With an original translation
of Ladovskii’s 1921 program

.
Image: Photograph of Nikolai Ladovskii
during his professorship at VKhUTEMAS
.

Special thanks are due to Monoskop for pointing out to me a number of new images, as well as to TotalArch for providing Selim Khan-Magomedov’s selected Russian text online to translate for this post.

Nikolai Ladovskii and students at VKhUTEMAS, 1922

“On the program of the working group of architects” (1921)

The task of our working group is to work in the direction of elucidating a theory of architecture. Our productivity will depend on the very rapid articulation of our program, on clarifying the investigative methods to be used and identifying the materials we have at our disposal to supplement the work. The work plan can be broken down into roughly three basic points:

I) aggregation of appropriate theoretical studies and existing theories of architecture of all theoreticians,
II) excavation of relevant material from theoretical studies and investigations extracted from other branches of art, which bear on architecture, and
III) exposition of our own theoretical perspectives to architecture.

The result of these efforts must be the compilation of an illustrated dictionary that establishes precisely the terminology and definitions of architecture as an art, its individual attributes, properties etc, the interrelation of architecture with the other arts. The three elements of the work plan relate, in the case of the first, to the past, to “what has been done”; in that of the second, to the present, and “what we are doing,” and in that of the third, to “what must be done” in the future in the field of theoretical justifications of architecture. A commission, which might be necessary to set up for the program’s elaboration, must build upon the foundations we have suggested.

I. Lamtsov, workshop of Nikolai Ladovskii %22Beam, Revelation of Structure,%22 1922 study И Ламцов, Мастерская Н Ладовского

I. Lamtsov, workshop of Nikolai Ladovskii %22Double Volume, Revelation and expression of mass and weight,%22 Sketches 1922 И Ламцов, Мастерская Н Ладовского

I. Lamtsov, workshop of Nikolai Ladovskii %22Double Volume, Revelation and expression of mass and weight,%22 Sketches 1922 И Ламцов, Мастерская Н Ладовского1

I Lamtsov, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, Grain elevator, revelation and expression of form, 1922

I. Frantsuz, Il’ia Golosov and Konstantin Mel’nikov’s workshop, Crematorium (1922)

Nikolai Krasil’nikov, workshop of Nikolai Ladovskii, apartment building 1921 2

G Vegman, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, grain elevator, revelation and expression of form, 1922

Nikolai Krasil’nikov, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, Water Tower, revelation and expression of form, 1921

Nikolai Krasil’nikov, workshop of Nikolai Ladovskii, apartment building 1921

I Reberg, Crematorium (Diploma Project, 1920

V Ianovskii, Revelation of structure, first year (1924)

Unknown, Ladovskii’s workshop, Alkaline manufacturing tower, revelation of volume and space, 1922

V Vladimirov, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, grain elevator, revelation and expression of form, 1922

G Gol’ts, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, architectural and spatial design of the entrance to Nikitskii boulevard in Moscow, 1920-1921

G Gol’ts, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, architectural and spatial design of the entrance to Nikitskii boulevard in Moscow, 1920-1921

Iurii Spasskii, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, Grain elevator, revelation and expression of form, 1922

Iurii Mushinsky, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop. Wharf with a restaurant under a rock over the sea, revelation of the physico-mechanical properties of formIurii Mushinsky, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop. Wharf with a restaurant under a rock over the sea, revelation of the physico-mechanical properties of form

G Gol’ts, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, architectural and spatial design of the entrance to Nikitskii boulevard in Moscow, 1920-1921

Decorative composition for Ladovskii’s class, 1923

Decorative composition for Ladovskii’s class, 1923

Lidiia Komarova, thesis project for Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio, 1923

Unknown, project for Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio, 1926

.
Before us stands a task — that of studying the elements, attributes, and properties of architecture. This is where the investigative work must begin: on the one hand, with the most central properties of architecture, and on the other, with an inquiry into those properties which, because they have a general kinship to architecture, have been studied already by other groups within the Institute [i.e. within INKhUK]. At the top of their agendas right now is the investigation of construction and composition. For architecture, the most important elements are space, construction, and form. Its other elements follow those.

Here, in brief, is the schema for the program. But we need not dogmatically abide by it. For example, questions that are not currently programmatic may emerge as a result of the investigation, and may permit us to deviate from following the questions in this order. The theory of architecture falls under the realm of science. And it seemingly calls first of all for a literary exposition, so as to establish its concepts and terminologies with the greatest possible precision. We must not, however, neglect graphic representation as one of the means of demonstration. […]

It astonishes me that there can still arise amongst group members questions such as “Why is space to be studied as a first priority?”. In such a case would it not be better to turn to our relatives in art, where they will maybe explain to you “why”? Spatiality belongs exclusively to architecture, but architecture itself does not concern itself with investigating it, and uses it very badly. The dancer or the actor also work in space. It is from the theorists of these arts that we must work on questions of space and movement. […]

VKhUTEMAS students at a Space lesson, exercise on a verticality, 1927

Petrov has touched upon two categories of question: firstly, the question of perception (of architectural action). But this is the region of psychology and philosophy. We cannot set up a sufficiently broad investigation of the question of perception, since we are not adequately competent in the question of psychology. We shall have to limit ourselves here to axiomatic assumptions, posited by the specialists on these questions.

Secondly, Petrov is essentially carrying out a barren classification of the properties of architecture, not according to its real characteristics, but according to purely accidental, symptomatic features such as columns, bases, entablatures etc. But what is of importance in Petrov’s words is the aspect of perception he has underlined once again, along with his reference to the University as an architectural product. Wouldn’t an examination of this from the point of view of its organic and mechanical characteristics be an examination by analogy? Yet questions of analogy are questions of aesthetics. What is being examined here is a reincarnation of the individual: where for instance a stone lying down calls forth, by analogy, a feeling of rest, and a standing stone, an aspiration upwards; and so on. Restlessness, placidity, aspiration, and so on are questions that belong to a special science, but not to architectural research. The latter already now gives, albeit temporarily, scientifically founded truths, and not analogous comparisons. […]

We do not reject psychology, but state that we are not specialists in it. The same holds true for mathematics. But there is a field where we are Pythagorases — architecture. And here we need definite premises upon which to build. These premises, even if only for today, must be immovable. Otherwise proof is doomed to rapid ruin. Such premises, and directives of a general type, are what our program provides.

(From meeting protocols from March 26-27, 1921)

Nikolai Ladovskii with the students of his workshop at the VKhUTEIN architectural department, late 1920s

«О программе рабочей группы архитекторов» (1921)

Задачей нашей группы является работа в направлении выяснения теории архитектуры. Продуктивность этой работы — от скорейшей разработки программы, выяснения методов исследования и выяснения материалов, которыми можно располагать, как подсобными, в работе. План работы грубо можно разбить на три основных пункта:

I) собирание теоретических учений и готовых теорий по архитектуре всех теоретиков,
II) выработка соответствующего материала из теоретических учений и изысканий, добытых в области других искусств, но являющегося общим для архитектуры, и
III) изложение собственных теоретических воззрений на архитектуру.

Результатом этих работ должно быть составление иллюстрированного словаря, точно устанавливающего терминологию и определение архитектуры как искусства, ее отдельных свойств, качеств и т. д., взаимоотношение архитектуры с другими искусствами. Указанные три пункта охватывают собой прошлое — с тем, «что делалось», настоящее — с его «что делается» и будущее — с тем «что должно быть достигнуто» в области теоретического обоснования архитектуры. Комиссия, которую необходимо будет создать для выработки программы, должна будет развить обоснование предлагаемой нами программы. […]

Spatial exercise, Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio (1927)

Spatial exercise, Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio (1927)

Spatial exercise, Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio (1927)

Spatial exercise, Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio (1927)

Spatial exercise, Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio (1927)

Spatial exercise, Nikolai Ladovskii’s studio (1927)

Exhibitions of students’ works on The Revelation and Expression of Three-Dimensional form, late 1920s

R145 Vkhutemas Model Construction 001

R146 Vkhutemas Study Model Construction 001

R147 Vkhutemas Model Construction 002

Iurii Spasskii, Nikolai Ladovskii’s workshop, Grain elevator, revelation and expression of form, 1922

Меня удивляет, что у членов группы  возникают еще вопросы, подобные «Почему пространство изучается в первую очередь?». В таком случае не лучше ли обратиться к нашим родственникам по искусству, там, может быть, вам объяснят, «почему». Пространственность всецело принадлежит архитектуре, но архитектура-то и не занимается ее исследованием и плохо ее использует. Танцор и (пропуск в машинописном тексте стенограммы, видимо, здесь подходит слово «актер». — С. X.) работают в пространстве. Вот с теоретиками этих искусств нужно работать над вопросами пространства и движения […]

Exhibition of student works on the revelation and expression of mass and weight in the lecture hall, 1927-1928

Петров затрагивает две категории вопросов: во-первых, вопрос восприятия (архитектурного воздействия). Но это область психологии и философии. Мы не можем поставить достаточно широко исследование вопроса восприятия, так как недостаточно компетентны в вопросе психологии. Мы здесь вынуждены будем ограничиваться как аксиомами данными, предлагаемыми специалистами по этим вопросам.

Во-вторых, Петров, в сущности, производит сам голую классификацию свойств архитектуры, и к тому же не по характерным, а по чисто случайным ее признакам: цоколю, колоннам, антаблементу и т. п. Что существенного в словах Петрова — Это лишний раз подчеркнутая сторона восприятия и только […] Университет  — архитектурное произведение. Не [будет] ли рассматривание его с точки зрения его органичности и механичности — рассматриванием по аналогии. Но вопросы аналогии — вопросы эстетики. Там рассматриваются перевоплощения человека: там, например, лежащий камень вызывает, по аналогии, чувство покоя, стоящий — стремление ввысь и т. п. Беспокойство, покой, устремление и пр. — вопросы специальной науки, но не архитектурного исследования. А последнее уже теперь дает, пускай временные, научно обоснованные истины, а не аналогичные сравнения […]

Мы не отбрасываем психологии, но мы говорим, что в ней мы не специалисты. То же по отношению к математике. Но есть область, где мы Пифагоры, — архитектура. И здесь нужны определенные посылки для построения. Эти посылки хотя бы на сегодня, но должны быть незыблемы, иначе доказательство обречено на немедленное разрушение. Такие посылки, директивы общего порядка и дает наша программа .

Nikolai Ladovskii with students, 1925