Style And Era: Reissue

2024 Author: David Durham | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 02:26

In 1924 the architect and theorist Moses Ginzburg, who turned 32 at that time, published the book "Style and Epoch", in which he partly predicted, partly programmed the development of architecture of the 20th century. A year later, the architect became one of the founders of the OSA group - the Association of Contemporary Architects, a key one for the constructivists of Soviet Russia. The book became one of the most iconic for architects and historians of the avant-garde, but remained a bibliographic rarity. Now the volume can easily end up in your library: Ginzburg Architects has released a reprinted edition of Style and Era. At the same time, a reprint in English was released in the UK, published by Ginzburg Design in collaboration with Fontanka Publications and Thames & Hudson.

The book can be purchased here, ordered by email [email protected] or by phone +74995190090.

Price - 950 rubles.

Below we publish an excerpt from a book that has become a bibliographic classic of the theory of the avant-garde.

You can flip through the same passage here:

zooming

1/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

2/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

3/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

4/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

5/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

6/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

7/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

8/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

9/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

10/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

11/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

12/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

13/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

14/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects
zooming

15/15 M. Ya. Ginzbrug. Era style. M., 1924 / reprinted 2019. Book fragment Courtesy of Ginzburg architects

FOREWORD *

Architectural style and modernity? That modernity of cleansing storms, during which the erected structures are hardly dozens. What style can we talk about? Of course, this is so for those who are alien to the doubts and delusions of those seeking new paths, paths of new searches; so for those who are patiently awaiting the final results with scores in their hands and a verdict on their lips. But the time is not ripe for them yet, their turn is ahead. The pages of this book are devoted not to what has happened, but only to reflections that have come to pass, about the line that runs between the already deceased past and the growing modernity, about a new style being born in the throes, dictated by a new life, a style whose appearance, still unclear, but nevertheless desired, grows and grows stronger among those who look ahead with confidence.

* The main theses of this work were presented by me on May 18, 1923 in a report to the Moscow Architectural Society; On February 8, 1924, the content of the already finished book was read by me at the Russian Academy of Art Sciences.

I. STYLE - ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - CONTINUITY AND INDEPENDENCE IN THE CHANGE OF STYLES

“Movement begins at many points at once. The old is reborn, carrying everything along with it, and, finally, nothing resists the flow: the new style becomes a fact. Why did all this have to happen?"

G. Velflin "Renaissance and Baroque".

For about two centuries, the architectural creativity of Europe existed parasitically at the expense of its past. While other arts, one way or another, moved forward, systematically creating their "classics" from recent revolutionary innovators, architecture with absolutely exceptional stubbornness did not want to take its eyes off the samples of the ancient world or the era of the Italian Renaissance. Art Academies, it seems, were only engaged in the fact that they eradicated the desire for the new and leveled the creative abilities of young people, without teaching, however, to see in production

knowledge of the past, a system of laws that always inevitably follows from the life structure of the era and only against this background receives its true meaning. Thus, such "academic" education achieved two goals: the pupil was detached from the present and at the same time remained alien to the true spirit of the great works of the past. This also explains the fact that artists who seek in their art the expression of a purely modern understanding of form, often defiantly ignore all the aesthetic achievements of bygone eras. However, a close examination of the art of the past and the creative atmosphere in which it was created leads to different conclusions. It is the experience, compacted by the creative efforts of centuries, that clearly shows the modern artist his path: - and bold search, and daring searches for something new, and the joy of creative discoveries, - all that thorny path that always ends in victory, only the movement is sincere, the desire is bright and washed ashore in a resilient and truly modern wave.

This was art at all the best times of human existence, and, of course, it should be so now. If we remember in what consonant environment the Parthenon was created, how the corporations of woolen and silkworms competed with each other in the era of the Italian Renaissance - in the best achievement of the aesthetic ideal, or how the vegetable and petty merchandise traders reacted to the new detail of the cathedral being erected, then we will clearly understand, that the whole point is that both the architect of the cathedrals and the greengrocer woman breathed the same air, were contemporaries. True, everyone knows historical examples of how the true seers of the new form remained incomprehensible by their contemporaries, but this only suggests that these artists intuitively anticipated, ahead of modernity, which, after some, more or less significant, period of time was catching up with them.

If a truly modern rhythm sounds in the modern form, monotonous with the rhythms of labor and joy of today, then, of course, it will eventually have to be heard by those whose life and work create this rhythm. It can be said that the craft of the artist and every other craft will then proceed, heading towards one goal, and inevitably there will finally come a time when all these lines will intersect, that is, when we find our own big style, in which the creativity of creation and contemplation will merge, when the architect will create works in the same style as the tailor will sew clothes; when a choral song will easily unite alien and different with its rhythm; when heroic drama and street buffoonery will be embraced, with all the diversity of their forms, by the commonality of the same language. These are the signs of any genuine and healthy style in which close analysis will reveal the causality and dependence of all these phenomena on the main factors of the era. Thus, we come close to the concept of style, which is so often used in various senses, and which we will try to decipher. Indeed, at first glance, this word is full of ambiguity. We say style for a new theatrical production, and we say style for a lady's hat. We encompass the word “style”, often, especially in the finest shades of art (for example, we say “the style of the forties” or “the style of Michele Sanmicheli”) and sometimes attribute to it the significance of entire eras, a group of centuries (such as the Egyptian style, the Renaissance style). In all these cases, we mean some kind of regular unity observed in the phenomena under consideration. Some features of the style in art will affect if we compare its evolution with the evolution of other areas of human activity, for example, science. Indeed, the genesis of scientific thinking presupposes an unbreakable chain

provisions from which each new, flowing out of the old, thereby outgrows this old. Here there is a certain growth, an increase in the objective value of thinking. So chemistry has outgrown and made alchemy unnecessary, so the newest methods of research are more accurate and more scientific than the old ones; who owns modern physical science has gone further ahead than Newton or Galileo *. In a word, here we are dealing with one whole, constantly growing organism. The situation is somewhat different with works of art, each of which, first of all, dominates itself and the environment that gave rise to it, and the work that really achieves its goal cannot be, as such, surpassed **. Thus, the word progress is extremely difficult to apply to art and can be attributed only to the area of its technical possibilities alone. In art there is something different, new, forms and combinations of them, which sometimes cannot be foreseen, and just as a work of art is something valuable, so it remains unsurpassed in its special value. Indeed, can it be said that the artists of the Renaissance have surpassed those of Greece, or that the temple at Karnak is worse than the Pantheon? Of course not. We can only say that just as the temple in Karnak is the result of a certain environment that gave birth to it and can be comprehended only against the background of this environment, its material and spiritual culture, so the perfection of the Pantheon is a consequence of similar reasons, almost independent of the merits of the Karnak temple. * * *

We know well that the features of the plane Egyptian fresco, which unfolds the narrative in rows of ribbons, * "General aesthetics" by Jonas KON. Translation by Samsonov. State Publishing House, 1921

** The outlined difference between science and art is also mentioned by Schiller. See his letters to Fichte from 3-4 August 1875 (Letters, IV, 222).

located one above the other is not a sign of the imperfection of Egyptian art, but only a reflection of the characteristic Egyptian understanding of form, for which such a method was not only the best, but also the only one that brought complete satisfaction. If a modern picture was shown to an Egyptian, it would undoubtedly be very severely criticized. The Egyptian would find it both expressionless and unpleasant to the eye: he would have to say that the picture is bad. Conversely, in order to appreciate the aesthetic merits of the Egyptian perspective, after we received a completely different understanding of it from the artists of the Italian Renaissance, we must not only embrace all Egyptian art as a whole, but also do the well-known work of reincarnation, must try to penetrate into the system of perception of the world Egyptian. What should be the relationship between Egyptian and Renaissance fresco for an art student? Naturally, the usually understood meaning of the word "progress" is not applicable here, since, of course, we cannot objectively assert that the Egyptian fresco is "worse" than the Renaissance, that the Renaissance perspective system destroys and deprives the Egyptian fresco system of charm. On the contrary, we know that in parallel with the Renaissance there is still some other system of perspective, for example, the Japanese one, going its own way, that we are still able to enjoy Egyptian mural painting today, and that, finally, contemporary artists sometimes deliberately violate in their works system of the Italian perspective. At the same time, a person using the achievements of electricity can in no case be forced to switch back to steam traction, which in one case or another must be recognized as objectively surpassed and, therefore, inspiring us neither admiration nor desire to imitate it. It is quite obvious that we are dealing here with various phenomena.

However, this difference between two kinds of human activity: artistic and technical - at the same time

does not deprive us of the opportunity to assert that the art of the Italian Renaissance made its contribution to the world system of creativity, enriched it with a new system of perspective, previously unknown.

Thus, here we are still talking about some kind of growth, addition, enrichment of art, which is quite real and recognized objectively, but does not destroy the previously existing system of creativity. It is possible, therefore, in a certain sense to talk about the evolution of art, about the progress of art, in addition to its technical side.

Only this progress or evolution will consist in the ability to create new values, new creative systems, thus enriching humanity as a whole.

However, this enrichment, this emergence of something new in art cannot be caused by chance, the accidental invention of new forms, new creative systems.

We have already said that an Egyptian fresco, like an Italian painting of the 15th century, can be understood and, therefore, received an objective assessment only after all contemporary art in general has been comprehended. Often, however, this is not enough. You need to familiarize yourself with all kinds of human activity, the modern given picture, with the social and economic structure of the era, its climatic and national characteristics in order to fully understand this work. A person is such and not different, not because of the "randomness" of his appearance, but as a result of the most complex influences experienced by him, the social environment, his environment, the impact of natural and economic conditions. Only all this in total gives rise to one or another spiritual structure in a person, generates in him a certain attitude, a certain system of artistic thinking, directing human genius in one direction or another.

No matter how great the collective or individual genius of the creator, no matter how peculiar and tortuous the creative process is, there is a causal relationship between the real and life and factors and the system of human artistic thinking, and, in turn, between the latter and the formal creativity of the artist, and It is the presence of this dependence that explains both the nature of the evolution of art, which we talked about, and the need for reincarnation, which determines an objective historical assessment of a work of art. However, this dependence should not be understood too elementary. The same underlying causes can sometimes produce different results; misfortune sometimes destroys our strength, and sometimes increases them in an infinite number of times, depending on the individual properties of a person's character. In the same way, depending on the characteristics of the genius of an individual or a people, in other cases we see a direct consequence, in others - the opposite result due to the contrast. However, in both cases, the presence of this causal dependence cannot be rejected, only against the background of which an assessment of a work of art can be given, not on the basis of an individual taste judgment “like it or not,” but as an objective historical phenomenon. Formal comparison can only be made between works of the same era, of the same style. Only within these limits can the formal advantages of works of art be established. The one that best, most expressively corresponds to the system of artistic thinking that gave birth to them, then usually finds the best formal language. A comparison of an Egyptian fresco and an Italian painting cannot be made qualitatively. It will give only one result: it will point to two different systems of artistic creation, each of which has its sources in a different environment.

That is why it is impossible for a contemporary artist to create an Egyptian fresco, that is why eclecticism is genetically sterile in most cases, no matter how brilliant its representatives are. He does not create “new”, does not enrich art, and, therefore, in the evolutionary path of art it gives not a plus, but a minus, not an increment, but a compromise combination of often incompatible sides. * * * Considering the most diverse products of human activity of any era, in particular, any types of artistic creativity, with all the diversity caused by organic and individual reasons, something common will be reflected in all of them, a feature that, in its collegiality, evokes the concept of style. The same social and cultural conditions, methods and means of production, the climate, the same attitude and psyche - all this will put a common stamp on the most diverse forms of formation. And it is not surprising, therefore, that an archaeologist who has found a jug, a statue or a piece of clothing thousands of years later, on the basis of these general features of style, will determine the belonging of these objects to a particular era. Wölflin, in his study of the Renaissance and Baroque, shows the volume of human life in which you can trace the features of style: the manner of standing and walking, he says, draping a cloak in one way or another, wearing a narrow or wide shoe, every little thing - all this can serve a sign of style. Thus, the word "style" speaks of some natural phenomena that impose certain features on all manifestations of human activity, which are reflected in large and small, completely regardless of whether contemporaries strive for this clearly or even do not even notice them at all. Nevertheless, the laws that eliminate the "chance" in the appearance of this or that work of human hands receive their specific expression for each kind of this activity.

fitness. Thus, a piece of music is organized in one way, a literary piece in another. However, in these so different laws, caused by the difference in the formal method and language of each art, some common, unified premises can be noticed, something generalizing and connecting, in other words, the unity of style, in the broad sense of the word.

Thus, the definition of the style of an artistic phenomenon can be considered exhaustive when it consists not only in finding the organizational laws of this phenomenon, but in establishing a certain connection between these laws and a given historical epoch and testing them on other types of creativity and human activity in contemporary life. … Of course, it is not difficult to test this dependence on any of the historical styles. The unshakable connection between the monuments of the Acropolis, the statues of Phidias or Polycletus, the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides, the economy and culture of Greece, its political and social order, clothing and utensils, the sky and the relief of the soil, is just as inviolable in our minds as similar phenomena of any other style …

This method of analyzing artistic phenomena, due to its comparative objectivity, gives the researcher a powerful weapon in the most controversial issues.

So, turning from such an angle of view to the events of our artistic life of the past decades, one can admit without much difficulty that such trends as "Modern", "Decadence", just like all our "neo-classicisms" and "neo - renaissances”, do not withstand the test of modernity to any extent. Born in the heads of a few refined, cultured and developed architects and often giving, thanks to their great talent, completely finished samples of their own kind, this external aesthetic crust, just like all kinds of other eclectic forays, is an idle invention that came to taste for a while. narrow circle

connoisseurs and did not reflect anything except the decadence and impotence of the moribund world.* * * Thus, we establish a certain self-sufficiency of style, the originality of the laws governing it, and the relative isolation of its formal manifestations from the works of other styles. We discard a purely individualistic assessment of a work of art and consider the ideal of the beautiful, this eternally changing and transient ideal, as something that perfectly meets the needs and concepts of a given place and era.

Naturally, the question arises: what is the connection between the individual manifestations of art of different eras, and are not Spengler * and Danilevsky ** right in their theories, closed and separated from each other by an abyss of cultures?

Having established the closed nature of the laws of any style, we are, of course, far from thinking to abandon the principle of dependence and influence in the change and development of these styles. On the contrary, in reality, the exact boundaries between one style and the other are erased. There is no way to establish the moments where one style ends and another begins; a style that is incipient is experiencing its youth, ripeness and old age, but old age has not yet been completely outlived, the withering away is not over, as another, new style is born, in order to make a similar path. Consequently, in reality there is not only a connection between adjacent styles, but it is even difficult to establish an exact border between them, as in the evolution of all forms of life without exception. And if we are talking about the self-sufficient significance of style, then, of course, we mean a synthetic understanding of it, the quintessence of its essence, reflected mainly at the best time of its flowering, on the best works of this

_

* Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of Europe", vol. I, Russian translation, 1923

** I. Ya. Danilevsky, "Russia and Europe", 3rd ed. 1888 g.

pores. So, speaking about the laws of the Greek style, we mean the 5th century BC. X., the century of Phidias, Iktinus and Callicrates and the time immediately next to them, and not a fading Hellenistic art, in which there are already many features that anticipate the emergence of the Roman style. But one way or another, the wheels of two adjacent styles interlock with each other, and the circumstances of this adhesion are not uninteresting to trace.

In this case, we will confine ourselves to considering the issue in the plane of the architecture that interests us most.

However, this requires, first of all, an understanding of those concepts that are included in the formal definition of the architectural style. We are already quite clearly aware of what characterizes the painting style: we are talking about drawing, color, composition, and, of course, all these properties are analyzed by the researcher. It is also easy to make sure that the first of them: drawing and color, are the material, the organization of which in the plane constitutes the art of composition of a painting. In the same way, in architecture, it is necessary to note a number of concepts, without clarification of which a formal analysis of its works is inconceivable.

The need to create protection from rain and cold pushed people to build a dwelling. And this has determined to this day the very nature of architecture, which stands on the verge of life-saving creativity and "disinterested" art. This feature was reflected primarily in the need to isolate, delimit some material, material forms and a certain part of space. Isolation of space, its closure within some definite limits is the first of the tasks facing the architect. The organization of the isolated space, the crystalline form that encompasses essentially amorphous space, is the distinguishing feature of architecture from other arts. What constitutes a feature, so to speak, of spatial experiences, sensations experienced from interieur'ov architectural production

reference, from being inside the premises, from their spatial boundaries and from the lighting system of this space - all this is the main feature, the main difference of architecture, not repeated in the perceptions of any other art.

But the isolation of space, the method of organizing it, is carried out through the use of a material form: wood, stone, brick. By isolating the spatial prism, the architect dresses it with a material form. Thus, we inevitably perceive this prism not only from the inside, spatially, but also from the outside, already purely volumetric, similar to the perception of sculpture. However, here, too, there is an extremely important difference between architecture and other arts. Material forms for the fulfillment of the main spatial task of the architect are not entirely arbitrary in their combinations. The architect needs to comprehend the laws of statics and mechanics in order to achieve the goal, empirically, intuitively or purely scientifically. This is the basic constructive flair that must necessarily be inherent in the architect and which establishes a certain method in his work. The solution of a spatial problem inevitably entails this specific organizational method, which consists in solving it with a minimum expenditure of energy.

Thus, what essentially distinguishes an architect from a sculptor is not only the organization of space, but the construction of its isolating environment. From this follows the main organizational method of the architect, for whom the world of form is not a series of limitless and endless possibilities, but only skillful maneuvering between the desired and the possible for implementation, and it is quite natural that this possible ultimately affects the development of the very nature of desires. Because of this, the architect never builds even "castles in the air" that would not fit into this framework of the organizational method;

even architectural fantasy, seemingly free from constructive considerations, and it satisfies the laws of statics and mechanics - and this already speaks of an unquestionably basic feature, very essential in understanding the art of architecture. Hence, the relatively limited range of forms of architecture in comparison with painting is understandable, and the main approach in understanding architectural forms as a function of support and leaning, holding and lying, tense and resting, forms stretching vertically and horizontally, and any other, as functional from these main directions. This organizational method also determines those rhythmic features that characterize architecture. And, finally, it already, to a certain extent, determines the character of each individual formal molecule, which is always different from the elements of sculpture or painting.

Thus, the system of architectural style is composed of a number of problems: spatial and volumetric, which represent the solution of the same problem from the inside and from the outside, reified by formal elements; the latter are organized according to one or another compositional characteristics, giving rise to a dynamic problem of rhythm.

Only an understanding of the architectural style in all the complexity of these problems can explain not only this style, but also the connection between individual stylistic phenomena. So, analyzing the change of the Greek style to the Roman, the Romanesque to the Gothic, etc., we often observe contradictory features. So, the Roman style, on the one hand, is considered by researchers as the evolution of pure forms of the Hellenic heritage, on the other hand, one cannot but pay attention to the fact that the compositional methods or the organization of the space of Roman structures are almost opposite to the Greek one.

In the same way, the art of the early Renaissance in Italy (quattrocento) is still full of individual features of the obsolete Gothic style, and the methods of Renaissance composition are already in that

To a degree new and unexpected in comparison with the Gothic, their spatial experiences are so opposed that they evoke in a contemporary - the architect Filaret the famous phrase about the latter: “Cursed will be the one who invented this rubbish. I think only barbarians could have brought it with them to Italy."

From this point of view, in addition to evaluating a work of art or a whole style historically, that is, in relation to the environment that created it, another method of objective assessment looms - genetic, that is, determining the value of the phenomenon in terms of its relationship to the further growth of styles, to the evolution of the general process. And in view of the fact that an artistic style, like any life phenomenon, is not reborn immediately and not in all its manifestations, but partially relies more or less on the past, it is possible to distinguish styles that are genetically more valuable and less valuable insofar as they are more or less degrees have traits suitable for rebirth, the potential for creating something new. It is clear that this assessment will not always be in connection with the qualities of the formal elements of a work of art. Often formally weak, i.e. an imperfect and unfinished work is valuable genetically, that is, with its potential for the new, more than a immaculate monument, but nevertheless using exclusively the obsolete material of the past, incapable of further creative development. * * * So what then? Continuity or new, completely independent principles lie in the change of two styles?

Of course, both. While some of the constituent elements that form the style still retain continuity, often others, more sensitive, more quickly reflecting the change in human life and psyche, are already being built on completely different principles, often opposite, often

completely new in the history of evolution of styles; and only after a certain period of time, when the sharpness of the new compositional method reaches its full saturation, it already passes to the other elements of the style, to a separate form, subjecting it to the same laws of development, modifying it, according to the new aesthetics of style. And vice versa, quite often, other laws of the new style are reflected primarily in completely different formal elements, preserving at first the continuity of compositional methods, which change only gradually, in the second place. However, whichever of these paths art moves, only thanks to these two principles: continuity and independence, the emergence of a new and complete style is possible. A complex phenomenon of architectural style cannot change at once and in everything. The law of continuity economizes the artist's creative invention and ingenuity, condenses his experience and skill, and the law of independence is the driving lever that gives creativity to healthy young juices, saturates it with the acuteness of modernity, without which art simply ceases to be art. The flourishing of a style, condensed in a small period of time, will usually reflect these new and independent laws of creativity, and the archaic and decadent eras will, in separate formal elements or compositional methods, interlock with the preceding and subsequent periods of the styles. So this apparent contradiction is reconciled and finds an explanation not only in the emergence of a new style today, but also in any historical era.

If there were no known continuity, the evolution of each culture would have been infinitely infantile, never, perhaps, reaching the apogee of its flowering, which is always achieved only thanks to the compaction of the artistic experience of previous cultures.

But without this independence, cultures would have fallen into endless old age and powerless withering away, lasting

forever, because there is no way to endlessly chew old food. We need at all costs a young, daring blood of barbarians who do not know what they are doing, or people with an insistent thirst for creativity, with the consciousness of the correctness of their established and independent "I", so that art can renew itself, re-enter its period flowering. And from here, psychologically understandable not only destructive barbarians, in whose blood the convinced correctness of their potential strength unconsciously pulsates, even in relation to perfect, but decrepit cultures, but also a whole series of "vandalisms" that are quite often encountered in the history of cultural epochs, when new destroys the old, even the beautiful and complete, only by virtue of the conscious rightness of young daring.

Let us recall what Alberti said, a representative of a culture in which there are so many elements of continuity, but which in its essence is an example of the establishment of a new style:

"… I believe those who built Thermes, and the Pantheon, and everything else … And the mind is even greater than anyone else …" *.

All the same growing conviction in his creative rightness often forced Bramante to demolish entire neighborhoods in order to carry out his grandiose projects and created for him among his enemies the popular name "Ruinante".

But with the same success, this name can be attributed to any of the great architects of the Cinquecento or Seichento. Palladio, after the fire in 1577 of the Doge's Palace in Venice, strongly advises the Senate to rebuild the Gothic palace in the spirit of its own Renaissance worldview, in Roman forms. In 1661, Bernini, when he needed to build a colonnade in front of St. Peter's Cathedral, without any hesitation or hesitation destroys Raphael's Palazzo dell'Aquila.

* Letter to L. B. Albert and to Matteo de Bastia in Rimini (Rome, 18 November 1454). In a letter to Brunelleschi (1436), he says: "I consider our merit to be greater, for without any leaders, without any models, we create sciences and arts that have never been heard or seen before."

In France, in the era of revolution, there are, of course, even more such examples. So, in 1797 the old church of St. Ilaria in Orleans turns into a modern market *.

But even if we leave aside this extreme manifestation of a convinced belief in the correctness of the creative ideas of our time, any glance that we cast at the past convinces us of the existence at the best times of human culture of an extremely clear consciousness of the correctness of an independent modern form understanding. And only decadent eras are characterized by one desire to subordinate the modern form to the stylistic ensemble of the past centuries. The very idea of subordinating the new parts of the city not to its organism, which lies outside any formal features of style, but to the style of old, already existing, even the most perfect in form parts, an idea that is extremely firmly rooted in the minds of our best architects of the last decade and makes them often subordinate entire neighborhoods and part of the city to the formal features of some group of monuments that are preceding in style - is an excellent indicator of the creative impotence of modernity. For in the best times, architects, with the power and acuteness of their modern genius, subjugated the stylistic forms already created earlier, nevertheless, correctly predicting the organic development of the city as a whole.

But more than that, an artist, imbued through and through with his creative idea and the reality that surrounds him, cannot create in different ways. He does only what fills his brain, he can only create a modern form and least of all he thinks about what others, even the most brilliant predecessors, would have done in his place.

A Greek temple, imbued with one tradition, over the course of several centuries is, in this sense,

_

* François Benois, "French art during the revolution." Translation prepared for publication by S. Platonova.

an interesting example. The temple, which has been under construction for a long time, sometimes gives a living chronology of the building in its columns.

It is quite clear that the Greek architect did not think about any continuity, or about any subordination to the ensemble: he was full of a concentrated and persistent desire to realize at every moment the form that was contemporary to him. And the continuity and the ensemble came about by themselves, insofar as, in general, the creative outlook of Hellas remained the same.

In the same way, cathedrals begun in the era of the Romanesque style, if they ended a century or two later, inevitably assumed the character of their contemporary Gothic style, just as the architects of the Renaissance, completely without hesitation, finished cathedrals begun in the era and in the forms of the Gothic style., in the purest forms of the Renaissance completely alien to them. And, of course, they could not act otherwise, because true creativity cannot but be sincere, and therefore not modern. All other considerations seem insignificant in comparison with the persistently felt desire to show your creative physiognomy. A flower grows in a field, because it cannot but grow, and therefore, it cannot reckon with whether it fits or does not fit the field that existed before it. On the contrary, he himself changes by his appearance the general picture of the field.

An interesting phenomenon from this point of view is the philosophy of early Italian futurism, which went to the other extreme. Brought up and surrounded by an infinite number of perfect monuments of the past, Italian artists believed that precisely these monuments, due to their perfection, lay too heavy a burden on the artist's psychology and did not allow him to create modern art - and hence the tactical conclusion: the destruction of all this heritage. It is necessary to destroy all museums, to commit all monuments to destruction in order to

would be able to create something new! But, of course, this desperate gesture is psychologically understandable because it shows the artists' thirst for genuine creativity, but, alas, he draws equally well the creative impotence of this art, just like the eclectic attacks of the passeists.

Neither concern for continuity nor the destruction of past art can help. They are only symptoms that indicate that we have come close to a new era. Only a flash of creative energy, born of modernity and creating artists who can work not in any style, but only in the only language of modernity, reflecting the means and their art, the true essence of today, its rhythm, its daily work and care and its lofty ideals, are only only such an outbreak can give birth to a new flowering, a new phase in the evolution of forms, a new and truly modern style. And, perhaps, the time when we will enter this blessed strip is already very close.