for the Palace of Labor (1923)
To be sure, the actual productive role of Barkhin’s Izvestia building was close to Gropius’ Chicago Tribune tower than was the Vesnins’ Palace of Labor, given that the first two were explicitly intended as publishing centers. Gropius’ tower would have likely served more as an office building for the writing staff than an actual printing plant, however. At least, that’s the role that Raymond Hood’s winning entry ended up playing. Barkhin’s building performed both tasks. Regardless, some overlap may be admitted.
Concerning the reduction mentioned earlier: due to material supply shortages, Barkhin and his younger brother, Mikhail, were forced to scrap the uppermost elevation. Instead, the base would be preserved as a continuous block, with rectilinear glazed façades as well as a series of distinctive circular windows over the right side of the entrance. The building still stands today, overlooking Pushkin Square in Moscow, though it now houses a Kentucky Fried Chicken store and King Sushi restaurant. Many of the photos included below are from the perspective of the park.
Enjoy! Click any of the images to enlarge, and scroll through the gallery.
May Day
Once there was an international, revolutionary workers’ movement. May Day was one of its central and most important holidays. Unfortunately, this movement is no more. Luxemburg rather sunnily surmised that “when better days dawn, when the working class of the world has won its deliverance, then too humanity will probably celebrate May Day in honor of the bitter struggles and the many sufferings of the past.” Today, however, these better days seem far more distant than they did when she first spoke of them in 1894.
Yesterday I linked to volumes 1-49 of Marx and Engels’Â Collected Works. Below are two speeches, one by Rosa Luxemburg and the other by Vladimir Lenin, which at present must be regarded more as historical documents than anything that addresses a living reality.
Rosa Luxemburg
What are the origins
of May Day? (1894)
.
The happy idea of using a proletarian holiday celebration as a means to attain the eight-hour day was first born in Australia. The workers there decided in 1856 to organize a day of complete stoppage together with meetings and entertainment as a demonstration in favor of the eight-hour day. The day of this celebration was to be April 21. At first, the Australian workers intended this only for the year 1856. But this first celebration had such a strong effect on the proletarian masses of Australia, enlivening them and leading to new agitation, that it was decided to repeat the celebration every year.
In fact, what could give the workers greater courage and faith in their own strength than a mass work stoppage which they had decided themselves? What could give more courage to the eternal slaves of the factories and the workshops than the mustering of their own troops? Thus, the idea of a proletarian celebration was quickly accepted and, from Australia, began to spread to other countries until finally it had conquered the whole proletarian world.
The first to follow the example of the Australian workers were the Americans. In 1886 they decided that May 1 should be the day of universal work stoppage. On this day 200,000 of them left their work and demanded the eight-hour day. Later, police and legal harassment prevented the workers for many years from repeating this [size of] demonstration. However in 1888 they renewed their decision and decided that the next celebration would be May 1, 1890. Continue reading
Rashel Smolenskaia, House of congresses (VKhUTEIN, 1929) [Рашель СмоленÑкаÑ, Дом Ñъездов (ВХУТЕИÐ, 1929)]
Avant-garde journal design: Building Moscow [СтроительÑтво МоÑквы], 1927-1931
.
Below are some pretty stellar avant-garde journal designs by Gustav Klutsis, Vasilii Elkin, and El Lissitzky for the monthly architecture journal Building Moscow. It ran through the 1930s, but progressively became less and less modernist in terms of both form (layout, formatting) and content (projects, proposals) as time went on. Number eleven from the year 1928 shows Le Corbusier’s influential proposal for the Tsentrosoiuz, or central union administration building, in Moscow. Here he incorporated a number of elements from his League of Nations proposal, which had been rejected the previous year.
There’s also a note here that I’ve included from the fourth issue of  1929. Enjoy!
Журнал СтроительÑтво МоÑквы, неÑомненно, ÑтановитÑÑ Ð²Ñе более Ñодержательным. Им интереÑуютÑÑ ÑƒÐ¶Ðµ не только ÑпециалиÑÑ‚Ñ‹-Ñтроители и архитектора, но и широкие круги рабочей общеÑтвенноÑти. Ð’ Ñвете Ñтроительных задач МоÑквы — ответÑтвенноÑть органа МоÑÑовета вÑе более увеличиваетÑÑ. Continue reading
Bauhaus master Walter Gropius’ submission to the Palace of the Soviets competition, 1931
.
Just a few brief notes, since I’m presently occupied with other tasks and because I’ve dealt with this topic (however cursorily) elsewhere. Recently I stumbled upon a cache of outstanding images of Walter Gropius’ 1931 submission to the Palace of the Soviets competition in Moscow. The majority of these images are floor plans, numerous because of the complex multilevel structure Gropius envisioned. Many, however, are sketches — perspective and axonometric drawings — depicting the view of the Palace from the river as well as approaches to its various entrances. A few more show the building’s situation vis-à -vis the rest of the city, site plans and the like.
Some have noted the similarities between Gropius’ proposal for the Palace of the Soviets and his earlier experiments with the idea of “total theater” for Erwin Piscator. James Marston Fitch, for example, pointed out the continuities that exist between the designs Gropius made for Piscator up through a 1930 proposal for a theater in Kharkhiv, Ukraine, leading ultimately to his conception of the Palace of the Soviets (Fitch, Walter Gropius, pg. 22). Gropius had already designed a theater for Oskar Schlemmer at his Bauhaus building in Dessau.
Total theater.
Important differences may be mentioned as well, however. Certainly Gropius’ Palace of the Soviets project was conceived on a much grander scale, given the specifications and requirements outlined by the Bolshevik government. Predictably, this entailed shifting qualitative dynamics that couldn’t be solved merely by quantitative increase or multiplication. Acoustical studies thus form an integral part of Gropius’ argument for the viability of his building.
Obviously, as everyone knows, things didn’t turn out the way the modernists had expected in the USSR. Neoclassicism won out, much to the chagrin of Le Corbusier, Moisei Ginzburg, Hans Poelzig, Erich Mendelsohn, Hannes Meyer, Sigfried Giedion, and the rest. Many felt it was a repeat of the whole League of Nations debacle. Giedion even sent Stalin an angry collage in protest — a futile but rather entertaining gesture. Would’ve loved to have seen the befuddled look on Dzugashvilii’s face when he opened that letter.
You can enlarge any of these images by clicking on them and scrolling through the gallery I’ve compiled.
Sketches.
Noah’s arkhitektura: Ship-like constructivist buildings in former Leningrad (1930-1937)
.
Some photos of three ship-like buildings in former Leningrad designed by Noi [Russian version of “Noah”] Trotskii between 1930 and 1937. This resemblance has been pointed out by such scholars as Boris Kirikov in his book on the Leningrad avant-garde. Right now I’m finishing up a longer reflection on these buildings for Calvert Journal. For now, enjoy the pics.
Noi Trotskii (1895-1940).
Kirovskii District Council (1930-1935).
Kirovskii district soviet in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii (1930-1935), photo 1934
Kirovskii district soviet in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii (1930-1935), photo 1934
Kirovskii district soviet in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii (1930-1935), photo 1935
Kirovskii district soviet in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii (1930-1935), photo 1935
Kirovskii district soviet in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii (1930-1935), photo 1962
Kirovskii district soviet in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii (1930-1935), photo 1943
Kirov Palace of Culture (1931-1937).
Kirov Palace of Culture on Vasileostrovskii island, designed by Noi Trotskii and S.N. Kazak (1931-1937), photo 1960
Kirov Palace of Culture on Vasileostrovskii island, designed by Noi Trotskii and S.N. Kazak (1931-1937), photo 1953
Kirov Palace of Culture on Vasileostrovskii island, designed by Noi Trotskii and S.N. Kazak (1931-1937), photo 1940
Kirov Palace of Culture on Vasileostrovskii island, designed by Noi Trotskii and S.N. Kazak (1931-1937), photo 1967
Kirov meat-packing plant (1931-1933).
Kirov meat-packing plant in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii, R. Zelikman, and B. Svelitskii (1931-1933)
Kirov meat-packing plant in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii, R. Zelikman, and B. Svelitskii (1931-1933), photo 1931
Kirov meat-packing plant in Leningrad, designed by Noi Trotskii, R. Zelikman, and B. Svelitskii (1931-1933)
Ivan Leonidov’s proposal for the Lenin Institute in Moscow (1927)
AIM: To answer the needs of contemporary life through maximum use of the possibilities of technology.
THEME: The Lenin Institute is the collective knowledge center of the USSR.
LOCATION: Where the new city is developing. Lenin Hills in Moscow.
CONSTlTUENT PARTS: A library with 15 million volumes of books and 5 reading rooms of 500-1000 seat capacity, and an institute of librarianship.
Auditoria varying in capacity from 250-4000 people. A scientific theater, i.e. planetarium. Research institutes for individual academic work.
MECHANIZATION: Library — Delivery of books to the reader and back into the stacks takes place through vertical and horizontal conveyor systems; upon request from the catalogue hall, the books are automatically delivered to the reading rooms. Continue reading
Suprematism in architecture: Kazimir Malevich and the arkhitektons
Painting and the Problem of Architecture
Kazimir Malevich
Nova generatsiia
Vol. 3, â„–. 2 (1928)
If we examine the painting of the first quarter of the 20 century we immediately notice two trends: “objective†and “non-objective.â€
These two trends differ both formally and in their Weltanschauung and attitude to art.
Corresponding to the different types of Weltempfang there arise various artistic classifications.
In the “objective†trend there exist various stages: the first stage is figurative; it perceives the model as such. In this stage we see objects in their artistic expression “as they are.â€
In the second stage the subject or model is only a means of communicating the artist’s experience in works of art. What is more, all the objects, or nature, are artistically unified by the tone passing through them.
In the third stage we see how as the result of a particular artistic Weltempfang there occurs “artistic deformation of phenomenaâ€; hence follows the disintegration of the object into separate pictorial elements. They create a new order which is called “the cubic form of revealing artistic expression.â€
At this stage the object itself is not considered “as such,†and “as such†it is not the content of artistic skill; it exists only as the sum of unorganized painterly elements.
Next come two variants of the fourth stage of communicating Weltempfang: they are called “non-objective.â€
In one of these types we see the total eclipse of the object and have a work of pure painterly Weltempfang.
The other “non-objective†type is not only the revelation of artistic Weltempfang but also of a whole series of the dynamic, static, magnetic, and other elements which exist in nature.
These two figurative stages deal exclusively with the form of objects, i.e. forms with the help of which objects are created on the canvas “as such.â€
In the “non-objective†stages, on the other hand, form plays an important role, since without form it becomes impossible to convey any kind of Weltempfang.
In the “non-objective†stages one is not dealing with the representation of phenomena “as such,†but with the communication of definite sensations which exist in the phenomenal world.
In the “non-objective†stages there comes to the fore the question of creating the “forming element†with which to communicate sensations.
Thus the problem of form arises only in the new “non-objective†art. This is why the “non-objective†arts have had to rid themselves of the contents of various ideologies and also of the entire material side of everyday life, the system of which has been developing on a basis harmful to painting. Thus, for example, the table, house, motor, wedding, marriage did not develop as a result of people’s perceiving life artistically and expressing elements of this perception, as a revelation of artistic Weltempfang, in the form of a table.
The table, in common with all objects of a technical purpose, has practical utilitarian functions, and therefore the content of such objects is functionality; and all the elements of the world’s material constitute a firm functional order.
Thus the system of artistic perception of the functional order of the object may happen not to correspond to the artistic perception of the object, as one is dealing not with the functional content of a table but with its artistic content.
The critics have regarded this trend as “abstract,†at the basis of “abstract†art, parting from practical, concrete life.
To this “non-objective†type belongs Suprematism.
From this short analysis we see that in the first two stages of revealing sensations “form†is not a problem and does not have the same importance as in the third stage and, particularly, in the “non-objective†stages.
Panteleimon Golosov, Leningradskaia Pravda building in Moscow (1930-1935)
Panteleimon Golosov, 1932
The following is taken from the international art journal Docomomo. It is a serviceable enough text, if somewhat awkwardly translated from French. One gets a good sense of the project’s evolution from the remarks Forte makes, even if the context he provides is a bit superficial. Plus, he highlights a central point toward the end of this excerpt: cultural regression following upon political regression.
Repressed architecture: The Pravda publishing house in Moscow (1930-1935)
Riccardo Forte
Docomomo № 37
September 2007
.
The “heroic†building of the Pravda’s printing complex, sancta sanctorum of the communist doctrinal orthodoxy and ideological manifesto of Soviet power, was erected between 1930 and 1935 in the Muscovite district of Yamskoye Pole. Thanks to its symbolic content and programmatic commitment, it undeniably embodies an unrivaled episode in the history of modern architecture in Russia.
This prodigious building of colossal dimension, eulogistic icon of a new model of society which, forged upon the ideals of the Revolution, advancing towards the “glorious edification†of socialism and containing in its poetics of bold lines inspired by the vision of a civilisation machiniste, provided a most profound sense of that ideology of progress and aesthetics — a secular “religion of Utopia†— upon which the expectations of the modern movement were founded.
A manifesto of Utopia: The aesthetic search for the “supreme building”
.
In 1929 the Central Committee of the PCUS (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), in order to find a suitable solution for the growing production needs of the Pravda, the Bolshevik Party’s newspaper founded by V.I. Lenin in 1912, announced a national competition for a large-scale publishing house to serve as new headquarters for the newspaper, the regime’s official press organ. The plan for the editorial complex of the principal Soviet newspaper belonged in every respect to the vast modernization program which the Russian government embarked on in the mid-1920s. The period’s extraordinary intellectual effervescence and unprecedented creative fervor were such that the NEP (New Economic Policy) contributed in a decisive measure to the feverish construction activity in the public sector. Such activity was embodied by the realization of great infrastructures, services and industries, as well as in the creation of new organizational typologies, such as the “social condensers†(public housing, industrial  establishments, workers’ clubs), catalyzing centers of the new socialist culture, that are constitute the regime’s most significant experimental results.
The ambitious project launched by the Soviet leadership, whose intention was to emphasize symbolically their own hegemonic control of Russian society, simultaneously developing the device propaganda for the official party line from one boundary of the Union to the other, constituted for the avant-garde architects a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and a formidable experimentation field for the new doctrinal directions and composition models that were formulated in those years. The competition’s prescriptions laid down that the functional units of administrative offices, newspaper offices and typographic works were to be integrated in a single large complex. The chosen site — today the area comprised between the Belorussky and Savyolovsky subway stations — was located in the Yamskoye Pole district, a strategic localization right in the city center, which at the time was still barely constructed. Continue reading