Modern temple architecture does not lag behind in development and experiments with forms and styles on a par with secular architecture. The only problem is that authors often forget what they should start from, what their priorities should be.

The Moscow creative association “Squaring the Circle”, consisting of Daniil Makarov, Ivan Zemlyakov, and Philip Yakubchuk, is aimed at developing projects for new temple architecture. “Our goal is to connect the art of the past and the culture of the present. Church architecture today is Terra incognita for many people; we are studying Christian tradition and modern culture, creating projects of timely temple architecture. The architects of antiquity absorbed the best from the cultural context of their time and erected a great variety of temples and chapels, united by a common meaning. We continue these traditions of meaningful formation of the temple space, based on the cultural realities of our days,” say the authors themselves. Basically, their innovations concentrate on transforming the form of the building in accordance with current concepts of modern architecture.

One of the first and immediately unusual ideas was the project of a temple on the water in 2012 in the village of Lozenets (Bulgaria). The basis was based on the techniques used in the construction of ancient small churches in Bulgaria, expressed in the form of the main volume - an elongated rectangle with a gable roof. The curvature of the inner surface of the wall is designed to reflect and focus sunlight on the underwater part of the temple, in which services can be held.

The next noteworthy project - the Temple of the 40 Martyrs of Sebastia - reflects one of the main concepts of “Squaring the Circle”, namely the active construction of temple architecture in urban space, both in the city center and on the outskirts. All attention was focused on the external decor, which carries a strong symbolic meaning. The image of the 40 martyrs appears in the form of a lattice of 40 intertwined crosses. Such a metal structure is entwined with grapes planted in flower beds, as a symbol of the Life-giving Cross of Golgotha ​​and Christ himself. On three blind pediments there is a relief depicting scenes from the lives of martyrs. The play with light and shadow is also cleverly calculated, as in the previous project - the beam enters the interior space, first through a lattice of crosses, then through a round hole in the drum and slit-like windows. In addition to the direct functions of the temple, the construction also solves the problem of urban landscaping.

Even more unusual lighting effects are presented in the 2013 project. The Church of the Holy Trinity directly refers to the icon of the same name by A. Rublev. God the Father - architecture (city), God the Son - tree (cross), God the Holy Spirit - mountains (stone) - such visual symbolism is embodied on the facade of the building, respectively, the glazed left part, reflecting the urban development, the tree in front of the temple and the brick wall. The effect of reflection on the glass wall of all the main elements symbolizes unity and also expands the space. Therefore, the project was developed for dense urban development.

The project of the Kletsky Church combines the heritage of wooden churches and the smooth silhouette of Art Nouveau churches. The basis is the contrast of plastic facades and traditionality in the decoration of wall surfaces. To lighten the load-bearing base of the structure, the use of glued wooden structures is implied.

An equally interesting version of suburban Orthodox architecture is the project of the Church of St. John the Evangelist in the village of Anisimovo. At first glance, it seems too simple, but this form was taken by the authors from the history of the village itself. In addition, this type of rural church implies a small size and intimate interior. This is achieved due to the fact that the structure itself refers to traditions - as if from the temple of the 11th century they took only one roof ceiling and stretched it to the size of a full-fledged building. Most of the facade with flat ornamental carvings makes it unique and at the same time refers to the history of pre-revolutionary churches.

The creative association “Squaring the Circle” is a fairly young team, but it can be considered one of the most prominent representatives of modern church architecture. Combining tradition and innovation, the authors reflect this in all components: the use of wood and glass, giving traditional forms features of the latest concepts in architecture, combining different types of decor, as well as symbolic designation of design details.

Urbantemples

ChurchResurrectionChrist's

Most of the team’s ideas are currently in a draft state, but if they do come to life, this will become a new round in the development of modern Russian temple architecture. The main thing is that the masters of the 21st century do not forget that the temple must carry within itself and carry this meaning through 10 centuries of history.

Irina Bembel, editor-in-chief of the Kapitel magazine and curator of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project, talks about the conference “Tradition and counter-tradition in architecture and fine arts of modern times.”

information:

The theme of tradition in modern architecture, as a rule, comes down to a question of style, moreover, in the minds of almost the majority - the “Luzhkovsky” style. But even impeccable historical stylizations are perceived today as empty shells, dead copies, while their prototypes were filled with living meaning. Even today they continue to talk about something, and the older the monument, the more important its silent monologue seems.
The fundamental irreducibility of the phenomenon of tradition to the issue of style became the leitmotif of the scientific and practical conference “Tradition and counter-tradition in architecture and fine arts of modern times” held in St. Petersburg.

Background

But first, about the project itself. “MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ” translated from Italian means “monumentality and modernity”. The project arose spontaneously in 2010, under the strong impression of the “Mussolini” architecture seen in Rome. Besides me, its origins included the architect Rafael Dayanov, the Italian philologist-Russianist Stefano Maria Capilupi and the art critic Ivan Chechot, who came up with our beautiful motto.
The result of joint efforts was the conference “Architecture of Russia, Germany and Italy of the “totalitarian” period”, which turned out to have a distinct “Italian flavor”. But even then it became clear to us that it was pointless to remain within the zones of the main dictatorial regimes - the topic of interwar and post-war neoclassicism was much broader.
Therefore, the next conference of the project was dedicated to the “totalitarian” period as a whole (“Problems of perception, interpretation and preservation of the architectural and artistic heritage of the “totalitarian” period”, 2011). However, this framework also turned out to be tight: I wanted to make not only a horizontal, but also a vertical section, trace the genesis, and evaluate further transformations.

The 2013 conference expanded not only geographical, but also chronological boundaries: it was called “The Classical Tradition in Architecture and Fine Arts of Modern Times.”
It must be said that despite the virtual absence of a budget, our conferences each time attracted about 30 speakers from Russia, the CIS, Italy, the USA, Japan, Lithuania, not to mention absentee participants. Most guests traditionally come from Moscow. Over the past time, the co-organizers of our events have been the St. Petersburg State University (Smolny Institute), the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, the European University in St. Petersburg, and the St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. And most importantly, we managed to create a positively charged field of rich and relaxed professional communication, where theorists and practitioners exchanged experiences in one audience.
Finally, the theme of the last conference was the phenomenon of tradition as such, since the term “classical” is strongly associated with columns and porticoes, while tradition, as is known, can also be orderless.

Thus, moving from the particular to the general, we came to the question of the very essence of tradition, and the main task was to transfer the topic from the category of style to the category of meaning.

So, the 2015 conference was called “Tradition and counter-tradition in architecture and fine arts of modern times.” The constant organizers - the Kapitel magazine represented by me and the Council for Cultural and Historical Heritage of the Union of Architects of St. Petersburg represented by Rafael Dayanov - were added by the Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Urban Planning, which was represented by the scientific secretary Diana Capen, who specially came from Moscow -Vardits.

Tradition and counter-tradition

The theme of tradition in modern times is as relevant as it is inexhaustible. Today I have a feeling of a question being posed, which has begun to take on, albeit vague, but still visible outlines. And they began to touch this block from different sides: what is tradition in the original philosophical sense? How was it understood and is it being understood in the context of modern times? As stylistics or as a fundamental orientation towards the timeless, eternal? What manifestations of tradition in the twentieth century need to be reassessed? Which ones do we see today, which ones do we consider the most interesting and meaningful?
For me, the fundamental antagonism of two superstyles - tradition and modernism - is a question of fundamental ethical and aesthetic guidelines. The culture of tradition was focused on the idea of ​​the Absolute, expressed by the concepts of truth, goodness and beauty. In the culture of tradition, ethics and aesthetics strived for identity.

As the idea of ​​the Absolute began to erode in modern times, the paths of ethics and aesthetics diverged further and further, until traditional ideas of beauty turned into a dead shell, a peeling mask, filled with many secular, rational meanings. All these new meanings lay in the material plane of linear progress, the sacred vertical disappeared. There has been a transition from the sacred, qualitative world to the pragmatic, quantitative world. By the beginning of the twentieth century, a new paradigm of consciousness and an industrial mode of production exploded forms that had become alien from within - the avant-garde emerged as the art of negation.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the picture became more complicated: having abandoned the idea of ​​the Absolute as an invisible tuning fork and even the avant-garde anti-orientation towards it as a starting point, culture exists in a formless field of subjectivity, where everyone can choose their own personal coordinate system. The very principle of systematicity, the very concept of structurality is called into question, the very possibility of the existence of a unique unifying center is criticized (poststructuralism in philosophy). In architecture, this was expressed in postmodernism, deconstructivism, and nonlinearity.

To put it mildly, not all colleagues accept my point of view. The position of our absentee participant G.A. seemed closest to me. Ptichnikova (Moscow), speaking about the value essence of tradition, about its vertical core, “bombarded” by “horizontal” innovations.
I.A. writes about the sacred basis of tradition in his correspondence report. Bondarenko. However, he rejects the idea of ​​counter-tradition: the transition from an essential orientation towards an unattainable ideal to the vulgar-utopian idea of ​​calculating and embodying it here and now, he calls the absolutization of tradition (from my point of view, this is the absolutization of individual formal manifestations of tradition to the detriment of its essence, and in the period of modernism and completely tradition inside out, that is, precisely counter-tradition). In addition, Igor Andreevich is optimistic about modern architectural and philosophical relativism, seeing in it a kind of guarantor of non-return to the undue absolutization of the relative. It seems to me that such a danger cannot in any way justify the oblivion of the truly Absolute.

A significant portion of researchers do not see the antagonism between tradition and modernity at all, believing that architecture can only be “bad” and “good”, “author’s” and “imitative”, that the imaginary contradiction between classics and modernism is an indissoluble dialectical unity. I have come across the opinion that Le Corbusier is a direct successor of the ideas of the ancient classics. At our current conference, V.K. Linov, in continuation of the theses of 2013, identified the fundamental, core features inherent in “good” architecture of any era.
The report of I.S. sounded like a parallel. Hare, who focused on the functional and practical (“use - strength”), basic manifestations of architecture of all times. Personally, I was sorry that Vitruvian “beauty” was initially removed from this analysis, which the author entirely attributed to the private sphere of taste - the main secret and elusive intrigue of the tradition. It is also a pity that, even trying to comprehend global architectural processes, researchers most often ignore parallel phenomena in philosophy - again, contrary to Vitruvius...

I have long had the feeling that everything new in modern architecture that has a creative meaning is a well-forgotten old thing, inherent in traditional architecture from time immemorial. It became new only in the context of modernism. Now new names are being invented for these fragments of the lost essence, new directions are being derived from them.
- Phenomenological architecture as an attempt to escape the dictates of abstract rationality to the detriment of sensory experience and the subjective experience of space.
- Institutional architecture as a search for basic, extra-left foundations of various traditions.
- The genre of meta-utopia in architecture as a manifestation of a super idea, “metaphysics of architecture” is an echo of well-forgotten Platonic eidos.
- Organic architecture in its old and new varieties as a utopian attempt by man to return to the bosom of nature that he is destroying.
- New urbanism, polycentrism as a desire to rely on pre-modern urban planning principles.
- Finally, the classical order and other formal and stylistic signs of tradition...
The list goes on.

All these scattered, fragmentary meanings today are opposed to each other, whereas initially they were in a living, dialectical unity, naturally born, on the one hand, from basic, integral ideas about the world as a sacred hierarchical cosmos, and on the other, from local tasks, conditions and methods of production. In other words, traditional architecture expressed timeless values ​​in contemporary language. Incredibly diverse, it is united by genetic kinship.
Modern appeals to tradition, as a rule, demonstrate the opposite approach: in them, various (usually split, private) modern meanings are expressed using elements of traditional language.
It seems that the search for a full-fledged alternative to modernism is a question of the meaning of tradition, and not one or another of its forms, a question of value orientation, a question of returning to an absolute coordinate system.

Theory and practice

This year the circle of active practitioners who took part in our conference has become even wider. In the mutual communication of art critics, designers, architectural historians, as well as representatives of related arts (though still rare), stable stereotypes are destroyed, the idea of ​​art critics as dry, meticulous snobs who have no idea about the real process of design and construction, and of architects as about smug and limited art businessmen who are only interested in the opinions of customers.

In addition to attempts to understand the fundamental processes in architecture, many conference reports were devoted to specific manifestations of tradition in the architecture of modern times, starting from the constant “totalitarian” period and ending with the present day.
Pre-war architecture of Leningrad (A.E. Belonozhkin, St. Petersburg), London (P. Kuznetsov, St. Petersburg), Lithuania (M. Ptashek, Vilnius), urban planning of Tver (A.A. Smirnova, Tver), points of contact between avant-garde and tradition in urban planning Moscow and Petrograd-Leningrad (Yu. Starostenko, Moscow), the genesis of Soviet Art Deco (A.D. Barkhin, Moscow), preservation and adaptation of monuments (R.M. Dayanov, St. Petersburg, A. and N. Chadovichi, Moscow) - these and other “historical” topics smoothly transitioned into the problems of today. The reports of St. Petersburg residents A.L. were devoted to the issues of introducing new architecture into the historical center of our city. Punina, M.N. Mikishatieva, partly V.K. Linova, as well as M.A. Mamoshin, who shared his own experience of working in the historical center.

Moscow speakers N.A. spoke about examples of informal, essential disclosure of tradition in modern Japanese architecture. Rochegova (with co-author E.V. Barchugova) and A.V. Gusev.
Finally, examples of the formation of a new habitat based on tradition were demonstrated from Muscovite M.A. from his own practice. Belov and St. Petersburg resident M.B. Atayants. Moreover, if Mikhail Belov’s village near Moscow is clearly designed for the “cream of society” and is still empty, then the “City of Embankments” for economy class in Khimki by Maxim Atayants is filled with life and is an extremely human-friendly environment.

Babylonian confusion

The pleasure of communicating with colleagues and general professional satisfaction from the bright event did not, however, prevent us from making an important critical observation. Its essence is not new, but is still relevant, namely: by delving into particulars, science is rapidly losing the whole.
Traditionalist philosophers N. Berdyaev and Rene Guenon loudly declared about the crisis of a fragmented, essentially positivist, mechanical-quantitative science already at the beginning of the twentieth century. Even earlier, the largest theologian and philologist, Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov). In the 1930s, the phenomenologist Husserl called for a return on a new level to a pre-scientific, syncretic view of the world. And this unifying way of thinking “must choose the naive manner of speech characteristic of life and at the same time use it in proportion to how it is required for the obviousness of evidence.”

This “naivety of speech”, which clearly expresses clear thoughts, is, in my opinion, sorely lacking today in architectural science, which is replete with new terms, but often suffers from a blurred meaning.
As a result, delving into the texts of the reports and getting to the bottom of things, you are surprised at how people sometimes talk about the same things in different languages. Or, on the contrary, they put completely different meanings into the same terms. As a result, the experience and efforts of the best specialists are not only not consolidated, but often remain completely closed to their colleagues.

I cannot say that the conference managed to completely overcome these language and semantic barriers, but the very possibility of live dialogue seems important. Therefore, we, the organizers, consider one of the most important tasks of the project to be the search for a conference format that is maximally aimed at active listening and discussion.
In any case, the three-day intensive exchange of opinions became extremely interesting; it was nice to hear words of gratitude from colleagues and wishes for further communication. S.P. Shmakov wished that the speakers would spend more time on modern St. Petersburg architecture “with a personal touch,” this would bring even closer together the representatives of a single, but split into separate sections of the profession.

Comments from colleagues

S.P. Shmakov, Honored Architect of the Russian Federation, Corresponding Member of IAAME:
“On the topic of the last conference, dedicated to “tradition and counter-tradition,” I can confirm that the topic is relevant at all times, as it touches on a huge layer of creativity, painfully resolving the issue of the relationship between traditions and innovation in art in general and in architecture in particular. In my opinion, these two concepts are two sides of the same coin, or the yin and yang of Eastern wisdom. This is a dialectical unity, where one concept smoothly flows into another and vice versa. Innovation, which at first rejected the traditions of historicism, soon becomes a tradition itself. However, having spent a long period in his clothes, he then strives back into the fold of historicism, which can be qualified as a new and bold innovation. Today you can find such examples when, tired of the dominance of glass architecture, you suddenly see an appeal to the classics, which you just want to call a new innovation.

Now I will clarify my thoughts on the possible form of such a conference. So that practicing architects and art critics do not exist in parallel worlds, one could imagine their head-to-head clash, when a practicing architect reporting his work is joined as an opponent by an art critic and they try to give birth to the truth in a friendly dispute. Even if the birth is unsuccessful, it will still be useful for the audience. A lot of such pairs could be assembled, and the participants-spectators of these battles could, by raising their hands (why not?) take the positions of one or the other.”

M.A. Mamoshin, architect, vice-president of St. Petersburg SA, professorIAA, academician of MAAM, corresponding member of RAASN, head of Mamoshin Architectural Workshop LLC:
“The last conference, dedicated to the topic “traditions - counter-traditions in the architecture of modern times,” attracted the participation of not only professional art historians, but also practicing architects. For the first time, there has been a symbiosis of practice and art historical information in the context of this topic, which leads to the idea of ​​the need to revive such practical (in the literal sense of the word!) conferences. Overcoming this barrier between practicing architects and architectural theorists is not a new idea. In the 30-50s, the main task at the Academy of Architecture was to combine the theory and practice of the current moment. This was the flowering of theory and practice in their unity. These two essential things complemented each other. Unfortunately, in the revived Academy (RAASN) we see that the block of art historians (theory) and practicing architects is divided. Isolation occurs when theorists are absorbed in internal problems, and practitioners do not analyze the current moment. I believe that further movement towards bringing theory and practice closer together is one of the main tasks. I express my gratitude to the conference organizers who took a step along this path.”

D.V. Capen-Vardits, candidate of art history, scientific secretary of NIITIAG:
“The fourth conference within the framework of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project left the impression of an unusually busy day. A dense program of more than 30 reports directly during the meetings was supplemented by unplanned detailed presentations on the topic, and the discussion that began during the discussion of the reports smoothly turned into informal lively communication between participants and listeners during breaks and after the meetings. It is obvious that not only the theme of the conference declared by the organizers about the problem of the genesis and relationship between tradition and counter-tradition, but also the very format of its organization and holding attracted many different participants and listeners: university professors (Zavarikhin, Punin, Vaytens, Lisovsky), practicing architects (Atayants , Belov, Mamoshin, Linov, etc.), researchers (Mikishatyev, Konysheva, Gusev, etc.), restorers (Dayanov, Ignatiev, Zayats), graduate students of architectural and art universities. The ease with which people from the same workshop, but of different views, occupations, and ages found a common language, undoubtedly became the merit of the organizer and host of the conference, editor-in-chief of the Kapitel magazine I.O. Bembel. By bringing together interesting and interested participants and managing to create a very relaxed atmosphere, she and her colleagues who led the sessions always guided the overall discussion in a professional and diplomatic manner. Thanks to this, the most pressing topics (new construction in historical cities, problems of restoration of monuments) were able to be discussed taking into account all points of view, which in ordinary professional life have little chance or desire to be mutually heard. Perhaps the conference could be compared to an architectural salon, where anyone can speak and anyone can discover something new. And this is the most important quality of the conference and its main point of attraction.

The creation of a permanent platform for professional discussion, the idea of ​​overcoming intra-shop disunity between theorists and practitioners, historians and innovators for a comprehensive discussion of architectural problems in the broad context of culture, society, politics and economics is a huge achievement. The need for such a discussion is obvious even from the number of ideas and proposals for “improving” the genre and format of the conference that the participants put forward at the last round table. But even if the scale and format of the conference and the enthusiasm of its organizers and participants are maintained, a wonderful future awaits it.”

M.N. Mikishatyev, architectural historian, senior researcher at NIITIAG:
“Unfortunately, we were not able to listen to and watch all the messages, but the general tone of the speeches, which to some extent was set by the author of these lines, is a depressing state, if not the death of modern architecture. What we see on the streets of our city are no longer works of architecture, but products of some kind of design, and not even designed for a long life. Famous theorist A.G. Rappaport, like us, notes the “gradual rapprochement of architecture and design,” while pointing out the insurmountable divergence of these forms of creating an artificial habitat, “for design is fundamentally focused on mobile structures, and architecture on stable ones,” and moreover, design according Its very nature presupposes “the planned obsolescence of things and their liquidation, and architecture has inherited an interest, if not in eternity, then in great time.” However, A.G. Rappaport doesn't lose hope. In the article “Large-scale reduction” he writes: “However, it is possible that a general democratic reaction will arise, and a new intelligentsia that will take responsibility for correcting these trends, and architecture will be in demand by the new democratic elite as a profession capable of returning the world to its organic life."

The last day of the conference, which featured speeches by practicing architects Mikhail Belov and Maxim Atayants, showed that such a turn of events is not just a hope and a dream, but a real process that is unfolding in modern Russian architecture. M. Atayants spoke about one of the satellite cities he created in the Moscow region (see “Capital” No. 1 for 2014), where images of St. Petersburg as a New Amsterdam are concentrated in a small space. The breath of Stockholm and Copenhagen is also quite noticeable here. How comforting it must have been for its real inhabitants, having returned from work from the crazy capital, spoiled by all these plazas and high-tech, having passed the Moscow Ring Roads and roads, to find themselves in their nest, with granite embankments reflected in the canals, arched bridges and lanterns, with beautiful and various brick houses, in his cozy and not too expensive apartment... But the dream, even realized, leaves a bit of fear, brought up by Dostoevsky’s fantasies: will this whole “fictional”, all this fairy-tale town fly away, like a vision, along with its houses and smoke - into the high sky near Moscow?..”

R.M. Dayanov, co-organizer of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project, honorary architect of the Russian Federation, head of the Liteinaya Chast-91 design bureau, chairman of the Council for Cultural and Historical Heritage of St. Petersburg SA:
“The fourth conference within the framework of the MONUMENTALITÀ & MODERNITÀ project allowed us to see the path we have traveled over these four years.
When we started this project, it was assumed that we would be talking about the preservation and study of objects and cultural phenomena of a certain period, limited to 1930-1950. But, as with any delicious food, I developed an appetite for the fourth course! And suddenly practitioners joined the scientific circle. There is hope that they will continue to be actively involved in this process in order, together with art critics and architectural historians, to develop a view not only on what happened 70-80 years ago, but also on the phenomena of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

To summarize, I would like to wish that the project receives more significant, comprehensive and systematic support from the architectural workshop.

Reports

Modern temple architecture: tradition or innovation?

Modern church architecture should be born from the depths of church tradition, according to the participants of the round table in Moscow

Moscow, November 3, Blagovest-info. Tradition and innovation - how do they relate in the architecture of modern Christian churches? This topic, which was devoted to a round table on November 1 at the Pokrovsky Gate Cultural Center, only at first glance seems highly specialized. The organizers of the discussion - the Pokrovskie Vorota Cultural Center together with the State University of Land Management (GUZ) and the Italian Institute of Culture - proposed to discuss the problem in the broad context of traditional and modern culture.

The director of the Italian Institute of Culture, Professor Adriano Dell'Asta, spoke about this when opening the round table: “Today, the question of art is often reduced to the struggle between innovation and conservatism, between abstractionism and image, between secular and sacred art.” Thus, “everything comes down to to words about beauty, and beauty itself disappears,” and with it, “the person himself disappears.” But if a person is still alive, he “misses beauty,” and the correlation of experiences of different cultures and faiths only deepens the “testimony of beauty.” , the professor noted.

In the first half of the evening, students of the State University presented their projects of churches and chapels dedicated to Sts. Peter and Fevronia of Murom, which mainly used elements traditional for Russian temple architecture. As Alexander Golovkin, a teacher at the State University, noted, the students tried to embody the unified concept of the temple: they designed not only the external appearance, but also the interior of the building, elements of the interior decoration. In conditions when architecture and design have become separate specialties, this can be considered a feature of these projects.

Despite the enormous need for the construction of new churches, there is no educational specialty in “temple building” in Russia. Svetlana Ilvitskaya, head of the department of architecture at the State University, spoke about this with regret.

Should architecture students designing churches be taught basic theology and worship? According to the teachers of the State University, it is necessary to include such courses in the program of future temple builders. However, while there is no such component, each teacher gets out of the situation in his own way. Thus, Professor Mikhail Limonad said that when working on the next church project, architects read prayers from the wedding rite, imagining how this sacrament would be performed in the space they created. Another original professional secret: they tried to correlate the dimensions of the new temple with the parameters of the average praying “grandmother,” said the professor of the State University of Institution. He also complained that the search for new architectural solutions in modern Russian temple construction is greatly limited by the tastes of customers, who, as a rule, insist on copying well-known ancient models.

In Italy the situation is different: there architects are boldly experimenting with new forms of temple architecture. The chief architect of Verona (Italy), Marco Molon, spoke about this in detail. He began his performance unexpectedly: an image of Andrei Rublev’s “Trinity” appeared on the screen. It is this image that embodies for the Italian architect the essence of the “Eucharistic mystery of the Church,” which should be revealed in church architecture. Showcasing Catholic churches built over the past 10 years in Milan, Rome, Perugia and other Italian cities, M. Molon rhetorically asked: “What remains of Rublev’s prophecy in these buildings?”

According to another round table participant, professor of the St. Philaret Institute (SFI) Alexander Kopirovsky, these buildings are not much different from banks and supermarkets.

Marco Molon himself takes a different path: using the example of the Church of St. Martyr Peter of Verona, he showed how the life of a saint can be illustrated in the language of architecture; how to create a new form based on tradition. For example, he based the new building on the traditional ancient type of church of martyrs - the Greek tholos (a monumental building with a round plan). “Being an innovator means working within a tradition. This will allow us to avoid morphological oddities that will be reflected in the service,” the speaker said.

The connection between architecture and worship is a key principle of church building in Italy. Talking about the system of architectural competitions of the last decade, the guest from Verona emphasized that an architect, engineers, designers, artists and other specialists work together on each project, but the final word must be given by the “liturgist” - the cleric who gives an opinion on the compliance of the project with the liturgical cycle . The jury of such a competition is headed by a bishop; he also determines where the new building will be built.

However, unlike previous times, the temple has ceased to be the architectural dominant of the city, the speaker continued. In conditions where a church has to be built next to a stadium or in the shadow of a shopping center, the role of “new Christian creativity” increases, which should “fill meaning” in the prayer space.

M. Molon also noted an important point, common for Italy, but not yet typical for church architecture in Russia: as a rule, a project is created not only for a church, but for an entire parish complex, where there are premises for social, catechetical activities, work with children, and common meals etc.

For his part, Professor Kopirovsky posed the question: what should a modern architect know from the field of theology? On the one hand, even without knowing anything at all, an architect in Russia is somehow brought up by the tradition of temple architecture, and then he creates variations on traditional themes. However, the best option for a modern architect is to “know everything,” i.e. to be within the tradition, to be not a nominal, but a real Christian, to participate in the sacraments of the Church. The combination of architectural and theological education with a course in art history can encourage the search for modern forms based on a deep knowledge of tradition.

The art critic also noted that, ideally, not only specialists, but also church communities should participate in the design of new churches - “not parishioners, but people living a spiritual life together.” It is in such an environment that “the most fruitful architectural solutions” will appear, the scientist said.

Summing up the discussion, cultural attache of the Vatican Embassy in the Russian Federation Giovanna Parravicini emphasized that modern church builders must understand and embody the main idea of ​​church architecture: that “liturgy is the work of God, the most important thing in life.” “You have to find yourself in the depths of church tradition, only then can you not be afraid to look for new architectural forms,” concluded G. Parravicini.

Yulia Zaitseva

Your feedback
Fields marked with an asterisk must be filled out.

(from the French moderne - modern, French art nouveau - translated means new art) - an artistic movement in art, most widespread in the last decade of the 19th - early 20th centuries (before the start of the First World War). Modern architecture is distinguished by its rejection of straight lines and angles in favor of more natural, “natural” lines, and the use of new technologies (metal, glass).

This was the first direction in the history of architecture that moved away from the order system and from the continuation of the traditions of classical architecture. The facades of buildings in the Art Nouveau style are asymmetrical - without straight lines and angles, they resemble forms borrowed from nature. The buildings are beautiful and do not have bad angles; on each side the façade and decor look special, while all elements obey the architect’s single plan. Another feature of the art of this style was the use of a variety of building and finishing materials; glass, steel, concrete are used along with more traditional wood, brick, and stone. The buildings were distinguished by huge display windows and stained glass windows - colorful paintings made of colored glass. Sculptures of fairy-tale creatures were located above the entrances and windows, organically combining with the overall architectural image.

Art Nouveau masters used new technical and constructive means, free planning to create unusual, distinctly individual buildings, all elements of which were subordinated to a single figurative and symbolic plan; The facades of Art Nouveau buildings are dynamic and have a fluidity of form, sometimes approaching sculpture.

Natural style

The natural architecture of a country house is represented by the chalet style, Scandinavian and organic styles. This also includes ethnic architecture (architecture inherent to a certain people, country, based on traditions and customs).

Born in Savoy, an ancient province in southeastern France, bordering Italy and Switzerland. Initially, chalets (French:shalet) are houses located on mountain slopes. They were used seasonally as farms for dairy cattle, which were grazed on the lowland pastures by shepherds (hence the shepherd's chalet). These houses served as shelter in bad weather and as a home for shepherds during the summer months of grazing livestock. With the onset of cold weather, they were closed and not used during the Alpine winter.

The chalets were built of stone (foundation and high ground floor) and strong timber (ground floor and attic), the walls were plastered and whitewashed with lime. The stone floor protected the house from any weather and allowed it to stand firmly on any difficult mountainous terrain. The usable building area was increased by terraces extending far beyond the perimeter of the house, as if hanging over the valley. Sloping roofs, with a slope strongly protruding beyond the walls, created additional protection from precipitation. The climatic conditions in the Alpine mountains are quite harsh, so the buildings were erected without any special frills, but very well. Wind, snow and rain only improved the appearance of the chalet: the stone acquired a picturesque chipped appearance, and the resinous coniferous wood (pine, larch), traditionally used to build houses, became a noble dark color over time. The facades facing the weather were additionally sheathed with wood chips or shingles, and looked gloomy due to the monotony of the natural dark color of the wood and the lack of additional decorations. The most beautiful side of the house was the eastern facade. The roof gable with the ridge was always oriented towards sunrise. The walls facing the sunny side were plastered, painted with white lime, decorated with bright paintings, decorated with ledges, balconies, and carvings. The decor was simple and devoid of any pretentiousness.

A distinctive feature of a house built in the style of an Alpine chalet is the special strength and reliability of the structure, laconic forms dictated by the harsh climate and ergonomic interior space. Among the features of architectural solutions: a sloping roof dominating the entire volume of the building; the top floor is always attic; and a wide, made of wood, balcony extending along the entire façade and resting on the structure of the first floor.

The concept was formed at the end of the 19th century from the diversity of Scandinavian cultures, languages, traditions and views. The philosophy of this style played an important role in world architecture.

Scandinavia is a harsh northern region with beautiful cold nature, clear lakes, huge forests, a rugged coastline with many fjords. Scandinavians are leisurely and thorough. They are characterized by restraint and some severity, coldness and silence, as well as love and respect for nature. The character of a Scandinavian home was formed under the influence of two powerful elements. One of them is natural. Long cold winters, the proximity of the sea and the piercing wind forced northerners to focus on protecting their homes from external influences. The other is religious. Protestantism and an extremely negative attitude towards demonstrative luxury. That's why Scandinavian houses look modest.

The traditional house in the Nordic countries was built from wood. The bare frame, covered with planks, wood siding or clapboard, is painted in a contrasting, discreet color with white window sashes. Scandinavian builders try to preserve the natural texture of wood, which is only emphasized by a colorless coating or tinting. But individual parts are allowed to be brightly colored, for example, ridges and roof supports or gables. The house itself is distinguished by simple forms, minimal decor and the highest quality workmanship of all construction details. This simplicity is particularly attractive. The Scandinavian style clearly shows the Nordic peoples’ craving for nature and love for its creations.

This is a direction in architecture that appeared thanks to the American architect Louis Sullivan, who first formulated it on the basis of the principles of evolutionary biology in the 1890s, as “correspondence between form and function.” Louis Sullivan and his student and colleague Frank Lloyd Wright (in whose works this trend of architectural thought found its most complete embodiment) at the beginning of the 20th century created American architecture, which before them was a mixture of historical European forms.

“Every building intended for human use must be an integral part of the landscape, a feature of it, related to the locality and integral to it. We hope it stays where it is for a long time. After all, a house is not a van!”

F.L. Wright

Sullivan's ideas formed the basis of Wright's concept. The building must be integrated into nature. The appearance should follow from the content. Flexible building layout, internal spaces flowing into each other, connected to the outside world by strip glazing. Application of natural materials in architecture.

Organic architecture sees its task in creating buildings and structures that reveal the properties of natural materials and are organically integrated into the surrounding landscape. A supporter of the idea of ​​continuity of architectural space, Wright proposed to draw a line under the tradition of deliberately separating a building and its components from the surrounding world. In his opinion, the shape of a building should each time follow from its specific purpose and the unique environmental conditions in which it is erected. Houses built in an organic style served as a natural extension of the natural environment, like the evolutionary form of natural organisms.

Modern styles

New technologies and materials, new trends and currents of modern thought, functionality, laconic forms, rational thinking and the desire for naturalness - all this forms a new look at architecture, creating the so-called modern style. Simple forms, open structures that become architectural decoration; connection between the interior and the outside world, environmentally friendly materials, free space, plenty of air and light - these are important components of modern style.

The formation of modern architecture was strongly influenced by a number of trends in architectural thought, united by the term Modernism (from the French modernism, moderne - newest, modern) - this is a movement in the architecture of the 20th century, a turning point in content, associated with a decisive renewal of forms and designs, a rejection of styles of the past, it is based on the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution and covers almost the entire 20th century - from the beginning of the century to the 70-80s.

Architectural modernism includes such architectural trends as functionalism, constructivism, rationalism, architectural art deco style, brutalism, organic architecture (discussed in the section “Natural style”). All these directions have their own characteristics, their own philosophy and stages of development, however, in private suburban construction they are poorly used in their pure form, so we will dwell in more detail only on constructivism and art deco.

Direction in architecture of the 1920s. XX century, which developed after the First World War due to the growth of industrial technology and the introduction of new types of buildings and structures.

This architectural style reveals the design of architectural structures, requires functionality and rationality of forms, geometric clarity of volumes. Constructivism is characterized by the exposure of the building structure, extreme simplification of the form, the contrast of blank wall surfaces with large glazing surfaces, and the monolithic appearance of the building.

Art Deco, Also Art Deco(French art deco, lit. "decorative art", from the name of the Paris exhibition of 1925) - an influential movement in the first half of the 20th century, which first appeared in France in the 1920s and developed until the end of World War II. This is an eclectic style, a synthesis of modernism and neoclassicism. The Art Deco style also has significant influence from artistic movements such as Cubism, Constructivism and Futurism.

Distinctive features are strict patterns, bold geometric shapes, ethnic geometric patterns, richness of colors, generous ornaments, luxury, chic, expensive, modern materials.

Art Deco structure is based on the mathematical geometry of shapes. It is generally accepted that Art Deco is one of many forms of modernity with eclectic influences in addition to powerful modern examples of high technology.

The influence of Art Deco design was expressed in the crystalline and faceted forms of decorative cubism and futurism. Other popular themes in the Art Deco style were trapezoidal, zigzag, geometric and mixed shapes, which can be seen in many of the early works of architects and designers.

Now let's move directly to the main directions of modern architecture, such as High-tech, Minimalism and Bio-tech.

High tech(English hi-tech, from high technology - high technology) - a style in architecture and design that appeared in England in the 60s of the 20th century.

Main features of the style:
The use of high technologies in the design, construction and engineering of buildings and structures. High-tech is characterized by straight lines and shapes, an appeal to elements of constructivism and cubism, and the most practical planning of internal space; widespread use of silver-metallic color, glass, plastic, metal; lighting that creates the effect of a spacious room. The use of functional elements: elevators, stairs, ventilation systems placed on the façade of the building. High-tech style does not hide structural details, but rather plays with them, making them decorative elements. Buildings in this style are very functional, comfortable, they have their own beauty, complex simplicity and sculptural form.

Bio-tech(Bionics) is the newest direction in architecture (late 20th - early 21st centuries, still at the stage of formation), where, in contrast to High-tech, the expressiveness of structures is achieved not by turning to elements of constructivism and cubism, but by borrowing natural forms The bio-tech style developed from bionics (from the Greek bios - life), an applied science whose proponents seek inspiration in nature to solve complex technical problems. The concept of bionics appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century. This is an area of ​​scientific knowledge based on the discovery and use of patterns in the construction of natural forms to solve technical, technological and artistic problems based on the analysis of the structure, morphology and vital activity of biological organisms.

The name was proposed by the American researcher J. Steele at a 1960 symposium in Daytona - “Living prototypes of artificial systems - the key to new technology” - during which the emergence of a new, unexplored field of knowledge was consolidated. From this moment on, architects, designers, constructors and engineers are faced with a number of tasks aimed at finding new means of shaping.

Buildings in the Bio-tech style repeat natural forms and structures, striving for organicity with nature. Bio-tech embodies a philosophical concept, the meaning of which is to create a new space for human life as a creation of nature, combining the principles of biology, engineering and architecture. Unlike organic architecture, which does not seek to copy nature, its manifestations, but wants to be in an organic relationship with it, bionics seeks to copy nature not only externally, but also constructively.

[...] The appearance of residential buildings often represents grandiose palace-dwellings, rich in colonnades, with powerful rustications and colossal cornices. At the same time, the architect ignores the specific requirements of modern man. This is one of the serious shortcomings of our architectural practice.

The very fact of serious study of the classical heritage in the field of architecture marks a big shift towards overcoming the influences of constructivism. But, instead of studying the working methods of the masters of the past, we often transfer into our housing construction the image of the building borrowed from the past.

We have still studied the architecture of the 19th century very poorly, although a serious analysis of it can provide a lot for determining modern moments in housing construction. [...]

[...] Studying the working method of the great masters of the past reveals their basic essence - the ability to express the image of a structure based on the constructive capabilities of their time and taking into account the needs of their contemporaries. Knowledge of the method of such a master is much more important than the formal study of the order with its details or the fanatical transfer of individual formal techniques. [...]

* From the article “Architecture of a Residential Building” in the newspaper “Soviet Art”, 1937, June 11.

True art is progressive. And this primarily applies to architecture, the most complex of arts.

Wouldn't it seem unnatural if a modern steam locomotive entered a station built in the classical forms of Greek temples?

What will a Soviet person feel when he disembarks from a plane in front of an airport whose appearance reminds him of the distant past?

On the other hand, can we discount all the architectural achievements of past centuries and start all over again?

These are the questions around which heated discussions have been going on for a number of years, leaving tangible traces.

It is often forgotten that an architectural structure can only be created for a certain society, that it is designed to meet the worldview and feelings of this society. We must study the working methods of the great masters of the past and creatively perceive their principles. All this is far from a mechanical transfer of old architectural elements into our era. [...]

* From the article “Notes of an Architect” in the newspaper “Leningradskaya Pravda”, 1940, August 25.

[...] In Leningrad there is a great desire for a stable image, for stable details and a distrust of creative inventions. Oddly enough, the presence of a wonderful architectural past in Leningrad creates a great danger of detachment from the tasks we have set for today. [...]

* From a speech at a creative meeting of architects of Moscow and Leningrad on April 22-24, 1940. Published in the magazine “Architecture of the USSR”, 1940, No. 5.

[...] Works of architecture, designed to stand for centuries, must be above fashion, they must contain those universal human principles that never die out, like the tragedies of Shakespeare.

But often, I think, what is considered innovation is what can least of all be attributed to it. Innovation is, first of all, not an invention. [...] Art is possible only in tradition, and outside tradition there is no art. True innovation is, first of all, the development of progressive principles laid down in the past, but only those principles that are characteristic of modern humanity.

Innovation has the right to have its own tradition. Understanding innovation as an abstract principle outside of time and space is absurd in its essence. Innovation is the development of ideas embedded in historical continuity. If we talk about Corbusier as an innovator, then the ideas put forward and practically implemented by him, their roots lie in the generalization of a number of examples that were used in the light of new opportunities. Variable construction, which received a wide response from the light hand of Mies Van der Rohe mainly in Europe and America and has come down to us, has a thousand-year history in Chinese and Japanese houses.

Innovation is designed to expand the range of ideas. And we have nothing to fear from the appearance of proposals that fall somewhat out of the canonical perception and which, perhaps, are somewhat ahead of possibilities, because in architecture they, as a rule, arise as a result of the gap between the development of technology and the presence of slowly changing architectural forms. One thing is important - that the concept of innovation comes from life’s premises and is not abstract.

We often intertwine two terms that are polar in their understanding. This is innovative and banal. It seems to me that sometimes there can be more innovation in a “banal” basis than in the most poignant proposal. It is not for nothing that Matisse, who cannot be blamed for the lack of innovative proposals, urged first of all not to be afraid of the banal. More. It seems to me that what we call banal, in the hands of a true artist, approaches modernity. Genuine knowledge, creativity in a high understanding of this meaning, its depth - can be in the development of the banal. Is Thomas de Thomon's Exchange surprising in its uniqueness? But its greatness lies in the deepest understanding of its location, in the interpretation of the whole and individual elements, in the knowledge of artistic expediency.

We talk a lot about tradition. It seems to me that Voltaire’s phrase about the need to agree on terms and then enter into disputes is quite appropriate here. Tradition is far from an abstract concept. But the understanding of tradition may be different. There was a time when they thought that the checkered pants of the hero of Ostrovsky's play Shmagi were a theatrical tradition. Tradition carries within itself, first of all, the character of historical continuity, a known pattern.

But it is possible for a tradition to emerge within the memory of contemporaries. Examples can be found in the young art of cinema, born today. Chaliapin, who created the image of Boris Godunov (despite his external historical appearance), laid the foundation for a performing tradition. But the important thing is that this beginning was not confined to the formal external image of Tsar Boris. Chaliapin revealed the stage image with the power of his capabilities, defined the artistic totality of the image in its external appearance and in its internal content. His external appearance, preserved in the present on stage, is in no way a tradition.

In architecture, tradition has little in common with rejuvenated archaeology, just as in understanding it as stylistic continuity. The architectural traditions of Leningrad are not built on stylistic continuity. On Palace Square, the buildings of Rastrelli, Zakharov, Rossi, Bryullov coexist organically not because of stylistic commonality (in the understanding of style as an architectural concept).

The architectural tradition of Leningrad is in the continuous understanding of the spirit of the city, its character, landscape, appropriateness of the task, in the nobility of forms, in the scale, modularity of nearby buildings. [...]

* From the article “On Traditions and Innovation,” published in June 1945 in the newspaper “For Socialist Realism” (organ of the party bureau, directorate, trade union committee, local committee and Komsomol committee of the I. E. Repin Institute).

[...] The point of view that when new materials appear, then one can move on to an architecture based on their capabilities, one must assume, is more than short-sighted, because without ideological preparation, without a gradual revision of a number of provisions about heaviness, weight, concepts of monumentality and etc. we will, of course, find ourselves captive to beautiful dreams. [...]

[...] Architecture rests on laws inseparable from traditions, to which current life makes its own amendments and adjustments. A person will always have a sense of measurement based on his physical properties, there will remain a sense of perception of his time, as well as sensations of heaviness, lightness, a sense of correlation, appropriateness, expediency. But architecture is not always obliged to preserve the usual imagery, especially when this comes into conflict with all the latest technical capabilities and everyday needs, which raise modern man one more level higher.

Architecture will always express the properties of modern society. And the task of a Soviet architect is to be able to fully express these aspirations and aspirations in materials.

* From the article “On the issue of architectural education” in the magazine “Architecture and Construction of Leningrad”, 1947, October.

[...] One must be able to show all the negative sides of modern architecture, which formally operated with the progressive data of science and technology that was contemporary to it, and be able to separate one from the other, and not silently ignore these complex issues of the recent past of architecture.

In particular, you should pay attention to one significant detail: the loss of the sense of plasticity, the sense of chiaroscuro at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In this regard, two examples are not without interest: one house built according to the design of academician V. A. Shchuko in 1910 on Kirovsky Prospekt in Leningrad, which was a kind of reaction to the properties of planar modernism. Here is a genuine large order with strong chiaroscuro. The house of Academician I.V. Zholtovsky, built in 1935 in Moscow on Mokhovaya Street, which was also a kind of reaction to planar constructivism, had the same properties. I. V. Zholtovsky also used a large order here, taken in the exact relationship of Lodjia dell Kapitanio by Andrea Palladio with its strong chiaroscuro.

[...] In order to remind you how we understand architectural traditions and the laws and norms embedded in them, I will give attempts to define the progressive traditions of St. Petersburg architecture.

We say these include:

1. Taking into account and skillful use of the natural conditions of the city, its flat topography, water spaces and unique flavor.

2. The solution of the architecture of the city as a whole as a complex of integral, large architectural ensembles, based on the spatial organic connection of both individual ensembles with each other, and the elements that make up each given ensemble.

3. Organization of the unity and integrity of each ensemble not by the unity of the stylistic characteristics of individual buildings and parts of the ensemble, but by the unity of scale and module of the main divisions.

4. Achieving great diversity and picturesqueness of the different style characteristics of the buildings that make up the ensemble and at the same time preserving the full individuality of the creative person of each master architect and reflecting the “spirit of the times.”

5. Creation of a characteristic silhouette of the city, calm and monotonous, corresponding to the flat topography of the area and at the same time restrained, emphasized and moderately enlivened by individual verticals - towers, spiers, domes.

6. Subordination of a particular architectural task to general urban planning tasks and subordination of each new architectural structure with neighboring existing ones.

7. A subtle understanding of the scale of a city, square, building in relation to them; understanding the internal architectonic logic of each architectural structure; extremely clear, precise composition of the building; economy of expressive means with the resulting restraint and simplicity of decor; a subtle, deep sense of architectural detail and its scale. [...]

[...] The last 50-60 years, which are closest to us, have not been studied, and this is extremely strange. [...]

The point that we haven’t talked about so far is the most interesting - about deepening the system.

If earlier the classics of the late 17th and early 19th centuries could deepen systems, expand them, then in our country not a single system deepens, but is done hastily, quickly passes, 10-15 years, and moves on to the next, and the system itself becomes somewhat abstract . You see all the creative efforts of the last 60 years. We updated the non-deepened, hence the throwing. [...]

* From a speech at a theoretical conference of the Faculty of Architecture of the Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture named after. I. E. Repin of the USSR Academy of Arts December 23, 1950 Verbatim report, library of the Institute. I. E. Repin.

[...] It seems that by tradition it is correct to understand those progressive principles that played a positive role in the past and deserve development in the present. We proceeded from this when deciding on the station building*. Innovation should be an organically integral concept from tradition. [...]

* Station in Pushkin, awarded the State Prize (authors: I. A. Levinson, A. A. Grushke. 1944-1950).

[...] What is new in architecture is primarily associated with the knowledge of reality in its progressive development. This pattern of scientific development is directly related to architecture.

The struggle for something new will always exist. But this “new” must be determined based on life, and not on abstract doctrines, which, for example, are so widely used in Western architecture. The search for something new there very often comes from the formal research of the architect or is taken outside the life of the people, their customs and traditions. [...]

* From the article “The Practice of an Architect” in the collection. “Creative problems of Soviet architecture” (L.-M., 1956).

[...] Architecture and related arts are not born as an art of one day. This is a complex, difficult process associated with the time factor. And hence, the understanding of modernity is not based only on formal modern “techniques” and examples generated by new opportunities of the industry, a new understanding of the surrounding world, which, however, play a major role. The solution in the art of architecture, which contains synthetic principles, is the control of time, the argument that determines and selects the authentic from the surrogates. [...]

[...] Historical examples closer to us can illustrate a lot. So, basically the progressive movement in architecture, Art Nouveau, despite all the manifestos of its adherents, due to the lack of traditions and the inability to find the necessary organic forms, grew into that decadence, which was all built on decorative principles and whose taste is still present today a striking example of the destruction of architectural forms. [...]

* From the report “On Synthesis” 1958-1962. (archive of E. E. Levinson).

[...] If we look at the past, we can see that from time to time the views of architects turned to classical accumulations in one concept or another. True, some sought in their progressive development to get rid of this influence, feeling its strength. As an example, we can point out that one of the founders of Art Nouveau, its ideological leader, Viennese architect Otto Wagner, who had a valuable library on classical architecture, sold it so that it would not influence his work. But at the same time, it is characteristic that his buildings often sinned precisely in terms of taste.

Naturally, the thought arises that with lack of composure in the field of architectural theory, with a shortage of building materials after the end of the Patriotic War, in the absence of a construction industry, architects turned, like the experiments of Shchuko in 1910 and Zholtovsky in 1935, to forms that so habitually fit into familiar brick formations.

This was perhaps facilitated by the tendency in the first post-war years to carry out construction in cities, where engineering communications were available and the structure could fit well enough into the surrounding landscape, fit into the ensemble, the problems of which we always devote a lot of space to.

There was another side - representativeness, the spirit of which was then in many branches of art. It is possible that post-war patriotic feelings, those feelings of self-esteem that involuntarily turned to the great shadows of the past - Stasov, Starov and others - played a certain role here.

Later what happened is what happens to any direction that, not having sufficient historical support, becomes obsolete and turns into its opposite, not having a solid foundation in the process of creating those architectural forms that correspond to the growth of industry, which opens up new opportunities. The architectural direction of the first post-war years, which sought to liken its creations to the classical examples of the past, turned into its opposite, in this case - towards decoration. [...]

[...] What was disorienting in the competition for the design of the Palace of the Soviets was that three projects were awarded the highest prize: Iofan’s project, Zholtovsky’s project, made in a classical concept, and the project of the young American architect Hamilton, made in an Americanized spirit *. The fact that prizes were given to projects that were fundamentally different in their stylistic and other qualities essentially opened up the way to encourage eclecticism, because if the Palace of Soviets can be designed in different plans and styles, then this conclusion is quite natural. [...]

** From the article “Some Issues in the Development of Soviet Architecture” in the scientific notes of the Institute. I. E. Repin (issue 1, Leningrad, 1961).