Talk:Constructivist architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Constructivist architecture was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: November 5, 2006 |
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. |
| 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 |
[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)
[edit] Info Requests
NVO, as you seem to be the person to ask about this: do you know anything about the following Moscow buildings? As in who the architects were, whether they still exist, year built etc. These are all 1930s pictures.
and the Mosselprom Building (above, in the gallery)? Also: this looks like Nikolaev's Dom Kommuny but am not sure:
and outside Moscow:
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gosprom.jpg
Image:Gosprom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
