In recent years, Soviet architecture has paved the way of creative restructuration and the struggle for the high artistic and technical quality of buildings. This struggle demanded, first of all, overcoming the vulgar simplification that has distorted the style of Soviet architecture. Lately, new buildings have appeared on the streets of our cities; neither their appearance nor their internal structure retains the dull, soulless stamp of former box-houses. Architectural mastery is growing; new talented craftsmen are growing from among the youth, and there is a growing desire to create architectural works worthy of our great era. The best example of a truly Soviet architectural work is the Moscow Metro.

However, even today, there is a lot of negligence and botch in our architectural practice (see “Pravda” – February 3, “Architectural Freaks”). Outrageous oversimplification, disregard for the most immediate human needs; attempts to hide the absence of any meaningful content behind external gloss, an unprincipled jumble of various forms and mechanically copied, various architectural monuments of the past that are not related to each other – these features are still typical for many projects and finished buildings.

Here, for example, a recently commissioned large residential building on Pokrovka N37 (Moscow). Not to mention the stylistic confusion of the facade, indifferent attitude to the architectural appearance of a large Soviet apartment building; not a single apartment has a kitchen. Such an “innovation” is a consequence of the left-wing direction at the artificial planting of domestic communes.

According to the builders of this house (Mosgorzhilstroysoyuz built based on the project of the engineer Znamensky, the facade designer is Snesarev), the utility room and dining room should be created in the neighbouring house in Mashkovy lane, N15. The danger of the forced liquidation of individual kitchens became apparent to builders only when the house was practically ready. They ended up putting electric cookers in the bathroom in fifty apartments and in the living rooms in the rest of flats, including seventeen one- bedroom apartments. And this leftist architectural “idea” was carried out with the blessing of the architectural, planning and construction management of the Moscow City Council.

Some unfortunate builders understood the use of architectural heritage in a very peculiar way. They unceremoniously began to mechanically copy various models of classical architecture and to mix the most diverse architectural forms in the same mechanical and unceremonious manner.

On Gorky Street, the building of the People’s Commissariat of the Forest Industry has recently been re-constructed and extended. Indeed, the old, sullen facade of this large house-box disfigured the street, but why did the architect Tikhonov need to “decorate” the facade of the Commissariat building with pompous, false architectural attributes?

Huge columns were attached to the front of the house from the side of the alley, in no way justified or connected with the composition of the whole building. The architect mechanically transferred into his building the forms of the 16th century Italian palazzo (palace). This gave the Soviet building the appearance of a dull “state house” (prison, VM). Of course, such a mechanical, tasteless use of randomly selected forms and parts of ancient architectural monuments has nothing to do with the critical development and use of the best images of classical architecture.

It is even worse when the imitation of the classics takes on the character of a disorderly mixture of various architectural motifs. An example of such a peculiar architectural cacophony is the newly built large house on the Leningradskoe Highway, N92 / 96. The author of the project, architect Efimovich, operates with forms of various styles that are not related to each other, and cares only for one thing – as if to create as a “rich” or “chic” fagade as possible. The architect Efimovich and manufacturers of “saccharine beauty” like him are dangerous because they pull towards the petty bourgeoisie, instilling a taste for ostentatious parade.

The false, pseudo-revolutionary “novelty” that petty- bourgeois formalists from architecture are trying to implant, matches the harmful pursuit of philistinism, embellishment and cheap effects. Undoubtedly, the architect K. Melnikov, who was “famous for” the ugly building of the communal club on Stromynka, is the most assiduous of them. Many Muscovites and visitors who come to this area of the capital, shrug their shoulders in surprise at the sight of huge concrete tumours, of which the architect made the main facade, managing to place the balconies of the auditorium in these growths. The fact that this monstrous undertaking (e.g. simultaneously incredibly complicated the structure, increased its cost and disfigured the appearance of the building, did not bother the architect. His main goal – to throw out a trick, to make a “terribly original” building- was achieved. And this is the only thing that “innovators” like Melnikov are trying to achieve.

The Melnikov’s project of the house of the People’s Commissariat of Industry in Red Square is distinguished with the same miserable trickiness and disregard of the elementary requirements of expediency. Under this project (fortunately, it remains only a project), Melnikov tries to drive 16 floors under the ground; he composes open stairs that lead from the square to the 41st floor of the above-ground part of the building directly (they designed 57 floors in total), and attempts to implement other suchlike balancing acts. Melnikov and his comrades-in-arms (N. Khokhryakov, I. Lebedev, I. Trankvilitsky) understand architecture as unprincipled creation of forms, which allows the builder to exercise his own self-crap.

Epigones of Western European constructivism see the source of the artistic expressiveness of architecture only in construction, in the material.

This drastically impoverishes architectural creativity and often turns a building into a joyless grey barracks. A typical example is the house of the People’s Commissariat of Industry on Kirov Street (designed by the architect Corbusier) where the schematic of forms, the exposure of structures and materials have turned the building into some strange pile of concrete, iron and glass.

Soviet architecture serves not a narrow circle of “customers” but millions of working people in cities and a villages. Not only do the appearance of our cities largely depend on the quality of architectural works, but so does the growth of culture in everyday life. That is why it is necessary to banish every kind of falsity and unprincipled-ness from our architectural practice with a special determination, no matter what garments they are covered with.

An architectural product, i.e. a finished building, is amenable to correction and alteration only in very rare cases and with great difficulty. Therefore, architecture in particular requires maximum vigilance and demanding.

Architect.
Pravda, February 20, 1936

Lovers of beautiful words often call architecture “petrified music”. But, unfortunately, not only good music can incarnate in the stone. In Moscow, for example, there are architectural structures, naively referred to as “houses,” from which passers-by shy away in horror.

One of these houses – the Club of Communal Services on Stromynka – caused fierce controversy in its time. However, disputes pass like passers-by; while the houses remain, especially since the architect of the “controversial” building, the architect K. Melnikov, managed to endow the Moscow streets with a whole range of his inconceivable buildings.

Many centuries ago, the artist Hieronymus Bosch endowed his canvases with crowds of monstrous freaks; people with bird heads, feathered hunchbacks, winged reptiles, and hideous two-legged creatures. But even the most painful medieval imagination, Bosch’s darkest fantasies, turn pale before the works of Melnikov, before the ugliness of his buildings, where all human ideas about architecture are set upside down. The “house” that this architect built in Krivoarbatsky Lane is a convincing illustration of our point. This stone cylinder can be a place of forced imprisonment, a silo tower, anything, but not a house in which people would settle voluntarily.

And this sort of “upside down architecture,” as the honourable professor called it, contrary to all expectations, turned out to be the “last word” of artistic “innovation.” Architect Melnikov tirelessly creates new caricatured projects, wowing colleagues with the “overthrow of architectural canons.” These projects become the product of thoughtful, expert examinations and the “direction” of Melnikov is imitated by delighted students.

From the last issue of The Architectural Newspaper, dated February 12, we learned that this same indefatigable architectural magician proposed a house project for the 1st Meshchanskaya Street that should become one of the most beautiful streets in Moscow. It turns out that “there is absolutely no corner in the house. Instead, he designed a gap overlapped by a very thin decorative arch on top. Below, the author has two stairs that lead in unknown direction.

“The stairs leading to unknown” is Melnikov’s latest stunt. They literally stunned the experts who have analysed the project.

“Details” – this is what made the experts hesitate about this house that reminds the decoration to “Princess Turandot”, with a platform as if for a fair booth and stairs leading nowhere ... And ... Professor Brahin is very concerned that the existing six- storey house at the Botanical Garden is not included in the project. Without this, you see, the project “cannot be clearly read.”

Wise experts decided to submit the “unclear” project for consideration by the Presidium of the Moscow Council and MK VKP (b), and the Arkhitekturnaya Gazeta registered this fact without a murmur, having deafly promised to return to the evaluation of the project in the future ...

Now, when unprecedented construction is unfolding in the country, when cities are decorated with magnificent buildings, when the Soviet people are looking for the embodiment of a new life, joy, happiness, beauty in everything that surrounds it, the issues of architecture are of great importance. Architects are obliged to respond to the demands of people of the Soviet country, who await help not only in the capitals and large cities, but also in distant auls of Kabarda. We built the wonderful underground, the monumental committee house of STO, a new hotel and dozens of beautiful buildings; we are building the magnificent Palace of Soviets. There are buildings of public institutions, theatres, cinemas and residential houses around the country. Collective farms impose a demand for the architectural design of a new village, right up to cattle-breeding farms and pigsties. Here people are offered ugly blueprints of some lifeless, absurd, abstruse, formalistic tricks, and serious experts, authoritative experts mumble something about “details of an obscure plan” and absolve themselves of responsibility for the final solution of the issue!

Doesn’t this explain the fact that the new Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union, is disfigured by a dozen of ugly constructions like those of the Melnikov’s clubs? Focusing on the “latest achievements” of the bourgeois fashion, drawing on the “ideas” of his work in the decline of capitalist architecture, Melnikov creates his hypertrophied freaks with rare perseverance.

“We can hardly call another such architect, whose creative path would have been distinguished by the same straightforwardness and consistency throughout the entire revolution,” R. Higer writes about him in the latest issue of the journal “Architecture of the USSR”. The author timidly tries to say the obvious truth: the king is naked! – But so many reservations, bows, friendly exhortations, and diplomatic squandering are lavished! “Melnikov is an architectural equilibrist and lover of paradox” writes Higer, but immediately begins to try to convince that this equilibrist “can become one of the interesting masters of the new architecture of socialism.” Of course he can, but on the condition that his friends and colleagues will not hesitate before this “unique inventive talent”, will mumble indecisively their helpless pseudo-scholarly nonsense before his drawings and will not take seriously building projects for “rationalization of sleep” or structures, the shape of which bird’s-eye view (!!) resembles... a hammer and sickle.

Comrade architects! Finish your bird flight. Go down to the earth – your work is more visible from here. Here, a place is given to you! Here and now, create the beautiful architecture of a socialist country without a rotten, insincere, fake liberalism, which is no less dangerous than unrealizable projects of formalistic magicians.

(Komsomolskaya Pravda, February 18, 1936)

The central organ of our party, “Pravda”, has placed articles about art and culture in several issues. In these articles, it is indicated with all determination that formalism in literature, cinema and architecture is deeply hostile to the ideas of socialist culture. Pravda opposes eclecticism, oversimplification, vulgarity and hackwork in art with the same determination.

A critical approach to art is not only a matter for a narrow circle of specialists, but also for the entire Soviet public. This fully applies to architecture.

Architecture is an integral part of the building of socialism. It should create facilities that will correspond to the greatness of the Stalin era, and provide the best conditions for the lives of workers. We want the people to own the streets they walk on.

Our path is the path of socialist realism. Hence, the architecture must be truthful first of all. We talk a lot about truthfulness in architecture but, unfortunately, we confine ourselves to general phrases. Let’s try to specify them.

Many of our architects had the opportunity to visit Western European countries and become acquainted with the best architectural monuments, beginning from ancient Greece. For example, in Pompeii they could see for themselves the great importance of architectural truthfulness. Even though Pompey died about two thousand years ago, it comes to life when you walk around the city. Entering any residential house of Pompeii, you involuntarily feel that not a single element of it was made in vain but, rather completely conditioned by the requirements of life; everything was done for a person.

We demand such truthfulness from our architecture. It is no coincidence that we took an example from the classical era: it is classical art that gives us the most brilliant examples of architecture; purposefully, harmoniously, fully meeting the tasks set by the time.

One of the most significant features of socialist realism in architecture is the attitude to nature. Typically, capitalist architecture seems to turn its back on nature. But the history of the architecture knows brilliant examples of the deep understanding of nature by the architect, who considered it as an integral part of the architectural ensemble. The Acropolis has blended into nature around it. The Parthenon wakes up early in the morning with the sun, lives and changes during the day and falls asleep at nightfall. The architect achieved this with an appropriate selection of texture and colour, spatial organization, a good three-dimensional solution, the correct formulation of the building in relation to the sun. This is what we mean by merging the ground with the architecture.

Our architecture pays very little attention to national forms; meanwhile, each nation solves certain architectural tasks in its own way. The study of the heritage of the past in this regard opens a wealth of possibilities to an architect.

One of the fundamental points in architecture is the synthesis of the arts. If we do not seriously raise the issue of cooperation in painting, sculpture and architecture, we will not be able to make our architecture complete.

Many comrades clearly underestimate the importance of modern technology in architecture. This is a profound delusion, since technology opens tremendous opportunities for architecture. All our culture relies and will rely on high technology. We have in mind not only the construction industry, the production of works, etc., but also those artistic prospects that are given by the new technique.

It is unlikely that now anyone will argue that formalism is not the path of Soviet architecture. Disagreements begin only when it comes to specific carriers of formalism.

Everyone agrees that the formalists are pushing our architecture into a dead end. And yet we are not conducting a real struggle with the formalism with the help of Bolshevik criticism.

I will stop on the manifestation of formalism in our architecture in the works of Comrade Melnikov. Architect Melnikov is the most pronounced formalist. His latest work – the house on Meshchanskaya – is a formalistic work all way through. Its architectural concept shows only the desire “to wow everyone”. Melnikov’s architecture is based on thrills and striking effects. Melnikov does not think that he is designing a residential house; he does not care about the maximum amenities for residents, the fulfillment of all sanitary requirements, and he is not concerned about the house being joyful both inside and outside. Melnikov combines completely random elements. The arch, which he throws from one building to another, gives the impression of posters with slogans. The balconies, which look like flowers, are curious to look at once, perhaps, but no more than once. Melnikov is looking for exceptional severity and exclusivity, originality at any cost. Creating architecture that no one has produced before is his main and only task.

The previous works of Melnikov were made in the same spirit. There are no basic amenities in the Club of Communals built by him. The location of the cloakroom, the stairs – all is upside down. Sitting in the auditorium, which rests on the consoles, makes one afraid to fall. The front entrance reminds a staircase of a back door. One feels that the architect did not consider the needs of the person – he forgot about the person.

Proceeding from the wrong position and using the formalistic method in his work, Melnikov will not become an advanced Soviet architect. Our task is to help him realize his mistakes.

The architect Leonidov is also on the wrong track. He was commissioned to design a collective farm cultural centre in opposition to the old rural centre – the church. The architect had to arrange the auditorium, several club rooms, etc. taking into account the design, technology and facilities available in the collective farm (as well as operational requirements) This is a big, honourable, but difficult task that many of our prominent architects have refused to resolve.

Nor did comrade Leonidov resolve it. The plan given in his project is inconvenient. The lighting is unevenly distributed and does not harmonize with the size of the room. The central corridor is dark. Structures (complex wooden frame, reinforced concrete) are not the right type to us for a collective farm. The flat roof is also unsuitable. In general, the project was unsuccessful.

All this posits the question of revising his creative positions before Leonidov, in the most decisive manner. After all, until now we still do not have a single building built according to his project, although Leonidov has been working on quite a few. We must ensure that he not only designs, but also builds.

Attempts to critically analyse Leonidov’s mistakes are rejected by some.

There are people who say: “Leonidov is a talented architect and you are preventing him from working.” These are bad statements. Leonidov is a talented person but his works are mediocre, for only the architectural project that answers the relevant enquiries is truly talented.

No one would dare to say that talents perish in our conditions. We know that in distant collective farms and in the mountains far from cultural centres, hundreds and thousands of people are being promoted to honourable positions. Any person who manifests himself in any field can hope that our public will appreciate and nominate them. However, every talent needs a critical approach.

Let us not dwell on other examples of formalism. Even from the above, it is clear that the formalism has no ground in our architecture, and this direction is unacceptable for us.

The disease of formalism explains oversimplifications in architecture. It also feeds on the insufficient strength of our creative positions.

The former constructivist group of architects suffers with simplification too. Constructivists quite correctly raise the question of the technology and design of the building, but they set aside a number of major problems that determine and characterize the architecture. Take for example the club of the Proletarian District of the Vesnin brothers. This work is generally positive. It successfully resolves the functional and technological elements of the project. V.A. and A.A. Vesnins set for themselves certain artistic tasks, architectural and spatial. However, the project has not sufficiently raised the problem of artistic expression. The facade is boring, the matter of synthesis of the arts is not resolved to any degree; there is no emotional saturation in the building.

In the project of M.Ya. Ginsburg of the Tbilisi Park of Culture and Leisure on David’s Mountain, one can feel the serious author’s work on self-improvement. He makes a great effort to rise to a new, higher level. M.Ya. Ginsburg, like the Vesnins, still suffers from oversimplification significantly.

Oversimplification has made its nest in various Soviet architectural groups. Such architects as comrades Golts, Kozhin, Sobolev and Parusnikov work very seriously; they have reached certain quality and have become accustomed to being very demanding towards themselves, but they have been simplifying the use of cultural heritage.

To master the cultural heritage does not mean to study the past well and to be able to competently vary its individual elements of it in one’s work. The question is posed differently. We must abandon the blind imitation of the classics. Solving a certain architectural task, it is necessary to proceed not from the classical canons, but from the purpose of the structure, its ideological content, location – in a word, from those real factors that determine this architectural organism. The Moscow Chamber Theatre by architects Holtz and Kozhin is a random island on Pushkin Boulevard. The architecture of the theatre is drawn very subtly and expertly, with great love and understanding of the Pompeii art but this architectural theme is in no way justified. The purpose of the authors remains unclear, because their method simplifies and narrows the task.

The worst kind of oversimplification is eclecticism, which has evolved very strongly in our architecture in recent years. In the works of such architects as Friedman, Loveiko, Langbard and others, one does not feel a serious attitude to the problems that they are attempting to solve. For example, in one of Friedman’s projects, a miserable cap suddenly crawls out of a wide colonnade. There are modern and classical styles mixed with elements of the so-called modern constructive architecture. All this is confused and mixed up, and as a result we get something vaguely unintelligible. It is not clear from which principles Friedman proceeded designing his project. And the principles of work, the awareness of what methods and means you use, are mandatory for the Soviet architect.

In his project for the reconstruction of the south- western district of Moscow, architect Friedman plans enormous canals that must be filled ... with water taken from nowhere; very wide streets with an impracticable profile. This is a frivolous, unacceptable lightminded approach to the most important task. We do not say that the architect Friedman always treats the work this way, but we must demand from him more principled attitude, greater rigour to himself and self-criticism.

No doubt, our architecture has achieved a lot. No one will deny that the metro stations are a good job. Despite a few defects, they are a major contribution to the Soviet architectural foundation, because their design is permeated with purpose.

People knew what they needed to do. Lazar Moiseevich Kaganovich managed to direct their thoughts to the right path. The first task, which was set before the architects of the metro, was to destroy the sense of a dungeon; the second task was to make it light and joyful under the ground; the third task was to show the wealth of our country and good high-quality materials. The Metro was designed by employees of several workshops and supporters of different architectural trends. Still, there is a particular unity in the architecture of the metro. The unifying principle here was a definite architectural and artistic idea. Ideological purposefulness and orientation – these are the main features that distinguish the architecture of the metro from the architecture of many of our buildings.

Soviet architects managed to implement a lot in the field of urban planning. The enormous scope of Soviet urban planning opened broad prospects for an architect. We saw new construction in Paris, in Rome, in Greece, and I must say that Soviet architects have such opportunities that their western counterparts did not dream of.

Speaking about the achievements and shortcomings of the Soviet architecture, we cannot fail to dwell on a special group of architects who cause a fair outrage among the public. We are referring to those who irresponsibly approach their work, by trivializing their tasks. Such are Efremovich, Shumonsky, Boguslavsky and others. “Do you need columns? – They say – please! Not needed? It is all right without them”. This is a commercialised approach, and we must wage the most decisive struggle against it.

For example, the project of the architect Boguslavsky. A man designed a mosque in Ashgabat and for some reason called it a confectionery plant. How can an architect who feels responsible for his work do this? And Shumovsky gave the facade of a provincial hospital to Orskiy Locomotive Plant.

We do not really fight platitude and vulgarity in architecture. Essentially we are doing nothing to protect our architectural practice from the influence of these people.

A few words about youth. We have no agree on the requirements we must make to students and what kind of architects to prepare. In this regard, it is the fault of the union of Soviet architects. They are not sufficiently engaged in the education of new personnel; they have little interest in the work of universities and design workshops; they forget about their direct responsibility to monitor the education of young forces on a daily basis.

Usually, our criticism captures the project’s backdrops, when the building is ready; we still don’t have the kind of criticism that would prevent low quality designs from reaching construction sites. Such criticism must be created both in the press, in the union of architects, and in the workshops.

The situation with the approval of projects is bad. This equally applies to the Moscow design department, to Leningrad and to other cities. Often, the best projects are rejected, and weak are approved – even when the press timely reveals their shortcomings. This cannot be tolerated. It is necessary to organize a serious reference around the expert commission. The project should not be accepted only on its appearance, but it is necessary to take into account the internal comforts of the building and its economy seriously, which is stated clearly in the decree of the Central Committee and the CPC.

We need an atmosphere of Bolshevik criticism that would help correct errors and highlight achievements of architecture. We have no such criticism yet. Very often, signals about the problems in the field of architecture are given not by the architectural press and the public.

A wave of the Stakhanov movement spread across the country that raised the question of the attitude to work in a completely new way. Our architects have not yet realized this and have not drawn the appropriate conclusions.

In the near future, it is necessary to bring up all our work to the proper principled heights. At the same time, a comradely critic should play a huge role.

(KS Alabyan. A report at a meeting of architects dedicated to the discussion of Pravda articles on formalism).

Translated from the Russian by Marina Vantara.
With acknowledgements to Christina Kostoula

Click here to return to the April 2022 index.