Twentieth Century Architecture
At the turn of the last century, architecture was characterised by a sharp tension between the technical and the aesthetic. The use of historical décor on pre-fabricated buildings constructed on metal frames was seen as false, and traditional construction methods and crafts failed to meet the demands of the new era for they were expensive and therefore only accessible to the wealthy elite. Modernism was a way out of this dead end, for it found its new aesthetic in the machine itself. Architecture and design finally left the past behind and began to look to the future.
Modernism, the dominant style for architecture and design throughout the twentieth century, has many names. Modernism in the 1920s in the former Soviet Union is normally called the “Avant-garde”, and the later period referred to as “Functionalism”. In America it became known as the “International style”, and elsewhere, the “Modern movement”. Modernist buildings are characterised by a predominance of geometrical forms, asymmetrical compositions, flat roofs, large areas of glazing, a lack of ornamentation and extensive use of white painted walls. As a rule, contemporary materials like steel, concrete and glass are preferred over wood, stone and brick. Spacial composition follows the function of the building. One of the catch phrases of modernism is, 'form follows function'.
The severe asceticism of modernism makes it a challenging architecture to understand. Art Deco, a more decorative style, also flourished in the mid-twenties, and was popular with a broader public (the Chrysler Building, the Moscow Metro). At the same time, traditional Neo-Classicism continued to exist in many countries. These three main architectural styles of the twentieth century interacted to varying degrees.
Architecture is the most social of the arts. In totalitarian societies, the state is de facto the only patron of architecture, and its ideology defines its development. The regimes that came into power in the 1930s in Russia and Germany rejected modernism, preferring an updated version of Neo-Classicism, that was more effective for propaganda purposes. As a result, in the countries of the ‘free world’, modernism’s transparency and honesty became synonymous with the values of democracy.
After the Second World War, the scales tipped towards modernism and mass construction made its impact on most of Europe although the Soviet Union was more interested in the symbolic confirmation of victory that Neo-Classicism evoked. The change came in 1955 on the initiative of Nikita Krushchev. An urgent solution to the housing crisis was part of his programme for the democratisation of the political system. He called for an end to “superfluity in architecture” and the crossover to pre-fabricated construction. Modernism prevailed once more in the Soviet Union, on the will of the state. However, the monotony of the pre-fabricated mass-produced housing of the fifties and onwards, has given modernism a bad name – the movement is associated with anonymous functionality.
It is difficult to be objective about the cultural heritage of the recent past, especially when the past is as dramatic as Russia, Germany and Italy's in the twentieth century. Architecture is often judged on the merits of the regime under which it was built, and this is the case for the Soviet Union, including both Stalinist-era buildings and those of the Avant-garde, which are associated with the Communists' experiments on people. With time this association becomes meaningless – after all, many Italian Renaissance masterpieces were commissioned by rulers no less cruel and cynical than Hitler and Stalin, albeit less powerful. But the masterpieces of the 1920s have yet to be judged by the laws of architecture rather than historical events.
Because many modernist buildings were designed to have a short life span, their materials, which were often experimental, have deteriorated, making the buildings look ugly. Unlike classical buildings, constructed from stone, modernist buildings do not support the patina of age with grace. They depend on regular maintenance to remain elegant. Often the materials needed to restore these buildings are no longer in production making this an expensive process.
Russia has suffered great losses to its Avant-garde legacy but locally and internationally people seem to be waking up to the urgent need to repair these buildings before it is too late. The restoration programme for Narkomfin intends to take in the experiences of restoration of modernist buildings over the last twenty years. Although this restoration work is a developing science, and although every new project has its own unique complications, there are many examples of good practice that can be drawn on.
Anna Bronovitskaya, Ph.D., Associate Professor at Moscow Institute of Architecture