Re:Melancholy of obsolete futures: on Soviet Brutalism
by vidarh on Friday August 28, 2020 @07:08AM
(#24303500)
Brutalism became popular because it was cheaper and had gained popularity in the West.
Stalin rejected brutalism firmly. Brutalism first gained traction in the Eastern block after it had gained popularity in the West.
He rejected the austerity, and he rejected examples of it such as proposed by Le Corbusier twice: both when Le Corbusier proposed an austere Palace of the Soviets, and secondly when Le Corbusier wanted to raze large parts of Moscow for a redesign along similar principles as what Brasilia adopted.
The austerity in Soviet design came under Khruschev as a cost-cutting measure to increase the housing stock, primarily, and while you certainly find more monumental buildings built in a brutalist style, that was the same thing: It was an end to the excesses of Stalinist architecture in favour of signaling a focus on saving money, and an actually desperate need to cut costs.
You're right that brutalism was seen as progressive, but initially that was the case in the west.
Le Corbusier actually accused Stalin of betraying the revolution when his proposals were rejected - he saw his proposals as revolutionary, but Stalin wanted a much more traditional style.
Stalinist architecture is anchored in the French Empire style, which you also find echoes of in parts of the US Federal style [1]. See e.g. Moscow State University as a prime example [2]. It has columns, and all kinds of architectural flourishes that you expect on more monumental Empire or Federal style buildings, and no sign of brutalism.
Stalin rejected brutalism firmly. Brutalism first gained traction in the Eastern block after it had gained popularity in the West.
He rejected the austerity, and he rejected examples of it such as proposed by Le Corbusier twice: both when Le Corbusier proposed an austere Palace of the Soviets, and secondly when Le Corbusier wanted to raze large parts of Moscow for a redesign along similar principles as what Brasilia adopted.
The austerity in Soviet design came under Khruschev as a cost-cutting measure to increase the housing stock, primarily, and while you certainly find more monumental buildings built in a brutalist style, that was the same thing: It was an end to the excesses of Stalinist architecture in favour of signaling a focus on saving money, and an actually desperate need to cut costs.
You're right that brutalism was seen as progressive, but initially that was the case in the west.
Le Corbusier actually accused Stalin of betraying the revolution when his proposals were rejected - he saw his proposals as revolutionary, but Stalin wanted a much more traditional style.
Stalinist architecture is anchored in the French Empire style, which you also find echoes of in parts of the US Federal style [1]. See e.g. Moscow State University as a prime example [2]. It has columns, and all kinds of architectural flourishes that you expect on more monumental Empire or Federal style buildings, and no sign of brutalism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_architecture#/media/Fi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist_architecture#/media/...