Russian neoclassical revival
Russian neoclassical revival was a trend in
The neoclassical revival school was most active in Saint Petersburg, and less active in Moscow and other cities. The style was a common choice for luxurious country estates, as well as upper-class apartment blocks and office buildings. However, it was practically non-existent in church and government architecture. Neoclassical architects born in the 1870s, who reached their peak activity in 1905–1914 (Ivan Fomin, Vladimir Shchuko, Ivan Zholtovsky), later became leading figures in the Stalinist architecture of the 1930s and shaped the Soviet architectural education system.
Origin of the style
Background
In early 20th century, Russian architecture (at least in Moscow)
In 1902, two years before
Development
Practicing architects followed Benois; for example, in 1903
The new style took over specific niches, starting with nostalgic country estates and upper-class downtown apartment buildings. By 1914 it also became the preferred choice for schools and colleges. In Moscow, all new
Denial of Art Nouveau
A common concept of Soviet art critics linked neoclassical revival to the social shock of the 1905 revolution; this concept, narrowed to architecture and refined further by W. C. Brumfield, treats neoclassicism in 1905-1914 architecture as a professional reaction against Art Nouveau.[2] The society, shaken up by Russian Revolution of 1905 "dismissed Art Nouveau as ephemera of fashion"[2] and settled for moderation in architecture. By the end of hostilities, moderate Neoclassicism emerged as an ethically acceptable alternative to extravagance of the past. Prior to 1905, Saint Petersburg architects completed 30 buildings in Neoclassical Revival (about 5% of extant neoclassical buildings). Five years, 1905–1910, added 140 new buildings. By 1910, Saint Petersburg reached an equilibrium between Neoclassical Revival and Art Nouveau (in terms of new buildings launched and completed).[10] Ivan Fomin specifically praised the universal, easy-to-reproduce set of classical rules, consolidating the profession: "When the style was being formed, all the masters in the capital and the provinces worked toward the same end, not fearing to imitate one another. And in this is the guarantee of strength."[2]
By 1914, Revivalists clearly won but their victory was not universal. A large share of intellectuals despised Empire style as a symbol of slavery and militarization of Alexandrine period. Ilya Repin publicly condemned it as a lust for luxuries of "the filthy Arakcheyev period, and all the harshness of living suffered by millions, which are now free" (Russian: "Он напоминает мне поганое время Аракчеева и всей связанной с этим временем тягости жизни миллионов теперь свободных людей").[11]
Alternative to eclecticism
Contemporary domestic authors dismiss the concept outlined above as an oversimplification.
Neoclassical projects in Saint Peterburg emerged when Art Nouveau was still in its infancy, years before the 1902 magazine campaign.
Importance of clients and their tastes, elevated in the traditional concept, is also disputed. Architects were not simple contractors: many were also wealthy property developers, betting their own money (Roman Klein, Nikita Lazarev, Ernst Nirnsee). They were part of a wider movement in arts, led by writers and painters who, unlike architects, were not bound by investors. The artists themselves changed the tastes of general public.[16]
Contemporaries clearly identified revival of
Style defined
Reposession of simplicity
Depending on the function of the building, purity of the style varied from refined Palladian legacy in luxury mansions to superficial, shallow decorations of utilitarian apartment blocks. All these buildings share one feature: "Repossession of Simplicity. Geometry of basic shapes, clean surfaces... returned the integrity and monumentality that was lost in second half of 19th century" ("Обретение простоты... геометризация объемов, очищение плоскости возвращали архитектуре черты слитности, монументальности, утраченные во второй половине 19 века"[18]).
Pure revival of Empire style was limited to temporary exhibition projects and suburban and country mansions, where abundant land allowed low but wide symmetrical layouts. Rarely, as in the case of Vtorov's mansion, the same approach was reproduced in downtown residences or in public buildings (Museum of Ethnography in Saint Petersburg). Typical Saint Petersburg construction projects of that period already passed the 5-story mark, unheard of in early 19th century, and needed careful adaptation of neoclassical spirit to the new scale. Early attempts of mechanical, superfluous attachment of columns and porticos to ordinary apartment blocks failed; by 1912 the problem was resolved, most notably by Vladimir Shchuko. His Markov Apartments suggested two ways of handling the scale: either use of giant order, with pilasters running the whole height of the building, or adaptation of earlier palladian motives; both relied on expensive natural stone finishes and modern structural engineering. The result "combined classical elements in a monumental design that is neither historical nor modern. Shchuko developed a style appropriate for contemporary urban architecture, one that provided material evidence of the classical values."[2]
Fragmentation of the movement
The new trend, favored by investors, naturally attracted
Modernized neoclassicism, not related to Russian heritage or its Palladian roots, was exemplified in the new building of
War, revolution and post-war development
The last examples of neoclassical revival were laid down shortly before the outbreak of
After the
Most of urban neoclassical buildings of 1905-1914 survived the Soviet period quite well - they were, in fact, the most recently constructed pre-revolution buildings, and despite inadequate maintenance their initial quality was high enough to stand unaltered for nearly a century. Many have lost original interiors; in the decade following World War II some of Moscow apartment buildings were built up (adding two or three stories was a common and inexpensive solution to the housing shortage), but their external styling survived. Another wave of reconstruction that started in 1990s and continues to date, have caused numerous facadist rebuilds. Pure, unaltered examples of the style are nevertheless quite common. Nationalized country estates, on the contrary, did not fare just as well. Their new functions (ranging from almshouses to military headquarters) sooner or later called for alteration and expansion; new owners had no incentive to preserve the original buildings. Frequently they were abandoned and left to decay - especially after the World War II depopulated the countryside.
Gallery
Private residences, Moscow
-
Nikita Lazarev, 1906
-
Boris Velikovsky, 1909-1910
-
Mikhail Geisler, 1909-1910
-
Sergei Chernyshov, 1914-1916
Apartment buildings, Moscow
-
Boris Velikovsky, 1907
-
Ernst Nirnsee, 1912-1913
-
Nikolay Strukov, 1914
-
Vladimir Sherwood (Jr.), 1912-1915[20]
Public and office buildings
-
Sergey Solovyov, 1910-1914
-
Ivan Rerberg, 1912
-
Ivan Kuznetsov, 1911-1913
-
Illarion Ivanov-Schitz, 1914-1920
References
- (in Russian) E. A. Borisova, G. Yu. Sternik. Russian neoclassicism // Борисова Е. А., Стернин, Г. Ю. Русский неоклассицизм. — М.: Галарт, 2002. ISBN 5-269-00898-X
- (in English) William C. Brumfield. The Origins of Modernism in Russian Architecture. University of California Press, 1991 online text
- (in English) William C. Brumfield. Anti-Modernism and the Neoclassical Revival in Russian Architecture, 1906-1916. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 371–386
- (in English) William C. Brumfield. Commerce in Russian Urban Culture 1861-1914. The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2001, ISBN 978-0-8018-6750-7
- (in Russian) B. M. Kirikov. Architecture of Saint Petersburg, end of the 19th century and early 20th century // Kириков Б. М. Архитектура Петербурга конца XIX — начала ХХ века. — СПБ.: ИД Коло, 2005. ISBN 5-901841-36-0
- (in Russian) M. V. Naschokina. Architects of Art Nouveau in Moscow // Нащокина М. В. Архитекторы московского модерна. Творческие портреты. — 3-е издание — М.: Жираф, 2005. ISBN 5-89832-043-1
- (in Russian) V. Sedov. Neogrec style in Moscow // В. Седов. Стиль неогрек в Москве. «Проект классика», N.2, 2001 [1]
- (in Russian) V. Sedov. Neoclassicism of the 20th century in Moscow // В. Седов. Неоклассицизм начала ХХ века в Москве. «Проект классика», N.17, 2006 [2]
- (in English) Dmitry Shvidkovsky. Russian Architecture and the West. Yale University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-300-10912-2
Footnotes
- ^ a b Brumfield, 1991, ch.5, analyzes the difference in Moscow and Saint Petersburg architectural and social landscapes.
- ^ a b c d e f Brumfield, ch.6
- ^ Sedov, 2001
- ^ Brumfield, 1991, ch.2
- ^ Brumfield, 1991, ch.6 praises Fomin as "the architect responsible for reappraising the Russian Empire style" while Borisova and Sternik reduce his role to that of one of many
- ^ In Russian tradition, neoclassicism refers specifically to 20th-century art. The style of late 18th and early 19th century, including Empire style, is named simply classicism.
- ^ Sedov, 2006
- ^ Brumfield, 1991, ch.6, cites a 1909 article by Lukomsky in Apollon. Note that by 1909 Kekushev practically quit his professional career and disappeared from the public.
- ^ Borisova, Sternik, p.18
- ^ Kirikov, p.413
- ^ Borisova, Sternik, p. 31, cite Repin's article in Novy Journal dlya vsekh (Новый журнал для всех), N 32, 1911
- ^ Brumfield, 1991, ch.4 provides assessment of Schechtel's input.
- ^ Kirikov, p.374; Borisova and Sternik, p.16
- ^ Borisova, Sternik, p. 15-16
- ^ Kirikov, p.371,374
- ^ Borisova, Sternik, p.81
- ^ Borisova, Sternik, p.27, citing Berdyaev's article in Utro Rossii, February 27, 1910
- ^ Kirikov, p.378
- ^ Kirikov, p.389
- ^ Titov building was designed as a mixed-use building and converted to all-office use later