VKHUTEMAS heritage and modernity
Reflecting on the influence of VKHUTEMAS on the formation of the design culture of the XX-XXI centuries (as one of the conference topics sounds), it is difficult to ignore the creative interaction of Le Corbusier with Ivan Leonidov - perhaps the most famous of the VKHUTEMAS graduates. And the only Russian architect of the twentieth century who received worldwide recognition. It is surprising that so far this problem has not attracted the necessary attention, and was only mentioned in passing in the works of S. O. Khan-Magomedov and some posts in network resources of a deliberately superficial nature. It seems that the time has come to introduce this topic into scientific circulation as an independent problem. The purpose of this article is to initially collect and systematically present the available information on this issue, which I will group into four episodes.
Episode 1. Early Corbusianism of Leonidov
Ivan Leonidov belongs to a narrow group of students and graduates of VKHUTEMAS 1925-1926, students of A. A. Vesnin, in which the formal and stylistic influence of Le Corbusier was manifested earlier in Soviet architecture. Considering Le Corbusier's realizations published by 1925, it is logical that the formal motives of two early villas were the subject of reproduction before others: the Besnus villa in Vaucresson (1922) and the La Roche-Jeanneret houses in Paris (1922-1925). [To these should be added the house of Cook in Boulogne-Billancourt (1925), for which Leonidov, unlike his constructivist colleagues, has no motives. - Note by the author of the article].
Leonid's projects of workers' clubs for 500 and 1000 people (1926) [1] can serve as a striking example of the interpretation of the formal themes of these two villas. The plans and facades of the clubs are variations on the themes of the La Roche-Jeanneret houses: Leonidov repeats the L-shaped plan with a curved volume (Le Corbusier has an art gallery). The facades of the clubs repeat the theme of the Le Corbusier facade with the rhythm of the square openings of the second floor above the ribbon window of the first. (ill. 1).
The same motif is also recognized in the architecture of the stylobate structures in the diploma project of the "Lenin Institute" (1927)
[2]. From this, the first of the projects that created Leonidov's reputation as a radical avant-garde artist, the architect's independent creative path begins. The last time a direct borrowing of the formal theme of Le Corbusier appears in the competition project of the House of Government for Alma-Ata (1928). These are characteristic bay windows, repeating the bay window of a villa in Vaucresson - prismatic boxes with solid three-sided glazing [3] (ill. 2).
Episode 2. Invention of the modernist prism
Le Corbusier and Leonidov in the competition for the design of the building of the Centrosoyuz (1928-1930)
1928 was a turning point both in the development of the Soviet avant-garde and in the career of Le Corbusier. The direct contact of the Moscow architectural community with the French master in the course of a multi-stage competition for the building of the Centrosoyuz became fruitful for both parties. A detailed description of the course of the competition is given in his book by J.-L.-Cohen
[4], we will concentrate on the part of this plot directly related to Ivan Leonidov.
Le Corbusier's creative contact with Leonidov took place during the third, closed stage of the competition in late autumn 1928 [5]. In contrast to the ribbon windows in Le Corbusier's project (ill. 3, top left) Leonidov proposed continuous glazing of the facades. The rest of Leonidov's project - a prism put on the pilot and completed with a roof-terrace - completely follows Le Corbusier's "5 points" and may well be called Corbusian (ill. 3, bottom left). Already in the working project, the development of which began in January 1929, Le Corbusier replaced the striped glazing of the street facades with glass walls. We can see them in the constructed building (Fig. 3, top right).
The opinion that Le Corbusier changed his project under the influence of Leonidov was repeatedly expressed by his contemporaries. S. O. Khan-Magomedov cites several similar reviews, among them is Leonid Pavlov's testimony about Le Corbusier's open recognition of Leonidov's influence
[6]. However, this influence is not limited to the appearance of glass walls at Le Corbusier. It was from Leonidov that the type of structure first appeared, borrowed by Le Corbusier, already formed and then associated with his name: a free-standing multi-storey prism with blind ends and fully glazed longitudinal facades. For the first time, Leonidov proposes such a solution in the project of the Lenin Institute (1927), develops it in the project of Tsentrosoyuz (1928), and a couple of years later - the House of Industry (1930). Taking into account the three-beam tower in the project of the People's Commissariat for Tyazhprom (1934), we can say that in the work of Leonidov, the type of modernist Corbusian prism was fully formed in its most common later versions.
The idea of a "clear prism" is fundamental for Le Corbusier, starting with the impressions of his youthful travels. And up to the Tsentrosoyuz project, it was embodied by him only on the scale of 3-4-storey private villas. In parallel with this, Le Corbusier continued to develop the concept of "redan" for multi-storey buildings, that is, a zigzag connection of prismatic volumes, a particular example of which is his "Tsentrosoyuz".
The first multi-storey buildings not in the form of a combination of prisms, but of a single stand-alone prism appeared in the work of Ivan Leonidov, beginning with the Lenin Institute (1927). And all Leonidov's prisms have a common feature - continuous glazing of facades with blind ends. And it is precisely these prisms that Le Corbusier begins to use upon his return from Moscow. The first of such prisms, which later firmly entered the formal vocabulary of Corbusianism and replicated around the world, was the "Swiss House" in Paris (1930-1932), following the compositional scheme of Leonidov's Tsentrosoyuz: a multi-storey prism raised above the ground with a fully glazed facade and a staircase brought out to the outside -lift knot (ill. 3., bottom right). Due to the speed of construction, Le Corbusier made his first glass wall in the "Swiss House" - earlier than the stained glass windows of the Tsentrosoyuz, designed before this Parisian building.
Thus, the creative interaction of Le Corbusier and Soviet colleagues, among whom Leonidov occupied a special place, had a complex character of exchange, a cannon of mutual influences. Proceeding from the initial impulse received from Le Corbusier, and transferring his formal themes to a larger scale, Leonidov and Ginzburg with Milinis proposed a new type of structure, which, in turn, was borrowed by Le Corbusier - completely as his own. And thanks to the authority of the master, already in the post-war years, this type became widespread - from the UN building in New York to the Assembly and residential buildings in Brasilia by Oscar Niemeyer.
Episode 3. Personal contacts and relationships between Leonidov and Le Corbusier
For many decades, from one text to another dedicated to Leonidov, Le Corbusier's review of him as a “poet and hope of constructivism” has been wandering [7]. This is undoubtedly the highest praise in the mouth of this master of modernism, which he was generally capable of - who considered "the ability to excite", "poetry" and "lyricism" as the ultimate goals and measure of the value of architectural creativity [8]. The original source of this compliment and the circumstances of its appearance, as a rule, are not indicated and remain little known.
This is a heavily rooted quotation from Le Corbusier's article "Defense de l'architecture" [9], written in late spring 1929 on the basis of impressions from his first and on the eve of his second visit to Moscow. This text is more than interesting for understanding both the general context and the details of Le Corbusier's relationship to Leonidov, and requires extensive citation: “I am returning from Moscow. I saw attacks on Alexander Vesnin, the creator of Russian constructivism and a great artist, there with the same relentlessness. Moscow is literally torn between constructivism and functionalism. Extremes reign there too. If the poet Leonidov, the hope of architectural “constructivism,” with the enthusiasm of a 25-year-old boy glorifies functionalism and anathematizes “constructivism,” I will explain why he does this. The fact is that the Russian architectural movement is a moral shake-up, a manifestation of the soul, a lyrical impulse, an aesthetic creation, the credo of modern life. A purely lyrical phenomenon, a clear and distinct gesture in one direction - towards a solution.
Ten years later, young people, who erected a graceful, charming, but fragile building of their own lyricism on the foundation of the labors and fruits of their elders (Vesnina), suddenly begins to feel an urgent need to learn more, to get acquainted with technology: calculations, chemical and physical experiments, new materials, new machines, covenants Taylorism, etc. etc. Plunging into these necessary tasks, they begin to curse those who, having already mastered this menu, are busy with architecture itself, that is, with the best way to use all of the above."
This fragment is an extremely interesting evidence of the conflict within the Moscow nucleus of constructivists, which consisted in criticism of the Vesnin brothers who founded “constructivism” by the “youth” who had assimilated the anti-aesthetic rhetoric of A. M. Ghana and the utilitarian pathos of the "functional method" of M. Ya. Ginzburg. A conflict that was part of a wider split in the European vanguard as a whole. Between the German "functionalists" (B. Taut, G. Meyer, K. Taige with L. M. Lissitzky, who joined them) and Le Corbusier, whose historicist project "Mundaneum", accompanied by a completely outrageous statement that "useful is ugly ", Caused a scandal in the circles of the European avant-garde. Le Corbusier keenly saw the contradiction between the fashionable "scientific" rhetoric and the deep, figurative and aesthetic motives underlying Soviet constructivism. The contradiction, especially vividly, almost comically manifested in the passion of Leonidov - a bright visionary and outspoken anti-utilitarian. The way Le Corbusier writes about this suggests that we have before us the recall of a direct witness who personally knew Leonidov well in 1928. What, if not for this text, could be questioned, given the absence of Leonidov in the photographs known to us of Le Corbusier with his Soviet colleagues. In addition to this article, Le Corbusier, in a letter to Karl Moser in 1928, dedicated to the formation of the composition of the Soviet delegation to the SIAM congress in 1929 in Frankfurt, highlighted Leonidov as a "bright personality" [10] - recommending to include him in the Soviet group and at the same time skillfully dropping doubts about the advisability of inviting LM Lissitsky, his main Soviet opponent in the avant-garde environment.
If only indirect data have come down to us about the first personal contacts of Le Corbusier with Leonidov, then their last meeting is directly described in the memoirs of I. I. Leonidov Maria, published by S. O. Khan-Magomedov [11]. This interesting text tells the story of how, having arrived in Moscow in 1930, Le Corbusier expressed a desire to visit “the studio of the architect Leonidov”. Thus, putting the receiving party in a difficult position, since Leonidov, hunted by the Rapopists by this time to nervous eczema, did not have not only a workshop, but even his own home. As a result, the meeting of Le Corbusier with Leonidov was arranged, there was also a joint photograph of them "in the zoo with an elephant", and Leonidov himself, whose reputation was strengthened by the attention of a European star, soon received an apartment in a house on Gogolevsky Boulevard, 8. On the same gallery with his colleagues-constructivists, in the neighborhood of Barshch, Milinis, Pasternak and Burov. Comparing this narration with real timing, we find out that Le Corbusier was in Moscow during March 1930, while the persecution of Leonidov gained momentum in the second half of the year. Without questioning this extremely valuable evidence, it seems that this moment in Leonidov's life needs further clarification. In any case, the fact that Le Corbusier, perhaps without even realizing it, took part in the fate of Leonidov at a difficult moment in his life confirms the general conclusion that Leonidov as a "bright personality" attracted the attention of Le Corbusier, and had a noticeable influence on the work of the master of European modernism.
Episode 4. Leonidov's People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry and Assembly in Chandigarh Le Corbusier
Unlike the first two cases, the connection between the Assembly building in Chandigarh Le Corbusier (1951–1962) and the competition project of the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry of Ivan Leonidov (1934) seems less obvious and has not yet been considered by anyone. I will share my arguments in favor of this assumption. Leonidov's People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry comes to mind at the first glance at the Assembly of Le Corbusier - first of all, thanks to the hyperboloid of the hall of deputies - a decision that seemed absolutely original in the West of the 1950s, long before Leonidov became known in the West at all. The generally accepted version of the origin of this decision is Le Corbusier's borrowing of the forms of the cooling towers of the power plant in Ahmedabad, sketches of which have been preserved in his notebooks. I would venture to suggest that the Indian cooling towers were not the primary source of Le Corbusier's decision, but rather a reminder of his much earlier experiences.
First of all, it is worth finding out the likelihood that Leonidov's project was known to Le Corbusier. I. G. Lezhava transmits her conversation with N. Ya. Collie, who testified to Le Corbusier's special interest in Soviet architectural magazines, in particular, in the SA [12]. Le Corbusier's contacts with his Soviet colleagues were not interrupted until 1937: he accepted his election as Corresponding Member of the newly organized Academy of Architecture [13].
It is known that the Vesnins sent Soviet magazines to Le Corbusier until 1936. Taking into account the special attitude of Le Corbusier to Leonidov, it seems extremely unlikely that he did not pay attention to the competitive project of the NKTP Leonidov, published in the 10th issue of "Architecture of the USSR" for 1934. Thus, the assumption that Leonidov's project is unknown to Le Corbusier does not seem plausible to me.
The hyperboloid itself is far from the only thing that connects the two architectural solutions. In both cases, we have a combination of brightly modern (and Leonidov's - directly futuristic) forms with a compositional scheme that addresses us to traditional classicist prototypes. The neoclassical targeting of Leonidov's project was analyzed in detail by me earlier [14]. The neoclassical origins of Le Corbusier's solution have also been repeatedly pointed out. For example, A. Widler, among many others, points to the Berlin Old Museum (Altes Museum) K. F. Schinkel as a prototype of the Chandigarh Assembly building [15]. In both Leonidov and Le Corbusier, the hyperboloid plays the role of a "modern" version of the classicist dome. Finally, Le Corbusier reproduces the main compositional technique of Leonidov, who gave in his project the paradigm of a modernist public ensemble as a collection of extravagant sculptural volumes exhibited on a stylobate. And just a comparison of these two groups of volumes gives additional arguments for the compositional affinity of both objects. Comparative analysis is shown in Fig. 4.
In both cases, we have a combination of a hyperboloid (shown in red), a vertical prism shown in blue (for Le Corbusier, this is an elevator shaft) and a conventionally triangular object indicated in green (Leonidov's three-beam tower and a lantern pyramid above the Senate Hall). In both cases, there are transitions between objects (shown in yellow). Unlike the numerous transitions of Leonidov, Le Corbusier has only one such transition-truss leading to a curved tribune on the obliquely cut roof of a hyperboloid. But his character is recognizably Leonidov's. The very shape of the curvilinear tribune is close to the semicircular tribunes - "chags" of the Leonidov tower. The number of the above coincidences and parallels is difficult to recognize as accidental. Moreover, Leonidov's People's Commissariat for Tyazhprom seems to be almost the only logical and complete explanation of Le Corbusier's enigmatic plan.
We are accustomed to counting Leonidov's influence on the world architectural process by his discovery in the West in the 80s and his influence on the formation of trends of neo-modernism and deconstructivism. But now, having considered his creative interaction with Le Corbusier, the question of Leonidov's contribution to the formation of the formal language of architecture of the "modern movement" in its very origins should be raised. In particular, such characteristic "words" of this language as the type of multi-storey prismatic building and the hyperboloid as a form of a modernist public or religious building.
[1] CA, 1927, No. 3, pp. 100-101. [2] CA, 1927, No. 4-5, pp. 119-124. [3] CA, 1928, No. 2, pp. 63-65. [4] J.-L. Cohen, "Le Corbusier and the mysticism of the USSR", M., Art-Volkhonka, 2012. Pp. 77-110. [5] Ibid, pp. 93-95. [6] S. O. Khan-Magomedov, "Ivan Leonidov", M., Russian Avant-garde Foundation, 2010. pp. 317–325, p. 321 - testimony of Leonid Pavlov. [7] For example, S. O. Khan-Magomedov, "The architecture of the Soviet avant-garde", Book I, M., Stroyizdat, 1996. P.471. [8] Ozenfant & Jeanneret, “Pure création de l'esprit” in L'Esprit Nouveau 16, Mai 1922, p. 1903-1920. [9] Le Corbusier, "Defense de l'architecture" in L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, 1933, no. 10, pp. 58-60. Written in May-June 1929. [10] J.-L. Cohen, "Le Corbusier and the mysticism of the USSR", M., Art-Volkhonka, 2012. Pp. 151. [11] S. O. Khan Magomedov, "Ivan Leonidov", series "Idols of the Avant-garde", M., 2010, p. 334. [12] I. G. Lezhava, “Total Recall”, URL: https://ilya-lezhava.livejournal.com/4172.html [13] J.-L. Cohen, "Le Corbusier and the mysticism of the USSR", M., Art-Volkhonka, 2012. Pp. 239-247. [14] P. K. Zavadovsky, "Style" Narkomtyazhprom ", Architectural Bulletin, No. 2–2013 (131), pp. 46–53. [15] A. Vidler, “The Architectural Uncanny”, The MIT Press, 1992, p. 91.
