OPPOSITIONS BOOKS Introduction and translation by Anatole Senkevitch, Jr. Foreword by Kenneth Frampton ae Style and Epoch Ginzburg Published for the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, Chicago, Illinois, and ‘The Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, New York, Now York, by ‘The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England 1982 ee ae eeCopyright © 1982 by ‘The Institute for Architecture anc Urban Sturies and ‘The Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book. may be reproduced inary form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including, photocopying, recerding, or by any Information storage and retrieval system, ‘without permission in writing from the publisher, Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Daia Ginzburg, Moise! Takovlevieh, 1892-1946. Style and epo (Oppositions Books) ‘Translation of StP i epoleha Includes bibliographie references. 1. Architesture and history 2. Architecture—Philosophy 3. Architecture—Composition, proportion, ete I. Title. IL Series, AZ, HBSG5818 1982 720.1 &2-10054 ISBN 0-262.07088-X ‘Typoutapiny by The Old Typosopher in Century Expanded. Printed and bound by Halliday Lithograph Corparation in the United States of Ameriea Jacket illustration: Caprone triplone. From thetitle page ofthe original Russian edition Other titles in the OPPOSITIONS BOOKS cenes: Essays in Architectural Crit Modern Architecture and Historical Change Alan Colquhoun Proface by Kenneth Frampton ‘Spoken into the Void Adolf Loos Introduetion by Aldo Rossi ‘Translation by Jane O, Newman and John H. Smith ‘The Architecture of the City Aldo Rossi Introduction by Translation by Diane Ghirardo and Joan Ockman A Scientific Autobiography Aldo Rossi Postscript by Vincent Scully ‘Translation by Lawrence Venuti OPPOSITIONS BOOKS Editors Peter Eisenman Kennoth Frampton Executive Bditor ‘Joan Ockman Assistant Editor Thomas Melins Design Massimo Vignelli Design Coordinator Abigail Sturges Produetion Hei King ‘Trustees of the Institute for Architecture and Urhan Studies Armand P. Bartos, H ‘A. Bruce Brackenridge, Charmar Charles Gwathmey, Vice Chairme Peter D. Eizonman, Vice Chairman John Burgee Colin Campbell Henry Cabb Prank. Gehry Gerald D. Hines Arata [scaaki Eli. Jacobs Philip Johnson Paul Kennon Phyllis Lambert Edward. Logue Goruld M. MeCue Cesar Peli Kevin Reche Amanda M. Ross Paul Rudolph Edward L, Saxe Carl E, Sehorske James Stirling Fredevieke S. Taylor Massimo Vignell!Contents” Foreword by Kenneth Frampton 6 Introduetion by Anatole Senkeviteh, Jr. 10 Prefice 34 1. Style. Elements of Architectural Style. Continuity and Independence in the Change of Styles 36 2. The Greco-Italic “Classical” System of Thought and Its Modern Legacy 48 3. The Prerequisites of the New Style 74 4. The Machine. The Influence on Modern Art of the Statle and Dynamic Properties of the Machine 84 Construction and Form in Architecture, Constructivism 94 Industrial and Engineering Organisms 104 ‘The Characteristic Aspects of the New Style 110 Mlustrations, Reflections of the New Style in the Works of Modern Russian Architects 120 Table of Hlustrations 168 ‘Translator’sGlosses 159‘One athe moresurprising things about this seminal treatise published in 1024 is that ic has taken nearly sixty yeurs to issue an English version ofa text which ‘evidently played a major role in the development of Soviet architecture. "This lapsus is all the more incomprehensible given that Ginzburg’s place in the Mod em Movement stems as much from his leadership and theoretical writing as it does from his equally extensive activity as an architect. Indeed, Ginzburg be- longs to that rare class of accomplished designers who, without relinquishing thir voeation, find time for polemies and for the formulation of a coherent body oftheory. Should one look far his equivalent today, one would only find such a figure in aly, Germany, or Japan, and it is possible that the very range of Ginzhurg’s achievement—the extent of his erudition, the lucidity of his theory, andthe fertility of his practice—goes a long way toward accounting for the be- latedness ofthis translation, sinee such a combination of theory and practice has never been accorded great respect in Anglo-Saxon circles. This prejudice may be also be detected in the current reading of his career, ‘where the tendency has been torecognize him mostly for hisfoanding of the OSA soup and his editorship ofits magazine Sovremennaia Arkhitektart, without ‘giving sufficient eredit to his practice and to the pioneering housing: studies ‘made for the Building Committee of the USSR under his auspices. The fact is thit be entered some fourteen competitions between 1928 and 1927, and in s0 ding produced a series of remarkable projeets, of which two, both designed with I. F. Milinis, became canonical Construetivist works: the Narkomfin ex- perimental housing block, brought to completion in Novinsky Boulevard, Mos- ‘ow, in 1930, and the Alma-Ata government building, completed the following ‘year, the latter being one of the earliest Russian buildings to reflect the fullinflu- ‘exce of Le Corbusier's syntax and method. The Narkomfin block, on the other hand, despite Corbusian overtones, asserts the indepenslence of Ginzburg’s thought, kis determination to evolve 4 collective housing form appropriate to Soviet conditions, rather than mimic the progressive but nonetheless bourgeois hhusing types developed by Le Corbusier. ‘The Narkomfin block was a culmination of four years of intensive development, beginning with Ginzburg’s more conventional Malaia Bronnaia block, completed inMoscow in 1927, and continuing with the researeh work carried out by ateam ofarchitects working under his direction, Between 1928 and 1930 Ginzburg, to- gether with M. Barsheh, V. Vladimirov, A. Pasternak, and Sum-Sik, designed and tested 2 number of alternative prototypes in order to arrive at an appropri- ate andl economical typology for the standard form of Soviet residential develop- iment, the so-called dom-kommuna, whose optimum socio-architectural form ‘preoccupied the Soviet avant-garie thoughout the twenties. The generic, 5 level Stroikom section, which emerged as the most prototypical consequence of this research, clearly antedates Le Corbusier's famous cross-over duplex unit, first project! in 1984 and finally realized in the Marseille Unite d habitation of 1852, Yet despite the radical form of the Narkomifin block (ts assembly of Type Pani Type K Stroikom units intoa six-story slab linked by aninterior street toa communal canteen, gymnasium, library, nursery, and roof garden), Ginzburg remained aware that sucha commune eouldonly be humanly suecessful fit was indused rather than imposed. Ginzburg was as much temperamentally as ideologically inclined to the ideal of thecallective, foras S. 0. Khan-Magomesioy hasremarked), he was at his best as ‘designer when working collaboratively, and the more interesting projects of his career were invariably arrived at jointly, from his avant-gardist Green City Forewordproposal for the de-urbanization of the existing population of Moscow, designed in 1930 with Barsheh, to his somewhat. conservative proposal for the Palace of the Soviets, designed in 1932 with the German architect Gustav Hassenpflug, This project, together with Ginzburg’s entry for the Sverdlovsk Theater compe- tition of the previous year, served to inaugurate his Neo-Suprematist style, a manner which was patently influenced by the work of the young OSA protégé Ivan Leonidoy, As Anatole Senkeviteh indicates, Ginzburg’s Style and Bpoch unavoidably in vites comparison with Le Corbusier's Vers tne architecture of 1923, by which it ‘was surely influenced, since Ginzburg would have read this book when it first ap- peared in installments in the pages of L'Esprit Nouveau. However, as in all such comparisons, the differences are of greater consequence than the similarities, and these are perhaps most dramatically indieated by the respective choice of il lustrations. While both texts are illuminated with futurist engineering images, thatiis to say, with the grain silos, factories, ships, and aireraft of the turn of the century, they ultimately use this material to different ends. Where Ginzburg features battleships, weled-steel railway termini, and wood-framed industrial cooling towers, Le Corbusier excludes the warship in favor of the bourgeois transatlantic liner. Similarly, while both men find the North American grain elevator and the Fiat works at Turin to be exemplary of the new epoch and its style, they differ over the issue of wood construction, Le Corbusier restrieting: the new architecture to steel and concrete and Ginzburg admitting into the ‘eanon not only anonymous industrial timber structures but more specifically the work of his more “primitive” Constructive colleagues, such as, for instance, Konstantin Melnikov, whose Makhorka pavilion for the All-Russian Agricul- tural Exhibition held in Moscow in 1923 is prominently featured, as is V. A ‘Shchuko’s cafe for the same exhibition. Ginzburg’s feeling for construction also has its phantasmagoric, Piranesian over~ tones, as we may judge from his inclusion of drawings by B. 1. Norvert for a modern power station, presumably meant to demonstrate an ideal syntax in ‘whieh conerete and si¢el would be equally mixed. Of coarse, both men aeeard equal importance to the airplane as the bearer of the new spirit, even if they choose to illustrate different models. However, where Le Corbusier ites the bourgeois automobile along with the liner and the biplane as the ultimate de- iurges of modernity in Byes Which Do Not See, Ginzburg illustrates his thesis ‘of modern dynamism by advancing the locomotive as the exemplary functional form, Like Towards a New Architecture, Style and Bpochaevepts.and wholeheartedly ‘welcomes the universal eivilizing force of modern technology, a foree whieh in czarist Russia was already making the continuation of local culture increasingly diffieut. Ginzburg’s adherence to the “law of ecntinuity” and his essentially Dar- \winian, not to say “goretie,” concept of the evolution of style was altogether more naturalistic as a model of change than Le Corbusier's cialistie concept of the way in which modern architectural culture would be brought into being, Tam referring to Le Corbusier's dialectical idea of the “Engineer's Aestheticand Ar- chitecture,” about which his major theoretical work is structured. Whore Ginzburg embraces the notion of an all-determining machinist Zeitgeist, Le Cor- busier, while championing the scientific industrial world, still posits the neces- sary presence of a poetic “will-to-form,” which would on oceasion be capable of raising the ealeulated elegance of engineering form to a higher, Neoplatonie plane. 8This idealistic model of the generation of form was inconceivable to Ginzburg, since he could no longer think of the architect as a figure who was professionally independent from the engineer. As far as he was concerned (and he had himself been trained both as an engineer and an architect), architectural practice kad by the iwenties already become absorbed by enigineering, and the primary task tow was for the architectural theorist (namely himself) to formulate a new theory of form to account forthis absorption. He had in fact prepared the ground for thisacceptance in his earlier Rhythm in Architecture of 1923, in which he di- rectly posited « theory of architecture based on the notion of evolving formal rhythms, a theory in some ways comparable to such formal systems as those alvanced by N. A. Ladovsky in the VKHUTEMAS and the method which lier would be articulated by Iakov Chernikhov in his books Architecture and ‘Machinesand Architectural Fantasies, published in 1931 and 1933 respectively. ‘As the spectrum of his publications would indicate, from Rhytiem in Architec- thre of 1928 to Housing of 1934, Ginzburg’s development ran the full historical sgamat, from the young practitioner and thearist reacting tohis training asa clas- sicalatylist in Italy to comoone polemically involved with the economic optimiza- tio of the living cell, the pursuit of the Soviet equivalent of the Bais toxzminimum, Ginzburg the technocrat and superfunctionalist reaches this ‘pothesis in the second chapter of Housing; here, packing his argument with formulss and calculations of the most abstruse kind, he treats with whatever er- ‘goncmie optimum was deemed appropriate fora certain range of households at a fixed cast, Despite the inexplicably wasteful one-and-a-half story height of the Stroikon units, this program resembles the Taylorist ideal of A. K. Gastev’s Moseow-based Central Labor Institute. Style and Kpoch, om the other hard, at- ‘tempts 0 demonstrate the courserepeated throughout history of the birth, mat- luratio, degeneration, and death of any given style, thereby affording its author the epportunity toargue at the conchasion of his thesisthat the Soviet Union was sanding at the threshold of an emerging new expression, only this time one that ‘would be formulated ata universal level. Ginzburg’ own first forays into evolv- ing this style were tentative and eclectic in the extreme, as we may judge from the heavy pastiche of Byzantine and Neoclassical forms which characterizes his entry for the Palace of Labor competition of 1923. However, by the time of the Orgametals Building competition of 1926, he had become a fully converted functionalist. Finally, by 1988 with his work on Kislovodsk Senitorium in the Crimea, he would embrace x highly rationalized form of Social Realist architec- ture, which was then to charueterize his ensuingeareer as a practising architect upto his death in 1946, ‘Thus, while Style and E’pock formulates the ideology of style that enduredit- tlemore than six years, it nonetheless remains a compelling and significant tes- timony to the promise of a modern architecture whose liberative potential re- ‘mais as valid today as when it was first proclaimed. Konueti FramptonMoisei Ginzburg and the Emergence of a Constructivist, Theory of Architecture Stil’ i epokha {Style and Epoch], published in 1924 by Moisei Takovlevich Ginzburg, is the first and most important elucidation of early Constructivist theory in Soviet architecture. It presents seminal concepts whieh were later elaborated into « fully developed cloctrine of Constructivist architecture, but hich at the time ofthe book's writing were only beginning to be erystallized. In this sense, Ginzbarg's treatise reveals a theory in process of formuiation, Yet at the same time, through its author’s lucid observations on an impressive sweep of historical, theoretical, and formal problems, it also brings to light the vibrant in- tellectual content of Constructivist architectural thought. Few writings as- sociated with the movement demonstrate so well the full depth and breadth of Constructivist theory, or the extent to which its aims and ideals were central to those of the Modern Movement Tt may facilitate a faller understanding of this compelling but not always easy treatise to set it into its proper historieal and theoretical perspective. In one sense, of course, it needs neither explanation nor commentary: was published \withoUt the help of either, the time and circumstances of its publication provid ing both. Moreover, a number of the aspirationsaddressed by the bookare strik- ingly in accord with those of Ginzhung’s modernist contemporaries in Western Europe. Indeed, its conception of a scientifically determined and historically predestined architecture, one that is socially useful and embodies the innate spirit of the time, makes Siyle and Epoch one of the theoretical touchstanes of the Modern Movement, Style and Epoch, Ginzburg’s second book on architecture and his theoretical chef ‘oeuvre, propelled him to sudden prominence in the Soviet Union. Its penetrat- ing analysis of stylistic change in architecture was hailed by art historians as a model of scholarly art eritieism.' At the same time, its comprehensive effort to conceptualize aspects of the “new architecture” for the young socialist state prompted mary Soviet architects to clarify their own positions on the sabject. ‘The book's paramount importance, however, stems from its instramental rolein ‘coalescing the basic strains of the subsequent Constructivist doctrine in Soviet architecture. Although Ginzburg’s treatise conveys his tacit approval ofthe essential thrustof Constructivism, it refrains fromavowing any direct connection to the Construe- tivist movement in Soviet art, which had come into being in 1921; none of the early Constructivist pronouncements had made any significant references to ar- chitecture, save for the rudimentary position adopted in Aleksei Gan's essay Konstruktivizm of 1922, In Style and Epock Ginzburg largely goes his own way formulating a positivist program for a “constructive” architecture, adapting salient aspects of the past-1921 Constructivist ideology ofa utilitarian indus al, or productive," at to his own eoneeption ofthe ereative process in architec ture, Ginzburg’s ideas, with their immediate antocedents in beth Western theory and Soviet criticism, peoved seminal to the development of the Construe tivist architectural movement, of which Ginzburg emerged as the co-founder and chief theoretician with the founding in 1925 of the Society of Modern Ar- chiteets (OSA). Ginzburg’s book is a remarkable synthesis of a utopian conception of the mechanized world, a materialist concern for the social and technical meaning of architecture, and scholarly grasp of eontemparary architectural and aesthetic theory. Its lofty and grandiose approach to architectural problems appears in striking contrast to the more pragmatic tone of later Constructivist writing, 10much oft produced by Ginzburg himself at a time when his group was seeking to ‘prove the technical standards of Soviet building. The earlier approach, how- +4¥e7, was a product of the moment in whieh the book was written and of Ginabure’s corresponding cast of mind, one still detached from the immediate ‘concerns of architectural practice. ‘The yearsimmediately following the Russian Revolution had produced an active ‘avant-garde movement and an intense burst of theoretical and creative ‘activity ‘inevery realm of art, Numerous artists and critics praised the new revolution- ‘wy developments in rhapsodie terms and sought to systematize their aesthetic ideals into cogent programs for the creation of a truly “new” art, one fully capa- ble of materializing in appropriate artistic form the projected socio-ecoro ‘ideals of the revolutionary epoch. Style and Epoch epitomizes the | programmatic Uritingthat proliferated in Soviet avant-garte and aulture in the early post-rev- hitioary years. At the same time, it formulates more comprehensively than the vritings of ny of Ginzbury’s Soviet contemporaries a deeply held moxlernist ‘emmitiment, something which many felt but none expressed as eloquently, TnSoviet architecture, the absence ofany significant opportunity to build during. the post revohitionary period of economie dislocation made the early twenties a time well suited for reflection and determination of purpose. Given the uncer- tainty ofthe times, Ginzburg’s book may be seen as a momentary withdrawal fruma realty in process of transformation in order to postulate new theoretical ‘premises for the fundamental regeneration of architecture. It represents a deci- sive attempt to define the key role of architecture in the new socialist society, ‘ne which would marshal the socially and technically rationalized processes Of fnchiteeture forthe vital task of organizing and giving form to the new Way of lite, The fect that Style and Epoch isthe frst statement of Construetivist theory in Soviet architecture accounts in part for the book's somewhat transitional charac. {er Aithe same time, its vacillation between historical detachment and theoret- ical involvement indicates that the writing ofthis treatise marks a transition in Giraburg’s own career. Ginzburg attempted to reconeile his obvious Mair for and aitachment to architectural history with hie nevely aroused sensibilities as a Masttiorer who wished to extrapolate and apply history's programmatic impli- tations to the reation of contemporary architecture, Ginzburg’s penchant for historical analysis and determination to set forth eo Jfehensive theoretical rationale for design principles were products ofa keen fellect ami erudition, buttressed by an abundant self-assurance, At the same time, the impressive sweep of his professionalism was sustained by a broad eul {ural and literary background and a breadth and sophistication that distin ‘ished all the leading members of the cultural intelligentsia, In Russia thi tolleeual class was intrinsically involved with Westernization and the assim tion of Westorn cultural values and rationalist thought. Adopting a secular and Aroadly liberal outlook, it absorbed French and especially German positivist, thought, a monist view of nature and societal processes, and a. utilitarian eoncep- tionofaestheties in relation to the material world,” Although such materialism ‘rasdisplaced at the turn of the century by a philosophical idealism coming from the various neo-Kantian schools that had penetrated Russia hy the 1890s, materialism, as initially defined in Stule anid Epoch , nenetholess romained the essential determinant of Ginzburg’ architectural philosophy. That philosophy ‘evolved in response to a wide range of influences and stimuli that Ginzburg ex- u 1. This assosemont was made by A. A. iorov, President of the Art Criticism Section ofthe Institute of Archasology and Art Criticism in Moseow, in his “Iskeusstvoznanie 210 let v SSSR" [Art Criticism in the USSR During the Past ‘Ten Years), Trudy sekisis iskusstromianiia, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1923), 12, Inan earlier review of Style and Epoch art historian Vladimir V. Zgura, though disagreeing with some of Ginzburg’s assertions, hailed his book us a ‘major contribution to stylistic theory in Soviet art scholarship; soo 2gura, Peckat’ i revoliutsiia, no, 2(March-April 1925), Dp. 287-89, 2. Between 1926 and 193) the OSA Published the journal S.A. (Sooremennaia rkhitektura){S.A. (Modern Architecture)), of which Ginzburg and Alexander Vesnin were editors-in-chief; that the OSA was the only movement. with ts own sustained publication ‘accounts in no small meagure for its ‘gradual ascendancy in Soviet architecture during this chief theoretican, Ginzburg published a series of articles in S.A. amplifying earlier concep’s and postulating new ‘nes. Conceived in terms of their specific application to architectural practice, these articles focus on the promulgation of what Ginzburg and the Constructivists termed the “functional method" of design. ‘Together with Style and Epoch they encompass the exsential elements of he fullledgod Constructivist doctrine in Soviet architecture, Thess writings will ‘be eluded in a eompendiam of translated documents pertaining to modern Soviet architecture being prepared for ‘publication by the presont author. They arediscussed in my “Trends in Soviet Architectural Thought, 1817-1932: The Growth and Decline of the Constructivist and Rationalist Movements” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1974), chap. 4. 3. A good overview is Richard Pipes, “ passim), this is not its meaning, as is made clear by Gan himself. He ‘writes in Konstraktivizm that by “facture” he and his Constructivist colleagues have ‘in mind “the working cf'a material in its ‘entirety, from its initial state as raw material to finished product, and not ‘imply of it merface” (p. 61, tales mine). 51, References in both documents were to communism” and not to “sccialise.” The former word was quickly abandoned, however, especially after the institution of the New Exonomie Policy, once it was officially determined that the ultimate stage of communism had not yet been reached, and that the current stage was that of socialism, a transitional phase. 52, This triad was first advanced by ‘Aleksei Gan in his Konatruktivizm, p. 48, tulated as the dialectical triad of the program, Tectonics, regarded as the ideological underpinning of constructive art, meant the systematic exploitation Of the latest technological resources of material and technique to produce Utilicarian art capable of fulfilling and embodying the prineiple of communist ede lectivity.*" Facture meant the deliberate selection of materials which, on the basis oftheir intrinsienature and mode of production, could fulfill the speciiere= Guirements of given problem; emphasis was placed on preserving the inherest ‘quality of the transformed material while at the same time directly expressing the nature of its transformation into the finished product. Construetion meant the synthesizing organization of coneept, material, and technique toarriveat the most effective fabrication af the projected end product. Despite its iconvclastic bombast and militancy, Gan's Konstruktivizm eryst Tized certain ideas outlined in embryonic form in the “Productivist Manifesto” making it the first attempt to elaborate the Constructivist ideology. Althoug Gan did not regard Constructivism purely as a Russian phenomenon, be ase serted that only the Soviet Union, having socialized production and society through a proletarian revolution, offered conditions conducive to its ultims realization Gan's treatise, like the Preduetivist program, called for a revolt against the cult ‘of “pure beauty” and denounced traditional art for being inexorably linked ta “theological, metaphysical, and mystical premises” inimical to the emerging communist culture of labor and intellec.. Hence the remarkable early Constree: tivist dictum: “We declare unconditional war on art!” Gan maintained that the ‘only aspects of the past artistic heritage retaining any significance for a com- rmunist culture were those skills and aecumalated experience derived from the actual production of art. Although Ginzburg never referred to either Gan's book or the Productivist prs gram by namo, his conception essentially accorded with the Constructivist thesis while refuting Gan's nogation of aesthetics as a whole. Thus, while Ginzburg agreed with the rejection of metaphysical values as a basis for aesthet- judgment, he also contended that the revolution had not obviated the need fo aestheties, but rather had transformed their fundamental character by setting into motion those faetors which had given rise to the new “constructive” me ment, Inashort coneludingchapter devoted largely to architecture, Gan wrote thatar chitecture was the ultimate manifestation of the Constructivist objective of giv ingematerial form to the new way of lifeand that the new communist city was the paramount setting for its realization. While Gan crystallized the basic element of the Constructivist ideology, he did so in terms that were too polemical an ‘elementary to find any direct reflection in Style and Epoch, It remained chief for Tarabukin, Arvatov, and Brik to take his relatively simplistic formulatio ‘and rework it into the more explicit triad of “labor, technique, and organiza tion,’ whieh then became the essential interacting principles of the Construe tivist concept of an industrialized art, ‘The professed aim ofthe industrialized, production-oriented art promulgated b the Constructivists was to organize the material elements of industrial produ tion in a purposive manner. Fundamental to this principle of “expediency, which derived from the implications of mechanized production, was the belie that a socially useful rt had a paramount responsibility both to optimize the spe 8 a«ifie purposes for which it was intended and to satisfy the partieularconditions of iis production, Subsumed within this principle was a drive to achieve a rnaximam economy of means in the use and processing of materials;a simplifiea tion of form through standardized, mass-produced elements, and finally a naximized effectiveness in both producing a given object and accommodating it to the purpose for which it was intended, Also contralto the idea of production art. was the definition of labor in art in terms of material labor. Gan's initial attempt to rationalize the creative aet in terms of material labor was amplified and refined by Nikolai Tarabukin in his text Ot molberta k mashine (From the Easel to the Machine). Tarabukin, like Gan, maintained that the value of art derived from the work expended in giving ‘material a form which satisfied a particular purpose. He also sought to extend this thesis to encompass the implications of the collective form of labor inherent inindustrilized production. Tarabukin redefined the artist's role in terms of the tivision of labor, which had, of course, already replaced traditional specializa- tion, Instead ofthe special status traditionally aeeorded the artist, ‘Tarabukin ar- sued that the artist's role in the modern production process was ofthe same im: yor as that of the engineer and master craftsman, inasmach as they were all yarticipants who performed vital ard distinct but interdependent roles it the ‘overall procoss. “The concept of the artist in production,” he wrote, “ereom- yasses both the engineer who guides the general course of produetion and the nnuster craftsman standing directly beside the machine."™* ‘This postulation, which supplied the platform from which the Constructivists urged artists to become involved in production and industrial art, was directed toward demystifying the creative process. The assumption was that it was im- yeritive to replace the subjectivity of taste, chance, and creative inspiration by the empirieal methods of the engineer and master eraftsman. The engineers rothod, embracing the latest scientific principles, wonld instill the artist vital sense of discipline, providing an organizational method for coordinating hi work and integrating its end produet into the total production process. ‘This thinking, of course, explains the identification of the artist with the engineer in Constructivist theory, « conceptual link which Boris Arvatov characterized as the “problem of professional artistic engineering,”* At the same time, the con- rection to the master craftsman, though in a sense appearing to be a throwback to the preindustrial handicraft tradition, was likewise linked to the indus- trialized production process: it reflected the belief that the eraftsman in the pit possessed a unique understanding of the intrinsic nature of industrialized mate- tials and methods as well as ofthe utilitarian products that they were eapable of onorating, and that this understanding should be emulated by the artist. Ac- coniingly, the concept of “art as labor” became virtually synonymous with that fart as craftsmanship” and ultimately “art as technique.” This led, in urn, to the notion that teclnigue, the means, was to replace style, the end, as the opera tional focus of Constructivist method. Mention should here be made of Alexander A. Bogdanov, whose concept of a proletarian culture served as a catalyst for certain fundamental Soviet avant- garde attitudes, including those embodied in the Constructivist notion of an in- dustrially based art. Initially, Bogdanov sought to supplement what he believed to be a philosophical gap in Marxism with the epistemological foundations pro- vided by the positivism of Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius, from which Bog- danoy derived the view that all life is pure experience, empirically and scien cally knowable.** Bogdanov was the first to promulgate the ollectivist” idea 29 58. Nikolai M. Tarabukin, Ot mo/'berta k ‘mashine (Moscow: Rabotni prosveshcheniia, 1923), p. 82. The central ‘argument of Tarabakin’s book involves the need for “the complete dissolution of easel art and . .. the appearance ofa new form of production skill” aimed at fulfilling a utilitarian end, one of “ere activism” (p. 35). Tarabukkin’s book has been translated into French by Andrei B. Nakov and Michol Pétris as Du chevalet Iamachine, in Nikolai Taraboukine: Le dernier tabieax (Paris: Champ Libre, 1972), pp. 25-84, 5A, Boris Arvatov, in his review of ‘Tarabukin's Of mol’berto k meshine, in LEE, no, 4 (Aug.—Dee. 1924), p. 210 55, Bogianov also drew on the language theories of Max Muller and the monisia of German biologist Ernst Hacekel. Bogdanov was the lealing figure of the group of pre-revolutionary Russian intelloctuals known as the Empirioeritios ‘The positivist philosophy of Enmpiriocriticism embraced by Bogdanov, ‘Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, and others of this group had frst been promulgated by Richard Avenarius ard the Austrian physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach. The Empirioenticsm of Mach and Avenarius defined the world as pure experience, going beyond Auguste Conte's original ‘ision of "positivist aeionco" by liminating the self from any role in the perception ofthat experience, Seience no Tonger dest in sbsolutes but in relat definitions and hypotheses; “space” ard “time” were shorthand conventions to deseribe experience. In his philasophieal study of 1908, Materialism and Empinocriticism, Lenin attacked Bogdanov's attempt to combine Marxist prineipies with uhe doctrines of Mach and ‘Avenarius, For studies of Bogdanov’s views, see S. V. Utechin, “Philosophy and Sneiety: Alexander Bogdanov.” in Revisionism: Eesays on the History of Marrist Ideas, ed. Leopold Labeds (New York: Praeger, 1952), pp. 117-25: and Dietrich Grille, Lenins Rivale: Boodanov ‘und seine Philosophie (Cologne: Wissenschaft und Politik, 1966).‘56. Alexander A. Bogdanov, “Proletariat, iiskusstvo,” Proletarshaia kul'tura, no, 5 (1918), p. 32. ‘7. Bogdanov, “Pati proletarskogo tworehestva,” Proletarskaia kul'tura, ‘208. 15-16 (1920), pp. 00-52, 58, Bogdanov, [skusstvo irwhochii klass (Moscow: I2d-vo *Proletarskaia kul'tura,” 1918), p. 78, 59, Bogdanov, Tektologiia. Veoobehehaia organizatsionnaia nauka (Tectoloxy. Universal Organizing Science] (Petrograd. ‘Moscow-Berlin: Z. I. Grahebin, 1922). 6), Anexcelient study of Gastev and his ‘major role in crystallizing Soviet attitudes ‘toward labor and work in the 1920s is ‘Kendall E. Bailes, “Aleksei Gastev and the Soviet Controversy over Taylorism, 1918-1924," Soviet Studies, vol. 29 (uly 1977), pp. 278-84. An important collection of Gastev's poctry and ideology ie his Poeziia rabochego udara [Posty of the ‘Working Stroke], (Moscow: Izd-vo Khudozhestvenmaia literatura, 1971), which is a reprint of his collected earlier ‘poems, published in Petrograd in 1918 under the same title, together with several later key works on proletarian cculture and the Scientific organization of labor. that gained wide acceptance in Soviet avant-garde art, He human society was evolving toward “collectivism,” or the “collecting of man Was possible to bring about a collective and cooperative society sclentifial consciously “organizing” a collective environment and a higher type of collec individual. Following the February revolution of 1917 Bogdanoy joined with other founding *Proletkult,” an acronym for “Proletarian Cultural and Edacati Organizations,” with the intention of producing a proletarian eulturo as superstructural basis for the socialist revolution. After the Bolshevik seizu power in October, the Proletkult wielded considerable influence until its lo autonomy in 1919 following the downfall of Bogdanoy. In the first two yea the revolution it promoted the creation of a proletarian culture through mur ‘ous journals and an intensive but fruitful debate on the nature of proletarian ‘ture and art. As the chief theoretician of Proletkult, Bogdanov enunciated its philoso augmenting it with aspeets of sociologieal analysis. Rogarding the Proletkul the harbinger of a collectivist culture, Bogdanov argued that the proleta it based on the collectiviam of labor as the embodiment o world view and ereative will In his view, human labor had always relied on lective experience; therefore, the artistic legacy of the past should not be ‘carded, but should instead be scrutinized by proletarian critics to diseern un lying collective principles and thetr organizational implications for proleta culture,” The creative method in proletarian art had to be based on the eo tive nature of the work process in modern heavy industry; the debilitating pects ofthe division of labor would be overeome by a eomrattely approach, pr cated on conscious mutual understanding and an aspiration to work togeth ‘The resulting “monistic eollectivism” would transform the whole meaning of artist's work and give it new stimulus 5? For Bogdanov, it was the worker vas the prime focus of proletarian culture, with the role of the artist being r gated to that of “organizing the forces in the great collective's way of life.” view proved the souree of the concept of art, subsequently embraced by avant-garde, as a vital means of building, organizing, and giving material f to the new way oflife (zhiznestroenie). Bogddanov amplified these basic idea 1922 with the publication of his book Tectotogy, which formulated his basiear ‘ment within the framework of what he termed a ‘universal organizing ence.’ Clarifying the relationship between art and labor, Bogdanov str that proletarian art facilitates the integral organization of the elements of worker's life and experience in two important ways: by signifying that life perience and by providing the means to help it achieve its actual collective ganization needed a now clas ‘The concepts underlying Bogdanoy’s “universal organizational science” w augmented and made more vivid by Aleksei K. Gastev, « poet and indust worker who likewise devoted himself to the idea of ereating a new proletar culture. Around 1919Gastev emerged as the most ardent and effective expon of the rationalization of labor and the machine as the preeminent factors in new society." His romantie vision of the machine age, epitomizing the great thusiasm abounding in the first post-revalutionary years for employing sei and technology to reform society, proved a potent source of inspiration both ‘exponents of production art and for the public at large by focusing on tangi implications of mechanization and laber. Gastev envisioned a new proletar culture enlivened by rapid standardization and by an industrial urbant 30realized in modern steel construction. At first this vision expressed itself in a kind of industrial poetry, capturing the country’s imagination with its vivid por- trayals of the new industrialism he saw arising in the Soviet state. The most popular of the so-called “worker poets,” Gastev made his poems come alive with the worksday chorus of factory whistles, the hum of steel lathes, andthe rhythm of steel skeletal frames. Machines were portrayed as extensions of the human bady, while human beings took on mechanized attributes like “nerves of steel” tnd “muscles like iron nails.”*" Gastev’s poetic metaphors anticipate Ginzburg's own virid descriptions of the workers inthe industrial plant in Style and Epoch, as, for example, in chapter six, where he writes of “endless silhoueties of the forcefully moving muscles of thousands of arms and legs.” After 1918 Gastev, in his capacity as a trade union official, took up the cause of stientifie management, or Taylorism, which had been devised by American en- sneer Frederick W. Taylor and promoted by Russian engineers bth before and ster the revolution. Maintaining that the building of socialism was fundamen- tally synonymous with the rationalization of labor, Gastev ecneentrated on promulgating the scientific organization of labor (nauchanaia organizatsiia truda), usually abbreviated as NOT, which adapted principles of scientifie man- agement to Soviet circumstances. Gastev believed that the NOT concept, by orienting the entire social experience of the worker around his work, would form the basis for a true proletarian culture.” Significantly enough, NOT principles were embraced by proponents of production art, and the artist Gustav Klutsis actually worked out an elaborate chart suggesting those spheres of the new socialist society in which artists would make the most effeetive eontributions.°° In 1920 Gastev set up the Central Institute of Labor, which he ran for the re- mainder of the decade, He saw this institute as the culmination of all his earlier visions of the machine age, and the ideology he developed around it had some- thing of the vagueness and ambiguity of poetry, an attribute which is also pres- cat in the pages of Style and Epoch. Gastev’sinstitute was empowered to coord nate all Soviet research efforts at the rationalization of labor in numerous in- stitutions throughout the country. In 1923 Gastev extended his framework for a proletarian culture by introducing the concept of the “culture of work.” Central to that concept was his belief that Soviet culture had to be infused with a new sense of inventiveness comparable to ‘that which had inspired the work of Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford. Its most vital attributes were an earnest sense of purpose and practicality, an ability to ‘analyze and measure in space and time, and a creative imagination eapable of transforming ideas into action, The aim of such inventiveness, Gastev con- cluded, was the pursuit not of daydreams but of objectives that were practical, feasible, and necessary at the present time." Such statements might just as well have come from Ginzburg, so fully do they accord with his ideas about the des- tiny of industrial and engineering structures. ‘The rich conceptions which filled the air in the years immediately preceding Ginzbure's writing of Style and Epoch were effectively synthesized in the terse credo which Alexander Vesnin presented at INKHUK in April 1922."° Written by « man who played a pivotal role in founding the Constructivist movement in jet architecture, itis possible to see this credo as a kind of prolegomenon to Ginzburg’s treatise of 1924. Vesnin argued that since the tempo of modernity \as rapid and dynamic, and its rhythm precise and mathematical, then modern art had to equal it and become “an active force orgunizing man's consciousness and provoking him into vigorous activity, aeting on nim like the dynamo that im- 31 651, One of Gaster’s most popular poems, '"My rastem iz zheleea® [We Grow out of Ironl, eclebrates the metal ekeletal frame of the towering skyserapor. The original and an English translation are published in Modern Russian Poetry, ed. Vladimir Markov and Merrill Sparks (Indianapolis- ‘New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1966), pp. 698-99. ‘62. Gastev frst advanced his concept of a proletarian culture in a 1919 artide. In it, hemaintained that the emerging aspects| af such « culture were already evident in the mechanization and standardisation of ‘medern industry, particularly the airplane ard automobile industries of America and the arms industry of the ezire world, To comprehend and exploit the full implications of this new ealtare, it was necessary to be an engineer and a constructor orto assimilate their methods, Which derived from the mechanized prxduetion hat had brought the Inudern proletariat into being. Gastey, “0 tendentsiakh prolet [Concerning Tender Culture), Proletarseaia kultura, nos. 10.0919), pp. 36-44 68, Klutsis's wheel, divided into four sections titled “Daily Life,” “Recreation,” “Advertising,” and"Agitprop"[agitational optganda isreprofused in Mary jowell and Angelica Z. Rudenstine, Art ofthe Avant-Garde in Russia: Selections {from the George Costakis Collection (New ‘York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1981), p. 273. G4. Those ideas were forsofully artiulated inhis Tunost’ ia [Come, Youth], originally published in 1928 and ‘reproduced in the 1971 edition of Gastev’s Poesiia rabocheyo udara (see supra, 60), pp. 223-45; the paints in question are developed on pp. 229-40. 65, Aleksandr A. Vesnin, “Kredo (1922) [Credo (1922), in Mastera sovetakoi ‘arkhitektury ob architekture (Masters of Soviet Architecture on Architecture], comp. M. G, Barkin and Iu, 8. laralov, Vel. 2 Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1975)A Note on the Translation ‘The first page of chapter four of the original edition of Style and Epoch. pels the machine to movement.'** The abjects created by the modern artist continued, were to be “pure constructions without the ballast of representa tion,” their basic elements being material, line, surface, and texture. They were to be objects of “materialized energy, possessing dynamic properties (move ment, direction, weight, speed) and determined according to their parpove.” further clarified this analogy between the conception of the art object and ‘machine when he wrote: “Just as each part of the machine is materialized into a form and material corre: sponding to the force that functions within and is essential to the given system, and its form and material eannot be arbitrarily modified without disturbing the ‘operation of the system as a whole, sotoo, in theobjeet constructed by theartist ccach clement is materialized foree and cannot be arbitrarily disposed of or moé- ified without disturbing the parporive functioning of the given system, i.e. 1 object. “The modem engineer has created brilliant objects: the bridge, the steam ex: gine, theairplane, the crane. “The modern artist must create objects that are equal to them in power, inter sity, and potential in the context of their psychophysiologieal impact as an = ‘ganizing element in man's consciousness.’ ‘This translation has been made from the first and only edition of Stil i epoca: problemy sovremennoi arkhitektury, which was published in Moscow in 1924 hy the State Publishing House (Gosizdat). A figurative, pictorial language enliv all of Ginzburg’s writings inthe frst half ofthe 1920s, ‘These writings, in contr ‘to his publications later in the decade, manifest arather lyrical Russian lit style; they vividly reflect the romantie and revolutionary fervor of the per ‘The same pictorial language likewise was typical of Ginzburg’s lectures, w! reportedly could entranee supporters and detractors alike. In Styleand Lpock, however, that language isoverlaid by a way of writing apparent in his prior or subsequently published works: namely, an infusion Germanisms with occasional interjestions of conversational speech. One alsoet counters afeature common to aparticularstyle of Soviet writingin the twenties of alternating labyrinthine sentences of great length (and poor punctuation) with short hammer blows of unqualified assertions that are italicized as key phrases ‘All this makes for a prose that has the resonant cadence of oratory, ancl the power to carry its author along by the forceful ebb and flow of his delivery. ‘The fact that Ginzburg’s Russian isich, animated, and at times quite convolute has made the task of translation a very challenging one, The present effort ha been aimed at achioving what in Russian is known as a “congenial translation Gcongeal’nyi perevod), one vendered both aceurately and readably in theidiom a the translated language, but in the epirit of the origiral, A cancerted effort ha thus been made to retain as much as possible of the essential Ginzburg, sinceth original text is lkely toremainas inaccessible as before to the majority of West fern architecture students and erties simply because itis in Russian I am greatly indebted to my colleague Professor Caryl Emerson, wh scrutinized earlier drafts of this translation sentenee by sentence. Her kee knowledge of the particular genre of Soviet eritieal writings of the twenties, t which Style and Epoch bears a striking resemblance, helped clarify some of th lexical nuances of Ginzburg’s mode in this work and thus to uneover, in he 32words, the contours of the author's particular voice. I am also in debt to Joan Ockman for her diligent editorial skills. Any errors and omissions, of course, re- main the translator's, Twoterms that are central to (Hinzburg’s argument may fruitfully be considered at this point: Sovrenienneyi. This word can be translated either as *contomporary"—that i to say, related tothe present or recent times—or “modern.” The second meaning, ofeourse, goes beyond a simple description of chronology to connote something, that is new; it is frequently used to characterize the latest styles, methods, or ‘eas. As the latter theme clearly is the focus of Ginzburg’s book, the word has Iven rendered! as “modern.” Kmnstraktionyi. As employed throughout the text, this word expresses.a very broal conceptual understanding of the process or dynamies of construction, and hence isto be distinguished from the more narrowly technical term "structural (sirukternyi). There are several passages where the word “structural” would seem to have been amore natural choice; Ginzburg, however, opts for “eonstruc- tive" in order to maintain a semiclogical consistency in his argument. “Construc- tive," of course, ultimately leads to both the term and the concept of Construc- tivism, ‘The original format of Style and Epoch is straightforward and unexceptional, the artwork seemingly pat together in haste, and illustrations frequently pre- sented to less than optimum advantage. Indeed, apart from the placement of a thematic photograph at the head of every chapter, reminiscent of Le Corbusier's Vers une architecture, the only significant piece of graphic design connected with the original book was the jacket designed by Alexander Vesnin.For this rreacon, it was decided not to produce a facsimile edition, although the essential relationship of text to illustrations has been maintained as far as possible throughout. The section of illustrations at the end presents now-scarce illust tive material, much of whieh has never been republished elsewhere. ‘The footnotes that appear in the margins are Ginzburg’s, with some amplifiea- tions that were considered necessary to clarify the text. The original note style has been normalized; significant additions tothe original notes and new notes are inbrackets. Translator’s glosses are marked by lower-case letters to distinguish them from the numbers designating the footnotes; they appear at the end of the book. All Russian titles have been transliterated, following the Library of Con- gress system with some minor exceptions. Ligatures used whena single Russian, letter has to be rendered by two Latin letters have been eliminated. Likewise, ‘ames with well-established English translations have been rendered as such, Anatole Senkeviteh, Jr. Tthaca, New York 33 66, These remarks, contained in aset of Vesnin’s notes also dating from 122, articulate more descriptively the identical theme ddressed in his “Creo,” They are inchided in the same compendium cited in 2. 65, p. 15, 67. Veanin, “Credo,” p. 1. Reforencos to the paychorhysiological impaet on man's consciousness, which anticipate similar nes in Style and Epoch, reflect the position ofthe Left Front ofthe Arts, or LEF, with whieh Vesnin was associated, ‘entfal to the theoretical program advanced by the Left Front and its journal LECF (1923-1925) was the view that art offered a vital means of exersing ‘an influence on the psyche of the proletariat, and that this influence could ‘Stimulate it to build the new life. This ‘concept of shiznestroenie was ane of the major impulses behind “agitprep” art. Although the core of the LEF group ‘consisted of the former Futurist poets led Viadimir Mayakovsky, the term ‘uturist” after the Revolution became Virtually synonymous with modern art in general. Asthe Futurists sought to ‘expand thelr role in Sovie: culture, Futurism sought to encompass all avant- gare art, regardless of the medium. The Journal LEP, conceived in this bread Sense, was envisaged ax un organ thi ‘would bring together all facets of Soviet avant-garde art. Through Osip Brik, then heal of INKHUK and allied with its Constructivist group, LEF supported and promoted the work of leading Constructivist artists including, architectural projects by the Vesrin brothers. Accordingly, such artists as Alexander Rodchenko, Varvara tepanova, Liubev Popova, Alexander Lavinsky, and Alexander Veanin gravitated toward the journal LEF and began, with Brik, torepresent LEF's position in the visual arts. Tt was into this circle that Ginzburg was brought by Alexander Vesnin.Tithe page of the original edition of Scylo and Epoch.Preface! Architectural style and modernity? The modernity of purifying storms, when the erected buildings have scarcely numbered in the tens? So what style can there be any talk about? This is certainly the attitude of persons who are free from the doubts and delusions plaguing those in pursuit of new directions, of paths to new quests; it is the attitude of those who patiently await the final results with tally in hand and verdict on their lips. But their time has not yet come; their turn still lies ahead. The pages of the present book are devoted not to what has already been accomplished, but only to meditations on what is being accomplished, meditations on the phase now proceeding from the already dead past to the emerging modernity, on the throes of the evolving new style dictated by the new life, a style whose aspect is still not clear but is nonetheless desired, growing and becoming stronger among those who are looking to the future with confidence. 1. The basic theses of the present work wereset forth by me on May 18, 1923, ina lecture delivered at the Moscow Architectural Society [Moskorskoe Arkhitekturnoe Obshehestvoon February 8, 1924, the content of the hudoshentvennykh Nawk!7 iad Con Elements of Architectural Style. Continuity and Independence in the Change of StylesBattleship 1 eter Aeeree architectural creativity in Burope has lived paras cally off its past. At a time when the other arts somehow managed to mo forward, systematically transforming their revolutionary innovators ino‘ sies," architecture persisted, with unparalleled stubbornness, inrefusing tt its sights away from the ancient. world or from the epoch of the Italian Ren ance. Academies of art were concemed with nothing more, it seems, tl ‘weeding out young people's enthusiasm for the new and leveling their aptit fbr creative work without, however, teaching them to see in the creations of past the system of legitimate development that always flows inevitably out the vital structure of the epoch and thus derives its true meaning only in th context, Consequently, such “academic” training yielded two results: the p Jost touch with modernity and, at the same time, remained alienated from the ‘rue spirit ofthe great creations of the past. This also explains why artists sedi ing to express a purely modern understanding of form in their art often deliber ately ignore all the aesthetic accomplishments of past epochs. However, a thoughtful examination of the art of the past and of the creativeat mosphere in whieh it evolved leads to different conclusions. It is precisely ex perience, consolidated in the ereative efforts of centuries, that quite clear Thows the modern artist his path—the bold quest, the daring pursuit ofthe new and the joy of creative discoveries—the whole thorny path, which ends # triamph only when the movement is genuine and the aspiration vivid ar ‘washed ashore by a vital, truly mod em wave. Such was the art of all the best perio of human existence, and, of cours such it must be today as well If we recall the harmonious envina ment in which the Parthenon ESS mars ot an created, how the syndicates of wo ‘and silk producers competed with one another during the epoch of the Itai Renaissance for the superior realization ofan aestheticideal, or how the wom peddling vegetables and small wares responded to the new details ofacathed tinder construction, then we shall clearly understand that the entire matt ‘comes down tothe fact that both the architect of the cathedral and the old wom peddling vegetables breathed the same air and were contemporaries, ‘True, everyone is also aware of historical examples of how the authen prophets of new form remained misunderstood by their contemporaries, butt is merely indieative of the fact that these artists intuitively anticipated and s passed amoderrity that, after a certain fairly significant period of time, caus ‘up with them, fatruly modorn rhythm begins to reverberate in amodern form in unison w the rhythms of labor and the joys of the present day, then naturally it will Tength also have to be heard by those whose life and thilereate that rhythm. ‘canbe said that the artist’s craft and any other eraft will then proceed towar single goal, ard there will inevitably comea time when, finally, allthese lines interseet, e,, when We shall discover our great style, in which the acts of tion and contemplation will become fused—when the architect renders his isms in the same style as the tailor makes his garments; when 2 choral song. i thythm, easily unites extraneous and diverse rhythms; when epic dramastreet humor are embraced, for all their diversity of form, by common character- ists of one and the same language. Such are precisely the symptoms of any au- thenticand healthy style, in which the cause and interdependence® ofall these shenomena will be found upon serious analysis to derive fromthe asic factors of the epoch. ‘Thus we arrive in eamest at the concept of style, which isso often applied in dif- fereat contexts and which we shall attempt to decipher. Indeed, at first glance, this word is full of ambiguity. We use stylein connection with anew theatrical production, and we use style in regard to the fashion of a luiy’s hat, We often subsume in the word style characteristics pecaliar to the mast subtle nuanees of ar: (we say, for example, “the style ofthe forties” or “the siyle of Michele Sanmicheli"), and we sometimes attribute to it the meaning of catire epochs or ofa cluster of conturies (as, for example, “the Egyptianstyle” or “thestyle of the Reraissanco"). Inall hese instances we have in mind a certain natural unity that is discernible inthe phenomena under consideration. Certain characteristies of style in art can be discerned if we compare its evolu- tion with that of other realms of human activity, such as seienee, for example. In- teed, the genesis of seientifie thought presupposes continuous chain of propos tims, in which each new proposition proceeds from anold oneand thus outzrows the litter. Here, there is direct evidence of definite growth, of an inerease inthe otjective value of thought. This is how chemistry outgrew alchemy and ren- dered it obsolete, and thisis how the latest research methods have become more precise and seientifie than the old ones; the individual having a command of the ‘mydern physical sciences has advanced beyond Newton or Galileo." In other ‘words, we are dealing here with the case of a single, integral, and perpetually olving organism, The case is scmewhat different for an artistic creation, which first and foremost satisfies itsolf and the environment that has engendered it, as well as fora cren- tion tha actually fulSll its goals and, as such, eannot be surpassed. Thus, itis ceremely difficult to apply the word progress to art; the word is germane only in the eantext ofthe technical potentialities of art. Thereare certain thingsthatare dlifeent and new in art—forms and their combinations—which sometimes can- ‘ocbe anticipated; and just as an artistic creation represents somethingof value, soit remains unsurpassed in its particular value. Indeed, can it be said that the artists of the Renaissance surpassed the artists of Greece, orthat the Temple at Kamakis inferior to the Pantheon? Of course not. It is only possible to say that just as the Temple at Karnak is the result ofthe particular environment thaten- fendered it und ean only he understood sguinst the background of this environ- rent, of its material and spiritual culture, so the perfection of the Pantheon is the result of similar factors, which are virtually independent of the merits of the Karnak temple. Itis well known that the characteristies ofthe flat Exyptian freseo, unfolding its narrative in horizontal bands placed one on top of another, are not symptomatic ofthe imperfection of Exzyptian art hut are simply areflection ofthe charaeteris- tie igyptian understanding of form, for which such a methed proved not only the 39 1. Tonas Kon (Jonas Cohn), Obshekaia itetia (General Aesthetics}, trans. Samson (Moscow: Gosizdat, 1921), 2, The distinction between Science and art is discussed by Schiller. See his letters to Fichte of ft August 1975 [sie]. (Pis'ma, [Letters], IV, p. 222.) [Ginzburg tkoly ‘wa citing the Russisn edition of Sehiller’s letters: Polnoe xobranie pisem (Complete Colleeton of Letters), Tvois. (St. Petersburg, 1897-).]street hamorare embraced, forall their diversity of form, by common character- istics of one and the same language. Such are precisely the symptoms of any au- thentic and healthy style, in which the cause and interdependence" of all these ‘phenomena will be foand upon serious analysis to derive fromthe basic factors of the epoch. Thus we arrive in earnest at the concept of style, which is so often applied in df ferent contexts and which we shall attempt to decipher. Inieed, at first glanee, this word is full of ambiguity. We use style in connection with a new theatrical production, and we use style in regard to the fashion of a lady's hat. We often subsume in the word style characteristics peculiar to the most subtle nuances of art (we say, forexample, “the style ofthe forties" or ‘the style of Michole Sanmicheli”), and we sometimes attribute to it the meaning of entire epochs or ofa cluster of centuries (as, for example, “the Egyptian style” or “the style of the Renaissanes”). Inall these instances we have in mind a certain natural unity that is discernible inthe phenomena under consideration. Certain characteristies of style in art ean be discerned if we compare its evolu- tion with that ofother realms of human activity, such as science, for example. In- deed, the genesis of scientific thought presupposes a continuous chain of proposi- tions, in whieh each neve proposition proceeds from an old oneand thus out grows the latter. Here, there is éireet evidonce of definite growth, of an inereasein the sbjective value of thought. This is how chemistry outgrew alchemy and ren- dered it obsolete, and thisis how the latest research methods have become more precise and scientific than the old ones; the individual having a command of the madern physical sciences has advanced beyond Newton or Galileo." In other words, we are dealing here with the case of a single, integral, and perpetually evolving organism. ‘The case is scmewhat different for an artistic ereation, which first and foremost satisfies itself and the environment that has engendered it, as well as for a crea tion that actually falls its goals and, as such, eannot be surpassed. Thus, itis extremely difficult to apply the werd progress to art; the word is germane only in the context of the technical potentialities of art. Thereare certain things that are different and new in art—forms and their combirations—which sometimes car ‘ot be anticipated; and just as an artistic creation represents something of value, soit remains unsurpassed in its particular value, Indeed, ean itbe ssid that the artists of the Renaissance surpassed the artists of Greece, or that the Temple at Karak is inferior to the Pantheon? Of eourse not. [ts only possible to say that just asthe Temple at Karnak isthe result of the partiealar environment that en- gendered it and can only be understood sgainst the background of this environ- ment, of its material ard spiritual ealture, so the perfection of the Pantheon is the result of similar factors, which are virtually independent of the merits ofthe Karnak temple. Itis well known that the characteristics ofthe flat Egyptian fresco, unfolding its narrative in horizontal bands placed one on top of another, are not symptomatic ofthe imperfection of Egyptian art but are simply a reflection of the charaeteris- tieigyptian understanding of form, for which such a method proved not only the a9 1. Tonas Kon (Jonas Cohn), Obshchaia estetika [Gereral Aesthetics}, trans, ‘Samson (Moscow: Gosizdat, 1921). 2. The distinction between Science and art, is discussed by Schiller, See his letiers te Fichte of 2-4 August 1975 [vie]. (Pis'ma [Letters], TV, p- 222.) [Ginzburg likely ‘was citing the Russian edition of Schiller’ letters: Polnoe sobranie pitem (Complete Collecton of Letters), 7 vols. (St Petersburg, 1897-).]nest, but also the only one bringing complete satisfaction, Were moiem pi eet stown to an Egyptian, it doubtiess would bo subjected to very hi tar dom: The Egyptian would finditto be both inexpressive and ‘unpleasant Shes bo would be cormpelled to say thatthe pleture was a bad ont And ee Cierely, in evaloating the aesthetic merits of Egyptian Pevenest™s, cari cltained a complotaly different conception of perspecive om the rayne pe allan Renaissance, must not only comprehendall of Fyp iat ve put also perform a certain feat of reincarnation; we must tte 4 wt ie Egyptians mre of peresiving the workd around him. Wat, Wet trate ae a tiguting the arts, should be the interrelationship beiweet Funptian anda Renaissance fresco? Naturally, the common accepted meat ert l progress isnotapplicable here, as we cextainly could not argue oj rely thatthe Bgyptian fresco is "worse" than that ofthe Rensisat0 tre spaissance system of perspective obliterates the Exxyptian oyster off the Rory iveats it of ta appeal, On the contrary, we know that one, with coc oped in he Renaissance there exists a different vind of perp e com, eg, tat ofthe Japunose, which has been charting is et Sissy aa er eiaile even teday of deriving pleasure from Egyptian mart painti we areailys that modern artists sometimes intentionally distort the S/o italian perspective in their own work. At the sametime, a Dern makinguse Italian pers Pests inelectricty caro, under any cireumstances, be freee 8 an eevain power, which must nay case be recognized objectively #8 havin eon superseded and thus incapable of instilling in us either 500% of amin boon wP tose to imitate it Iv is quite apparent that we are dealing hore wif different kinds of phenomena. -Thisdifference between two kinds of human activity the artist and es This iter ee powerer, prevent us frm taking this opportunity to ati tie che art afte Lalisn Renaissance contributed its share tothe teh fat that oe ative work and enriched t witha new system of perspectved ‘was unknown prior to that time, ‘Thus, we are ultimately dealing here with a certain growth, e-pamwict andé ae ot of art, whieh is quite real and objectively discernible, Bt which d aor abolah in the process the previously existing method of creative work. wot ingly, its possible to speak ina certain sense of the evolution of arty of progress of art, quite apart from its technical aspect. Onty this progress or evolution oan culminate inthe capar'y to evolve new: ood newereaive systems, thereby enriching mankind a8 2 whole. Howover, this enrichment, this emergence of the new in art cannot be ea forth by chanee, by a fortuitous invention of new forms and new ered methods. We have already said that the Feyptian resco, ike thefiteenti-century Painting, can be understood andhenee receive the net ofS0}00 eval vhly afterall the art contemporary with it has been comprehended as aw Fruquently, however, even thie snot enough. It is necessary becom ‘ruanted with al the realms of bursan activity that were conterhpT wit fiven painting, with the social and ecoromie structure of the epoch at Fen art rational characteristics, in order fully to comprehend! it 4 B ppuars tobe one way andnot another not because ofthe “fort tousness” aot i anareaut ofthe high complex influences he kasexperience 40alenvironment surroandingrhim, and the effets of natural and economic eondi- tions. Only the sum total ofall these factors ean engender a particular spiritual Aisposition in a person and beget in him a particular world outlook and system of artistic thought that gaices human genius in one direction or another However great the collective or individual gentus ofthe creator, however origi- taland resilient the creative process, there isa causal interdependence between practical, real-life factors and a man’s system of artistic thought, and, in turn, Jetween the latierand the formal creative work of an artist; andit.is precisely the existence ofthis interdependence that explains both the character of the evoli- tionofart that we have spoken about and theneed for a transformation that fos- tors the objective historical evaluation of a work of art. However, this interde- yendence mast not be understood in too elementary a manner. The same basic ‘auses are sometimes capable of eliciting different results: misfortune can at tines sapour strength and at other times build it up many times over, depending on the particular eiaraeter traits ofthe individual. In precisely the samme ma- rer, we can, depending upon the nature of the genius peculiar to either an indi- vidual ora people, detect one result in some instances and, conversely, the oppo- siteresult in others. In both instances, however, itis not possible to dismiss the sresence of this causal interdependence which provides the only background ‘gains which a work of art ean be evaluated, not on the basis ofa personal judg- nent of taste in terms of “liking” itor “not liking” t, but as an objective histori cal phenomenon, Formal comparisons ean only be made among works of art bo- Innging toa single epoch ora single style; only within these limits ist possible to tstablish formal attributes for works of art. The beiter ones among them, the nes responding most expressively to the system ofartistie thought that engen- tered them, are usually those which have acquired a better formal language. It isnot possible, froma qualitative standpoint, to compare an Egyptian fresco and a Italian painting. Doing so would only produce one result: it would point totwo tistinet systems af artistie creation, each one having its own sources in a differ~ ent environment: ‘This is why itis impossible for a modern artist to create an Egyptian frosco; this iswhy eclecticism, however brilliant its representatives, is genetically barrenin nos: instances. It does not create anything “new," does not enrich art and, con- sequently, in the evolutionary course ofart, yields not a plus but a minus, not an expansion but a compromising combination of often incompatible aspects. Anexamination of the most varied produets of human activity in any epoch, par tieularly any forms of artistic endeavor, reveals that despite the diversity tought about by onganie and individual eauses, they all have ¢omethingin eom- ‘non, some indication that, in its eallective social origins,” gives rive to the eon: ‘eptofstyle. The same social and cultural conditions, methods and means of pro- ‘ution, and climate, the same outlook and psychology all leave a common mark n the most diverse formations. Consequently, itis not surprising that the ar- chaeologist who, a thousand years later, uncoversa pitcher or a statue ora frag- nent of elothing will be able, on the basis of such common characteristics, to at- tribate these objects to one epoch or another. Wolfin, inhis examination ofthe Renaissance and Baroque, has shown the range of human activity in which it is sible to trace the characteristies of style: he says that the manner of standing te walking, of draping coat in one way or another, ef wearlng.a narrow or wide shoe, of euch sundry detail—all these can serve as indications of a style, Thus, a8, Osvalld Skpengler (Oswald Spengler), Zakat Evropy (The Decline of the West}, ‘vo. 1; Russian trans. [by L. D. Frenkel, (Moseow-Petrograd: Mospoiigra), 1923. 4, Nikola] Ia. Danilevskii, Rosetta ¢ Boropa. (V2gliad na keatarnyio. i politicheskita otnosheniia slizvanskogo tira kegermanskome. Russia and Europe, A View of the Cultural and Political Relations between the Slavie and German Worlds] (d ed. (St, Petersburg: “Obshehestvennaia polza"T, 1885). the wort style signifies certain kinds of nataral phenomena that impose defi traits on all manifestations of human activity, large and small, quite irresps of whether or not their contemporaries might have aspired to or even have at allaware of them, Nevertheless, the laws eliminating “chance” frem the tion of any man-made product assume their own concrete expressiveness each facet of ereative activity. Thus, amusical work is organized in one way, ‘literary workin another. Yetinthese rather different laws, engendered by ferences in the formal method and language of each art. form, ean be diste certain common, unified premises, something erystallizing the whole and ing It together —in other words, a wnity of atyle in the broad sense ofthe word ‘as being definitive when it includes not only an illumination of the organizato laws of that phenomenon, but also the establishment of 2 definite link betw these laws and the given historieal epoch, and a verification of them through ‘comparison with other forms of creative work and human activity cont poraneous with that epoch. It certainly is not too difficult to verify this relat Ship for any of the historical styles. The indivisible connection between Monuments ofthe Acropolis, the statues of Phidias or Polykleitos, the tragedi of Aeschylus and Euripides, the economy and culture of Greece, its political a ‘social order, its clothing and utensils ard sky and terrain, is just as indest ble, in our view, as that between analogous phenomena of any other style ‘Sach a method of analyzing artistic phenomena, because of its relative objectiv ity, supplies the investigator with powerful tools for dealing with more cont versial questions as well. ‘Thus, proceeding from such a point of view to developments in our own artis life during the preceding decades, it is possible to recognize, without any ticular difficulty, that such tendencies as the “Moderne” and the “Decadence; as well as all our “neo-classicisms” and “neo-Renaissances,” cannot in any ‘Stand the test of modernity. Having originated in the minds of a few highly eu Nated and refined arehitects and, as a result of their considerable talent, yielding rather accomplished images in their own right, this superficial aesth« ‘rust, like allother possible eclectie manifestations, represents an idle invent that sppealed for atime tothe taste of anarrov circle of conncisseurs but did reflect ansthing: other than the decadence and impotence of an cbsolescet world. Inthis manner, we discern a certain self-sufficiency “of style, the uniqueness the laws governing't, and the relative isolation ofits formal manifestations fro the produetsof other styles. We discard the purely individualistic evaluationof ‘work ofart and consider the ideal of the beautiful, that eternally changeablean transitory ideal, as something that perfectly fulfills the requirements and com opts of a given place and epoch. Questions naturally arise: What is the relationship between the individual ma ifestations of art in the different epochs? And are Spengler’ and Danilevsky'n correct in their theories, isolated and separated though they are from ot another by a gap in cultures? ‘Although we have established the exclusivity of the laws of any style, we 42raturally far from entertaining the notion of renouncing the prineiple of interde- pendence and influence in the changes and developments of these styles. On the ‘contrary, the precise limits between one style and another are blurred in actual realty, Itis not possible to fix the moment when one style ends and another be- fins style, once bor, lives out its youth, maturity, and old age; but old age is, sillnot fully spent, atrophy nat yet complete, when another new style arises to ‘sssumea similar course. Heneo, in reality, not only is there a link between eon- steutive stylea, but it is even difficult to establish a precise boundary between them, as isthe case in the evolation of all forms of life, without exception. When we speak of the self suicient significance of style, we naturally have in mind a synthetic conception oft, the quintessence ofits true nature, which is reflected Jrimarily in the peak phase of its lowering and in the best works of that phase. Thus, in speaking of the Greekstyle, we have in mind the fifth century B.C., the century of Phidias, Ietinos, Callierates, and their age, rather than the withering Hellenistic art, which already contained many characteristics anticipating the tmengence of the Roman style. In any event, the wheels of the two consecutive styles Lecome coupled, and the eineamstances of this coupling are rather inter- esting to follow. We shal! limit ourselves, in the present instance, to considering this question in the context of architecuure, whieh is the subject of greatest interest to us ‘Todo so, however, it is necessary at the outset to elucidate those concepts that eater into the formal definition of an architectural style. We are already quite ‘wollaware of what distinguishes a painterly" style: we speak of drawing, color, camposition, and all these aspects are naturally subjected to the analysis of the investigator. It likewise is not difficult to convince ourselves of the fact that the first of these, drawing and eolor, are the basic clements whose organization on a surface constitutes the art of composing a painterly work. So, too, in architec {ure it is essential to make note of a whole number of concepts without whose’ elicidation the formal analysis ofits products is inconceivable. ‘The reed to create shelter from the rain and cold induced man to build a dwelt ing. And this need has determined to the present day the very character of ar- éhiteeture, which hovers on the edge between vitally useful creative workand & ‘iisinterested” art. This aspect. was first reflected in the need to isolate, to en- close certain portion of spare with rome substantive material forms. Toixolate spice, to enclose it within certain specifie boundaries, constitutes the first of the pooblems confronting the architect. The organization of isolated space, of the ‘rstalline form that envelops what is essentially amorphous space, is the char- avieristie that distinguishes architecture from the other aris. That which estab listes the partiealar character of spatial experiences, so to speak, the sensations derived from the interiors of architectural works, from being inside buildings, frum their spatial boundaries, and from the system illuminating this space—all this onstitutes the primary indication, the primary distinguishing characteris- ticof architecture, which does not recur in the perceptions of any other art. But the isolation of space, the method of its organization, is accomplished by ‘means of utilizing material form: wood, stone, brick. In isolating the spatial prism, the architect clothes it in material form. Thus, we unavoidably perceive this prisin not only from within, inspatial terms, butalso rom without, in purely ‘volumetric terms, analogously to the way we perceive sculpture. Here, t00, however, there exists a distinction of vital importance between architecture and the other arts. The material forms used to solve the architect's basie spatial a3problems are not altogether arbitrary in their composition. It is essertial the architect comprehend the lavis of staties and mechanies in order to ae plish his objestives ompirically, whether in anintuitive or strictly seientifiem her. Doing so represents that fundamental constructive sensibility whieh m ‘without fail, be basic to the architect and which establishes a definite method hiswork, The solution of the spatial problem will inevitably involve this part lar organizational method as well, entailinga solution with the minimal expe ture of energy. ‘Thus, what essentially distinguishes the architect from the sculptor is not el the organization of space, bl also the construction of ts isolating environme Out of this evolves the basic organizational method of the architeet, for wh the world of form represents not a series of unlimited and endless possibilities tout merely a skillful attempt to strike a balance between what is desirable: ‘what is possible to implement; itis quite natural that, in the final analysis, is possible influences the development of the very character of what is desirable ‘Accordingly, the architect never builds even “castles in the air” that eannet be developed within the framework of this organizational method; even archit tural fantasy itself, seemingly devoid of constructive considerations, satis the laws of staties and meckanies, and this already points to a characteristicl isunquestionably fundamental and most essential to understanding the art of chitecture. This also explains the relatively limited range of forms in archi {ure as compared to painting, as well as the basic approach to conceiving of cchitectaral forms as functions of that which supports and that whic parted, of that which is holding up and that whieh s lying prone, of that which jntension and that which isat rest, ofthe vertical and the horizontal extension forms, and of any other aspects operating as funetions of these basic tendencies ‘This organizational method also conditions those rhythmic aspects by which ar chitecture ix distinguished. Finally, it already determines, to some extent, ti character of each individual formal molecule, which is always distinet from elements of sculpture or painting. ‘Thus, the aystom of architectural style is made up of a series of aspects, spa and volumetric, which ropresent the solution of one and the same problem bot from within and from without, and are materialized by formal elements; these elements are organized according to various sets of compositional characteris: ties, giving rise to the dynamic problem of ehytiom. Only an understanding of architectural style inall these complex aspects ean ox plain not only a given style, but also the relationship of one individual stylist Phenomenon to another. Thus, analyzing the change from the Greek to th Roman style, fromthe Romanesque tothe Gothic, and so forth, weoften diseen contradictory aspocts. For example, the Roman style is, on the one hand Siewed by investigators as an evolution of the pure forms of the Hellenic legacy Yet on the other band, it is impossible not to eall attention to the fact that th Compositional methods and the organization of space in Roman buildings areth virtual antithesis of those established by the Greeks, In precisely the same way, the art of the early Renaissance in Italy (the Qua trocento) was still filled withisolated aspects of the moribund Gothie style, whi the methods of Renaissance composition already seemedl so new and so une: pected as compared to the Gothic, their spatial experiences so altogether diffe tnt, that they elicited in a eontemporary—the architect Filarete—the famot Statement concerning the Gothie: “cursed he the one who invented this no 44 eee| \ <2 I think that only barbarie people could have brought it with them to or this vantage point there looms, in addition to the evalu Loran entire style historically, i.c., with respeet to the environment that ted, yetanother method of objective evaluation—the genctie one, i-e.,the d determining the value of a phenomenon from the standpoint ofits re- hip tothe further growth of a style, to the evolution ofa general process. past, it is possible to distinguish which styles are more or less valuablein a ‘sense, insofar as they possess the quali ‘more or less suitable for re- generation, the potential for creating something new. Clearly this evaluation is ‘always malo with respect to the quality of the formal elements in a work of ae, Frequently that whieh is formally weak-—i.e., an imperfect or incomplete Witk—nay be of greater value genetically —i.c., by virtue of its potential for rating something new—than monument that may be impeccable, but which “povetieless employs highly obsolete material from the past and is incapable of “further ereative development. t, thon, do we have here! Is it continuity or new and utterly independent principles that underlie the change from one style to another? Itisboth, ofcourse. At.a time when some ofthe constituent elements generating “ge still maintain continuity, other elements, which are more sensitive and “vhichmore rapidly’ reflect the changes in human life and psychology, already are {aking form according to principles that are quite different, often contrary, and titen entirely new in the history of the evolution of styles; and only after acer- uinlength of time, when the indisiveness of the new compositional method has ‘eiched the fullness ofits development, is it then passed on to the remaining ele- ‘mints of style as well, toan individual form, subjectingit to thesame laws of de- ‘ebpment and oven modifying it according to the new aesthetic of style. Con- ‘versely, ic ie frequently the case that various lavrs of the new style are reftected, fint and foremost, in entirely different formal clements, initially maintaining a toitinity with past compositional methods and only gradually becoming mod- ifwlinthe ensuing phase. Yet irrespective of which ofthese routes art might fol- Jon, the appearance ofa new and eansummate style is possible only as a result of hth these principles—continuity and independence. The complex phenomenon architectural style cannot change at once and in all respects. ‘The law of con tint economrizes the creative inventiveness and resourcefulness of the artist, ‘onsoidating his experience and skill, while the law of independence constitutes, the motive foree which gives creativity its healthy, youthful juices and satu- ‘ales i: with that poignant aspect of modernity without which art simply ceases ‘oteart. The flowering ofastyle, condensed ina brief period oftimo, will usually relbct these new and independent taws of creative work, while the archaie and deculent aspects of the epoch, whether in isolated formal elements or composi- ‘ioal methods, will be linked to both preceding and ensuing stylistic periods. That show this apparent contradiction is reconciled and finds its explanation not inly in the emergence of a new style, but in any historical epoch as well. Were it not for a certain continuity, the evolution of each culture would remain forever infantile, perhaps never once reaching the summit of that flowering 5 5, [Although Ginzburg does not cite his ‘Source for this statement by Pilarete, it probably was GustayJ. von Allesch, Die Renaissance in Halien Weimar G. Kieponhauer, 1912), a work to which Ginsburg refors in chapter. Von Allesch’s hock includes an excerpt from Filarete's treatise, entitled “Antorio Filarete an Franeeseo Sforza in Mailand” (pp. 200-11), which ends with this particular statement about Gothie, or more precisely, “modern” architecture.)6, Letter of Leone Battista Alberti Matteo de Bastia (de' Pasti) in Rimi (Rome, 18 November 1454) Brunelleschi (1436), Alberti states, “I believe that our merit should be all the greaterif, without teachers and without fany models, we could diseover arts and Sciences hitherto unheard of and unseen.” Although Ginzhurg does not cite the ‘source for these two quotations, again it is probably von Allesch’s Die Renaiooance in alien, which includes both letters: Leon Battisti Alberti an Filippo Brunelleseo (Florence, 1436).” pp. 98-100; and “Leon Battista Albertian Matteo de Bastia zu Rimini (Rome, 18 Novemoer 1454°),” pp. 1085. 7, Fransua Bena (Francois Benit), Franauzkoe iskusstvo vremen revoitutsti {French Art from the Period of the Revolution). Trans. by 8. Platonova ‘being prepared for publication. (Perusal of Knizgnaia letopia' (Book Annals) for the period of 1924-194 failed to turn up, the publiestion of the above Russian translation; ror have any other references toit tumed up in Soviet scholarly or bibliographical literature of the period. ‘The original French edition of Benoit’s book is entitled L’Art Francais sus (2 Revolution et (Bmpire (Paris: Librairie G., Buranger, 1897); mention of the transformation of St. Hilaire cited by Gindvurg oceurs in fo, 2, p. 11] whichis attained only as a result of the consolidation of the artistic experience preceding cultures, Yet at the same time, were it not forthis independence, cultures would fallinto state of perpetual od age and helpless atrophy lasting forever, since itis iy sible to chew perpetually on the same old food. What is needed, at all costs, ist ‘daring blood of barbarians who do not know what they are creating, oF peo who have a relentless penchant for ereative work and an awareness of the le macy of their emerging and independent “self,” so that art can become renews ‘nce again and enter anew into its period of flowering. This makes it possible ta comprehend psychologically not only the destruetive barbarians, whose blood pulses with the assured legitimacy of their potential strength, even in elationto refined but decrepit cultures, but algo the entire gamut of “vandalism” that a 20 often encountered in the history of the most highly civilized epochs, when‘ new destroys the old, even the beautiful and the sublime, merely on the stren of the legitimacy granted to youthful daring, Let us recall what was said by Alberti, the representative of aculture which sessed so many elements of continuity, but which in its essence serves as an ex: ample of the establishment of a new style: “I have more faith in those who built the Thermae and the Pantheon and all the other edifices . . . and in reason ‘great deal more than in any person."® ‘The same growing confidence in the correctness of his own creative stance often prompted Bramante, in realizing his grandiose projects, to tear down entire blocks, and earned him the nickname “Ruinante” among his detractors, But the same nickname could just as well have been applied to any of the leeding ar- chitects of the Cinquecento or Seicento, Palladio, after the fire of 1577 at the Doge's Palace in Venice, repeatedly counseled the Senate to rebuild the Gothic palace in the spirit ofits own particular Renaissance world cutlook—in Roman forms. In 1661 Bernini, faced with the task of building the colonnade in front of St. Peter's basilica, demolished Raphael's Palazzo dell’Aquila without any par ticular doubts or hesitation, Many more such instances occurred in France, of course, during the period ofthe Revolution, In 1797, forexample, the old church of St. Hilaire in Orleans was transformed into a modern market.” Evenif we were to disregard this extreme manifestation ofa staunch faith inthe legitimacy ofthe creativeideasofmodernity, however, any glance we might cast ‘on the past would convince us of the existence in the highest periods of human culture of a remarkably well-defined sense of the legitimary of an independent, modern understanding of form. Only decadent epochs are distinguished solely bya desire to subordinate modern form to the stylistic eomplex of past centuries the very ides of subjecting the treatment of new sections of a city not to thelat ter’s own organism, whieh lies beyond the realm of any formal specificities of style, but to the style of old, existing sections, even those whichare the most for- mally developed—an idea that became firmly rooted in the minds of our best ar- chiteets in the preceding decade and often eaused them to subject their treat- ment of entire blocks and sections of the city to the formal aspects of some group. of stylistic monuments from the past—is an excellent indication of modlernity’s tereative impotence. In the best periods, architects have mastered previously created stylistic forms on the strength of the power and acuity of their modem genius, while still correctly anticipating the organie development of the city asa whole, 6 re ESE EEE ——E—EIE