Here are a few more issues of Строительство Москвы:
Строительство Москвы – (1929) – № 5
Строительство Москвы – (1929) – № 6
Строительство Москвы – (1930) – № 6
ASNOVA
Izvestiia ASNOVA/Известия АСНОВА (1926)
The first and only issue of ASNOVA’s journal, with its layout designed by El Lissitzky and Nikolai Ladovskii
Izvestiia ASNOVA [Известия АСНОВА] PDF Download
Today I made my way from the NYPL Schwarzman building over to Columbia University’s Avery Architecture and Fine Arts Library. I half wondered if I’d bump into Louis Proyect along the way. After some sifting through the WorldCAT I discovered that some of the original source documents I’d been looking for were in Columbia’s collection.
Most astoundingly, I happened across a copy of the architectural avant-garde group ASNOVA’s sole publication, Izvestiia ASNOVA (Известия АСНОВА), from 1926. Unlike their rivals, the architectural Constructivists in OSA, the Rationalists of ASNOVA were never able to maintain a steady periodical of their own. Still, it’s a beautifully designed text; none other than El Lissitzky worked on its layout. It has some interesting theoretical pieces by Nikolai Ladovskii on architectural pedagogy and the insights of Münsterburgian psychotechnics into the effects of various formal combinations on the mind. Also, it includes the article in which El Lissitzky unveils his famous Wolkenbügel proposal, describing some of the specifics of the project.
Though it’s only eight pages long, this piece is incredibly rare to find in its full-text form. A few quotes and passages from the journal are often cited in passing, but no one to date seems to have taken the time to digitize it. So anyway, I copied some images of it and ran it through some text-recognition software and then uploaded it for everyone. Just click on the above link to download it.
Modernist architecture archive
.
IMAGE: Lev Rudnev’s City of the future (1925),
before his turn to Stalinist neoclassicism
.
An update on the Modernist Architecture Archive/Database I discussed a couple posts ago. I’ve begun work on it, and have uploaded almost half of the documents I intend to include. Only a few of the Russian ones are up yet, but I’m hoping to post them over the next couple days. There are many more on the way.
However, this might not be the most convenient way to browse through it all. For a more manageable overall view of each of the individual articles (detailing the author, title, and year of publication), click here.
El Lissitzky’s “Architecture in the USSR” (1925)
.
IMAGE: El Lissitzky’s Wolkenbügel (1924)
.
From Die Kunstblatt, No. 2 (February 1925)
Modern architecture in Russia?
There is no such thing. What one does find is a fight for modern architecture, as there is everywhere in the world today. Still nowhere is their a new architectonic CULTURE. Any isolated really new buildings were designed only to meet the need of the moment, and only by some anonymous character, some engineer, over the head of the artist with a diploma. At the same time, modern architects in various countries have been fighting for some decades to establish a new tectonics. The main watchwords remain the same: expedient, in suitable material, constructive. Every generation puts a different meaning into the same ideas. For many this process is not developing rapidly enough. There is certainly no lack of forces. The trouble lies in the economic abnormality of the present time and the utter confusion of their intentions.
In the world of today, Russia is moving at record speed. This is manifested even in the name of the country: — Russia, RSFSR, SSSR. Art also advanced at the same tempo. There the revolution in art began by giving form to the elements of time, of space, of tempo and rhythm, of movement. Before the war cubists in France and futurists in Italy advanced new theses in art. There re-echoed loudly in Russia; but from the early years of our isolation we went our own way and put forward antitheses.
The European thesis was: THE FINE ARTS (BEAUX-ARTS) FOREVER. Thus the arts were made to become a completely private, subjective-aesthetic concern. The antithesis was: ANYTHING BUT THE FINE ARTS. [372] Let us have something universal, something clear and simple. Thus a square is simple, or a glass cylinder. Out with the painting of pictures! ‘The future belongs to those who have a remarkable lack of talent for the fine arts.’ Organic growth is a simple thing — so is building, architecture.