Categories: Architecture

Russian neoclassical revival

Russian neoclassical revival was a trend in Russian culture, mostly pronounced in architecture, that briefly replaced eclecticism and Art Nouveau as the leading architectural style between the Revolution of 1905 and the outbreak of World War I, coexisting with the Silver Age of Russian Poetry. It is characterized by merger of new technologies (steel frame and reinforced concrete) with moderate application of classical order and the legacy of Russian empire style of the first quarter of the 19th century.

Revival school was most active in Saint Petersburg, less in Moscow and other cities. The style was a common choice for luxury country estates, upper-class apartment and office buildings; at the same time it was practically non-existent in church and government architecture. Neoclassical architects born in the 1870s, who reached their peak activity in 1905-1914 (Ivan Fomin, Vladimir Shchuko, Ivan Zholtovsky), later became leading figures in stalinist architecture of the 1930s and shaped Soviet architectural education system.

Background
In early 20th century, Russian architecture (at least in Moscow) was dominated by “diverse and protean” Style Moderne, a local adaptation of Art Nouveau. This style peaked in 1900-1904, and manifested itself in denial of classical order, flowing curvilinear shapes, floral ornaments and expensive artwork. High costs and exterior novelty limited this style to upper-class mansions, retail stores and middle-class apartment blocks. Many upper-class clients, especially in Saint Petersburg, rejected Style Moderne and insisted on traditional, neoclassical designs fitting their image of old gold. Art Nouveau never reached the “universal” status: the Church relied on Russian Revival tradition, while the charities and majority of homeowners used the economical “red brick” eclecticism. Muscovite Neo-Grec of the 1870s-1880s was nearly forgotten, with a single exclusion of Roman Klein’s Pushkin Museum (1898–1912). Meanwhile, numerous Empire style cathedrals, public buildings and private mansions of Alexandrine period that shaped central squares of Russian towns remained a nearly omnipresent, impressive statement of classicism, associated with the glorious age of Napoleonic wars and Russian poetry.

In 1902, two years before Bloody Sunday, when Saint Petersburg was preparing to celebrate its bicentennial anniversary. Alexander Benois, vocal anti-modernist activist of Mir Iskusstva group, defended the classical tradition of Saint Petersburg, rejecting both Art Nouveau and “official” Russian Revival, arguing that the classical city must return to its roots. In the same year, Evgeny Baumgarner specifically criticized Otto Wagner: “In leaning toward the utilitarian, he falls into an obvious absurdity. Proposing that the contemporary architect “come to terms” with the statement nothing that is not practical can be beautiful, he lowers the architectural art, praised with such feeling, to the level of an applied craft… the theory of Professor Wagner proposes aesthetic suicide. The human soul requires architectonic beauty just as human vision requires good illumination.”.

Development
Practicing architects followed Benois; for example, in 1903 Ivan Fomin, a successful 30-year-old enthusiast of Art Nouveau, switched to purely Neoclassical, palladian architecture and returned from Moscow to Saint Petersburg to practice neoclassicism on its own territory; his studies of early 19th century, culminating in a 1911 exhibition of historical architecture, were followed by a wide public interest to classical art in general. The conceptual statement of neoclassicism – and the term itself – were further developed in 1909 in Apollon magazine by Benois and Sergei Makovsky.

The new style took over specific niches, starting with nostalgic country estates and upper-class downtown apartment buildings. By 1914 it also became the preferred choice for schools and colleges. In Moscow, all new cinemas of the period were built in neoclassical stylem, continuing the old theatrical tradition. Neoclassicists celebrated victory: “Classical tendencies in architecture have replaced the sinuously agitated, ‘temperamental’, and riotously ‘dashing’ modernistic efforts of architects like Kekushev, as well as the simplified structures faced with brilliant walls of yellow brick of architects like Schechtel.” This time, the concept shifted from preservationism to shaping a new, wholesome art, opposed to all diverse styles of the 19th century. “There was a difference, but not a leap, and here lies the subtlety of understanding the problem of neoclassicism.”

The crisis of modern style
At the end of the xix th century, a new architectural style appears in Russia, which is called the “modern”, corresponding to the new art in Western Europe. But he can not satisfy the exigency that is emerging of a great monumental style. Neoclassicism is then born in the early xx th century as an antithesis to the decorative excesses of modern architecture. He relies on classical order and his taste for proportion. It is an aspiration to comfort and harmony. Its characteristic decoration is formed of leaves, shells, pediments, ancient figures. The matching furniture is light, clear, with straight lines.

Alongside the innovative trend of the architecture of the early xx th century manifested a rétrospectiviste current. The thirst for novelty is rapidly changing to a dream about the past. The new openings of architecture referring to classical accelerated the disappointment with regard to novelties and the decline of secular styles. Neoclassicism and the neo-Russian style began to appear in the modern architectural vocabulary, but were relegated little by little to the background.

Denial of Art Nouveau
A common concept of Soviet art critics linked neoclassical revival to the social shock of the 1905 revolution; this concept, narrowed to architecture and refined further by W. C. Brumfield, treats neoclassicism in 1905-1914 architecture as a professional reaction against Art Nouveau. The society, shaken up by Russian revolution of 1905 “dismissed Art Nouveau as ephemera of fashion” and settled for moderation in architecture. By the end of hostilities, moderate Neoclassicism emerged as an ethically acceptable alternative to extravagance of the past. Prior to 1905, Saint Petersburg architects completed 30 buildings in Neoclassical Revival (about 5% of extant neoclassical buildings). Five years, 1905–1910, added 140 new buildings. By 1910, Saint Petersburg reached an equilibrium between Neoclassical Revival and Art Nouveau (in terms of new buildings launched and completed). Ivan Fomin specifically praised the universal, easy-to-reproduce set of classical rules, consolidating the profession: “When the style was being formed, all the masters in the capital and the provinces worked toward the same end, not fearing to imitate one another. And in this is the guarantee of strength.”

By 1914, Revivalists clearly won but their victory was not universal. A large share of intellectuals despised Empire style as a symbol of slavery and militarization of Alexandrine period. Ilya Repin publicly condemned it as a lust for luxuries of “the filthy Arakcheyev period, and all the harshness of living suffered by millions, which are now free” (Russian: “Он напоминает мне поганое время Аракчеева и всей связанной с этим временем тягости жизни миллионов теперь свободных людей”).

Alternative to eclecticism
Contemporary domestic authors dismiss the concept outlined above as an oversimplification. Reaction against Art Nouveau did exist, but was only a secondary, tangential factor behind neoclassical revival. 1902 and 1909 statements by Benois targeted the ideology of eclecticism in general. Neoclassicism of early 20th century extended far beyond denial of a rival style, pretending to create a wholesome realm of art in all its forms. This viewpoint is indirectly supported by the fact that there was no clear-cut boundary between two styles. Art Nouveau artists, starting with Otto Wagner and Gustav Klimt, relied on Greek heritage. Neoclassical architects followed the same gesamtkunst approach to interior and exterior finishes and relied on the work of the same craftsmen and factories. Architects (Fyodor Schechtel) and painters (Mstislav Dobuzhinsky) created pure examples of both styles. Despite the magazine critique, various forms of Art Nouveau persisted until the Russian Revolution of 1917, which halted all construction altogether.

Neoclassical projects in Saint Peterburg emerged when Art Nouveau was still in its infancy, years before the 1902 magazine campaign. Russian Ethnographic Museum was laid down in 1900, Petrovskaya Embankment in 1901, the Public Library in 1896.

Importance of clients and their tastes, elevated in the traditional concept, is also disputed. Architects were not simple contractors: many were also wealthy property developers, betting their own money (Roman Klein, Nikita Lazarev, Ernst Nirnsee). They were part of a wider movement in arts, led by writers and painters who, unlike architects, were not bound by investors. The artists themselves changed the tastes of general public.

Contemporaries clearly identified revival of empire style as a part of a larger trend seeking the way out of apparently unsolvable crisis of fin de siècle; Art Nouveau and decadence in general were perceived as the least of threats. As Nikolai Berdyaev stated in 1910, “Modern age joins the ranks of Goethe… a clear reaction against mounting catastrophes – the catastrophe of Nietzsche and his Übermensch, the catastrophe of Marx and his socialist judgement day, and the catastrophe of falling into abyss of decadence.”

Style defined

Confusion in classical and neoclassical terms
The confusion arose from the fact that in France the classical style is the style of the xvii th century, the style (Louis XIV). Under the name neoclassicism means in France the style of the second half of the xviii th century and beginning of the xix th century from 1750 to 1830. Now the same period 1750 to 1830 is classified in Russia (as in Germany) in matter of architecture, under the name of classicism. In Russia and Germany called for against neo-classicism or rétrospectivisme the architecture of the beginning of the end of the xix th century beginning of the xx th century, which differs from Russian classicism in the materials used and the accentuation of classical forms and details. Sometimes also, by mixing decorative motifs of Renaissance and classical style

Reposession of simplicity
Depending on the function of the building, purity of the style varied from refined Palladian legacy in luxury mansions to superficial, shallow decorations of utilitarian apartment blocks. All these buildings share one feature: “Repossession of Simplicity. Geometry of basic shapes, clean surfaces… returned the integrity and monumentality that was lost in second half of 19th century” (“Обретение простоты… геометризация объемов, очищение плоскости возвращали архитектуре черты слитности, монументальности, утраченные во второй половине 19 века”).

Pure revival of Empire style was limited to temporary exhibition projects and suburban and country mansions, where abundant land allowed low but wide symmetrical layouts. Rarely, as in the case of Vtorov’s mansion, the same approach was reproduced in downtown residences or in public buildings (Museum of Ethnography in Saint Petersburg). Typical Saint Petersburg construction projects of that period already passed the 5-story mark, unheard of in early 19th century, and needed careful adaptation of neoclassical spirit to the new scale. Early attempts of mechanical, superfluous attachment of columns and porticos to ordinary apartment blocks failed; by 1912 the problem was resolved, most notably by Vladimir Shchuko. His Markov Apartments suggested two ways of handling the scale: either use of giant order, with pilasters running the whole height of the building, or adaptation of earlier palladian motives; both relied on expensive natural stone finishes and modern structural engineering. The result “combined classical elements in a monumental design that is neither historical nor modern. Shchuko developed a style appropriate for contemporary urban architecture, one that provided material evidence of the classical values.”

Fragmentation of the movement
The new trend, favored by investors, naturally attracted opportunistic practitioners of other styles; the move was simplified by the fact that all graduates of professional schools had formal classical training (more prominent in Imperial Academy of Arts and the Moscow School, lesser in Byzantine-oriented Institute of civil engineering). The growing Neoclassical community spun off separate revivalist groups with their own stylistic codes.

Baroque revival, the earliest of these schools, was popularized by Mir Iskusstva and flourished in Saint Petersburg, notably in the Peter the Great school building designed by Alexander Dmitriev in collaboration with Alexander Benois and Mir Iskusstva artists. This municipal project began in 1902, and the city specifically requested baroque style to commemorate its founder; final drafts were approved only in 1908. In the same year the city held an international exhibition, designed in Petrine baroque. Baroque trend in graphic arts was popularized by Lev Ilyin and Nikolay Lanceray.

Renaissance revival was practiced by Ivan Zholtovsky in Moscow and Marian Lyalevich, Marian Peretiatkovich and Vladimir Shchuko in Saint Petersburg. Their first statements of neo-Renaissance were completed in 1910-1912. Peretiatkovich died prematurely and did not leave a lasting following, while Zholtovsky created his own professional school that persisted from 1918 to his death in 1959. However, in 1905-1914 he completed only a few neo-Renaissance buildings; the bulk of his work of this period belong to pure neoclassicism. On the contrary, amount of neo-Renaissance projects in 1910s Saint Petersburg was large enough to become a lasting trend; works of Schuko and Lyalevich were instantly copied by lesser-known followers. Alexander Benois and Georgy Lukomsky, now disillusioned by superfluous copying of empire style motives, welcomed the “stern tastes of Italian architects.”

Modernized neoclassicism, not related to Russian heritage or its Palladian roots, was exemplified in the new building of Embassy of Germany in Saint Isaac’s Square, designed by Peter Behrens in 1911 and completed by Mies van der Rohe in 1912. The red granite building combined heavy-set, simplified shape with 14 giant columns, and was unusually functional, well lit and ventilated inside. Contemporaries detested its style as Teutonic architecture, but quarter of a century later it perfectly fitted in the concept of both stalinist and nazi architecture. A similar trend, although not as radical, was emerging among Moscow architects.

Related Post

New look at the architecture of the old St. Petersburg
From the early 1900s, the painter and critic Alexandre Benois is one of the first authors to speak of the incomparable beauty of St. Petersburg. His articles literally opened the eyes of his contemporaries by teaching them to appreciate the forgotten classical heritage. From there began the development of neoclassicism.

This movement gained the two Russian capitals then the province. Naturally, neo-classicism knew parallel and close developments in the European architecture of that time. But the fact remains that this apparition has specific characters from the Péterburg region. His followers were based on their own traditions, referring to the “golden age” of architecture in the Neva capital. Unlike the modern style, and most of the new styles of the xix th century, it was here a development from roots. This is why this movement is rightly called a Petersburg revival.

War, revolution and post-war development
The last examples of neoclassical revival were laid down shortly before the outbreak of World War I. Independent developers in Moscow started a number of unconnected large housing projects; advent of the elevator allowed them to reach 9-story mark. These buildings, usually called cloudbreakers (Russian: тучерезы) usually appeared outside of the Garden Ring: the city restricted highrise construction in the historical center, including the ban on Ivan Mashkov’s 13-story tower in Tverskaya Square that could become Moscow’s first skyscraper. In Saint Petersburg, Ivan Fomin and Fyodor Lidwal started redevelopment of Goloday Island – a residential park spanning over one square kilometer, the largest single project of the period. It materialized only in part; Moscow projects were mostly complete during the war, while some remained unfinished into the 1920s.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917 the movement lost its leaders in literature (Ivan Bunin) and fine arts (Benois, Dobuzhinsky) to emigration. Some of the architects, especially those based in Saint Petersburg or having a foreign citizenship (Fyodor Lidwal, Noy Seligson) emigrated too; some disappeared in the fog of war like Ernst Nirnsee. However, the influential architects who shaped the neoclassical movement (Fomin, Ivan Kuznetsov, Mayat, Schuko, Rerberg, Zholtovsky) remained in Soviet Russia and quickly restored their role as leaders of the profession. Zholtovsky, who was at the helm of VKhuTEMAS architectural school in 1918-1922, temporarily emigrated to Italy after a revolt of modernist students ousted him from his chair; Zholtovsky returned in 1926, and was immediately awarded with a string of new projects – both Renaissance and constructivist. Other neoclassicists of his generation also had to modernize their art to some extent, and had successful practice in the second half of the 1920s, producing high-profile buildings (Rerberg’s Central Telegraph, Fomin’s Dinamo Building in Moscow).

Most of urban neoclassical buildings of 1905-1914 survived the Soviet period quite well – they were, in fact, the most recently constructed pre-revolution buildings, and despite inadequate maintenance their initial quality was high enough to stand unaltered for nearly a century. Many have lost original interiors; in the decade following World War II some of Moscow apartment buildings were built up (adding two or three stories was a common and inexpensive solution to the housing shortage), but their external styling survived. Another wave of reconstruction that started in 1990s and continues to date, have caused numerous facadist rebuilds. Pure, unaltered examples of the style are nevertheless quite common. Nationalized country estates, on the contrary, did not fare just as well. Their new functions (ranging from almshouses to military headquarters) sooner or later called for alteration and expansion; new owners had no incentive to preserve the original buildings. Frequently they were abandoned and left to decay – especially after the World War II depopulated the countryside.

Retrospectivists
The retrospectivist movement relies primarily on Russian classicism, as well as on the Empire style, but also, partly, on the Baroque. At the beginning it is oriented towards classical sets (the constructions of Vasili Svinin and Evgraf Vorotilov). The festivities of the 200th anniversary of the founding of the city of St. Petersburg aroused great interest in the ancient history of the city and helped to bring out a neo-baroque trend (Alexander Dmitriev, Lev Ilin, Nikolay Lanceray). Ivan Fomine, ardent supporter of the architecture of the end ofxviii th century, beginning of the xix th century became the leader of this trend. Then the proponents of the traditional orientations turned more and more towards the first sources of Russian classicism, towards the Italian Renaissance and in particular towards Palladianism. The representatives of the neo-renaissance movement that dominate are Vladimir Shchuko, Andrei Belogroud, Marian Peretyatkovich, Marian Lalewicz.

Ideally the retrospectivists’ intention was to build entirely in the historical style by even giving the illusion of the old. In practice, however, they were subject to contemporary functional structure choices that allowed them to obtain an ostentatious intonation of modernism. Among the first to embark on the modernized neo-classical style are the names of Fredrik Lidvall and Robert-Fridrikh Meltser. An example of transformation and simplification of classical forms is the German Embassy in St. Petersburg by architect Peter Behrens.

All the nuances of the neo-classical style, including the neo-baroque, were admitted by the reconstructivist current for the city of St. Petersburg. On the other hand, the Russian national current is considered incompatible with the historical context of the city. This is why the “Russian Style” has only found achievements in the field of church building with the architects Vladimir Pokrovski, Stepan Kritchinski, Andrei Aplaksin. In their quest for monumental simplicity, the architects turn to the Novgorod and Pskov buildings. This is where the imprint of stylization lies in the spirit of modern style.

Goals and problems neoclassicism
Neoclassicism posed a fundamental problem: to revive and then strengthen the stylistic ensemble of the capital and continue its development to the level already reached by new constructions, but respecting the ancient architectural precepts. This style has supported the development of the city’s urban planning ideas. Like the grandiose plans of the residential neighborhoods called “New Petersburg” on the “Island of the Decabrists” of Ivan Fomine and Fredrik Lidvall, as well as the competing projects of public buildings at “Toutchkov bouian” (also by Ivan Fomine, Mr K Doubinskin, S. Serafimov).

FE Enakiev and Leon Benois’ “St. Petersburg Transformation Project” was a real master plan for urban planning, providing for the reconstruction of the city and its infrastructure with new streets and access roads. The realization of this project was prevented by the outbreak of the First World War.
At the beginning of xx th century, almost all the “Petrogradskaya storona” neighborhood is rebuilt, many neighborhoods as the “Island Vasilevski” and the left bank. The “model” street of this period becomes the “Prospekt Kamennoostrovski”, where you can admire the best modern and neoclassical creations.At the “Nevsky Prospekt” and in the surrounding areas finishes the formation of the district “Peterburg City “. The city acquires a status of European capital. But the October Revolution tragically will make him lose his ambitions at this level.

Neo-classicism is in fact the first architectural stylistic orientation of importance in the history of the city of St. Petersburg, created thanks to its own heritage. It has developed since 1917 and continued its existence in quite different conditions until the mid-1920s, when it gave way for some time to constructivism. The lessons of neo-classicism at the turn of the century were extremely fruitful and promising not only for Stalinist architecture from the 1930s to the 1950s; they are still relevant today.

Achievements of architects

Fyodor Lidval
Frederik Lidvall (also known as Fyodor Lidval) is one of the first to use Renaissance forms in his architectural projects. The center of the facade of the Azov-Don Bank in St. Petersburg is occupied by an ionic- shaped gray portico which allows the wicket room to be located from the outside.

The apartment buildings built on Lidavll’s plans have a very classic appearance. Thus the “Tolstoy House”, Fontanka Pier in St. Petersburg. The bodies of buildings follow each other around spacious interior courtyards judiciously arranged and connected by high vaulted porches. This is reminiscent of the Renaissance but announcing a kinship with Art Nouveau designs by their elliptical rather than semicircular.

Marian Peretiatkovitch
The buildings of Peretiatkovitch are austere monumentality. The impossibility of combining the structure of the large utilitarian buildings with the buildings of the Renaissance gives to its facades a “stage decoration” aspect. His most famous achievement is the Wawelberg Bank. The architect is inspired by the general forms of Italian palaces. But the Italian model consisted of only three floors and not five, as does the architect from Petersburg. For him it is the details and Italian associations that determine the general impression. In the Nevsky Prospekt, where it is located, forms ample of this building and recovery granite facade clearly distinguish the delicate architecture of the buildings near.

Vladimir Shchuko
The combination of great modern structures and Renaissance compositions has been ingeniously solved by Shchuko. One of the two buildings that he realized Kamenoostrovski Avenue was often imitated. Its imposing façade has an imposing colonnade projecting in the style of the Loggia del Capitanio in Vicenza by architect Palladio.

Ivan Fomin
Ivan Fomine is the central figure of the 1910s in the new architectural style. He wanted to create an authentically Russian version of Art Nouveau and participated in an exhibition of Miriskousstva on this subject in Moscow in 1902. The Polovtsev house on Kammeny Island in Saint Petersburg testifies to his concern for the revival of classicism.

In his construction of the mansion of Abamélek-Lazarev in 1912-1914 in St. Petersburg, he resorts to the exaggeration of what he perceives as specific characteristics of Russian classicism. Eventually he gave up gradually this rétrospectivisme imitative.

Ivan Zholtovsky
It was in Moscow that this Paladianist did most of his work. He spent many years studying the legacy of the Italian Renaissance. The Tarassov Hotel is one of his most significant works. It is a replica of the Thiene Bonin Longare Palace in Vicenza, Italy. But, keeping the general plan of his prototype, he combined it with the proportion system of another building (the Doge’s Palace in Venice.

Brothers Vesnine
The Vesnine brothers devoted themselves to a deep analysis of classicism. Between 1913 and 1916 they built the Sirotkin Hotel on the banks of the Volga in Nizhny Novgorod. He is very close to the works of Fomine. The owner of the hotel wanted to transform the building into a hotel and its design was carried out according to this subsequent assignment. One of the brothers Vesnin realized within the ceilings boxed set painting by Alexandre disciple of Vladimir Tatlin.

Fyodor Schechtel
The architect Schechtel was built in 1910 in Moscow. It is a small building with asymmetrical composition. A large portico in front reveals the position of the hall. The house is close to the Art Nouveau style but incorporates many neoclassical details, used as discrete symbols of belonging to a place in a culture, a city and away from the classic international style.

Source from Wikipedia

Share