Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. 22 docomomo 49 — 2013/2 Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. docomomo49.indd 22 18/03/14 18:11 he phenomenon of the Russian Avant–garde architecture formed under the influence of the Mos- cow Higher School of Architecture and Art is today widely known by the name of VKHUTEMAS. TThis school is mentioned in the context of professional activity of the artists and architects who also worked in other institutes, but who had creative links. In the limelight is Nikolai Ladovsky, creator of the introductory course on architectural composition, lecturing along with many authori- tative Moscow utilitarian architects, such as Alexander Kuznetsov, Vesnin brothers and others. By Elena Ovsyannikova and Vladimir Shukhov he Higher School of Architecture and Art in the architectural ideas was exerted by the Scientific Institute soviet Russia had a decisive influence on the for- of Artistic Culture (INHUK) which was established in 1920 Tmation of Avant–garde architecture. This school within the Department of Fine Arts of Narkompros on the originated in the Mossovet Architectural Studio, where basis of the early formed group of the artists–painters Ivan Zholtovsky, Ivan Rylsky and Alexey Shusev taught, (Council of Craftsmen), among whom was Vasily Kandin- further developed as part of the Free Artistic Studios, es- sky who was the first to head its directorate. Many inno- tablished on the basis of the former Moscow College of vatory principles of the form–generation, which exerted Painting, Sculpture and Architecture and the Stroganov influence on the pedagogical system of VKHUTEMAS, College of Technical Drawing. At that time two innovato- also took shape in the works of the “Zhivskulptarkh” or- ry training studios were formed by Nikolai Ladovsky and ganization, the members of which strived to find ways Ilia Golosov, who worked with Konstantin Melnikov. From for the development of art through the fusion of arts (the 1921 the whole training complex was called the Higher initial name was “Sinskulptarkh”). The leading role was Artistic–Technical Studios (VKHUTEMAS), and from 1927 played by Nikolai Ladovsky. He devoted a specific atten- onwards it was called the Higher Artistic–Technical Insti- tion to the dynamics of forms and simple volumes, which tute (VKHUTEIN), which was discontinued in 1930. the viewer “could not disintegrate”, but which together The Architectural Faculty of the Moscow Higher Tech- formed complex compositional structures. 23 nical School—MVTU (Moscow Institute of Civil Engineers– At the very same time Ilia Golosov strived to formulate MIGI)—also functioned in Moscow until 1930 under the the universal laws of architectural composition without guidance of Alexander Kuznetsov. Viktor Vesnin, Moisei leaving ways to chaos. Both architects were just united by Ginzburg and others taught there while more attention their interest in dynamic forms, vividly manifested in their was given to the engineering part of the business than in own projects. However, unlike Ladovsky, Ilia Golosov em- VKHUTEMAS–VKHUTEIN. The important advantage was phasized “the organic link of the architectural form with that one institution of Higher Education integrated the fu- the design and main idea of the structure.” ture architects, printers, painters, ceramists and craftsmen A significant point in Ladovsky’s system was the design on the artistic work of metal, wood, etc. But in 1930 sepa- of models which the students made from clay. The whole rate Institutions of Higher Education were established on work started from this and the plans and façades of the all the professional lines including the Moscow Architec- structures were drawn afterwards. tural–Structural Institute (ASI) and the Moscow Architec- Many of Ladovsky’s apprentices worked under his tural Institute (MAI). The reason of this reorganization guidance further on within the United Studios–OBMAS was the government’s fear of student unrest prepossessed (1921–1923), where Nikolai Dokuchaev and Vladimir by the democratic atmosphere formed at that time. Also Krinsky were on the payroll as chiefs. The “abstractive” in 1930 many non–governmental organizations were task was the determination of geometric properties of also disbanded such as the “Old Moscow” committee, form, spatial expressiveness, mechanical–and–physical the Society for the Study of Russian Manor and others, properties (mass and weight), design, dynamics, rhythm while some of their members were repressed. and proportions. These themes were simultaneously A strong influence on the development of innovatory worked also as “the production assignments” (small in- dustrial facilities). In 1923 the main department of VKHUTEMAS was es- < Figure 1. V. Kolpakova. Architectural volume. Chief G. Klutsis. tablished. It prepared experts on all the specialties, not End of 1920s. MARHI Museum. only architects but skilled artists on subjects which were Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. docomomo 49 — 2013/2 docomomo49.indd 23 18/03/14 18:11 1 Figure 1. N. Ladovsky. Temple of the people communication. Experimental project in the Zhivskulptarkh group. 1919. Figure 2. N. Krasilnikov. Production assignments. Water tower. Chief N. Ladovsky. 1921. Figure 3 I. Chashnik. Monument on the Red Square in Smolensk. Chief L. Lisitsky. L. Lisitsky. Tribune. Mid 1920s. Figure 4. I. Lamtsov. Assignment on the revelation of construction. Chief N. Ladovsky. 1922. 24 Figure 5. K. Malevich. Arkhitekton (State Tretyakov Gallery). Malevich, N. Suetin. Arkhitektony. End of the 1920s. Student’s reconstructions under the guidance of E. Ovsyannikova. common for everybody: “Space” (Nikolai Ladovsky), “Graphic Arts” (Alexander Rodchenko), “Color” (Alexan- der Vesnin and Lyubov Popova, further on Gustav Klutsis). 2 In the estimation of Selim Khan–Magomedov, the subject “Space” was the key one in the architectural–artistic edu- cation. He saw this as the major difference of the Moscow Institution of Higher Education from the German Bauhaus, rical bodies (cube, parallelepiped, prism, pyramid, cyl- which had an effect on the development of the object inder and cone) to the refusal from the architectural orb. design worldwide. In the 1960s the course of modeling This artistic process developed not without the influence according to Ladovsky’s system was resumed in the Mos- of the European trends: Cubism, Futurism and Expression- cow Architectural Institute (MARKHI) by Vladimir Krinsky ism, which disturbed the traditional architectural logic. and his apprentices Mikhail Turkus and Ivan Lamtsov. But The other method of form–generation–‘constructivism’– one should not forget that Vladimir Tatlin also worked at was manifested in the works of students from the senior VKHUTEMAS, moreover exactly as a designer, and his classes of VKHUTEMAS–VKHUTEIN, done under the guid- creative work could not but have an effect on architects. ance of the well–known utilitarian architects and also in The specific “plastic” method of the form–generation, MIGI–MVTU under the guidance of Kuznetsov and his which reflected the concept of “rationalism”, set forth by apprentices (George Vegman, Alexander Vlasov, Ivan Ladovsky, supposed the “rational” perception of the archi- Nikolaev, the Boris brothers, Vladimir and Gennady tectural form (the term was used only within that epoch). Movchan, and others), who focused on the new construc- Ladovsky equaled the compositions from simple geomet- tion technologies. Relatively recently an interesting detail docomomo 49 — 2013/2 Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. docomomo49.indd 24 18/03/14 18:11 4 25 3 5 was found out: at the same time some of them attended such as Vladimir Tatlin, Alexander Rodchenko and oth- classes at VKHUTEMAS as well (Vegman, for example). ers) and strongly criticized the creations of the ASNOVA This fact suggests the mutual influence of the two archi- members as “Formalism”. tectural institutions of Higher Education, as the number of Despite heated discussions between the teachers, teachers combined their work in these two institutions. projects of the VKHUTEMAS and VKHUTEIN students were In 1923, Ladovsky established the Association of often more extravagant than their own. Some examples New Architects (ASNOVA), which was joined by his ap- include the project of the Lenin Institute of Library Science prentices. The Union of Modern Architects (OSA)–more (diploma of student Ivan Leonidov) or the project of the known abroad than ASNOVA thanks to the magazine Komintern Building (diploma of student Lidia Komarova), Modern Architecture, edited by Alexander Vesnin and which became as famous as the works of their chief Alex- Moisei Ginzburg, the main theorist of that group–was ander Vesnin. formed in 1925. Ginzburg called the works of his like– The creative method of the VKHUTEMAS members minded fellows “Constructivism” (earlier the term was correlated to a large extent with the sculpture works of used in the context of creations of Avant–garde artists Malevich and his apprentices at the Vitebsk Art School, Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. Phenomenon of the Russian Avant-garde. Moscow Architectural School of the 1920s. docomomo 49 — 2013/2 docomomo49.indd 25 18/03/14 18:11 26 6 where the “Confirmers of the New Art”