UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
______, 20 _____
I,______, hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of:
______in: ______It is entitled: ______
Approved by: ______
IAKOV CHERNIKHOV AND THE ARCHITECTURAL CULTURE OF REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA
A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE
in the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the college of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
2002
by Irina Verkhovskaya
Diploma in Architecture, Moscow Architectural Institute, Moscow, Russia 1999
Committee: John E. Hancock, Professor, M.Arch, Committee Chair Patrick A. Snadon, Associate Professor, Ph.D. Aarati Kanekar, Assistant Professor, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The subject of this research is the Constructivist movement that appeared in Soviet
Russia in the 1920s. I will pursue the investigation by analyzing the work of the architect Iakov
Chernikhov. About fifty public and industrial developments were built according to his designs during the 1920s and 1930s across the USSR, although he is better known as a talented graphic artist, having created an endless number of such compositions. These include the series
“Architectural Fantasies” and “Industrial Tales” which portray a utopian architecture for the future. His teaching programs cover several different fields from ornamentation to architecture and seven of his books, which he illustrated were published during the 1920s and 1950s.
Since about 1970, the Constructivist movement has been thoroughly investigated; yet re-examination of Chernikhov’s work remains relatively undiscussed, especially in Western scholarly literature. The aim of this research is to resituate Chernikhov both in his own context and in the contemporary theoretical production which is accompanying Russian society’s return from collectivist values to individuality and self-expression.
In particular the thesis focus on three major aspects of Iakov Chernikhov’s teaching program: The first is an analysis of Chernikhov’s non-objective approach towards design, which forms a foundation for teaching program, and assures its applicability to any subject-matter. The second is an examination of Chernikhov’s approach toward modernity and tradition, since although he is considered within the modern movement of Constructivism, he did not reject tradition. The third aspect which will be examined here is the underlying importance that he attached to the individuality, self-expression and creative energy of the designer in executing the graphical exercises. This idea may partly explain why his works were criticized in the Soviet press for insufficient attention to the ideological socialist role. All these facets make his theories unique among his contemporaries and his fellow Constructivists.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank first and foremost my advisor, John Hancock, who introduced me to the thesis research, and guided me through it with his experience and intelligence. It is in great part due to him that I have today an increased awareness of the surrounding world, and a critical view upon it. I also thank Patrick Snadon and Aarati Kanekar for their effort. Their precious comments and suggestions played a crucial role and in the overall theoretical development of this research.
I thank Professor Jim Bradford and my colleagues, with whom I had an opportunity to develop a rich exchange of ideas during the two years in the graduate program. I also would like also to extend my thanks to those who provided an indirect support in the production of this thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Chapter Page
1. Interoduction Goal of the Study 7 Etymology of the Word “Constructivism” 11 Literature Review 16 2. Iakov Chernikhov Biography of the Artist 20 Chernikhov’s Relations with Major Artistic Groups 26 Influences a) Chernikhov’s Teachers 33 b) Symbolism 34 c) Fantasticality 35 Research and Teaching 37 Architectural Practice 39 Society and Individuality 45 3. Constructivism Architecture before the Revolution of 1917 54 Constructivism – Main Stages of Development a) Appearance of the Term “Constructivism” 62 b) Pre-Revolutionary Period 64 c) Revolutionary Experience 67 d) Constructivist Micro-Environment 70 Social Realist Revival 72 Constructivism in other Arts a) Painting 76 b) Poetry and Literature 82 c) Music 86 d) Cinema 88 4. Context The Development of the Revolutionary Movement 90 Everyday Life 92 Revolutionary Changes 98 5. Russian Constructivism and European Modernism Erich Mendelsohn and Russian Constructivism 100 The Work of Sant’Elia and Chernikhov’s Theories 103 The VKhUTEMAS and the Bauhaus 108 6. Conclusions 112
BIBLIOGRAPHY 116
1
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Iakov Chernikhov, from ”Architectural Fantasies”, 1933 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000…..…………………………………………………..6
2. Iakov Chernikhov, 1910s Excerpted from the Catalog for the Exhibition “Iakov Cherniknov, 101 Architectural Fantasies”, Moscow, 2001, p.2…………………………...24
3. Odessa School of Art, Kariak Kastandi with his students. Chernikhov – second on the right Excerpted from the Catalog for the Exhibition “Iakov Cherniknov, 101 Architectural Fantasies”, Moscow, 2001, p. 3……………………...... 24
4. Iakov Chernikhov is teaching the class of graphic representation, Leningrad, Mid 1920s Excerpted from the Catalog for the Exhibition “Iakov Cherniknov, 101 Architectural Fantasies”, Moscow, 2001, p. 3…………………………..25
5. Leonly Benua, 1925 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000, p. 14……………………………………………….25
6. Iakov Chernikhov, from the book “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms”, 1931 Excerpted from the Catalog for the Exhibition “Iakov Cherniknov, 101 Architectural Fantasies”, Moscow, 2001, p. 9…………………………..32
7. Iakov Chernikhov, from the book “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms”, 1931 Excerpted from the Catalog for the Exhibition “Iakov Cherniknov, 101 Architectural Fantasies”, Moscow, 2001, p. 9…………………………..32
8. Iakov, Chernikhov, Compositions of Circles, Circles and Lines Excerpted from Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arkhitekturi / Fundamentals of Contemporary Architecture, 1931, p. 22………………….42
9. Iakov, Chernikhov, Static Solutions of Combination of Irrational Figures Excerpted from Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arkhitekturi / Fundamentals of Contemporary Architecture, 1931, p. 33………………….42
10. Iakov, Chernikhov, City of Skyscrapers, Asymmetrical Composition of Vertical Lines Excerpted from Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arkhitekturi / Fundamentals of Contemporary Architecture, 1931, p. 57…………………42 2
11. Iakov, Chernikhov, Tall Skyscrapers, Excerpted from Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arkhitekturi / Fundamentals of Contemporary Architecture, 1931, p. 84…………………42
12. Iakov Chernikhov, Front View of “Krasny Gvozdilshik” Plant in Leningrad, 1931 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………..43
13. Iakov Chernikhov, Rear View of “Krasny Gvozdilshik” Plant in Leningrad, 1931 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………..43
14. Iakov Chernikhov, Project of the Residential Complex on Sherbakovskaya Street in Leningrad, 1934 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000, p. 102……………………………………………...44
15. Iakov Chernikhov, Project of the Cinema Theatre in Viborgsky District in Leningrad, 1934 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………...44
16. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Landscapes”, 1930s Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000…………………………………………………...... 51
17. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Tales”, 1930s Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………...51
18. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Palaces of Communism”, 1939 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………...52
19. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Industrial Tales”, 1933 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………...52
20. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Fantasies”, 1933 Excerpted from the Catalog for the Exhibition “Iakov Cherniknov, 101 Architectural Fantasies”, Moscow, 2001, p. 9…………………………..53
21. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Fantasies”, 1933 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000……………………………………………………...53
3
22. Von Klenze, New Hermitage, St. Petersburg, 1839 Excerpted from Edited by Cooke, Catherine, Uses of tradition in Russian and Soviet Architecture, 1987, p. 19…………..60
23. I. Monigetti and N. Shokin, Polytechnical Museum, Moscow,1870s Excerpted from Edited by Cooke, Catherine, Uses of tradition in Russian and Soviet Architecture, 1987, p. 22…………..60
24. W. Valkot, Metropole Hotel, 1899-1906 Excerpted from Edited by Serge Fauchereau, Moscow 1900-1930, p. 186…………………………………………………..61
25. F. Shektel, The Residence of S. Riabushinsky, Interior Detail, 1900-1902 Excerpted from Edited by Serge Fauchereau, Moscow 1900-1930, p. 190…………………………………………………..61
26. V. Tatlin, Monument to the Third International, 1919 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 58………………………………….66
27. I. Golosov, Zuev’s Club, Moscow, 1927-1929 Excerpted from Khan-Magomedov, S. O., Ilia Golosov, 1988, p. 166……...74
28. K. Melnikov, Rusakov’s Club, Moscow, 1927-1929 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 94………………………………….74
29. B. Iofan, V. Gelfreikh, V. Shchuko, Competition Project of the Palace of Soviets in Moscow, 1933 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 150………………………………...75
30. I. Zoltovsky, Apartment Building on Mokhovaya Street, Moscow, 1932-1934 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 152……………………………...... 75
31. K. Malevich, Bathing Man, 1911 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 25………………………………….80
32. V. Tatlin, Corner Contrerelief, 1915 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 23………………………………….80
33. A. Rodchenko, Spatial Construction #2, 1920 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / 4 Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 152………………………………...81
34. El Lissitsky, City, Proun, 1920 Excerpted from Degod, Ekaterina, Russkoe Iskusstvo XX Veka / Russian Art of the XX Century, 2000, p. 152………………………………...81
35. The Chinatown, Moscow, Early Twentieth Century Excerpted from Edited by Serge Fauchereau, Moscow 1900-1930, p. 17……………………………………………………97
36. Petrovka Street, Moscow, Early Twentieth Century Excerpted from Edited by Serge Fauchereau, Moscow 1900-1930, p. 29……………………………………………………97
37. Erich Mendelsohn, “Red Banner” Textile Factory, 1926 Excerpted from edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Iakov Chernikhov, 2000, p. 91……………………………………………...107
38. Antonio Sant’Elia, The Citta Nuova Apartment Building, 1914 Excerpted from Carmel, L., and Longatti, A., Antonio Sant’Elia, 1988, p. 269…………………………………………….107
5
1. Iakov Chernikhov, from ”Architectural Fantasies”, 1933
6
Chapter 1. Introduction
Goal of the Study
The goal of this study is to review the Russian Constructivist movement of the
1920s-1930s by analyzing the work of a particular architect, Iakov Chernikhov.
Between the years 1920 and 1932 he designed and built about fifty public and industrial developments across the country. He was known as a talented graphic artist, and he created an endless number of compositions. These include the series “Architectural
Fantasies” (Figure 1, p. 6) and “Industrial Tales” which represent the utopian architecture of the future. His own teaching programs cover several different fields from ornamentation to architecture. Between the years 1927 and 1933 he published six books which he illustrated by himself. This study aims to reconsider the work of Chernikhov not only by situating him within the movement of Constructivism, but also by situating the Constructivist movement itself within the broader context of the political, historical, economical and cultural conditions of the period.
The thesis consists of six chapters. The first chapter introduces the reader to the subject of the research. It discusses the etymology of the word “Constructivism”, the meaning the constructivist architects attached to it, and provides a review of the critical literature during the twentieth century on the subject. The word constructivism or
[konstruktivism] in Russian, derives from Latin and has the same meaning in both
Russian and English. The term “Constructivism” as a name of an art and architectural
7 movement emerged in the early 1920s, when the First Group of Constructivists who officially used the term was founded.
The twenties were the time of the debates concerning the meaning of the word
Constructivism and the meaning of art and architecture. The concept of construction was understood in this debate on two levels: as a description of the creative process and as a metaphorical representation of order in the work of art. Constructivism promoted the integration of technology and the artistic activity. It saw the artist as a creator of the new environment and the new social order. The movement was abandoned in the mid 1930s and thereafter underwent constant criticism in soviet public and scholarly literature. The reconsideration of Constructivism, and the revival of interest in it, returned in the 1960s.
A considerable amount of writing on Constructivism has been published in Soviet and
Western scholarly literature during the past three decades; and yet the work of many artists, including Iakov Chernikhov, remains undiscussed due to the obscurity into which
Constructivism was thrown for several decades, not to mention the difficulty of accessing
Soviet archival material, especially for the foreign scholars.
The second chapter is dedicated to the work of Iakov Chernikhov. It presents the biography of the artist, the influence of his teachers on his work, his theories and architectural projects, and his relationship with major artistic groups of the period. Iakov
Chernikhov studied in various institutions in Odessa and St. Petersburg and received his higher education in the fields of the arts, pedagogy, engineering and architecture. During his studies he changed jobs several times, which gave him an opportunity to explore various artistic techniques and gain teaching experience. From his early years
Chernikhov wanted to develop his own teaching program and to systematize the rules of geometrical drawings. The structured pedagogy and the discipline of progressive
8 exercises within his own academic education provided the foundations for his later research and teaching. Even though the work of Iakov Chernikhov constitutes a part of
Constructivism, he was not in close interaction with the major artistic groups of that movement. Until 1936, Chernikhov worked in St. Petersburg, while the center of architectural life was Moscow. Working in relative isolation from the dominant architectural groups, Chernikhov developed some perspectives and theories that were different from those of other architects. First, he was not a strict modernist, and instead considered the classical tradition to be as a foundation for systematizing the constructive principles underlying Constructivism. Secondly, Chernikhov was not concerned with developing his stylistic approach, but rather investigated the combinational, constructive principles in architecture. The non-objective approach, which he adopted from
Suprematism, allowed him to apply his theories and his constructive principles on any subject matter and style. This flexibility enabled him to continue his work under the
Socialist revival without breaking his credo. Third, Chernikhov paid specific attention to the questions of individuality and the creative energy of an artist. This made his theories different from those of other Constructivists, who emphasized the collective character of their creations.
The third chapter reviews the Constructivist movement. First, it analyses the tendencies in architecture at the beginning of the century, which started the dissonance with classical architecture, and which signaled the coming of radical constructivism and its complete break up with the tradition. Second, it traces the main stages of the development of the movement. Third, it analyses the constructivist tendencies in other arts, such as painting, literature, cinema, and music. The post-Revolutionary decade was the time of relative freedom in all fields of art. Artists of the avant-garde enthusiastically
9 accepted revolutionary changes as the ideology provided inspiration for experimentation.
The young Soviet state permitted artistic freedom of searching for new forms, while restricting the themes to support the communist ideology. The borders were open. Many artists who studied in Europe returned to Russia. There was constant interaction between artistic groups within the country and representatives of foreign artistic movements.
The fourth chapter shows the political context within which Constructivism was situated. This study provides the history of the development of the revolutionary movement, in order to understand the reasons that led to the revolution of 1917. It also presents an overview of everyday life in order to clarify this understanding in actual, human terms, as well as political ones. The industrialization of the 18th century led to the migration of the population from the rural areas to the large cities. The overpopulation and the severe living conditions of the working class became the main reasons behind the development of the revolutionary movement and led to the October Socialist Revolution of 1917. The Revolution brought changes to every sphere of life. Educational
Institutions underwent reformation. Banks, large businesses, theatres, museums and private collections were nationalized. The revolution was followed by a civil war. The country’s economy and agricultural system were in decline. During the twenties, scientists, artists and architects attempted to reveal the secrets of the universe while closing their eyes to the poverty, uncertainty and fears of everyday reality.
The fifth chapter traces the relationship between the Constructivists and the representatives of the major artistic groups of the West, and the influences of Italian
Futurism and German Expressionism in particular on the work of Chernikhov. Although he did not acknowledge the influences of any foreign architects or artists on his work, his architectural fantasies envisioned the utopia of an industrialized future, and his
10 compositions of “mechanical architecture” reveal their similarities with the works of
Erich Mendelsohn and Antonio Sant’Elia.
Etymology of the Word “Constructivism”
The etymology of the word [konstruktivism] in the Russian language is similar to
the etymology of the word constructivism in English. The term [konstructivism] has the
same roots with the verb [konstrukzia] (construction), adverb [konstructivnii] and noun
[konstruirovat’] (to construe, to construct). These words derive from Latin and have the
same meaning in both Russian and English.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word construe derives from Latin
“construere” and means to pile together, to build up, and also to connect grammatically, to construct sentences. The English word corresponds with the French word “construire”.
Palsgr in 1530 used “construe” in the sense of grammatical construction. If this word had been derived through French it would have maintained the forms “construy”, or
“constroy” meaning to build up and assemble, the opposite of “destroy”. As it is, in
English “construe” has come more to mean to assemble mentally: to perceive and interpret.
The term “Constructivism derives from adjective constructive plus suffix –ism.
The suffix has an interesting origin from the formation of nouns of action from verbs, whereby for example baptism is the action of dipping. Particularly following the French
Revolution and into the early 1800s, it was added to any number of new systems of theory or practice, religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political, social, and so on, although prior to then it had mostly been applied to strictly religious “-isms”.
11 In everyday use the term “Constructivism” has several connotations. The description of the term “Constructivism” given in the Oxford English Dictionary provides two primary meanings, one involving the “theory or use of mechanical structures in theatrical settings” and therefore the movement originating in Moscow in 1920, concerned mainly with expression by means of constructions”; and another having to do with a particular “view of mathematics according to which only constructive proofs, and entities demonstrable by them, are admissible.”1
In the field of architectural theory and history the term “Constructivism” associates with the artistic and architectural movement which appeared in Soviet Russia.
Before 1960, due to the misrepresentation of Constructivism in Western literature, the term had been incorrectly used to describe a broad range of avant-garde movements from
Cubism to Minimalism of the 1960s. The Academic American Encyclopedia named
“Constructivism” as “one of the several idealist, abstract art movements that arose in
Europe and Russia between 1913 and 1920", based on the idea that art is an absolute entity whose origins lie in the mind and whose forms are unrelated to objects of the visible world.
The proper application of the term of course, refers to the work of artist and architects executed in Russia during the 1920s and early 1930s, as well as to the pre-
Revolutionary (1913-1917) three-dimensional experimental works of several artists, namely Tatlin, Rodchenko, Gabo, Pevsner, and others. During the pre-Revolutionary experimental phase the term “construction” was understood as a three-dimensional
1 Edited by Burchfield R. W., Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, volume III, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989 12 assemblage of non-artistic, mostly industrial, ordinary materials, which incorporated
extraneous “real” space as an intrinsic part of its form.2
The term “Constructivism” emerged at the beginning of the 1920s, when the First
Group of Constructivists, who officially used the term, was founded. The Stenberg brothers together with K. Medunetsky wrote the declaration of the group. It appeared in print in the catalogue of the exhibition entitled, The Constructivists: K. K. Medunetsky, V.
A. Stenberg, and G. A. Stenberg, held at the Poet’s Café (Kafe Poetov), Moscow, in
January 1922.3 The exhibits included spatial structures made from real materials with a
very strong industrial emphasis. The nature of these constructions was explained in the
declaration of the three artists printed in the catalogue: all artists, they clamed, should
now “go into the factory, where the real body of life is made”, and they asserted that “this
route is called Constructivism.”4 From that time on, the traditional aesthetic values were
abandoned, and painting and sculpture were replaced by “construction,” presented as an
aesthetic statement of the future.
During the 1920s, a deeper philosophical meaning was attached to the term
“construction”. The Constructivists, through “construction,” aimed to shape the minds,
aesthetic preferences and life-style of their contemporaries. Around 1920, when the term
“Constructivism” had newly emerged, the concept of “construction” was understood on
two levels: as a description of the creative process and as a metaphorical representation of
order in the work of art. Later, throughout the 1920s, Constructivism promoted the
integration of technology and artistic activity, seeing the artist as a creator of the new
environment and the new social order.
2 Dabrowski, Magdalena, The Russian Contribution to Modernism: “Construction” as Realization of Innovative Aesthetic Concepts of the Russian Avant-Garde, University Microfilm International, A Bell & Howell information Company, Ann Arbor, 1990, p.6 3 Lodder, Christina, Russian Constructivism, Yale University Press, 1983, p. 4 4 Lodder, Christina, Russian Constructivism, Yale University Press, 1983, p. 2 13
In 1920 the Institute of Artistic Culture (INKhUK) became the place where
debates on the terms “composition” and “construction” occurred. The participants in
these discussions at INKhUK included Altman, Babichev, Popova, Rodchenko,
Stepanova, Medunetsky, the Stenberg brothers, Tarabukhin, Krinsky, and Ladovsky.
There was not yet any strong unity among these participants. In May of 1920, Kandinsky
formed the program for the INKhUK which contained a section entitled, “Some
Examples of Construction and Composition in Monumental Art.” Here he explained
“construction” only as a technical function in the building process by which formal
elements are arranged into a well-organized composition. Meanwhile, Aleksey Gan and
Varvara Stepanova proclaimed the “creation of communistic expression of material
structures” which creations were to be defined by three major elements: tectonics, faktura
(texture), and construction, by which they meant the process of organization and
structuring materials. As it was finally defined at INKhUK, “construction” represented
“the effective, purposeful organization of materials, used in accordance with their
inherent qualities, devoid of any superficial elements.” In contrast, “composition” was
only “a pleasure and tasteful arrangement, conveying a conventional meaning as a non-
objective work.”5 “Construction” was associated with the assembling of the materials in space, hence with “real” objects and “real” space, while “composition” was identified as a purely aesthetic organization of the elements within the two-dimensional work of art.
The design method developed at the beginning of the 1920s by The Union of
Contemporary Architects (OSA), led by Moisei Ginzburg, was based on the rejection of the inherited notion of “composition” that was associated with classical training. It
5 Dabrowski, Magdalena, The Russian Contribution to Modernism: “Construction” as Realization of Innovative Aesthetic Concepts of the Russian Avant-Garde, University Microfilm International, A Bell & Howell information Company, Ann Arbor, 1990, p. 78 14 focused instead on the notion of “construction” that “grew the work from the inside”, and
was regarded as “socially open because the generative principle must be explicit.”6 Like the OSA architects, Chernikhov emphasized the notion of construction; but unlike them, he advocated also the notion of composition. He paid particular attention to the
‘composition of drawing’ and taught his students to feel the dimensions of the drawing in relation to the format of the background. According to his method, the construction of the image and the development of composition have to proceed together.
Chernikhov understood the term “construction” in his own way. He paid specific importance to the theoretical vocabulary that supplemented his architectural compositions.7 The architect applied his constructive principles to the language as well
as to the graphics, and created his own expressions rooted in pure Slavic language. The
term “construction” occupies all divisions of Chernikhov’s theories. It can be found in
the titles of whole chapters as well as in the names of particular graphical principles and
types of joints. However, Chernikhov understood the term ‘construction’ only as a
formal arrangement, a combination of surfaces and volumes, a connection, in which one
part of a body or a surface is rationally fitted to another. He wrote:
“Constructivism as a concept related to any compact combination of different objects capable of being brought together into a single unified entity. If certain bodies are brought into conjunction with others in such a way as to form something whole and harmonious, and this whole is identifiable as a coherent composition, we have a constructive solution of a problem. The community, the interdependence, between all the participating elements manifests to the fact that this combination of them creates a phenomenon that we call ‘a construction’.”8
6 Edited by Cooke, Catherine, “Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov”, Architectural Design, Vol. 59, No 7/8, 1989, p. 8 7 Sprague, Arthur, “Chernikhov and Constructivism” 8 Chernikhov, Iakov, The Construction of Architectural and Machine Form, edited by Cooke, Catherine. Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984, p. 62 15
Literature Review
Having been a very powerful during the 1920s, the Constructivist Movement underwent constant criticism in the 1930s. Thereafter it remained abandoned until the
1960s, at which time the materials that helped to clarify certain issues in its development began to appear in Soviet scholarly literature. The first detailed accounts of the careers of the various artists who had worked in the movement, such as Tatlin, Rodchenko, and the
Stenberg brothers, and of various areas of work in the Higher Artistic and Technical
Workshops, were presented by A. V. Abramova during the early 1960s. Subsequent research by O. S. Khan-Magomedov, E. Kovtun, A. Povelikhina and V. Rakitin, moved the investigation towards specific areas and works of particular architects.
Concerning Chernikhov’s investigations began to appear by various authors, such as Anatoly Strigalev, Selim Khan-Magomedov, and the architect’s son Alexei
Chernikhov. Russian scholar Selim O. Khan-Magomedov has dedicated most of his research to the Russian avant-garde movement; and in his article “Fenomen Ia.
Chernikhova (simvolichesky expressionism graficheskih komosizii)”9 of 1996, he briefly touches on Chernikhov’s teaching program, but does not elaborate. He provides some key points of Chernikhov’s theories, situates Chernikhov within his historical context, and explains how his contemporaries accepted his work.
The first step towards a Western account of the Constructivist movement was provided by Camilla Gray in her book The Great Experiment: Russian Art, 1863-1922.
That work gives an overview of the movement, but brings some inaccuracy. The confusion of understanding Russian Constructivism only as an art movement appears in
9 S.O. Khan-Magomedov, “Fenomen Ia. Chernikhova (Simvolichesky Expressionism Graficheskih Komosizii)”, Arkhitektyra Sovetskogo Avantgarda / “Phenomenon of Ia. Chernikhov (Symbolical Expressionism of Graphical Compositions)”, The Architecture of Soviet Avant-Garde, Moscow, Stroiizdat, 1996, pp. 546-553 16 Constructivism: Origins and Evolution, written by George Rickey, in which he define the term ‘Constructivism’as: “the work of a group of Russian artists between 1913 and 1922, which include Tatlin, Malevich, Rodchenko, EL Lissitsky, Naum Gabo, Antoine Pevsner, and briefly Wassily Kandinsky.”10
The study by Stephen Bann, The Tradition of Constructivism, published
simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic in 1974, clarified the confusion. Bann
acknowledged that “in Russia the development of Constructivism led very swiftly beyond
the traditional genres of the plastic into the wider fields of planning and design for a
revolutionary society.”11 The book by Christina Lodder, Russian Constructivism
analyzed the main principles and stages of the development of Constructivism, and
contains biographies of both major and minor artists of the period.
The few materials on Chernikhov’s graphical and theoretical works appeared in
the West in the 1970s to the 1990s, when interest in Constructivism returned. The first
Western attempt to illuminate Chernikhov was a small article by Arthur Sprague,
published in 1961. He analyzed the symmetry between Chernikhov’s constructed
neologisms and his formal inventions, which, he concluded provided “a completely
harmonic form.”12 John Bowlt in The Tradition of Constructivism,13 of 1974, provided the translation of short passages from Chernikhov’s The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms. Appearing in 1993, Susan Compton’s The Russian Avant-Garde
10 Lodder, Christina, Russian Constructivism, Yale University Press, 1983, p. 1
11 Lodder, Christina, Russian Constructivism, Yale University Press, 1983, p. 2 Edited by Bann, Stephen, The tradition of Constructivism, Thames & Hudson, London, 1974, p.177 12 Sprague Arthur R, Chernikhov and Constructivism, Survey, New York, No 39, December 1961, pp. 69-71 Chernikhov, Iakov, “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Form,”, Edited by Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984, p. 7 13 Edited by Bann Stephen, The Tradition of Constructivism, Thames & Hudson, London, 1974, pp. 148- 169 17 Books, 1917-1934, gives a one-page summary of Chernikhov’s work maintaining merely
that it can “still excite the imagination today.”14
The only one among Western scholars to address this issue specifically was
Catherine Cooke. She has dedicated the most complete attention to the work of
Chernikhov and has published several books addressing his work in different stages of
development. For example, Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov, published in
1989, gives a descriptive overview of the development of Chernikhov’s thinking and
contains translated excerpts form his main books. It also contains her article,
“Chernikhov, Suprematism and Constructivism”, which analyzes the influence of the
Suprematist movement on Chernikhov’s theories and the connections of his theories with
the work of other architectural groups. Her book emphasizing his teaching program is
Chernikhov: Fantasy and Construction, in which she assembles together the pieces of his
program from different books and includes the translation of his book The Construction
of Architectural and Machine Forms. Chernikhov: Fantasy and Construction provides the basic material for further studies of his teaching program; however, it is organized in a complicated way, as a collage of Chernikhov’s thoughts, taken from different sources and contains mainly descriptive material.
In my research I attempt not only to present some of Chernikhov’s key theories, but also to focus on specific points that have not been developed by other scholars. First, this study aims to reconsider the work of Iakov Chernikhov not only by situating him within the movement of Constructivism, but also by situating the Constructivist movement within the broader contexts of the political, historical, economical and cultural conditions of the period. Second, the study analyzes the question of individuality that
14 Compton, Susan, The Russian Avant-Garde Books, 1917-1934, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993, p. 142 18 Chernikhov emphasized in his program; and third, it examines Chernikhov’s relationship with modernity and tradition. The study is based on the previous publications on the subject, Chernikhov’s own books, and archival materials. It contains new material on
Chernikhov’s education and on his teacher Leonty Benua, as well as the original translations from his book Fundamentals of Contemporary Architecture.
19 Chapter 2. Iakov Chernikhov
Biography of the Artist
Iakov Georgievich Chernikhov (Figure 2, p. 24) was born on December 5, 1889,
in the city of Pavlograd in the province of Ekaterinoslavl, in Ukraine, into a large, lower-
middle-class family. While studying in the local high school, he received his first lessons
in graphic design. During his studies, Chernikhov was encouraged to become an artist.
Beginning in 1902, he worked for several years as a photographer’s assistant. In 1907,
against his parents’ wishes, he entered the Odessa School of Art, considered one of the
best in Russia (Figures 3, p. 24). During his school years from 1907 to 1814, he held jobs
that gave him opportunities to explore various artistic techniques. He worked as a wood
carver, a cardboard-box factory worker, a retoucher, a sign painter, a slide painter, as well
as other jobs. While still a student he started to teach sketching and mechanical drawing.
In 1914 he was accepted to the Petrograd academy of Art. Simultaneously, he
registered for courses at the Pedagogical Institute, and in the painting department of the
Higher Art School run by the academy. Chernikhov envisioned an “Encyclopedia of
Geometric Drawing,” the prototype for his books The Art of Graphic Representation
(1927) and A Course of Geometrical Drawing (1928) that were published twelve years later.
In 1916 Chernikhov changed his professional plans and transferred from the academy’s painting department to architecture. In the same year he was called up for military service. Like many Petrograd artists, he served in the Committee for the 20 Description of Battle Trophies of the Russian Army and Old Russian Banners, which was attached to the imperial military field office in Petrograd. Service with the Committee allowed him to continue both his education and his work. For ten years, from 1916 till
1926, he successfully combined military service and teaching. At several Middle and
Technical Schools in the Petrograd area, he taught calligraphy, technical drawing, sketching and continued his studies. In 1917 he completed the pedagogical training at the academy. In 1918 he resumed his teaching of the graphic arts and re-enrolled himself in the former Academy’s Painting Studio, now part of the Petrograd Free Studios. The open-entry system of Free Studios allowed students freedom in their choice of subjects and studios without entry exams.
The post-Revolutionary situation interrupted his formal education, which he resumed in 1922 by re-entering the Architecture Department in the Petrograd academy of
Art that was renamed VKhUTEMAS, under Professor Leonty Benua. The school was reviving a pre-Revolutionary academic teaching methodology. Students began with copies and “washes” of scale drawings of classical architecture and with the study of historical styles. Chernikhov thus obtained the skills provided by a traditional academic architecture school, including stylistic erudition, a feeling for style, and the practical ability to stylize.15 Chernikhov’s faith in clearly structured pedagogy and in the discipline of progressive exercises was partly derived from his own academic education under Professor Leonty Benua, who accepted the classical and Constructivist-style approaches on equal terms.16 In 1925 Chernikhov obtained the qualification of Artist-
Architect under Benua and defended his architectural diploma on the theme of a workers’ club. He had accumulated fourteen years of teaching experience in various graphic
15 Strigalev, Anatoly, “Iakov Chernikhov Genius of Architectural Fantasies,” from Iakov Chernikhov. The Logic of Fantasy, Columbia Books of Architecture, New York, 1990, p. 23 16 Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984, p. 10 21 disciplines. Chernikhov had taught in specialized educational institutions and in workers’
schools, and had conducted courses for women, and for retraining drawing teachers
(Figure 4, p. 25). From 1927 to 1936, in addition to teaching, he worked as a project
engineer, mostly on industrial building projects, some of the designs for which were his
own.
Teaching remained his main activity throughout his life. He taught architectural
engineering, the art of construction, descriptive geometry, freehand drawing, mechanical
drawing, calligraphy, and different graphic techniques. Chernikhov believed that the best
way to teach both graphics and architectural engineering was through large graphic
series, each devoted to a particular formal-compositional problem. Simultaneously, he
prepared the same material for book publication. Chernikhov’s graphics were executed
either by himself or by his best students who later became his colleagues. In 1928, he
founded his Research Laboratory of Architectural Forms and Methods of Graphical Arts,
where most of his experimental and preparatory work for his publication was done. In
1936, his laboratory was transferred to Moscow.
Between 1927 and 1933 he published six books, which covered different areas of
his research. These books were Iskusstvo Nachertania (The Art of Graphic
Representation), 1927; Kyrs Geometricheskogo Cherchenia (A Course of Geometrical
Drawing), 1928; Osnovi Sovremenoi Architecturi (Fundamentals of Contemporary
Architecture), 1930; Ornament: Kompozitzionno-Klassicheskie Postroenia (Ornament:
Classically Composed Structures), 1930; Konstructsia Architekturnikh i Mashinnikh
Form (The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms), 1931; and Arkhitekturnie
Fantazii (Architectural Fantasies), 1933.
During the 1920s Chernikhov participated very little in the actual processes of the architectural and artistic life. However, in the early 1930s he became a real participant in 22 the avant-garde movement in Soviet architecture. Within his architectural fantasies and nonobjective compositions, formal connections with the various movements within the avant-garde can be seen. Chernikhov did not develop his own stylistic approaches, he was instead concerned with the investigation of combinational, constructive possibilities in architectural composition, based on specific concepts taken from certain avant-garde movements, mainly Suprematism, Constructivism, and Symbolic Romantism. In his compositions it is possible to see features derived from the work of Tatlin, Malevich,
Rodchenko, El Lissitsky, the Vesnin brothers, Ginzburg, Ladovsky, and others. By the time Chernikhov declared himself a Constructivist (in 1930-1933), Constructivism had been sharply interrupted. Following his appointment by the Communist Party, his work as an industrial architect helped him to pass this transition to the new stage in Soviet architecture.
In 1936 he moved to Moscow, where, until 1938, he held the post of Professor in the Department of Industrial Architecture and headed the Department of Descriptive
Geometry and Graphics at the Economics and Engineering Institute. In 1945 he became the head of the Department of Architecture at the Mossoviet Institute of Building. From
1935 until 1951, Chernikhov worked continuously on numerous series of drawings and designs, most notably “Industrial Fantasies,” “Palaces of Communism,” “Pantheons of the Second World War,” “Architectural Romances,” “Architectural Tales,” and “Old
Cities.”
Chernikhov died on May 9, 1951. In the last years of his life he immersed himself in such highly traditional problems of architectural composition as order, proportion, and architectural fonts.17
17 Chernikhov, Iakov, and Sobolev, N., The Construction of Letter Forms , Moscow, 1958 23
2. Iakov Chernikhov, 1910s
3. Odessa School of Art, Kariak Kastandi with his Students Chernikhov – Second on the Right
24
4. Iakov Chernikhov is teaching the class of graphic representation, Leningrad, Mid 1920s
5. Leonly Benua, 1925
25 Chernikhov’s Relations with Major Artistic Groups
Chernikhov participated very little in the actual processes of the architectural and artistic life of his time, and never considered himself an artist of the avant-garde.
Anatoly Strigalev in his article, “Iakov Chernikhov: Genius of Architectural Fantasies”, stated that Chernikhov became fully associated with the avant-garde in a fully conscious manner only in early 1930s, soon before the classical revival. The teachers and other figures who participated in the beginning of his professional development were only the academists and classicists: the architects Leonty Benua, Kariak Kastandi, Vladimir
Gelfreikh, Ivan Fomin; the painters and graphic artists G.A. Laduzhensky, A.V.
Makovsky, D.N. Kardovsky; the sculptor V.A. Beklemishev; and the art historian Erik
Gollerbakh. His lack of contact with the artistic avant-garde was not accidental. In both
Odessa, where Chernikhov studied at the beginning of the 1910s (despite his friendship with the sociable Burliuk brothers, who were influential avant-garde artists), and in
Petrograd before and after the Revolution and even in the mid-1920s, when the city saw the great rise of avant-gardism, Chernikhov deliberately distanced himself from the cutting edge artistic circles. In the large Exhibition of Petrograd Artists of All
Tendencies in 1923 his works were shown in the room of “right-wing tendencies in art.”
However, his personal interest in “leftist” art began to emerge during the roaring twenties.
At the beginning of the 1930s, Chernikhov became an active participant in
Constructivism. In his architectural fantasies and non-objective compositions the formal connections with various movements within the avant-garde can be seen. Chernikhov did not develop his own stylistic approaches. He instead was concerned with the investigation of combinational, constructive possibilities in architectural composition,
26 based on specific concepts taken from certain avant-garde movements, mainly
Suprematism, Constructivism, and Symbolic Romantism. In his compositions it is possible to see features derived from the work of Tatlin, Malevich, Rodchenko, El
Lissitsky, Vesnin brothers, Ginzburg, and Ladovsky. By the time Chernikhov declared himself a constructivist (in 1930-1933) mainstream Constructivism had been sharply interrupted. The coming classical revival aimed to glorify the first victories in economical and social sectors.
Within the Constructivist movement, many architects faced the problems of the development the new design method, constructive principles and style. Chernikhov’s theories have connections with the conceptions of the design process, which were then prevalent. Some of the questions he touched upon had already been raised in theories developed by other architects -- for example, the question of new forms, dynamics, force in construction and color. Chernikhov had his own distinctive approach in exploring these questions of architectural construction. Beginning in 1922, the OSA (The Union of
Contemporary Architects) and their leader Moisei Ginzburg formulated the task of establishing the total ‘design method’ of Constructivist architecture. The main distinction traditionally made between ‘design method’ developed by OSA and Chernikhov’s principles is that the OSA attempted to analyze multiple interactions between political objectives, social reorganization and the technological possibilities; while Chernikhov tackled only the design problems. The critic and theorist of emergent Social Realism,
Aleksei Mikhailov wrote in the early 1930s that Chernikhov’s theories lacked attention to architecture’s social role and showed no connections between his teaching and real practice.
The starting point in the method of design developed by OSA was the rejection of the inherited notion of ‘composition’ that was dominant in classical training. Instead, 27 OSA focused on the notion of ‘construction’ that “grew the work from the inside”, and
that they regarded as “socially open because the generative principle must be explicit.”18
Like the OSA architects, Chernikhov emphasized the notion of construction, but unlike them, he also advocated the notion of composition. He paid particular attention to the
‘composition of drawing’ and taught his student to feel the dimensions of the drawing in relation to the format of the background. According to his method, the construction of the image and the development of composition must proceed together.
Some of his contemporary critics compared the method that Chernikhov advanced with that proposed and developed by the Moscow VKhUTEMAS [Higher State Artistic and Technical Workshops], led by Professor Nikolai Ladovsky, at the beginning of the
1920s. It was at VKhUTEMAS, where the formal, ideological and technical elements of the Constructivist approach were being established. Ladovsky developed the “psycho- analytic” method of instruction that was focused on two main aspects: the role of architectural volume in space, and the problem of the perception of architectural volume by the viewer. Ladovsky’s students were assigned increasingly complex space/volume composition exercises that had to be solved first through three-dimensional models. Like
Ladovsky, Chernikhov emphasized the spatial relation of forms instead of facade compositions, although his program proposed the articulation of the space/volume structures through the medium of two-dimensional drawings. Chernikhov categorically asserted that Ladovsky’s theory had nothing in common with the principles or the
18 Cooke, Catherine, Editor, “Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov,” Architectural Design, Vol. 59, No 7/8, 1989, p. 8 28 problems he was tackling. None of Ladovsky’s investigations were published and accessible to a wide audience at that time.19
Another distinction can be seen in the fact that Chernikhov’s theories were published in several books between 1927 and 1933. In most cases the theories which appeared earlier had the form of an experiment and had yet to be proven in practice. But
Chernikhov's methods had already been developed for many years before, so that when they were published, they were already proven to be functional in various schools and institutions. Chernikhov’s theories were not merely about the methods of graphical representation but about a new way of expression in the composition of forms. He aimed to systemize the ideas underlying Constructivism and establish a clear and precise basis for constructive concepts and principles. Unlike his more agitated and doctrinaire predecessors, he did not limit the opportunities of the architect through dictating any particular style, but rather opened the way for individual self-expression in architecture, mechanical engineering, applied art, the printing industry, and other fields.
The question of dynamics in architecture was explored by I. Golosov, another major architect at the time. In the early 1920s, Golosov built his own concept of form that included “the theory of movement in architecture” it was concerned about the principles of dynamics in architectural compositions. Golosov defined the new term of a
‘longing line’ in composition, which can be ‘active’ (vertical) or ‘passive’ (horizontal).
Slightly later, the Soviet theorist and Constructivist architect Moisei Ginzburg developed
Golosov’s concepts further and proposed the mechanical model in architecture. Ginzburg made connections with the influence of machine aesthetics. In his book, Machine: The
Influence on Modern Art of Static and Dynamic Properties of the Machine, he stressed
19 Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arhitekturi, Vtoroe Isdanie, / The Fundumentals of Contemporary Architecture, Second Edition, Leningrad, The Publishing House of the Union of Leningrad Architects, 1931, p.11 29 both the rationality and dynamism of the machine. Every machine is the result of
movement in a particular direction. If in architectural compositions of different styles the
axis of the compositional movement is juxtaposed with the axis of symmetry, the axis of
the movement in the machine is usually outside or asymmetrical. Ginzburg saw the flow
of forces in a machine as the model for generating ‘the basic spatial diagrams’ of any new
building type.
Chernikhov brought further attention to Ginzburg’s theories on the mechanical
analogy in architecture. In his introduction to Chernikhov’s book The Construction of
Architectural and Machine Forms (Figures 6, 7, p. 31), art historian Eric Gollerbakh wrote, that “Chernikhov’s merit lies in the fact that he has brought the ‘technological’ forms of architecture and mechanical engineering into the graphic field, and has done so not as was done previously, at the level of decorative vignette or ornament, but as an absolutely legitimate theme of art.”20 Chernikhov saw the unification of machines with
buildings, the penetration of machines into human life, and the industrial character of
contemporary building operations, as the conditions that, together, justify the movement
towards constructive design. Chernikhov underlined the rational meaning of this
“machine-like” construction. He wrote: "The solution of an architectural plan requires
more than a simple juxtaposition of one part to another. It requires a clear knitting-
together and cohesion of all component elements of the plan to create the fundamental
structure of the building organism. It requires the designer to do exactly what is always
done in a machine.”21 By this he did not mean that an architect should approach the
building design as an engineer designs the machine, or that the building should look like
a machine. The machine is dynamic; the building is static. The process of the adjustment
20 Chernikhov, Iakov, “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Form,” from edited by Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984, p. 48 21 Ibid, p. 21 30 of components in the machine is similar to the constructive coordination of general masses and its elements in the building, where the general structure reflects the building’s function and purpose.
31
6. Iakov Chernikhov, from the book “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms”, 1931
7. Iakov Chernikhov, from the book “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms”, 1931
32 Influences a) Chernikhov’s Teachers
The classical tradition was always the basis for Chernikhov’s research into new constructive principles, either in ornamentation, geometrical drawing or architecture.
During his years at the architectural department of the Imperial Academy of Art in St.
Petersburg, Chernikhov stated that his first goal was a classical architectural education.
At the beginning of the century and during the port-Revolutionary years, the term
“classical” meant the “academic classicism”, originated from the tradition of Russian
Neoclassicism of the beginning of 19th century. Among Chernikhov’s teachers who represented the classical school were K. Kastandi and G. Ladizensky in Odessa, and V.
Beklemishev, V. Kardovsky, I. Fomin and Leonty Benua at the Imperial Academy of
Arts in St. Petersburg. The greatest influence on the young architect was made by Leonty
Benua (Figure 5, p. 25). Throughout his life Chernikhov kept an autographed photo of
Benua at his working cabinet. From the beginning of his career Chernikhov worked on the development of his teaching system, with a continuous belief that following the new stylistics would preserve the rationality and structure of classical school. According to
Catherine Cooke, Chernikhov’s faith in clearly structured pedagogy, and in the discipline of progressive exercises, was influenced by Professor Benya in the Imperial Academy of
Arts in Petrograd.
Benya was the son of the architect Nikolai Benya and the brother of the painter
Alexander Benya, who was one of the leaders of the artistic group Mir Iskysstva [World of Art] that was at the center of artistic life in Russia at the beginning of the century. The first Benya of the family who came to St. Petersburg was the grandfather of Leonty, and the family became the part of the foreign population of the city. The original family name was Ludovik but since that sounded too unusual for a Russian, it was changed. As 33 his brother Alexander wrote in his memoirs, Leonty was highly artistic. Each line of his drawing was executed with virtuosity. He received his education during the 1860s and
1870s just as the classical school was starting to lose its influence. During his career,
Benya built several administrative and religious building for the city of St. Petersburg.
According to his brother, Leonty was a pioneer for his age. He was always looking for new forms or trying to interpret the old solutions in a new way. During the last years of life, he occupied the Rector’s position at the Imperial Academy of Arts in Petrograd.
In his teaching practice, Benya always showed an interest in the investigations of new forms in architecture as developed by Chernikhov and other students. Benya had an interest in everything new. 22 After the revolution, the Academy was turned into the open-entry system of Free Studios, whereby students were free to choose their subjects and studios without entry exams. It was due to Benya’s free-thinking that both classical and Constructivist-style approaches were accepted on equal terms.23
b) Symbolism
According to Russian art historian Anatoly Strigalev, in his article “Iakov
Chernikhov: Genius of Architectural Fantasies”, Chernikhov’s artistic development was rooted in the Russian Symbolist movement. He received his first art lessons in the city of
Pavlograd from the school drawing teacher, M.I. Sapozhnikov, who painted “symbolist paintings” and was a devotee of Arnold Bucklin. In the 1890s symbolism was extremely fashionable. Symbolism manifested itself early in Chernikhov’s painting and graphic work with lingering reminiscences of art moderne. It is apparent in the way he came to understand the very nature of artistic composition as endowed with symbolic content.
22 Benya, Alexander, Moi Vospominania / My Memoirs, Moscow, Nayka, Volume One, 1980, pp. 98-105 23 Chernikhov, Iakov, “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Form,” from edited by Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984, p. 10-11 34 Strigalev provided examples of Symbolist movement influence on Chernikhov’s work from different periods. While preparing a book on ornamentation in the mid-1920s,
Chernikhov included in his classification of ornaments a section on “symbolic solutions,” proposing to illustrate them with ornaments on the following themes: “1. Autumn motif;
2. Chinese melody; 3. Mournful prelude; 4. Minor key; 5. Spring symphony; 6. Persian fairytale; 7. Indian fantasy; 8. Burning whirlwind; and 9. Icy etude.” He adopted the
Symbolist analogy between architecture and music and invested his architectural compositions with qualities specific to music, such as “musical harmonic coloring,”
“melody of constructivism,” and “musically rhythmic, connected building complex in a spatial solution.” Symbolist motifs could be found in his later graphic series of ancient monumental buildings or of fantasies on historical motifs.
Arthur R. Sprague, in his article “Chernikhov and Constructivism” noted the influence of certain foreign artists on Chernikhov’s work. He suggested that the work of
Sant’Elia, Walter Gropius and van Doesburg became known to Chernikhov by the way of
Malevich and Lissitsky, since both of those artists were active in Petrograd during the period of Chernikhov’s education there. Chernikhov did not acknowledge any specific source for his theories; and since he avoided the dominant artistic groups during the twenties, Sprague’s suggestion remains uncertain.
c) Fantasticality
In his teaching program Chernikhov attached great importance to the development of fantasy and creative thinking in his students. The principle of non-objectivity, based on the liberation from subject-matter, allowed the full expression of the creative energy and conceptions of the individual. The theme of fantasticality was apparent throughout all of his graphical series. Chernikhov created, along with prototypes of real projects, an 35 endless number of fantastical and utopian architectural structures and compositions. He
operated by means of form, volume, light and color without adding any human figures or
elements of nature.
Science fiction, literature, folk-tales, and myths played an important role in the
formation of his creative thinking. In his personal library were the myths of ancient
Greece; Russian folk tales illustrated by the “World of Art” artists Bilibin and Lansere;
Arabic tales; Bible legends; Don Quixote by Servantes; Vi, and Evenings in Small Village
near the Dekanka by Gogol; The Adventure of the Baron Munkhausen Burger and From
the Cannon to the Moon by Jules Verne. He collected known classics of fantastic
literature from all over the world. 24
In many ways the twenties were extremely pleasant for Chernikhov. The
industrial revolution in the West was brought to fruition by Capitalism. In exhausted
Russia the industrialization took place by the force of enthusiasm. Hence, the myth of
“social” industrialization was created. A new generation of young people enthusiastically
accepted the revolutionary changes, and they were ready to apply all of their energy to
realizing their idealistic goals for society. Architecture enjoyed relative diversity and
freedom. The state could control the themes of the projects but not yet the form. The
active propaganda of industrialization in the country, with its critical economical
situation, made the fantasticality the most popular theme in all the arts. During the
twenties about two hundred pieces of soviet science fiction literature, theatre and
24 Chernikhov, Aleksei, “Moi Otez”, iz Iakov Chernikhov / “My Father”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000, pp. 19 36 cinematograph, were released. Works of foreign authors like Jules Verne and Gerber
Wells were translated and made widely available.25
Research and Teaching
The whole body of works by Iakov Chernikhov can be divided into three main
areas: architectural practice, teaching, and research. Chernikhov dedicated most of his
work to research and teaching. In his studio in the Odessa College of Art, Chernikhov
taught drawing and descriptive geometry. Later he taught in various schools and higher
educational establishments in Leningrad and Moscow. His early teaching experience in
Odessa inspired him to develop his own original teaching method. During these years of
teaching practice Chernikhov’s method proved to be very effective. Even students
without architectural or artistic backgrounds were able to create advanced graphical
compositions.
Between 1927 and 1933 he published six books, which covered different areas
of his research. These books were Iskusstvo Nachertania (The Art of Graphic
Representation), 1927; Kyrs Geometricheskogo Cherchenia (A Course of Geometrical
Drawing), 1928; Osnovi Sovremenoi Architecturi (Fundamentals of Contemporary
Architecture), 1930; Ornament: Kompozitzionno-Klassicheskie Postroenia (Ornament:
Classically Composed Structures), 1930, Konstructsia Architekturnikh i Mashinnikh
Form (The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms), 1931; and Arkhitekturnie
Fantazii (Architectural Fantasies), 1933. Chernikhov’s last book Postroenie Shriftov
(The Construction of Fonts) was published after is death in 1958. Most of Chernikhov’s
experimental and preparatory work for his publications was done in his Research
25 De Majesties, Alessandro, “Ot Konstryktivistskogo Simvolisma k Fantasticheskomy Realismy” iz Iakov Chernikhov / “From Konstructivist Symbolism to Fantastical Realism”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000, pp. 96-97 37 Laboratory of Architectural Forms and Methods of Graphical Arts that was founded in
Leningrad in 1928. In 1936 he transferred to Moscow.
All the books were richly illustrated by the author and his colleagues. Each illustration was not just ‘technical’ but an artistic work in its own right. The variety of topics covered in the books show the range of constructive problems that Chernikhov attempted to teach through his pedagogical theories. The books present a sequential development of his theories and how they were applied in particular areas of graphic design. His first publication The Art of Graphic Representation is more related to the field of art; although in his subsequent books, Chernikhov’s theories pushed towards the science of geometry, ornamentation, architecture and the analogy between architectural form and machines.
Before 1920, the educational system was based on the classical tradition.
Students learned the elements of the classical compositional system, such as order, and examined major buildings of different epochs. That knowledge later allowed them to design, operating on the basis of traditional compositional principles. However,
Chernikhov, like many others, developed his own teaching program in order to educate students in the spirit of the new architecture. Chernikhov’s whole method was based on the principle of ‘non-objectivity’ that was taken from the Suprematist movement. For
Chernikhov, the term ‘non-objectivity’ described the combination of different basic lines, planes, and surfaces, without any kind of referential subject-matter. Chernikhov suggested that the liberation from subject-matter allowed for the full utilization of the capacities, and the expression of the conceptions, of each individual. On the basis of this non-objective approach, the designer would then later be able to execute real tasks and projects. This kind of approach toward the graphical aspects of design was totally
38 different from the tradition, and led to the generation of new compositional methods and
forms.
Each of Chernikhov’s books contained a series of exercises, step-by-step studies
involving what he called ‘graphic exercises’ of various levels of difficulty. In the preface
to The Art of Graphic Representation he wrote “My teaching approach rests on a series of
proposals for the so-called ‘graphic exercises’, which provide the student with the
foundations for growing success and achievement in the art of graphic representation.”26
His later book, Fundamentals of Contemporary Architecture similarly followed a step- by-step approach. The first chapter introduced the student to the properties of line, surface and volume, and presented the fundamental definitions of such concepts as non- objectivity, functionality, dynamism, and composition (Figure 8, p. 41). The second chapter analyzed the principles of spatial organization and harmony in color and composition (Figure 9, p. 41). The third chapter analyzed architectural issues, such as architectural elements, construction, and style (Figure 10, p. 41). The fourth chapter was dedicated to a more complex study of perspective, scale, proportions and view point
(Figure 11, p. 41); While the fifth chapter contained theoretical discussions of beauty, the mechanical analogy, and economics in architecture. Each example of elements, their joints and constructive solutions was supplied with supplementary illustrations.
Architectural Practice
In most of the articles written about Chernikhov, his architectural practice remains underestimated. In addition to his research and teaching, he designed about 50 buildings.
His projects were built in Leningrad, Moscow, Petrozavodsk, Omsk, Myrmansk, and
26 Edited by Cooke, Catherine, “Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov”, Architectural Design, Vol. 59, No 7/8, 1989, p. 27 39 other Russian cities. The art historian Alessandro de Majesties, in his article dedicated to
Chernikhov ”From Konstructivist Symbolism to Fantastical Realism”, suggested that the lack of publicity about Chernikhov’s buildings was due to the fact that most of his designs were for industrial projects and information about them was kept secret.
Chernikhov followed the dominating stylistic design of the time, which meant that from 1928 to 1931, while working he worked within several state organizations, including Himstroi and Stroiburo Tremass and Leningrad Giprohim, most of his industrial projects were executed in the style of Constructivism. Among them were the factories “Krasny Gvosdilshik” (Figures 12, 13, p. 42) and “Znamia Tryda” in Leningrad.
In 1930-1931, Chernikhov, together with engineers L. Kysnetsov and M. Bunin, won the competition for the building for the Association of Chemical Institutes of the Academy of
Science.
At the beginning of the 1930s, Chernikhov started teaching at the Leningrad
Institute of Railway Transportation. Concurrently, he designed a number of small architectural objects for railway workers. In 1931-1932 he designed the water tower for the railway station in Omsk. The themes and the style of his works designed in middle and late 1930s changed, becoming mostly residential and administrative buildings projects and reflecting the characteristics of the classical, academic revival. During that time, the architect worked with Arhitektyrno-planirovochnoe Ypravlenie [Management of Architectural Planning] in the Institute of Lenproject. The Institute was one of the most influential centers of housing and administrative building; and, as were most of the
Institutions of Leningrad and Moscow, it was responsible for many projects around the country. Designs of that period include the Residential Complex on Sherbakovskaya
Street in Leningrad, 1934 (Figure 14, p. 43); the Locomotive Depot of the Railway
Station in Kirov, 1935; the Public Building on Krasnoarmeiskaya Street in Leningrad, 40 1934; the dormitory for 150 students in Leningrad, and the Cinema Theatre in the
Viborgsky District in Leningrad, both of 1934 (Figure 15, p. 43).
One of the official requirements for architectural designs during the 1930s was
that they should fit within a context. Chernikhov used the compositional methods and the
elements of classical architecture, such as the Doric order, which characterized not only
the newly mandated Stalinist architecture of the time but also matched the nearby 19th century developments. Chernikhov admired the classical tradition; and even during the
Constructivist years, he had stated that the complete rejection of the tradition was inappropriate. This partly explains why Chernikhov was able to so easily accept the classical revival. Even so, his architectural practice was still limited by state hostility.27
27 De Majesties, Alessandro, “Ot Konstryktivistskogo Simvolisma k Fantasticheskomy Realismy” iz Iakov Chernikhov / “From Konstructivist Symbolism to Fantastical Realism”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000, pp. 103-105 41
8. Iakov Chernikhov, Compositions of Circles, Circles and Lines
9. Iakov Chernikhov, Static Solutions of Combination of Irrational Figures
10. Iakov Chernikhov, City of Skyscrapers, Asymmetrical Composition of Vertical Lines
11. Iakov Chernikhov, Tall Skyscrapers
42
12. Iakov Chernikhov, Front View of “Krasny Gvozdilshik” Plant in Leningrad, 1931
13. Iakov Chernikhov, Rear View of “Krasny Gvozdilshik” Plant in Leningrad, 1931
43
14. Iakov Chernikhov, Project of the Residential Complex on Sherbakovskaya Street in Leningrad, 1934
15. Project of the Cinema Theatre in Viborgsky District in Leningrad, 1934
44 Society and Individuality
In his teaching method, Chernikhov, more than any one else of his time and place, paid specific attention to the question of individuality and the psychological aspects of the creative process of executing graphic exercises. These concerns can be seen in all his books, and form a foundation of most of his theories. In his book Fundamentals of
Contemporary Architecture he stressed that “the development of the conception must always be based upon the manifestation of the creative particularities within each individual.”28 He defined constructiveness as “a high level of creative energy.” He wrote that every person has a feeling for the ‘constructive’ that expresses itself in diverse ways and in different intensities. Chernikhov referred to “moments of constructive inspiration,” when new solutions and ideals flow extremely rapidly in the creation process, and “depressive moments,” identified by the lack of feeling for construction. (At these latter, quieter moments an artist may intend to create more peaceful compositions that can be an appropriate creative response in certain situations.) On that basis
Chernikhov proposed a hierarchy of five stages of feeling for the constructive: 1) higher moments of individual inspiration with its maximum tension; 2) commonplace, everyday experiences, in accordance with the given requirements and solutions; 3) depressive moments, as a result of which other approaches to designing one object are to be pursued;
4) an indifferent attitude to the questions of constructivism and as a result an atrophying of the feeling for constructiveness; 5) absolute non-comprehension of the very nature of constructive principles and, as a result, a complete ignoring of this approach to design in all situations regardless of their characteristics. However, he stressed that not every task
28 Edited by Cooke, Catherine, “Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov”, Architectural Design, Vol. 59, No 7/8, 1989, p. 46 45 can be solved constructively, and constructive forms should not ever be artificially
imposed upon creative work.
Although Chernikhov built many projects around the country, during his career,
he paid most of attention to research and teaching. Even in his memoirs “My Artistic
Way”, completed in 1945, Chernikhov wrote nothing about the architectural practice and
realized projects, completely dedicating it instead to his research developments, findings,
graphic series and teaching. 29
Chernikhov’s shift from architectural practice to theoretical work and
‘architectural fantasies’ reveals the contradiction within Constructivism as a whole. It
opens the gap between idealistic, utopian ideas on one hand, and the real life
circumstances on the other, where those utopian projects and mass-production designs
could hardly be turned to realization, because of constant economic poverty and lack of
the materials during the 1920s and the hostility of the regime during the 1930s. The
contradictions within Chernikhov’s theories, particularly his emphasis on individuality,
put him in an unusual position within the Constructivist movement, and also disclose the
deep conflict between the personality and the society within the doctrines of
Communism. Russian philosopher N. Berdiaev has described this situation as “the
conflict between the spiritual principle in man and diminished matter, diminished human
collectivity, in which the very image of man disappears, and the human soul expires.”30
Originally anarchistic, the movement of the avant-garde, with Constructivism as one of its branches, became united with the revolutionary political process changes on the basis of their shared goals of destroying the old forms of social life and of architecture. But the
29 Chernikhov Iakov, “Moi Tvorchesky Pyt”, iz Iakov Chernikhov / “My Artistic Way” from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000, pp. 273-318
30 Berdiaev, Nikolas, The Russian Revolution, the University of Michigan Press, 1961, p. 91 46 movement itself, in its diversity, in the proliferation of new ideas, and in its support of individualism, became contradictory to the central aim of building the Communist society, where individualism was rejected and every person had to become a standardized unit within the social structure.
Chernikhov, like other Constructivist architects shifted away from traditional conceptions of ‘artistic values’ and emphasized instead the rational meaning of any construction. He wrote, “Constructivism must, and can, take account of all the concrete requirements of contemporary life. It must fully satisfy the needs of the mass consumer, the collective ‘customer’: the people.” 31 Literally, the Constructivist movement was employed by the Bolsheviks in order to establish a new environment for the new, collectivist social structure and was not concerned with the artist’s self-expression.
Accordingly, all artistic activity was strongly suppressed by political ideology. Yet despite this, and seemingly paradoxically, Chernikhov based his theories on the virtues of individuality, self-expression, and the creative energy of the individual, and he emphasized their importance in design like no one else among his contemporaries. He operated simultaneously with the ideas of a logical system and the individual imagination, citing the necessity for, in his words, “raising the standard of creative impulses to its highest possible level.”32
As most of his biographers have pointed out, Chernikhov was far from politics.
He dedicated all his time to his research and was disappointed that he had to spend time with everyday difficulties and arguing with the authorities. In order to be published and be able to work he had to relate his work to the soviet ideology. For example the first
31 Chernikhov, Iakov, “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Form,” from edited by Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984, p. 80 32 Edited by Cooke, Catherine, “Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov”, Architectural Design, Vol. 59, No 7/8, 1989, p. 62 47 edition of The Foundations of Contemporary Architecture, published in 1930, received a critical review by Soviet architectural critic A. Mikhailov. In the introduction to the second addition, in 1931, Chernikhov included a response to Mikhailov, defending his architectural position and explaining how the critic had misread his intent. However
Chernikhov had to make some corrections in the second edition, stating “However I will accept my mistake of leaving out the definition of the Marxist interpretation of art. I corrected it in the second edition. In the chosen quotation from Marx’ “The Critique of
Political Economics” I found the support for my own theories.”33
Despite this politically pragmatic adjustment, during the 1930s Chernikhov was constantly receiving criticism for not being realistic. His work was criticized for insufficient attention to the social and ideological role of architecture. According to
Soviet philosophy, the correct theory must to be connected with the actual practice, while pure theoretical research belongs merely to the world of bourgeoisie. In the second half of the 1930s, the academic, neo-classical style was revived in order to reflect the pathos of the USSR’s first economic victories. This was the starting point of constant criticism against the Constructivist movement throughout the next 20 years in the Soviet Union.
Like many other Soviet artists who had worked outside of academic classicism,
Chernikhov experienced hostility toward his work. His graphical work was denounced as merely fantastical and formal. He was not allowed to conduct academic work on architectural problems nor to do real practical work in building design and teaching. In
1938 he wrote a letter to Stalin, explaining his vision that on the basis of a rich and highly developed imagination, founded on the principle of the technical realities of the
33 Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arhitekturi, Vtoroe Isdanie, / The Fundumentals of Contemporary Architecture, Second Edition, Leningrad, The Publishing House of the Union of Leningrad Architects, 1931, p.10 48 contemporary world, everything was available for solving the tasks which the Communist
Party had before it.34
Nevertheless, Chernikhov continued his practice under the new social-realist
revival. From 1935 until his death in 1951, he worked continuously on numerous series
of drawings. In many of these, he referred to historical traditions, for example,
“Architectural Landscape” (Figure 16, p. 49), “Architectural Tales” (Figure 17, p. 49)
and “Architectural Romantics” returns to the reality of the world at various past stages of
its development. These as Catherine Cooke observed, were far from being an approved
activity in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. Another part of his work during this time
was the series entitled “Palaces of Communism” (Figure 18, p. 50) and “Pantheons of the
Great Patriotic War”. These represented his response to the doctrine of Socialist
Realism. Chernikhov wrote that humanity had arrived at the point where it was possible
to depict imagined objects of the past and the future as well as the ‘reality’ presented
before ones own eyes. His “Social Realist” series was executed through defined systems
of rules, and conveyed a quality of fantasticality no less than his earlier series of “101
Architectural Fantasies” (Figures 20,21, p. 51), “Industrial Tales”(Figure 19, p. 50) and
the illustrations to his earlier books of the Constructivist period.
Though developed during the epoch of Constructivism, Chernikhov’s theories and
teaching method did not prescribe any particular formal style. Based on the principle of
non-objectivity, and on the willingness to provide the maximum opportunity for the
expression of individual concepts, his constructive processes could be appropriated on the
basis of any style. This approach toward constructive design gave Chernikhov an
34 De Majesties, Alessandro “Ot Konstryktivistskogo Simvolisma k Fantasticheskomy Realismy” iz Iakov Chernikhov / “From Konstructivist Symbolism to Fantastical Realism”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000, pp. 88, 105 49 opportunity to continue his creative work within the Socialist Realist revival without breaking his credo, unlike the other Constructivists who during the 1920s had been mainly concerned with establishing new stylistic imagery. The flexibility of his constructive method allows it to be applied to different situations and subject-matters.
50
16. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Landscapes”, 1930s
17. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Tales”, 1930s
51
18. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Palaces of Communism”, 1939
19. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Industrial Tales”, 1933
52
20. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Fantasies”, 1933
21. Iakov Chernikhov, from the series “Architectural Fantasies”, 1933
53 Chapter 3. Constructivism
Architecture before the Revolution of 1917
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the crisis of classical architecture began. Experimental work pursued during this transformational phase in
Russian architecture laid the path for the Constructivist movement of the1920s and1930s.
The Constructivists eventually broke with tradition. The beginning of the transition from the classical manner in Russian architecture probably stemmed from the industrial revolution and the emancipation of the serfs in 1862. Simultaneously, architecture in the
Western world was under the influence of Romantism (and its Eclecticism) phase.
Although some historians identify that period in Russian architecture as Romanticism, in deference to the West, it is more appropriate to consider the multiple influences at work rather than merely label it. The Vernacular traditions, western influences, popular culture, and the individual taste of wealthy businessmen who supported artists and architects gave Russian architecture an era full of events, names, and achievements, as notable as they were diverse.
In a process similar to the rejection of classicism in Europe, Russian architects by the end of the 1800s were seeking new solutions. The style of Russian architecture of that time is best described by the term ‘eclecticism’ reflecting both the complicated historical and political situation, and the various efforts to move away from the academism and conservative canons of late classicism that were dominant before the
1830s, and that were linked to Russia’s triumph in the Patriotic War of 1812. The spread 54 of these romantic ideals was adopted by the progressive thinkers in Russian cultural
affairs with both artistic and social goals and significance. Romanticism not only shaped
the new tendencies in architecture, but also provided an impulse towards artistic
exploration in many other fields. Architectural images provided inspiration for poets,
novelists, and artists. Historical and stylistic eclecticism, the free, critical selection from
among ever-more-diverse choices, was an essential feature of romanticism. The
development of these romantics in Russian architecture in the second half of the 19th century can be traced in tendencies which, on one hand, were similar to those in Western
European architecture, but, on the other hand, consciously reacted against them.
Although the polemical disputes between Westernisers and Slavophiles about the two possible directions fro the future development of Russia were not typical in architectural circles, their influence could nevertheless be seen in building design: St. Petersburg became the center of Gothic revival, while Moscow was under the strong influence of
Old-Russian, pre-Petrine and folk architecture.
In Russia the Gothic was a derivative phenomenon. It grew out of a complex, artistic view of romanticism, and was strongly influenced by romantic literature, particularly British writers such as Sir Walter Scott. Despite the lack of a native Gothic tradition, the Gothic style became a perfect vehicle for the expression of romantic aesthetic concepts. It first entered Russia with the English manner of landscape garden design, which became very popular. During the romantic epoch, the spatial achievements of Gothic architecture were noted, and the eclectic architects paid specific attention to spatial solutions, usually basing them on a figurative rather than a functional origin. The enormous enclosed spaces of railway stations, covered markets, passages and exhibition pavilions had much in common with the spatial structures of medieval architecture, through their emotional effects on the viewer. One of the first Gothic railway stations in 55 Russia, at Pavlovsk, near St. Petersburg, was build by Shtankenshneider in 1836 and
1837. These expansive, airy spaces brought to mind associations with the real Gothic;
while the new spaciousness of the architecture brought the desire for the ‘multi-style’
approach, and influenced the character of ordinary urban developments.
The building of the New Hermitage in St. Petersburg (Figure 22, p. 57) by the
famous German architect Leo von Klenze (1839-52), was different from the surrounding
older buildings of the Winter Palace complex. Antiquity itself become more ‘eclectic’
and assumed a prosaic, down-to-earth tenor. The order was changed in its proportions;
monumental scale was exchanged for a human scale. Hermeses, Atlantises and caryatids
of a purely decorative nature adorned the façade. A light palette of colors typical of
Russian classical architecture was replaced by intense, varied color schemes.35
The romantic enthusiasm for a bucolic past resulted in the imitation of centuries- old historical buildings and urban patterns within new developments. Houses were situated on the most inconvenient sites, and followed all the curves of the street, thus creating one continuous building line. The urban planning concepts of eclectism were closer to the medieval precedents than to the classics. Buildings began to proliferate on narrow urban sites, filling vacant spaces and forming a system of courtyards.
Approaches to public spaces also changed. The classical style favored vast open squares, such as were present in St. Petersburg. The Russian romantic style transformed squares into public gardens. Town parks were surrounded by buildings of different epochs and styles. The number of kiosks, pavilions, park railings, lamp-posts and entrance porches multiplied. The large Russian cities acquired an ‘urbanistic’ quality.
35 Borisova, Elena, “Breaking with Classicism, Historicism in Nineteenth Century Russia”, from edited by Cooke, Catherine, “Uses of Tradition in Russian and Soviet Architecture”, Architectural Design Profile, 68, E.G. Bond ltd., London, 1987, pp. 18, 19 56 Another movement appeared during the romantic epoch, based on national identity. Based first on Byzantinism and later Slavophilism, national pride was interpreted in music, literature, and the plastic arts. The cultural elite looked towards the revival of the national culture through the creative work of the people. The official
Byzantine style was typical of the work of Konstantin Ton, for example, in his project of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow (1839-1883), and Moscow’s Kremlin
Palace (1839-49).
In contrast to these official versions of the Byzantine style, the first examples of self-conscious imitations of vernacular wooden architecture began to appear during the romantic epoch and created the basis for the ‘Russian style’ of the 19th century. Many wooden buildings in the folk style were built, and this trend, became known as ‘pseudo-
Russian’, was used for the construction of schools, hospitals, small railway stations, and numerous pavilions at the Russian exhibitions.
The typical feature of the pseudo-Russian style, by the time it had matured and proliferated into the 1870s, was a combination of new functional and constructional techniques integrated with the traditional decorative forms. Experiments with materials led to the ‘brick style’, the main feature of which was simplified brick ornamentation used in the facades of large brick buildings. Examples of this style were the
Polytechnical Museum built by I. Monigetti and N. Shokin (1873-1877) (Figure 23, p.
57), the Historical Museum in Red Square in Moscow built by V. Shervud (1875- 1883), and the residence of the Igumnov family, designed by N. Pozdeev (1896).36
Architectural experiments in the pseudo-Russian style were carried out by artists of the Abramtsevsky Circle. They built a number of houses in the Abramtsevo village under the patronage of the owner Savva Mamontov who supported their work. The
36 Ibid., p. 22 57 Abramtsevo Church, built to the plans of the artists Wassily Polenov and Victor
Vasnetsov in 1881-1882, displayed new features borrowed from icon-painting. The work
of the artists of the Abramtsevo Circle demonstrated a new freedom from the official line
in architecture and marked the turn towards new sculptural formal possibilities. Their
work helped enable the organic transition into Modernism at the beginning of the 20th century. Book graphics, theatrical set design, and applied arts had also been affected.
The work of Abramtsevo Circle influenced many architects of the next generation.
The turn of the century emergence of Art Nouveau replaced the all the previous branches of Romanticism, Gothic, Eclectic, and Russian. Art Nouveau offered the fresh and universal style of a promising modernity. This modern style of décor quickly took roots in Moscow’s architecture, finding numerous adherents among the bourgeoisie. Art
Nouveau architecture in Moscow was supple, almost mannered in form and favored an essentially sculptural decor. The Metropole Hotel (Figure 24, p. 58) was erected by W.
Valkot between 1899 and 1903 on an iron frame constructed by engineer A. Erikhson.
The façade was richly decorated with turrets and balconies and girded with a stucco relief bearing numerous stylized sculptures. The gently curved gables were decorated with panels of shell mosaic modeled after a painting by Mikhail Vrubel. This monumental, decorative, and constructionally well-integrated design is a typical example of early modernism in Moscow.
The most successful among the ‘modern’ artists within this trend was Fedor
Shektel. In all of these styles, his projects manifested an altogether exclusive artistic feeling. His most famous Art Nouveau projects were the house of S. Riabyshinsky
(1901-1902) (Figure 25, p. 58), and the Iaroslavl Railway Station in Moscow (1902-
1903). Shektel paid specific attention to the characteristic and distinctive decorative accents such as the curves in the gratings and railings. Many of these details, such as the 58 marble balustrade of the staircase in the Riabyshinsky’s house became masterpieces of
Russian Art Nouveau.37
37 Edited by Fauchereau, Serge, Moscow 1900-1930, Rizzoli, New York, 1988, pp. 188-190 59
22. Von Klenze, New Hermitage, St. Petersburg, 1839
23. I. Monigetti and N. Shokin, Polytechnical Museum, Moscow,1870s
60
24. W. Valkot, Metropole Hotel, 1899-1906
25. F. Shektel, The Residence of S. Riabushinsky, Interior Detail, 1900-1902
61 Constructivism - Main Stages of Development a) Appearance of the term “Constructivism”
Russian Constructivism posited a new relationship between the artist, his work and society. This radical reassessment of artistic activity was a direct response to the experience of the October Socialistic Revolution of 1917 and of the ensuing Civil War.
The far-reaching and utopian aspirations which inspired Constructivist artists were embodied in works like Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International (Figure 26, p. 63).
Constructivism was a highly politicized movement, concerned with the creation of new architecture for a new society, and aiming to provide the propaganda and agitation of new ideas.
The term Constructivism emerged in the beginning of 1920s, when the “First
Group of Constructivists,” the first to officially use the term, was founded. The Stenberg brothers together with K. Medunetsky wrote the declaration of the group. It appeared in print in the catalogue of the exhibition entitled “The Constructivists: K. K. Medunetsky,
V. A. Stenberg, G. A. Stenberg,” held at the Poet’s Café (Kafe Poetov), Moscow, in
January of 1922.38 The exhibits comprised spatial structures made from real materials with a very strong industrial emphasis. The nature of these constructions was explained in the declaration printed in the catalogue, which clamed that all artists should now “go into the factory, where the real body of life is made”, and asserted that “this route is called Constructivism”. The artists’ declaration that “Constructivism will lead humanity to master a maximum of cultural values with the minimum expenditure of energy” shows that Constructivism was seen to represent the culture of the future, although it was not
38 Lodder, Christina, Russian Constructivism, Yale University Press, 1983, p. 2
62 specifically linked in this statement with Communist ideology. 39 This first use of the term ‘Constructivism’ linked it to the concept of the merging of art and life through mass production and industry, and an aesthetic suggesting spontaneous assembly.
These ‘non-utilitarian’ constructions took place in the pre-revolutionary period and provided the formal vocabulary for Constructivism. The identification of the formal language and work in materials with the tasks of revolutionary propaganda and agitation, and later with the creating of new Communist environments, and harnessing it to the power of industry, occurred during the few years immediately following the October
Revolution of 1917. Theoretical debates conducted within the UNKhUK (Institut
Khudozestvennoi Kultury [The Institute of Artistic Culture]) led to the formulation of a new concept of the role of art and of the artist. The ideal of the ‘artist-constructor’ and the ‘artist-engineer’ emerged. The realization of this idea was entrusted to the
VKhUTEMAS (Visshie Gosudarstvennye Khudozhestvennye i Tekhnicheskie Masterskie
[Higher State Artistic and Technical Workshops]) where the formal, ideological and technical elements of the Constructivist approach were taught. The Constructivists made an attempt to design everyday objects for mass production, along with theatrical design and graphic design, as well as the art and architecture of the new society.
39Ibid., p. 2
63 b) Pre-Revolutionary Period
Before the October Social Revolution of 1917 the ‘laboratory period’ took place, during which a new formal language was created. Formal two-dimensional and three- dimensional abstract experiments were undertaken, and referred to as ‘non-utilitarian constructions.’ Vladimir Tatlin was a central figure in this experimental phase, and he continued to play a critical role in the development of Constructivism after the October
Social Revolution of 1917. He was the first to experiment with non-utilitarian constructions, having begun exercises in 1913 with three-dimensional objects made from metal, wood, and glass (Figure 32, p. 77). This initial phase of making small-scale, abstract three-dimensional compositions from combinations of the materials came to an end in 1920 and 1921, when, amidst strong post-Revolutionary fervor, a strong utilitarian dimension appeared in the work of all the Constructivists.
Tatlin was born in Moscow in 1885 and grew up in the Ukraine. His father was an engineer and his mother a poetess who died when he was two years old. Tatlin seems to have had a very unhappy childhood and ran away to sea at a young age. His initial artistic training started in 1902 when he began to paint icons. The same year he entered the academically oriented Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture where he studied until 1904. Between 1904 and 1909 Tatlin studied at Penza Art School under the artist Afanasiev. After graduating from Penza, Tatlin spend a year at the Moscow school of painting, where he became closely associated with the leaders of the Russian avant-garde at that time, Mikhail Larionov and Natalia Goncharova. Through them he became acquainted with the latest developments among Western and Russian progressive artists. During a stay in Paris in 1913-1914, Tatlin visited the Picasso studio, where he was much impressed with Picasso’s reliefs, for example The Bottle of 1913. Tatlin
64 named three artists who had influenced him most: Afanasiev, Larionov, and Picasso.
According to Lodder, however one aspect of his earlier work as an icon may also have stimulated Tatlin in his move towards three-dimensional constructions using combinations of different materials, namely the way in which the elaborately ceremonial frame of the icon is usually made from valuable metals, and encrusted with precious stones, and then which enclose the image. 40
During the laboratory period, Tatlin’s followers were Alexander Rodchenko, Petr
Miturich, Ivan Puni, Ivan Klyun, and Naum Gabo. Some of them, like Rodchenko, later become Constructivists. Other artists at that period of time contributed to the creation of the new formal vocabulary but later followed a more personal path. The three- dimensional compositions of Puni and Klyun were in some ways parallel with Tatlin’s but were derived directly from their own investigations of Cubism, rather than from
Tatlin’s investigations. Liybov Popova’s starting point was also Cubism, through later she moved from two-dimensional experiments analyzing the volume and space of objects towards the organization of these elements. In 1921, Popova collaborated with
Rodchenko and Stepanova to become one of the founders of the Constructivist movement. In textile design Stepanova followed her structural concerns, through analyzing the movement of the human figure. The pre-revolutionary spatial experiments were of a very great variety, but none of them yet contained an idea of practical or social purpose. It was the Revolution which provided the ultimate social motivation for these non-utilitarian experiments.
40 Ibid., p. 12
65
26. V. Tatlin, Monument to the Third International, 1919
66 c) Revolutionary Experience
After 1917, the motivations for the use of non-utilitarian experiments emerged.
The role of the movement was identified with the revolutionary tasks of propaganda,
agitation and the creation of the new Communist environment. The artists became
involved in the formulation of a new socialist culture. They were responsible for
carrying out the practical tasks connected with political agitation, such as the work of
decorating the city streets to celebrate the new revolutionary festivals, such as May Day
and the anniversary of the October Revolution. Many of the artists who later became
leading Constructivists were involved in there activities. For example, Popova
contributed to the decorations of the building of the Moscow Soviet for May Day 1917,
and she collaborated with A. Vesnin in 1921 on a design for a mass festival. Similarly,
Rodchenko was involved in preparations for the second anniversary of the Revolution in
1919.
On April 13, 1918, the decree entitled Plan for Monumental Propaganda was signed by Lenin, it proclaiming “the removal of Monuments erected in Honor to the
Tsars and their Servants, and the Production of Projects for Monuments to the Russian
Socialist Revolution.”41 Tatlin’s project of the monument to the Third International was
inspired by the desire to create a genuinely revolutionary monument for the new
revolutionary society.
The next phase was the attempt to build a theoretical basis for Constructivism,
including debates about the role of art and the artist in the society. The conclusion of
these debates was that the Constructivist approach to “production art” could not be
41ibid., p. 53 67 realized without the “artist-constructor.”42 “The artist-constructor had to bring together in
one person, to an almost superhuman degree, the professional equipment of both the
gifted artist and the experienced director of technology.”43
The realization of the new ‘artist-constructor’ idea could only be the result of
totally new professional training. The Moscow VKhUTEMAS were set up in 1920. This
institution was founded on the basis of the SVOMAS (Svobodnie Masterskie [Free
studios]) that were inspired by the desire “to train people in the fine arts to have a
complete perception of artistic culture in the field of painting, architecture, and sculpture
and to provide complete artistic freedom for the development of the individual’s artistic
abilities.”44 Students were free in choosing the subjects and studios. They took part in the selection of masters by voting, and, moreover, even more students were free to add their own candidates to the voting list. There were studios for both relatively conservative trends, such as Realism and Neo-Impressionism, and new trends like
Suprematism and Futurism. Artists such as Malevich, Kandinsky and Tatlin gave their classes in Free Studios. In the mid-1920s, Free Studios were reorganized and the
VKhUTEMAS was established by a State Decree signed by Lenin. The first point of the decree stated the aims of the new school quite explicitly: “The Moscow VKhUTEMAS is a specialized educational institution for advanced artistic and technical training, created to prepare highly qualified master artists for industry as well as instructors and directors of professional and technical education.”45
The training was partly technical and partly artistic. The goal was to enable the
future ‘artist-constructor’ to participate fully in the ‘constructive’ work of the new
42 Ibid., p. 4 43 Ibid., p. 108 44 Ibid., p. 109 45 Ibid., p. 112 68 socialist society. The major achievement of VKhUTEMAS was the Basic Course, which
"reflected both the Institute's early scientific investigation of artistic criteria and its later
Constructivist orientation towards the synthesis of this science of art with technological and social functions."46 It provided students with “the bases of a general artistic education.” The major change came in 1926 when ‘Dermetfak’, emerged from combination of woodwork facility with the metalwork facility. The staff of the
Dermetfak included many of the major Constructivist figures: For example, Rodchenko taught artistic design; Gustav Klutsis taught color theory and space discipline; Lissitsky, who had taught briefly at the VKhUTEMAS prior to his departure from the Soviet Union in 1921, joined the faculty in 1926 to teach the formal principles of architecture, the design of architectural interiors, and furniture design. In 1927, Vladimir Tatlin also joined the faculty and ran a course on the culture of materials and the design of separate items of everyday use. Under his guidance, students produced a type of furniture which was radically different from that was made under the influence of Lissitsky and
Rodchenko.
The objects produced in Dermetfak embodied the Constructivist approach in that
"the form of the object is determined by the material from which it is made." These objects had to be prototypes for mass production. However, as far as it is known, none of them was actually adopted for industrial fabrication. Moreover, only two of the twenty designers trained in the first Dermetfak class went to work directly in factories. Four graduates joined various experimental and organization institutes. The other graduates
46 Ibid., p. 122
69 joined various industrial trusts and organizations connected with the wood, chemical and rubber industries.47
d) Constructivist Micro-Environment
Several categories of objects were successful examples of the formulation of a
Constructivist method in particular fields. In general, through, Constructivist experiments and education produced many designs but few finished objects. The principal reason why few projects got beyond the drawing board was the poverty and lack of materials that dominated all Soviet activity in the 1920s. Thus, the Constructivists’ early moves into the factories and mass production were not successful. Only few artists such as Tatlin, Rodchenko, Stepanova, and Popova made an attempt to work in specific factories to put their ideas into practical operation. Among these, only Stepanova and
Popova were successful with mass production, and that was in the textile industry. Other fields that indicated some trends toward Constructivism were furniture, stands, and kiosks. Theatre was where the most extensive experimentation with real materials in real space with specific functions was achieved.
There is no evidence that any Constructivists went to work in furniture factories in the same way as they entered the textile industry. However, they devote considerable energy to the problems of furniture design. For instance, Tatlin built several variations of a particular form of oven, which was intended to combine maximum heat output with minimum fuel consumption. The VKhUTEMAS students of Dermetfak under the guidance of Lissitsky, Rodchenko, and Tatlin approached solutions to some of the
47 Ibid., p. 8
70 problems affecting furniture design in relation to contemporary Soviet living conditions.
Although none of their designs entered mass production, the Constructivists formulated an approach to the problems encountered in this field.
The next large scale activity after was the agitation stands of Gustav Klutsis. In
1922, for the celebration of fifth anniversary of the Revolution, Klutsis designed a series of ‘radio-orators’, ‘radio-tribunes’ and cinema-photo stands’, with three-dimensional, dynamic slogans, for the streets of Moscow. Another trend, which developed from the formal and practical experimentation with these agitation stands was the kiosks -- the small-scale, light, temporary, sometimes transportable structures. These small-scale structures were considered valuable explorations toward a new formal vocabulary for the larger architectural scale. “The Constructivist system of organizing form became expressed in skeletal angular structures, in rectangularity, simplicity, economy of line and material and a geometric solution to surface arrangements.”48
At the end of the 1920s, The New Economical Policy (N.E.P.) started to change the economical situation in the country. In 1929 the first Five Year Plan was determined, which put the priority on the development of heavy industry and the building of accompanying settlements. New building types that emphasized communal living emerged. The Constructivist architects worked on projects for communal housing, worker’s clubs, houses of Soviets, and various types of educational establishments.
Hundreds of the designs executed in the style of Constructivism got built around the country (Figures 27, 28, p. 71).
48 Ibid., p. 180
71 Socialist Realism Revival
In the 1930s, the revival of the neo-classical style of Socialist Realism was in
development. Many artistic organizations were closed, and the work of many artists and
architects underwent strict criticism by the government. Constructivism was abandoned.
The new style aimed to glorify the economic victories of the first Five Year Plan. The
thirties was a decade of intense construction, and architects were assigned to take into
account the exceptional political and historical significance of the buildings. Dozens of
architectural competitions were arranged, such as the new masterplan for Moscow, the
People’s Commissariat for Heavy Industry building, and the Palace of Soviets (Figure 29,
p. 72). The neo-classical architects developed their designs based on classical models.
The scale of the buildings grew, and the decorative elements became more elaborate. The
classical decorative elements were usually combined with Soviet symbolic elements
(Figure 30, p. 72). During World War II the economy suffered enormous losses. About
1,710 towns and villages were destroyed and about 25 million people lost their homes.
After the war, architects worked on the reconstruction of whole cities and on providing
living space. The major theme of post-war architecture became the design of monuments
and memorial complexes. The neo-classical line in architecture continued until the death
of Stalin in 1953, but the expensive buildings could not provide sufficient housing for
the population.
In 1956, the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union exposed
Stalin’s cult of personality and published a program for the democratization of Soviet society. The new politics completely changed the situation in architecture. Following an economical justification, the new policy ordered the elimination of all excesses in planning and architecture. In addition to economic restrictions, all searching for artistic
72 expression was rejected. Still today, the suburbs of many Russian cities have a monotonous and dull image, rows of high-rise slabs not-so-affectionately referred to as
“refrigerators.” Back in the 1950s, these were merely the fast way to provide the required amount of living space.
In the beginning of 1960s, the search for a new style that would help to restore the prestige of architecture began. The ideas behind the new democratic architecture continued the theories of the 1920s, and led to the Constructivist revival. This “neo-
Constructivism” of 1960s brought the ideas of free design of the 1920s to a new level, but it also aimed to create not only a style, but specifically a socialist style.49
49 Chepkunova, Irina, “The History of Soviet Architecture”, from Soviet Architecture, 1917 – 1987, Art Unlimited Books, Amsterdam, 1989, pp.7-8 73
27. I. Golosov, Zuev’s Club, Moscow, 1927-1929
28. K. Melnikov, Rusakov’s Club, Moscow, 1927-1929
74
29. B. Iofan, V. Gelfreikh, V. Shchuko, Competition Project of the Palace of Soviets in Moscow, 1933
30. I. Zoltovsky, Apartment Building on Mokhovaya Street, Moscow, 1932-1934
75 Constructivism in Other Arts
Similar to the process in architecture, the new non-objective concepts that emerged in poetry, cinema, painting and theatre were first employed by the avant-garde movement. After the Socialist Revolution of 1917, artists were obliged to serve the
Communist ideology in Russia. During the 1920s different fields of art were held to the same restrictions. It was a time of relative pluralism. The new Soviet state could control the themes of art, but not its forms. During the 1920s artistic groups flourished, even though sometimes they opposed each other. The situation changed at the beginning of
1930s when all art was suppressed by the Social Realism.
a) Painting
The Russian avant-garde art at the beginning of the century was divided into several schools. First school was presented by artists like Kandinsky, Malevich, Chagall, who were recognized by their contemporaries in the West. Second school was an isolated group of artists who worked within the country and were little known to Western public. Russian Futurism emerged in the 1910s and became the symbol of “modern art” within the country. In 1907, Mikhail Larionov painted a number of unashamedly barbaric canvases that defied perspective, insulted good taste, and represented a complete rejection of the color games of impressionists and the elegant decoration of the symbolists.
Artists and poets worked together at that period. Futurist poets, such as
Mayakovsky, Krychenukh, Burliuk, received an artistic education. The artists looked for the new forms of art and presented to the public not only their paintings but also their
76 image. Mayakovsky started to wear a yellow tunic. Burliuk had a top hat. The futurists read poetry on street corners, threw tea at their audiences, and made their public appearances a great annoyance for the bourgeois art establishment. The popular form of art became the performance. The most radical performance was done by the poet Ivan
Ignatiev, who on January 14 of 1914 committed suicide the day after his marriage ceremony. During his visit to Russia at the same month Marrinetty claimed that the
Russians were not real futurists, because they are detached from reality and deny life.
In the summer of 1914, at the beginning of World War I, most of the Russian artists who worked abroad returned to Russia. This was the high point in the Russian avant-garde. At the beginning of 1915, two opposed movements started to emerge. One of them was the “alogism” of Malevich, who emphasized the meaning of artistic work rather than compositional combination. Malevich founded of the project of language analysis and conceptualization. Tatlin proposed three-dimensional compositions that focused on the search for new plastic forms, materials and solutions.
Kazimir Malevich came to Moscow in 1907 at the age of 29. He worked in impressionism, naturalism and symbolism. In 1912 at the futurist exhibition “Donkey’s
Tail”, he presented his variation of primitivism paintings which were influenced by the works of Goncharova, Cezanne and Matisse (Figure 31, p. 77). In 1915, on “The Last
Futurist Exhibition 0,10” Malevich presented the non-objective paintings. This was the foundation of the Suprematist movement. Malevich aimed to create not just another art movement, but a phenomenon, that could not be compared with any art or reality. He changed the status of artistic activity.
Tatlin, in 1913, after his visit to Picasso in Paris, returned to Russia and started to work on his contrereliefs, and three dimensional compositions, which were made of
77 wooden, glass, steel, and gypsum triangles, rectangles and cones (Figure 32, p.77).
Tatlin’s three dimensional experiments were considered as the beginning of the
laboratory period of the Constructivism. Tatlin’s followers were Alexander Rodchenko,
Petr Miturich, Ivan Puni, Naum Gabo, and others. A. Rodchenko became the main
ideologist of the Constructivists. In 1921 he and his wife, Varvara Stepanova joined
Tatlin’s opposition to Malevich. In 1921 they collaborated with Liybov Popova and
became one of the founders of the Constructivist movement.
The revolution of 1917 motivated the experimentations of the Constructivists.
They aimed to create a useful art and bring art to mass production. Constructivists
created advertisements, posters, and theater decorations. In 1918 -1920 non-objective art
became the symbol of the new social structure, and the new power. There were constant
debates about the proletarian art, but the formulation was not yet found. For that reason
the new soviet state leaders embraced avant-garde as the art of the revolution. The
enlightment organization “Proletkult” controlled all fields of art in the twenties, and
understood the new art as the art which created by the proletariat. Constructivist artists
stated that their non-objective creations had collectivist character in their nature.
Constructivists looked for new forms of art. The bright example became Tatlin’s
tower to the III International. Rodchenko worked on a series of mobile constructions.
Each construction was a composition of the same elements, for example circle, rectangle or triangle (Figure 33, p. 78). These compositions could be transformed from two dimensional to three dimensional. El Lissitsky, who returned to Russia at the beginning of World War I, created his first “proun” (project of establishment of new) in 1920.
Prouns, which became an alternative to two dimensional painting, looked like schematic architectural models (Figure 34, p. 78). In the middle of the twenties Photography
78 defined the art form. It gave the opportunity of mass production in art. The assembling of different photographic pieces, called photomontage, flourished at the end of twenties.
It was widely used in political posters, advertisement and book illustrations.
79
31. K. Malevich, Bathing Man, 1911
32. V. Tatlin, Corner Contrerelief, 1915
80
33. A. Rodchenko, Spatial Construction #2, 1920
34. El Lissitsky, City, Proun, 1920
81 b) Poetry and Literature
The avant-garde tendencies in poetry first manifested themselves in the movement of Futurism. The pioneer of the movement in poetry was Velimir Khlebnikov. In 1910 he published his first work, Conjuration by Laughter, an explosion of verbal virtuosity derived from a single word. Several other artists and poets joined the movement.
Among them were Alexei Kruchenych and Vladimir Mayakovsky. Kruchenych, who became one of the most radical of the Futurists, displayed his distinctive manner: lines with neither punctuation nor capital letters, chaotic stresses, and spelling mistakes, which he maintained were an integral part of his personality. Mayakovsky’s contribution was a kind of urban poetry that offered an apocalyptic vision of the city.
In 1912 the group of four, among whom were the painter and poet David Burliuk,
Velimir Khlebnikov, the poet Alexey Kruchenych, and the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky, published in Moscow the first manifesto of Russian Futurism, A Slap in the Face of
Public Taste. The manifesto provoked a major literary scandal. In it, Futurists advocated the ideas of Italian futurism and attacked Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy.
After the revolution, under the directorship of the first Commissar of Education of
Soviet Union, Anatoly Lunacharsky, futurism began to change and to commit itself to the service of the masses. In the following years the word “futurism” was replaced with
“constructivism”. Vladimir Mayakovsky became the leading poet of a new social order.
He was editor of Gazeta Futuristov (Newspaper of Futurists) in 1918 and was involved in the magazine Iskusstvo Kommuna (Art Commune) and Iskusstvo (Art). Between the years 1919 and 1921, he designed posters and wrote short propaganda plays and texts for
ROSTA, the Russian Telegraph Agency. He wrote political verses, poem-marches,
82 children's poetry, and commercial jingles for state enterprises. Mayakovsky used in his texts slogans, mixed rhythm patterns, different typesetting styles, and neologism.
An Example of his experiments can be the part from his poem The Construction Sites and the Men of Kuznetsk of 1927. Mayakovsky wrote:
In four years here will be a city-garden! Here the explosions will cackle in scattering the bands of bears and will rip the bowels the earth with mine a sparkling “GIANT”. Here the constructions will rise like walls. through whistle, steam, screech. We will in hundred suns with furnace blaze the Siberia. Here the house they will give good to us
83 and white bread off the ration, even beyond the Baikal defeated will retreat taiga.
In Mystery-Bouffe (1918), a religious mystery play which mocked religion, the poet described a struggle between two groups, the 'Unclean' working class and the 'Clean' upper class. The 'Unclean' defeat the 'Clean' to create a workers' paradise on Earth, where people "will live in warmth / and light, have electricity / move in waves."
Mayakovsky later tried to make a film of the play. The project was rejected by the
Moscow Soviet organization, because of its "incomprehensible language for the broad masses."
In the spring of 1919 the hectic atmosphere of the Russian Revolution inspired
Mayakovsky to write popular poems in support of the Bolsheviks. This effectively separated Mayakovsky from a number of his friends, who emigrated or were “silenced.”
In 1922 Mayakovsky made a trip to Berlin and Paris, where he visited the studios of
Léger and Picasso. After his quarrel with his lover Lily Brik, he worked on his lyric poem, entitled Pro Eto (1923), in which the central theme is the tension between history, hopes for a new life, and personal love. Christ appears in it as a Komsomol (Youth
Communist organization) member and the poem ends with the cry: "Resurrect me!"
In 1923, Mayakovsky co-founded with Osip Brik the journal LEF (Left Front
Arts) 1923, which published Pro Eto, and Novyi LEF in 1927. Both magazines had short lives; however, they achieved the de-aestheticization of the applied arts and promoted constructivism. In 1924, Mayakovsky composed an elegy on the death of Vladimir
84 Lenin, which finally made him known all over Russia. He traveled in Europe; he also
visited the United States, Mexico and Cuba, recording his impressions in My Discovery
of America.
In April 14, 1930, Mayakovsky committed suicide, five years after the poet
Sergey Esenin had done the same. Many reasons have been given. One was the
culmination of an emotional crisis, his denied love to Lily Brik. Mayakovsky had
expressed alienation and disillusionment over Soviet reality, an effect of constant
criticism, and the denial of a visa to travel abroad. A year before that, in 1929, he said to
a friend at a poetry-reading in Dynamo Stadium: "To write an excellent poem and read it
here - the one can die." Mayakovsky was eulogized by Stalin, who proclaimed
indifference to his works a crime. Mayakovsky's plays, The Bedbug (1928) and The
Bathhouse (1930), were banned temporarily because they dealt critically with the Soviet officials.
In literature, the first few years after the revolution were not marked by immediate reorientation and created an atmosphere favorable to fresh experiments. That period gave rise to several new names in literature, such as Mikhail Zoshchenko (Respected Citizens,
1927), Nikolay Nikitin (Vomiting Fort, 1922), Veniamin Kaverin (The End of Khaza,
1926) Uyri Tynianov. Evgeny Zamiatin, Mikhail Bylgakov, Isaak Babel, Maxim Gorky
and others.
After the death of Lenin in 1924, the politics of social control came into place.
The chief preoccupation became proletarian literature. The aim was to promote a culture
for everybody created by everybody – a proletarian culture (proletkult). The theorist of
Proletkult was Alexander Bogdanov. He had his own review and publishing house.
Later it was brought under the People’s Commissariat of Education and eventually was
85 suppressed. Even so, the meaning of proletariat literature did not diminish. Some of its
finest creations were novels: Chapaev by Dmitry Furmanov, Cement by Fedor Gladkov,
Defeat by Alexander Fadeev, and Quite Flows the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov. Cement
and Defeat were published in a New Lef review by Mayakovsky in 1927
In 1928, the First Congress of Proletariat Writers, the writers who were associated
with Lef group, were accused of sterile intellectualism. Under critical fire from all sides,
Mayakovsky’s group was eventually forced to merge with RAPP (The Russian
Association of Proletariat Writers.) In 1929, RAPP ruled the literary scene. The duty of writers was to obey “social control” and to place their talents at the service of the propaganda of the Five Year Plan. Certain writers, such as Valentin Kataev, Vera Inber, and Mikhail Zoshchenko extolled the work done in digging a canal from the White Sea to the Baltic. Two key figures of the new soviet literature, Pilniak and Zamiatin, were expelled from the Writers’ Union.
c) Music
Dominating the beginning of the twentieth century musical movements,
Romanticism and Symbolism were changed by new musical politics in 1918. The new musical creations had to serve communist ideology. Musical tendencies followed the same process as architecture. The decade between 1920 and 1930 brought a relative freedom to music. Until the leveling process initiated after 1932, a wide range of aesthetic conceptions were permitted. The twenties were a time of experimentation, some of which was truly innovative. Novelty was evident everywhere. On the one hand, there were attempts to bring the musical education to the masses through the creation of simplistic art, and the disfavor of “knowledgeable” music. On the other hand, there was a
86 great interest in the new achievements of western music, which were reflected in experimentation.
Everyday Soviet musical life assimilated the songs to the heroes of the revolution, like Wassily Chapaev and Semen Budeny. The essential goal of new musical policy was to bring art closer to people. That meant the reorganization of musical life and musical education. In 1918, Lenin signed a decree by which the Conservatories in
St. Petersburg and Moscow were to come under the People’s Commissariat of Education, headed by Anatoly Lunacharsky. Another institution for musical education established in
1895, the Gnesin Institute, underwent a development that enhanced the reputation of the institute. The revolution did not change the high quality of instruction at the
Conservatory, as it remained in hands of highly professional musicians. Another Institute of Musical Science opened in Moscow in 1921. The purpose of new institution was to publicize the history of music.
The idea of collective action inspired in 1922 the creating of an orchestra (The
First Symphonic Ensemble) that had no conductor. It performed frequently until 1932.
In 1923 the RAMP (Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians) was established. It was the embodiment of Proletkult organization in music; songs for the masses were the only appropriate proletarian music. Later this organization was considered harmful and was dissolved in 1932.
In total contrast to RAMP was ASM (the Association of Contemporary Music) that was founded in 1929. The creation of this group was not well known among music lovers. The association promoted the music of contemporary western composers and did not a support a predetermined aesthetic vision. One of the musical trends was
Constructivist Urbanism, which admired the power of machines. One of such creations
87 was the ballet by Alexander Mosolov, Stal (Steel). The ASM was accused by authorities in emulating decadent and artificial Western bourgeois art. It was branded as a
“formalist” group, a term used to cover any art based on the search for “forms”. The group existed at the same time as RAMP. In 1932, the Union of Soviet Composers was created. It was the sole central agency that controlled Soviet musical life.
d) Cinema
The first Russian movie was shot in 1907 by the photographer Drankov. His film,
“Boris Godunov”, was based on a play by Alexander Pushkin. This movie, along with several other historical films, was very successful. Starting in 1910, a number of both foreign and Russian private film companies were established in Moscow. Particular trends emerged. Historical genre was very popular and included drama, documentary, comedy, and the adaptations of masterpieces of Russian literature. When Russia entered
World War I, the cinema industry mobilized public patriotism. The war was presented in all the movies of that period.
In 1919 Lenin ordered the birth of the Soviet cinema. The motion-picture industry was nationalized. Only one movie theater remained and only one company capable of operating. The golden age of soviet cinema started in 1925. About five hundred motion pictures were filmed between the years from 1925 to 1930. As in most countries, cinematography caught the interest of the members of the avant-garde movement. In the rhythm of the motion picture they saw the means of aesthetic revolution. The outstanding figure of Soviet cinematography was Sergey Eisenstein. In his first movie, Strike, Eisenstein implemented certain dramatic theories and introduced innovations in the ending. With Battleship Potemkin of 1925 he imposed his own
88 aesthetics and theoretical thinking. Eisenstein always supported the political aim of the
cinematograph. The movie The General Line presented the subject of collectivization of
the countryside. In 1928, Eisenstein filmed Ten Days that Shook the World, which established him as the official filmmaker of the regime. When Soviet cinema entered the
Socialist realism era, it became very far removed from any avant-garde concepts.
89 Chapter 4. Context
The Development of the Revolutionary Movement
In order to understand the political situation in post-Revolutionary Russia we should go back to the history of the revolutionary movement in the country. The origins of the Revolution of 1917 were not the first instance in Russian history when radical reforms were forced by the State. The reforms of Peter the Great determined the whole subsequent development of Russian history. These reforms ended the Russian isolation from the Western world, and strongly reinforced the military, economical, and educational structures of the country. The methods of Peter were very radical.
Peter wanted to completely destroy the old, Moscovian Russia, the old church that existed before the church reforms of the 17th century. These reforms attempted to change the prayer books and the order of worship in accordance with the Greek Orthodox Church and led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. Peter founded the new capital of St.
Petersburg on the Baltic Sea. The city, built by European architects and planners, impressed visitors with its “state” architecture of palaces, squares, and assembles. The square grid hinted at wide and endless prospects.
The Western Enlightenment of the eighteen century was influential at the higher cultural level in Russia but remained totally removed from ordinary people. For the
Russian people the Orthodox Christian church remained the strongest influence. The
90 religious formation of the Russian soul has the following tenants: ascetism, the ability to take any hostility for the faith, and the belief in the afterlife, in the glorious future.
To the beginning of the nineteenth century the state has a difficult social situation with the absolute monarchy, thin cultural layer and people. The peasants continued to live with their old religious beliefs, an absolute trust in monarchy and a lack of sympathy towards the nobility. The lack of one national culture led to a great number of influences, ideas and movements in politics, philosophy, literature, and architecture that changed each decade. The most enlightened nobility dreamed about improving the everyday life of ordinary people. The philosophical movements, concerned with the social situation influenced one another: “Idealists” of 1840s; Nihilists of 1860s; People supporters, Radicalists and Anarchists of 1870s. In the 1860s, the liberal reforms and emancipation of serfs brought the intelligencia closer to its dreams. The tension between revolutionaries and the Tsarist State started to emerge. The assassination of Alexander II did not lead to the victory of the revolutionary movement as intended but created a strong resistance to reform in the government of Alexander III and among the whole population.
In the 1880s, the existing philosophical movements could not support the revolutionary movement any longer. Marxist philosophy gave rise to the social- democratic movement. Marx defined economics as the basis of the human life.
Ideology, religion, philosophy, and art merely reflected economic reality. Above economics, he put the people and social groups that form the reality. With the introduction of Marxist philosophy to Russia, the revolutionary movement finally became concrete. Marxist theories were interpreted in several ways. The Mensheviks, the followers of Critical Marxism, were more scientific and stated that social revolution can take place only in a country with a developed capitalist economy. The Bolsheviks, the followers of Orthodox Marxism, interpreted it in a more spiritual, religious way. They 91 believed that Marxism can release the power of the proletariat. The split in the Russian
social-democracy between “Bolsheviks” (from the Russian word bolshe, English
translation ‘more’) and the “Mensheviks” (from the Russian word menshe, English translation ‘less’) started in 1903 in London, during the assembly of the Social-
Democratic party. During the voting, the Bolsheviks got more votes, the Mensheviks – less. Later the Bolsheviks were associated with power. During the Revolution of 1917, the masses followed the Bolsheviks as the name encouraged their expectations. The head of the Bolsheviks, Lenin, interpreted Marxism in his own way. Later Marxism-Leninism became the ideology of the Communist party in Russia. Lenin believed in the absolute dictatorship of the proletariat and struggled against any other interpretations of the
Marxist theory and, of course, against any other theories in general. The whole society was led by the dictate of the Communist party, by its center, by the ideology of one dictator. There was no freedom within the party nor within the whole society. Lenin believed in the ideal future society, in the victory of the proletariat; however, he accepted no individuality. Lenin stated that only the force of social structure can turn the human being into the perfect social unit. According to Berdiaev, the Communism embraces the
Christian understanding of the meaning of the life of each individual as a service to a higher good, but unlike the Christian religion, it denies any individuality.
The Constructivist movement aimed the cause of depicting the "glorious Soviet reality", but the work of the particular, individual artists, such as Chernikhov, showed that the notion of individuality can not be denied for long, especially in art.
Everyday Life
The development of capitalism in pre-revolutionary Russia gave rise to needs that could be satisfied only with new programs based on new techniques and materials. In 92 1900 Russia was among the six European industrialized countries producing cotton, coal, lignite and iron. The railway transportation system extended across the nation. The process of industrialization gave rise to new building types, such as factories, stations, warehouses, stores, and workers’ housing. The Industrial Revolution in Russia started years later than in Western Europe or America. Rapid development due to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 continued until the beginning of the World War I in
1914. A number of very large businesses, many launched with foreign capital, appeared and stimulated the grow of an active working class.
From the time of Peter the Great to the beginning of the twentieth century St.
Petersburg, remained the administrative capital, the residence of the central government and the monarchy. Moscow constituted the capital of the central industrial region and employed half of Russia’s labor force. Banks and company headquarters gradually transformed the center of the city into a business district. Industrial development brought urban improvements. Main streets were paved. Street lighting was installed. The
Neglinka, a tributary of the Moscow river, was canalized. In the suburbs various large industrial enterprises grew up. The population exploded in Moscow, rising from
1,038,000 in 1897 to 1,762,700 in 1914, a result of the inevitable migration from the rural areas to the towns. The high concentration of inhabitants created difficulties in every sphere of city life, especially in public health, security, and housing.
The working class districts were clustered around Presnia Square and stretched as far as Khitrovka, the poorest part inhabited by the homeless, hopeless people whom
Maxim Gorky depicted in his play, The Lower Depths (1902). The level of overpopulation in these districts was alarming. According to contemporary statistics, a workingman had only 2 square meters of floor space and 3 cubic meters of air. A typical house in such districts, usually occupied by several families, was two stories high and 93 built of wood. There was no electricity. Sewage collected in ditches. The length of the working day by law was not supposed to exceed eleven and a half hours during day shifts and ten hours during night shifts. Women and children were supposed not to be employed on arduous or potentially unhealthy work. In practice, however, employers rarely followed these regulations due to the high level of unemployment and the huge market of unskilled labor. These circumstances of the lives of workers soon gave rise to major political and social problems.50
The other main category of Moscow’s population consisted of people who worked in “service sector”(Figure 35, p. 94). Itinerant tradesmen were to be found on every street corner. Menservants and maids, waiters and cooks staffed the city’s many bars and restaurants. Salespeople and apprentices worked in its stores and innumerable shops. Prices for agricultural products remained low, but the prices of industrial products remained expensive for most of the population. There was also a great number of coachmen (about 15,000 in 1910), who formed a class apart, with their own distinctive uniforms, special language, meeting places, and amusements (Figure 36, p. 94).
Although motorized taxi-cabs appeared in Moscow in 1907 and the streetcar network covered virtually the whole city by 1914, the favorite method of transportation remained the horse-drawn cab until 1920s.
Moscow’s smart districts started from Red Square and extended to Arbat Square.
There was the domain of the aristocracy and the upper middle class. Hotels, restaurants and stores were able to satisfy every whim of Muscovites and wealthy tourists. Order was maintained in the city by an army of gorodnichie (policemen). There were a great many police stations, and a special corps of state police, as well as the security service.
50 Edited by Fauchereau, Serge, Moscow 1900-1930, Rizzoli, New York, 1988, pp. 23-28
94 The movements of the populace were checked by dvorniki (janitors). Each house had its janitor, who was required to keep the tenant list up to date.
Despite the police control political activity was common in Moscow, particularly among high-school and university students. Moscow University, founded in 1755, along with Grand Duke Constantine’s Institute of Topography and the Technical College, had the university status. Diplomas from these establishments provided the graduates with the opportunity to move up the Table of Ranks that governed the whole Russian society. In the beginning of the century, the University’s autonomy and the question of curriculum, particularly such disciplines as classics, Orthodox theology, Church Slavonic, were widely regarded as useless among students and provoked several clashes between the students and the authorities. The “provisional regulations” that passed in 1899 required all students suspected in subversive activities to be pressed into military service. That caused a series of student demonstrations and led to the assassination of Education
Minister N. Bogolepov in 1901. Students and workers formed a second opposition group. The uprising of 1905 was partly caused by the unpopular Russo-Japanese War, spread not only in the factories, but also in schools and universities. The Soviet of
Worker’s Deputies set up in Moscow in 1905 included a number of representatives from universities. The armed uprisings were planned by the Social Democratic Party and ordered by the Soviet in 1905. Students were battling alongside workers against Cossacks and police. The uprisings were brutally repressed, killing some 12,000 civilians.
The revolution of 1905 spawned a number underground magazines and newspapers in addition to 100 daily newspapers and periodicals covering the whole spectrum of politics. Considering on the low level of literacy in the country prior to 1918
(5-10%), Moscow’s publishing industry was in excellent condition. There were about
200 bookstores in the city. Art occupied an important part in the life of educated 95 Muscovites. There were a number of theaters, both imperial and private. During the second decade of the century the number of nightclubs and cafes providing cabaret entertainment increased. Cinema was introduced. In 1916 there were about 150 motion- picture theaters in Moscow. Unlike more the western-oriented inhabitants of St.
Petersburg, Muscovites remained slavophile, seeking inspiration in the past. Moscow was the capital of the Russian Orthodox Church, while St. Petersburg had a large foreign population, most of whom were Protestants. In 1914, St. Petersburg was renamed
Petrograd and became the capital of the Bolshevik Revolution and the seat of the major political groups. Many great strikes broke out there as a result of the exceptional economic effort that World War I required.
Besides the development of Moscow and several other large centers, another aspect of pre-Revolutionary Russia was the plight of peasants who, though no longer serfs, remained for the most part on the ancestral estates. These whole regions were deprived of transportation and economical development, living in poverty and ignorance.
During the time of the unsatisfactory economic situation, effective propaganda led public opinion to support the Bolsheviks, who took as their slogan: "all power to the Soviets.”51
51 Edited by Fauchereau, Serge, Moscow 1900-1930, Rizzoli, New York, 1988, pp. 35-40
96
35. The Chinatown, Moscow, Early Twentieth Century
36. Petrovka Street, Moscow, Early Twentieth Century
97 Revolutionary Changes
In Moscow, the October Revolution of 1917 lasted ten days. Troops remaining loyal to Alexander Kerensky’s provisional Government in Petrograd occupied the center of the city from the Kremlin to Arbat Square. After the few day’s resistance at City Hall and at the Kremlin, the Bolsheviks were victorious. The Soviets immediately set about renewing the entire administrative structure of the city. The Duma was dissolved, along with every other organization and institution. In 1918 the All-Russian Central Executive
Committee of Soviets installed itself in Moscow, which became the capital of the Russian
S.F.S.R. (Soviet Federation Socialist Republic). The decision to move to Moscow was influenced both by the fear of seeing Petrograd fall to advancing German troops and by
Moscow’s central location and importance as a railway junction. Many Moscow buildings, both private and public, were requisitioned to house the new institutions and to provide a radical solution to the housing problem in workers’ district. Workers’ families were evacuated from their hovels and installed in the houses and apartments formerly occupied by the bourgeoisie. The Grand Palace, built by Nicholas I, became the seat of government. The Palace of the Assembly of Nobility was allocated to the trade unions as their headquarters. The British Club was given over to the Museum of the Revolution.
The infamous Cheka (the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Suppression of
Counterrevolution, Sabotage and Speculation) took up residence in the Lubianka, the offices of a former insurance company.
March 1918 marked the beginning of profound changes in the lives of citizens.
The government of the city was placed in the hands of a City Soviet with the representatives in the District Soviets. All citizens, including women, now had the right to vote. For the first time women’s rights were recognized by law as being equal with men’s. All pre-Revolutionary police forces were dissolved and their powers were 98 transferred to a people’s militia. The universities underwent reorganization. Certain faculties were abolished. Banks and big businesses, theaters, museums, and private collections of Morozov, Tretiakov, Riabushinsky, etc. were nationalized. The anti- intelligentsia atmosphere prompted many educated Russians to emigrate.
In 1920 the total output of heavy industry was no more the one seventh of what it had been before 1914. Textile and pig-iron production was at the same level it was in the mid-nineteenth century. Agricultural production was in a steep decline. The transportation system was near collapse. The construction industry for the most part was no more than a disorganized body of artisans with uneven training and skills. Even before the end of civil war, the Soviet governments produced a plan for economic recovery based on nationwide scheme of electrification. This electrification plan proposed the construction of 30 power stations around the country within ten or fifteen years. Along with electrification the government proposed the revival of industry and the creation of new industrial centers. The electrification plan was completed ahead of schedule. Planning was extended rapidly to every sector of the economy.
In Europe, World War I slowed down the construction industry. The ‘new architecture’ made use of new technology. Numerous factories, stations, warehouses, and office buildings were built in the United States and throughout Europe to meet the requirements of an industrial society. Architects like Tony Garnier, Auguste Perret,
Walter Gropius, and Frank Lloyd Wright had already traced the direction for new architecture. In Russia the situation was quite different. The architects had to start again from scratch. As in every other sphere, the revolution was the signal for total renewal.52
52 Edited by Fauchereau, Serge, Moscow 1900-1930, Rizzoli, New York, 1988, pp. 40-44
99 Chapter 5. Russian Constructivism and European Modernism
Erich Mendelsohn and Russian Constructivism
The compositional principals and combination of the pure geometrical forms established by constructivists related to other architectural movements of the first half of the century. The rationality of Constructivism is connected to the Bauhaus’ proclamations aimed at improving products through new approaches to design. It is connected with the “pure engineering” of the Italian Futurists, and German
Expressionism, for example to the work of architects Sant’Elia and Mendelsohn who glorified the technology of concrete, steel, and glass.
Arthur R. Sprague, in his article “Chernikhov and Constructivism” noted the influence of some foreign artists on Chernikhov’s work. He suggested that the work of
Sant’Elia, Walter Gropius and van Doesburg came to be known to Chernikhov by the way of Malevich and El Lessitsky, since both artists were active in Petrograd during the period of Chernikhov’s education there. Chernikhov did not acknowledge any specific source for his theories and since he did not interact much with dominating artistic groups during twenties Spragues suggestion remains uncertain.
Another hypothesis is that the work of Erich Mendelsohn influenced
Chernikhov’s theories. Expressionism viewed as an entirely German phenomenon, however many Expressionists were interested in other European movements that were inventing architectural forms inspired by nonrepresentational painting and by machine-
100 age technology. During the twenties, Mendelsohn explored alternate models of modernity offered by the Soviet Union and the United States. In 1922 the Treaty of
Ropallo restored the diplomatic and economic relationship between the Soviet Union and the Weimar Republic. Mendelsohn traveled widely. His experiences in the Netherlands,
United States and Soviet Union and the buildings he saw firsthand became his new source of inspiration. In his book, Rusland – Amerika – Europa: ein Architektonischer
Querschnitt / Russia – America – Europe: An Architectural Gross Section, Mendelsohn analyzed the prototype for the incorporation of technology into modern architecture offered in different parts of the world. If in the United States he was troubled by the persistence of Historicism, in the Soviet Union he found the existence of the modern style detached from economic reality.
During his visits he met with El Lissitsky, the Vesnin brothers, Melnikov and
Shchusev, who were the leading Soviet Constructivists at that time. He admired Russian spiritualism and defended the importance of the creative spirit. He was interested in the past of the country. During his visits took photographs, mostly of historical architecture rather than of the few revolutionary projects that had already been built. He understood the technological emphasis of Soviet architecture as another example of the unrealistic
Russian utopian vision.53 He stated that spiritual belief alone could not be basis for modern architecture and must be connected with the rationalism he recognized in
American construction methods and zoning.
The period of the New Economic Policy (N.E.P.) that extended till the mid 1930s attempted to minimize the economic gap between the Russia and Western countries.
These years were an open time, receptive to foreign technology. Several foreign
53 James, Katherine, Erich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p 75
101 companies opened their businesses in the Soviet Union. Among them was the “Paul
Kossel and Son” company from Bremen that specialized in construction materials,
including cement, wood, and glass. In the collaboration with Central Union of Housing
Cooperatives it participated in the construction of several new buildings in Moscow and
Leningrad. Major architectural and construction magazines distributed in the country
became the main source of information about leading foreign architects.54
Mendelsohn became one of the first foreign architects to receive a significant
Soviet commission. In August 1925 a Soviet delegation visited Mendelsohn in Berlin to
discuss the possibility of his designing a knitwear and hosiery factory in Leningrad.55
The interest in Mendelsohn can be explained by the fact that the complex included three dyeworks. They wanted to duplicate the innovative ventilation he had developed for buildings of that type. In the mid-twenties Mendelsohn was commissioned to design the building for Red Banner (Krasnoe Znamia) textile factory (Figure 37, p. 104). In connection with the project Mendelsohn visited the Soviet Union in the fall of 1925 and returned twice in 1926. Eventually he became disillusioned with the Soviet methods of construction and criticized the Soviet system as being too busy, keeping alive the flame of revolution through dictatorship and too little concerned with the freedom for its people.56
The Red Banner factory was of great importance to the city of Leningrad and was
broadly advertised by photo. Alessandro de Magistris has suggested that the work of
Erich Mendelsohn influenced Chernikhov’s, who worked at the Leningrad at that time.
54 De Majestris, Alessandro “Ot Konstryktivistskogo Simvolisma k Fantasticheskomy Realismy” iz Iakov Chernikhov / “From Konstructivist Symbolism to Fantastical Realism”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000, p. 91 55 James, Katherine, Erich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 71
56 Ibid., p.71
102 Mendelsohn opened the way for other foreign architects who were commissioned to design projects in the Soviet Union. Albert Kahn, the architect of Henry Ford, promoted the construction of hundreds of industrial designs around the country through the “Kahn Incorporation”. Le Corbusier designed the Centrosoyuz Building in Moscow.
The Work of Antonio Sant’Elia and Chernikhov’s Theories
The connections between the theories developed by Iakov Chernikhov and the theories of Futurists, and Sant’Elia in particular, can be traced. The movement of
Futurism was founded by Filippo Marinetti. It was one of the most radical art movements of the early 20th century. Futurists proposed the complete and total reconstruction of society around the new industrial realities of power, speed, the machine and the city. By every possible means of architecture the Futurists rejected art and culture of the 19th century and praised the dynamism of the new machine age.
Antonio Sant’Elia, who was considered the brightest figure in the architecture of the Italian Futurism movement, reached the peak of his short career in 1914. On that year,
Sant’Elia showed his drawings for the Futurist ‘Citta Nuova’ in the first exhibition of
Nuove Tendenze group. As a preface to the exhibition, Sant’Elia published the Manifesto of Futurist Architecture where he declared his views on modernism.
Sant’Elia worked on several themes of modern architecture that can be found later in Chernikhov’s theories. These themes can be recognized as the following: fantasticality of architecture (the combination of utopia and reality); dynamism, rhythm and color theories; and finally the theme of mechanical architecture.
103 In the Manifesto, Sant'Elia wrote:
“We must invent and rebuild ex novo our modern city like an immense and tumultuous shipyard, active, mobile and everywhere dynamic, and the modern building like a gigantic machine. Lifts must no longer hide away like solitary worms in the stairwells, but the stairs – now useless – must be abolished, and the lifts must swarm up the façades like serpents of glass and iron.”57
Sant’Elia suggested that architecture should put aside all existing stylistic traditions. He fought against “a foolish mixture of elements of different styles” and promoted “the rational and scientific use of materials.” He stated that the ‘natural’ color effects should replace decoration and that “the decorative value of Futurist architecture depends solely on the use and original location of raw materials that are either bare or violently colored.”58
The new ideas of dynamism and defying gravity had influenced many of the avant-garde artists of Futurism, Suprematism, Cubism, and others who then challenged the old notions of space, structure, and firmness. Futurists considered the perpendicular and horizontal lines, cubic and pyramidal shapes of old architecture as static, oppressive and immobile. Boccioni envisioned that “one day the age-old horizontal line of the surface of the earth will be cut by infinitely tall, deep perpendicular lifts and a spiral made by aeroplanes and dirigibles.”59 Sant’Elia’s manifesto takes the theme emphasizing
“oblique and elliptical lines” because “they are dynamic”, because of their innate qualities, they contain an emotional power that is thousand times greater than that of perpendicular and horizontal lines.”60
57 Frampton, Kenneth, Modern Architecture, A Critical History, Oxford University Press, New York, Toronto, 1980, p.87 58 Caramel, Luciano, Longatti, Alberto, Antonio Sant’Elia, The Complete Works, Rizzoli, New York, 1987, p. 42 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 104 The scholar Axel Paredes in his essay Authority and Subversion: The Bridges of
Antonio Sant’Elia, analyses the theme of bridges in Sant’Elia's attempt to defy gravity in
architecture. He suggested “that these projects were not only hypothetical solutions for
the future: they also reflected society's vision of a future world where aerial and gravity-
defying communication would be possible.” In Sant’Elia’s work the notion of the bridge,
the concept of transit above ground at heights never imagined before, reflected the
"defiance of natural laws" by the "perfection of mechanical means".
The notions of “floating” played a significant role in the theories of Chernikhov,
Malevich, El Lissitsky, and other Constructivist artists. Axel Paredes stated that, unlike
his Russian contemporaries, Sant'Elia explored the issue of anti-gravity within descriptive
approach, rather than abstract “non-objective” architectural drawings and that made his
vision of the future more realistic61 (Figure 38, p. 104). Though the sketches of Citta
Nuova of Sant’Elia had more descriptive character than the compositions from the
“Architectural Fantasies” series of Chernikhov, they have similar characteristics, such as emphasis of construction, dynamic, contrast. In the drawings of both architects, the images of architecture are presented without a surrounding context, landscape or human figures.
Unlike Iakov Chernikhov, who developed a specific vocabulary to complement each of his sketches and graphic exercises with explanation, Sant’Elia was not skillful as a writer. The notes that appeared on his sketches and drawings are usually brief and sketchy. In 1914 Sant’Elia took part in a competition for a church in Salsomaggiore, near
Parma. The jury praised his drawings but rejected his entry because it lacked of plans,
61 Paredes, Alex, Authority and Subversion: The Bridges of Antonio Sant’Elia, http://web.ufm.edu.gt/arq/paredes 105 sections and the written statement that were part of the requirement for the entry. The scholar Luciano Caramel stated in his book Antonio Sant’Elia, The Complete Works, that
Sant’Elia depended on the help of his literary friends, mostly Mario Buggelli and Ugo
Nebbia to express his ideas in written form.
106
37. Erich Mendelsohn, “Red Banner” Textile Factory, 1926
38. Antonio Sant’Elia, The Citta Nuova Apartment Building, 1914
107 The VKhUTEMAS and the Bauhaus
VKhUTEMAS (Vysshie gosudarstvennye khudozhestvenno-tekhnicheskie masterskie [Higher State Art-Technical Workshops]) and the Bauhaus were the twin centers of radical innovation in artistic education during the 1920s. The relationship between the two institutions is part of the more general issue of artistic relations between the Weimar Republic and Soviet Russia. Both institutions had similar structures and historical evolution. Both were established by amalgamating schools of fine arts and applied arts, and each maintained a determination to promote the unity of art.
The basis of the curriculum in the Bauhaus was the craft training that took place in the workshops of sculpture; metalwork; cabinet-making; painting, decoration, printing, and weaving. Students also studied painting and drawing, color theory, the science of materials, basic business studies, and the history of artistic techniques. The obvious reference to the medieval system of workshops was made explicit in the curriculum and in the nomenclature of master and journeyman. Students had to pass the six-month preliminary course, after they enrolled as apprentices in the workshops for three years.
The VKhUTEMAS was set up by government decree on November 29, 1920, as
“a specialized educational institution for advanced artistic and technical training, created to prepare highly qualified master artists for industry as well as instructors and directors of professional and technical education.” It was established on the basis of the Svomas
(Svobodnye gosydarstvennye khydozhestvennye masterskie [State Free Art Studios]) that had proclaimed and practiced the ideal of complete freedom in artistic education. It was open to all, both men and women without entrance examination. Students had free choice of supervisors. There were studios without supervisors, so that “the studios give every student the opportunity of developing his individuality in whatever direction he
108 wishes.” The studios with both classical and innovative new approaches were presented.
In the individual studious of Kazimir Malevich and Kandinsky, students were taught
about the relativity of styles, an important step toward a more objective understanding of
the roles the various artistic elements played in the creative process. By the mid-1920 a
more structural method was being favored by students, staff, and officialdom, leading to
the creation of the VKhUTEMAS.
A major innovation of the VKhUTEMAS was the Basic Course, which provided a
clear parallel with the Vorkurs at the Bauhaus. Students received military training and
instruction in geometry, chemistry, physics, mathematics, color theory, a foreign
language, and art history, in addition to purely artistic subjects. Initially the course lasted
four years; the first year was spent on the Basic Course, followed by three years of
specialization in one of the seven faculties (Painting, Sculpture, Textiles, Ceramics,
Architecture, Woodwork, and Metalwork). In 1923 the Basic Course was extended to
two years, but in 1926 it was reduced to one year and in 1929 to one term. Despite this
reduction, the total course after 1923 was five years; the last six months were spent on a
diploma project. Among the various plans to recognize faculties, the most significant
change occurred in 1926-1927 when the Wood and Metalwork faculties were combined
to form the Dermetfak (Wood and Metal Faculty).
The direct contact with Germany was initiated by Kandinsky, who was the
commissioner for Germany in the International Burear in IZO [Department of Fine Arts
within the People’s Commissariat for Enlightment].62 In Berlin, Gropius offered
Kandinsky a permanent teaching position. His experience of art education in Russia and
62 Lodder, Christina, “The VKHUTEMAS and the Bauhaus”, The Avant-Garde Frontier: Russia Meets the West, 1910-1930, University Press of Florida, p. 204
109 the teaching programs that Kandinsky devised at the State Free Art Studios in Moscow
clearly influenced the formulation of his Bauhaus courses that were the part of Vorkurs.
El Lissitsky clamed to be the most influential among Russian artists who came to
Berlin. Van Doesburg was greatly impressed by El Lissitsky’s work at the time of their
first meeting in 1922. El Lissitsky was a critical influence on the circle of Hungarian
artists and critics such as Moholy-Nagy and Lajos Kassak, whose presence in Berlin
reinforced the change toward more constructivist values within the German avant-garde.
The first substantial appearance of VKhUTEMAS designs in the West was in
1925 at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes in
Paris. They were awarded several medals. The impressive and exciting Russian pavilion
was designed by Konstantin Melnikov, who taught in the architectural faculty.
VKhUTEMAS was housed in the Grand Palace, where various drawings, models, and
designs by students and stuff at the school were exhibited. Among the most notable
exhibits were the Workers’ Club designed by Rodchenko; designs and models by Vesnin
brothers, including the Palace of Labor; theatrical models and costume designs by
Popova and Stepanova.
While West was interested in the alternate model of modernity offered by the
Russian Constructivists, Russia looked increasingly to the West for technical
achievements. At that time the Soviet and Weimar schools wished to established a more
close and official relationship by exhibitions of student work, arranging student visits,
and correspondence. Magazines and periodicals also played an important role in the
exchange of information between the West and Russia. The magazine Sovremennaya
Arkhitektura / Contemporary Architecture, edited by Ginzburg and Aleksandr Vesnin, includes information on the Bauhaus.
110 The main difference between the two schools was the success of the Bauhaus
approach to mass production. During the second half of the 1920s, the Bauhaus was able
to create real links with industry. Breuer’s chairs, Kurt Wagenfeld and Marianne
Brandt’s lamps, and Bauhaus wallpaper designs went into industrial production.
Although both schools had been committed to creating prototypes for industry, this was
not achieved at the VKhUTEMAS, where none of the products appears to have been
mass-produced.
Increasing Russian interest in the Bauhaus around 1927-28 has an interesting
parallel at the German school. Under Hannes Meyer’s directionship of the Bauhaus
(1928-1930) a great effort was made to develop a closer and more continuous interchange
between the two institutions. Meyer, initially appointed by Gropius to set up the
Architecture Department, started work in 1927, having declared that “my teaching will be
on absolutely functional-collectivist-constructive lines. After Meyer was dismissed in
August 1930, he decided to immigrate to Russia. However, by the time Meyer, together
with a group of former Bauhaus students (the Rote Front), reached Moscow in the
Autumn of 1930, the VKhUTEMAS no longer existed. The Architecture Faculty had
formed the basis for a new institution VASI (Vyshii Architecturno-Stroitelnii Instityt,
[Higher Architectural-Building Institute]), where Meyer worked from October 1930 to
Spring of 1933.
Ironically, both institutions were closed partly because of their relationship. In
Nazi Germany, the Bauhaus was accused of promoting the Bolshevik ideas while the
VKhUTEMAS was condemned for “uncritically following Western architectural practice.” By the early thirties both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had established anti-modernist policies.
111 Chapter 6. Conclusions
The goal of the study is to review the Russian Constructivist Movement by examining the work of Iakov Chernikhov. The study aims to reconsider the work of
Iakov Chernikhov not only by situating him within the movement of Constructivism, but also by situating the Constructivist movement within broader context of the political, historical, economical and cultural conditions of the period.
The October Socialist Revolution of 1917 brought changes to every sphere of life.
Educational Institutions underwent reformation. Banks, large businesses, theatres, museums and private collections were nationalized. The revolution followed a civil war.
The whole country’s economy and agricultural system were in decline. During the twenties scientists, artists and architects attempted to reveal the secrets of the universe and solve the problems of world while closing their eyes on the poverty, uncertainty and fears of everyday soviet reality.
The twenties were the decade of relative freedom in all fields of art. Artists of the avant-garde enthusiastically accepted revolutionary changes as the ideology provided inspiration for experimentation. The young Soviet state permitted artistic freedom of searching for new forms, while restricting the themes to support the communist ideology.
The borders were open. Many artists who studied in Europe returned to Russia. There was constant interaction between artistic groups within the country and representatives of foreign artistic movements. Chernikhov did not interact much with major artistic groups
112 until early thirties and did not acknowledge the influences of any foreign architects and artists on his work. The similarities in his works and the works of Italian futurists and
German Expressionists can be traced.
In keeping with the spirit of time the theme of fantasticality passes through all
Chernikhov’s graphics. His architectural fantasies envisioned the utopia of an industrialized future. His compositions of “mechanical architecture” made him closer to the works of Erich Mendelsohn and Antonio Sant’Elia. In Chernikhov’s graphical series, architecture defied the traditional notion of gravity, and dynamism. Buildings are constructed on the principles of the machine where the general structure reflects building’s function and purpose.
The work of Iakov Chernikhov can be divided into three main areas: architectural practice, teaching, and research. Chernikhov designed about 50 buildings. Most of his work was dedicated to research and teaching. The “paper architecture” provided an outlet for his creative energy during times of extreme economical poverty. High quality materials for construction were hardly affordable in the new Soviet state.
Chernikhov was not a radical modernist. During his studies at the architectural department of the Imperial Academy of arts in St. Petersburg, Chernikhov stated that the primary goal for him was to receive a classical education. The classical school provided the foundation for his future research into new constructive principles, either in ornamentation, geometrical drawings or architecture. Chernikhov was the first one who attempted to classify the constructive principles underlying constructivism. His basis was the knowledge of the constructive principles of the past architectural epochs.
Chernikhov attached specific importance to the questions of individuality, self- expression and creative energy of the designer. These concerns can be seen in all his
113 books. They and form a foundation for most of his theories. Chernikhov’s theories were unique during the time, because the notion of individuality was denied. The only acceptable art was proletarian art --art that emphasized the mass character. At the end of twenties and during the thirties his works were constantly criticized in the Soviet press for insufficient attention to the ideological socialist role.
Josef Stalin assumed power after the death of Lenin in 1924. The Stalinization of the Soviet regime took control later on at the beginning of the 1930s. Many artistic organizations were closed and work of many artists and architects underwent strict criticism by the government. The Constructivism was abandoned and suppressed by neo- classical style of Socialist realism. The new style aimed to glorify the first economic victories of the soviet state. Developed during the epoch of Constructivism,
Chernikhov’s theories and teaching method did not prescribe any particular formal style.
Based on the principle of non-objectivity, and on the willingness to provide the maximum opportunity for the expression of individual concepts, his constructive processes could be appropriated on the basis of any style. This approach toward constructive design gave
Chernikhov an opportunity to continue his creative work within the Socialist Realist revival without breaking his credo. The other Constructivists during the 1920s had been mainly concerned with establishing new stylistic imagery. The flexibility of
Chernikhov’s constructive method allowed it to be applied to different situations and subject-matters.
From 1935 until his death in 1951 Chernikhov continuously worked on series of drawings. Two types of series which were entitled “Palaces of Communism” and
“Pantheons of the Great Patriotic War” and responded to the doctrine of Social Realism.
Other series, entitled “Architectural Tales” and “Old Towns” tackled the pure graphical
114 problems. Chernikhov stated that art reached the point when it is possible to depict not only reality, but also images of the past and of the future. His series of the neo-classical period were executed on the basis of the principles defined by Chernikhov during the
1920s, and were not less fantastical that his series of the Constructivist period.
The work of Iakov Chernikhov adds to our knowledge of the diverse movement of Constructivism. This research emphasizes the importance of cultural, economical, historical and political contexts of the 1920s and 1930s, in order to reconsider the work of
Iakov Chernikhov on the level of deeper understanding of the time when the architect lived and worked. The theoretical and practical work of Iakov Chernikhov is unique not only because of the great talent of the artist, the number of artistic fields he covered in his research, or his teaching program that allows students, even without artistic background, to be capable of creating advanced graphic works. Chernikhov paid specific attention to the questions of individuality and artistic self-expression at the time when the very notion of individuality was rejected in the country by the Communist ideology. Reconsideration of the work of this artist is especially significant in our day, when Russia has returned from the values of the 'social' to the values of the 'individual' in order to create a new society through a completely different approach.
115 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bann, Stephen, Editor, The Tradition of Constructivism, Thames & Hudson, London, 1974.
Benya, Alexander, Moi Vospominania, Moskva, Nayka, 1980, Tom Pervy, str. 98-105 / My Memoirs, Moscow, Nayka, Volume One, 1980.
Berdiaev Nikolas, The Russian Revolution, the University of Michigan Press, 1961.
Berdiaev, Nikolai, Istoki I Smisl Rysskogo Kommynisma, 1990 / The Origins and the Meaning of Russian Communism, Moscow, Nayka, 1990.
Brumfield, William Graft, The Origins of modernism in Russian Architecture, University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1991.
Chernikhov Iakov, “Moi Tvorchesky Pyt”, iz Iakov Chernikhov / “My Artistic Way” from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000.
Chernikhov, Aleksei, “Moi Otez”, iz Iakov Chernikhov / “My Father”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000.
Chernikhov, Iakov and Sobolev, N., The Construction of Letter Forms , Moscow, 1958.
Chernikhov, Iakov, “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Form,” from edited by Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984.
Chernikhov, Iakov, Iskysstvo NAchertania / The Art of Graphic Representation, Leningrad, 1927.
Chernikhov, Iakov, Osnovi Sovremennoi Arhitekturi, Vtoroe Isdanie / The Fundumentals of Contemporary Architecture, Second Edition, Leningrad, The Publishing House of the Union of Leningrad Architects, 1931.
Compton, Susan, The Russian Avant-Garde Books, 1917-1934, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993.
Cooke, Catherine, Chernikhov, Fantasy and Construction, Architectural Design Profile, 1984.
Cooke, Catherine, Editor “Russian Constructivism and Iakov Chernikhov”, Architectural Design, Vol. 59, No 7/8, 1989.
Cooke, Catherine, Kazus, Igor, Soviet Architectural Competitions 1920s-1930s, Praidon Press Ltd., London, 1992.
116 Dabrowski, Magdalena, The Russian Contribution to Modernism: “Construction” as Realization of Innovative Aesthetic Concepts of the Russian Avant-Garde, University Microfilm International, A Bell & Howell information Company, Ann Arbor, 1990.
De Majesties, Alessandro, “Ot Konstryktivistskogo Simvolisma k Fantasticheskomy Realismy” iz Iakov Chernikhov / “From Konstructivist Symbolism to Fantastical Realism”, from Iakov Chernikhov, edited by Olmo, Carlo and De Majesties, Alessandro, Umberto Allemandi & C, Turin, London, 2000.
Degod, Ekaterina, Rysskoe Iskysstvo XXV Veka / Russian Art of XX Century, Trilistnik, Moscow, 2000.
El Lissitsky, Translated by Eric Dluhosch, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts institute of Technology, Massachusetts, 1970.
Fauchereau, Serge, Editor, Moscow 1900-1930, Rizzoli, New York, 1988.
Hudson, Hugh, Blueprints and Blood, The Stalinization of Soviet Architecture, 1917- 1937, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994.
James, Katherine, Erich Mendelsohn and the Architecture of German Modernism, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Khan-Magomedov, S. O., “Fenomen Ia. Chernikkhova (simvolichesky expressionism graficheskih komosizii)” from Arkhitektyra Sovetskogo Avantgarda / “Phenomenon of Iakov Chernikhov (Symbolical Expressionism of Graphical Compositions)”, The Architecture of Soviet Avant-Garde, Moscow, Stroiizdat, 1996.
Khan-Magomedov, S. O., Pioneers of Soviet Architecture: the Search for new Solutions in the 1920s and 1930s, Rizzoli, New York, 1987.
Khasanov, V., Sovetskaya Arhitektura Pervih Let Oktiabria / Soviet Architecture of the First Years of October, Nayka, Moscow, 1970.
Kopp, Anatole, Translated by Thomas E. Burton, Town and Revolution, Soviet Architecture and City Planning 1917-1935, George Braziller, New York, 1970.
Lavrentiev, Alexander, Laboratoria Kostryctivisma, Opiti Graficheskogo Modelirovania / The Laboratory of Constructivism, Experiments of Graphical Modeling, Grant, Moscow, 2000.
Leach, Neil, Editor, Architecture and Revolution, Contemporary Perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge, London, New York, 1999.
Lodder Christina, “The VKHUTEMAS and the Bauhaus”, The Avant-Garde Frontier: Russia meets the West, 1910-1930, University Press of Florida.
Lodder, Christina, Russian Constructivism, Yale University Press, 1983.
117 Merkert, Jorn and Revzin, Vladimir, Editors, Naum Gabo and the Competition for the Palace of Soviets, Moscow 11931-1933, Berlinische Galerie, Shchysev Museum, Berlin, Moscow, 1993.
Senkevitch, Anatole, “Iakov G. Chernikhov and the Soviet Avant-garde [exhibition Review]”, Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Newsline, volume 3, number 5, February 1991.
Shvidkovsky, O. A., Editor, Building in the USSR 1917-1932, Studio Vista, London, 1871.
Soviet Architecture 1917-1987, Art unlimited Books, Amsterdam, 1989. Sprague, Arthur, “Chernikhov and Constructivism”, Survey, New York, No 39, December 1961.
Strigalev, Anatoly, “Iakov Chernikhov genius of Architectural Fantasies,” form Chernikhov, Iakov, The Logic of Fantasy, Columbia Books of Architecture, New York, 1990.
Swiderski, Edward, The Philosophical foundations of Soviet Aesthetics, Theories and Controversies in the Post-War Years, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1979.
Vieri Quilici, Editor, Ruabushin, Alexander, Smolina, Nadia, Landmarks of Soviet Architecture 1917-1991, Rizzoli, New York, 1992.
Whitford, Frank, Bauhaus, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London, 1984.
118