layering

A study of the influence of layering on a structures evolution through the prism of Melnikov’s 1925 U.S.S.R. pavilion for Paris Michael Doherty

University College Dublin

Student No 05442958

Advisor Prof. John Tuomey

2

Table of Contents

2 Introduction

4 Section 1 The Pavilion Structure

4 The Rational

5 The Competition

6 Melnikov

9 USSR Pavillion

11 Asnova

13 Section 2 The Pavilion Contents

13 Suprematism

15 Rodchenko

17 The Workers Club/ Social Condensers

19 The Constructivists/ O.S.A.

22 Section 3 The Pavilion Setting

22 L’exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs

24 Le Corbusier/ L’Espirirt Nouveau Pavillion

26 External Reaction

27 Conclusion

28 List of Illustrations

29 Bibliography

“the new leaders would not and could not decide to sacrifice the present to the future, nor could they sacrifice the future to the present. Nothing could have resolved this conundrum, but architecture, more than other fields of endeavour, had the power of softening it, by relating images and models of the new world in the midst of the old” 1

Layers, both concealed and revealed, fuse to form the built entity. Upon an architect, engineer, draughtsman or layperson putting pen to paper with the intent of creating a composition, a series of conscious and sub-conscious layers of thought, accumulated strands of knowledge, synthesize to structure a perceived solution to the prescribed brief. Contributing layers vary from construct to construct, determined by client, budget, designer, aspirations as well as multitude of compounding factors. In recent times, a pathetic skewing of the domineering layers, particularly on these shores, culminated in a blighted built stratum, which benefited an elite minority to the detriment of the society at large. Such a travesty could not be more philosophically at odds with this study’s period of focus, a period where stranded layers of avant-garde thought were holistically concerned with the reformation of the workings man’s realm, the proletariat. This period is classified as the Russian Avant-garde, an architecture spawned by revolution and which endeavoured to realign the layers to the beneficiary of the proletariat. This was early twentieth century U.S.S.R.

1 S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society(New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1981), p5

3

“true beauty consists in the adaptation of an object to its intended function”2

2 S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society(New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1981), p88

Russian avant-gardism encapsulated a litany of societal, political, economic, philosophical and personal layers which, upon amalgamation, produced an architecture befitting of revolutionary times. This paper hypothesizes that all built fabric/all architecture, embodies a host of often invisible layers, which rationalise the entity. Perhaps, these layers may not be as pronounced or radical, as defined or encompassing, as those which pervaded Russian revolutionaries, yet they are vigorous enough to transform unordered material into defined space. The structure through which this study explores this concept is an ephemeral pavilion that graced the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, in mid 1920s Paris, a profound layer in itself which was the culmination of two decades of planning since the conclusion of the 1900 exposition universelle3. The structure is the U.S.S.R. pavilion which had the duty of bringing to the world’s attention the progress being made by one of its infant states, a state that had been brought about by revolution, a state which envisaged a utopian, socialist and communist society. At a glance, this transient space appears modest in its rationale, concealed from modern eyes beneath bands of more illustrious Russian avant-garde constructs. Yet through exploration, the petit pavilion reveals layers of thought which lead to the very origin of the avant-garde movement, strands which diverged and remerged in a show of Soviet unity, strands, which, at a glance, go unnoticed. By means of breaking down the pavilion into three sections,

the pavilion structure, the pavilion contents, the pavilion setting,

this dissertation aspires to segregate and examine the layers which resulted in the 1925 U.S.S.R. pavilion in Paris.

3 Tag Gronberg. Designs on Modernity: Exhibiting the city in 1920s Paris (Manchester,

Manchester University Press, 1998), p8

Figure 1 U.S.S.R Pavilion Paris 1925

4

Section 1

The Pavilion Structure

The Rationale

“way of life…. the habits, practices, customs, beliefs and opinions of an

individual or group” 4

Layer one in this ensemble is the pavilions raison d’etre. To ascertain the rationale and significance of the Soviets having a pavilion in a 1925 Parisian exhibition, it is firstly paramount to apprehend the origins of the U.S.S.R. In October 1917, the Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian provisional government and set about creating a new typology of world state. The revolution aspired to establish a new order of things, an order which would be based on a transparent system of production and exchange5. This socialist, communist state envisioned a classless society of the commune, a society far removed from the perceived, polarised classes of the capitalist west, a new way of life. Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto in unison with Friedrich Engels Communist Theory were to form the theoretical basis on which the state would be modelled, a model that called for a re-evaluation of the arts, literature, philosophy, music, sculpture, city planning and architecture6. In actuality, it was architecture that took up the mantle of designing this utopian vision, architecture that set about the “reconstruction of daily

4 Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R. / Anatole Kopp. (New York ;

London : St. Martin's Press, 1985),p31 5 Anatole Kopp, Town and Revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1835

(New York: George Braziller, 1970), p2 6 Anatole Kopp, Town and Revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1835

(New York: George Braziller, 1970),p1

life”7. Sponsored enthusiastically by the Communist party, a free spirited sequence of theoretical and practical projects ensued, projects which sought to capture the spirit of the revolutionary movement. This prosperous period of architectural experimentation and innovation stretched out to 1932, when the Stalinist era abandoned the avant-garde and turned back to pre-revolutionary monumentalism, the so-called socialist realism.

Precisely at the median point of the Russian avant-garde era, Melnikovs U.S.S.R. pavilion appeared in Paris. Its significance lay in the fact that it was the first time that the communist state had exhibited to a major international audience its advances in theoretical thinking, architecture and the arts. Previously, the youthful state had exhibited a series of medial objects, primarily papier-mâché utensils, at Venice, Riga, and Grenoble. However, this was Paris, for centuries the mecca for cultivated Russians and this was a full scale, habitable exhibition space, tasked with propagandising the “new way of life”. It was adjoined by a U.S.S.R. exhibition space within the Grand Palais, housing a broad spectrum of avant-garde works. 8

So the rationale for the pavilion was that of applying of a facade to the U.S.S.R. societal utopia. The method by which an appropriate representation was chosen became paramount. A Bolshevist run architectural competition comprised the solution, indeed, the architectural competition posited a crucial layer in Soviet architectural development, and forms the next area of study.

7 Jean-Louis Cohen, The Lost Vanguard: Russian Modernist Architecture 1922-1932(New

York: The Monacelli Press, 2007),16 8 S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1981)

5

The competition

The Soviet pavilion was chosen by architectural competition. Competition, as a layer in itself, formed an integral part of the avant-garde era of Russian architecture, allowing the ruling authorities to moderate the appropriateness of architectural endeavour with respect to the ultimate aspirations for the society. Through tracing the conditions, entries and results of these, often closed, competitions, one can cut a path through the state of theoretical thinking being adopted by both the

architects and the authorities. A brief examination of a range of Soviet architectural competitions establishes this supposition.

Early, post-revolutionary competitions, revealed the experimental nature of the search for a formal expression. In this romantic period, doors and windows were tilted and unpractical, new forms were unstable, internalised conditions were dark and unnerving9. Giganticism emerged so as to outdo the capitalists in every plane of endeavour, even at the scale of buildings. One such competition was for a workers palace in Petrograd circa 1919, carried out of behalf of the Putilovsky plant, the city’s largest industrial complex. This competition illustrated the societal direction being adopted whereby the rules stressed the would-be structures must differentiate from the people’s houses set up within the framework of the bourgeois mass culture. The new buildings were to become seats of intense activity for creating new cultural values, rather than passively consuming some cultural values imposed from without10. The competition was won by Ivan Fomin, in the eclectic, neo-classical style of revolutionary romanticism, indicating a style sympathetic to past endeavours still being in vogue. Progressing to 1922, the Vesnin brothers third place entry in a competition for the palace of labour proved to be the turning point of Soviet architecture, as its quantum leap from the past heralded the birth of modernism in Russia. The Vesnin brother’s proposal defied the entry requirements. Instead of rich and stylised decoration which the authorities sought, their scheme lacked all ornamentation. Conversely, they submitted a ferro-concrete shelled building housing an array of functional spaces and a large auditorium of up to 8000 seats, which could be combined with another through a sliding wall to enlarge to 10,500

9 S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1981) 10 Andrei Ikonnikov. Russian Architecture of the Soviet Period (Moscow, Raduga

Publishers, 1988), 54

Figure 2 Melnikov Sketch’s for Paris Pavilion

6

seats. A radio station on the roof with its associated antenna formed an aesthetic that occurred in many new projects, an aesthetic that stood as a tribute to the victorious proletariat11.

If the competition for the Palace of Labour marked the inauguration of the avant-garde movement, then the competition for the Palace of the Soviets in Moscow , circa 1932, heralded their demise. Boris Iofan surpassed the avant-garde entries to win the competition with a crude stepped mausoleum, surmounted by a colossal statue of Lenin which was even larger than Manhattans Statue of Liberty. This was an affirmation of the theoretical regression in, what was now, Stalins state. Socialist realism, a neo-classical, monumentalised, eclectic order replaced the modernist philosophy of the avant-garde.

It was in the mid-point of the previous examples, that the competition for our pavilion of study was held. The purpose of the competition in the authority’s eyes was clear,

“through every means at hand, the exhibit was to propagandize

the beneficial impact on cultural life of the new policy of socialism in One Country…. original, and distinguished in character from the usual European architecture” 12

while in the process, looking for western traders, products and markets for the NEP Men. The competition received eleven entries, nine of which accorded to modernist philosophy. In itself, this was a hallmark of the avant-garde ascendency in the push to represent socialist Russia. It was won by Konstantin Melnikov, the architect whose layer of input defined the pavilion.

11

O.A.Shvidkovsky.“Building in the USSR” (London, Studio Vista London,1971)p47 12 S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1981),p86/87

Melnikov

The form of the pavilion is intrinsically related to the life of the architect. In essence, the pavilion structure is the embodied manifestation of the architect’s life story, a layer of influence that encompasses his youth, upbringing, education, training and work, both previous and present. All layers of thought and influence combine in every composition of the architect’s hand. In this light, we shall focus of the biography of Konstantin Melnikov, the pavilions author.

Figure 4 Iofans Palace of the Soviets 1932 Figure 3 Vesnins Palace of Labour 1922

7

“Born in 1890, filled with the naiveté of the nineteenth century, l began life as a specimen of liberty, filled with a neglected independence. The place of my birth was not a hospital, but a worker’s cabin, the Hay

Lodge…..the source of my individuality is clearly visible…. In the architecture of that building”13

Son of peasant parents, born on hay in a suburban slum outside

Moscow, fourth of a family of five, Melnikovs life as a youth was pivotal in his resultant architectural position. The “genuine and unfathomed world

13

Melnikov, Arkhitektura moei zhizni, p2

of nature” 14 of his youth, his less prosperous upbringing rooted in the broad open tedium of the Russian landscape, where three-dimensional form made a powerful statement of presence both as volume and as silhouette, has been argued to have been the roots of his vivid formal inventiveness15. His first, brief, training was under the tutelage of master icon painter, Prlkhorow. In 1903 he went to the engineering firm Zalesskii and Chaplin, from where he was sent to the Moscow school of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture to study painting from 1910 to 1914. In 1912 he decided to switch from painting to architecture, but was persuaded by Chaplin to finish out his painting degree. Transferring to his preferred architecture in 1914, he was an architectural trainee at the school until 1917.16 His college education was almost exclusively of neo-classical orientation, as illustrated by his thesis project, Renaissance House, a military museum, marked by a diagonal entrance staircase, diagonals in the façade, shadows, Doric non-fluted columns and pediments. None the less, even at this stage, Melnikov pushed the prescribed neo-classicism to new boundaries, decidedly stressing the diagonal, non rectilinear form, a form which pervaded to his formalistic avant-garde era of architecture, and the pavilion.

Melnikovs first built project, the AMO factory (the first automobile factory in Russia) was in conjunction with engineer A.F.Loleit. His assignment was to compose the façade, in this instance ridding it of all elements unnecessary for the project, pushing historic prototypes to their zenith. A follow up, 1919, unrealised solo project, Serpukhovskaia Ulitsa, comprised a Communal housing competition entry, which earned second place. The individual, radial apartments, in a saw configuration with the

14

S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1981),p14 15 Catherine Cooke, Russia: Russian Avant-Garde: The Theories of Art, Architecture and the

City (United Kingdom: Academy Editions, 1995) p142 16

S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981),p20

Figure 5 Rusakov club Mosocw 1927

8

entrance embedded in the tooth facade, had orchards, garden kitchens and no vehicular traffic. In plan, it conjured a fan shape radiating around a community centre and kindergarten, the “first self-sustaining micro region designed in Russia”17. This project marked a pronounced elevation in his formal expressiveness and social ideals. Subsequently in 1924, the saw configuration progressed to a built resolution at the Sukharevka Markets in Moscow; where the saw orientated wooden stalls with pitched roofs embodied the iconography of the hills and Russian medieval ion paintings18. They also affirmed the diagonal, the signature of the U.S.S.R. pavilion, designed in that same year. Melnikov had designed and built a pavilion prior to the Paris exhibit for Makhorka tobacco at the All Russia Agricultural and Craft Exhibition, held in 1923. Composed of wood and glass, it was “simple and traditional but reconsidered with unconventional results”.19 It encapsulated a blend of formalist and rationalist aesthetics, with long horizontal window panels, a helical stairway and open sculptural elements on the exterior to strengthen the play of masses.20 Melnikov’s most acclaimed work came on the back of the Paris exposition in the form of the 7 workers clubs for Moscow, between 1927 and 1929, 6 of which were built21. Amongst these was the symbolic Rusakov club, an icon for the entire avant-garde era. Despite the incurred fame, as was the case with the entirety of the avant-garde, the greater number of his projects remained unrealised, together with the important fact that those that were built were far from being his principal or most brilliant works.22

17

S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981),p47 18

ibidp69 19

O.A.Shvidkovsky.“Building in the USSR” (London, Studio Vista London,1971)p58 20


O.A.Shvidkovsky.“Building in the USSR” (London, Studio Vista London,1971)p60 22

Ibid p66

The form of all Melnikov’s works derived from a single original

thought, a personal response to the brief. Anti-theoretical in his thinking, he was, in this regard, anti-constructivist. Philosophically, he depended on “exactly those chance factors of personal talent and inspiration which the constructivists believed must be replaced if socialist architecture was to be socially responsive and responsible”.23 All these strands meshed in his Paris pavilion, where he conceived the architectural representation of the revolution, and yet retained his solitary position as a visionary24 .

23

Catherine Cooke, Russia: Russian Avant-Garde: The Theories of Art, Architecture and the


William Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900 (Oxford : Phaidon, 1982),29

Figure 6 Paris Pavilion under Construction Figure 7 Diagonal Stair Case

9

U.S.S.R. Pavilion “the first small building that gave a clear evidence of the reconstruction of our architecture was the Soviet pavilion at the Paris world fair of 1925”25 The preeminent layer to this paper, around which all others oscillate, is Melnikov’s aforementioned pavilion. The significance of U.S.S.R. pavilion at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Moderne is easily understated. France had only granted diplomatic recognition to the U.S.S.R in 1924, while the U.S.S.R. had only affirmed itself in 1922 following the resolution of the civil war. It

25

El Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (United Kingdom: Lund Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), 32

constituted the premiere unveiling of a face for the communist agenda to the international community, a face which endeavoured to propagandize a socialist society. The Soviet cultural and trade authorities had, from the outset, identified the Paris exposition as a unique opportunity to accomplish this task26. So when Melnikov; governed strictly by budget and time; tried to put rhetoric into structure, utopia into symbolism and socialism into space, the converging layers were to starkly manifest themselves in the architect’s creation. The symbolic point of departure for his sketch design was the sphere, a symbol of the globe, as the globe was to be encompassed in the spirit of revolution. Melnikov fully expected the globe to revolt against capitalism27 and it was partly his agenda to further this end through architecture. Early sketches contained strong overtones of Tatlins monument to the Third International, with rotating elements embodying the motion of revolution. The staircase formed the core element of all sketches and duly passed through all phases into the final design. Progressing from the preliminary stages, he abandoned the sphere for a sickle type structure; a symbol for the labourer/the proletariat; which wrapped around the exhibition space. Conversely, this formalistic approach resulted in problems with the connection of the two realms forming deficient exhibition space. Various alterations on this theme steered the venture to its final incarnation, a rhomboidal plan, with two staircases dramatically slicing the plan from opposite corners producing two acute triangle exhibition spaces. The slice of the staircase denied the rhomboid from settling into a stable form, hence an appropriate, revolutionary form was created28. The concluded edifice was as successful in its symbolic as functional intents. 26


Ibid p88 28


Figure 8 U.S.S.R pavilion in Paris

10

“the basic concept represents an attempt to loosen up the over-all volume by exposing the staircase. In the plan, the axis of symmetry is established

on the diagonal, and all other elements are rotated by 180 degrees. Hence, the whole has been transposed from ordinary symmetry at rest

into symmetry in motion”29

“I wanted the pavilion to be as full of light and air as possible: that is my personal predilection and I think it reasonably represents the aspiration of

our whole nation”30

From the outset, the objective had been to suggest that modern architecture and socialism are opposite sides of the same coin31. New forms epitomised the new way of life. The pavilion aspired to something of the impact of a poster, with its vigorous colours, decorative lettering and emblems. The roof-like awnings that rose above the circulation stairs “soared like wings,”32and above that were the letters for U.S.S.R. in red. The layout was relatively simple, with one large exhibition space on the ground floor adjoining under the rise of the stairs and two, upper floor, triangular exhibition spaces accessed by the diagonal stairs. Arranging the spaces in this format catered for the desire of maximum circulation

29

El Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (United Kingdom: Lund

Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), 34 30


City (United Kingdom: Academy Editions, 1995) p143 31 Anatole Kopp, Town and Revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1835

(New York: George Braziller, 1970) 32

O.A.Shvidkovsky.“Building in the USSR” (London, Studio Vista London,1971)p61

through a minimal building33. Budget, like every build, was an instrumental layer as a mere 15,000 roubles had been allocated by the authorities. A timber construct resulted from this constraint, whereby French carpenters assembled the set of parts which had been shipped from Moscow by train. The tower element, which held aloft the flag and the insignia CCCP, English letter imitation of the Cyrillic Russian U.S.S.R. consisted of a system of timber pylons. “The structure is built honestly of wood but instead of relying on traditional Russian log construction employs modern wood construction methods, the whole is transparent. Unbroken colours. Therefore no false monumentality. A new spirit”34

On arrival in Paris, Melnikov was tasked with designing simple timber booths for commercial intents, by the Commisar of Foreign

33



El Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (United Kingdom: Lund Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), 34

Figure 9 Melnikovs Torgsektor kiosks

11

Trade.35 With the purpose of selling wares on display at the larger Soviet exhibits, such as Caucasian carpets, porcelain and other products, Melnikov set about the design of a piece sympathetic to his formalistic pavilion. The resulting series of three booths once again placed emphasis on the diagonal, however in this instance, on the vertical plane rather than the horizontal. They were known as the Torgsektor kiosks, and afforded the western visitor an opportunity to personally take home some eastern produce. Formalism pervaded the project. It was a representation of the formalistic wing of the radical front in the avant-garde era, a group whose primary aim was to work out a fitting architectural concept for each utilitarian task36. This group was known as Asnova, “The Association of New Architects”.37 Melnikov had informal ties in his early career and they had a profound influence on him and Russian avant-garde architecture. Asnova as a layer outlines the next strand of research. 35


ibidp33 37

Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R ./ Anatole Kopp. (New York ; London : St. Martin's Press, 1985).

Asnova

As noted in the chapter on Melnikov, the architects proposition is the sum of all layers of influence. Outside of upbringing, education, and life circumstances, current theoretical discussion in the architectural field forms a considerable stimulus for the architect and ultimately, the design. Two core groups rapidly advanced avant-garde thinking during post-revolutionary era, Asnova (The Association of New Architects) who believed architecture problems were specific; could be solved in themselves; and O.S.A., (Organisation of Contemporary Architects) who assumed architecture was inseparable from socialism itself38. Though a member of neither, Melnikov did have informal ties with Asnova, and his pavilion was more in tune with their disposition on architecture. Owing to this, and their influence on Melnikov, Asnova forms another layer in the pavilion, another strand of research. Avant-garde thinking emerged well in advance of the 1917 revolution, with Tatlin as its primary instigator. Working on a laboratory scale in 1914, with materials, volumes and construction as basic principles, he began to promote a new prerogative within art, one which communicated with the proletariat as opposed to the bourgeoisie. This work was accelerated in a revolutionary context, where new direction was actively embraced, “, what were formerly three distinct arts would become part of a continuum of work with real materials whose end products served useful functions…a whole new set of disciplines must be developed as the designers tools…union of purely artistic forms with utilitarian intentions”39

38

Anatole Kopp, Town and Revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1835

(New York: George Braziller, 1970) 39

Catherine Cooke, Russia: Russian Avant-Garde: The Theories of Art, Architecture and the City (United Kingdom: Academy Editions, 1995) p29

Figure 10 Model of Melnikovs Pavillion

12

Inspired by Tatlin, a group came together in Moscow 1919 with the intention of discovering a new kind of synthesis or common practice between the plastic arts, titled literally, Paint-Sculpt-Arch. Progressing to more formal research and discussion, the group formed a new organisation called Inkhuk: The Institute of Artistic Culture. Kandinsky (from an older genre of architects) wrote the program for it, a combination of symbolism and psychology with abstract formal analysis where the science of art was to be researched40. Kandinsky went on to be sacked; resulting from over abstraction; while in his absence, artists and architects organised themselves into working groups to investigate the specific properties of painting, sculpture and architecture. From these groups, a divergence of thought came about which formed the two Avant-garde movements that defined the era. Firstly, Asnova in 1923, led by Krisky and Laovsky, who sought to develop the psychological and perceptual direction outlined by Kandinsky’s initial programme, psychological response. Secondly, in 1925, O.S.A., guided by Vesnin and Ginzberg, who attached significance to literally building up art, constructing it i.e. the “constructivists”. “Asnova was concerned with the economies of perception as opposed to the economies of construction, the conditions necessary for the creation

of perfect architectural forms are,1 that it (the architectural form) correspond to the materials and techniques used, 2 that it correspond to the objectives and functions of the building,3 that it be disposed in such a

way that it can be perceived with the minimum amount of energy”41

40



Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R. / Anatole Kopp. (New York ; London : St. Martin's Press, 1985).p126

Asnova was preoccupied by chistaia forma (pure form)42. They

became known as the rationalists, following pursuit of the readable, rationalised building. Experiments in the realm of form were also a major priority, leading to the constructivist branding of them as formalists. Experimentation was largely conducted at Nikolai Ladovskys psycho-technical laboratory at the Vkhutemas School. The school encouraged free experimentation with basic geometrical shapes to discover the rules of a new language of composition which might, when economic reconstruction allowed it, “eventually pervade architectural thinking and even the form of the city”43.

42

Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R. / Anatole Kopp. (New York ; London : St. Martin's Press, 1985).p126 43

William Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900 (Oxford : Phaidon, 1982)p 35

Figure 11 Tatlins Monument to the 3rd

International 1919

13

The Russian Exhibit in Paris endeavoured to present the complete

spectrum of theoretical progression in the U.S.S.R. In this regard, both the cold functionalism of O.S.A. and the Romantic verve of Asnova44 required representation. If Melnikovs pavilion structure can be seen as the formalistic wing, then the fit out of a workers club by Rodchenko and Suprematist art by Popova constitute the constructivist alternate. By this method, both lines of theory were adequately expressed. Constructivism, and its expression in the Pavilion, constitutes the next chapter of research.

44 O.A. Shvidkovsky. “Building in the USSR 1917-1932” ( London, Studio Vista

London, 1971)

Section 2

The Pavilion Contents Suprematism “pre-revolutionary Russia, architecture restricted to those licensed by state, art , anyone could do it, so art fostered creativity, architecture was stagnant…the practise of architecture merely fostered diligence, while painting fostered talent”45 A signature of the Russian avant-garde was the synthesis of the arts and architecture. Suprematism was, in itself, the avant-garde of the art world and had a profound influence on the subsequent constructivist movement. Indeed, Suprematism and constructivism pervaded the internals of Melnikovs pavilion. Rodchenkos constructivist model for a workers club was adjoined by predominantly Suprematist art works, principally composed by the artist, Liubov Popova. Popova, a strong proponent of Malevichs Suprematist technique, was a central figure in the avant-garde art movement prior to her death in 1924. Suprematism was a pivotal layer in the evolution of architecture and the arts in Russia. Its founder was Kazimir Malevich. Born in Kiev in 1878, Malevich was a son of Russified Poles. Like Melnikov, his agrarian youth in idyllic provincial towns lived long in the memory. Teenage years brought with them the love of art, of which he was primarily self-thought. 1904 marked the year of his move to Moscow, to study art under Fedor Rerberg46. For the most part producing works of art nouveau, symbolist and impressionist nature, he proceeded to the avant-garde aesthetics of cubism and futurism during their zenith from

45


Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), p28 46 Kazimir Severinovich Malevich, Malevich : artist and theoretician (Paris : Flammarion,

1990), p8

Figure 12 Malevich 8 Red Rectangles 1918

14

1910 to 1914. Vital to the understanding of the new art was the notion of Zuam language, a transcendental language of the future that was the outward manifestation of a writer’s highly-advanced consciousness; Zuam man was beyond reason, or beyond the logical mind47. Suprematism was the progression of cubo-futurism, the next plain. Exhibited for the first time in December 1915 at Petrograd, it postulated a complete abandonment of the natural word, a totally man-made pretence. Malevich says of it

“only when the habit of ones consciousness to see in paintings bits of

nature, Madonna’s and shameless nudes has disappeared, shall we see a pure-painting composition. I have transformed myself into the jollity of

forms and pulled myself out of the circle of things, out of the circle-horizon in which the artist and forms of nature are locked…. Art is moving towards

its self-appointed end of creation, to the domination of the forms of nature”48

Malevich was fixated with the idea of the new man which emerges from the machine age. Through mechanisation, man would be liberated from the tyranny of nature, arising the possibility of a totally man made world. This concept was reflected on the Suprematist canvas. Art had become totally divorced from the material phenomena and free of the physical object 49“A purely abstract method of drawing geometrical forms, colours, squares and lines (the dialogue between which created energy) on a white canvas characterised the movement. One no longer “read” the painting, which was now perceived a combination of colours, 47

Kazimir Severinovich Malevich, Malevich : artist and theoretician (Paris : Flammarion, 1990), p8 48 Camilla Gray, The Russian experiment in art 1863-1922 / Camilla Gray (London : Thames

and Hudson, 1986), 20 49 Esther Levinger, Art and Mathematics in the Thought of El Lissitzky: His Relationship to

Suprematism and Constructivism( Leonardo, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1989) p. 228

Figure 13 Malevich Suprematist construction1916

forms and textures50. This was supplemented through the additional element of the Suprematist straight line, which was based on the modernity of the aeroplane, the rationale of the machine.51 It liberated itself from the classical ideal of proportions in art

50 John E. Bowlt, “Constructivism and Russian Stage Design,” Performing Arts Journal, Vol.

1, No. 3 (Winter, 1977): 69, accessed: 01/02/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3245250. 51

Catherine Cooke, Russia: Russian Avant-Garde: The Theories of Art, Architecture and the City (United Kingdom: Academy Editions, 1995) p154

15

“Any proportion presupposes constancy of each element (the CLASSICAL ORDERS), but any transformation presupposes variability (SUPREMATISM). An old work of art can be increased or decreased, whereas a modern work of art has to be transformed”52

The October revolution of 1917 brought about the conditions whereby the artist could integrate intrinsically into the new society. Leftist artists were adopted as the state’s official artists. Art was seen a way to communicate to the proletariat, the vast majority of which were illiterate. Russia became the first country in the world to exhibit abstract art officially and on such a wide scale via a series of government sponsored galleries in 1918. That same year, a milestone of the avant-garde occurred when art and architecture were combined, in the Vkhutemas Studios, the official architecture school of Moscow, where Suprematism was embraced. The school programe was dominated by leftist artists, and as explained by El Lissitzky,

“the efforts of the new architecture to loosen up volumes and to

create a spatial interpenetration between outside and inside found their early expression in this work…this effort, as well as a later series of experiments with materials and models, gave birth to the term “constructivism”53 Indeed, Lissitzky advanced Suprematism with his version, Proun, which is regarded as the most comprehensive link between art and architecture. Abstract Prouns were conceived as ideograms with a utopian content, and also as a basic form of language applicable to sculpture, furniture, typography and buildings54.This proximity between

52

El Lissitzky, "Proun", trans.John E. Bowlt, in El Lissitzky (Cologne: Galerie Gmurzynska, 1976).p62 53


Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), 29 54

William Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900 (Oxford : Phaidon, 1982 p32

the practices led to a debate at Inkhuk regarding the role of art in society, which resulted in a divergence in direction. Malevich, Kandinsky and Pevsner argued that art was by its nature useless and in becoming useful, art ceased to exist, the utilitarian designer ceased to provide the source for new design. On the other side, Tatlin and Rodchenko argued the artist must become the technician; learn to use the modern tools to bring art into life. The machine was pivotal, as it had the potential to release man from labour55. Owing to its direct interaction with the proletariat, the later argument won out, and in 1926, the art college Inkhuk was closed. This movement became known as constructivism, as was exhibited in the form of a Rodchenkos workers club in the Paris Pavilion. Rodchenko also coordinated the finishes applied to the pavilion. Rodechenkos quintessential layer of influence of the Pavillion posits the next study. Rodchenko “independently of their individual training, these artists worked not only as painter, but also as architect, graphic artist in the world of publishing,

designers, set-designers, pattern makers and as organizers and decorators of mass theatrical productions”56

Like Melnikov in the pavilion structure and Malevich in the

Suprematist movement, the layer of Alexander Rodchenko, coupled with the constructivist philosophy, resulted in the pavilions interior layout. Son of a theatre accessories craftsman and a laundress, Rodchenko was born in Saint Petersburg in 1891. A very simple origin, son of first generation town’s people whose fore-fathers had been serfs, is

55

Camilla Gray, The Russian experiment in art 1863-1922 / Camilla Gray (London : Thames and Hudson, 1986),p 248 56 Khan-Magomedov, Selim Omarovich, Rodchenko : The complete work (London : Thames

and Hudson, 1986), p11

16

reminiscent of the upbringing of both Melnikov and Malevich. It’s interesting to note that in the constructivist movement, he proved the exception, as most of the leading members, e.g. the Venin’s and Ginzberg, were progeny of the bourgeoisie57. His father, who was a skilled craftsman, formed the origin his construction intrigue. He briefly attended Ganove School of applied art and by 1914, he was experimenting with pencil and compass drawings. His style was highly geometrical, composed of straight lines with rare curves and only with a compass58. In 1916, through entries he submitted for The Store exhibition, he met Tatlin and Malevich59.It was these two artists who moulded the prospectus for his career thereafter. From Tatlin, he developed a profound interest in surface textures, imitated followed by real and from Malevich he gained a dynamic axis to his work, a use of pure geometric form in firstly 2, then 3 dimensions. Resulting from a combination of these two artists ideals, he evolved an original method of constructivist design.60

3 dimensional design works postulated his movement away from Malevich, and the unnecessary world of the canvas, “Art into Life”61 As we have seen, a debate took place about the role of art in society at Inkhuk which led to a split between the rationalists and the constructivists. Malevich was sacked and Brik instated as leader of the Inkhuk. Rodchenko was one of the founding fathers for the constructivists and agreed, along with the rest of the faculty members to

57


University Press, 1981),p14 58

Khan-Magomedov, Selim Omarovich, Rodchenko : The complete work (London : Thames

and Hudson, 1986), p107 59

Camilla Gray, The Russian experiment in art 1863-1922 / Camilla Gray (London : Thames and Hudson, 1986), 211 60

ibid p213 61

ibid p247

”abandon the terrain of pure art and commit themselves to working in industry. They took production art, defined as the formation of useful objects, to be the purpose of artistic activity and declared that constructivism was it sole form of expression”62

Rodchenko became the principal of the Metfak at Vkhutemas, where he guided students through constructivist methods of design via metal fabrication. Thesis students were the instigators of much of his visions, as the industrial process in Russia was practically non-existent. Yet, it was not in metal that his model workers club for the Pavilion at Paris was made, but wood, as he oft used this material in his own work63 . It consisted of furniture for a reading room (table, chair shelf for display of books and magazines, glass case for posters and newspapers)64.

62 Victor Margolin, The struggle for Utopia : Rodchenko, Lissitzky, Moholy-Nagy (Chicago ;

London : University of Chicago Press, c1997), p81 63


and Hudson, 1986), p179 64

Ibid p179

Figure 14 Rodchenko Constructivist Photomontage 1925

17

The area made up of easily assembled components for meetings,

assemblies and readings of the” livering newspaper “(comprising speaker’s platform, a place for the chairman or editor of the newspaper, a movable wall, a screen for the projection of illustrative material, and a retractable screen strip for slogans and sliders)A small corner for Lenin( a movable glass case for the display of materials, including space for captions, a movable showcase for posters and slogans and another for photographs) a stand for the wall newspaper with movable flaps for automatic making-up: a chess table with shelves that from a single block with two seats: spotlights to direct light up and down: “chess notices” and a space for glass slides. All elements in 4 colours grey, red, black and white”65

65

Khan-Magomedov, Selim Omarovich, Rodchenko : The complete work (London : Thames and Hudson, 1986), p179

The orator stand proved the most versatile design, the most emblematic of the constructivist ethos66. With the potential to thrust several meters out into the surrounding room, and retract accordingly, the piece embodied literally the tenet of dynamism, of movement within a construct, concealing and revealing benches and projector screens in the process. Rodchenko devised his rules of club furniture67, the principal one being that they had to be constructed so as to serve one or more precise collective functions. Objects in a club were few and needed to be convertible for reasons of economy. The change of use was not to be arbitrary and the furniture had to be readily moveable so as to clear out of the way of other functions. It was also incumbent that the furniture was stackable, to economise space. Indeed the Workers club formed a central principle in the socialist utopia. It was one of the primary social condensers. To comprehend the importance of Rodchenkos club in the context of the Paris pavilion, it is incumbent to understand the social condenser, an imperative layer in the socialist agenda.

The Workers Club/Social Condensers

“for the constructivists, a social condenser was a building, complex,

district or even whole city which, in addition to its immediate functions, would firstly foreshadowthe architecture and town planning of the future

so that future users would grow accustomed to both; and secondly influence users through its use of space so as to introduce a new way of

life into their social habits”68

66

Christina Kiaer, “Rodchenko in Paris,” October, Vol. 75 (Winter, 1996), p 31 ,accessed:

25/02/2011 20:00, http://www.jstor.org/stable/778897. 67


and Hudson, 1986), p186 68


Figure 15 Rodchenko 3d spatial art Figure 16 Orators Platform from pavilion

18

Rodchenkos club, the so called social condenser, enacted in Melnikovs pavilion, was the keystone layer in the Soviet plan to create a new way of life. “Building of socialism” formed a central precept in the eyes of the communist party, and the way earmarked for such an agenda was the collectivisation of society. Collectivisation required a new form of structure, a structure that proved unnecessary in the fractured capitalist system of the west, a system that saw man as a mere cog in the corporate conglomerate. This build type was the aforementioned social condenser, a peculiarity of the communist way of life and exemplified by the workers club.

“the social condenser can therefore be seen as a sort of mechanism for

transforming habits; for transforming former man, who was a product of the capitalist system, into that new man described in all the political and

revolutionary literature of the time”69 The social condenser took on numerous guises, workers clubs, housing, theatres, palaces of culture, schools and factories. Indeed, the industrial complexes constituted a utopian version of the social condenser, as the machine, and its liberating qualities were seen as the solution for the realisation of a socialist society. Factory life would literally manufacture the working class, as the vast majority were peasantry from the country, who had no formal training or skills in their work70. It was an instrument of political symbolism and the underpinnings of the constructivist aspiration. In reality, the factories realised bared remarkable resemblance to their western, Fordist, counterparts and the theoretical considerations remained principally theory.

69

Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R. / Anatole Kopp. (New York ;

London : St. Martin's Press, 1985).p69 70


“the aim of the club is to liberate man and not to oppress him as was formerly done by the church and the state… it is to become a university of

culture”71 The workers club as a social condeser, paradoxically, proved a

more fruitful constellation. As there were no precedents, for form or function, a fundamentally original architectural proposition was in sight. In a society of supercollectivisation the workers club amounted to the space of replenishment and enlightenment of the labourer amongst labourers72. They became the focal points of the community, carrying out important

71

El Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (United Kingdom: Lund Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), p44 72

Andrei Ikonnikov. Russian Architecture of the Soviet Period (Moscow, Raduga Publishers, 1988),p76

Figure 17 Rodchenkos workers Club in Paris pavilion

19

objectives of the state, principally eradicating illiteracy and creating the social commune. Melnikovs series of six clubs subsequent to the pavilion in Paris were landmarks in the evolving development of the club. Unfortunately, theoretically as opposed to architecturally, they were a self-defeating entity as in practice, they were strictly supervised and built on land allotted by companies, in so doing crystalizing the corporative carving up of the Soviet society.73

Rodchenko, his club and furniture, along with the Suprematist work by Popova displayed internally in the pavilion, formed the representation of the constructivist movement within the Soviet avant-garde. Constructivism, as spearheaded by the O.S.A. group was the adversary of Asnova and with them, formed the central theoretical work postulated during the avant-garde era. The layered thought vested in this pivotal theory, which is housed in the pavilion forms the next study.

73

Jean-Louis Cohen, The Lost Vanguard: Russian Modernist Architecture 1922-1932(New York: The Monacelli Press, 2007),p 22

The Constructivists/O.S.A.

“Taking an idea as a modular unit and "building" with it, the notion of construction was dynamic and logical and could be applied to many

realms of creativity, from art to political systems. It thus became a key word during a period of change in Russia, and on it turned everything that

sought its justification in scientific reality or the scientific process”74 Melnikovs formalist U.S.S.R. pavilion for Paris housed the rationalist alternate of avant-garde thinking, the constructivist movement. Rodchenkos workers club encapsulates the reality of the constructivist mantra, a train of thought that far outdates the 1917 revolution. The term construction had arisen within the Russian avant-garde during the early twentieth century, in reference to the surface of Cubo-Futurist works75, having been derived from the French cubist use of the term (le construction). Central to this term was the notion of construction as the creative and organizing principle of art, a notion that provided a system which united the expanse of the artistic realm encompassing painting, sculpture, architecture, theatre design, graphics , photography , film, utilitarian object design, porcelain, furniture, poetry and music. It strove to do this without hierarchy, creating a new artistic culture fit for a communist, socialist society.76

74 Patricia Railing, “The Idea of Construction as the Creative Principle in Russian Avant-

Garde Art,” Leonardo, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1995), 193, accessed: 01/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 75 Briony Fer, “Metaphor and Modernity: Russian Constructivism,” Oxford Art Journal, Vol.

12, No. 1 (1989): 16, accessed 03/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360263. 76

Patricia Railing, “The Idea of Construction as the Creative Principle in Russian Avant-

Garde Art,” Leonardo, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1995), 193, accessed: 01/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/

Figure 18 Rodchenkos Workers Club, Opposite View

http://www.jstor.org/stable/


20

Constructivist (not formally named so until 1921) adherents of all artistic endouver, set about the embracement of the scientific age, declaring its spirit to be the basis of perception of the new world, inside and outside of human life. It began on the artists easel, whereby the artist searched for new avenues, new attitudes in what to look for in art. It prophesied, as Nuam Gabo put it

“that life and nature conceal an infinite variety of forces, depths, and aspects never seen and only faintly felt which have not less but more

importance to be expressed and to be made more concretely felt through some kind of an image communicable not only to our reason, but to our

immediate everyday perceptions and feelings of life and nature”77

As we have seen, a natural progression occurred whereby, in the hands of Tatlin, the constraints of the 2 dimensional canvas succumbed to the outward expanse of 3 dimensional space. Tatlin, in tandem with the avant-garde artists, aspired to the reuniting of art and industry under the banner of socialism. Ultimately, it was envisaged that production and art would merge into a whole, at the service of the proletariat.78 However, Tatlins veer towards objectivism, formed the catalyst for the objective working groups at Vkhutemas, from which emerged a consolidation of previous artistic endeavour, formally entitled the “Constructivists”. Its main theoretician was Alexei Gan who enshrined the isms manifesto in his 1922 publication Constuctivism.

77

Patricia Railing, “The Idea of Construction as the Creative Principle in Russian Avant-

Garde Art,” Leonardo, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1995), 193, accessed: 01/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 78 Christina Lodder, “Art of the Commune: Politics and Art in Soviet Journals,” Art Journal,

Vol. 52, No. 1 (Spring, 1993): 32, Accessed: 01/04/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/777299.

“ art is dead… art is dangerous as religion as an escapist activity… let us cease our speculative activity (painting pictures) and take over the healthy bases of art colour ,line, materials and forms- into the field of reality, of practical construction”79 Tectonics, Faktura and Construction formed the three central tenets of constructivism, that is to say, structuring, handling, and organizing material. The aspiration was to achieve 'the communistic expression of material structures' and a synthesis between the 'ideological aspect with the formal'80. This was to be achieved through the establishment of core principles that would enable the systematic structuring of properties, which in turn could be used across the arts. These principles concerned the consideration allied with appropriated deployment of movement, dynamic, energy and force within a project. As an exemplar, one could consider the materials of iron and wood, having

79

Camilla Gray, The Russian experiment in art 1863-1922 / Camilla Gray (London : Thames

and Hudson, 1986), 256 80 Briony Fer, “Metaphor and Modernity: Russian Constructivism,” Oxford Art Journal, Vol.

12, No. 1 (1989): 16, accessed 03/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360263.

Figure 19 Ginzburgs Narkomfin Apartment block, Moscow 1928


http://www.jstor.org/stable/777299

21

differing inherit properties of strength and elasticity, called for different constructions as they incorporate differing kinds of energy and force81. In the architectural field, constructivism adopted a rationalised aesthetic, following on from its artistic roots. It was coined in Moisei Ginzburg’s 1924 publication, Epoch and Style in which he advocates the machine as the perfect idiom for a socialist aesthetic

“One of the fundamental characteristics of the machine as an independent organism is its extraordinarily well defined and precise

organization….. No waste, all parts necessary...thus, under the influence of the machine is forged in our minds a concept of beauty and

perfection.”82

Architectural realisation of constructivism occurred in the drawings by the Vesnin brothers entered in the Pravda competition of 1924, as described by el Lissitzky “all accessories- which on a typical city

81

Patricia Railing, “The Idea of Construction as the Creative Principle in Russian Avant-Garde Art,” Leonardo, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1995), 196, accessed: 01/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 82

Moisei Ginzburg, Style and epoch foreword by Kenneth Frampton (Cambridge, Mass: London,1982), 86

street are usually tacked onto the building- such as signs, advertising, clocks, loudspeakers, and even the elevators inside, have been incorporated as integral elements of the design and combined into a unified whole. This is the aesthetic of constructivism.”83

In actuality, it was these aforementioned architects, the Vesnins

and Ginzburg who formed the official branch of Constructivist movement

in 1925, O.S.A. the Union of Contemporary Architects. Only members of

this branch could truly consider themselves constructivists, as only they

rigidly adhered to Gans constructivist manifesto. Alternate members

united in teams for competitions, popularly regarded as the “O.S.A.

brigade”.84 O.S.A. spear headed the formal research into constructivism,

the results of which were published in their bi-monthly magazine

sovremennaia arkhitektura (Contemporary Architecture), or SA, between

1926 and 193085. One such pursuit was the iconic research done for

Stroikom RSFSR housing section. This research into constructivist housing

typologies, appropriate for the socialist, collectivist aspirations of the

party, resulted in the A-K type apartments. The F-type apartment

eventually went on to form the Ginzburgs Narkomfin apartment block,

one of the exemplars of the avant-garde era.

Having now considered the predominant contributory layers

amongst the multitude that resulted in the U.S.S.R pavilion in Paris, we

shall now conclude with the final chapter, the layer of the Parisian setting

and the pavilions interaction with it.

83

El Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (United Kingdom: Lund Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970), 32 84

Anatole Kopp, Town and Revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1835

(New York: George Braziller, 1970 85

Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R./ Anatole Kopp. (New York ; London : St. Martin's Press, 1985).p23

Figure 20 Pravda building Vesnin Brothers 1923


22

Section 3

The Pavilion Setting L’exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes

“at night, when the whole place is a blaze of light, the bridge becomes a waterfall, by a series of hidden pipes the water pours from both flanks of the

bridge upon the river, lit till it is like a fire. At the same time a great fountain plays in the centre of the seine, now leaping up into the back sky, now scattering in a

cascades of innumerable sprays of glimmering drops which make a fine rain upon the dark river”

86

L’exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs formed the

background layer into which Melnikov’s U.S.S.R. pavilion was inserted. Officially inaugurated in Paris, April 28, by President Doumergue, the exposition set about substantiating that France had recovered from the Great War, that it was a hub of modern art and above all, that is was still the preeminent house of world fashions, the nexus of the female commodity87. Indeed, it was this paradoxical clash of ideologies, commodity and labourer, east and west, socialism and capitalism, communism and free market that structured the predominant facet of interest of this pavilion. The contradictory trains of thought which surfaced in this exposition amassed an additional layer in this pavilions story, a layer only understood through an study of the exposition and its aspirations.

86 H. de C. “A general view”, Architectural Review, July-December 1925. 58, p.2 and p.6 87 -, “The Paris Exposition,” Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 87, No. 6 (JUNE,

1925), pp. 323 Published, accessed: 25/02/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20660930.

Exposition culture pervaded turn of the twentieth century

Parisian life. In 1889, the Exposition Universelle, a world’s fair that heralded the construction of the Eiffel Tower, was held. The 1900 Exposition Universelle followed, which forwarded the Grand Palais as its centre piece. Both expositions were conducted in the city centre, encompassing the Champs Elysees, Hotel des Invalides esplanade, gardens and its immediate environs. Again, it was this space in the city, though now confined to the Hotel des Invalides gardens and stretching across the Pont Alexandre to the Grand Palais, which provided the setting for the Exposition of 1925. This setting, however, was not graced with any grandiose structures which the previous fairs warranted. Instead, it was purely a fair for the commodity which utilised the previous fairs structures as a stage sets88

“the world exhibitions glorified the exchange value of commodities. They created a framework in which their use value receded into the background. They opened up a phantasmagoria into which people entered in order to be distracted”

89

88

Tag Gronberg. Designs on Modernity: Exhibiting the city in 1920s Paris (Manchester,

Manchester University Press, 1998), p15 89

Charles Baudelaire : A lyric poet in the Era of High Capitalism, New Left Books, London, 1973, p.165

Figure 21 Plan/images of Exposition

23

Planning of the event commenced in 1907, accelerating in

reaction to Austellung Munchen, a modern design fair in Munich in 190890. From the outset, the method of presentation was paramount to what the exposition strove to achieve, evolving from a group of modern decorated dwellings to technical groups of objects arranged by material in a single space, which in turn was superseded by the idea of an array of small pavilions, each hosting a vast range of manufactured produce. After a revaluation of ideals resulting from the war, the final format was arrived at, a format consisting of a mix of pavilions and exhibition space, but all defined in relation to a specific class of consumers, to harbour a consistency between finish and fashion, to attend to the commoditised desires of the bourgeoisie91.

The exposition sought to define an identity and supremacy for French goods on the international market. Of the 23 hectare site, two thirds were devoted to French exhibits, though America and Germany were not represented. 92 The exhibition layout and its architecture

90

Simon Dell, “The Consumer and the Making of the "Exposition Internationale des Arts

Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes,” Journal of Design History, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1999): 312 accessed: 25/02/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1316240. 91

Ibid p319 92

Tag Gronberg. Designs on Modernity: Exhibiting the city in 1920s Paris (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998), p8

functioned to produce the “aesthetic of appeal” for the commodity93. Paradoxically to the title Art Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, primary material and technological displays were prohibited, as this fair was purely to fetishize the commodity, particularly female fashion, as well as a mechanism for branding Paris. Even the constructivists themselves partly succumbed to this phantasmagorical creation, Rodchenko purchasing a complete new clothing attire on arrival, as well as an ICA movie camera “I am terribly happy…I am sitting and turning it around in my hands”94, revelling in the quality of the purchased commodity. One couldn’t actually purchase any of the wears exhibited, yet one was only minutes from the Champs Elysees and the boutiques were a window to this theatre of commerce.

Two pavilions stood aghast at this decorated world of conceit. The U.S.S.R pavilion, with its antithesis manifesto stood alongside a comrade of the modernist mantra. Le Corbusier, with his pavilion l’Espirit Nouveau, joined Melnikov in the display of the avant-gardism. His pavilion, as the western/capitalist alternate of the modernist movement to the Russian/Communist version is useful in siting our pavilion in a world perspective, as well as acknowledging le Corbusier’s layer of influence on the Russian avant-garde, and vice-versa.

93

Tag Gronberg. Designs on Modernity: Exhibiting the city in 1920s Paris (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998), p11 94 Christina Kiaer, “Rodchenko in Paris,” October, Vol. 75 (Winter, 1996), p 13 ,accessed:

25/02/2011 20:00, http://www.jstor.org/stable/778897.

Figure 22 Melnikovs Pavilion in Exposition Plan

24

Le Corbusier/ L’Espirit Nouveau Pavilion

“Great art lives by humble means.

Glitter is going under. The hour of proportion has arrived.

The spirit of architecture is asserting itself. What has happened? A machine age has been born.” 95

Paris, through its exposition and by means of pavilion structures,

experienced two forceful modernist manifestos in 1925. Forwarded by the U.S.S.R. and Le Corbusier, both encompassed a social orientation and both fetishized the machine, but whereas the U.S.S.R. was a state backed, communist enterprise, Le Corbusier mounted a solo front, an entrepreneurial approach so adorned in the west. It’s probable to suggest that the U.S.S.R. arrived in Paris partly in ignorance. On the contrary, Le Corbusier set out from the genesis to attack the phantasmagoria of the exposition, to expose the “plaster palaces writhing with decoration”96 that surrounded his pavilion. In actuality, l‘Espirit Nouveau proved as cohesive at portraying its vision as the U.S.S.R, a blunt instrument which ardently followed the logic fostered by its author, Le Corbusier.

Born in 1887, Charles-Edouard Jennaeret was the son of a watch engraver and musician. Developing an interest in regionalism, he moved to Paris in 1908 to work for Auguste Perret, in doing so, inheriting his obsession for reinforced concrete and rationalist theory97. In 1911, he partook in a journey of the orient, a tour of the ancient world of the Adriatic, a tour that embossed architectural ideologies that endured his

95

Le Corbusier. The decorative art of today; translated by James I. Dunnett. (London :

Architectural Press, 1987).p129 96

Ibid 139 97 Michael Raeburn and Victoria Wilson. Le Corbusier, architect of the century. (London :

Arts Council of Great Britain, 1987).p14

career thereafter. Primarily concerning the concept of standardisation, these tenets were refined into his 5 points of architecture, published in Vers un Architecture in 1923. They were touted is his publication l’Espirit Nouveau, and enacted in his pavilion of the same name in 1925.

L’Espirit Nouveau pavilion comprised of a prototype urban living space; which could be stacked so as to form an urban block; and an exhibition space housing town planning schemes devised by Corbusier, primarily Ville Contemporaine and Plan Voisin for Paris. Radical and startling, these critiques on the modern, hectic/inefficient city strata were proposed to shock as much as to be acted upon. Corbusier supposed that mass produced housing and standardisation could, “impose geometry (and hence order) on the existing chaos of the city.” 98 Parisians were particularly taken aback by the Plan Voisin, which envisaged the clearing of large swathes of historical, city centre Paris, an “innovation for which our spirit is not yet prepared”.99 This urban surgery supplanted history with towering steel and glass monoliths, rising out of the newly 98



Le Corbusier “Le Plan Voisin de Paris” Almanach d`architecture modern, Editions Connivences , Paris, p.177

Figure 24 l’Espirit Nouveau Pavilion Figure 23 l’Espirit Nouveau Internal view

25

landscaped parkland, now the domain of car, tree, animal and human alike. In effect, the pavilion housed the theoretical utopias into which the pavilion could be inserted.

If l’Espirit Nouveau prophesied a future utopian city, it also distained against, the then current, Parisian realities. Natural light would bath the skyscrapers occupants as opposed to the artificial light emitted by the exposition. Within the pavilion, prototypes in innovation were displayed, innovation which catered for new man’s necessities as opposed to his supposed desires of the exposition. The Innovation trunk marks such an endeavour, a new age case, a “model for the mass produced built in furniture that would enliven the wall”100. This standardisation, in contrast to the ostentatious luxury throughout the fair, pervaded the pavilion, the bicycle tube stairs, the machine decorated pots, the precast casiers, the machined rug, the bentwood chairs and the Roneo doors. Indeed these Roneo metal doors were without visible

100

Tag Gronberg. Designs on Modernity: Exhibiting the city in 1920s Paris (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998), p40

frames, permitting nothing more than a human entry and so, in essence, the door as an architectural motif disappeared. 101 This tie with firms of mass production, such as Roneo and Innovation, and there perception of design was paramount for le Corbusier. His pavilion and his publication acted as self-provocation as well as advertisements of the industrial necessity. For le Corbusier realised that only through influence on the scale of private mass industry could his utopian world become reality. Indeed the name Voisin originated from the Voisin airplane manufacturer, who had contributed 25 000 francs towards the pavilion.102 In effect, his pavilion was charged with many fundamentally similar aspirations as that of the U.S.S.R, but addressed to capitalist system of the west.

“as a whole L'Espirit Nouveau can be viewed as an attempt by the industrial elite of France to understand the logic of their own industrial activity and to raise an awareness that "artistic design" is not needed for its products.”103

l’Espirit Nouveau pavilion was dismantled in the spring following the closure of the exposition in November 1925. Upon this occasion le Corbusier remarked that not a single stain besmirched its facades, not a single stain sullied its ceilings. 104 With the durability of concrete affirmed, he leaves the exposition in a consolidated postion, standardisation is the way forward, the pavilion had served its purpose.

101



Mary McLeod, “Taylorism, Technocracy, and Social Change,” Art Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2,

(Summer, 1983), pp. 141 accessed 12/03/2011, : http://www.jstor.org/stable/776649. 103

Stanislaus von Moos and Margaret Sobiesky, “Le Corbusier and Loos,” : Assemblage,

No. 4 (Oct., 1987), pp. 26, accessed 11/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171033. 104 Tag Gronberg, “The "Pavillon de l'Esprit Nouveau",” Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2

(1992), pp. 60, accessed 11/03/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360501.

Figure 25 l’Espirit Nouveau Stacked Apartment

26

External Reaction In assessing these manifestos impact upon Parisian and World affairs at the time, the final layer posits the reaction of the press and architects at the time. Firstly from a nation unrepresented, the United States, the reaction of the New York Architectural Record “the most eccentric (of the pavilions) is diving the opinion of the many

who have stood aghast before it, some declaring it a practical joke on the exposition and others warmly asserting this monstrosity to be rich in

symbolism and an advance in the direction of a new art millennium. This building is the contribution of the Soviet Russians to the new modern

school and it follows closely the formula which banishes completely all curves and ornaments. A facetious writer in the Paris press hazards the guess that the edifice must have been completely constructed in Russia and taken down, piece by piece, for shipment to Paris. It is quite clear,

says the journalist, that some of the packing boxes were mistakenly labelled and that the reconstructing the Soviet monument the workmen

have mixed up the various units”105

Following is the reaction of a member of the French press in a magazine published in June 1925 “France has made up her mind to show the world what she is able to produce in the fields of modern art, and to prove that she has lost nothing of her ancient mastery of good taste. All the nations participating have vied with each other to bring their very best to Paris. Pavilions of the great

105


nations stand open, side by side, in a magnificent "roadway of nations" along the Seine, but America is not among them.”106 Next are the comments of a sceptical French journalist, on l’Esprit Nouveau pavilion, which were typical of the suspicion that many Frenchmen had of Le Corbusier's advocacy of the mass-produced dwelling,

“the "house-tool": If this pavilion is in the author's intention a demonstration to teach the public, which has forgotten it, the supremacy of construction over ornament, then I approve of it, with the reservation

that none of this is so new that one wishes it affirmed for us; but if he intends to persuade us, with a forcefulness that has nothing persuasive

about it, that a house is a "machine for living," no. A house is not a factory where one works and where, in order to earn a little paper money, one performs a few mechanical gestures, always the same. A house, to be

sure, must be answerable to logic, reason, and good sense, and we find, thank God! enough of these qualities in our national and regional traditions, without seeking them in German-Swiss rationalism.”107

Following are the comments of Álvaro Aalto, on le Corbusiers expert communication between the inside and outside spaces, as seen at l’Espirit Nouveau. Aalto and le Corbusier first met at a CIAM congress in Frankfurt, 1929, and deepened their personal acquaintance in 1933 during the CIAMs congress cruise to Athens

106 -, “The Paris Exposition,” Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 87, No. 6 (JUNE,

1925), pp. 323 Published, accessed: 25/02/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20660930. 107 Leandre Vaillat, "La Tendance internationale a l'exposition des arts decoratifs,"

L'lllustration no. 4313 (October 31, 1925), pp. 459.

27

“latter-day classicism” a brilliant example of the affinity of the home

interior and garden, is it a hall, beautifully open to the exterior and taking its dominating character from the trees, or is it a garden built into the

house, a garden room? “108

Melnikovs pavilion was signalled out for international praise. Josef Hoffman, director of the Vienna school of art and architect of the Austrian pavilion, termed it “the best pavilion in the entire exhibition”109, meanwhile the French newspaper Le Quotidien forcast that it would be “the hit of the exhibition”. Art and Decoration declared it to be “one of the most celebrated pavilions of the exposition” 110 Luis Barragan visited the exposition during his trip to Europe, stating that the exposition demonstrated the conflict between the “contemporaries” and the “moderns”111 He remained generally disinterested in the Exposition, except for two pavilions, that of Melnikovs and le Corbusier’s. Of le Corbusiers he says

“the domestic dimension of modern life was interpreted to the smallest detail’ the pavilion itself seemed like a piece from an immevle villa and

constituted the most coherent proposal among all those at the exhibition”112

108

ran Schildt. “Alvar Aalto in his own words”. (New York : Rizzoli, 1998).p52 109


University Press, 1981),p102 110

Ibid,p102 111 Antonio Riggen Mart nez, Luis Barragan : Mexico's modern master, 1902-1988 (New

York : Monacelli, 1996),p22 112

Ibid,p24

Conclusion

“Let's face it - concrete is boring. Most of us recognise it instantly, when we see hideous flats and offices from the 1960s and 1970s, that for a brief

moment were the cutting edge of architecture”.113

An extract from an April 2011 BBC website article on new age, green concrete spells out a generalised assessment of late modernist and Brutalist architecture. Time, through realised usage proves the ultimate success or failure of an architectural endeavour. Per contra, as this paper aspired to transmit, it’s the contributory layers that have led to the success of failure which provide the source of most intrigue in architectural critique. An intrigued Parisian peering at Melnikovs Pavilion in Paris would most probably not have apprehended the years of philosophical, theoretical, political and architectural progression in the U.S.S.R which it resulted from. For at face value, a construct cannot possibly express contributing layers embodied within it, only the results as applied by the composer. An exemplar of this is Suprematism, an art which in classical terms, could be termed not to be art at all. Yet that was precisely it. Malevich questioned what art is and with his composition, Black Square pushed known boundaries to their extremities, the sum of the theory arguably greater than the resulting piece. Compositions are the culmination of contributing layers. In the study of these, all endeavours may be viewed in a new light.

“architecture is a construct of the mind which gives material form to the

sum consciousness of its age”114

113

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13006623 114 Le Corbusier. The decorative art of today; translated by James I. Dunnett. (London :

Architectural Press, 1987).p115

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13006623

28

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor John Tuomey for his valuable contribution in the construction of this paper.

List of Illustrations Figure 1 U.S.S.R Pavilion Paris 1925 (Starr 1981, p91) ............................. 3

Figure 2 Melnikov Sketch’s for Paris Pavilion (Ginzburg 1982, p32) ..... 5

Figure 3 Vesnins Palace of Labour 1922 (Cooke 1995, p41) ................. 6

Figure 4 Iofans Palace of the Soviets 1932 (Cooke 1995, p205) ........... 6

Figure 5 Rusakov club Mosocw 1927 (Starr 1981, p134) ...................... 7

Figure 6 Paris Pavilion under Construction (Starr 1981, p96) ............... 8

Figure 7 Diagonal Stair Case (Starr 1981, p96) ..................................... 8

Figure 8 U.S.S.R pavilion in Paris (Starr 1981, p96) ............................... 9

Figure 9 Melnikovs Torgsektor kiosks (Starr 1981, p98) ..................... 10

Figure 10 Model of Melnikovs Pavillion ............................................... 11

Figure 11 Tatlins Monument 1919 (Kopp 1970, p53) ........................... 12

Figure 12 Malevich 8 Red Rectangles 1918 (Severinovich 1990,p104) . 13

Figure 13 Malevich Suprematist 1916 (Severinovich 1990,p109) ......... 14

Figure 14 Rodchenko Photomontage 1925 (Khan 1986, p156) ............ 16

Figure 15 Rodchenko 3d spatial art (Khan 1986, p156) ........................ 17

Figure 16 Orators Platform from pavilion (Khan 1986, p180)............... 17

Figure 17 Rodchenkos workers Club (Khan 1986, p176) ....................... 18

Figure 18 Rodchenkos Workers Club (Khan 1986, p156) ...................... 19

Figure 19 Ginzburgs Narkomfin 1928 (Kopp 1985, p71) ....................... 20

Figure 20 Pravda building 1923(Kopp 1985, p44) ................................. 21

Figure 21 Plan/images of Exposition (Gronberg 1998, p2) ................... 22

Figure 22 Melnikovs Pavilion in Exposition Plan(http://issuu.com) ...... 23

Figure 23 l’Espirit Nouveau Internal view(Corbusier 1925, pxiv) .......... 24

Figure 24 l’Espirit Nouveau Pavilion(Corbusier 1925, pxiv) ................... 24

Figure 25 l’Espirit Nouveau Stacked Apartment(Corbusier 1925, pxviii) .. 25

29

Bibliography

Anatole Kopp. Constructivist architecture in the U.S.S.R. / Anatole Kopp. (New York ; London : St. Martin's Press, 1985).p23 Anatole Kopp, Town and Revolution: Soviet architecture and city planning 1917-1835 (New York: George Braziller, 1970 El Lissitzky, Russia: An Architecture for World Revolution (United Kingdom: Lund Humphries Publishers Limited, 1970) Moisei Ginzburg, Style and epoch foreword by Kenneth Frampton (Cambridge, Mass: London,1982 Patricia Railing, “The Idea of Construction as the Creative Principle in Russian

Avant-Garde Art,” Leonardo, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1995), 196, accessed: 01/03/2011,


Briony Fer, “Metaphor and Modernity: Russian Constructivism,” Oxford Art

Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1989): 16, accessed 03/03/2011,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360263.

Camilla Gray, The Russian experiment in art 1863-1922 / Camilla Gray (London :

Thames and Hudson, 1986)

Christina Lodder, “Art of the Commune: Politics and Art in Soviet Journals,” Art

Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Spring, 1993): 32, Accessed: 01/04/2011,


Jean-Louis Cohen, The Lost Vanguard: Russian Modernist Architecture 1922-1932(New York: The Monacelli Press, 2007)

Andrei Ikonnikov. Russian Architecture of the Soviet Period (Moscow, Raduga

Publishers, 1988)

Khan-Magomedov, Selim Omarovich, Rodchenko : The complete work (London :

Thames and Hudson, 1986)

Victor Margolin, The struggle for Utopia : Rodchenko, Lissitzky, Moholy-Nagy

(Chicago ; London : University of Chicago Press, c1997)

S.Frederick Starr, Melnikov: Solo Architect in a Mass Society (New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1981)

William Curtis, Modern architecture since 1900 (Oxford : Phaidon, 1982

El Lissitzky, "Proun", trans.John E. Bowlt, in El Lissitzky (Cologne: Galerie Gmurzynska, 1976) Catherine Cooke, Russia: Russian Avant-Garde: The Theories of Art, Architecture

and the City (United Kingdom: Academy Editions, 1995)

John E. Bowlt, “Constructivism and Russian Stage Design,” Performing Arts

Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Winter, 1977): 69, accessed: 01/02/2011,


Kazimir Severinovich Malevich, Malevich : artist and theoretician (Paris :

Flammarion, 1990)

Esther Levinger, Art and Mathematics in the Thought of El Lissitzky: His

Relationship to Suprematism and Constructivism( Leonardo, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1989)





30

Tag Gronberg. Designs on Modernity: Exhibiting the city in 1920s Paris (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998) O.A. Shvidkovsky. “Building in the USSR” (London, Studio Vista London, 1971)

Christina Kiaer, “Rodchenko in Paris,” October, Vol. 75 (Winter, 1996), pp. 3-35 ,accessed: 25/02/2011 20:00, http://www.jstor.org/stable/778897.

Le Corbusier. The decorative art of today; translated by James I. Dunnett.

(London : Architectural Press, 1987)


Melnikov, Arkhitektura moei zhizni

Simon Dell, “The Consumer and the Making of the "Exposition Internationale des

Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes,” Journal of Design History, Vol. 12, No. 4

(1999): 312 accessed: 25/02/2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1316240.

Le Corbusier “Le Plan Voisin de Paris” Almanach d`architecture modern, Editions

Connivences , Paris

Michael Raeburn and Victoria Wilson. Le Corbusier, architect of the century.

(London : Arts Council of Great Britain, 1987)

Mary McLeod, “Taylorism, Technocracy, and Social Change,” Art Journal, Vol. 43,

No. 2,

Stanislaus von Moos and Margaret Sobiesky, “Le Corbusier and Loos,” :

Assemblage, No. 4 (Oct., 1987), pp. 26, accessed 11/03/2011,


Tag Gronberg, “The "Pavillon de l'Esprit Nouveau",” Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 15,

No. 2 (1992), pp. 60, accessed 11/03/2011,


Leandre Vaillat, "La Tendance internationale a l'exposition des arts decoratifs,"

L'lllustration no. 4313 (October 31, 1925)

“The Paris Exposition,” Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 87, No. 6 (JUNE,

1925), pp. 323 Published, accessed: 25/02/2011,


El Lissitzky, "Proun", trans.John E. Bowlt, in El Lissitzky (Cologne: Galerie

Gmurzynska, 1976)

Charles Baudelaire : A lyric poet in the Era of High Capitalism, New Left Books,

London, 1973

H. de C. “A general view”, Architectural Review, July-December 1925. 58, p.2 and p.6



31

Model Images of U.S.S.R. Pavilion

layering

Documents

personal layers

domineering layers

invisible layers

pavilion structure

pavilion contents

ephemeral pavilion

built fabricall architecture

solo architect