Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: June 12, 2021 at 4:07:08 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-SHERA]: Battsaligova on Udovički-Selb, 'Soviet > Architectural Avant-Gardes: Architecture and Stalin's Revolution from Above, > 1928-1938' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Danilo Udovički-Selb. Soviet Architectural Avant-Gardes: > Architecture and Stalin's Revolution from Above, 1928-1938. London > Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2020. Illustrations. 264 pp. $115.00 > (cloth), ISBN 978-1-4742-9986-2. > > Reviewed by Liana Battsaligova (Yale University) > Published on H-SHERA (June, 2021) > Commissioned by Hanna Chuchvaha > > Architecturally speaking, one would be hard-pressed to find two > buildings that differ more drastically than the main building of > Moscow State University (the alleged symbol of Stalinist > architecture) and a _khrushchevka _(the standardized multifamily > housing introduced under Nikita Khrushchev)_. _Yet both buildings > belong to the same "architectural method," even if only > ideologically.[1] Such a paradox reflects the tumultuous history of > the term "socialist realism" in architecture, the main style and > artistic method to be adopted by Soviet architects following the > example of Soviet writers and artists. In _Soviet Architectural > Avant-Gardes: Architecture and Stalin's Revolution from Above, > 1928-1938_, Danilo Udovički-Selb counters reductionist analyses of > the period as conservative, revivalist, largely historicist, or > totalitarian, and instead offers a more nuanced and complex reading > of the modernist architectural forms that were incorporated into the > eclectic silhouette of socialist realist architecture, even finding > their way into the "historicist" forms of Stalinist architecture of > the 1940-50s_._ > > Udovički-Selb intends not to provide a catalogue of all buildings > imagined and built in the 1930s but rather to "bring to light > important examples that can support the claim of a strong presence of > modern architecture" at the time (p. 3). Throughout the book, the > author insists that modernist architecture and avant-garde movements > coexisted with "proletarian architecture," a vague term used to > indicate new constructions that answered the immediate demands of > proletarian revolution. In 1932, the term "proletarian architecture" > was replaced by the equally ambiguous designation of "socialist > realism." The author creates an intricate map of architectural > thought which challenges the widely accepted belief that 1932 > signaled the death of the architectural avant-garde and the > all-encompassing conservative turn in Soviet architecture. The author > traces the chronological chain of political and public events that > framed the last, yet active, decade of the second generation of > constructivists, while inlaying the narrative with individual cameos > of legendary figures, such as architects Ivan Leonidov and Konstantin > Melnikov, and offering detailed and eloquent readings of their > projects. > > The first chapter opens with an innovative investigation of the role > played by the Vsesoiuznoe obshchestvo proletarskikh arkhitektorov > (All-Union Society of Proletarian Architects, VOPRA), created in 1929 > by Lazar Kaganovich, Joseph Stalin's closest ally in the Politburo at > the time, in the dissolution of the constructivists' main journal, > _Sovremennaia arkhitektura _(Contemporary architecture, 1926-30); the > closing of Vysshie khudozhestvenno-tekhnicheskie masterskie (Higher > Art and Technical Studios, VKhUTEMAS); and the character > assassinations of several modernist architects. Through a detailed > analysis of reports of secret party meetings, Udovički-Selb shows > how VOPRA acted as a "Trojan horse amidst the Avant-Gardes"; through > the vulgar polemics and empty accusations of "formalism," they > destabilized the work of modernists and helped establish the state's > monopoly in architectural discourse and ultimately architectural > forms (p. 16). > > The second chapter focuses on the survival strategies and the > institutional positions of the leaders of the avant-garde after the > 1932 decree on the dissolution of independent artistic societies. In > architecture, the transition to socialist realism was twofold and > especially complicated. As Udovički-Selb notes, the international > fame of the Soviet state as a hub of progressive architectural > thinking made "the party's supreme authority ... cater to at least > two audiences--the conservative domestic population (meaning the > _nomenklatura_) and the progressive international _intelligentcija_" > (p. 48).[2] Here, as throughout the book, the author maintains that > despite its wide use, the term "socialist realism" was elusive not > only to constructivists but also to the trendsetters themselves. By > analyzing numerous articles published by architects of different > artistic inclinations, the author compellingly shows how the > ambiguity of the term could become a reason for criticism in one case > and for appreciation in another, depending on how well the architect > could articulate the socialist meaning of his project. Moisei > Ginzburg's highly praised project for the Sanatorium of People's > Commissariat of Heavy Industry in Kislovodsk (finished in 1937) is > one example. With time, the ambiguous term "socialist realism" in > Soviet architecture became associated with historicism and > classicism. Yet Udovički-Selb compellingly argues (and here he > echoes the ideas of Selim O. Khan-Magomedov and Vladimir Paperny) > that in the 1930s, socialist realism as imagined by Stalin was > embodied in Arkadii Langman's sober modernist aesthetics of the > building for the Gosudarstvennyi planovyi komitet (the State Planning > Committee, GOSPLAN; the building was finished in 1935 and today > houses the Russian Duma) and in Kazimir Malevich's arkhitektons and > the "power and stability" of American skyscrapers as shown in Boris > Iofan's Palace of Soviets in its 1933 rendition, rather than in Ivan > Zholtovskii's "classicism" as presented in his 1934 Dom na Mokhovoi > (House on Mokhovaia Street) in Moscow (p. 48).[3] > > The third chapter further problematizes the monopoly of socialist > realist style in Soviet architecture. Here, the author focuses on the > construction of the Moscow Metropoliten (begun in 1931) and the 1937 > Soviet pavilion in Paris. Udovički-Selb considers Alexei Dushkin's > Maiakovskaia metro station (finished in 1938) an example of the > modernists' persistence in realizing their progressive ideas contrary > to the demands to build "beautifully" (_krasivo_) and "solidly" > (_prochno_). Dushkin's original project for the metro station, notes > the author, replete with details appropriate to socialist realist > values, differed significantly from the final result: an innovative > lighting system and wittingly concealed ventilation system replaced > expressive murals and the futuristic stainless-steel arches triumphed > over the granite veneering. Here, as in the case of Ginzburg's > Kislovodsk sanatorium, the author concludes that architects avoided > censorship from the competition committee by first presenting them > with a project that answered the needs of socialist realism only to > change its forms in the process of construction. Udovički-Selb does > not go into the details of or the reasons for such a transformation, > but further investigation and research into this architectural > strategy would likely yield fruitful results. In this chapter, the > author, in his attempt to show that constructivist thought was still > viable in the 1930s, expands the geographical area of his focus to > also consider the construction sites of peripheral yet growing and > strategically important centers, such as Kuibyshev, Baku, Voronezh, > Rostov-na-Donu, Sverdlovsk, and Novosibirsk. It is there, as the > author contends, far from the political center, that the architects > had more freedom and opportunities to build in a cosmopolitan manner. > > In the fourth chapter, Udovički-Selb continues his reevaluation of > the creative power dynamics in Moscow and contends that even after > 1932, the modernists' presence in the leading positions of the > architectural infrastructure was still very strong. The author shows > that modernists occupied the editorial board and the pages of the > internationally renowned journal_ Arkhitektura SSSR _(Architecture of > the USSR, 1933-92) through the end of the decade; they also headed > half of the twelve ARKHPLAN (arkhitekturno-planirovochnye masterskie) > workshops, created by Kaganovich_. _Through the juxtaposition of the > polemics in the pages of _Arkhitektura SSSR _with the archival > records of party meetings at the Soiuz sovetskikh arkhitektorov > (Union of Soviet Architects, SSA), Udovički-Selb emphasizes not only > the absence of a clear understanding of what socialist realism in > architecture was but also the uncertainty of what direction Soviet > architecture should take. Through close reading of the archival > records, which document the controversial nature of Kaganovich's > involvement in the development of architectural thought, > Udovički-Selb manages to evoke the atmosphere of confusion and fear > that were present among architects and the members of the union > during the preparation for the First All-Union Congress of Soviet > Architects (Moscow, June-July 1937). Although, as Kaganovich stated, > "the constructivists have housed millions around the country, and > will build for millions more," they could not be the prevalent > artistic voice at the congress. The sad irony of the situation was > that the only way Kaganovich could counter constructivism was to call > for structures that were "literate, simple, and beautiful" (p. 144). > Udovički-Selb demonstrates that the debates about the "creative > method" that Soviet architecture was to adopt continued well into the > third trimester of 1935, concluding that "notably, the modernists > still maintained a prestige the historicists were losing" (p. 151). > > The fifth chapter analyzes the year of preparation for the > long-awaited First All-Union Congress of Soviet Architects. > Udovički-Selb scrupulously lists the events leading up to the > congress, painting a strikingly vivid picture of the poisonous > atmosphere and mounting tensions among the architects. As throughout > the book, the fifth chapter demonstrates the powerful position of > modernists in architecture by analyzing their rigorous resistance to > vulgar insinuations in the press. The author contends that while the > press (and presumably Kaganovich behind the scenes) was attacking > "simplism" and "box architecture," constructivism was not the only > architectural movement that was considered "vulgar": historicist > architecture was also severely attacked for being "bourgeois," "a > mechanical reproduction," and a "combination of various styles" (p. > 167). Also, not all constructivism was equally criticized: while the > press scolded Melnikov's avant-garde projects (for being "a > conglomerate of concrete, steel, and glass"), as late as December > 1937, the grand opening of Aleksandr Vesnin's Palace of Culture in > Moscow was celebrated with fanfare and a masquerade (pp. 167-68). > Lastly, the chapter closes with Frank Lloyd Wright's visit to the > First All-Union Congress of Soviet Architects in 1937, at which the > constructivists themselves pronounced that constructivism was no > more. > > Overall, the book is clearly written and is difficult to put down, > even if it could have benefited from more thorough editing to remove > repetitions, inconsistencies in transliteration, and typos > throughout. The narrative is absorbing and the incorporation of rich > archival details gives the reader a palpable sense of the epoch. > Udovički-Selb's unique understanding of the period is apparent in > his nuanced visual analyses of the architectural projects in their > cultural and political context. For example, in the second chapter, > Udovički-Selb's attentive analysis grounds the aesthetics of Iofan's > unfinished Palace of Soviets (its 1933 version) not in the > monumentality of historical forms as it is usually considered but > rather in "American corporate modernity [and in] Soviet avant-garde > art of the 1920s" (p. 61). Similarly, his formal reading of Iofan's > Barvikha sanatorium (finished in 1936) clearly places it in the realm > of "constructivist montage" rather than considering it within the > shifting nature of socialist realism. > > _Soviet Architectural Avant-Gardes _makes a significant contribution > to the English-language scholarship on the history and theory of > architecture during Stalinism and beyond. However, this publication > might also be of interest to scholars of literature and film studies, > as it grounds the constructivist method in Victor Shklovsky's theory > of estrangement (_ostranenie_) and Sergei Eisenstein's theory of > montage. The book builds on such precedents as Khan-Magomedov's > _Arkhitektura sovetskogo avangarda: Mastera i techeniia _(1996), > Paperny's _Kul'tura dva _ (1985), Katerina Clark's _Moscow the Fourth > Rome: Stalinism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Evolution of Soviet > Culture, 1931-1941_ (2011), and others, and represents a valuable > contribution to the history of the architectural avant-gardes. One of > the book's distinctive features is that it challenges the centricity > of Moscow and explores the avant-garde beyond the capitals (for > example, in Novosibirsk, Baku, Kislovodsk, and Ekaterinburg). > Leningrad, surprisingly, is not treated at all, even though the > architectural works of Noi Trotskii, Evgenii Levinson, Igor Fomin, > and others in the 1930s would contribute positively to the book's > argument. > > At the same time, the notion of constructivism in architecture itself > should have received more attention. In the book, constructivism is > presented as an established architectural method and style, the > characteristic look of which can be understood as a structure reduced > to a simple combination of verticals and horizontals, in which the > exterior corresponds to the interior, and the construction of which > involves "modern" materials, such as concrete, glass, and metal. > While this is partly true, it is important to note that together with > the ideologues of vague "proletarian architecture," the > constructivists themselves had difficulties in explaining how "boxy > architecture" differed from constructivism. Ginzburg's programmatic > essay, "Zadachi sovetskoi arkhitektury" (The tasks of Soviet > architecture), in which he again attempted "to define once and > for-all what constructivism was," is particularly telling. It > originally appeared in the November 1935 issue of _Arkhitekturnaia > gazeta_ (Architectural newspaper, 1934-40), and the reason behind > such an essay could only be that in the mid-1930s the term > "constructivism" was no less ambiguous than "socialist realism" (p. > 151). Since the 1920s, constructivists had been repeatedly > emphasizing constructivism as a method of building and rejected the > notion of "constructivist style," which they themselves saw as > formalistic and false. Among the imitations were Grigorii Barkhin's > Izvestia building (finished in 1927) and even Arkos by the Vesnin > brothers (1924, unrealized). The rhetoric of "formalism" and > "stylization," which later would be detrimental for progressive > architecture, was opened by the constructivists themselves. The > book's elucidation of some of the more opaque parts of history would > have benefited from a more thorough engagement with the fluidity of > the term "constructivism," the distinction between constructivism as > style and constructivism as method, its evolution, and its reflection > in building. Nevertheless, Udovički-Selb's engaging narrative style, > his attention to and thorough analysis of previously untranslated and > unpublished archival material, and his persuasive reappraisal of the > accepted chronology and periodization of architectural development in > the 1930s make this book a welcome contribution to scholarship on > this period and Soviet architecture more broadly. > > Notes > > [1]. For a discussion of the "old" and "new" socialist realisms > before and after Khrushchev's decree from November 4, 1955, see Susan > E. Reid, "Toward a New (Socialist) Realism: The Re-engagement with > Western Modernism in the Khrushchev Thaw," in _Russian Art and the > West: A Century of Dialogue in Painting, Architecture, and the > Decorative Arts_, ed. Rosalind P. Blakesley and Susan E. Reid > (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), 217-39. > > [2]. Throughout the book, the author uses inconsistent > transliterations of Russian words, including _intelligentsia__. _ > Also, _n__omenklatura_ usually refers to the highly privileged > bureaucratic elite in the USSR and not to "the conservative domestic > population" in general as this quote implies. > > [3]. See Selim O. Khan-Magomedov, _Arkhitektura sovetskogo avangarda: > Mastera i techeniia _(Moscow: Stroiizdat, 1996); and Vladimir > Paperny, _Kul'tura dva_, 3rd ed. (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe > obozrenie, 2011), 15-16. > > Citation: Liana Battsaligova. Review of Udovički-Selb, Danilo, > _Soviet Architectural Avant-Gardes: Architecture and Stalin's > Revolution from Above, 1928-1938_. H-SHERA, H-Net Reviews. June, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=56120 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#9155): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/9155 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/83500196/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
