Exhibition “Terragnias and Voices: Novokomum in Como - Club named after Zuev in Moscow. Similarities and Parallels in the Avant-Garde about two striking buildings of European architecture of the late 1920s, their historical and cultural context and broad influence, can be visited at the Moscow Museum of Architecture. A. V. Shchusev until November 4, 2019.
In early summer, the exhibition in a slightly different composition of the exposition was shown in the city of Como, and the impetus for it was the 2016 conference there. An important role in organizing all these events was played by the public association for the preservation of the heritage of abstract art and architecture of rationalism in Como MAARC.
What is the meaning of this exhibition, what goal did you set for yourself as curators?
Alessandro De Magistris
- I think it is very interesting to analyze the creativity of architects, specific buildings, parallel paths and intersections of architecture and architectural creativity in the context of a historical narrative. For example, there is Melnikov's house. But at the same time with the Melnikov house, the Narkomfin House and the House on the Embankment - the Government House of Boris Iofan were being built.
Our approach seeks to identify complex contacts and relationships between different situations. Our example - Novokomum and the Zuev Club - is especially interesting because it has great historiographic significance. This is both history and myth, generated by the similarity of such distant buildings, which were built simultaneously in a culturally complex space, where, perhaps, there were direct contacts, but also the movement of ideas, “energy flows”.
If we analyze the external, “superficial” similarity between Novokomum and the Zuev club, it gives way to another story, which we are trying to reveal: in fact, these two monuments are completely different.
Anna Vyazemtseva:
- It so happened that in the center of this exhibition is one of the famous "pop-plots" of modern architecture: after all, the similarity of these two buildings as a theme exists not so much among architectural historians as among amateurs. And it was interesting for us to figure out how competent he really is, this plot, and what his story is. Indeed, because of its prevalence, because of its "superficiality", it never occurred to anyone to deeply deal with this very close resemblance.
From where this plot migrated into the public consciousness: Kenneth Frampton in his famous book "Modern Architecture: A Critical Look at the History of Development" [1980; Russian translation came out in 1990. - approx. Archi.ru] without any comments writes that Giuseppe Terragni was inspired by Ilya Golosov; he doesn't even explain where he got it from. It is obvious that even then this was a firm judgment, and from Frampton's book it spread throughout the world. It still exists among Italian architects, I remember my first lecture experiences in Italy, when everyone asked me: "Is it true that Terragni copied from Golosov?" - Yes and no. In Russia - the same thing, when you read a lecture on the history of Italian architecture in the 1920s, you immediately hear the remark: "Oh, this Italian copied from Golosov."
The most interesting thing about this plot is that this is not just a formal comparison, but a comparison that was born a long time ago. Almost as soon as the Novokomum house was built, at the very beginning of the 1930s, they began to write about Terragni in Italy in a negative way, that he was a Bolshevik architect, that he was inspired by Bolshevik architecture - international, non-Italian, and that his style "Alien to our country, our culture." Critics used this moment of similarity with the architecture of constructivism to disarm Terragni: he was their "stylistic" opponent, and they used political rhetoric against him (although their political views did not differ). But Novokomum was not directly compared with the Zuev club at that time, because even in the USSR the club was published only in 1930, and it appeared in magazines after all this controversy in Italy had subsided a little.
This story arose again in 1968, when a large conference dedicated to Giuseppe Terragni was held in Villa Olmo in Como. This was the first conference about this architect: no one spoke about him during the 1950s, because he was a fascist architect who, moreover, died in 1943 under difficult circumstances: the cause of death is not clear, but it is obvious that it is related with his depression with which he returned from the Eastern Front. And just at this conference, Giulio Carlo Argan declares: of course, Terragni was inspired by constructivism, and we see this on the example of Novokomum, which is conditioned by the forms of the Zuev Ilya Golosov club. The same is repeated in the same place by the architect Guido Canella (he is the author, among other things,
books about Konstantin Melnikov). In the same years, Bruno Dzevi published the famous book "Omaggio a Terragni", the title of which on the cover is typed in such a way that it reads "Io a te" - "I am for you."
Alessandro De Magistris
- In Italy, back in the 1960s, the attitude to the architecture of the period of fascism was an acute political problem, so the position of Terragna's legacy was then very difficult. I think, in this context, a positive comparison of Terragni with constructivism was an opportunity to "support" him ideologically and politically.
It was only in the 1970s that a huge exhibition about the 1930s was organized in Milan, which for the first time showed the richness and complexity, the polysemy of art and architecture of the time of fascism. But there are still journalists who claim that nothing interesting was created under fascism.
Anna Vyazemtseva
- For example, in 2017, the authoritative American magazine New Yorker published an article
“Why are there so many fascist monuments still standing in Italy?”, Where monuments mean buildings in general. The author, professor of history and Italian studies at the University of New York, Ruth Ben-Guillat, writes with indignation: why did the Italians keep all this? In Italy, this text caused a great resonance among specialists - everyone was outraged.
Alessandro De Magistris:
- This prejudice is in the past, but not as far in the past as we think. A good example comes from one of Italy's genius architects of the 20th century, Luigi Moretti, who worked until the 1970s. He is the author of some masterpieces of pre- and post-war Italian architecture (just remember the building on Corso Italia in Milan). He had a long international career, designing the famous Watergate complex in Washington DC, as well as the tower in Montreal. Then only Nervi had such a career, and most of the Italian architects worked only in their homeland.
Despite this, Manfredo Tafuri, when he released his history of post-war Italian architecture in 1986, dedicated only a few words to Moretti. One of the reasons - as we can assume - is that before the war he was a real architect of the regime, engaged in "regime" work, and this position, this role of his influenced the critical attitude towards him after the war. So this "censorship" influenced the perception of architecture by society.
Anna Vyazemtseva:
- But back to Terragni. Our task was to understand who did the project earlier, who completed their construction earlier, and when the architects could see each other's projects. And we found out that they could not see each other's projects in any case, because both projects are from 1927, and both buildings were completed in early 1930. But there is one important point: Golosov was a very famous architect, and his projects were published. If we recall the 1st issue of the magazine "SA" for 1927, then it was published there
the project of the House of Elektrobank, where the same cylinder, as it will later be in the Zuev club, is recognized in Novokomum. From the "SA" this project could get into the German press, and Terragni read the German press. His brother Attilio, much older than him, was already a recognized engineer in Como, and they had a very rich library: they tried to get all the available books on modern architecture. In addition, after all, Terragni studied at the Milan Polytechnic until 1926. He had a natural interest in contemporary art, in contemporary architecture, which is reflected in the articles of the group of rationalists "Gruppo 7", published just from the end of 1926.
Of course, we must not forget the 1925 World Exhibition in Paris. Terragni did not ride her, but he knew about her. Then - the Werkbund exhibition in Stuttgart in 1927, where Giuseppe Terragni specially went. He just graduated from the Polytechnic, and the first neoclassical project of "Novokomum", which we are showing at the exhibition, has already been approved. Terragni left notes about this trip: they have not yet been published, so we can only rely on the words of his nephew, also Attilio, who told us that his uncle did not like anything in Stuttgart.
Alessandro De Magistris
- "SA" was read not only in the USSR and Europe. So, we know that since the 1920s "SA" and other Soviet magazines - like "Construction of Moscow" - have been read and viewed in South America and the United States. The New York-based Swiss architect William Leskaz, who was of great fame and built skyscrapers, followed Soviet architecture, and his project for a quarter of the late 1930s resembles the layout of Travin on Shabolovka, Khavsko-Shabolovsky housing estate: all buildings are located diagonally. That is, there were many opportunities to learn about Golos, about constructivism.
So it's interesting: in 1927, Terragni was developing an absolutely traditional project for Novokomum. And suddenly this perspective appears, very similar to the perspective of the House of Electrobank Golosov, published in the first issue of "SA", as Anna mentioned above.
If we look for other possible reasons for this similarity, we can say that in both Russia and Italy - everywhere in Europe - in the 1920s, German architecture had a huge influence, primarily Erich Mendelssohn. Its buildings have been published since the early 1920s. If we look at buildings in Moscow and Leningrad, we can see some examples of this influence, and the same is true in Italy. This is the first thing.
Secondly, it is a common classical culture for both architects. In addition, Golosov (like Melnikov) pursued his own special line. Golosov had his own theory, he had his own theoretical profile, already developed, and his creative path from classicism through romanticism to constructivism shows that he combined all these approaches.
Terragni at that moment was very young, but classicism is obvious in him, because its formation was like this: classicism was very strong in the cultural, architectural atmosphere of Milan, Lombardy.
-
zooming Giuseppe Terragni. House "Novokomum" in Como © Archives of Terragni
-
zooming Giuseppe Terragni. House "Novokomum" in Como © Archives of Terragni
It turns out that from the formal plot of the similarity of the two buildings, which occupied both Terragni's contemporaries and the next generation, there is a picture of forms and ideas traveling across Europe in the 1920s. Despite the different circumstances in certain countries, it is still a common space of thought and creativity. But how quickly this free exchange of ideas sparked criticism against Terragni in Italy, and how it still remains a poignant moment. For example, in the comments on the Moscow exhibition, Russian architectural enthusiasts declare that Golosov has a "better top hat"
Anna Vyazemtseva
- According to the plan, they are completely different, because for Golosov it is a circle, and for Terragna it is an oval. This is already a huge difference.
This question - who was the first to invent this corner cylinder - is perceived as an arms race, an object of acute public interest: both in 1930, before the widespread onset of totalitarianism in Europe, and now, when right-wing views are gaining more and more supporters everywhere. As if this is a story about sports or space. Do you feel the relevance of this story to the present day?
Anna Vyazemtseva
- I see the relevance of this story precisely in the fact that it is important to tell how everything really happened, that history is not a football match, that any phenomenon is a consequence of other events and processes. And the architect, when he designs, at least at that time - precisely, hardly associates himself with any political or national formation.
Terragni is definitely a fascist, he was practically born with the myth of the First World War. In our exhibition in the film, we show his self-portrait, where he portrayed himself in the military uniform of the First World War, which, of course, he was not (he was born in 1904). His entire generation is growing up with the myth of a new Italy, of fascism, of his involvement in something greater, with a thirst to create, not for a narrow private interest, but for society, for the state. But Terragni looks at what is happening in European architecture like a professional and chooses completely non-ideological forms.
It must be said that in general the idea that an architectural form can express political meaning appears later. And during this period, it is important that architecture should be modern, should use the latest discoveries of technology and express these meanings, conventionally - the idea of progress.
As for the relevance, we tried, on the one hand, to identify the cultural roots of both architects, on the other, to outline the ways of development of creative thought in these years and to build a historical context. Outline the main political and cultural events, describe the contacts between Italy and the USSR, so that it is clear in what climate this exchange of ideas took place, what caused it. Because you can often hear: "Totalitarian countries communicated." But communication between creative people preceded any political agreements. And they weren't interconnected.
Alessandro De Magistris
- The Union then had a great interest in Italy and Germany. Iofan knew the situation perfectly, he wrote about contemporary Italy. But, interestingly, when in the 1930s Soviet architects talk about Italy, they are already talking about "architecture of the 1920s." The first steps of modernism - "Novokomum" and the like - remain in the past, and this new interest already has an ideological aspect.
But still, I think it is important to take into account: the art of architecture is not only formal problems, not only aesthetic pursuits, but also ethics, politics, which give a strong impetus. At this revolutionary moment after the First World War, architectural movements everywhere in Europe were imbued with the impetus to create a new world. Both in the USSR and in Italy during the fascist revolution. Or in Lithuania, which gained independence, in Kaunas, which for a time became the capital, because Vilnius was on the territory of Poland, therefore, modernist architecture with a certain character appeared. At the same moment, "rationalism" interpreted the social and aesthetic impulses of the new Czechoslovakia - and so on.
Anna Vyazemtseva
- You need to understand that the conditions under which Novokomum and the Zuev club appear are incomparable. In the USSR - the abolition of private property, 1927, when the project of the Zuev club is being created - this is the last year of the NEP, in 1928 the first five-year plan has already begun. The Golosov Club is a space that should form the idea of a new way of life, carry it to the masses.
And Terragni uses a private order - a tenement house - to express the idea of a new home. And, indeed, in terms of this house is relatively conservative. This is not Moisey Ginzburg and his Narkomfin House, there are no residential units and no attempts to form a new idea of society by architecture. The rooms and layouts in Novokomum are quite traditional, the novelty here is formal. It is precisely about this novelty that Gio Ponti writes in his 1930 article, one of the first positive articles about this building, that Terragni, thanks to huge windows, which are not typical for Italy at all, establishes contact between nature and man. Now from the windows of Novokomum we can see the stadium, but when the house was being built, there was a field in front of it, a park and behind it - Lake Como, such a Rousseau moment.
In addition, Golosov's cylinder is a public space, a monumental staircase with the idea of natural lighting, a new spatial solution. And Terragna's top hats are the usual living rooms, where a bourgeois family could receive guests, presenting themselves to them as adherents of modernity. Of course, Terragni used this occasion to express his ideas. The rooms have not retained their original coloring, but there is evidence that they were very unusually painted in bright colors, so the tenants who wanted to rent these apartments were initially intimidated. Terragni, having behind his older brother-engineer, who was also the head of the administration of the city of Como, could afford this, on the one hand, childishness, on the other hand, experimentation.
Alessandro De Magistris
- Both of these buildings, despite the fact that they are very different, have a huge impact, a huge potential for the formation of urban space. Especially the club named after Zuev embodies the energy of new life.
Anna Vyazemtseva:
– «Novokomum”still looks revolutionary in the very conservative context of the city of Como.
Alessandro De Magistris:
– However, elements of tradition in Novokomum itself over time began to be ignored when they were “writing history”. It is no coincidence that photographs often show this house in perspective.
Anna Vyazemtseva:
– To flatten his rather traditional plan. Let's say there are two cylinders in the same place, the symmetry remaining from the classic Italian palazzo.
And in the photo it is always one cylinder. Your exhibition, on the one hand, destroys the myth of concrete, explicit borrowing and even copying, but, on the other hand, you still show the tendentiousness of everyone who writes about architecture - at all times. Just as Corbusier later retouched photographs of his early homes to make them look more modern, Novokomum appears to everyone who has not been to Como more avant-garde than it actually is
Anna Vyazemtseva:
“And therefore, in the center of our exhibition are plans and other project graphics, which show the deep difference between these two buildings.
-
Image 
zooming Ilya Golosov. Club of the trade union of communal workers. CM. Zuev in Moscow © State Museum of Architecture. A. V. Shchuseva
-
zooming Ilya Golosov. Club of the trade union of communal workers. CM. Zuev in Moscow © State Museum of Architecture. A. V. Shchuseva
Alessandro De Magistris
- It is important to know that modern buildings already existed in the USSR at that time - Izvestia (1925-1927) and so on, that is, the Union had its own context for the Zuev club. And in Italy, Novokomum (1927-1930) and Turin's Palazzo Gualino (1928-1930), the office building of the entrepreneur Ricardo Gualino, were the first examples of new architecture. So, despite the traditional nature of the plan, its obvious symmetry, for the Italian context, Novokomum is a manifestation of innovation.
Anna Vyazemtseva
- It was not for nothing that when this house was completed, a commission was convened, which included Piero Portaluppi, a famous architect of Art Deco: it had to decide how much Novokomum was damaging the city's appearance. The city authorities wanted to oblige Terragni to decorate it, to make some platbands for him in order to bring him to a common denominator with the historical buildings of Como. But the commission decided that everything was in order, Terragni was acquitted, and the building remained almost as we know it today. The only thing, it was plastered, and now it is faced with marble mosaics.
These two buildings are very important for the world architectural and cultural community. But they exist in the urban environment, they are seen by people who are not interested in architecture at all - or are interested in "old", "beautiful" buildings. They see these revolutionary buildings, which have not yet lost the power of their impact - and how do they relate to them? This is also an important problem for preserving the heritage of the avant-garde: the perception of it by society
Alessandro De Magistris:
- I think this point is a general problem of modernism. Novokomum and the Zuev Club are unconditional masterpieces, this architecture is absolutely “alive” even today: good architecture always “lives”. Also, these buildings remind of the cultural energy of the moment when they were created, that there are other buildings of that time, worthy of study and restoration. There are still many blank spots, since for many the avant-garde is limited to Moscow, in Leningrad there is already another specificity. And there are, for example, numerous monuments in the south of Russia, and many other places.
Anna Vyazemtseva:
- There is also a story about the significance of architecture today and about architecture as a kind of idea of society. Until now, oddly enough, the architectural avant-garde - both in Italy and in Russia - sometimes plays an ambiguous role. The fact that there is still controversy around these buildings, despite their almost 100 years of age, speaks of their importance, their enduring relevance.
