Vesnin brothers
Vesnin Brothers | |
---|---|
Nationality | Russian |
Occupation | Architect |
Parent | Vesnin Alexander Alexandrovich Vesnina (Ermolaeva) Elizaveta Alekseevna |
Buildings | Department store Mostorg on Krasnaya Presnya in Moscow |
Projects | Moscow office of the newspaper Leningradskaya Pravda |
The Vesnin brothers: Leonid Vesnin (1880–1933), Viktor Vesnin (1882–1950) and Alexander Vesnin (1883–1959) were the leaders of Constructivist architecture, the dominant architectural school of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and early 1930s. Exact estimation of each brother's individual input to their collaborative works remains a matter of dispute and conjecture;[1] nevertheless, historians noted the leading role of Alexander Vesnin in the early constructivist drafts by the Vesnin brothers between 1923 and 1925.[2][3] Alexander also had the most prominent career outside of architecture, as a stage designer and abstract painter.
The brothers’ earliest collaboration in architecture dates back to 1906; their first tangible building was completed in 1910. Between 1910 and 1916 the Moscow-based family firm designed and built a small number of public and private buildings in Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod, stylistically leaning towards neoclassicism. During the Russian Civil War Leonid and Victor concentrated on industrial projects and teaching while Alexander had a successful solo career as theatre stage designer.
In 1922 the three brothers reunited, embraced avant-garde concepts and developed their own vision of modern architecture that emphasized functionality of buildings and modern construction technology. The Vesnin brothers won professional leadership through winning architectural contests of 1922–1925, and activities and publications of the OSA Group chaired by Alexander Vesnin. When the economy recovered from post-war depression, they were rewarded with high-profile real construction projects like the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station and Likhachev Palace of Culture in Moscow.
The death of Leonid Vesnin in 1933 coincided with the government's crackdown on independent art unions and modernist architecture. Victor continued a successful if unremarkable career in industrial architecture and administration of the Union of Soviet Architects, becoming the first President of the Soviet Academy of Architecture (1939–1949). Alexander failed to adjust to the rise of official Stalinist architecture and quietly withdrew from public professional activities.
Family and education (1880s–1905)
Alexander Alexandrovich Vesnin, father of the Vesnin brothers, came from a
Three sons: Leonid (born 1880), Victor (born 1882) and Alexander (born 1883) received basic home schooling and demonstrated talent in drawing since early childhood. At the age of 10 – 12 years their father sent them to a boarding school at the Academy of Commerce in Moscow where they perfected their drawing skills in the class of M. V. Mamistov.[7]
Leonid, the older brother, enrolled at the Imperial Academy of Arts in Saint Petersburg in 1900. The father hoped that at least one of his sons would continue the family business, or at least obtain a business-like profession, and insisted that Victor and Alexander chose a different college, the Institute of Civil Engineers (also in Saint Petersburg). Architectural training at the Institute was clearly subordinate to engineering courses and practical construction training.[8] Difference in age and training caused stylistic differences between Leonid and his junior brothers, at least in the early stages of their professional work. Leonid embraced Art Nouveau, which flourished from 1900–1905, Alexander and Victor leaned towards the Russian neoclassical revival that emerged around 1902 and gained widespread recognition after 1905.[9]
The Vesnin family business was ruined by the 1905 revolution;[5] from now on the brothers had to earn their own living and support two sisters and father[10] (their mother died in 1901 giving birth to Anna Vesnina).[11] Alexander and Victor dropped out of the Institute and moved to Moscow where they worked for architectural firms of Roman Klein, Illarion Ivanov-Schitz, Boris Velikovsky and other architects,[12] building a reputation for their energy and dependability.[10] Leonid stayed in Saint Petersburg and graduated from the class of Leon Benois in 1909.
Early architecture (1906–1916)
In 1906 the brothers created their first public architectural draft – a neoclassical competition entry for the
The first tangible building by Vesnin brothers, designed for Boris Velikovsky's firm, was a neoclassical six-storey apartment block on
Their father's death in 1910 and, perhaps, improved finances, prompted Alexander and Victor to return to classrooms and complete professional training.Prior to the outbreak of World War I the brothers completed a bank building and a neoclassical mansion in Moscow and two country churches in Russian Revival manner. Their most visible building of the period,
At the beginning of
Revolution and Civil War (1917–1922)
In 1918 Alexander and Victor reunited for the prestigious decoration of
Architectural drafts by Leonid and Victor Vesnin dated 1918-1922 clearly followed the pre-revolutionary neoclassical tradition. Yet, around 1923 the brothers emerged as leaders of a new, modernist, architecture.
Alexander, on the contrary, abandoned architecture for five years and dedicated himself to abstract art and stage design.[24] In 1917-1918 critics placed Alexander on the "extreme left" of emerging modernist art,[24] although Kazimir Malevich described his paintings as "too material".[22] As Alexander moved from fringe abstract art to theatrical design, his sets for Alexander Tairov and Vsevolod Meyerhold shows regularly made headlines while his architectural past was nearly forgotten by contemporary press.[24] Alexander actively experimented with "materializing" cubist art into three-dimensional, dynamic, tangible objects. Many contemporary artists (Malevich, Tatlin, El Lissitzky, Stenberg brothers) did the same, but, unlike them, Alexander had a solid background in structural engineering and practical construction management.[24] His return to architecture in the end of 1922 explains the radical change in the Vesnin brothers' collaborative projects, first exposed to the public in February 1923.[24]
Paper architecture (1922-1925)
From 1922–1925, the Vesnin brothers designed six entries for public architectural competitions. These buildings never materialized (or were not intended to be built at all) but became a statement of constructivism; their stylistic cues were eagerly copied in practical construction in the second half of the 1920s. Alexander Vesnin contributed to all six drafts; Victor and Leonid each contributed to four drafts. Palace of Labor and Arcos were the only drafts signed by all three brothers. According to Harry Francis Mallgrave, these early works were "the first indication of what constituted constructivist architecture" (as opposed to earlier concept of constructivist art).[27]
Palace of Labor
In the end of 1922, Moscow City Hall announced a competition for the Palace of Labor on the downtown site of the present-day
The Vesnins filed their draft, codenamed Antenna, in February 1923 along with 46 other entrants.[30][31] The rationalist arm of modernist architects led by Nikolai Ladovsky boycotted the competition, confident that the old-school commission led by Igor Grabar, Alexey Shchusev and Ivan Zholtovsky was biased against modernist art.[32] Neoclassicists also neglected the contest, confident that the project would never materialize.[33] The show attracted mostly constructivist architects[33] and became a sweeping victory for the Vesnin brothers: their 125 meter tall[34] reinforced concrete Palace, remotely reminiscent of Walter Gropius's Tribune Tower draft,[28] made headlines in the professional mainstream press. Reviews by Vladimir Mayakovsky and Moisei Ginzburg declared Vesnins’ draft the definitive statement of modernism.[32] Zholtovsky, did indeed reject the novelty and in the end, in May 1923, the first prize was awarded to Noi Trotsky;[32] the Vesnins came third.[35] For unknown reasons the highly publicized draft was omitted from the official competition catalogue; floorplans and cross-sections were published only in 1927,[36] along with Ginzburg's praise: "It cannot be imitated. It can only be followed, along the thorny path of independent, thoughtful and creative work."[37]
One month before filing the Palace of Labor, Leonid Vesnin presented his drafts of a housing block, marked by clever rational floorplans but otherwise fairly conventional.[3][38] This fact, and the existence of early Palace of Labor sketches drawn by Alexander Vesnin are, according to Khan-Magomedov, evidence that the Palace was primarily inspired by Alexander.[3] Catherine Cooke arrived at the same conclusion by examining Alexander's elaborate stage set for Alexander Tairov's production of The Man Who Was Thursday: the layout of the Palace, according to Cooke, was directly based on Alexander's earlier "fantastic conception".[2][39] Cheredina, on the contrary, noted that Victor Vesnin's own industrial drafts of 1922 were just as important in shaping the Vesnin brothers' collaborative style.[40]
Leningrad Pravda
A draft of the diminutive Leningrad Pravda tower was created by Alexander and Victor in 1924. According to Khan-Magomedov, it became the summit of Alexander's architecture, the last instance when he enforced his leadership over his brothers and the last work unconditionally credited largely to him.[41]
The
Arcos
In 1925 Alexander and Leonid Vesnin teamed with structural engineer
Public activities
Vkhutemas
Both Alexander and Leonid joined the faculty of Vkhutemas during the Civil War, before the 1920-1921 conflict that split its Architectural Department into "academic" (Ivan Zholtovsky), "united" (Nikolai Ladovsky) and "independent" (Ilya Golosov) workshops.[48] Leonid always associated himself with the old-school academic line of teaching.[49] Alexander was engaged in the Painting department, teaching the basic subject of Color, a subject that potentially could become mandatory for students of all departments.[48] Alexander had far-reaching plans of restructuring basic training at Vkhutemas along productivist ideas, that were cut short by its board in February 1923[50] Soon afterwards his students and staff, including Rodchenko, transferred to Ladovsky's United Workshop.
Victor and Leonid accepted an offer from Alexander Kuznetsov and joined the faculty of MVTU.[25] Victor leaned towards industrial construction and targeted his courses to "real problems addressed by various state economic organs", rather than pure art.[25] His MVTU class of 1924–1925 became another incubator of the constructivist movement.[25]
Alexander was practically ousted from Vkhutemas until the March 1924 publication of the Arcos drafts instantly made him a celebrity.[51] In the 1924–1925 season he was given a chair at a new, fourth, architectural workshop; Leonid assisted Alexander with management but did not interfere with the actual training process.[52] Alexander Vesnin chaired his department until the dissolution of Vkhutemas in 1932; his workshop was engaged in informal rivalry with Ladovsky's United Workshop. Notable Vesnin alumni of this period include Andrey Burov (class of 1925), Mikhail Barsch (1926), Ivan Leonidov (1927) and Georgy Krutikov (1928).
OSA Group
In December 1925 short-lived artistic unions based at Vkhutemas, MVTU and Institute of Civil Engineers merged into a new organization, OSA Group, headed by Ginzburg and Alexander Vesnin. They recruited the formerly independent Ilya Golosov and Konstantin Melnikov, making OSA the most representative left-wing architectural group since inception.[53] The government's reluctance to recognize yet another architects’ union forced OSA founders to reconsider its goals; these were proclaimed as “drafting the new, modern architectural style of large industrial hubs”[54] and defence of constructivism as art, rather than the bare following of function. Later OSA leaders, including Alexander and Victor Vesnin, dropped the "constructivism as art" concept and frequently voiced the opposite viewpoint, that of rejecting any stylistic content in constructivism.[54]
OSA was the only left-wing architects’ union that regularly published its magazine, SA (Contemporary Architecture), edited by Ginzburg and Alexander Vesnin.[55] Its editorial "offices" was based at the Vesnin's Moscow apartment and their country dacha.[56] Alexander Vesnin "censored" the magazine, blocking any extremist, fringe theories that the liberal Ginzburg would accept.[57] SA was issued continuously for five years, 1926–1930, and consolidated nearly all practicing constructivists, including Victor Vesnin.[56] Leonid Vesnin, on the contrary, stood aside from OSA and never spoke publicly in favor of any trend in art.[58]
Vyacheslav Glazychev noted that the unique role of SA led to an overstatement of the constructivists’ influence at the expense of rival art schools, especially by foreign authors.[33] LEF and SA shaped a biased, incomplete image of Soviet architecture inside the country; their point of view, omitting successful work by the majority of Soviet architects of the period, was indiscriminately reproduced by Western historians.[33] With or without the influence of SA, by the end of the 1920s constructivism became a generic word for "new architecture".[59] Constructivism made a leap from fringe theory into mass culture, and OSA struggled to retain its monopoly on its former brand name.[59]
Tangible constructivism (1927-1937)
Vesnin workflow
Soviet critics "blended three richly different and highly complementary talents into one historical and professional personality."[35][60] Memoirs published by Natalya Vesnina (Victor's widow), statements by the Vesnins' alumni and archive studies allowed different scholars to reconstruct each brother's input and work process.[35] By 1927, the workflow of the firm, according to Khan-Magomedov, crystallized into clearly defined roles for each brother.[61] Usually, Alexander provided the initial artistic concept and sketched the building exterior. Leonid managed functionality: floorplans and internal communications between functional parts of the building. Victor, who lived and worked separately from Alexander and Leonid, would come at a later stage as devil's advocate, pinpointing weaknesses of intermediate drafts.[61] Neither Leonid nor Victor questioned Alexander's lead in defining overall exterior looks and composition.[61] The brothers employed numerous student assistants and clearly preferred professional draftsmanship to sparks of genius; in fact, students who demonstrated their own creative ideas were quickly dismissed.[61] To Vesnins' credit, they never incorporated such ideas in their projects.[61]
Works for the Oil Industry
In 1927–1928 Alexander Vesnin, feeling himself responsible for the proliferation of a mediocre "constructive style", abandoned his earlier style demonstrated in the towering hulks of the Palace of Labor and Arcos. The new drafts by the Vesnin brothers decomposed the building into separate volumes linked according to the building's function.[62] The approach, dubbed pavilion composition, was publicized in the Vesnins' 1928 draft for the Lenin Library.[62] The Vesnins lost both stages of this contest to Vladimir Shchuko.
The first materialized constructivist work by the Vesnin brothers, a
Dnieper Power Plant
In 1929, when the
Victor Vesnin entered this competition alone. All his rivals attempted to split the 200-meter wall with a rhythmic pattern of columns, arches or
The Vesnins continued competing for contracts in
Likhachev Palace
The first public constructivist building actually built in Moscow by the Vesnin brothers, a 1927 department store in Presnensky District, was a scaled-down clone of their 1925 TsUM department store draft. It was followed by the Institute of Mineral Resources building in Zamoskvorechye District (1928) and a theater on Povarskaya Street (designed in 1929–1930,[63] completed in 1931–1934[80]).
The Vesnins did not take part in the public 1930 competition for the Proletarsky District Palace of Culture, to be built on the site of the demolished Simonov Monastery.[81] After the competition ended with no clear winner the job was awarded to the Vesnins. Their original proposal, influenced by Le Corbusier’s ideas of ‘’flowing spaces’’,[82] comprised two buildings – a complex T-shaped public services building with a 1,000[83] seat theatre hall, large dancing space, a library for 200,000 volumes[84] and winter gardens, and a detached 4,000 seat main theatre.[81] The latter, based on Kharkiv theatre draft, did not materialize. The smaller hall was inaugurated in 1933, construction of the public services building dragged until 1937. Unlike other constructivist buildings of the period, "enhanced" by stalinist facades, the Palace of Culture was completed in precise agreement with 1930 drafts.[82] After World War II its exterior was, indeed, altered but all the Stalinist additions were stripped in the 1970s.[85]
The building, operated by ZIL throughout most of its history, is known as Likhachev Palace of Culture.
Leonid’s departure (1933-1940s)
The Vesnin brothers actively participated in all public architectural competitions of 1932–1936 (
Palace of Soviets and Narkomtiazhprom
The Vesnin brothers were selected as one of thirteen teams invited to the third round of
The same pattern continued at the
Perhaps the only high-profile public project awarded to the Vesnins after 1932 was the design of
Alexander
The tandem of Victor and Alexander fell apart in the second half of the 1930s. Alexander stepped aside from active professional life, perhaps unable or unwilling to blend into the official style.
Victor
Victor Vesnin was the sole constructivist architect that retained or even improved his role in
Highly valued work for the
References
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, pp.8-11, provides a roundup of problems related to such attribution.
- ^ a b c Cooke 1999, p. 48
- ^ a b c Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 218
- ^ Cheredina, p. 341
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 14
- ^ "Landmarks of Yuryevets (in Russian)". Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 17
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 18
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 22
- ^ a b c d e Cooke 1999, p. 45
- ^ Cooke 1999, p. 44
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 25
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 26
- ^ a b c d e Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 27
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 32
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 24
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p.34
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 48
- ^ Attribution as in Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 55
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, pp. 48-49
- ^ Cheredina, p. 343
- ^ a b Cooke 1999, p. 46
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 62
- ^ a b c d e f Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 63
- ^ a b c d Cracraft, Rowland p. 139
- ^ Cracraft, Rowland pp. 139, 141
- ^ Mallgrave, p. 239
- ^ a b c d Khan-Magomedov 2007, p.219
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 212
- ^ Cooke 1999, p. 42
- ^ Original drawings submitted by the Vesnins are lost, they survive only in journal publications. Artwork reproduced in modern history books is the preparatory material kept in family archives - Cooke 1999, p. 48
- ^ a b c Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 213
- ^ a b c d Glazychev, chapter 6 Archived May 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Cheredina, p. 345
- ^ a b c d Cooke 1999, p. 39
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 226
- ^ Cooke 1999, p. 49, also reproduced in part in p. 39
- ^ Cooke 1999, p. 40
- ^ The Man Who Was Thursday actually premiered after many delays in December 1923, after Vesnins presented the Palace of Labor drafts. - Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 177.
- ^ Cheredina, p. 344
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, pp. 220-221
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, pp. 224
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 227
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 228
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 238
- ^ Naschokina, p. 339
- ^ Khan-Magomedov, p. 240
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 241
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 245
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 243
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 248
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 249
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 252
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 253
- ^ According to Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 260 all other architectural magazines of the 1920s did not survive past the second issue.
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 260
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 265
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 264
- ^ a b Cracraft, Rowland p. 136
- ^ Cheredina, p. 341, outlines the same issue with Russian-language sources.
- ^ a b c d e Khan-Magomedov, pp. 266-268
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 266
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 408
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 269
- ^ Photograph by Richard Pare: "Vesnin club in Baku (main hall)". Archived from the original on July 16, 2011. Retrieved 2009-06-28.
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 405
- ^ a b c Dmitry Khmelnitsky (2005). "Zagadki Dneprogesa (Загадки Днепрогэса)" (in Russian). Retrieved 2009-06-28.
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 291
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 292
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 294
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 296
- ^ Cheredina, p. 350
- ^ Cheredina, p. 346
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 297
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 298
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 299
- ^ The competition specified a minimum capacity of 4,000. The Vesnins presented a transformable hall with different configurations seating from 2 to 6 thousand - Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 299
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 302
- ^ Cheredina, p. 347
- ^ Alexandrov, Zhukov p. 41
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov, p. 303
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov, p. 304
- ^ Actual as-built capacity 944 seats - Alexandrov, Zhukov p. 36
- ^ Alexandrov, Zhukov p. 36
- ^ Alexandrov, Zhukov p. 37
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 340
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 341
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 332
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 345
- ^ Khan-Magomedov 2007, pp. 348-349
- ^ Cracraft, Rowland pp. 146-147
- ^ a b c d Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 342
- ^ a b Khan-Magomedov 2007, p. 355
- ^ a b c d e Meerovich
- ^ Meerovich noted Kahn's anger at the fast rotation of Soviet staff at his Moscow offices. Kahn was not aware that for most of his Soviet employees work for him was not a real employment but a short-term training assignment managed through state agencies.
Sources
- Alexandrov Yu. N., Zhukov, K. V. (1978). Siluety Moskvy (Силуэты Москвы). Moscow: Moskovsky rabochy.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Cheredina, I. S. (2007). "Arkhitektor, kotory umel proyektirovat vsyo (Архитектор, который умел проектировать всё)". Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. 77 (4). Russian Academy of Sciences: 341–358. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016.
- James Cracraft; Daniel Bruce Rowland (2003). Architectures of Russian Identity: 1500 to the Present. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8828-3.
- ISBN 978-0-415-13915-1.
- Vyacheslav Glazychev (1989). "Rossiya v petle modernizatzii (Россия в петле модернизации)". Archived from the original on July 30, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-25.
- ISBN 978-5-9647-0116-3.
- English edition: Selim Khan-Magomedov (1986). Alexander Vesnin and Russian Constructivism. University of Michigan / Rizzoli.
- Harry Francis Mallgrave (2005). Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-79306-8.
- Meerovich, M. G. (2009). "Albert Kahn in the history of Soviet industrialization (Альберт Кан в истории советской индустриализации)". Architecton (Архитектон) (in Russian). 26 (2).