2015 Russian Art of the 20th Century and Contemporary Russian Art

A history of the international exhibitions goes back to more than 160 years. Since the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London such events have received increased public attention. The exhibits themselves, mainly art and technical objects, as a festive atmosphere in a host сity for an exhibition were of special interest. Organisation of such events, their architectural and expositional arrangement have assumed major importance.
The aim of my report is to describe architecture and interior arrangement of the Russian pavilions. An exhibition space and a display itself are of particular interest to me. It is also very important to me to explore the role of architecture in design of the exhibitions. For this reason in the report the pavilions will be discussed and their typology will be defined.

 PDF

One of the most important events in the development of the Far Eastern region of the Russian Empire was the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway (1897–1903), which became a powerful incitement for the revival of the remote area. The development of the CER line was marked by a wave of urban development, which involved the appearance of city plans of Dalian, Port Arthur (both 1898) and Harbin (1899).
For the two major seaports (Port Arthur, Dalian) areas on the shore of beautiful bays, where the railway went towards the ocean, were selected by the CER Company. The third of the cities (Harbin) was constructed as a trade city over the Songhua River, at the intersection of railways.
Professional design engineer teams who planned all of these cities, during their work took into account hypsography and used functional zoning methods.
In their zeal to avoid regular planning, architects created polycentric schemes consisting of independent parts, which were accentuated by their special attention to informal arrangements, street layout, and erection of churches of various denominations.
The housing stock was based on the large areas of private cottage houses. In addition to well-appointed public spaces there was necessary infrastructure. Architects’ specialization on the neoclassical and neo-Russian architecture brought a “national” — sense of a triad of S. Uvarov into the appearance of remote outposts.
Characteristics of these plans with due regard for economic independence and legal management of the CER Company are remarkably similar to the principles of the Howard’s garden-cities theory, published in the book “Tomorrow: peaceful path to real reform” (1898). The extremely rapid penetration of the theory to the Far East became possible because of the determination of St. Petersburg intelligentsia. The authors of those Far East city plans were K. Skolimowski, A. von Gogen and I. Oblomievsky. They worked together in the “Zodchiy” magazine in the 1890s — 1910s with future translator of the book and personal friend of Howard — Alexander Bloch. Almost the direct impact of the English urban planning theory and the attempt of its realization on the most remote piece of the Russian Empire (as the only possible site, away from the royal sight) played a major role in the history of the Russian urban development. For the short period that these towns belonged to Russia, we had real garden-cities.

 PDF

Neoclassical style in Russian architecture of the 1910s is a multicompound and contradictory phenomenon. However, contemporaries comprehended it in the context of the iconographic evo­lution: from the neo-empire style to the revival of “taste of Italian architects” of the Renaissance. Construction in Moscow is only a partial subject to this concept, formulated by G. Loukomski, a St. Petersburg architect. The Renaissance design of the construction of mansions is not widespread in Moscow, where stylistic treatments are mostly focused on the heritage of Russian classicism of the second half of the 18th — first quarter of the 19th century. Nevertheless, the work of a prominent architect D. Adamovich shows a deviation from the Art Nouveau stylizations to the image of a classic manor house and, finally, to the Renaissance architectural approach, clearly manifested in S. Ryabushinsky’s mansion (1915–1916).
The Renaissance design of the construction of neoclassical mansions, as a separate problem, is not widely investigated by researchers. The established conclusion is that the neoclassical mansion inherits the methods of planning developed in the era of eclecticism and Art Nouveau. The purpose of the report is not only to indicate the ability of the neoclassical style to affect the ordering of the plan and the spatial composition of the mansion, but also to show that the Renaissance stage of the neoclassical style is able to demonstrate the most independent and completed in their principles versions of plan, spatial patterns, facade compositions and interior decoration.
The report will examine the evolution of the neoclassical style in the construction of mansions by D. V. Adamovich, whose work has not yet been honored with the research, and also will touch upon a number of neo-classical mansions, which are not examined in the specialized literature.

 PDF

An opened competition for architectural projects of monuments to the heroic defenders of Leningrad was held in 1964. Professional and non-professional architects who took part in this competition created projects closely associated with the development of the new city regions as well as projects which allowed the reconstruction of the historical center.
Some architects proposed to establish a memorial in the western part of Vasilyevsky island, on the shore of the Gulf of Finland so it could be regarded as the city’s propylaeum. The most magnificent project was developed by architects A. Tarantul, S. Sokolova and represented a large ensemble, which included not only fraternal burial, eternal flame and stele, but also a new metro lobby, parking, existing and newly-planned residential quarters.
Memorial composed by V. Volkova, V. Kisilgof and T. Belenkaya follows the shape of a broken ring strung on piles growing out of the water. The searchlight mounted in the center of it allows using it as a beacon.
Non-professional architect V. Klimov creates a grandiose project on the Neva River, by the Old Saint Petersburg Stock Exchange and Rostral Columns. His idea was to extend a symmetrical composition of the existing historical ensemble by creating an artificial island with an obelisk and museum. Architects V. Maslov and G. Skorohodov suggested building a new monument directly behind the Old Stock Exchange, thus significantly changing the historical area. V. Popov and S. Ushakov proposed to set the new memorial directly in front of the main facade of the Admiralty building.
Many architects considered the southern regions of Leningrad as a perfect site for the new memorial. I. Malkov develops an extended complex included in the transport interchange. Project by V. German and A. Kozhuhov assumes location of the monument in the very center of the transport interchange, where the roads to Moscow, Kiev and airport begin. Many projects of the south area may be regarded as the forerunners to the monument on the Victory Square created in 1975.
With the help of the studied materials we can trace the development of the memorial typology dedicated to the defenders of Leningrad during the Great Patriotic war.

 PDF

Bound with Russia by Orthodox religion, Slavic origins and historical connections, Serbia readily sheltered vast Russian emigration caused by the October Revolution. Influencing the local architectural scene, prolific creative potentials and impeccable professional experience of Russian architects marked the shaping of the urban sceneries throughout Yugoslavia. An exceptional creative figure stands out in particular amongst the protagonists of Yugoslav interwar architecture, academician of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts, Nikolai Petrovich Krasnov.
Vast artistic production in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which brought Krasnov closer to the professional beginnings in Crimea, represents the final phase of the architect’s career. After a number of flamboyant palaces designed for the Russian Imperial elite, versatile architect was once again put into service as an industrious, ever occupied state architect. Entwining Yugoslav architecture with the experiences of the fallen Empire, Krasnov’s extraordinary oeuvre of vibrant, mannerist forms elevated him to the international heights of the architecture of academism. Charismatic personality of a keen ear for the needs and wishes of his clientele, Nikolai Petrovich was extremely popular amongst the contemporaries, enjoying the favor of both Imperial Romanov and Royal Karadjordjevic families alike. Shaped by the unpredictable life path — raised in a modest, patriarchal environment; professionally and socially matured in contact with the Imperial elite; hardened by the trials of exile — Krasnov, without doubt, had a deep insight into human nature, a certain comprehension of a soul, which granted his art immortality.
With great responsibility for the legacy of Nikolai Krasnov, who indebted us with his significant contributions, landmarks of the twentieth century architecture of academism, we would like to incite the international audience to reflect upon the inspiring life path and prolific art of one of the most interesting, yet still not internationally recognized, Russian architects of the interwar period. Deepening the understanding of his intricate work, we would accentuate the interdependence of Krasnov’s architecture and his personality and unpredictable life path. Finally, comparing and analyzing chosen examples of Krasnov’s Crimea and Yugoslav architecture, we would present the broad range of Russian creative influences and discuss the relations between Russian and Serbian national artistic traditions.

 PDF

Between 1920 and 1941 almost 350 Russian architects and constructing engineers built a lot of public and private buildings in the friendly city of Belgrade, which had adopted them after their exile from homeland after the Revolution and bloody Civil war. As a special professional group, obviosly favorized by Yugoslav king Aleksandar I Karadjordjevic, they gained highest positions in official state administration (Krasnov, Loukomski, Baumgarten, Androsov etc). Very productive and ideologically loyal to the ruling dynasty, Russian technicians left strong creative and historical trace in the midwar Belgrade, especially in its sillhouets, bridges, churches, ministery buildings, public monuments, mansions and representative palaces. Many of educated eyewitnesses, contemporaries and later historiographic scholars, used to qualify their efforts as crucial and impressive. Some of them clearly spoke about Russian Belgrade, emphasizing their important civilization role during that time.
Gradually, the positive and narrative attitude towards Russian Belgrade arose but after WWII, new communistic regime in Yugoslavia started to impose its oblivion. In postmodern and postcommunistic period, for different reasons historical places which represented Russian Belgrade became actual again, as a sign of political and historiographic revenge towards long period of cultural oblivion. Thus, todays Serbian historiography has a special task to explain in which aspects Russian Belgrade still exists. In that process, especially significant for Serbian and Russian architectural historians, the methods from different social and cultural-historical sciences are very helpful.

 PDF

The USSR was probably the regime which built most during the 20th century. However, Soviet architecture is still largely not known enough, or, worst, badly understood. Political reasons (shadow of ideology), stylistic reasons (lack of empathy for Stalin Era style, even larger distrust for Brezhnevian architecture), or lack of public interest, all this often led to a lack of recognition of this important heritage.
During the 1980s history of Soviet architecture produced useful first explorations, both by Russian, French, Italian, English scholars — however, most of them focused on constructivism. Few tried to truly understand Stalin Era works; even fewer showed interest to Soviet architecture after the 1950s. More recently, American scholars did extensive field explorations in Magnitogorsk, Nijni-Novgorod, Sebastopol. Despite their great interest, these works were written by pure historians, who obviously couldn’t understand urban and buildings specific problems, consequently misunderstanding many points of the 1930s architectural production in the USSR. A German team achived more success in rediscovering Soviet architecture of the 1970s. Fortunately, step by step, Russian scholars are doing their best to publish more researches. However, it seems to me that still many of these works are too descriptive, they don’t contain historical and stylistic analysis.
In order to have a more accurate vision of the Soviet architectural heritage, probably more field researches should be done in other towns than Moscow, Saint Petersburg or Ekaterinburg. I did that for Togliatti; I intend to do it for Stalingrad. My work (research, exhibition, and book in Russian / French) in Togliatti helped a little bit this municipality to have more sensibility for its heritage — in which they saw meanwhile a useful tool for promoting their city, both on a local, national and international scale. Better understanding Soviet architecture should be a way to celebrate cultural memory, to write an honest history — i.e. telling about both crimes and accomplishments. Such researches should help the national and international public to get this legacy, while drawing a fairer and more complete view of the 20th century.

 PDF

The report focuses on the antique and Renaissance themes in the national monumental painting of the 1900–1910s, the subject that presently has not been studied enough. The research examines the pictorial compositions and ensembles relative to neoclassical trend in the Russian art of the early 20th century, which were created in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Besides, the research gives a brief overview of the buildings where these paintings were embodied and lists the artists who referred their monumental paintings to antique and Italian Renaissance styles.
Special attention is paid to the selection of painting themes with a deep analysis of the most common of them.
Furthermore, the report reveals previously unpublished sketches for the paintings by the famous artists and architects (Ignatiy Nivinskiy, Evgeniy Lanceray, Ivan Fomin, Vladimir Shuko). The author found these paintings in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art and in the archives of the Shchusev Architecture Museum.
Based on the analysis of the mentioned sketches and numerous full-scale copies of the famous monumental art of the Italian Renaissance, the compositions which were the models for rethinking in the works of the Russian masters of the neoclassical movement are revealed. These sketches allow us to trace the geography of their travelling in Italy.
The understanding of antiquity and the Renaissance was controversial in Russia in the early 20th century: some works were based on the national version of classicism of the late 18th — early 19th centuries; others were based on the Italian Renaissance, especially on its late phase.
In the early 20th century monumental painting in Russia, in general, and monumental neoclassical art movement, in particular, turned out to be one of the most understudied themes of the Russian art studies. The report is aimed at drawing attention to this phenomenon.

 PDF

The housing problem was, of course, the first to be tackled by Khrushchev’s architectural reform since it was established at the 20th Congress in 1956 that it should be resolved within the next 20 years. By the early ‘60s they had developed a new type of industrial housing — the so called “Khrushchevka” — which initiated a project of global unification. The “Khrushchevka” spread throughout the Soviet Union — it was considered to be “ultramodern” and even appeared at some international exhibitions. Its economic minimalism enabled the construction of millions of square meters of floor space. It thus became possible to build military and industrial cities in remote areas.
The downside of the “Khrushchevka” was its lack of individuality which rapidly started to cause resentment towards it among the Soviet population. The search for alternative forms of housing and ideas for new settlement started and a number of concepts of property for the communist future were proposed — at the level of a single house, district and city. Several groups of architects proposed a new approach to spatial and social organization of housing for the future communist society — for example a group “NER” that developed a non-hierarchical net-like housing units, which were to replace the city.
“Homes of the future” projects, revealing new interaction of social and cultural functions were actively discussed at the Moscow Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture. The futuristic architectural projects were based on technicist visions and rational principles based on the “science base” as the sum of social and urban studies were carried. With the development of cybernetics, there was a hope that it will be possible to calculate the precise scientific model of rational use of space. Futuristic quest culminated in the late 1960s in a row of completed projects, including the construction of huge industrial cities, projects which were impossible without centralized management and planned economy. The aim of the article is to define the political and formal factors in socialist residential architecture, as well as the analysis of the main concept of the Soviet resi­dential construction, which represents the formation of a new society through the architectural space.

 PDF

nster, Germany

Iconography is a memory carrier; it is a system of symbols that has been developed for generations and a necessary tool to read the actual picture content. In this regard portrait does not simply remind about a depicted person. Its iconography is a result of an intense and complex interaction of multi­epochal pictorial heritage, of a dialogue between past and present, tradition and modernism, Russian and European art. Representational portraits of Zinaida Yusupova and Mikhail Morozov belong to the most interesting examples of such interferences. In my talk these images will be discussed in a pan-­European context and compared to works by Velazquez, Gainsborough, Reynolds, Whistler, Manet and Zorn. The Yusupova portrait for instance reflects the influence of the representational portraiture of the 18th century as well as the tastes of the art nouveau. Again, in Morozov’s portrait the artist clearly manifests a traditional image of a monarch widely used during the past centuries. At the same time both pictures are outstanding examples of tonal painting that was very popular among Serov’s contemporaries.

 PDF