Talk:Constructivist architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constructivist architecture was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 5 November 2006

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

This article has been nominated for Selected article, at the Architecture portal.

This is truly an outstanding start to an article. Obviously it needs to be referenced, (probably with in-line citations as these appear to be the flavour of the month at WP:FAC). I think a mention should be made about the integration of typography and slogan with architecture. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

re- the refs...problem is there isn't really any quotation here, it's just factual stuff, which is why i added a bibliog but left it unreferenced.

(that was Owenhatherley 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) by the way)

Trouble is, the people at WP:FAC seem to insist on inline citations - it's supposed to be up to you if you read WP:CITE but really the de facto policy seems to be "If you want an article to receive Featured article status - it needs inline citations". That's my experience anyway. DVD/RW and myself got Deconstructivism to FA status with a combination of a Bibliography and inline citations. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC) PS are you the author of this [1]? It's really interesting.

i've just added a gallery as well. also, i do think this would look better with a picture at the top of the page. by all means shrink it, but i'd rather it wasn't deleted. thanks for tidying up though, Owenhatherley 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks. yes, i did write that btw... i'll work on citations, but it might be a little while.Owenhatherley 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Gallery Moved from article 2 Gallery 3 Leningrad vs. St. Petersburg 4 Failing GA 5 Why Shukhov?

[edit] Gallery Moved from article

As per discussion at User_talk:Carnildo#PD-Soviet_and_PD-USSR:-

[edit] Gallery

Narkomfin Building by Moisei Ginzburg	Narkomfin Building by Moisei Ginzburg	Chekists Village, Ekaterinburg, early 30s	Mosselprom building, Moscow
Tsentrosoyuz, Le Corbusier and Nikolai Kolli, 1928-36	Shukhov towers on the Oka River, 1989	Shukhov towers on the Oka River, 1989	Architectural Fantasy by Yakov Chernikhov, 1933
Architectural Fantasy by Yakov Chernikhov, 1933	Architectural Fantasy by Yakov Chernikhov, 1933	Moisei Ginzburg, Gostrakh apartments, 1926	Moisei Ginzburg, Palace of Soviets, 1932
Gosprom, Kharkiv, Serafimov & Kravets, 1925-7	Gosprom, Kharkiv, Serafimov & Kravets, 1925-7	Kharkiv Post Office by A.Mordvinov, 1927	Dynamic City by Gustav Klutsis, 1919
Collective House by Nikolai Ladovsky, 1921	Model of Lenin Institute by Ivan Leonidov, 1927	Ivan Leonidov, Commisariat project 1934	Melnikov, Kauchuk Club, 1927
Melnikov, Paris Pavilion, 1925	Melnikov, Pravda Workers' Club 1927	Nikolaev, Communal House, 1929	Moscow Planetarium, Barsch & Sinyavsky, 1927-9
Vesnin brothers, Mostorg department store 1927	Vesnin brothers, Mostorg department store 1927	Vesnin brothers, Film Actors' School, 1928	Vesnin brothers, Leningradskaya Pravda, 1924
Vladimir Krinsky, ASNOVA sketch, 1920	Textile Institute, Moscow, completed 1938	MOGES power station, Ivan Zholtovsky, 1926

[edit] Leningrad vs. St. Petersburg

There's quite a lot of historical revisionism going on in the world these days, and Wikipedia is certainly a center of this. Which is why -- completely against the logic of context, or even historical accuracy -- references to "Leningrad" are being systematically changed wherever possible, and "St. Petersburg" put in their place.

It's misleading to have an article which references soviet work in "Leningrad" or "Petrograd" as having taken place in "St. Petersburg", as if historical context is meaningless and only the exigencies of the hour matter totally, no matter how they distort and obscure.

Where St. Petersbug fits -- by all means put in St. Petersburg. I myself fully expect the name of the town to be changed back to Leningrad or somesuch some day. I don't like references to either saints or personal dictators -- but truth and accuracy über alles (most critics of Lenin and communism and revolution aren't the least qualified to judge any of it -- including the wisdom of renaming this town in Lenin's name). And it's more than a little ironic than the forces which loudly decry totalitarianism themselves are exemplars of its practice once they get the upper hand.

Note that I don't consider this to be an innocent slip either. It's a very deliberate policy of some tendencies to try and obliterate all references possible to communism when they can -- not to mention this practice being mean-spirited to the sacrifice of millions of workers who believed in a better world. Many still do. Many more will.

So change the damned name back to Leningrad as per the logic of the piece. Consider this a NPOV issue.

Pazouzou 06:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of your comments and personally have no problems with changing the name to Leningrad - It makes sense, for instance to refer to events of the crusades in Constantinople (today Istanbul), and I think this is equally valid for Leningrad (today St. Petersburg). Your tone however, is unnecessarily strident - we can be civil here, no point of view pushing or historical revisionism was intended and we welcome your contribution to the debate - edit the name as you see fit - perhaps it would be polite to leave a message on Owen's talk page letting him know your intentions. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Change away, is not a problem, though the reason I used St Petersburg was to avoid having to use eg Petrograd for the Tatlin Tower or Leningrad for Chernikhov stuff, and just having the original name seemed to avoid confusion. But is no problem. Owenhatherley 14:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failing GA

• Footnotes go after punctuations, as per Wikipedia:References#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation
• Copyediting is necessary to make the prose more fluent. Some peculiar formulations are for example
  • "creating ideal Constructivist cities- see also El Lissitzky's Prounen-Raum 'Dynamic City' (1919) of Gustav Klutsis."
  • Though after the Civil War the USSR was too poor for any new building projects, the Soviet avant-garde school Vkhutemas started an architectural wing in 1921,
• Without inline citations I can't tell if the mentioned architectural works are truly the most significant works. Which of the references are the most important sources for the article?
• Lead section does not summarize article, please conform to WP:LEAD. Expand it with one-two paragraphs.

Fred-Chess 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Shukhov?

Shukhov towers were built since 1890s, and were as Constructivist as a piece of steel pipe or HMS Dreadnought. A structural engineer, not artist, he served all kind of projects. Interestingly, modern critics (i.e. Vyacheslav Glazychev) specifically place his Moscow tower in opposition to constructivists (old school built in steel, new youth built in plywood). NVO 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Shukhov is in there because a) of his collaborations with Melnikov, and b) because his radio towers in the 1920s were more futuristic in form than their western equivalents, and considered to be such by the likes of Rodchenko, who often photographed them or used them in photomontages. The divide engineer/artist that you're using here is exactly what Constructivism was set against. So I see no reason not to have him in here, although its clear he didn't regard himself as an avant-gardist of any sort.Owenhatherley 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point. By 1920 those towers were ubiquitous. Hundreds were built before 1914 by railroads, i.e. they were exposed to millions of train riders. No novelty at all. The 1926 Moscow tower was quite big for its settings, indeed, but - just one of many.

But there's another question. In 1926-1929, when constructivism was in vogue, nearly all practicing architects built constructivist buildings - client's orders. Even the old neoclassicists like Shchusev, Fomin, Zholtovsky and "non-aligned" folks like Ilya Golosov. Would you put them in this category, too, simply because they jumped on the opportunity? NVO 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'novelty' or otherwise of the Shukhov towers is unimportant. Standardisation was an integral part of the Constructivist project.

Which project? Was there anything standardized in 1920s - the real buildings, not the paper talk? NVO 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- No: but they wanted what they did to be standardised, and that it wasn't was political rather than due to their own practice.

Owenhatherley 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Also: this article essentially uses 'constructivist' as a cipher for 'early Soviet modernist'. Lissitzky, Ladovsky and Melnikov all considered their work Rationalist rather than Constructivist; though their connections with Vkutemas meant that they were intricately involved in the debates that are usually subsumed under Constructivism. When very strictly defined, the only Constructivist architecture was that of the OSA group (Vesnins, Ginsburg etc). But in general parlance, as the links at the bottom of the page indicate, Constructivist architecture is generally used to encompass everything from Melnikov and Golosov, Schusev's Narkomzem building, and the hardline theoreticians of OSA. A Modernism similar to, but in significant ways unlike, that of Germany or France. Hope that clarifies things somewhat! Owenhatherley 12:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Got the point - that is my own understanding, didn't ever consider Melnikov to be within Ginzburg faction (or Ladovsky's rationalism) NVO 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- Melnikov was an ASNOVA member for a while, according to Catherine Cooke: but he was out on his own, sure.

Owenhatherley 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)