20th Century Architecture - Essay Sample

Introduction

Historically, architecture was used as propaganda by different architects as it was developed, and designed according to the canons that had been pre-established and conditioned to commence its materialization. The architectural propaganda was an effort to approach the public to communicate an idea or an attitude in a way that is more persuasive. The intention was to influence the opinions, feelings, and beliefs of the target audience and the influence can be found in many cultures across history (Donovan, 29). This technique was used as a schematic resource that estimated the new art of intellectual character to a relatively uneducated public as it was used by the Soviet Union to cultivate the masses. The architecture itself is an expression of culture; hence the element of propaganda that was employed flows organically from the structure by nature of its presence. Since architecture influenced people around it as part of an environment, this quality can be utilized by those who desire and through doing so results to transformation of architecture into a piece of propaganda from a clear influence (McDermott, 49).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Through propaganda, the nature of architecture continues to express something concerning the designer and his or her culture as it does from the human mind. The architecture becomes the display of opinions about a cultural group which may be articulated upon others. The culture of the original builder and his or her culture are displayed by observing an architectural work by an individual (Trumbull, 6). Hence, architecture by its nature without prior intent has in-built propaganda value. The paper discusses how architecture used as propaganda explores the Stalinist architecture and architects such as Vladimir Gelfreykh and Adolf Minkus and also how the projects of the architects shaped culture.

The Stalinist architecture was developed during a time of ambitious projects and architectural experimentation as the Stalin government was critical in combining the image of a robust Soviet Union. The term Stalin architecture itself is referred to as the various constructions that were developed during the Stalin government in the Soviet Union in the year 1922 to 1952. During the fifties, the style of building has changed reaching its peak (Zarecor, 255). The Stalin architecture was propelled by the ambitions of Stalin to fulfill the goal of making the Soviet Union a world power. There the first style that was developed in the twenties was a very austere constructivist style which proved later not sufficient to show the magnificence of the Soviet Union. Then later classical references were integrated into buildings. Also, elements which are columns consisting of elegant arches, moldings, and capitals were utilized to enhance Soviet Union glory as the style supported the propagandistic image showing prosperity (Suvakovi, 2).

Furthermore, urban planning in the Stalin government was a priority. The avenues needed were new, straight, and wider avenues were required as a strategy for military parades to enhance the image of prosperity and power, so the urban planning was carried out with the decree, and the city was demolished and was built again using new ideas (Bodenschatz, 385). The personal preferences of Stalin prejudiced the architecture, and the common thing was that for a design to be rejected by a member of the party and later prized the subsequent year.

There was a close relationship between the ind6ividual architects and the government. Thus, lead to consistency in features of the designs, irrespective of architect developing the structures. Additionally, buildings had enormous proportions, and the design of buildings was based on symmetry. In terms of materials used for constructions, bricks were mostly used then covered paint and concrete. The interior of civic buildings was finished with stones and marbles, and also decorations were used as propagandistic motives (Palonen, 544).

Additionally, the structures were different according to social class, whereby there was the existence of simple constructions that belonged to the social types that were popular and the mass constructions for the elites contained elaborate developments. For the top officials, expensive elements were incorporated in their buildings which evidenced the influence of the tenants. In contrast, the houses of the working class were very simple and plain, and they have deprived of all the ornaments and luxury; hence the houses were ineffective in covering the primary needs of the tenants. The peak of the Stalinist architecture was realized after the end of the Second World War through the development and construction of seven substantial high-rise buildings which became a milestone of Russian architecture. They are being said to be the seven sisters as they share the same features and design with new-Gothic references such as moldings, arches, and a strong sense of verticality. At the center of the buildings exist a high tower with a tip topped by Soviet star (Dukhan, 130).

Concerning the selection of the design evaluation and the construction sites was not known as it remained a secret which was considered as the sign of Stalin strong management. The Stalin Architecture employed old artistic forms and placed a symbol of a leader in the middle of attention, as propaganda became part of the apparatus and highly considered; as the language of constructivism. During this year before the outbreak of the Second World War, the realism of socialists as a universal language and a total structure appeared in the culture of the ultimate state around the world which transformed the architecture of Soviet Union (Devos, Rika, & Alexander, 54). The process of industrialization as initiated by Stalin during 1920s and 1930s resulted in one of the fastest and highest migrations to urban areas in the country. In 1935 there was the preparation of new landscape plans for Moscow and their designers used the best reservoir of new forms that bring up the traditional designs than before.

During the Stalin regime, the best architects who designed and developed various constructions were Vladimir Gelfreykh and Adolf Minkus. The architects were first drawing the plan of the projects and then propose the designs and the materials to be utilized in the construction. Some of the projects used layered setbacks, and others used more streamlined construction techniques. Vladimir Gelfreykh was among those designed the development of the pavilion of the Foreign Department of Russia in 1922 to 1923 and in the same 1920s they were working on other Petrograd-Leningrad projects that were developed by Stalin style (Kwiatkowski, & Jacek, 156). The architects were competing on various projects design, and Gelfreykh was among those who compete in designing projects like the design of the House of Councils in Tula, the Palace of Labor in Ivanovo, and others. Also, the design and construction of the Soviet`s Palace were the best of the architects who designed it among the Vladimir Gelffeykh.

The architect also was an active participant in the reconstruction of Moscow and his work in 1935 to 1937 he came up with a new version of the layout pertaining South-West of Moscow. Vladimir Gelfreykh significant work which he designed during the war years was the building of the Moscow metro`s third stage (Cepaitiene, 8). Also, Vladimir came up with station Botanical Garden project. Stalinist skyscrapers among them being the main building of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was developed, designed, and the whole process of construction was overseen by two architects who were Vladimir Gelfreykh and Adolf Minkus. The features are the same as that of Moscow`s State University main building.

Throughout history, the Stalin architecture and the work of architects such as Vladimir and Adolf shaped the culture of the Soviet Union in various ways and different magnitude. The learning of the Soviet Union involves the borrowing of ideologies as represented by the lending of architectural styles. This process of borrowing has been of high significance to Russian culture as the Stalin architecture was applied across all the designs and development involving constructions as he was the one directing and issuing the styles (Czepczynski, 38). The architecture in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin was dissolved into the culture to a greater degree. The changes that occurred in the design and construction of buildings reflected the changes that happened in the lifestyle of Soviet people and also the types of social organization.

The radical turn that occurred in the architecture in the time of Stalin was not because of the individual architect`s work or the critics or the leaders. But the change is from the movement of the existed before the efforts of certain individuals that propels such movements and draw people along with it as it happens in the leadership of Stalin whereby he adopted the traditional styles and made them work through architects like Vladimir and Adolf. Stalin motivated the architects by granting them the freedom to come up with various designs, and on several occasions, the architects were competing in developing different projects, and the best architect is given a prize (Zejnilovic, Emina, & Erna, 19).

In this analysis, the culture that was influenced by the Stalin architecture is, in general, the systematization of events during that period, the facts and styles that were not there or transition in the existing culture. In the Stalin regime, the culture of the Soviet Union was characterized by the transfer of values from the authority to the center which is the individual architects. Here the authorities led by Stalin with respected architects such as Vladimir and Adolf had interest in the architectural styles both as the practical means of spatial expression and for securing the population of emerged center-based values (Salnikova, 104).

Furthermore, the transformation that mostly occurred in Soviet architecture in the 1920s to 1930s was purely an expression of cultural processes. The political forces that existed in the Soviet Union were themselves the manifestation of cultural forces as Stalin with his other leaders ordered for the adoption of specific styles of architecture and planning solutions which were adopted by the particular architects who were to carry out the design and overall overview of the construction projects (Baiburin, Catriona, & Nikolai, 20).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of propaganda in Stalin architecture and the architects such as Vladimir and Adolf were the cornerstone of propagating the Soviet prosperity and power. The Stalin government issued the design styles, and the best architects were employed to design and construct them. The architects were given full freedom to decide the style and the practical choices concerning the size and the form of the projects. There was devising of new designs of buildings and also the presence of spatial arrangements which was a major architectural element. Ranging from the office buildings, middle-class apartments, institution buildings, and commercial headquarters all the way to cooperatively fund communal-housing, they were innovatively constructed. The Stalin architecture was a gradual transition in the culture of the Soviet Union. The projects developed by the architects were based on classical styles of construction and it also based on the values transfer from authority and spatial expression as the political forces that existed in the Soviet Union was the reflection of the cultural forces.

Works Cited

Baiburin, A. K., Catriona Kelly, and Nikolai Borisovich Vakhtin, eds. Russian cultural anthropology after the collapse of communism. Vol. 34. Routledge, 2012.

Bodenschatz, Harald. "Urban design for Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler, and Franco (1922-...