Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

   Lunacharsky Articles and speeches on international politics

Lunacharsky - Talk about proletarian architecture

Editorial
The speech of the late comrade placed below. A. V. Lunacharsky was delivered by him at the expanded VOPR plenum on January 14, 1932.

Com. Lunacharsky, who at that time was particularly carefully occupied with the question of the new style in architecture, based on the wealth of experience accumulated in the process of competition between the best masters of Soviet and world architecture in the competition for the design of the Palace of Soviets, in this speech briefly and lapidary outlined his attitude to the most important and burning problems of Soviet architecture.

Highly placing classical architecture, he at the same time warns against eclecticism and blind imitation. He attacks functionalism in architecture, pointing out that architecture is not only engineering, but also a great art.

Emphasizing the task of creating a new, Soviet, proletarian style in architecture, A. V. Lunacharsky at the same time warns against a frivolous attitude to this task of tremendous importance. “It is easy, of course, to say that the proletariat must create its own style, but it is impossible to shoot this style like a pistol.”

Very interesting is the reasoning of A. V. Lunacharsky about dialectics in architecture, about architectural dynamics. It may be that some statements on this issue are debatable, but they are certainly of great interest to every architect in terms of the freshness of their argumentation and the originality of their construction.

Comrade's speech Lunacharsky, uttered by him two and a half years ago, has not lost its significance and interest. Its publication will undoubtedly contribute to the further development in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism of the questions of Soviet art and one of its most important branches, Soviet architecture.

... For Marx, the highest point in the development of art was the time of "normal childhood".1 Childhood was in various places on the globe, but everywhere it was crippled more than in Greece by various attendant circumstances. In Greece, in Greek democracy, these forms of free relationship to nature, the kingdom of harmonious creativity, which man sought and manifested in his relationship to nature, found the most vivid reflection.

Marx said: it would be foolish to think that we must go back to the old social order. This system was narrow, not very productive, we have outgrown it, and this is very good. This is natural, and it brings great benefits. Of course, it would be funny for an adult to start lisping like a child, but it’s not funny to anyone when having gray hair, he remembers his childhood as a happy time in his life.

Its own special harmony, carelessness correspond to this childhood in a person; in addition, at a higher stage of development, the same vivid and complete expression of one's being is possible, which a person has during childhood. This idea was not developed by Marx, but from everything that he said, it is clear that when humanity throws off capitalism with its utilitarian merchant attitude towards nature, with a mechanistic conception of nature, a new era of art will come.

Marx quite transparently hints that this will be a continuation of the classics, a repetition, a revival of it, but not in such a pale copy as it was in the era of the Damage of the 15th-16th centuries, but with great technical means, on a large scale. Elsewhere, Marx says that the entire history of mankind before socialism is prehistory.

The beginning of life in Marx is connected with the idea of ​​ancient art. According to Mehring, Marx told Wilhelm Liebknecht that only an idiot could fail to understand what an enormous role ancient culture would play in the construction of socialism by the proletariat. Marx believed that the spirit of technology, that is, the exploitative attitude towards nature inherent in the bourgeoisie, was transferred by it into art, and, consequently, the proletariat would continue its thread of art, going up, starting not from what the decadent bourgeoisie gave, but from the climax artistic achievement of mankind.

I hope to develop material in defense of the classical school. But here you need to look very closely. It may happen that copies from buildings such as the Colosseum, the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome, with all sorts of expressions of the imperialist concept, will be defended by others on the basis of the above considerations. A very prominent architect recently told me: "You yourself must agree that real social life ended with Rome." Of course, this is completely wrong: social life did not end with Rome, but my interlocutor apparently had in mind the thought of Marx, which he misunderstood. Marx has a different attitude towards Rome than towards Greece. Saying that the achievements of Greek architecture were the pinnacle, one cannot thereby consecrate such phenomena as eclectic imitation, etc.

A few words about those artists who, like Corbusier, are under the strongest influence of engineering technique and directly proclaim this. The whole teaching of Corbusier is imbued with the idea that now it is not about beauty, or rather, that now there is a new beauty. Man, pursuing technical goals, creates such things as ocean steamers, surpassing everything that artistic thought has given - and architecture should draw its motives from this. Corbusier has not only pure functionalism. Pure functionalism is the assertion that an architectural work is exhausted by the maximum fulfillment of the purpose of the structure. With Corbusier, this is not entirely true. Poetry, he says, comes by itself when you can take and combine engineering motifs in such a way that you get an artistic effect.

Now this new architecture has developed in the widest possible way and spilled over the entire bourgeois world, an architecture that eschews tradition, moves away from the intolerable disgusting epigone eclecticism, strives to create in an engineering way. When Marx lived, he did not see such architecture.

But one can say about this architecture what Marx said about the machine under capitalism - that to a certain extent it replaces man. Does architecture only serve the purpose of fulfilling a utilitarian task? No, we want the building to be ideologically saturated. Take the example of the Palace of Soviets. The palace should speak of the greatness of the proletariat, of the stability of the proletariat, of the power of the proletariat, of its mobility, purposefulness, of its simplicity, of its joyful attitude to life, that in the building the proletariat remains the deepest democrat. The building is open to the masses, the building is designed for the masses to be its soul, its adornment, its organic part, etc. Is it possible to build two large halls and poetry itself will fly here? From this point of view, it can be said that most of what capitalism has built branded with a bourgeois curse. It speaks of high technology and comfort, but it says nothing about enthusiasm, says nothing about the new man.

A person who builds cannot forget for a single minute the technique that he can apply, new materials, new tools of production, new combinations that have been found and which allow him to be much more free from the spirit of gravity and resolve with the help of metal, glass, etc. many problems that were previously considered unsolvable.

If we ignore all this, we will be the most miserable passeists. How can a man who builds, a man who creates new synthetic works of art, how can he ignore his creative possibilities!

What conclusions can be drawn? We need a new type of construction. There are People who say: we will be right if we build like the Athenians; meanwhile, others say: we will be right if we build like the Americans. Both of them are wrong. This is the struggle of people who adhere to the old bourgeoisie and to that petty bourgeoisie, including the technical one, which serves the utilitarian inclinations of the present time, on the other hand, these are people who ignore the era of imperialism, capitalist culture in general, people with noble tastes. They fight among themselves. In the West, every passeist will say that he serves good taste, that he is a conservative, that he does not want to work for the sake of bad taste, and will refer to Louis XIV, since this will seem to him indisputable. And here the proletariat intervenes in the dispute. One architect says: I will build according to ancient taste, because it is closer to the proletariat, and another says: I will build in the spirit of factories, because it is closer to the proletariat. Both of them are equally far from the proletariat.

It is easy, of course, to say that the proletariat must create its own style, but it is impossible to shoot this style like from a pistol. This style needs to evolve. The point is that it is necessary to take into account both those and other possibilities only to a certain extent, because taking into account absolutely all possibilities is eclecticism. Although, in general, taking into account these possibilities is absolutely necessary. But if we proceed from such two completely different principles as ancient and modern industrial, such combinations can only result in blatant contradictions. At best, these will be preliminary buildings with which the proletariat will replace the absence of its own creativity.

We must remember that there were moments of the highest achievements of public architecture, architecture that was aimed at shaping the genius of the people. And now we have a moment of colossal power over the material, a much greater technical force than before. You can't get away from one or the other when creating a proletarian style. Both should enter our architecture, but not with their inherent social and technical properties, but, on the contrary, as learned techniques that dissolve and give birth to something third, because synthesis is not eclecticism, and here it’s not even just a synthesis , but in entering some higher architectural whole. Here are new, higher principles of architecture that will subdue what I was talking about.

The construction of the Palace of Soviets is a task of enormous proportions. One cannot erect a bourgeois structure and say that it is proletarian, and one cannot experiment on this building, throwing in colossal funds, materials and, most importantly, prestige. To build some monster is to deal a blow to prestige.

We can build a building that may be young, imperfect, but expressing proletarian youth. We want not just to have a place where we can converge and negotiate but 15 thousand at once, but we want to make sure that humanity sees how we understand ourselves.

And then it is clear that the task of architecture is to include utilitarian goals, the functional part of the plan as harmoniously and fully as possible in the plan, which is of an ideological nature.

First of all, the most immensity of size is the proletarian style. We strive for grandiose proportions not because some crazy emperor like Nero, or American capitalists, achieved enormous proportions. They have purely utilitarian goals or the pursuit of large quantities. At the same time, we have utilitarian tasks (for we in Moscow cannot live without a hall for 20,000 people, because there is nowhere to see and hear the leaders), but at the same time, the most grandiose dimensions are inherent in the buildings of the proletariat. It is certain. And this must be resolved in harmony of proportions.

The main beauty of the building, if we use this old word “beauty”, which should not be forgotten, but only needs to be correctly interpreted, the main beauty is the harmony of proportions. The bourgeoisie can find harmony in stagnation, or, conversely, in chaos, heterogeneity, etc. And only we again have that harmony that flows from the extraordinary vitality of the creator - the free working people. Nothing vague, nothing violent, nothing for someone to threaten someone, someone to crush someone. It is a free whole crystallized out of the general consciousness, but it crystallized organically, it organizes, because the proletariat and its construction are both free and organized to a high degree. Marx has a lot to say about this.

This whole can be unfolded only in harmony of proportions. The harmony of proportions must unite in a higher synthesis with the reasonableness of the plan. I mean such a distribution of the different parts of the building, which would be the most rational, light, clear, logical, without tricks, without frills, and which would allow for the maximum harmony of proportions. The building should be very bright, because everything twilight, everything gloomy is alien to us. Everything twilight has a mystical, intimidating life-denying character, and the appearance of a proletarian building should attract the light of the sun during the day, and at night emit light and attract attention. And inside this building must be realized and planned in such a way that maximum light is obtained.

The result of all this should be a building that, at its root, has, as it were, a classical setting, because something similar - grandiosity, stability, harmony of proportions, the ability to manipulate light - we see in Greece. But the question arises - is not the classical, according to another interpretation, somewhat lifeless? Another interpretation opposes classical art to the principle of romance. But classical art is an art in which form and content coincide.

Both Hegel and Marx say that such perfection is isolation, isolation from the world, there is no seed of the future in it, there is no movement in it. Perhaps the proletariat is much more characteristic of the baroque style, in which everything is a storm, everything is movement, when it seems that the building cannot stand, that the building must collapse and strive? Maybe you need to take this start?

Thus, perhaps, it is necessary to demand from the building a certain negation of itself, a certain dialectic in the building itself, so that in unity one can feel that bifurcation that we recognize in everything? I think that would be a colossal mistake. I think that a monumental building, first of all, should definitely speak about its sustainability. If a class creates such a building, passing by which you say that it will soon be demolished, this is bad. The proletariat cannot have such an idea that what it builds must soon be destroyed. When you create a work of art that costs so much work and expresses the idea of ​​a great class, you count for a long time. It should sing - I am, I stand, but in no way - I fly, I doubt, I don't know whether I should stand or not stand. Wouldn't that be dead? - you ask. No,

The point is to give this building dynamics, a character of deep vitality. First of all, what is architectural dynamics? In architecture, dynamics does not mean solving structural problems in such a way that the building does not seem stable enough. On the contrary, the dynamics does not cease to sound in the building if its resolution is complete and complete, and if it also represents the moment of the opposing force. If you solved the dynamic problems, that is, the problems of balance in the building that you have created, in such a way that it would all give the impression of heaviness, if this side of the matter dominated, you would immediately get an idea of ​​\u200b\u200ba certain sullenness, a certain desire to suppress . It can be extremely monumental, like Egyptian architecture. But what is the ideology behind it? Resilience imposes itself brings to the fore, and therefore the opposing force is felt somewhat subdued. But we have a different kind of architecture, when the pillars seem too light, when they, one might say, with grace bear the entire weight of the building. It turns out something frivolous, dancing. Does this kind of "elegance" correspond to the proletariat and the present moment? I don't think so, in any way.

The dynamics of the building must be calculated in such a way that the struggle of forces is visible, with the strictest calculation that the profoundness of this struggle is shown. No extra costs, full compliance, full balance! But such conformity and balance, when the elements of your construction constantly have in mind a certain support of gravity, and will give the impression of dynamics. Then the light is of great importance here. This building should be characterized by light for everyone. Light and color should play a huge role. With the stability of the building, there can be many methods of external and internal lighting, which gives an extraordinary variety, both internal chambers and external appearance.

Then, the coloring of the building itself must be given great importance. There are deathly colors, boring, there are noisy, multi-colored, etc. We need a color that would speak of life, diversity, fullness of strength, but which would be inherent in seriousness, without the slightest pedantry. This is a very big task.

But let's move on to the truly picturesque part. Man, in his artistic expression, must occupy an enormous place in the proletarian edifice. Maybe the one he occupied in Gothic architecture, or in Byzantine mosaics, when he was not himself, but a god. Sculpture, painting, frescoes, mosaics, etc., must occupy an enormous place in this building, for the accumulation of plotless moments is not characteristic of the proletariat. Socialism is the rebirth of man as the master of the land, who plays the main role. This means that we have to create a combination of human figures and masks, maybe moments of construction, living social landscapes, sculptures and paintings.

In monumental sculpture, inserted as an organic part, as in frescoes, we can give all degrees, from the monumental to the most violent struggle, any kind of suffering, conflict, etc.

All this should be calculated for those tens of thousands of people who pass through this building, for whom it is open, and in which, as Robespierre said, "the crowd itself is a performance for itself." A well-built amphitheater with 15,000 people who decide the issues of peace is a wonderful sight. But no less remarkable sight - those half a million people who will pass and greet this building. We now see it on the street, but on the street it is unorganized, and we must give the assembled working people, feeling the power, demonstrating their solidarity and will to win.

If we combine all this, we will get a proletarian building of a high type.

Comrades, architecture, as an art, is now acquiring absolutely exceptional significance for us, not only because we build a lot in general. Architecture is beginning to become the most expressive part of our new art, because in general we are constantly talking about construction: we are building a new system, we have a harmonious system of worldview. These words, in which at the same time there is an expression of the concept of a new and mutual combination of parts “build”, “harmonious” - are derivatives of one word “build” and this is the soul, the inner meaning of the present moment. Of course, we are still fighting; we are building and at the same time we are continuing to fight, and therefore our construction must capture and reflect the spirit of the struggle. We are still building the edifice of struggling socialism, but we are already building socialism. We are already building a new orderly structure of human life. It can be expressed in only one thing - the building. Only a great building can represent, as an object, as a new tangible revelation of all human feelings, this inner essence of our construction. Every proletarian shock worker is imbued with the consciousness that he is building, that "we are building."

Buildings of proletarian architecture pursuing utilitarian tasks—residential buildings, theaters, palaces, etc.—should express, reflect with maximum majesty and efficiency this idea of ​​creating new harmonious unities, extremely diverse in their elements and merging into such an iron chain, harmonious like our party.

Therefore, every architect, and especially the architectural youth, should feel unusually happy and proud. Never before have such tasks been faced by a man: he either served God or built for the owners, but for the first time he builds for himself, with a much greater ideological scope and social base; wants to build a whole piece of the world in the image and likeness of a creative, happy person.

It is very difficult. Probably, much in the report is not clear to you, and you would like to ask me questions that I will not be able to answer because much is still unclear to me. This shows that each of us has to crack a very hard nut and each one can take off and flop, but in our time - who does not find it difficult? Nowadays, a person who is not difficult is a suspicious person, a person who inspires suspicion. Very big tasks must fall on every genuine person. We are pulling, like barge haulers, a colossal idea in order to bring it to life, against the current, and the one who walks in this barge line and does not feel that he has abrasions on his shoulder is out of the chain, because he nothing to do.

Therefore, when it is difficult for you, you should be even more proud: it means that I am also working, and if you make mistakes, mistakes made with effort, this is a stage, this is a moment in motion. Of course, you need to try not to make mistakes. Bad is the one who says that mistakes are human. No, we must try to do every task as well as possible, and when we are passing through such a tremendous cultural test as the construction of the Palace of Soviets, we must try to ensure that as a result of our efforts the maximum of what the young proletariat can give is given. Even more capable ones will come, but also they will look at this building with love.

If we simply repeat some beautiful halls and create a work in which the beauty of old age is contained, it will not be good. It is not good if our youth turns out to be baggy and absurd, but the prettiness of old age is not good either. There must be a maximum of creative quests, not torn off either from the constructive present possibilities, or from technology. from any achievement.

We must unfold in the near future, in the next decade, a magnificent new page in world architecture.

The beginning of A. V. Lunacharsky's speech, unfortunately, was not recorded in shorthand. Judging by the further argumentation, it is clear that Lunacharsky at this point quoted Marx's well-known statement from the preface to the Critique of Political Economy.