After five years of undergraduate studies, the development of my architectural ideas and future prospects

This article serves as a supplement to the previous autobiography, aiming to introduce the beginning of Soviet art mentioned earlier. I hope that in the future I can also focus on this topic to learn about the history of Soviet art with everyone, and discuss what proletarian art should look like.


The black tower-like structure in the picture is called the Tatlin Tower, also known as the Third International Monument. This four-hundred-meter building is made of glass, iron, and steel, with two spiral steel structures extending toward the sky at a sixty-degree angle. The base of the building is a cube, serving as a venue for lectures, meetings, and legislative sessions, rotating once a year. Above it is a pyramidal structure that rotates once a month, with the top being a cylinder that functions as an information center, broadcasting news, announcements, and declarations via telegraph, radio, and loudspeakers to the world, proclaiming the strength of the Soviet Union and symbolizing the challenge to “modernity” represented by the Eiffel Tower.

Due to the enormous amount of steel required for the Tatlin Tower, its structural practicality was seriously questioned. Under the realities of steel shortages and the Russian Civil War, the plan was shelved and never revived.

The designer, Tatlin, came from an engineering and technical family and started working independently in society at a very early age. He worked as a sailor, an assistant painter, and a theater set designer. Because he believed that “art” was a product of “capitalism,” he called himself an “art engineer” or a “productionist.” (These two terms are very abstract, and I didn’t quite understand their meanings; I will add more about their principles and views after I learn more about them later.)

I feel like my drawing has more words than images, which is so embarrassing :sob:. I’ve always wanted to write about the history of the beginnings of Soviet art because it really had a great influence on my early architectural thinking. As mentioned earlier, "Soviet constructivism and suprematism paved the way for modern abstract art. The ‘rough’ architecture symbolizes the authority and grandeur of the people’s democratic dictatorship, and the bold stylistic design of workers’ collective dormitories represents a daring attempt at new ways of living and thinking in the ‘new era’ and ‘new ideas’. The towering Tatlin’s Tower is as powerful and resonant in my mind as the song ‘The Era is Near’. Workers and peasants work together to build a socialist motherland, leading to great material wealth. The most impressive point is that Soviet artists and architects such as El Lissitzky, Malevich, Tatlin, and Rochenko promoted the idea of ‘responding to Lenin, dedicating oneself to useful endeavors, expanding social contributions, and serving the Soviet government through art!’.

I won’t open the sky pit for now; I will continue with my own learning experience in the next part.

This design is actually a bit hard to understand, and rather abstract, making it difficult for people to immediately grasp the design concept. Ascend wonders what exactly makes it unique and how it aligns with proletarian art. If you want to discuss Soviet art, especially “Constructivism” and “Suprematism,” you should start with a direct discussion, beginning with specific examples. It might not be very appropriate to start from individual cases.

1 Like

This Tatlin Tower is a strange thing, something that the general public looks at and doesn’t know what it expresses. I used to study art as well, and I can say that bourgeois art, since their entire class entered a reactionary stage, has gradually detached from realism. In literature, this manifests as a popularity of stream-of-consciousness, abstract, surreal, and yellow (sensational) writers, while in painting, architecture, sculpture, and other fields, it has moved away from realistic objects. Just like this Tatlin Tower, when the masses look at it, they only see a twisted steel structure and cannot understand any specific ideas it aims to convey.

After the decline of bourgeois art, the proletariat established its own artistic theory called “Socialist Realism.” In the Soviet Union, this meant removing those unclear “Constructivists and Suprematists,” whose art is more commonly called “abstract.” The abstract art movement’s notable representatives in imperialism include Picasso and others. Although Picasso showed anti-fascist tendencies, his works often depicted horror and failure. In the Soviet Union, this style rarely produced outstanding achievements.

In China, it was manifested by workers, peasants, and soldiers participating in artistic creation. During the socialist period, because workers held leadership in all aspects, their art education was much more widespread than today. In documentaries like “Yu Gong Moves Mountains,” it is common to see crowds setting up easels by rivers, lakes, and seas to paint en plein air, as well as artists communicating with workers in production units.

On the other hand, socialist art can also be explained from the perspective of “eliminating the three major differences”: painting, design, sculpture, and other art forms are mostly mental labor. Previously, they were limited to the exploitative classes and a few mental workers, isolated from physical labor and the broad masses of workers and peasants, or in other words, only a few people created art while the vast majority could only be forced to accept it. This was also a reflection of the bourgeoisie and all exploitative classes’ spiritual domination over the working people.

The greatest contribution of socialism to art is freeing it from the bourgeois ivory tower, truly enabling the working people to master, utilize, understand, and transform it. It allowed the original art workers to shed bourgeois habits and transform into proletarian intellectuals. As this transformation progressed, many art and literary works with broad positive effects that the masses enjoyed and loved were created.

Below are two simple illustrations:
This one is a classic Soviet abstract work, the poster “Red Wedge Striking the White Area” (also called “Crushing the White Army”).


The next image is also a classic socialist realism poster:

We can compare the differences between these two art forms. Socialist realism also includes some abstract elements, but it is far from the “Constructivism and Suprematism” that are so detached from reality and incomprehensible at a glance.

4 Likes

Here are two of Tatlin’s works (created before the revolution):


In fact, his works before the revolution already show that he has no essential difference from the abstract style popular among imperialists.

1 Like

Although I am not familiar with architectural design, it reflects that class struggle should also exist in architectural design. There are definitely people in this field who serve the bourgeois ideology — such individuals are likely to be reused after Khrushchev’s restoration. It is possible to attempt to examine the development history of socialist architectural design from the perspective of class struggle and the class practices of creators.

1 Like

Okay!

I’ll reply to you in the evening, I have to work overtime today.

I’m really sorry, I originally wanted to send the reply tonight, but halfway through writing, I felt I still had quite a bit to write and needed to look up some information. I will try to send it out tomorrow night.

I will reply to you tomorrow.

Definitely :+1:, the history of architectural changes during Khrushchev’s revisionist restoration period must be discussed. Before that, the socialist realism of the Stalinist era also needs to be mentioned.

I feel that the architecture here is very abstract, and it doesn’t allow people to deeply experience the spirit of socialism, nor is it clear what it aims to express. It is also not close to the lives of the people. Personally, I don’t think it can be considered qualified socialist art.

2 Likes

Yes, as the beginning of Soviet art, these two schools are inherently deformed or disabled, and they later also faced failure. However, their impact on socialist art and even the overall artistic status of humanity is undeniable. We are still unable to define whether future socialist architecture will be abstract or figurative. But by studying and understanding this period of architectural history, we can inspire collective thinking and discussion, to explore future socialist architecture and art, and to conceive how to better serve the working people and become a practical art of life.

I’m wondering whether this can really be considered Soviet art. I feel that rather than calling it Soviet art, it would be more appropriate to describe it as bourgeois art within the Soviet regime. Because from any perspective, it’s hard to see the proletarian characteristics (if not interpreted), and on the contrary, many techniques are used by the bourgeoisie. These authors also created as bourgeois writers before joining the Soviet regime. Therefore, I believe it is not qualified to be called Soviet art.

2 Likes

Actually, this is quite interesting. Because these two schools were indeed influenced by abstract art in bourgeois painting, but they also deeply influenced bourgeois architectural art, becoming the beginning of architectural modernism. The reason why this is so abstract is because Tatlin’s Tower was designed as a symbol or landmark. When we look at some ordinary constructivist architecture, we can see that just by its shape, the epoch-making nature of constructivist architecture is evident. I’ll show some pictures.




Before the birth of capitalist architectural modernism, capitalist architecture looked like this:



All these capitalist buildings above, with their many floral columns and ornate decorations, indeed seem to be “close to people’s lives.” But every decoration on them reflects the capitalist exploitation of the proletariat’s labor, squeezing their surplus value, used for their lavish and wasteful salon lifestyles.
Regarding whether architectural art should be abstract or figurative, and which is closer to the laboring masses, it is unreasonable to say. I’ll give you a few examples.
Contemporary abstract architectural works:



Figurative architectural works:



It can be seen that under the capitalist system, whether abstract or figurative, they all regard the working masses as ants and toys. These bastards not only deny us the power to define beauty but also treat the hardworking people as fools to be amused, mocking us as illiterates who know nothing. They are simply too arrogant! They will pay the price for this.

I’ve seen the buildings inside with my own eyes… quite incredible

1 Like

But what you want to say at the beginning is that modern bourgeois architectural design has been influenced by constructivist designers like Tatlin, leading to those abstract buildings. However, this influence cannot be considered good because the starting point is still abstract, and the general public cannot understand it. If it is for “landmark buildings” to stand out, the first question is why must a landmark be set at all. Secondly, this landmark building should also be designed from a practical perspective, like the steel beams surrounding the Third International Tower, and the rotatable parts, which are completely impractical.

2 Likes

It seems that this impact cannot really be considered a good one; it’s just a rotten replacement for another rotten thing. From the specific extravagance and luxury decadence to the abstract incomprehensibility, in any case, it does not represent the people.

2 Likes

I originally liked this building quite a bit. I remember that the curved steel represents the idea of a spiral ascent. However, from a practical perspective, it would require a huge amount of steel, and there isn’t much space that is truly practical.

1 Like