|
After the Russian Revolution, the Comintern, or Third International, an international communist organization, began operations in Moscow. Plans soon emerged for a giant headquarters to be built in Petrograd, now St. Petersburg. At the same time, constructivism was emerging as an artistic and architectural movement in Russia. The idea of dismissing “art for art’s sake,” instead creating art for social purposes, was part of the communist movement, and as this was the goal of constructivism, it made sense for the architect of the tower to be Vladimir Tatlin, the founder of the constructivist movement.
The tower Tatlin designed, the Monument to the Third International, would have been a garish and imposing structure, looming over Petrograd, casting long shadows across a wide swath of the city. It is hard to fairly critique the design ninety years later, especially considering the sentiments of the time. I think it is fair to speculate that Tatlin’s intentions were to break as far away from classicism and neoclassicism as possible and take iron to its structural and aesthetic limit. But the result is something that looks like it belongs either in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, Brazil, or maybe even Edward Scissorhands.
The criticisms I make of the Monument can also be made of the constructivist movement as a whole. I wonder whether the harsh aesthetics of constructivist designs achieve their goal of being “art for the people.” The grotesque, distorted spiral and leaning tower of the Monument, coupled with its harsh, industrial materials, make for a foreboding and unwelcoming silhouette, which is the opposite of what a public building should be—inviting and friendly.
The Monument actually achieves the effect that would be desired by the center of a fascist system—a concentration of overwhelming power looming over the city—rather than that of a communist system, which supposedly aims to shrink central government. In the words of N. Punin, “The whole form is vacillating like a steel snake[...].”1 It truly does appear like a coiled snake, the “rattle” (tower) sticking up ominously, as it waits to strike.
I have not discussed what is probably the most obvious comparison that can be made to the Monument—the Tower of Babel. Both are giant spiraling towers, stretching further into the sky than anything before. But if the Tower of Babel is reaching into the sky to reach heaven, what exactly is the Monument reaching for? Biblical religions are centered on the afterlife, on God; communism is about the ground, the world, and people.
Perhaps, in general, giant monumental architecture is not appropriate for a communist state. When the goal of society is to emphasize the equality of all individuals and the importance of the collective, then erecting a mountainous building to house— and thereby lionize—government officials specifically does not serve society well. While an interesting experiment in architectural history, I do not think the Monument to the Third International was an appropriate design.
1. Tatlin. Larissa Zhadova, ed. Rizzoli, 1988. p345.
|
