Edition Axel Menges GmbH Esslinger Straße 24 D-70736 Stuttgart-Fellbach tel. +49-711-574759 fax +49-711-574784 www.AxelMenges.de Fritz Barth Konstantin Melnikow und sein Haus 64 pp. with 106 illus., 210 x 270 mm, hard-cover, German edition ISBN 978-3-936681-89-5 Euro 36.00, £ 29.00, US $ 46.00, $A 59.00 Konstantin Melnikov and his House 64 pp. with 106 illus., 210 x 270 mm, hard-cover, English edition ISBN 978-3-936681-90-1 Euro 36.00, £ 29.00, US $ 46.00, $A 59.00 Konstantin Melnikov (1890–1974) is unquestionably one of the out- standing architects of the 20th century – in spite of the fact that he fell silent early, leaving behind only limited work that was insuffi- ciently publicized, and restricted almost exclusively to Moscow, the city of his birth in which he spent nearly his entire life and which did not appreciate him. He was raised in humble circumstances, but enjoyed an excellent education. Beginning in the mid-1920s, after the turmoil that followed the war, revolution and civil war, his career soared at almost meteoric speed as he took the lead in the young Soviet architecture movement with completely autonomous, highly artistic buildings that were free from dogmatism of any kind. Even more rapid than his rise to fame was his downfall: Treated with gen- eral hostility, he was unable to defend himself against the accusa- tion of formalism when Stalin put an end to architectural ventures and experiments around the mid-1930s. He was expelled from the architects’ association and was banned from practicing as an archi- tect for the remaining four decades of his life. In the late 1920s, at the peak of his career, he had the opportuni- Distributors ty to build a house for himself and his family in Moscow, in which he was then able to live until the end of his life. This house, a memo- Brockhaus Commission rable symbiosis of almost peasantlike simplicity and extreme radi- Kreidlerstraße 9 calness, is one of the most impressive, surprising and probably D-70806 Kornwestheim most enigmatic works produced by 20th-century architecture. Its Germany simplicity is only outward; in reality this is a highly complex work tel. +49-7154-1327-24 which links together the elements of architecture explicitly and inex- fax +49-7154-1327-13 tricably, which takes a clear and completely autonomous stand and [email protected] which, in a way that little else has done, raises the question as to the nature of genuinely architectonic thinking. In essayistic form the Gazelle Book Services book attempts to follow the paths laid out in the architect’s work White Cross Mills from the perspective of an architect. Hightown Fritz Barth studied architecture in Stuttgart and Zurich. He runs Lancaster LA1 4XS an architect’s practice in Fellbach near Stuttgart, teaches at the TU United Kingdom Darmstadt and is the author of a series of books, including a study tel. +44-1524-68765 on the iconography of 16th-century Italian gardens (Die Villa Lante fax +44-1524-63232 in Bagnaia, 2001), a monograph about the Bohemian Baroque [email protected] master builder Johann Santini-Aichel (Santini, 2004) and a study of the fortifications of Francesco di Giorgio Martini (Martial Signifiers. National Book Network Fortress Complexes by Francesco di Giorgio Martini, 2011). 15200 NBN Way Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214 USA tel. +1-800-4626420 fax +1-800-3384550 [email protected] F R I The house Konstantin S. Melnikov T Z (189 0-1974) built for himself and B his family in Moscow in the late A R 192 0s, a memorable symbiosis of T H almost peas antlike simplicity and extreme radicalness, is one of the K O most impressive, surprising and N probably most enigmatic works pro - S T duced by 20th-century architecture. A N Its simplicity is misleading; actually, T I N what we find ourselves confronted M with is a highly complex work which E links together the elements of archi - L N tecture explicitly and inextricably, I K which takes a clear and completely O V autonomous stand and which, in a A way that little else has done, raises N the question as to the nature of ge - D nuinely architectonic thinking. H I S In essayistic form the book attempts H to follow the paths laid out in the ar - O U chitect’s work from the perspective S E of the architectonic. Fritz Barth (* 195 8) studied archi - tecture in Stuttgart and Zurich. He runs an architect’s practice in Fell - bach near Stuttgart, teaches at the TU Darmstadt and is the author of a E series of books, in clud ing a study on D FRITZ BARTH I the iconography of 16th-century Ita - T I Front jacket: O lian gardens (Die Villa Lante in Bag - Alexander Rodchenko, N naia , 20 01), a monograph about the KONSTANTIN MELNIKOV Melnikov on his roof terrace, 1929, A Bohemian Baroque master builder © VG Bildkunst, Bonn, 2 015. X E AND HIS HOUSE Jan Santini-Aichel ( Santini , 200 4) M. A. Ilyin, Melnikov’s house, 1931, L and a study of the fortifications of © The Schusev State Museum of M Architecture, Moscow, 2 015. E Francesco di Giorgio Martini (Mar - ISBN 978-3-936681-90-1 N tial Signifiers . Fortress Complexes Rear jacket: 036.00 Euro 54600 G 029.00 £ E Melnikov’s house, anonymous by Francesco di Giorgio Martini , 046.00 U S$ S photography, 1930s. 059.00 $A 9783936681901 EDITION AXEL MENGES 2011). KONSTANTIN MELNIKOV AND HIS HOUSE FRITZ BARTH EDITION AXEL MENGES CONTENTS 5 A few preliminary remarks 11 Konstantin Melnikov and his house 62 Bibliographical references 63 List of illustrations Alexander Rodchenko, Melnikov on his roof terrace, 1929, © VG Bildkunst, Bonn, 2015. 5 A FEW PRELIMINARY REMARKS What my eyes beheld was simultaneous, but what I shall now write down will be successive, because language is successive. Borges, The Aleph ARCHITECTURE IS A WEB of many different threads, inter- woven, interlinked and entangled in all sorts of different ways. However, this image immediately becomes less vivid if we expand the metaphor to describe the fact that the thread s frequently have very different, contradictory or even mutually exclusive characteristics and, what is more, seem to be trying to pull the whole web into all kinds of different directions. There is little more one can say, in other words, than that architecture is characterised by complex and con- tradictory relations and conditions that have highly divergent trends. The business of architecture, then, would be to me- diate between these heterogeneous claims, requirements and components, and the work of an architect would be that of a moderator. The picture of architecture that emerges is thus of something assembled – an image that everyday ex- perience confirms as correct. Let us pick two basic givens from the multitude of factors which constitute architecture or by which it is determined – givens that can be expected to elucidate the situation: the fields of art and of technology, two antagonistic poles fre- quently mentioned in the same breath and associated with 6 P R E L I M I N A R I Y R E M A R K S P R E L I M I N A RY R E M A R K S 7 each other, within whose field of tension architecture seems art, which, at least according to an idealistic view, can derive to be located somewhere – or whose forces affect it in such its legitimacy only from itself, the existence of a building is a way that it continues to be in a more or less stable position always rooted in something that is located outside itself. – or is pulled back and forth between them. Even if the essence or the essential part of architecture re- However, things immediately get somewhat confused mains untouched by particular purposes, the very fact that – when we recall that in Greek ›art‹ is called te′cnh (techne), architecture has a specific purpose is the basis of its exis - which can be equally well be translated as ›technology‹, so tence, and it is hardly, if at all, possible to imagine architec- that it is probably also possible or even necessary (at least ture without it. as far as their origin is concerned) to think of the two antag - Here a distinction should be made between purpose as onists – as the ancient Greeks obviously did – as something the fundamental legitimation of architecture and additional shared, something undivided. Etymologically te′cnh is de - concerns, such as certain specifications expressed by the rived from the Indo-European root ›*tek‹, which means some- client, or the type of concerns that could be described as thing like ›construct‹ or ›build‹ and is especially linked to the the architect’s inner motivation and that as a general rule art of the carpenter; it recurs, among others, in such words drive his work far more strongly than any more or less ab- as ›architect‹ and ›architecture‹. The assertion that architec- stractly experienced ›business of architecture‹ – such fac- ture is defined in the field of tension of art and technology, tors as environmental issues, his social responsibility, or his that it can be located somewhere on the line between the personal vanity, all of which may easily be left out of consid - two points, needs to be challenged in view of this back- eration without compromising architecture as such. ground of linguistic and conceptual history. However, architecture cannot be detached from the field In this context we might also question why architecture, defined by the two poles of art and technology.