Russian Architecture Between 1924 And 1932 Architecture Essay

Russian architecture since the 11th century up to the early twentieth century was preponderantly spiritual. For many centuries, churches were the lone edifices that were constructed out of rock. However, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the influence of the Suprematism motion of 1915 brought about the birth of Constructivism, the modernistic architectural manner of Russia from 1924-1932. The brief period that followed the 1917 Revolution marked the beginning of the influence of the daring Constructivist motion in the construction and design of major edifices. It enjoyed a short popularity until the late 1920s when it was repudiated by the more conservative Stalinist-era architecture ( Russian Art, 2005 ) . The rules of Constructivism theory semen from three chief art motions that evolved in Europe during the early portion of the twentieth century: Russian Suprematism, Dutch Des Stijl, or Neo Plasticism, and the Bauhaus in Germany ( Constructivism, n.d. ) .

In early twentieth century Russia, peculiarly in 1917, there was a series of revolutions that finally destroyed the autarchy of the Tsar. This series of revolutions led by the workers of Russia under their leader Vladimir Lenin was known as the Russian Revolution.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The February Revolution in March of 1917 focused on St. Petersburg. During this clip, the Soviets, or workers ‘ councils, delegated to the members of the Imperial Parliament the undertaking of regulating Russia and subverting Nicholas II, the Tsar during that clip and the last of the Tsars.

Meanwhile, the Soviets, led by the socialists or Bolsheviks, had the full commitment of the lower-class citizens and workers every bit good as the political left. The Bolsheviks so formed workers reservess.

In the October Revolution that followed, the Bolshevik party under the bid of their leader Vladimir Lenin, every bit good as the workers ‘ councils, overthrew the Probationary Government in St. Petersburg. Finally, the success of the revolution paved the manner for the birth of the USSR. After this series of events, provincials took over the lands antecedently owned by the lieges and redistributed land. This besides marked the beginning of communal being particularly among the working categories, which led to the edifice of several constructivist edifices to house the first communities and to advance the political orientation of communism ( Mosley, n.d. ) .

The Suprematism Movement of 1915

Suprematism is the chief political orientation in art that inspired Constructivism, which is the prevailing architectural manner of Russia during the period from 1924 to 1932. Suprematism lasted from 1915 to 1935 and is regarded as the first systematic school of modernism based on strictly abstract pictural composings and geometric figures. It is a Russian art motion which was originally founded in Moscow in 1913 by the Russian painter Kazimir Malevich ( Suprematism, 2007 ) .

Malevich advocated Suprematism as he believed that this is the perfect manner “ to emancipate art from the ballast of the representational universe. ” He himself did this by bring forthing art consisting of geometrical forms categorically painted on the surface of the canvass. The end of Suprematism is pure esthesis and the pictural infinite should be emptied of all symbolic content as in Surrealism. Malevich believed that art has to be “ decongested and cleared ” in order to demo a new world where the most of import thing is thought every bit good as esthesis. Malevich ‘s Suprematism was besides to a great extent influenced by the so daring motions in art such as Cubism and Futurism ( Suprematism, 2007 ) .

Suprematism, sing that it was based on Malevich ‘s religious beliefs, was regarded as non-objective and unpolitical. Aside from its usage of merely geometric forms as the 1s demonstrated by constructivist signifiers of architecture, Suprematism besides emphasized the usage of a limited colour scope, which explains the overall visual aspect of constructivist edifices ( Suprematism, 2010 ) .

The Beginnings and Golden Age of Constructivism

Early Influences. The development of Suprematism led to the motion toward a non-objective art, or art without a topic, in architecture. During the early old ages of Constructivism, the Russian modernists or vanguard started encompassing Cubism and Futurism ( Constructivism, n.d. ) , which were two of the major beginnings of influence of Constructivism. Cubism was a twentieth century modern motion popularized by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque in France and other parts of Europe from 1907-1921. Futurism, on the other manus, started in Italy in 1910 and from 1920-1940 was used in the building of edifices despite the resistance of the fascist province which favored classical Roman imperial forms.

Tatlin ‘s “ Constructivism ” . In 1913-1914, the Russian and Soviet designer and painter Vladimir Tatlin used industrial stuffs to do and exhibit a figure of relief buildings. He was inspired by Italian futurist Umberto Boccioni ‘s dream of “ fictile constellations in infinite ” and Pablo Picasso ‘s 3D montages, both of which he described by utilizing the term Constructivism. Vladimir Tatlin was so the primogenitor of this post-Revolutionary motion in architecture ( Constructivism, n.d. ) .

The Constructivist Manifesto. The twelvemonth 1921 marked the visual aspect of the first Constructivist pronunciamento after the formation of the First Working Group of Constructivists in Moscow. The cardinal creative persons were Vladimir Tatlin, Kasmir Malevich, Liubov Popova, Aleksandr Rodchenko, Vavara Stepanova, Vasily Kandinsky, Naum Gabo, Antoine Pevsner, El Lissitzky ( Constructivism, n.d. ) . Actual constructivist theory and design pattern began in 1922 in concurrence with the preparation of Vesnin brothers of the program for the Palace of Labor, which was presented during a competition in 1922. However, existent edifice on a important graduated table did non get down until 1925 after the initiation of the Union of Modern Architects, the official organisation of the Russian Constructivist designers. By 1925, the first experimental office and residential edifices began their first visual aspect ( Soviet Constructivism, 2007 ) .

The Union of Modern Architects. Towards the terminal of 1925, the Constructivists of Russia formed their ain organisation as a response to the determination of the Rationalists to set up the Association of New Architects, or ASNOVA, two old ages earlier in 1923. The Union of Modern Architects, or OSA, was ab initio composed of the brothers Aleksandr, Viktor and Leonid Vesnin, Mikhail Barshch, Andrei Burov, Moisei Ginzburg, Ginzburg ‘s students Georgy Vegman, Ruvim Khiger, Vyacheslav Vladimirov, and the creative person Aleksei Gan. Ivan Nikolaev and Ilya and Panteleimon Golozov decided to fall in subsequently ( Soviet Constructivism, 2007 ) .

While the Positivists and ASNOVA focused on their hunt for strictly aesthetic abstract signifiers, the Constructivists and OSA brought to life a novel, more practical architectural signifier, with mention to the intent of the of the specific edifice, the stuffs used to build it, its design and other conditions for production, and most of all the publicity of societal development of Russia at that clip. While the Rationalist emphasized the artistic or aesthetic side of architecture, the Constructivists favored its functional facet ( Soviet Constructivism, 2007 ) .

The Golden Age of Constructivism. The period from1927 to 1929 was considered the aureate age of Russian daring architecture. In these three old ages, a little group of Russian constructivist designers was able to construct or be after the best-known edifices in the state. Among the constructions built during this clip were the Zuyev Club by Ilya Golosov, all the nines by Konstantin Melnikov and his house, Lenin ‘s Mausoleum and the Narkomzem edifice by Aleksey Shchusev, Narkomfin by Ginzburg and Milinis, the Barshch ‘s and Sinyavsky ‘s Planetarium, and Nikolaev ‘s communal house for pupils ( Soviet Constructivism, 2007 ) .

The Concept of Constructivism

Constructivism, or Constructivist Art, is a term used to depict a type of non-representational, or wholly abstract, relief building, sculpture, picture, and dynamicss. Constructivist edifices are normally ordered and frequently minimum, spacial, geometric, architectonic and experimental with how industrial stuff is used ( Constructivism, n.d. ) .

Furthermore, constructivism combined technology and advanced engineering with a dominant Communist societal intent. The motion produced several pioneering undertakings every bit good as outstanding edifices and constructions before falling out of favour during the early 1930s ( Constructivist Architecture, 2010 ) .

Early constructivist art and architecture, merely like Communism, was idealistic and seeking a new order that dealt with assorted societal and economic jobs. The visual aspect of several constructivist edifices and memorials is characterized by an accent on geometrical forms like rectangular solids and cylinders, frequently crossing each other or showing dissymmetry. Limited colour scope is another quality of constructivist edifices, with the pick of colour as flesh or white meaning simpleness in the communal society. Red was besides a really popular pick of colour for the edifices and memorials like Lenin ‘s Mausoleum as this colour was known to typify Communism. Both the geometrical accent and the bounds in colour are features of Constructivist Architecture brought about by the influence of Suprematism, which was the most dominant art motion in Russia at that clip ( Suprematism, 2010 ) .

German “ Constructivism ” or the Bauhaus Architecture. The German word “ Bauhaus ” literally means “ House of Building ” or “ Building School. ” It refers to a school in Germany celebrated for the manner and design that it taught. It is a signifier of modernist architecture that was founded by Walter Gropius and existed in Germany, some parts of Europe, the United States, and Israel from 1919 to 1933. The Bauhaus was an architectural political orientation similar to Russian Constructivism and existed at the same clip that it did. As Constructivism lost its favour because of Stalinist Neoclassicism, the Bauhaus bit by bit became inactive as the Nazi rose to power ( Zisling, 2010 ) .

Merely like Constructivist constructions, Bauhaus edifices normally possess a three-dimensional design and favour right angles owing to its geometrical figure. Nevertheless it may on occasion have rounded corners every bit good as balconies. These edifices normally have an unfastened floor program and smooth frontages ( Zisling, 2010 ) .

Below is an illustration of a Bauhaus edifice in Tel Aviv, Israel:

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_HYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_ & A ; _Culture/Architecture/Bauhaus.html ” & amp ; HYPERLINK “ hypertext transfer protocol: //www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_ & A ; _Culture/Architecture/Bauhaus.html ” _Culture/Architecture/Bauhaus.html

The Most Noteworthy Constructivist Buildings

The Rusakov Workers ‘ Club. One of the most noteworthy illustrations of constructivist architecture inMoscow is the Rusakov Workers ‘ Club. It was designed by Konstantin Melnikov and was constructed from 1927 to 1928.

On the exterior, the nine resembles a fan and in lift, it is made up of a base and three cantilevered concrete countries for the seats. If the seating countries are combined, the edifice can sit over 1,000 people while each of these three cantilevered siting countries can be used as a separate auditorium. More conventional offices are found at the rear of the edifice. Furthermore, the stuffs used in its building are glass, concrete and brick.

The constructivist individuality of the edifice is expressed in its outside, which the designer Melnikov himself described as a “ tensed musculus. ” On the exterior, the three siting countries are seen as three big rectangular solids stick outing from the walls of the edifice on the upper portion. Melnikov of course applied his ain values to its building by puting the Rusakov Workers ‘ Club, every bit good as other nines he had designed, against the hostile metropolis instead than belonging to it by using aggressively typical signifiers to do the construction appear individualist and unique against the general background of urban edifices ( Rusakov Workers Club, 2009 ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.housing.com/categories/homes/soviet-constructivist-architecture-1922-1936/rusakov-workers-club-1927-1928-konstantin-melnikov.html

Svoboda Factory Club. Another constructivist constructing deserving mentioning is the Svoboda Factory Club, or Maxim Gorky Palace of Culture. It was besides Konstantin Melnikov who designed the edifice in 1927. It was completed two old ages subsequently.

For the general design of the Svoboda Factory Club, a conventional rectangular masonry block was used as a replacing for the original program of utilizing a level egg-shaped tubing, therefore giving its design a constructivist spirit. The stairway was non curved but built directly, go forthing the cardinal dais column as the lone curvilineal component in the construction. However, although the cardinal dais column balances the left and right halves of the edifice, these halves are non indistinguishable with the north side terminal block significantly higher than the opposite 1. This alone characteristic is a quality of the individuality of the constructivist motion. However, the cardinal dais fells such a disagreement ( Svoboda Factory Club, 2009 ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.housing.com/categories/homes/soviet-constructivist-architecture-1922-1936/svoboda-factory-club-1929-konstantin-melnikov.html

Zuev Workers ‘ Club. Another outstanding illustration of constructivist architecture is the Zuev Workers ‘ Club in Moscow. The designer Ilya Golosov designed the construction in 1926 and it was finished after two old ages. The original map of the edifice was to house assorted installations for the workers of Moscow.

The advanced and alone glazing intervention at its corner and the facade formed from the dramatic “ intersection of a cylindrical glassy stairway and a stack of rectangular floor planes ” ( Zuev Workers ‘ Club, 2009 ) turn out to be really photogenic and do the Zuev Workers ‘ Club a symbol of Russian daring architecture. These two alone qualities reflect a strong unique individuality which is characteristic of Soviet Constructivism.

The stack of rectangular floor planes has behind them a sequence of nine suites and unfastened anterooms that lead to a rectangular auditorium made up of 850 seats. Golosov, like Melnikov, was an partisan non for the logics but for the dynamic signifiers Constructivist design methods. In the Zuev Workers ‘ Club, this is apparent in the vastly powerful play of the cylinder crossing the level planes ( Zuev Workers ‘ Club, 2009 ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.housing.com/categories/homes/soviet-constructivist-architecture-1922-1936/zuev-workers-club-1928-illya-golosov.html

Narkomzem. Besides known as People ‘s Commissariat of Agriculture, Narkomzem was another notable illustration of daring architecture in early twentieth century Russia. The edifice, which is now used today as a working ministry, was designed by Aleksey Shchusev and was finished in 1933.

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.housing.com/categories/homes/soviet-constructivist-architecture-1922-1936/narkomzem-1928-1933-aleksey-shchusev.html

The most dramatic constructivist characteristic of the edifice is its corner inside informations where a rectangular plane intersects with the cylindrical border. Aside from the corner inside informations, the overall dissymmetry and the thread window located on the top floor remain to be the most dramatic characteristics of Narkomzem ( Narkomzem, 2009 ) .

Melnikov ‘s House. The house of the designer Konstantin Melnikov, or merely known as Melnikov House, is one of the most noteworthy illustrations of twentieth century daring architecture. It is located in Moscow and is located good off from the street.

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.housing.com/categories/homes/soviet-constructivist-architecture-1922-1936/melnikov-house-1927-1929-konstantin-melnikov.html

Melnikov House is a edifice made up of a combination of both Futuristic and Classical designs dwelling of two meshing cylinders with the rear one perceptibly taller than the forepart. The construction is besides perforated with some 60 indistinguishable elongated hexangular Windowss provided with Constructivist glazing bars. The dissymmetry in the cylinders and the unambiguously designed hexagons are testaments to Melnikov ‘s committedness to Constructivism.

The cylinders are made from stucco-covered bricks similar to those used in Russian churches and on the facade are written the words KONSTANTIN MELNIKOV ARKHITECTOR ( Melnikov House, 2009 ) .

Narkomfin. Another Russian edifice with constructivist design is the Narkomfin edifice. It was designed by the designers Ignaty Milinis and Moisei Ginzburg along with applied scientist Sergei Prokhorov. It was constructed from 1928 to 1930 for the intent of supplying flats for the employees of the People ‘s Commissariat of Finance, of the Narkomfin. The transitional, semi-communal flat was supposed to present to the Soviet citizen the communal manner of life and to present communism into the bosom of domestic life and fix the citizens to to the full populate a communal being ( Narkomfin, 2007 ) .

Narkomfin, for its constructivist elements, had a long elegant facade with several rows of horizontal Windowss. It was topped with the Commissar ‘s penthouse doing it look like and be called “ the ship. ” Upon its completion it turned out to be an ensemble composed of three edifices: the lodging block, the communal block and a little wash edifice. The Narkomfin has remained an icon of modernism in daring architecture of Soviet Russia chiefly because of these constructivist elements that make it stand out among the remainder ( Narkomfin, 2007 ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //ciudadlab.com/blog/2008/03/narkomfin-to-be-hotel.html

The Narkomfin edifice was besides known as the most absolutely realized constructing out of all the communal edifices constructed during the Constructivist Era or in the Utopian old ages of the early Soviet Union. It was besides considered the paradigm for the modern European flat blocks and lodging estates. Now, the Narkomfin remains as a pilgrim’s journey sites for historiographers and designers from all over the universe. ( Narkomfin, 2007 ) .

Communal House of the Textile Institute. Built from 1920 to 1930, the Communal House of the Textile Institute, or the Communal House for Textile Institute Students, in Moscow is considered Ivan Nikolaev ‘s chef-d’oeuvre and is another notable architectural work of the Soviet constructivist epoch. Popularly called Nikolaev ‘s House or The Hostel, the Communal House demonstrates the “ dom kommuna, ” or the 2000 grownup learners shared cabins along an eight-storey block widening for a length of 200 metres. There was a originative mix of dining suites and recreational infinites in the low block ( Communal House, n.d. ) . The Communal House was really built for fabric pupils to populate and analyze in while following a rigorous military communal manner that starts with a wake-up call, and returns with exercising, shower, and survey.

The constructivist elements of the Communal House include half-round step towers, the triangular stairway, and the huge rectangular volumes every bit good as the dissymmetry demonstrated by the uneven intersections of the assorted planes in the facade of the edifice ( Communal House, n.d. ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Nikolaev_commune_2008_stairs_01.jpg

The Barshch ‘s and Sinyavsky ‘s Planetarium. The Barshch ‘s and Sinyavsky ‘s Planetarium, or the Moscow Planetarium, was established on November 5, 1929 and is considered at present a centre of natural scientific disciplines. The planetarium is chiefly involved in reading public talks and implementing scientific and artistic plans in cosmonautics and uranology. In the observatory of the planetarium, one can watch the maculas, the Moon, the planets and many other celestial organic structures with the usage of a telescope ( Moscow Planetarium, 2004 ) .

M. O. Barshch and M. I. Sinyavsky were responsible for the design of the planetarium and commenced the building on September 23, 1928, the twenty-four hours of the autumnal equinox ( Moscow Planetarium, 2004 ) . The planetarium was really one of the largest projection domes for any planetarium in the universe, which makes this alone characteristic one of its most outstanding features as a symbol of daring Soviet architecture. However, its vertex was merely 4cm midst ( Memorials of Constructivism, 2007 ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.stardome.ru/english/english.html # BASIC1

Red Banner Textile Factory. Located in the former metropolis of Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, the Red Banner Textile Factory was partly designed by the first foreign designer asked to plan in the USSR, Erich Mendelsohn, in 1925 to 1926, and subsequently designed by E. A. Tretyakov, S. O. Ovsyannikov, and Hyppolit Pretraeus until its completion in 1937 ( Rolling Camera, n.d. ) .

The Red Banner Textile Factory was a dynamic, futuristic big mill and was a most noteworthy illustration of Soviet Constructivist architecture. The Red Banner Factory resembled a ship with the top portion of it stick outing out of the planes. There is besides an dissymmetry with the intersection of the cylindrical and rectangular subdivisions of the edifice on the exterior. These two constructivist characteristics of the mill give it its alone individuality and do it stand out ( Rolling Camera, n.d. ) .

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.enlight.ru/camera/249/index_e.html

Noteworthy Architects of Russia from 1924-1932

Vladimir Tatlin. The Russian constructivist interior decorator Vladimir Tatlin was considered the primogenitor of Soviet Constructivism because of his radical exhibits of alleviation buildings from 1913 to 1914 ( Constructivism, n.d. ) . He was besides responsible for the visual aspect of the Constructivist Manifesto in 1921 which paved the manner for the first building of a program for a constructivist edifice in 1922 and the existent constitution of constructivist office and abode edifices in 1925 ( Soviet Constructivism, 2007 ) .

Tatlin trained at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture every bit good as in the Penza Art School. It was after finishing his formal surveies that he joined a group of daring painters and authors all over Russia. It was besides during this period that he formulated several designs for a theatre and participated in exhibitions ( Vladimir Tatlin, 2010 ) .

Konstantin Melnikov. Melnikov was one of the large names in Soviet constructivist architecture, being the designer behind the Rusakov Workers ‘ Club, the Svoboda Factory Club and his ain Melnikov House.

Melnikov apprenticed as an applied scientist after go toing the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. He studied architecture from 1912 to 1917 and it became his passion although he ab initio studied picture in 1905.

As a sentimentalist and a protagonist of Communism, Melnikov was an designer who had independency of head and rejected the rule of “ method ” in design and alternatively focused on “ intuition ” as the most indispensable factor in showing the societal and symbolic significance of an architectural signifier such as a edifice. In his plants, Melnikov struggled to unite Classicism and Leftist Modernism and frequently designed his architectural chef-d’oeuvres with explicit and symbolic historicism ( Konstantin Melnikov, 2010 ) .

Ilya Golosov. A leader of Constructivism from 1925 to 1931, Ilya Golosov was the Russian designer responsible for the design of the Zuyev Workers ‘ Club in Moscow and communal lodging in Ivanovo.

Merely like Tatlin and Melnikov, Golosov studied at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculture and Architecture. However, he besides studied in the Stroganov School of Arts. He became an learner to the designers Igor Grabar and Alexey Shchusev, who is besides a noteworthy constructivist designer. He besides worked as a military applied scientist and a instructor.

His chief feeling with the plants of the Vesnin brothers made him fall in the constructivist organisation, or the OSA Group in 1925, and from so on he started planing his chef-d’oeuvres.

However, although Golosov was a title-holder of Constructivist architecture, he regarded the architectural doctrine of Constructivism merely as ideal for exterior ornament but non for wholesomeness in footings of functional manner. These contrasting positions of his sing Constructivism finally made him abandon the daring signifier of architecture in 1932 and settled for neoclassical architecture in his plants, hence from Soviet Constructivism to Soviet Realism ( Ilya Golosov, 2010 ) .

Ivan Sergeevich Nikolaev. Another name in the Soviet Constructivist architects hall of celebrity is Ivan Nikolaev. He was celebrated for the constructivist design and even the preparation of the regulations and ordinances of the Communal House of the Textile Institute built from 1929 to 1931. He devised a instead stiff and Communist process for the members of the preparation institute which was supposed to be followed through really individual twenty-four hours: a wake-up call, exercising, shower and survey.

In add-on Nikolaev was besides celebrated for his modernist campus of the Moscow Power Engineering Institute. He, nevertheless, abandoned his constructivist beliefs in order to follow Stalinist architecture ( Constructivist Architecture, 2010 ) .

Aleksey Shchusev. Another outstanding name in daring Soviet architecture of early twentieth century Russia was Aleksey Shchusev. Shchusev was responsible for the constructivist designs of the Kazan Railway Station, the Narkomzem, or Agriculture Ministry, edifice in Moscow, and most of import of all, Lenin ‘s Mausoleum on Red Square, which he designed merely in a arresting period of three yearss ( Narkomzem, 2007 ) . Another one of his constructivist designs was the Institute of Resorts in Sochi, which he designed from 1927 to 1931. Shchusev was tasked to plan many more edifices after 1932 and some say that he was even the conceiver of Gothic skyscrapers in Moscow ( Soviet Constructivist, 2009 ) .

Shchusev studied a the Imperial Academy of Humanistic disciplines from 1891 to 1897 and his travels to North Africa and Central Asia from 1894 to 1899 may hold somehow influenced his partial non-adherence to pure Constructivism. It is besides deserving adverting that even before Shchusev designed edifices, he was already tasked to reconstruct church and to plan a cathedral during the first 10 old ages of the twentieth century. His Restoration of the St. Basil Church in Ukraine, his designs for the Trinity Cathedral in Pochayiv Lavra, and the Marfo-Mariinsky Convent in Moscow made him one of the best and most various designers of his clip ( Soviet Constructivist, 2009 ) .

Erich Mendelsohn. The expressionist designer Erich Mendelsohn was a German Judaic designer and the first foreign designer who was allowed by the USSR to work for them. In 1926, he partly designed the Red Flag Textile Factory in St. Petersburg. The constructivist design of the outside of the mill made it resemble a ship. This peculiar chef-d’oeuvre of Mendelsohn is similar to the Mossehaus, which he himself designed in Berlin. He besides designed the rear position of the Einstein Tower in Potsdam and the Cohen House in London, all of which had designs similar to that of Soviet Constructivism.

Mendelsohn studied architecture at the Technical University of Berlin and the Technical University of Munich, where he graduated cum laude in 1812. His initial work before he became an international architectural interior decorator was as an independent designer in Munich ( Erich Mendelsohn, 2010 ) .

Yakov Chernikhov. One of the title-holders of Russian Constructivism, non needfully for his existent plants but for his theories, was the name Yakov Chernikhov. Possibly Chernikhov ‘s merely existent architectural accomplishment was the Red Nail Maker ‘s Factory, or Red Carnation Factory, built in St. Petersburg from 1930 to 1931. The remainder of Chernikhov ‘s celebrity is attributed to his written plants.

Chernikhov studied at the Odessa Art School where he taught pulling and chalk outing old ages subsequently, and at the Academy of Arts at St. Petersburg where he graduated in 1925. He so joined the Constructivist motion and alternatively of concentrating on the existent pattern of his profession, he wrote and published a series of books which showcased his constructivist architectural phantasies: Fundamentalss of Modern Architecture, written from 1929 to 1930 ; Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms, written in 1931 ; and Architectural Fantasies: 101 Compositions, written in 1933. These three books did non merely do him celebrated all over the universe but besides became a beginning of inspiration to many coevalss of designers. He had five more books published from 1934 to 1948 ( Architect-artist, n.d. ) .

His first book, Fundamentalss of Modern Architecture, emphasized the beginnings of architectural signifiers, scenes and rules, which, harmonizing to Chernikhov, are based on dissymmetry, the harmoniousness of the constituents, beat of the multitudes, beat of proportions and the daze of the expressivity of its elements ( Fundamentalss, n.d. ) . The ideals of the book are explicitly expressed by the words of Chernikhov himself:

“ By rejecting bare, ascetic, “ boxed ” architecture, which offers no architectural impregnation of infinite and does non fulfill our oculus from the aesthetic side or the side of emotional experience, I tried through consonant rhyme of basic multitudes to accomplish a genuinely expressive architectural image in new signifiers ” ( Fundamentals, n.d. ) .

A sample of Chernikhov ‘s study in the Fundamentals is a constructivist geometrical theoretical account of a edifice like the one below:

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.icif.ru/Engl/cyc/oca/pages/OCA-167_1978-1-166-01.htm

Chernikhov ‘s 2nd book, Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms, he enumerates the assorted architectural signifiers of the Industrial Age and defines the function and importance of machines in Constructivism.

A sample of his study of a constructivist edifice from the Construction is as follows:

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.icif.ru/Engl/cyc/kamf/pages/35.htm

Chernikhov ‘s 3rd book, Architectural Fantasies: 101 Compositions, is said to be the greatest book published during his life. It is all about the architectural signifiers in his head which go on to be hard and impossible to realize during his clip. In this book, Chernikhov underlines the function of architectural phantasies. He even defines them in his ain words:

“ Architectural phantasy stimulates the designer ‘s activity, it arouses originative idea non merely for the creative person but it besides educates and arouses all those who come in contact with him ; it produces new waies, new pursuits, and opens new skylines ” ( Architectural Fantasies, n.d. ) .

An illustration of his study of a constructivist edifice from his Architectural Fantasies is as follows:

Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.icif.ru/Engl/cyc/101/pages/19.htm

Decline of Constructivism

A competition for a grandiose undertaking for the Palace of the Soviets was held in 1932. The constructivists joined the competition with their best entries. However, there was an ever-growing unfavorable judgment of Modernism as that clip, and this affected every bit good all the Soviet Constructivism. The winning entry was hence non constructivist but an eclectic Stalinist architecture undertaking by Boris Iofan. By the terminal of the 1920s, Constructivism was finally replaced by Postconstructivism, which featured edifices designed in a composite manner and bore close resemblance to Neoclassicism ( Constructivist Architecture, 2010 ) .