Emplea las claves de la oratoria

Socialist-Realism would essentially frame urbanism and architecture of the Soviet Empire up until Stalin’s death in 1953. This section of the chapter will outline the period in Soviet history which followed Stalin’s death. It briefly describes the subsequent repercussions for the profession of architecture and how the profession transited from neo-classical revival to its modernist iteration.

Stalin died in 1953 and Nikita Khrushchev took over (Kemp Welch 2008). In 1956 he

renounced Stalin in a secret speech, which he gave at the 20th _{Party Union (Shukman 1998).} According to Shukman, this situation changed the power balance in the country mostly due to the lack of strong leadership and the economic problems that became apparent after the information flow was (to an extent) liberated: without the strong leadership of Stalin, the problems of the state and authority became obvious. The architectural profession seized this strand of liberty but was far from free. Architecture became more succinct with the demands of the economy, nevertheless it retained the homogenic character of Culture two.

Khrushchev advocated the use of prefabricated concrete as a new, quick remedy for the housing issues in cities (Forty 2012). The construction method he advocated was one that

assumed monotony and meant a devaluation of streets and squares typical in a classical city. The old way of designing was to be replaced by landscaping. In his study Concrete and

Culture, Adrian Forty presents Khrushchev’s speech as one which delineates a break in the

architectural philosophy (2012).

In the 20th _{Party congress in 1956, after Stalin’s death, the attitude toward the life of the} common Communist citizen could have been assumed to have relaxed, however the contrary happened (Buchli 1999). Buchli claims that the control of the domestic dimension was made even stronger due to the constraints placed on the family unit by the awkwardly small scale of architecture. In The Material Culture, Buchli presents a case in which the domestic space in the Soviet Union in the Thaw assumed a strategy aiming at designing multi-purpose rooms, which would link all the household tasks in one space (2002). The homo-sovieticus was still in a situation where the individual residential units were cramped and the public space was more cared for, however there was more liberty in interior design. In spite of the visual design of the buildings being different, Socialist-Modernist flats retained a measure of organising space in a collective way with respect to work. The strategies of the social condenser that were to stratify society in Culture two came to function a lot more like the urban strategies which existed in Western countries similar to the principles of the Athens Charter.

According to Shvidkovsky the Soviet people started appropriating 18th _{century elements from} everyday culture from barns and old rural dwellings and hoaring them in their own flats (2007). In spite of this, the architecture was surprisingly bland. Since Marxism did not place any commercial value on land, little effort was placed in making the design commercially appealing or attractive. It was homogenous with no variation nor was there any mixed use strategies on an urban scale to encourage revenue streams. This caused problems in coordinating the design around walking distances and comfort. Above all, there was no definition in the spaces, which were scaled out of proportion. The blocks were scattered in the landscape amongst streets that enabled efficient car and public transport movements this was similar to the principles from the Athens Charter from 1943. The concept of a social condenser for the homo-sovieticus transformed, taking the form of quasi-modernist blocks as opposed to courtyards but still presenting attempts to group individuals and enable them to transition to work every morning.

2.6 Conclusion

In the Soviet Union architecture was to be at the heart of propaganda and a mechanism to be used to construct a new, modern man called the homo-sovieticus. If a relationship

case. Communism presented a situation where ideology was tied very heavily to the body. Infinite debt to the motherland was placed on people who could never repay, but had to make the attempt by working tirelessly throughout their lives. The location of debt never changed and in that sense it was like a pastoral mode of governmentality and not like a Capitalist state, where debts are constantly exchanged like currency. The citizen was, therefore, always in debt and the only way to retain dignity in this play of economy was to devote one’s life to the Soviet concepts of collectivisation. According to Bataille, the aims of the collectivisation were to create a strong nation that could compete in a military arena (1989).

Marxism and the Communist revolution unveiled an opportunity to create a new and efficient environment in the Soviet Union. Culture one set the tone of exploration and development of a new style which liberated architects such as Melnikov. Culture two was a maturation of the political regime, which established a very narrow spectrum of design choices.

The power was to be taken from the Tsar and given to the people. This was a chance to create a new and fair order. However since the new actors in the political arena after the revolution were deeply embedded in the power structures of the Tsarist governmentality, the revolution came to be merely a reconfiguration of the aesthetics of the former power

structures. As a result, in architectural terms, the creativity and enthusiasm of Culture one became a dull disciplined hegemony of Socialist-Realism in Culture two enriched by the experimentation of the previous one. In Culture two, architects such as Iofan found their place purely by associations with highly placed dignitaries in Moscow (Paperny 2002 3). The individuality of the homo-sovieticus was dissolved in the ritual of law and automatism of reaction. Homo-sovieticus was the building block of power in the Soviet Union. Each person was, as Vaclav Havel would put it: ‘living in a lie’ of abiding by one or another ideology (Havel 2011, p54). In the Soviet ideology, this meant living in the collective and abiding by the flow what Foucault would call dispositif. This was reflected by the singular tone of architecture and urbanism, controlled by Taylorist efforts to change the mentality of the Soviet man. The building of the Palace of the Soviets was a manifestation of power-

circulation residing in Moscow since the 19th _{century, which managed to survive the Marxist} cleansing of Culture one and matured in Culture two. This was a philosophy implanted in Socialist-Realism by the experimentation attempts developed straight after the revolution in Culture one, which was highly prone to Constructivist ideas. It also found its manifestation as a social condenser or one might call it a social stratifier in a more hierarchical form in the Thaw by the adoption of principles similar to the Athens Charter.

This socio-architectural context was then translated in different versions in Soviet satellite states. The case of Poland in the inter-War period and as a land overwhelmed by the Soviet hegemony will be introduced in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 3