Art and engineering are usually considered to be irreconcilable disciplines. Architects, by contrast, are tasked with navigating the difficult straight between them, on the one hand fulfilling aesthetic demands of a public audience and on the other structural demands of building statics. These disparate disciplines converged, however, in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Following the Workers Movement all over Europe, the revolution led to a celebration of industrial workers and in consequence industry and industrial culture. While workers and engineers were the protagonists of this celebration, artists of different styles and persuasions joined in to establish an industrial art. One example of this is the artistic movement of the Constructivists. They linked artistic creation and industrial production by the concept of construction, inherent in both activities. Thus, it is interesting to pursue the question of what the relationship between artists and engineers or architects is and which parallels exist in their work with regard to methods and processes. For an answer, one may turn to Iakov Chernikhov who published one of the most concise explanations of the principles of Constructivism in 1931 with “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms”. Given the backdrop of the Revolution and the early stages of the Soviet Union in which this movement appeared, one may ask whether Chernikhov’s principles of Constructivism can be interpreted as a utopian vision transcending capitalist society. By contrast, it may also be possible to identify similar lines of thought in Western Europe where capitalist society was rapidly developing at the same time.
Iakov Chernikhov was born in Pavlograd in 1889 and attended the St. Petersburg Academy from 1914 on from where he graduated in 1925 with the title of “architect-artist” in 1925. He contributed to various exhibitions in Moscow and Leningrad between 1922 and 1933 and taught in various Leningrad institutions between 1926 and 1936 designing numerous buildings, especially industrial complexes during that time. In 1932 he was appointed professor at the Leningrad Institute of Railroad and Transport Engineers and Academy of Transport. He was further appointed head of the Department of Descriptive Geometry and Graphics at the Institute of Engineering Economy in Moscow as well as head of the Department of Architecture of the Mossovet Building Institute. He died in Moscow in 1951. During his lifetime, he published six major works, many of them ostensibly as textbooks for students of architecture and engineering. In 1927 “The Art of Graphic Representation” appeared, followed by “Course on Sketching of Geometrical Forms” in 1928. Both “Fundamentals of Modern Architecture” and “Ornament” were published in 1930. His most compelling and widely received works, however, remain “The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms” (1931) and “101 Architectural Fantasies” (1933). Thus, Chernikhov is an interesting example of a denizen of both the artistic world and that of engineering having originally been an architect.
“The Construction of Architectural and Machine Forms” contains Chernikhov’s “Laws of Construction” which could be seen as a condensed form of his perception of Constructivism. In the following, a selection of these laws will be discussed so as to examine the questions of a similarity between artists and engineers as well as Constructivism as a basis for utopian society or merely a reflection of contemporary lines of thought in Western capitalist countries.
Second Law:
Every construction is a construction only when the unification of its elements can be rationally justified.
This law shows Chernikhov’s “rejection of everything that is superfluous” (in: Bowlt, 1988). He further affirms that “the principles of simplification, acceleration, and purposefulness emerge as the constant attributes of a Constructivist world view” (in: Bowlt, 1988). This aim of eliminating the superfluous for the sake of acceleration and purposefulness immediately bring to mind the ideas of the engineer Frederick Taylor. His ideas of standardising and rationalising human movement was a precondition for developing the assembly line and establishing this form of especially alienating labour. These ideas were not only adopted by Henry Ford to design his factory for mass-producing the Model T but also by Alexei Gastev who spread these ideas in the Soviet Union with it’s budding heavy industry. However, Michel Foucault later pointed out in his work “Discipline and Punish” that these alienating principles are inherent in the organisation of labour in factories in general:
“In the factories that appeared at the end of the eighteenth century, the
principle of individualizing partitioning became more complicated. It was a
question of distributing individuals in a space in which one might isolate them
and map them; but also of articulating this distribution on a production
machinery that had its own requirements. The distribution of bodies, the
spatial arrangement of production machinery [...].” (Foucault, 1995)
Here, the rational justification with which the elements of a factory are unified result in domination of the people employed to work in them. This principle is exacerbated by the assembly lines appearing in the 1920s as a result of Taylor’s work for the scientific organisation of labour among others. Thus, the aim for rationality formulated by Chernikhov appears in line with contemporary ideas in the United States.
Third Law
When elements are grouped together on a basis of harmonic correlation with each other,
a complete constructive combination is obtained.
Chernikhov explains this law further by stating that “[f]ormal and technological functionalism [...] does not exclude the possibility of a harmonic interrelation of the principles of form and content, nor does it exclude the possibility of the coordination of practical, utilitarian tasks and aesthetic attractiveness.” (in: Bowlt 1988) Here the assembly described by the Third Law is applied to the activity of people as much as to objects. Thus, the idea mentioned by Foucault concerning the assembly or workers in a factory and the harmony of them working together is still echoed by this principle. Chernikhov further states that “despite the extreme complexity of our life, [...] it is in certain respects being simplified through the perfection of technological achievement.” (in: Bowlt 1988) This perfection of technological achievement was also registered and later analysed by Herbert Marcuse in his work “One-dimensional man” published in 1967. However, he did not associate it with a simplification of life but rather stated that:
“Scientific organisation of labour and scientific division of labour increase to a
great extent the productivity of the economic, political and cultural enterprise.
[...] Scientific-technological rationality and manipulation are bonded together
to create new forms of social control.” (Marcuse, 1967)
Here again, the optimistic ideas formulated by Chernikhov which were in tune with generally popular ideas at the time were later interpreted as concepts that further methods for domination and thus contribute more to the alienation of people than to building a utopia.
Fourth Law
Elements unified in a new whole form a construction when they
penetrate each other, clasp, are coupled, press against each
other, i.e., display an active part in the movement of the unification
The first association evoked by this principle is possibly the satisfaction of contemplating a finely tuned intricate mechanism running flawlessly.
Again, this was not only applied to objects. The champion of Taylorist thought in the Soviet Union, Alexei Gastev, sought to apply this principle to humans and build a society accordingly, in which there is:
“a new working-class collectivism which [...] can be called mechanized
collectivism. The manifestations of this mechanized collectivism are so foreign
to personality, so anonymous, that the movement of these collective
complexes is similar to the movement of things, in which there is no longer any
individual face but only regular, uniform steps and faces devoid of expression,
of a soul, of lyricism, of emotion, measured not by a shout or a smile but by a
pressure gauge or a speed gauge.” (A. Gastev, quoted in Bailes, 1977)
It is hard to consider this anything but a horrifying dystopian vision. In fact, the dystopian potential was recognised by Yevgeny Zamyatin and illustrated in his novel “My (We)” published in 1924. So while Chernikhov incorporated some thoughts that were quite common at the time into the principles of Constructivism it becomes clear that with application of these principles to the organisation of human society they betray a potential for introducing domination, alienation and dystopian tendencies. Nevertheless, Chernikhov and Constructivism were considered to be the more progressive forces in the artistic avant-garde in the aftermath of the revolution. This can be explained by vastly different tendencies expressed in further laws of Constructivism.
Sixth Law
Every new construction is the result of man’s investigations and
his inventive and creative needs.
In other words, this “unites phenomena that were previously considered quite separate and disparate: the phenomena of engineering and technology and the the phenomena of artistic creation.” (in: Bowlt, 1988) In this principle which talks of human beings in general, nevertheless, the individuality and especially agency of humans is highlighted, since everyone’s creativity is very specific to the individual. The result of this is that Constructivism “for the first time in the history of man [...] has been able to unite the principles of mechanical production and the stimuli of artistic creation.” (in: Bowlt, 1988) Chernikhov further asserts that: “Primordial man, building his dolmens, triliths, crypts, and other edifices was unconsciously a Constructivist.” (in: Bowlt, 1988) The concept of an original creativity of primordial man whose productive activities are motivated, at least in part, by his creative needs is also touched upon in the essay “Communist Art” by Stefan Ripplinger (2019) which discusses the question what communist art might be. Ripplinger states that: “The use of simple tools and the ability to ignite fire gave them [primordial people, K.L.] advantages with regard to their competitors for food and their natural enemies. Both, their technology as well as the advantages that arose from it, are preconditions of art.” (Ripplinger 2019) In this idea, too, technological creation is closely linked to the emergence of art in prehistoric times. Thus, technology and art are traced back to the same root by Chernikhov and the utopian potential of this is stressed by Ripplinger in his sketch of a communist art.
Seventh Law
Everything that is really constructive is beautiful.
Everything that is beautiful is complete.
Everything that is complete is a contribution to the culture of the future.
In this principle Chernikhov lays the foundation of a new constructive aesthetic. This aesthetic is based on the joining of artistic and technological creation. Thus, Chernikhov deduces that “only by the absence of this link [between engineering and artistic creation, K.L.] can we explain the widespread development of decorative motifs devoid of any functional justification” (in: Bowlt, 1988). He further states that: “A new conception of the beautiful, a new beauty, is being born - the aestheics of industrial Constructivism.” (in: Bowlt, 1988) There is also a certain revolutionary element to this law which Chernikhov stresses saying that Constructivism “is not only destructive in relation to the old, but it is also creative in relation to the new.” (in: Bowlt, 1988) Chernikhov thus considers the aesthetic of Constructivism to be based on both artistic and technological principles and to accompany the establishment of a new progressive society.
Eighth Law
In every constructive unification the idea of the collectivism of
mankind is inherent. In the close cohesion of the elements the
concord of all man’s best aspirations is reflected.
This law again both refers to objects as well as human beings in their organisation. However, contrary to the instances discussed above, there is an autonomy to the elements of the constructive unification just as there is to the individuals that form the collective. In consequence, each element of a construction contributes to and is vital for the impression of the entire construction just as each individual in a human collective contributes to its wholeness. Contrary to Gastev’s vision quoted above, Aleksander Bogdanov illustrated a wildly different idea of a future society:
“The proletarian collective is distinguished and defined by a special
organizational bond, known as comradely cooperation. [...] there is no
authority by force or unreasoning subordination but a common will which
decides [...] Where work demands the direct supervision of an individual
person, there will emerge, instead of authority and force, a comradely
recognition of competence;” (A. Bogdanov quoted in: Bailes, 1977)
In fact, Bogdanov and Gastev led a controversy of this very issue, what a revolutionary society based on the principle of collectivism might look like, Bogdanov severely disagreeing with Gastev’s adoption of Taylorism (Bailes, 1977). Referring back to Ripplinger and his concept of a communist art in prehistoric societies, he says that: “The rhythm of work and dancing is reflected in the ornament [markings hewn into rock, K.L.] which is an abstract expression of communal activity. [...] The closer and more cooperative the relations of humans among one another were, the further the symbolic-figurative behaviour was developed.” (Ripplinger 2019) The collectivism expressed in both technological and artistic work is again associated here with an egalitarian society albeit with a primitive one. The preceding three laws evoke more utopian associations than the first three. The structure of presenting them here in this way is not so much a means of opening up a dichotomy in the Constructivist principles Chernikhov formulates. Rather, they reflect nuances of different lines of thought present in the world view of Constructivism in which both alienating and emancipatory tendencies can be identified.
Which of these tendencies developed more lasting effects can be discerned by contemplating Chernikhov’s later publication “101 Architectural Fantasies”. In this work Chernikhov actually emphasises the significance of intuition, inspiration and fantasy within the Constructivist world view compared to the more rationalist principles.
The revolutionary and utopian aspects are further stressed when Chernikhov states that: “An epoch of the greatest reconstructions of human relations must be reflected by its own unforgettable highly artistic monuments. It will create its own style not by rephrasing the old basics, but through creative quests for new forms with new content under the new requirements.” (quoted in: Stephan, 2009)
Chernikhov was designing unimaginable cities of a utopian future.
However, contemplating the images while keeping in mind the ambivalence of his Constructivist world view and taking into account that this was Chernikhov’s most well-received publication in the west there is an inescapable reminiscence of the most alienating results of city planning.
Therefore, the alienating elements seem to have prevailed in Chernikhov’s work. In parallel, the utopian aspirations connected to the revolution in Russia in 1917 quickly gave way to a regime of enforced, accelerated industrial development.
An important conclusion to be drawn from Chernikhov’s Constructivism is that it allows for art and engineering to be unified for a new approach to both artistic and technological creation. Nevertheless, it does show both formalist and alienating as well as spontaneous and utopian potential. In the reception of his work the alienating elements prevailed and so influenced the architecture of the second half of the 20th century. In contrast, the utopian ideals and possibilities offered by this approach of connecting art and engineering or architecture in a creative process were neglected and forgotten.
References:
Architektuul (2016).
Red nailmaker factory.
http://architectuul.com/architecture/red-nailmaker-factory .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
Bailes, K. E. (1977).
Alexei gastev and the soviet controversy over taylorism, 1918–24.
Soviet Studies, 29(3):373–394.
Betonbabe (n.k.).
Yakov chernikhov, chemical volumes, the construction, 1930s.
https://betonbabe.tumblr.com/post/31399031630/
yakov-chernikhov-chemical-volumes-the .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
Bowlt, J. E., editor (1988).
Russian art of the avant-garde: theory and criticism, 1902-1934.
London: Thames & Hudson, 2 edition.
Doctor Ojiplático (2017).
Iakov chernikhov. ciclos constructivistas.
https://www.doctorojiplatico.com/2013/07/
iakov-chernikhov-ciclos-constructivistas.html .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
dpr-barcelona (2009).
Construction of architectural and machine forms | iakov chernikhov.
https://dprbcn.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/
construction-of-architectural-and-machine-forms\
-iakov-chernikhov/ .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
Foucault, M. (1977).
Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.
Vintage. 2nd edition, 1995.
Kondratieva, S. (2016).
Overshadowed by palaces: A guide to leningrad constructivism.
https://strelkamag.com/en/article/
guide-to-petersburg-konstruktivism .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
Lincoln, J. (n.k.).
Yakov chernikov.
https://www.pinterest.ru/jlincoln1075/yakov-chernikov/ .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
Marcuse, H. (2014).
Der eindimensionale Mensch: Studien zur Ideologie der fortgeschrittenen
Industriegesellschaft.
Springe: zu Klampen Verlag, 2 edition.
Ripplinger, S. (2019).
Kommunistische Kunst und andere Beiträge zur Ästhetik.
Hamburg: konkret.
Stephan, G. (2009).
Miszellen.
https:
//guntherstephan.blogspot.com/2009/03/yakov-chernikhov.html .
[Online; accessed April 17, 2020].
Comments