THE IMPERIAL PERIOD (C. 1700-1917)
The assimilation of Western architectural styles, which had begun in the late seventeenth century, increased radically during the reign of Peter I (1682-1725). In 1703 Peter founded St. Petersburg, which became the Russian capital in 1711. Western European architects Jean Baptiste Le Blond (1679-1719) and Domenico Trezzini (1670- 1734) submitted plans for its development. At this stage Petersburg’s architecture owed much to the northern European baroque, particularly in Sweden and Holland. The stuccoed brick walls of the city’s baroque buildings were painted, with white trim for window surrounds and other details. Bar-tolomeo Francesco Rastrelli (1700-1771) defined the high baroque style during the reigns of Anna (1730-1740) and Elizabeth (1741-1762). Among his major projects are the Stroganov Palace (1752-1754), the final version of the Winter Palace (1754-1764), and the Smolny Convent with its Resurrection Cathedral (1748-1764). In addition Rastrelli greatly enlarged the existing imperial palaces at Peterhof (1746-1752) and Tsarskoye Selo (1748-1756).
During the reign of Catherine the Great (1762-1796), imperial architecture moved from the baroque to neoclassicism. With the support of Catherine, a constellation of architects endowed the city during the second half of the eighteenth century with a grandeur inspired by classical Rome. Charles Cameron (ca.1740-1812), the leading proponent of neoclassicism, designed the palace at the imperial estate of Pavlovsk (1780-1796), a gift from Catherine to her son Grand Duke Paul. Andrei Voronikhin (1759-1814) created a still more obvious example of the Roman influence in his Cathedral of the Kazan Mother of God (1801-1811),
71
with its sweeping colonnade reminiscent of the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome.
The reign of Alexander I (1801-1825) witnessed a new campaign to create an interconnecting system of architectural ensembles and public space throughout the center of Petersburg. The rebuilding of the Admiralty (1806-1823) by An-dreyan Zakharov (1761-1811) reaffirmed that structure and its spire as dominant elements in the city plan. The culmination of the imperial design fell to Carlo Rossi (1776-1849), who created four major ensembles, including the General Staff Building and Arch (1819-1829), facing Palace Square. Neoclassicism in Moscow appeared primarily in houses and other institutions built by the nobility and wealthy merchants. Of particular note are mansions and churches designed by Matvei Kaza-kov (1738-1812).
During the reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855), classical unity in Petersburg yielded to eclectic styles and innovations in construction engineering, both of which are evident in the final version of St. Isaac’s Cathedral (1818 -1858) by Auguste Montferrand (1786-1858). Of special significance was the Russo-Byzantine style, supported by Nicholas I and implemented by Constantine Thon (1794-1881), builder of the Great Kremlin Palace (1838-1849). The major work in this style was Ton’s Church of Christ the Redeemer (1837-1883; destroyed in 1931 and rebuilt in the 1990s), created as a memorial to Russian valor in the 1812 war.
By the 1870s there arose a new national style based on decorative elements from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Muscovy as well as on motifs from folk art and traditional wooden architecture. Major examples of the Russian style in Moscow include the Historical Museum (1874-1883), built on the north side of Red Square to a design by Vladimir Shervud (1833-1897); the Moscow City Duma (1890-1892) by Dmitry Chichagov (1835-1894); and the Upper Trading Rows (1889-1893) by Alexander Pomerantsev (1848-1918), assisted by the construction engineer Vladimir Shukhov (1853-1939). In Petersburg the Russian style was used by Alfred Parland (1845-1892) for the Church of the Resurrection of the Savior “on the Blood” (1883-1907).
The “new style,” or style moderne, that arose in Russian architecture at the turn of the century emphasized the innovative use of materials such as glass, iron, and glazed brick in functional yet highly aesthetic designs. The style flourished in Moscow primarily, where its leading practitioner was Fyodor Shekhtel (1859-1926), architect for patrons among Moscow’s entrepreneurial elite, such as the Ryabushinskys. In Petersburg the style moderne appeared primarily in the design of apartment buildings. In contrast to their American contemporaries, Russian architects did not design large buildings with steel frames, but became experts at the use of reinforced concrete construction.
SOVIET ARCHITECTURE (1917-1991)
The economic chaos engendered in Russia by World War I proved catastrophic for building activity, and the ensuing revolution and civil war brought architecture to a standstill. With the recovery of the economy in the 1920s, bold new designs-often utopian in concept-brought Russia to the attention of modern architects throughout the world. Constructivism, the most productive modernist movement, included architects such as Moysei Ginzburg (1892-1946), Ilya Golosov (1883-1945), Grigory Barkhin (1880-1969), and the Vesnin brothers: Leonid (1880-1933), Viktor (1882-1950), and Alexander (1883-1959). Their designs, primarily in Moscow, set a standard for functional design in administrative and apartment buildings, as well as social institutions such as workers’ clubs. Another modernist active during the same period, but not a part of Constructivism, was Konstantin Stepanovich Melnikov (1890-1974), known for his bold designs for exposition pavilions and workers’ clubs.
During the 1930s more conservative trends asserted themselves, as designs inspired by classical, Renaissance, and historical models received the party’s approval. After World War II architectural design became still more firmly locked in traditional, often highly ornate eclectic styles, epitomized by the postwar skyscrapers in Moscow and other Soviet cities. After 1953 pressing social needs, particularly in housing, led to a return to func- tionalism, heavily dependent on standardized designs and prefabricated components. With the demise of the communist system in Russia, the revival of private practice in architecture seems likely to change the face of the profession, even as new problems arise in zoning and resource allocation.
WOODEN ARCHITECTURE
Throughout Russian history wood has been used for almost every type of construction, from churches and fortress walls to peasant dwellings and grand
country villas. Fire and rot have destroyed most wooden structures from the distant past, and there is no extensive evidence that wooden structures appeared before the late sixteenth century. Yet the basic forms of wooden architecture are presumably rooted in age-old traditions. Remarkable for their construction logic, wooden churches also display elaborate configurations. One example is the Church of the Transfiguration at Kizhi (1714), whose pyramid of recessed levels supports twenty-two cupolas. Although such structures achieved great height, the church interior was usually limited by a much lower ceiling. Log houses also ranged from simple dwellings to large three-story structures peculiar to the far north, with space for the family as well as shelter for livestock during the winter. Wooden housing is still used extensively, not only in the Russian countryside, but also in provincial cities (particularly in Siberia and the Far East), where the houses often have plank siding and carved decorative elements. See also: KIEVAN RUS; MOSCOW; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; ST. PETERSBURG
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brumfield, William Craft. (1991). The Origins of Modernism in Russian Architecture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brumfield, William Craft. (1993). A History of Russian Architecture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cracraft, James. (1988). The Petrine Revolution in Russian Architecture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hamilton, George Heard. (1983). The Art and Architecture of Russia. New York: Penguin Books. Khan-Magomedov, Selim O. (1987). Pioneers of Soviet Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
Research access to and knowledge about archives in the Russian Federation since 1991 have been key factors in the opening of historical and cultural inquiry in what had previously been a predominantly closed society. Yet the opening of archives would have had much less impact on society and history had in not been for the central attention given to archives under Soviet rule. And Russian archives would hardly be so rich in the early twenty-first century had it not been for the early manuscript repositories in the church and the long tradition of preserving the records of government and society in Russian lands. For example, the “Tsar’s Archive” of the sixteenth century paralleled archives of the government boards (prikazy) of the Muscovite state. Peter the Great’s General Regulation of 1720 decreed systematic management of state records. During the late nineteenth century, the Moscow Archive
