Soviet Union's Impact On American Architecture

In the 19th century, architecture had great influenced by earlier architecture movements and styles which were adapted to the new technology of the early modern age. The revivals of Greek, Gothic and Renaissance design were fused with engineering methods and materials.1 The development of technology is closely associated with the production and use of materials and steel consumption and was considered as the economic development of many countries, in Europe and America. Steel, iron and aluminium metals are used in building construction, were in the earliest time introduced into the building materials such us: iron and aluminium. In the middle 19th century in architecture emerged characteristic development of new materials as a result of the new industrial needs, rapid development began in the structures in this period. In the building, new forms were demanded to emerge “modern” architecture. In the middle year of the century cast iron and steel was used structurally in a large building which was used mainly for a publics such us: greenhouses, covered markets and halls, passages, exhibition pavilions, utility building and railways. 2

Architecture should not be separated from the political and social life of human-beings. On the contrary, “throughout the history, architects have always been involved to some extent in politics, and have a nearly always sought positions of power and influence’’. Communist ideology in the Soviet Union had a huge impact on the architectural development of many modern nations: Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Azerbaijan. The amount of affected countries makes the topic of my analysis relevant and worth-discussing. My essay will be structured in a following way. I argue that communist ideology had an

Postmodernism is a universal movement, present in every art and discipline. In architecture, postmodernism is precise as well as ambiguous thereby in need of an explorative pursuit for a consensus of what is meant by the movement in this perspective - between the works of Charles Jencks, a primary theorist of this architectural turn; Heinrich Klotz, a leading architectural critic; and William Curtis, an architectural historian. The progression of this paper is highly influenced with Jencks’ studies as his works are often times referenced as well by both Klotz and Curtis in their individual interpretations and further accompanied with either supporting statements or contradictions.

Leon Krier was criticised for publishing a costly monograph on Albert Speer’s architecture (1985)in which, while acknowledging the crimes of the Nazis and the man, Krier nonetheless claimed the book’s only subject and sole justification was “Classical architecture and the passion of building” (cited by Jaskot, ‘Architecture of Oppression’, 2000). Discuss this claim, the controversy and the issues (historical, philosophical and ethical and possibly others) they raise. Can architecture, Classical, Modern or otherwise, be autonomous from politics and valued independently of the circumstances of politics and history that adhere to it?

Between the years 1945 to 1990, a state of political hostility, known as the Cold War, existed between communist Soviet countries and US-led Western powers. This political hostility was emphasized and characterized by threats, propaganda, and other proxy wars between the two power groups. The political conflict over ideological differences shifted tensions outside of political affairs and moved it towards cultural aspects, specifically influencing abstract and modern art. The Cold War differed from most wars in that it was fought on both political and cultural fronts. Cultural battles between the Soviet Union and the United States had as much of an impact on the everyday lives of civilians as any other aspect of the war. As culture became a defining line between the two powers, the CIA and members of government recognized abstract

The quality of architecture in the early ages therefore was determined by the skills acquired from an informal training specifically offered by the elderly and experienced men in a certain society. Infrastructural development at this ancient age dealt with the basic knowledge of building small scale structure to support the daily requirements of a specific society. Architecture at this dispensation dealt with the simple small scale issues as per the demand of a certain society (Margolin, 1989). The demand of improved infrastructure and the increase in population however led to massive demand of architectural services.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism in early 20th-century Europe. Nazism is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state. The architecture of both political movement has placed essentially in their ideology. This essay will demonstrate fascist architecture’s characteristics first, followed by characters of nazi’s architecture; lastly illustrate the similarity of the place of architecture in the two political movement.

As Winston Churchill once said “History is written by the victors”. When looking into past events there will always be more than one side to a story, yet for many centuries the study of history concentrated on the retail of an specific person or group who would generally impose their own ideas and perspective of the past. This creates something called historical bias which in term makes most of the historical documents fallacious. Architectural history is no stranger to this trend; since most of of our records come from Western historians (Greek, Roman, European). Western movements and architects are depicted as artistic and influential architecture while Eastern architecture is rarely credited or talked about. The Ottomans had equally significant contributions to architecture development thanks to architects such as Koca Sinan (1538-1588). While western architects such as Michelangelo are commonly known as some of the greatest architects of the century,

This paper will explore Vladimir Tatlin and Naum Gabo differences on the role of the Avant-Garde artists and how their beliefs influence the kind of work they produced. A pioneer of Russian design Vladimir Tatlin is a representative of Russian Realism. He left home when he was fifteen and served on the shipboard. When he became a painter, he often represented sailors in his pictures Art and culture in Russia after Revolution was a tool for creating industrially aesthetical reality. Tatlin’s project The Monument to the Third International (1920) one that so much can be considered an architectural work as a sculptural piece, it constituted by a spiral of iron that is expanded diagonally and enclosed by walls of glass of a much higher height

Constructivism arose in Russia in 1914 where Lenin and Marx’s communist state supported and advertised the artistic movement with the philosophy that it was the rebirth of the art world. Constructivists held the communist belief that there should be no distinction between roles: artist, architect and engineer were all to be the same. This ‘worker’ character removed superiority within the artistic or mathematical elements and allowed flow from one area to another, creating links between art and architecture which had not previously existed. However, as the period progressed, Lenin’s ideas about the role of technology in society led to the functionality of artwork becoming more prominent, thereby creating a shift towards architecture as a practical muse.

To understand the rise of the prefabricated tower block it is important to recognize that their existence came about as a reaction to contemporary architecture which was codified at the state level. During and after the Second World War, Soviet Realism became the dominant force in urban architecture in the Soviet sphere, especially as Moscow installed puppet states throughout the Eastern Bloc which copied the policies of the USSR. This development was not accepted well by architects and intellectuals, especially in Germany, where the legacy of pre-war modernism was very obvious in cities like Berlin, but also in cities like Moscow, Prague, and Sofia where the classicism endorsed by Stalin was like going back a century. Stalin’s preference for a building style highlighting the power of the Soviet people resulted in a complete stagnation of other forms or architecture, and although very solidly built, his buildings were built on mostly important thoroughfares as prestige projects since the state could hardly pay for every building to fit this style, making its impact on most citizens negligible unless they were privileged enough to get an apartment in one of these buildings. So, rather than to further soviet goals of housing for all, these buildings made social stratification very obvious, as homeless laborers would walk down streets past new buildings with ornate stonework in which they had little hope of ever stepping inside, let alone living. In terms of interior program,

The Russian architectural profession was relatively intact after the revolution in October 1917, at least compared to the other arts in this unstable time. Foreign architects worked freely in the larger cities and the demand for private building was relatively high. This period was short lived as civil war wreaked havoc with the economy and infrastructure of the country. A major turning point for the profession, and the Russian people as a whole, was Act passed by the Bolsheviks, repealing the right for private ownership of urban real-estate. This ‘socialisation of Soviet soil’ set the framework for the ill prepared architects of the time, with a new regard for projects not as just

This book was written by Juhani Pallasmaa with regard to ‘Polemics’, on issues that were part of the architecture discourse of the time, i.e. 1995. It is also an extending of ideas expressed in an essay entitled “Architecture of the seven senses” published in 1994.

A lot has happened in architecture since Louis Kahn death in 1974, some of it are really good, some are dreadful and we have different preferences about which is which. However, Kahn’s work look better than ever on its own terms. Better in its solidity and gravity. He was an architect of beautiful contradictions and one of the few to create architectural elements out of scale with the human figure. His buildings are very elegantly designed but are constructed of basic, often crude materials. Consisting of

Architecture can be viewed with two different types of properties. Properties that can be seen like shapes, their composition, the spaces they create and, the colours and textures that make up their appearance. These properties are considered to be visual while other properties are considered to be abstract. These properties can only be described using words; the meanings behind the architecture and the stories that can be told about it. The context, its cultural background and its function also affects how we view architecture. The question is, what