1 / Novikov I. I. Kazansky railway station in the ensemble of Komsomolskaya square in Moscow / Institute of Art History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Ph. D. thesis. Moscow, 1952. T. 1–6 2 / Shchusev P. V. Pages from the life of Academician A. V. Shchusev. M., 2011 3 / The antithesis of “architects” and “art critics” is perfectly described in the book by Vadim Bass: Bass V. G. “Petersburg neoclassical architecture of the 1900-1910s. in the mirror of the contests. Word and Form ". SPB. 2010 Until recently, Aleksey Viktorovich Shchusev (1873-1949) remained numbered among those great architects who lived not so recently that the memory of him would still be alive, but not so long ago as to turn into a generally recognized - read, satisfying mutually exclusive tastes, - a classic. Having long become an integral part of the name of the Museum of Architecture, Shchusev rested on Olympus among the architectural gods of the Soviet past, gradually covered with the dust of oblivion. He was the only architect to receive four Stalin prizes; works were written about him during his lifetime, including a 6- (six!) Volume dissertation - probably the largest work of this genre in the world history of architecture1… But then, in the years of struggle with "architectural excesses", his architecture was out of work, the last book about him was out of old memory in 1978 - and since then the science of architecture has lost interest in him for a long time; only from time to time in the general context were his pre-revolutionary buildings recalled. Shchusev again became relevant only in the most recent years, and now his work of the Soviet era is of no less interest. Vivid evidence of this new relevance: the first book in more than 30 years - the memoirs of his brother with extensive commentary and illustrative material2, a small but very informative exhibition in the MUAR (Oct. - Nov. 2013) dedicated to the Kazansky railway station, finally, the book by Diana Valerievna Keipen-Vardits offered to the reader's attention.
This book is the first special study about the temples built by Shchusev. Temples were for him the central theme of creativity in the pre-revolutionary period. I remember that in the early 1990s a pious anecdote circulated around Moscow that Shchusev would become a saint by building 33 churches; but instead of the 33rd temple, he built a mausoleum and thereby ruined his soul. The authors of the anecdote, apparently, knew the material quite well: according to the study by Capeen-Varditz, in total Shchusev completed 31 projects of the temple / chapel / monastery buildings!
Shchusev was one of the leading architects of the neo-Russian style. This style is recognized by some researchers as independent, by others as part of a wider artistic movement of modernity. It arose within the framework of national searches as a reaction to the so-called Russian style, widespread since the middle of the 19th century, combining compositions dating back to European and Russian classics with abundant national decor in the spirit of Moscow and Yaroslavl of the 17th century. The reference point for the masters of the neo-Russian style was the Russian Middle Ages, first of all, Pskov and Novgorod, by the method of capturing the general architectural image and mood. (Let me remind you, by the way, that the Russian style is the Historical Museum and the GUM on Red Square, and a huge number of buildings in Moscow and all over Russia; on the contrary, the neo-Russian style is rare, in Moscow its most famous building is the Tretyakov Gallery. that these terms belong to contemporary art history …). The "figurative" approach was alien to many professional architects3, but found support from artists and many educated clients. Reading the book of Capeen-Varditz, you understand well the atmosphere in which Shchusev's works were born: not one page is devoted here to the attitude of contemporaries - architects, customers, critics - to the neo-Russian style in general and Shchusev's buildings in particular. I myself was especially carried away by the galleries of Shchusev's customers presented in the book, which included his childhood friends from Chisinau, the clergy, and members of the imperial family. You always wonder why a person entrusts money to such and such an architect, what he expects from him, what symbolic capital he hopes for, how does he behave when he gets something completely different from what he expected? The description of the environment of people and thoughts from which architectural works grow is a great advantage of the book.
Shchusev's works in the context of the neo-Russian style were mentioned more than once, but now the book of Capeen-Varditz allows you to get acquainted with the vicissitudes of their creation in all details and, together with the author, enjoy savoring exquisite forms, reflecting on their architectural prototypes. And here it is very important that in addition to the programmatic works - the church and monastery in Ovruch, the temple on Kulikovo Field, the cathedrals of the Martha-Mariinsky monastery in Moscow and the Pochaev Lavra, a small church in the Natalyevka estate near Kharkov - the author analyzes in no less detail both the early and simple lesser known works. Much attention is also paid to the analysis of unrealized projects, of which Shchusev had a lot. In general, an exhaustive panorama of Shchusev's church work is being created, to which a complete catalog of all his completed buildings and projects with a full bibliography is attached - a thing that was so lacking!
The completeness of the book allowed the author to discover and show a previously little-known side of Shchusev's church work - his search outside the neo-Russian style. Usually, these searches were associated with his secular buildings, first of all, with the Kazansky railway station and a whole series of stations that reproduce the images of the Naryshkin style, baroque, empire style. It was in this "series" that the Empire chapel was designed and realized at the railway bridge near Sviyazhsk, which has survived to our time. But often the appeal to other styles grew out of a specific situation. Striving for the truth, organicity and naturalness of his architecture, Shchusev always grew her ideas from a careful analysis of the environment of the future building. Therefore, he created the project of the church for the St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery in Kiev in the style of the Ukrainian Baroque, for the cathedral in Sumy he invented the Empire style decoration, and embodied the church in the Moldovan estate of his friends in the village of Verkhniye Kuguresti in the images of Romanian architecture. The ease with which he worked in all these styles is evidence of his immense erudition, brilliant knowledge of Russian and world architecture. But this is also a testament to his enormous artistic talent, which allowed him to swim in the most exotic architectural forms, like a fish in water.
The opportunity to carefully study the artist Shchusev is undoubtedly the innovative side of the book. An entire chapter is devoted here to the analysis of his architectural graphics. After all, he was not just, like all professional architects of that time, excellent drawing and drawing. He was a real artist, a master of luscious, expressive, decisive; the recently exhibited sketches of the Kazan railway station are excellent graphic works! The hand of the master is also felt in the uncompromising and at the same time exquisite drawing of his realized details, in which pedantic historical literacy and the wisdom of generalization always coexist. As it turns out, this is no coincidence: Shchusev studied painting in St. Petersburg for two years in Repin's class and then six months in Paris at the Julian Academy. In addition to the actual architectural projects, Shchusev also made sketches for the murals - the refectory in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, temples in Ovruch and Kharaks, which are also discussed in the book. After that, it becomes clear why he was so attentive to the choice of those who would paint his temples. He managed to collaborate with a whole galaxy of major Russian artists. Nesterov made frescoes and an iconostasis for the Martha-Mariinsky Convent in Moscow and mosaics for Stolypin's tombstone in Kiev, Lancer - the painting of the Kazan station, Benoit and Serebyarkov - sketches for them, Roerich - sketches for the chapel in Pskov, Goncharova - cardboard for the church in Kugureshty,exhibited now at the Tretyakov Gallery; this list is far from complete …
Shchusev's Temple Buildings is the first modern monograph on great architecture. Secular pre-revolutionary buildings await a serious publisher and researcher, and even more awaits a huge layer of its Soviet architecture. Shchusev is a truly gigantic figure, one of the two titans of Russian architecture of the first half of the twentieth century. Both of them became luminaries even before the revolution and managed to remain them under Stalin. But against the background of Zholtovsky, who always remained faithful to the precepts of the classics and towered above the alternating manners like a beautiful Ionic column, Shchusev could seem like an unprincipled Proteus. Only a more attentive glance feels in his works an uncompromising adherence to his own instinct, a confident and continuous note. Verbalization of this sensation is the main task of future researchers. And Diana Valerievna's book, it seems to me, is the very first and therefore especially valuable and necessary step in this direction.
