Russian Constructivism

So far in our journey back into the history of modern architecture, nothing has shocked me more than the planned construction of the Palace of the Soviets—an overpowering monument that if it had not been hindered by the German Invasion in Russia, would have been the tallest tower of its time.

This building was shocking to me because it is just so ridiculous in how literal it is in its intention of superiority. Other than being extremely massive, the building is built up like a ziggurat, a place dedicated to honoring and worshiping the government. This sort of literal representation of the government’s attitude in dominating its people is very telling in the design. The building was meant to be intimidating to all, challenging of all, and it had to be the most, the best, and the greatest. Not just in this building, but also in the other buildings of the Russian Constructivism movement.

Another example of architecture literally posing a challenge can be seen in Vladimir Tatlin’s design for his challenge against the Eiffel Tower, so modestly named, Tatlin’s Tower. The Eiffel tower, at the time of its erection, was a controversial move. This exploration with then-innovative materials resulted in something that was much different from anything that had come out of Paris before—but it was a success. The Eiffel tower was a big deal, whether you loved it or despised it. It became a symbol that elevated France in world powers—something that Russia may have been very jealous of. I use the word jealously playfully, but honestly, it holds some truth. If a single person had designed the Palace of the Soviets for themselves would have been regarded as someone competitive and insecure in the strength of their power. This was the attitude of Russia at this time, striving to be the best of everything. This is also why when Vladimir Tatlin was “inspired” by the Eiffel tower, he didn't just let it influence his design, rather, the Eiffel Tower was something for Tatlin’s design to conquer. Not surprisingly, the resulting design was as loud and eccentric as would be expected. And of course, it was a little bit taller than the Eiffel tower.

This was the Russian Constructivist movement. Things had to be bigger and better—and by a mile, not an inch. This new step in design required a great technical understanding of materials, in order to appear innovative and knowledgeable The designs of this movement also shied away from ornamentation. Perhaps this was because ornamentation was considered by some to be “not architecture,” but just additions to architecture that falls short. Ornamentation can also be seen as feminine and weak, while industrial features and strong verticality can be seen as masculine and powerful. These are all ideas that personify the power-hungry attitudes of the time when Russia was to become a communist society.

Victor Horta and Art Nouveau

In this post, I’d like to discuss the work of Victor Horta, an architect in the late 19^th century. Horta designed in the art nouveau style, which was a movement grown out of the arts and crafts style, but embraced the advances in the industrial revolution going on at the time. The arts and crafts movement was in response to saving the craftsmanship and design that was feared to become lost in the influence of industrial mass production.  Architecture theorist and arts and crafts idealist John Ruskin believed that the purpose of arts and crafts was to save what may become lost with the use of machines. The oncoming artists of art nouveau, such as Victor Horta also believed in the importance of craftsmanship, however they realized that industry could have a place in the process of craftsmanship. This notion goes against Ruskin, who may not have agreed that true artistry could emerge without the blood, sweat, and tears of the craftsman’s hand. The truth was, new forms became possible because of the advancement in technology of the industrial age.

Still along arts and crafts ideals, art nouveau valued craftsmanship, detail, and ornamentation. However, the design of the ornamentation at this time was different than what had been seen in the past. Earlier ornamentation featured patterns of geometric and natural symbols. Unlike the flowers and vines used in past design, art nouveau embraced nature with an influence from organic forms, rather than depicting actual nature carved into the artwork.

The emergence of these new forms in design was partly made possible by the technological advances brought on by the industrial revolution. The elegant forms of the metalwork in Horta’s Tassle Hotel are telling of this. To achieve these forms shows an understanding of materials and the intelligence of the designer—a Le Duc ideal. Also in-line with Le Duc’s thinking, Horta believed in the use of modern materials. His work shows the dare of pushing a material to its potential—past its potential, to discover the possible beauty of materials.

The forms in Horta’s work could not have been created so magnificently without the combined expertise of both the craftsmen and the designer. The only difference is between the craftsmen during the industrial revolution and during Ruskin’s time was that the craftsman was now skilled in the use of new tools. Machinery did not hinder the art; it was a new tool for the craftsman.

In a sense, Horta carried on the ideals of both Ruskin and Le Duc in their most contrasting ideals: Ruskin’s belief that beauty and architecture came from the skill of the craftsman, while Le Duc believed that it came from the intelligence of the designer. The further advancement of technology, of what technology allowed us to begin to do with materials, is what brought machinery-built forms back up to par with “hand-made” pieces.

Architect: Victor Horta. (2012). Great Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.greatbuildings.com/

architects/Victor_Horta.html

Greenhalgh, Paul. A New Style for a New Age. (2000). National Gallery of Art: Anatomy of an Exhibition. Retrieved from http://www.nga.gov/feature/nouveau/exhibit_intro.shtm