The history of Soviet architecture, which was taught in the USSR (and is taught in Russia now), was formulated in such a way as to create the impression of spontaneity and naturalness of all its stylistic perturbations. As if the architects themselves came to the need to first change the "exhausted" modern architecture to the Stalinist Empire style in 1932, and then, on mature reflection, returned in the mid-1950s to modern architecture in the Khrushchev version … The government only followed their lead …
This picture is false, absurd, but strikingly stable. In any case, the word "censorship" is still a stumbling block in professional discussions. Few believe in its existence in Soviet times. The word itself is perceived as alien and inapplicable to the history of Soviet architecture. Although in reality only the most severe censorship control over all architectural activities in the country owe their existence to those phenomena that are usually called "Stalinist" and "Khrushchev" architecture.
Here is a brief description of how the caesure organs were formed in the USSR after Stalin made a nationwide style reform in the spring of 1932.
***
From the spring of 1932 to the summer of 1933 - while the design of the Palace of Soviets is in progress - the incubation period of the style revolution lasted. Confusion reigns in the architectural environment. The trend is clear but not articulated.
In 1932 the design system was reorganized. In Mosproekt, instead of sectors, workshops were created, headed by the leading Soviet architects at that time. [one]
In the Architectural and Technical Council of Mosproekt, an Architectural and Art Section chaired by Zholtovsky with the participation of Alexei Shchusev, Grigory Barkhin, Ilya Golosov, Alexander Vlasov and Isaak Cherkassky " sketch stage, then again subject to consideration. A real organizational mechanism appeared, which made it possible, finally, to “correct” (in the words of A. V. Lunacharsky) the development of architecture in the right direction”. [2]
This is how the composition of the first censorship department in Soviet architecture looked like.
***
The Moscow letters of the German architect Bruno Taut give an idea of the nature of the control of this mechanism. Taut worked at Mosproekt in 1932 and observed the process of introducing a new style from the inside. According to Taut, Zholtovsky's authority relied solely on "princely favor", he had very few adherents, and therefore he behaved extremely cautiously. [3] The character of this "princely favor" sheds light on Bruno Taut's description of the discussion of competition projects for the general plan of Moscow on August 2, 1932, with the participation of Kaganovich. He in his speech, referring directly to architecture, said:
“Why not classicism? Maybe we'll learn something here … ". [four]
The meeting ended with a sumptuous banquet attended by Kaganovich, Bulganin, Yenukidze and Bubnov. A lot of laudatory toasts were made to Kaganovich and the government: "… Meyerhold with the highest theatrical Byzantine proclaimed him the greatest architect, and Zholtovskoy proclaimed him at the end a member of the Academy, to which he noticed that he had already had one quite respectable profession - a shoemaker." [five]
In a letter from Moscow dated October 16, 1932, Bruno Taut described his impressions of the projects of the Palace of Soviets of the third round: “Yesterday we saw the latest projects of the Palace of Soviets. Everything is styled up to the classics, up to Ginzburg, who is very weak, and Vesnin, who also did not distinguish himself. Shchusev's model was inserted into the model of the entire urban environment and was of such an eerie size that the Kremlin and everything else looked like a toy. Despite the fact that this project with its three million m23 still the smallest, while Zholtovsky built a box with reminiscences from the Doge's Palace in 8 million m3… This means at least 150-400 million rubles for construction costs. In the evening, after a meeting of the new technical council in Mosproekt, Shchusev, who is the chairman there, told me that he was terribly tired at the Palace of Soviets, that his plan was the best, but the government demands classicism, which is completely unattainable. " [6]
In another letter, Taut conveys the story of the architect Weinstein about one of the meetings of the architectural and artistic section of the Mosproekt in December 1932: “Shchusev and his staff made many sketches of facades, including classicist ones, and everything was in vain, Shchusev sat at the last meeting completely overwhelmed: all possibilities are exhausted. The only one who could save the situation is Zholtovsky. " [7]
In a letter to his brother dated October 21, 1932, Taut gives a devastating characterization of the state of Soviet architecture: “If the Nazis and others knew what real cultural Bolshevism looks like! Cultural Bolshevism today: rejection of new architecture, Bauhaus, Corbusier, etc., new music, love for ingratiating themselves, for dolls and ornaments on houses, for terrible, ill-understood classicism, for lack of ideas in architecture and art. " [8]
Taut watched with disgust the introduction of Stalinist classicism into Soviet design. "He pleased me in the country of amusing architecture" [9] he writes to Berlin from Moscow on October 28, 1932.
Echoes of these events can be found in the diaries of the artist Evgeny Lansere, who was in close contact with both Shchusev and Zholtovsky at that time and recorded their conversations and reviews: “On the removal of Ginzburg, Lakhovsky (apparently Ladovsky - D. Kh.) from the professors, their work - a mockery of the Soviet government. A joke about the house built by Ginzburg. [10] "That they still got off cheaply." Br [atya] Vesnins - for the last time they were allowed to participate. Zholtovsky and Iofan, a communist architect, are invited to the meetings. About the role of Shchusev; about the role of Lunacharsky - as he was ordered to give feedback on Zh [Oltovsky's] project: he stayed for 2 hours, approved; then he called a cell, the cat [yelling] against; wrote the theses against Zh [Oltovsky]; ordered to "get sick." Al [Eksei] Tolstoy was ordered to write an article [11] (under “our dictation”) for classicism (Shchusev: “here is a scoundrel, but yesterday he scolded me the classics”); Zh [Oltovsky]: "I knew that there would be a turn." [12]
These fragmentary recordings give rise to an interesting picture of the struggle for a place under the sun in the architectural elite - between the leading constructivists on the one hand and Zholtovsky and Shchusev on the other, the latter acting as the spokesmen for the will of the government. For the Vesnins, Ginzburg, Ladovsky, these are rearguard battles for the preservation of professional values. For Zholtovsky, too. "Classics" as a state style formed under his leadership is a goal to which he has been consistently moving since 1918. For Shchusev, it’s just a practical opportunity to secure a place at the top. Shchusev still treats constructivism well, which is also recorded by Lanceray in a note dated July 21, 1933 (after the final draft of the Palace of Soviets was approved): “Shchusev was at my place in the evening. for many categories of buildings. Compares constructivism with the human skeleton …”[13].
The fall of Vesnins, Ginzburg and Ladovsky, expected by Shchusev and Zholtovsky, did not happen at that moment, although their careers were clearly going downhill, and their projects were categorically contrary to government directives.
***
On September 23, 1933, a resolution was adopted by the Moscow City Party Committee and the Presidium of the Moscow City Council "On the organization of the design of buildings, city planning and the allotment of land." The Mosproekt Institute was liquidated and ten design and ten planning workshops were created - "along the main thoroughfares of the city, working under the leadership of the city planning department and the chief architect of the department." This was a twisted implementation of the Mosproekt reorganization plan, which Bruno Taut had developed a year earlier on behalf of the Mosproekt bosses, counting on the promised position of its director.
The workshops were subordinate to the Architectural and Planning Committee of the Moscow Soviet, which was headed by Lazar Kaganovich, secretary of the Moscow Committee of the CPSU (B) and member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B). Thus, it turned out that the architecture of Moscow, and, consequently, of the entire USSR (since the province was oriented towards Moscow), is officially led by a member of the Politburo.
On November 11, 1933, Eugene Lansere writes in his diary: “Both Zh [oltovsky] and Sh [sev] believe that the architectural“front”in the coming years will be of most interest to the government. Zh [oltovsky] gives lessons in architecture [to] Kaganovich, a "secret professor", called him Sh [sev. " [14]
The atmosphere of this time is well illustrated by the entry in Lancer's diary dated September 9, 1935 (by this time the new style has been practiced for three years): “On the evening of the 8th I was at Zholtovsky's…. In Arplan, in architecture, there is a genius chaos. The work is terribly difficult; everyone is on the nerves; We fought with K [aganovich] from 1 to 3 am. He rejects everything, hardly looks. Looking for a “Soviet” style, while other members of the government want a classic one; persecution against the baroque. " [15]
***
By the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated October 14, 1933, the All-Union Academy of Architecture was created under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. Rector Mikhail Kryukov. It was something like a higher educational institution for the retraining of young certified architects, who studied in the constructivist times for the classicists.
As it was explained in the Academy of Architecture magazine created at the same time, "… architectural education in our country had two decisive flaws: the university did little and poorly educate the future architect on classical and best examples of architecture. A deep study of the history of architecture, without mastering which there can be no good architect, was absent within the walls of the university. " [16]
One hundred graduate students had to master the art of "heritage revival" within three years.
In 1938, the entire top of the academy was arrested, Kryukov died in 1944 in a camp in Vorkuta. In August 1939, the All-Union Academy of Architecture was reorganized and turned into the Academy of Architecture of the USSR, headed by President Viktor Vesnin.
On the basis of scientific offices, three research institutes are organized - the Institute for the Architecture of Mass Structures, the Institute for the Architecture of Public and Industrial Structures, and the Institute for Urban Planning and Planning of Populated Areas. The main task of the Academy, as a scientific institution, is to wage a "decisive struggle for the ideological nature of our architecture, the struggle against any simplification and excesses, eclecticism and stylization, with the remnants of constructivism and false" classics ". [17]
An institute of full members of the Academy of Architecture was created. They include seven people who had the pre-revolutionary title of "Academician of Architecture" (which then had a completely different meaning - something like a Soviet candidate of sciences) [18] and 14 new Soviet academicians. Among them are the former leading constructivists Moses Ginzburg, Alexander and Viktor Vesnin, Nikolai Kolli, Alexander Nikolsky. Only twenty people. None of the former members of ASNOVA made it into the architectural elite.
The Union of Soviet Architects was officially established in July 1932. [19] Executive Secretary - Karo Halabyan. The board includes representatives of all architectural trends. Two years later, in November 1934, in the Organizing Committee of the Union of Soviet Architects elected at the All-Union Meeting of Architects, the representatives of ASNOV, N. Ladovsky and V. Balikhin, who had not proved themselves badly in the process of re-education, were no longer found.
The opening of the first Congress of the Union of Soviet Architects in 1935 was scheduled for March 1936. Overseeing its preparation was entrusted to Alexander Shcherbakov, head of the Department of Cultural Education of the Central Committee, a future candidate for membership in the Politburo (1941). However, the congress took place only in June 1937. Perhaps this postponement was associated with the idea of Viktor Vesnin to create a "unified state leadership of architecture" within the People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry. In January 1935, Vesnin submitted a memorandum to his head Sergo Ordzhonikidze, which outlined a project for a similar reorganization of the Office of the Chief Architect of the People's Commissariat for Tyazhprom [20]. Apparently, an end to these plans was put by Ordzhonikidze's suicide on February 18, 1937, and the subsequent loss by the People's Commissariat of Tyazhprom of its central importance in the management of the Soviet economy.
Viktor Vesnin was the de facto head (chairman of the Orgburo) of the Union of Architects of the USSR from 1932 to 1937, and from 1939 until his death in 1949 - the president of the (first) Academy of Architecture of the USSR. At the same time, as the author of the book about the Vesnin brothers, MA Ilyin, writes, “… in the hands of Vesnin, the threads of management of almost the entire industrial architecture of the Soviet Union were concentrated” [21]. Apparently, the latter explains his incredibly high hierarchical status in Stalin's times, despite past sins.
At the top of the Union of Architects were represented both professional party members (Karo Alabyan, Arkady Mordvinov) and elderly venerable architects with pre-revolutionary experience (Alexei Shchusev, Ivan Zholtovsky, Vladimir Shchuko), and former leaders of constructivism (the Vesnin brothers, Moisei Ginzburg).
Since the beginning of the 1930s, the Union of Soviet Architects and the Academy of Architecture of the USSR played the role of censorship departments, ensuring the implementation of party directives in the field of architecture and style control throughout the USSR.
The Union of Soviet Architects performed this function until the last days of Soviet power.
[1] “Attaching a number of major architects to Mosproekt, along with replenishing it with young people, radically changed the structure of the project trust:“responsible architects-authors”,“responsible design engineers”were selected, architectural workshops were created, which were headed by the authors of the projects I. V. … Zholtovsky, A. V. Shchusev, G. B. Barkhin, I. A. Golosov, S. E. Chernyshev, A. V. Vlasov, G. P. Golts, M. P. Parusnikov, M. O. Barshch, M. I. Sinyavsky, G. A. Zundblat, A. A. Kesler, I. I. Leonidov, S. N. Kozhin, I. N. Sobolev and others”, Kazus, Igor, Soviet architecture of the 1920s: design organization. Moscow, 2009, p. 165, 250. [2] Kazus, Igor, Soviet architecture of the 1920s: design organization. Moscow, 2009. S. 165. [3] Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932-1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 297 [4] Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932-1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 223. [5] Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932-1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 224. [6] Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932-1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 276 [7] Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932 -1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 317 [8] Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932 -1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 285 [9] From a letter to Bruno Taut from Moscow, 28 October. 1932 ("In ein ulkiges Architekturland ist man hineingeraten") Kreis, Barbara. Bruno Taut. Moskauer Briefe 1932-1933. Berlin, 2006, S. 287. [10] Apparently, this refers to the building of the People's Commissariat for Finance on Novinsky Boulevard in Moscow. [11] Tolstoy A. The search for monumentality // Izvestia. 1932.27 February. The article was published the day before the announcement of the results of the All-Union competition for the project of the Palace of Soviets (February 28). [12] Lanceray, Eugene. Diaries. Book two. M., 2008, p. 625-626 [13] Lanceray, Eugene. Diaries. Book two. M., 2008, p. 740 [14] Lanceray, Eugene. Diaries. Book three. M., 2009, p. 756. [15] Lanceray, Eugene. Diaries. Book three. M., 2009, p. 189-190 [16] Our tasks // Academy of architecture. - 1934. - No. 1-2. - S. 5. [17] "Architecture of the USSR", No. 10, 1939, p.1. [18] G. I. Kotov, I. V. Zholtovsky, A. V. Shchusev and A. I. Dmitriev, G. D. Grimm, A. N. Beketov [19] "Izvestia" No. 167, July 18, 1932 [20] M. A. Ilyin. Vesnins. Moscow, 1960, p. 102. [21] M. A. Ilyin. Vesnins. Moscow, 1960, p. 101.
