Architecture, textiles, painting and sculpture were fused in this short-lived haven for experimental practice
Vkhutemas was an art and technical school set up in 1920 in Moscow that saw itself as a realisation of the new revolutionary government’s approach to art, and which was to become a vital part of building a new society. Often this ‘building’ was in the most literal sense: one of the chief skills taught there was architecture, next to industrial and technical design, textiles, painting and sculpture. This exhibition in Martin-Gropius-Bau focuses on the school’s architecture teaching, and on the highly interdisciplinary, experimental methods developed there by some of the greatest Russian architects of the 20th century, such as Nikolai Ladovsky, Moisei Ginsburg and Konstantin Melnikov. They were able to produce such pioneering results by treating artistic education as part of a whole. Many of these architects were also fascinating painters. At the same time, few of Vkhutemas students’ boldest designs were built, and the school faced a political backlash as early as 1929.
This ‘Soviet Bauhaus’ (as the exhibition’s subtitle has it) raises interest today not only because Constructivist luminaries such as Rodchenko, Klutsis and Popova taught there, but also because of an emerging interest in the less explored aspects of the art of the revolutionary period. The Berlin show concentrates on the pedagogic work of teachers and usually unknown students at Vkhutemas, whose rarely seen work hangs next to the better-known abstract compositions of Stepanova or Rodchenko’s spatial constructions.
‘Students had a lot of freedom, leading to extraordinary diploma projects such as Nikolay Sokolov’s Constructivist spa,which was envisaged to be partly under a mountain, a reminder that one of objectives of early Communism was comfort and luxury.’
Given the traditionalist legacy of tsarism, these artists had first to break with the 19th century. This is visible in the early 1920s work of Nikolay Kolli, later the job architect on Corbusier’s only completed Soviet building, Tsentrosoyuz. His drawings of foliage compositions on Neoclassical architecture show how attaining Constructivist form meant learning from the past as well as its rejection. The school’s architecture faculty initially combined three threads: Neoclassicist, taught by Ivan Zholtovsky; the experimental Rationalist school, headed by Ladovsky; and a non-conformist pedagogical programme led by Melnikov and Ilya Golosov, the ‘New Academy’. The link between classicism and Modernism is here less sharp than it’s often portrayed - there are many student drawings, which, in order to reach for new spatial forms, reach first to French visionary architects, such as Boullée and Ledoux, and develop these in an ever more stern, reduced way.
This relationship between the French Revolution and classicism is echoed in the creation of a new, atheistic, rational Soviet state and society, cherishing internationalism and heroes of modernity, in such projects as the Cathedral of International Understanding by the Rationalist and Vkhutemas teacher Vladimir Krinsky, or Ladovsky’s Monument to Columbus in Santo Domingo. Successive rooms show how students’ responses to extremely matter-of-fact tasks, such as ‘production exercise to determine and represent a form’, produced extremely varied results, bulky edifices or thin, fragile towers, coming in bright, contrasting colours, and using collage and photomontage, to establish new forms of space. Students had a lot of freedom, leading to extraordinary diploma projects such as Nikolay Sokolov’s Constructivist spa,which was envisaged to be partly under a mountain, a reminder that one of objectives of early Communism was comfort and luxury. Another final-year project is Georgi Krutikov’s Flying City, accompanied by a Surrealist photomontage predicting the space programme and proving that traffic will soon become too congested and dangerous - as early as 1928!
In the end, Vkhutemas’s undoing was part of increasingly pragmatic late 1920s politics, which demanded its greater involvement in national industry. Although students like Ivan Leonidov attempted more utopian approaches to planning than the likes of the showcase steeltown Magnitogorsk, they were rejected. Finally, the school’s dissolution was an inevitability tied not just to the Stalinisation of Soviet Russia, but to the tendency by 1930s modern architects everywhere to abandon experimentation in favour of a more bland International Style.
VKhUTEMAS - A Russian Laboratory of Modernity
Where: Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin
When: Until 6 April 2015
Lead Image: A studio at Vkhutemas full of Constructivist models