Architecture and Art

The USSR is a land of ancient artistic cultures. The oldest artistic remains, discovered primarily in what is now the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR, date from the Upper Paleolithic period. They include the paintings of the Kapova Cave in the Bashkir ASSR, animal and human figurines made of clay, wood, and antler, and various examples of engraving on bone and stone. During the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, various forms of artistic culture were intensively developed in what is now Byelorussia, Transcaucasia, Middle Asia, and the Baltic Region; for example, the painted pottery of the Dnieper Region and Middle Asia date from the sixth through second millennia B.C., as does the metal-work of the ancient tribes of the Caucasus and Middle Asia. Unique artistic cultures existed virtually throughout the entire USSR during the Aeneolithic period and the Bronze Age.

In the first millennium B.C. and the beginning of the first millennium A.D., along with the primitive art of the Iron Age there developed art characteristic of a class society, for example, the cultures of Urartu, Media, and Caucasian Albania. The southern part of Middle Asia was dominated by the culture of Bactria, while the northern part was dominated by the culture of Khwarazm.

Beginning in the middle of the first millenium B.C., certain parts of the southern regions came increasingly under the strong influence of Greek civilization. The art of the ancient cities of the Northern Black Sea coast became highly developed. The classical cultures of the states located in what is now the Georgian SSR and the Armenian SSR, marked by distinctive local traits, survived until the first few centuries A.D. An art that combined classical features and even some elements of Hindu art with indigenous features also developed in Middle Asia—in the Parthian kingdom, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, the Kushana kingdom, and Sogdiana. The cultures of the slaveholding states were in constant contact with the cultures of peoples who were at the primitive communal or early-class stage of development, such as the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Saka, and the peoples of Siberia, the Altai, and the Far East. Both cultural traditions proved to be important in the development of medieval art in what is now the USSR. As early as the prefeudal period, the art of the Slavs was characterized by considerable originality.

Medieval art, broadly recognizable in its historical type, acquired distinctive traits in different regions, conditioned by various socioeconomic systems and local religious beliefs. From the fifth to eighth centuries, Middle Asia was the site of the early feudal states of Sogdiana, Tocharistan, Khwarazm, Ustrushana, and other states, each characterized by a unique artistic culture. With the Islamization of Middle Asia and Azerbaijan (eighth to 11th centuries), these states were drawn into the cultural orbit of the Muslim world. In Middle Asia the typical Muslim religious structures, such as mosques and mausoleums, attained great originality, which was also true of the secular buildings of the Middle East, such as covered markets and caravansaries. The monumental structures of Middle Asia and Azerbaijan dating from the tenth to 19th centuries, often richly decorated with refined ornamentation (carved terra-cotta, majolica, mosaics), occupy an important place in world architecture. Examples include the mausoleum of Ismail Samani in Bukhara (late ninth and early tenth centuries), the Daiakhatyn caravansary (Turkmen SSR; 11th century), the mausoleum in Serakhs (Turkmen SSR; 11th century), the Talkhatan-Baba mosque-mausoleum (Turkmen SSR; 11th century), the mausoleum of Muhammad Bashshar (Tadzhik SSR; c. 11th-12th centuries), the Maidens’ Tower in Baku (12th century), the mausoleum of Sultan Sandjar in Old Merv (Turkmen SSR; 12th century), the Poi Kalian ensemble in Bukhara (12th–16th centuries), and the Manas mausoleum (Kirghiz SSR; 14th century). Other fine examples are the memorial ensemble of Shah-i-Zindah (14th-15th centuries), the Bibi Kanum religious complex (1399–1404), and the Gur Amir mausoleum (1404), all in Samarkand, and the palace of the Shirvanshahs in Baku (principal structure, 15th century), the Registan Square complex in Samarkand (15th–17th centuries), and the Khiva palaces of the 19th century.

The prohibition of the representation of the deity dictated by Islam was responsible for the absence of religious themes in medieval Middle Asian art and for the lack of representations of human beings and other living beings. The art of ornamentation, however, was highly developed, characterized by geometric, epigraphic, and stylized plant and, sometimes, zoomorphic motifs. A high level of development was achieved in medieval Middle Asia and Azerbaijan by the art of book miniatures, as well as by folk decorative applied arts, such as stone and wood carving, decorative painting, embroidery, weaving, rug-making, artistic metalworking, and pottery-making.

Magnificent castle-fortresses and palaces were built in medieval Georgia and Armenia. After the adoption of Christianity (third and fourth centuries), churches were erected that were marked by clarity and compactness of composition, balance of forms, harmony of proportions, and beauty of construction. Although they somewhat resembled the early Christian churches of Syria and Asia Minor, they represented a distinctive architectural school. Among the finest examples of medieval architecture in Transcaucasia are the cathedrals of Dzhvari (586/587–604) and Tsromi (626–634), the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral in Mtskheta (1010–29), and the castle-fortress in Ananuri (16th–17th centuries) in the Georgian SSR and the Ripsime church in Echmiadzin (618), the Tatev Monastery (ninth to 11th centuries), the Sanain Monastery (tenth to 13th centuries), and the Gegard Monastery, partially hewn out of cliffs (primarily 12th and 13th centuries), in the Armenian SSR. The cathedrals and churches were decorated with mosaics, paintings, and stone carvings.

Also greatly developed were the art of book miniatures, the greatest master of which was the Armenian Toros Roslin (second half of the 13th century), metal chasing (the famous Georgian masters Beshkin and Beka Opizari and others), and embroidery.

The artistic culture of Kievan Rus’ emerged in what is now the European part of the USSR in the tenth and 11th centuries. It absorbed the artistic traditions first of the Slavs and then of Byzantium, which it uniquely transformed. Ancient Russian churches, which were distinctive interpretations of the Byzantine domed cruciform religious structure, were characterized by a stepped pyramidal form, majestic proportions, and a rigorous balance of space and mass. Of world importance are such fine ancient Russian examples as the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev (1037) and the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Novgorod (1045–50). During the 12th and 13th centuries, distinctive schools of architecture emerged in Novgorod, Pskov, Vladimir, Galich, Polotsk, and other cities and principalities. Among the outstanding examples of the period were the cathedrals of Novgorod of the early 12th century, marked by plastic strength and laconism of volumes, including the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Iaroslav’s Court, the Cathedral of St. George of the Iur’ev Monastery, and the cathedral in the Monastery of St. Anthony. The churches of the Vladimir-Suzdal’ school of the second half of the 12th century were smaller and more harmonious in proportion and were ornamented with rich architectural and relief decorations, for example, the St. Dmitrii and Uspenskii cathedrals of Vladimir and the Pokrov na Nerli Church. A number of monumental murals (the mosaics and frescoes of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev and the frescoes of the Church of Our Savior at Nereditsa in Novgorod, 1199) and icons attest to the high level of painting in Kievan Rus’. The ancient Russian culture experienced a severe setback as a result of the Mongol-Tatar conquest of the 13th century.

Beginning in the 14th century, the closely related Russian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian medieval artistic cultures emerged out of the art of Kievan Rus’ and gradually developed vivid national characteristics. By the 14th century, Russian art experienced a renewed upsurge. Although completely subordinate to religious ideology, it nevertheless was permeated by a profound humanity and frequently reflected important social ideas. The Novgorod school, which flourished from the end of the 13th through the 15th centuries, was characterized by unique single-domed churches, the paintings of Theophanes the Greek (second half of the 14th century), highly expressive icons, and fine examples of book miniatures. The Pskov school assumed a leading position. The architectural and painting schools of Rostov, Yaroslavl’, Tver’, and Vologda also developed. Beginning in the 14th century, the Moscow school of art gradually attained a preeminent position. A number of Moscow’s buildings are among the finest examples of Russian and world art of the 15th and 16th centuries. Distinguished by a particular scope of compositional solutions, picturesqueness of silhouette, and richness of ornamentation, they include the Moscow Kremlin ensemble (15th–17th centuries), the Voznesenie Church in Kolomenskoe (1532), and St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow (1555–60). Also among the masterpieces of ancient Russian art of the period are the icons and frescoes of A. Rublev (15th century) and Dionisii (late 15th and early 16th centuries), as well as numerous other icon paintings, book miniatures, and works of decorative applied art, such as embroidery, wood carving, and metalwork. During the 17th century, secular tendencies increased in both architecture and painting, as did folk and decorative elements. This is evident, for example, in the churches in Fili and Ubory and the cathedrals in Riazan’ and Astrakhan’, where spatial solutions were combined with a colorful “lacy” facade. In painting this is evident in the icons and parsuny (early Russian portraits) by S. Ushakov and others, which are permeated with realistic elements, and in the paintings in the churches of Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, and elsewhere. The ties between Russian art and the art of Western Europe and the East increased.

A similar development was undergone by the medieval art of the Ukraine, which by the time of the region’s unification with Russia (1654) had developed its own rich, historical artistic traditions. Between the 14th and 16th centuries, massive, picturesquely situated fortresses were built in the Ukraine, such as the castles in Khotin (13th–15th centuries), Kamenets-Podol’skii (14th-16th centuries), and Ostrog (14th-16th centuries), as well as highly distinctive religious structures, such as the church-fortress in Sutkovtsy (1467). At the end of the 16th century, the masters of the Western Ukraine creatively assimilated in the design of stone structures Renaissance architectural and sculptural elements, for example, the Chapel of the Three Prelates in L’vov (1578–91), with richly sculptured ornamentation. Beginning in the 15th century, monumental painting and icon painting were enriched with folk motifs and realistic motifs from everyday life. The Ukrainian people’s liberation struggle proved to be a new stimulus for the development of architecture and art.

In Byelorussia the Middle Ages were characterized by the intensive development of fortress and religious architecture, for example, the church-fortress in Maloe Mozheikovo (16th century). Sculpture, influenced by the Western European Gothic style, achieved a high degree of excellence. Various Renaissance elements appeared in the 16th century. In the 17th century the baroque spread throughout Byelorussia and the Ukraine.

In the artistic culture of the Baltic Region, which developed closely with Western European art, a highly distinctive national interpretation was given in the 13th to 16th centuries to the Gothic style (the Domkirche in Riga, originally built in the Romanesque style; 13th–15th centuries), in the 16th and 17th centuries to the Renaissance style (the building of the Fraternity of the Black Heads in Tallinn, 1597, architects A. Passer and others), and beginning in the 17th century to the baroque style, which was particularly well developed in Lithuania (the interior ornamentation of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Vilnius, 1668–75). Western European elements were creatively combined with local folk elements in Baltic religious monumental and easel painting, sculpture (stone tombstones, modeled interior decorations, and wooden sculptures), and decorative applied art of the 13th to 17th centuries.

The turn of the 18th century marked a qualitatively new era in the art of the many peoples living in what is now the USSR, brought about by profound changes rooted in the country’s social development. Art and architecture, freed to a large extent from its subordination to medieval religious ideology (in Russia proper, as well as in the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldavia, the Baltic Region, and, partially, in Georgia and Armenia), embarked on a path that, on the whole, was dominated by secular, realistic tendencies.

The Academy of Arts was established in St. Petersburg in 1757. An important role in the stylistics of 18th-century Russian art was played by the establishment of extensive ties with Western European art. Outstanding successes were achieved in urban construction, which attained its clearest expression in the construction of St. Petersburg, whose design, permeated with civic spirit, reflected the process of nation forming and the powerful upsurge of Russian statehood. The developed baroque in Russian architecture culminated in the mid-18th century in the work of V. V. Rastrelli and S. I. Chevakinskii. Rastrelli designed the Great Palace in Petergof (1747–52), the Smol’nyi Monastery (1748–54), and the Winter Palace (1754–62) in St. Petersburg and supervised the reconstruction of the Great Catherine Palace in Pushkin (1752–57), while Chevakinskii designed the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in St. Petersburg (1753–62).

Russian classicism, which revived the artistic principles of antiquity and embodied the humanistic ideas of enlightenment philosophy, subsequently became widespread. The classicist school was represented by many buildings by outstanding Russian architects of the 18th and first third of the 19th centuries: In Moscow and its environs they included the buildings by V. I. Bazhenov (Pashkov House, now the old building of the V. I. Lenin State Library, 1784–86), M. F. Kazakov (Senate Building, now the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, 1776–87), and D. I. Zhiliardi (Gilardi), A. G. Grigor’ev, and O. I. Bove. In St. Petersburg and its environs they included the designs of A. F. Kokorinov and J. B. M. Vallin de la Mothe (Academy of Arts, 1764–88), C. Cameron (palace at Pavlovsk, 1780–1801), I. E. Starov (Tauride Palace, 1783–89), G. Quarenghi (Smol’nyi Institute, now the building of the Leningrad Oblast Committee and Leningrad City Committee of the CPSU, 1806–08), A. N. Voronikhin (the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan, 1801–11), A. D. Zakharov (Admiralty Building, 1806–23), K. I. Rossi (Mikhailovskii Palace, now the Russian Museum, 1819–25; the General Staff ensemble, now administrative institutions, 1819–29), and V. P. Stasov (the Pavlovskii Guards Regiment barracks, now the Lenenergo Building, 1817–20). In the scope of its urban construction, the successful solution of various problems related to the everyday use of buildings, and the expressiveness of its images, Russian architecture of this period ranked extremely high in world architecture. The traditions of medieval architecture found their most organic continuation in a number of remarkable examples of wooden architecture, such as the complex of wooden structures in Kizhi (Karelian ASSR; primarily 18th century).

Portraiture, permeated with profound humanistic content, achieved great heights in the work of the Russian painters I. N. Nikitin, A. M. Matveev, and F. S. Rokotov, the Ukrainian-born painters V. L. Borovikovskii and D. G. Levitskii, and the sculptor F. I. Shubin. Genre painting emerged (M. Shibanov). Beginning in the second half of the 18th century, landscapes acquired independent importance (F. Ia. Alekseev). The progressive tendencies in Russian art of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were vividly manifested in the poetically inspired, classicist sculptures of M. I. Kozlovskii, I. P. Martos, I. P. Prokofev, and F. G. Gordeev, as well as in the historical paintings of A. P. Losenko and G. I. Ugriumov. A high degree of excellence was achieved by Russian decorative applied art (for example, furniture, porcelain, and articles made of metal, glass, and stone); a high level was also achieved in stage design, where the work of G. Valeriani and P. Gonzago was particularly outstanding.

During the 18th century, the Ukraine witnessed the development of one of the most festive, decorative variants of the baroque style, as exemplified by the structures of the Kiev-Pecherskaia Laura, designed by S. D. Kovnir and others, and the public buildings and churches designed by I. G. Grigorovich-Barskii, whose work reveals a transition to classicism. At the turn of the 19th century, classicism became the dominant trend in architecture. A new secularism was also clearly evident in Ukrainian sculpture and painting of the period. An analogous evolution from the baroque to classicism was also characteristic of the 18th-century architecture of Byelorussia and the Baltic Region; this was also somewhat true of the art of these regions. In Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Baltic urban construction of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, influenced by Russian late classicism, extensive use was made of “standard” plans for religious, public, and residential buildings. During the 18th century, individual elements of European architecture (especially in official urban construction) and various genres of secular art (primarily the portrait) became characteristic of the artistic culture of Georgia and Armenia, especially after their unification with Russia.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the art of most of the peoples living in the Russian Empire underwent an evolution similar to that in Europe. In the second third of the 19th century eclecticism predominated in Russian architecture, as well as in the architecture of the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic Region. At the same time, attempts were being made to develop modern, constructively and functionally justified architectural solutions.

In the early 19th century, a democratic culture emerged, closely linked with the growth of national self-awareness and the upsurge of the liberation-revolutionary movement in Russia. It engendered a powerful progressive, realistic trend in art, which initially was combined by a number of masters with romantic elements. Portrait painting developed (V. A. Tropinin, O. A. Kiprenskii), along with landscape painting (S. F. Shchedrin), the poetical peasant genre (A. G. Venetsianov and his school), political caricatures, and portrait and book graphic arts. Monumental and decorative sculpture continued to flourish (V. I. Demut-Malinovskii, S. S. Pimenov, F. F. Shchedrin, and others). The paintings of K. P. Briullov and especially of A. A. Ivanov are some of the finest examples of Russian art of the first half of the 19th century. In their own way, both artists reflected important social ideas in their monumental works, and both introduced new themes and techniques into art.

At the end of the first half of the 19th century, P. A. Fedotov, noted for his genre paintings and drawings, emerged as the founder of critical realism in Russian art. The leading representatives of democratic realism in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries were the peredvizhniki (the “wanderers”), members of the Society of Wandering Exhibits, which in the 1870’s attracted most of the progressive artists. The peredvizhniki mercilessly scourged the autocratic serf-owning system and consistently advocated the principles of popular spirit (narodnost’) in art. The masters of critical realism created typical images of the Russian prerevolutionary reality, interpreting it from progressive, democratic points of view. With great artistic conviction, they depicted the people and their spiritual strength and beauty. Genre paintings, portraits, landscapes, and historical paintings were developed extensively.

Among the most important Russian realist painters of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries were V. G. Perov, I. N. Kramskoi, N. N. Ge, G. G. Miasoedov, N. A. Iaroshenko, V. V. Vereshchagin, V. E. Makovskii, K. A. Savitskii, A. K. Savrasov, 1.1. Shishkin, A. I. Kuindzhi, 1.1. Levitan, V. M. Vasnetsov, and V. D. Polenov, as well as the two greatest masters of Russian art—I. E. Repin, who created vivid scenes of the life of the people, and V. I. Surikov, who in his colorful canvases re-created dramatic scenes from the pages of history. Historical figures and genre scenes also found embodiment in sculpture (M. M. Antokol’skii and others). Of fundamental importance for the development of critical realism in Russian art were the materialist aesthetics of V. G. Belinskii, N. A. Dobroliubov, and N. G. Chernyshevskii, as well as progressive art criticism, especially that of V. V. Stasov.

Despite tsarism’s reactionary policies, which hindered the development of the national cultures of the peoples of Russia, 19th-century progressive Russian art exerted a considerable influence on the art of other peoples, nourishing it with social and national-liberation ideas. Throughout the entire course of the 19th century, the various national schools of art developed intensively, linked with the progressive strata of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts and, beginning in the 1870’s, with the Society of Wandering Exhibits. The Ukrainian poet and artist T. G. Shevchenko was the founder of democratic realism in Ukrainian painting and graphic arts. In the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Shevchenko’s heritage was continued by a number of outstanding masters, including the painters and graphic artists D. I. Bezperchii, K. A. Trutovskii, N. I. Murashko, S. I. Vasil’kovskii, K. K. Kostandi, and N. K, Pimonenko. In Georgia, representatives of democratic realism included the painters A. Beridze, G. Gabashvili, R. Gvelesiani, A. Mrevlishvili, and M. Toidze; in Armenia, S. Agadzhanian, G. Bashindzhagian, and E. Tatevosian; in Latvia, the painters K. Hūns, J. Feders, J. Rozentals, and J. Valters; and in Estonia, A. Adamson, E. Dücker, and J. Köler. Beginning in the 19th century, impressionism exerted a considerable influence on the work of many painters in Russia, the Ukraine, and the Baltic Region.

Progressive Russian art helped the artistic cultures of Middle Asia, which became part of Russia in the 19th century, to overcome medieval norms. However, the class system and the yoke of autocracy held back the cultural development of all the peoples of the country, especially those inhabiting the backward, remote areas. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the artistic culture of such peoples was dominated by decorative applied art based on rich folk traditions, such as stone carving and artistic metalwork among the ethnic groups of the northern Caucasus, pottery-making, embroidery, rug-making, decorative carving and painting in Azerbaijan and Middle Asia, and bone carving among the peoples of Siberia.

On the eve of the October Revolution of 1917, Russia’s artistic culture was extremely varied and highly contradictory. Along with the art that had developed amid the sharp ideological struggle under capitalist conditions, there existed medieval artistic traditions, as well as primitive artistic traditions (among a number of peoples in the north and Siberia).

In the architecture of Russia and a number of other nationalities inhabiting what is now the USSR, during the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, advances in construction techniques, the use of improved structural components, and the development of new materials (metal, reinforced concrete) and types of structures (industrial, transport, and commercial buildings; multistory apartment houses) were initially combined with an eclectic imitation of the most diverse styles. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, modernism became widespread in certain regions, primarily Russia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic Region. Its representatives sought to unify the constructive and artistic principles. They made use of asymmetrical structures, numerous metal structural components and decorative elements, and new decorative materials, creating picturesque compositions rich in refined ornamentation. Along with the modernist trend in the architecture of the period (and frequently merging with it) were trends based on a new interpretation of the forms of the national medieval and folk architecture. The revival of national romantic trends facilitated, to a large extent, the differentiation and manifestation of the distinctive elements of the local architectural schools.

Among the most interesting architects of the period were A. E. Belogrud, I. V. Zholtovskii, F. I. Lidval’, M. M. Peretiatkovich, V. A. Pokrovskii, I. A. Fomin, F. O. Shekhtel’, and A. V. Shchusev in Russia, P. F. Aleshin, A. N. Beketov, and V. G. Krichevskii in the Ukraine, and E. Laube in Latvia. On the whole, however, the most progressive trends in prerevolutionary architecture were unable to develop organically under the conditions of capitalist reality, which had particularly affected urban construction.

A growing crisis was sharply reflected in Russian art of the early 20th century. Manifested in complex forms was the clash between two cultures—that of the bourgeois gentry in crisis and that of the emerging proletariat. Under the influence of social movements, the sphere of art’s social influence expanded; magazine, book, and easel graphic arts experienced renewed development, and attempts were made to revive monumental decorative art and the folk crafts. At the same time, a number of trends spread that pointedly avoided social issues. Such trends were characterized by extreme subjectivism, at times taking on a reactionary-Utopian meaning. Changes in realistic art are most vividly reflected in the works of Valentin A. Serov, distinguished by a rare unity of artistic style and astuteness of characterization, in the restlessly romantic works of M. A. Vrubel’, the lyrically dreamy canvases of P. V. Nesterov, the festively sensuous images of K. A. Korovin, the elegaic works of B. E. Borisov-Musatov, and the landscapes of I. E. Grabar’, A. A. Rylov, and K. F. Iuon. Similar changes are observed in the colorful and somewhat stylized compositions of B. M. Kustodiev, in the refined works of the masters of the World of Art group, including L. S. Bakst, A. N. Benois, A. Ia. Golovin, M. V. Dobuzhinskii, E. E. Lansere, N. K. Rerikh, and K. A. Somov, and in the sculptures of A. S. Golubkina, S. T. Konenkov, A. T. Matveev, and P. P. Trubetskoi. During the period, Russian engraving, book graphics, and stage design in general reflected European trends as a result of the work of the masters who were involved in the Russian Seasons abroad, such as L. S. Bakst, A. Ia. Golovin, and N. S. Goncharova. Modernism, which resurrected the problem of the synthesis of the arts, exerted a considerable influence on the decorative applied arts (items produced by the workshops organized by E. D. Polenova in Abramtsevo and by M. K. Tenisheva in Talashkino).

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russian art developd amid sharp clashes between realism and modernism and between humanism and decadence. In the paintings of the artists of the Blue Rose, vague, mystical motifs coexisted with the colorful poetry of the East (P. V. Kuznetsov, M. S. Sar’ian, and others). The artists of the Jack of Diamonds (P. P. Konchalovskii, A. V. Kuprin, A. V. Lentulov, and 1.1. Mashkov) combined formalism with elements of Russian folk art, striving to express the material and sensuous nature of the real world. A special world was created in the inspired epic-symbolic canvases of K. S. Petrov-Vodkin. M. F. Larionov and N. S. Goncharova made the transition from colorful, grotesquely expressive images in the spirit of primitivism to the complete rejection of representationalism in art. Extreme forms of the crisis in bourgeois art found their expression in the creative work of the first representatives of abstract art, W. Kandinsky and K. S. Malevich.

The crisis contradictions in the prerevolutionary period were, to a considerable extent, characteristic of the artistic cultures of many peoples in the Russian Empire. The traditions of realism were enriched by the use of nationally original forms (sometimes combined with modernist trends) in the works of the painters F. G. Krichevskii, A. A. Murashko, and G. P. Svetlitskii and the graphic artists E. L. Kul’chitskaia and G. I. Narbut in the Ukraine, the sculptor Ia. Nikoladze in Georgia, the painter V. Suren’iants in Armenia, the painter A. Žmuidzinavičius and the sculptor P. Rimša in Lithuania, the sculptor T. Zajkalns in Latvia, and the painters P. Raud and K. Raud in Estonia. The works of the Lithuanian painter and composer M. Čiurlionis are characterized by a refined national originality and are permeated with numerous musical and folk associations. Sharply expressive canvases were created by the Georgian primitivist N. Pirosmanashvili. A fantastic, alogical world was created in the canvases of the Byelorussian-born artist M. Chagall. Artists of the extreme modernist trends, such as the Ukrainian sculptor A. P. Arkhipenko, broke with folk artistic traditions and adhered to the trends advocated by the international circle of masters of the school of Paris.

Democratic realism, which emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, was especially strengthened during the Revolution of 1905–07, when the journalistic graphic arts, actively waging a struggle against tsarism, acquired great importance (M. V. Dobuzhinskii, D. N. Kardovskii, B. M. Kustodiev, E. A. Lansere, and Valentin A. Serov in Russia, F. S. Krasitskii and M. G. Slastion in the Ukraine, A. Azimzade in Azerbaijan, O. I. Shmerling in Georgia, J. Tilberg and R. Zarina in Latvia, and A. Laikmaa and N. Triik in Estonia). Themes related to the revolutionary events of 1905–07 and the life and struggle of the working class and the toiling peasantry occupied a leading place in the work of such masters as A. E. Arkhipov, S. V. Ivanov, N. A. Kasatkin, S. A. Korovin, and L. V. Popov in Russia, Ia. M. Kruger in Byelorussia, and A. Laikmaa in Estonia. Of enormous importance for the struggle against bourgeois ideology in art was V. I. Lenin’s article “The Party Organization and Party Literature” (1905).

The Great October Socialist Revolution heralded a new era in the art of the peoples of the USSR, radically changing its content and its role in society. Art was placed in the service of the people. Permeated with the communist partiinost’ (party spirit) and narodnost’ (popular spirit) inspired by socialist ideals, it turned to the imagistic embodiment of the revolutionary struggle of the masses and the enthusiasm of the people in the construction of a new society.

The creation of the qualitatively new socialist artistic culture was a twofold process, involving the aesthetic education of the toiling masses and a democratization of art itself by increasing its ideological and educational role. The cultural changes affected all the peoples in the country, who were finally given the opportunity to freely and fully develop their national artistic traditions. The socialist revolution struck down the boundaries that had isolated many nationalities from the mainstream of world artistic development. No matter how diverse the sources from which the art of the various peoples originated during the Soviet period, its common goal was the formation of a universally developed artistic culture, possessing a rich storehouse of artistic means, types, and genres that would allow it to meet the demands of a socialist society and to be a perfected asesthetic form of social awareness.

As early as the first few years of Soviet power, the state, amid the hardships of the Civil War and economic ruin, did everything possible to develop culture, to preserve artistic treasures, and to organize museum work. These goals were the subject of the decree On the Registration, Accounting, and Preservation of Artistic Monuments and Antiquities (1918). Also to this end, a reform of art education was instituted; purchasing commissions were established, whose tasks included the acquisition of works of art for state holdings; and large sums of money were allocated for the organization of art exhibitions and competitions. A major role in the formation of the new Soviet art was played by the plan for monument propaganda, which was set forth by V. I. Lenin and which provided for the dissemination of the ideas of communism by means of art, first and foremost by means of sculpture. The foundation of monument propaganda was the decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of Apr. 12, 1918, On Removing Monuments Erected in Honor of Tsars and Their Servants and Developing a Project for Monuments Dedicated to the Russian Socialist Revolution. The sculptors who contributed to the implementation of the plan included N. A. Andreev, S. T. Konenkov, M. G. Manizer, A. T. Matveev, S. D. Merkurov, V. A. Sinaiskii, and L. V. Shervud in the RSFSR and M. I. Gel’man and I. P. Kavaleridze in the Ukraine, all of whose works were characterized by generalized, heroic figures.

During the period of the Civil War and the foreign military intervention (1918–20), the acute need for an art form capable of explaining the policies of Soviet power and conveying party slogans to the masses led to the flowering of poster art. The leading masters of poster art, V. N. Deni and D. S. Moor, relied on the traditions of the folk lubok (popular broadside), as well as on various elements of progressive foreign and Russian political graphic arts. Along with printed works, hand-drawn posters were also created, which were reproduced by stencil and were usually accompanied by brief texts in verse; such posters were known as Okna ROSTA (literally Windows of ROSTA), whose founder was M. M. Cheremnykh and whose leading artist and poet was V. V. Mayakovsky. This form of agitational art became widespread; for example, there were Okna IugROSTA, UkROSTA, BakKavROSTA, ArmKavROSTA, and GruzKavROSTA. Also serving as a means of agitation were the heroically evocative, vitally joyful compositions that were used to decorate cities during revolutionary holidays, as well as the paintings on agitational trains and ships, all of which explained in an easy to understand manner the universal meaning of historical events.

During these years, new themes appeared in all the graphic arts—newspaper, magazine, and easel graphic arts. Throughout the 1920’s, primarily in the RSFSR and the Ukraine, the book arts were democratized; a transition was also made to the publication of mass editions (for example, political, educational, and children’s books) and to a more profound solution by the artist of a book’s illustrations and the layout as a whole. The artistically designed mass book began to play an increasingly important role in the overall process of the socialist cultural revolution. Among the outstanding graphic artists in the first postrevolutionary years were N. I. Altman, Iu. P. Annenkov, A. N. Benois, N. N. Kupreianov, F. A. Maliavin, D. I. Mitrokhin, A. P. Ostroumova-Lebedeva, P. Ia. Pavlinov, I. N. Pavlov, V. D. Falileev, and S. V. Chekhonin in the RSFSR, G. I. Narbut in the Ukraine, A. A. Azimzade in Azerbaijan, and L. L. Bure in Uzbekistan.

In painting, which also sought to reflect the new elements engendered by the Revolution, symbolically allegorical works (B. M. Kustodiev, K. S. Petrov-Vodkin, A. A. Rylov, and K. F. Iuon in the RSFSR) appeared along with paintings that served as historical documents of the period (I. I. Brodskii and I. A. Vladimirov in the RSFSR).

On the whole, the art of the 1920’s was characterized by the existence of many artistic associations, whose goals at times differed. In the search for an artistic embodiment of the Revolution and in the course of the development of socialist realism, the formalistic and naturalistic tendencies were gradually overcome, as were the purely aesthetic views of the tasks and goals of art. An important role in the affirmation in art of the themes of the revolutionary struggle and the emergence of a new way of life was played by the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR). Branches of the AKhRR and related organizations appeared in the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Georgia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Bashkiria, and Tataria. Also important in the 1920’s and early 1930’s were the Society of Easel Artists (OST), which sought to convey the young country’s energy and boldness; the Four Arts society, which united the leading professional artists; and the Association of Revolutionary Art of the Ukraine (ARMU).

An important aspect of the overall process of the cultural revolution in the 1920’s was the development of the principles of contemporary creative art among peoples who before the October Revolution of 1917 had no developed professional art. The re-evaluation of the traditional artistic forms of the peoples of Middle Asia and Siberia proceeded with the fraternal aid of the masters of the other national schools; the contribution of Russian artists was especially significant.

The paintings of the 1920’s and early 1930’s were dominated by historical-revolutionary themes; the leading artists included F. S. Bogorodskii, I. I. Brodskii, S. V. Gerasimov, M. B. Grekov, A. A. Deineka, A. A. Osmerkin, K. S. Petrov-Vodkin, P. P. Sokolov-Skalia, and P. M. Shukhmin in the RSFSR, F. G. Krichevskii, A. A. Petritskii, and N. S. Samokish in the Ukraine, V. V. Volkov in Byelorussia, and A. Kodzhoian in Armenia. The revival of genre painting was linked with the keen interest in various aspects of the socialist way of life, which also sought to preserve the traditional traits and national forms of everyday life. Leading genre painters included A. A. Deineka, E. A. Katsman, A. V. Moravov, Iu. I. Pimenov, S. V. Riangina, Ts. S. Sampilov, and E. M. Cheptsov in the RSFSR, G. P. Svetlitskii in the Ukraine, P. P. Ben’kov and A. N. Volkov in Uzbekistan, and B. Nurali in Turkmenistan. The attempt to create life-affirming images of the new man, born of the Revolution, determined the leading trend of portrait painting, whose leading exponents were S. V. Maliutin, V. N. Meshkov, and G. G. Riazhskii in the RSFSR, P. G. Volokidin in the Ukraine, and S. Agadzhanian in Armenia. In landscape painting, particular importance was attained by industrial motifs, linked with the transformations wrought by the Soviet people (K. F. Bogaevskii, A. V. Kuprin, and B. N. Iakovlev in the RSFSR and G. Giurdzhian and F. Terlemezian in Armenia). However, generalized lyrical landscapes were also created, notably by V. N. Baksheev, I. E. Grabar’, N. P. Krymov, A. V. Lentulov, I. I. Mashkov, and K. F. Iuon in the RSFSR, A. Tsimakuridze in Georgia, and M.S. Sar’ian in Armenia. Individual efforts were made to revive the best traditions of monumental painting (V. A. Favorskii, E. E. Lansere, and others).

Various forms of the graphic arts continued to develop successfully, including book and magazine illustration, book design, posters, prints, drawings, and caricatures. Renown was gained in the RSFSR by the drawings of V. M. Konashevich, V. V. Lebedev, P. V. Miturich, and N. A. Tyrsa, the woodcuts of A. I. Kravchenko, P. N. Staronosov, and V. A. Favorskii, the lithographs of G. S. Vereiskii, the etchings of I. I. Nivinskii, the watercolors of L. A. Bruni, and the caricatures of B. E. Efimov. Also well known were the posters of A. I. Strakhov, the woodcuts of V. I. Kasiian, the etchings of V. Kh. Zauze, and the watercolors of A. A. Shovkunenko (Ukraine), the drawings of A. M. Brazer (Byelorussia) and I. Sharleman’ (Georgia), the engravings of A. Kodzhoian (Armenia) and V. A. Rozhdestvenskii (Uzbekistan), and the drawings of A. V. Nikolaev (Uzbekistan).

Sculpture of the 1920’s was dominated by the principles of monument propaganda and by the task of creating works expressing important historical generalizations (S. T. Konenkov, A. T. Matveev, S. D. Merkurov, V. I. Mukhina, and I. D. Shadr in the RSFSR). Along with monumental works, a number of noteworthy sculpture portraits were also created (A. S. Golubkina, V. N. Domogatskii, and S. D. Lebedeva in the RSFSR and Ia. I. Nikoladze in Georgia). Of particular importance for the development of sculpture were the freestanding sculptures of and monuments to V. I. Lenin. These include the series Leniniana by N. A. Andreev (1919–32) and the monument at Finland Station in Leningrad (bronze and granite, 1926; sculptor S. A. Evseev, architects V. A. Shchuko and V. G. Gel’freikh) and the monument at the Zemo-Avchaly Hydroelectric Power Plant in the Georgian SSR (bronze and granite, 1927; sculptor I. D. Shadr, architect S. E. Chernyshev).

In stage design, along with the adherents of true-to-life sets and painted sets, there emerged advocates of a highly unique spectacular style and of constructivism. Among the prominent set designers of the period were A. A. Vesnin, A. Ia. Golovin, V. A. Simov, V. A. Stenberg, G. A. Stenberg, F. F. Fedorovskii, and G. B. Iakulov in the RSFSR, and M. I. Drak, A. G. Petritskii, and A. V. Khvostenko-Khvostov in the Ukraine. A number of artists, such as V. E. Egorov, E. E. Enei, and S. V. Kozlovskii in the RSFSR, were involved in the creation of the first Soviet motion pictures. In design, attention was focused in the 1920’s on the design of displays at exhibitions propagandizing the achievements of the socialist system (L. M. Lisitskii in the RSFSR).

Of great importance for the development of decorative applied art was the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Apr. 26,1919, On Measures to Facilitate Cottage Industry. During the 1920’s, there was increased production of handicrafts, such as pottery and woven goods, which filled the shortage of industrial goods; folk crafts became popular in many countries. Soviet decorative applied art developed on the basis of old and revived artistic crafts. Examples included the production of lacquered miniatures in the villages of Palekh (I. I. Golikov and others) and Fedoskino, Khokhloma painting (F. F. Krasil’nikov, S. F. Krasil’nikov, and others), and Bogorodskoe wood carving (A. Ia. Chushkin and others) in the RSFSR; artistic metalworking in Dagestan (A. Akhmedov and others); and rug-making in the Caucasus and Middle Asia. An important role was also played by enterprises of the art industry, such as the M. V. Lomonosov porcelain plant in Leningrad and the textile factories in Moscow and Ivanovo. In addition to purely decorative objects, the masters of production art (L. S. Popova and others) turned to the design of industrial goods, such as furniture, clothing, and fabrics, and to work in printing. Also working successfully in the art industry were N. Ia. Dan’ko, N. M. Suetin, S. V. Chekhonin, and R. K. Shchekatikhina-Pototskaia.

The decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B), of Apr. 23,1932, On the Restructuring of Literary and Artistic Organizations, on the basis of which unions of Soviet artists were established in the Union and autonomous republics, facilitated the unification of the masters of artistic culture and marked a new era in the development of a multinational Soviet art. Linked with this stage of development was the affirmation of the theory of socialist realism. The art of the 1930’s, permeated with an awareness of the successful construction of socialism, reflected the life and struggles of the Soviet people and actively conveyed the great optimism of the period of the first five-year plans. Also important for the creative process was the problem of artistic heritage and its profound and universal assimilation. Characteristic of the 1930’s was the organization of large thematic exhibitions, such as 15 Years of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army (1933), 20 Years of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army and the Navy (1938), and The Industry of Socialism (1939); the central place in such exhibitions was occupied by painted canvases that were large both in size and in the scope of their expressive imagery.

In the painting of the 1930’s, B. V. Ioganson in the RSFSR and F. G. Krichevskii in the Ukraine successfully conveyed historical-revolutionary themes. Major works depicting the life of workers were created by T. G. Gaponenko, S. V. Gerasimov, A. A. Deineka, Iu. I. Pimenov, A. A. Plastov, and A. N. Samokhvalov in the RSFSR, K. D. Trokhimenko in the Ukraine, U. Dzhaparidze and I. Toidze in Georgia, A. Kasteev in Kazakhstan, N. Karakhan and Z. M. Kovalevskaia in Uzbekistan, and S. A. Chuikov in Kirghizia. The portraits of A. M. Gerasimov, V. P. Efanov, P. D. Korin, and M. V. Nesterov (RSFSR) revealed the subjects’ complex inner emotions and reflected the enormous creativity of the Soviet people. Important contributions to the development of landscapes and still lifes were made by P. P. Konchalovskii, A. V. Lentulov, and I.I. Mashkov in the RSFSR, N. G. Burachek in the Ukraine, E. Akhvlediani and D. Kakabadze in Georgia, and M. Abegian, S. Arakelian, and M. S. Sar’ian in Armenia. The great scope of construction facilitated the successes of monumental decorative painting (A. A. Deineka, E. E. Lansere, and V. A. Favorskii in the RSFSR).

In stage design of the 1930’s, important work was done by N. P. Akimov, P. V. Vil’iams, B. I. Volkov, V. V. Dmitriev, I. M. Rabinovich, A. G. Tyshler, and N. A. Shifrin in the RSFSR, G. Mustafaev in Azerbaijan, M. Arutchian in Armenia, and I. Gamrekeli in Georgia. Three-dimensional sets were enhanced through the use of painting. Notable contributions were made in the motion-picture industry of the 1930’s by such artists as N. G. Suvorov and I. A. Shpinel’ (RSFSR). Important examples of exhibition ensembles were linked with the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition of 1939 (principal artist V. N. Iakovlev) in Moscow and the USSR’s participation in the world’s fairs in Paris (1937, principal artist N. M. Suetin) and New York (1939, principal artist N. M. Suetin).

In book design of the 1930’s, illustration, which set as its task the profound revelation of the plot and psychological motivations of the characters, came to be of prime importance. Oustanding book designs were created by A. M. Kanevskii, E. A. Kibrik, the Kukryniksy, K. I. Rudakov, V. A. Favorskii, and D. A. Shmarinov in the RSFSR, I. I. Izhakevich and V. I. Kasiian in the Ukraine, G. Abakeliia, L. Gudiashvili, S. Kobuladze, and I. Toidze in Georgia, and E. Kochar in Armenia. In the easel graphic arts of the period, a prominent position was occupied by the satirical compositions of B. E. Efimov, the Kukryniksy, N. E. Radlov, and K. P. Rotov, the color linocuts of I. A. Sokolov, the drawings of N. P. Ul’ianov, and the watercolors of A. V. Fonvizin (RSFSR) and by the engravings of D. Kutateladze (Georgia).

Sculpture was dominated by monumental works, partly because of the close relationship between sculpture and architecture in the design of the most important structures of the socialist epoch. World renown was attained by V. I. Mukhina’s work The Worker and the Female Kolkhoznik, a symbolically monumental sculpture that crowned the USSR pavilion at the 1937 world’s fair in Paris (now standing at the north entrance of the Exhibition of the Achievements of the National Economy of the USSR in Moscow). Numerous monuments and noteworthy examples of monumental decorative sculpture were also created by I. S. Efimov, M. G. Manizer, S. D. Merkurov, G. I. Motovilov, and N. V. Tomskii in the RSFSR, M. G. Lysenko in the Ukraine, Z. I. Azgur and A. O. Bembel’ in Byelorussia, P. Sabsai in Azerbaijan, and T. G. Abakeliia in Georgia. Archetypal images of contemporary man were created in freestanding sculpture (V. Ia. Bogoliubov, V. I. Ingal, V. A. Sinaiskii, and L. V. Shervud in the RSFSR), as well as in the portrait genre (B. D. Korolev, S. D. Lebedeva, V. I. Mukhina, and I. M. Chaikov in the RSFSR).

The art industry also developed intensively during the 1930’s (porcelain and faïence, glass, wallpaper, and textiles), retaining to a large extent the traditional art forms and styles of decoration. A great deal of organizational work was carried out in the folk-craft artels; for example, the system of training creative young people in specialized vocational-technical schools and technicums was greatly expanded. The art of lacquered miniatures was developed (N. P. Klykov in Mstera, K. V. Kosterin, S. A. Monin, and V. D. Puzanov in Kholui). The production of Dymkovo toys was revived in Dymkovo, near Viatka (E. A. Koshkina and A. A. Mezrina). Many talented creative individuals made themselves known in the most diverse folk arts, including N. S. Kurzin and A. I. Leznov (Zhostovo trays), Ia. A. Gerasimen’ko and I. T. Gonchar (Ukrainian ceramics), and M. P. Primachenko and G. F. Sobachko-Shostak (Ukrainian decorative paintings). Folk handicrafts, such as carpets, ceramics, and items of metal, wood, and bone, came to be used decoratively in large public buildings or exhibition ensembles.

During the Great Patriotic War (1941–45), hundreds of artists of various nationalities worked at the front and in the rear to aid in the mobilization of the army and the entire population to repel the enemy. A major role was played by the austere, dramatically tense works of graphic art. Artists developed all aspects of posters, political caricatures, and easel graphic arts, which became an active means in the ideological struggle against fascism. The militant traditions of Okna ROSTA were revived in the Okna TASS, created by such artists as the Kukryniksy, N. E. Radlov, G. K. Savitskii, M. M. Cheremnykh, and P. M. Shukhmin in the RSFSR, I. Akhundov in Azerbaijan, and L. Abdullaev and V. A. Rozhdestvenskii in Uzbekistan. Intensely patriotic, vividly emotional images were created in such printed posters as those by L. F. Golovanov, N. N. Zhukov, V. S. Ivanov, A. A. Kokorekin, V. B. Koretskii, and D. A. Shmarinov in the RSFSR, V. I. Kasiian in the Ukraine, and I. Toidze in Georgia. Political caricatures were widespread (L. G. Brodaty, Iu. A. Ganf, B. E. Efimov, and the Kukryniksy in the RSFSR and S. Arutchian in Armenia), as were agitational leaflets and the Boevoi Karandash posters, which were periodically published in Leningrad (I. S Astapov, V. I. Kurdov, G. N. Petrov, and N. A. Tyrsa), and the illustrated journals and newspapers from the front (O. G. Vereiskii, V. N. Goriaev, and B. I. Prorokov in the RSFSR). Unique among the various examples of wartime art were the series of easel drawings depicting the hard and heroic daily life at the front and in the rear (S. E. Boim, V. I. Kurdov, A. F. Pakhomov, L. V. Soifertis, and D. A. Shmarinov in the RSFSR). Numerous drawings from the front usually formed large cycles, such as those of V. V. Bogatkin, V. N. Goriaev, N. I. Dormidontov, N. N. Zhukov, A. V. Kokorin, and D. K. Mochal’skii in the RSFSR. Considerable successes were achieved in the easel graphic portrait and landscape, as well as in book illustration (G. S. Vereiskii, S. V. Gerasimov, A. D. Goncharov, F. D. Konstantinov, M. S. Rodionov, and V. A. Favorskii in the RSFSR). Many aspects of the war were truthfully portrayed in the best paintings of the period—in the thematic canvases of F. S. Bogorodskii, S. V. Gerasimov, A. A. Deineka, B. M. Nemenskii, V. G. Odintsov, A. A. Plastov, and the masters of the M. V. Grekov Studio of War Artists and in the portraits of Soviet soldiers, generals, and partisans by A. M. Gerasimov, P. I. Kotov, F. A. Modorov, I. A. Serebrianyi, Vladimir A. Serov, and B. N. Iakovlev. The patriotic upsurge of the Soviet people was also reflected in the landscapes of V. V. Meshkov, N. M. Romadin, and Ia. D. Romas, works permeated with a passionate love for the homeland, and in the historical paintings of M. I. Avilov, A. P. Bubnov, and N. P. Ul’ianov, among others.

Stage design continued developing, dominated by the heroic patriotic theme.

Of great importance for the sculpture of the wartime period was the portrait genre, especially the portraits by E. V. Vuchetich, V. I. Mukhina, and N. V. Tomskii in the RSFSR, Z. I. Azgur in Byelorussia, and Iu. I. Nikoladze in Georgia. The heroism of the people was also depicted by freestanding sculpture (E. F. Belashova, V. V. Lishev, and M. G. Manizer in the RSFSR).

Victory in the war and the subsequent restoration and further development of the national economy set new tasks before Soviet art. The organization of exhibitions increased, as did the propagandization of art (exhibitions of new works in individual oblasts and republics and periodic large, all-Union exhibitions). The rapidly developing national schools gained increasing importance, as did the work of artists of various krais and oblasts of the RSFSR. The Academy of Arts of the USSR, a scholarly and creative center of Soviet art, was established in 1947. In 1957, at the first congress of Soviet artists, the unified Artists’ Union of the USSR was founded.

In painting, the theme of war continued to occupy an important place in the postwar years. Along with battle paintings, epic in their imagery, there were lyrical and dramatic works, which in diverse ways depicted with great insight the daily lives of the Soviet people at the front and in the rear. The best historical paintings manifested a profound understanding of the role of the people in the Revolution and the desire to reveal the ideological meaning of historical events; such were the works of B. V. Ioganson and Vladimir A. Serov in the RSFSR, A. M. Lopukhov, G. S. Melikhov, and V. V. Shatalin in the Ukraine, A. Bekarian in Armenia, and O. Skulme in Latvia. Battle and genre paintings devoted to the events of the war years depicted with great emotion the wartime heroism and sufferings of the Soviet people; they included works by P. A. Krivonogov, A. I. Laktionov, B. M. Nemenskii, Iu. M. Neprintsev, and Vladimir A. Serov in the RSFSR, V. A. Kostetskii and V. G. Puzyr’kov in the Ukraine, and N. M. Voronov, V. P. Sukhoverkhov, and A. D. Shibnev in Byelorussia. Striving to reflect the postwar reality and the typical phenomena of the Soviet way of life in its national uniqueness among various peoples, canvases executed with a concern for verisimilitude and a sense of poetry were created by A. P. Levitan, D. K. Mochal’skii, A. A. Myl’nikov, A. A. Plastov, and F. P. Reshetnikov in the RSFSR, S. A. Grigor’ev and T. N. Iablonskaia in the Ukraine, R. V. Kudrevich in Byelorussia, N. I. Bakhchevan and M. E. Gamburd in Moldavia, M. Abdullaev in Azerbaijan, U. M. Dzhaparidze, A. Kutateladze, and R. Sturua in Georgia, O. Zardarian and E. Isabekian in Armenia, Z. Inogamov and N. V. Kashina in Uzbekistan, V. M. Boborykin in Tadzhikistan, E. M. Adamova and M. Daneshvar in Turkmenistan, E. Kalnins and A. Skride in Latvia, and E. Kits and R. Uutmaa in Estonia. Outstanding portraits of workers and cultural figures were created by V. P. Efanov, P. D. Korin, D. A. Nalbandian, V. M. Oreshnikov, and I. A. Serebrianyi in the RSFSR, M. M. Bozhii and A. A. Shovkunenko in the Ukraine, K. Magalashvili in Georgia, A. Abdullaev in Uzbekistan, A. Gudaitis in Lithuania, and R. Treuman in Estonia.

Important achievements marked the development of postwar landscape painting, which was dominated by epic and lyrical landscapes extolling the uniqueness and beauty of the countryside. Among the best landscapes of the period were those by S. V. Gerasimov, A. M. Gritsai, G. G. Nisskii, N. M. Romadin, Ia. D. Romas, B. Ia. Riauzov, and S. Kh. Iuntunen in the RSFSR, I. I. Bokshai, A. M. Kishshai, A. A. Kotskii, F. F. Manailo, S. F. Shishko, and I. N. Shtil’man in the Ukraine, V. K. Tsvirko in Byelorussia, S. Bakhlul-zade in Azerbaijan, G. Giurdzhian, Kh. Esaian, and M. S. Sar’ian in Armenia, A. Ismailov in Kazakhstan, U. Tansykbaev in Uzbekistan, G. Aitiev in Kirghizia, M. Khoshmukhammedov in Tadzhikistan, L. Svemps and K. Ubān in Latvia, and E. Kits and R. Sagrits in Estonia. Among the important examples of monumental decorative art of the period were the mosaics of A. A. Deineka and P. D. Korin for the Moscow subway, as well as the carvings in ganch (a binding material of gypsum and clay) by T. Aslankulov and A. Boltaev and the paintings (Ch. Akhmarov) in the Theater of Opera and Ballet in Tashkent.

Enriched by the experience of the wartime years, the mastery of the graphic artists of the late 1940’s and 1950’s was most vividly reflected in political graphic arts and book illustration. The struggle for peace was the subject of numerous works by L. G. Brodaty, Iu. A. Ganf, B. E. Efimov, the Kukryniksy, L. V. Soifertis, and other caricaturists, as well as the graphic arts compositions of B. I. Prorokov. In book graphic arts, where work was done by numerous creative individuals, great insight into the imagery of literary works and an understanding of psychological characterization were combined with a growing interest in uniting the individual illustrations into a unified whole. In the RSFSR outstanding book illustrators included O. G. Vereiskii, S. V. Gerasimov, D. A. Dubinskii, A. M. Kanevskii, E. A. Kibrik, and D. A. Shmarinov. Great successes were achieved in woodcuts for books, such as those by A. D. Goncharov, F. D. Konstantinov, M. I. Pikov, and V. A. Favorskii, and in illustrations for children’s books, especially those by Iu. A. Vasnetsov, V. M. Konashevich, V. V. Lebedev, A. F. Pakhomov, and E. M. Rachev. Such book illustrators as S. M. Pozharskii and S. B. Telingater did outstanding work, as did N. N. Volkov, A. V. Kokorin, A. M. Laptev, and N. A. Ponomarev in the easel graphic arts. Important examples of book and easel graphic arts were also created by M. G. Deregus, V. G. Litvinenko, A. S. Pashchenko, A. I. Reznichenko, and I. M. Selivanov in the Ukraine, M. Rakhman-zade in Azerbaijan, D. Gabashvili, V. Grigolia, and A. Shalikashvili in Georgia, V. Aivazian and G. S. Khandzhian in Armenia, K. Ia. Baranov and Kh. Kodzhikov in Kazakhstan, I. Ikramov and V. Kaidalov in Uzbekistan, L. A. Il’ina and A. N. Mikhalev in Kirghizia, B. I. Serebrianskii in Tadzhikistan, J. Kuzminskis, A. Kučas, and V. Jurkūnas in Lithuania, A. Apinis and P. Upītis in Latvia, and R. Kal’o (Kaljo), M. Laarman, E. Okas, G. Reindorff, and E. Einmann in Estonia.

The best stage sets help to reveal the meaning of the playwright and the composer, and at the same time they create the best possible conditions for the performers and for the realization of the coloristic and compositional-rhythmic integrity of the entire production. Such were the scenery and costumes designed by P. V. Vil’iams, B. I. Volkov, A. I. Konstantinovskii, V. F. Ryndin, and F. F. Fedorovskii in the RSFSR, A. G. Petritskii and F. F. Nirod in the Ukraine, O. P. Mariks, P. V. Maslennikov, and E. G. Chemodurov in Byelorussia, N. Fatullaev in Azerbaijan, S. Virsaladze and S. Kobuladze in Georgia, M. Arutchian in Armenia, P. Ia. Zal’tsman in Kazakhstan, and Ģ. Vilks, A. Lapiņš, and O. Skulme in Latvia. The art of designing sets for motion pictures continued to develop (M. A. Bogdanov and G. A. Miasnikov in the RSFSR).

The portrait remained one of the most important genres in sculpture in the late 1940’s and in the 1950’s. Monumental busts continued to be made for various cities and villages in accordance with governmental decrees on the erection of the busts in the hometowns of those who were twice and three-time Heroes of the Soviet Union and Heroes of Socialist Labor. Numerous monuments were also erected to commemorate important figures and events of the past, which constitute a unique chronicle of history and culture. The finest example of a memorial complex in the period was the memorial to the soldiers of the Soviet Army in Treptow Park in Berlin (1946–49, sculptor E. V. Vuchetich, architect Ia. B. Belopol’skii). Considerable renown was gained by the freestanding and monumental sculptures of M. K. Anikushin, E. F. Belashova, A. P. Kibal’nikov, S. T. Konenkov, S. D. Lebedeva, V. I. Mukhina, N. V. Tomskii, and V. E. Tsigal’ in the RSFSR, I. M. Gonchar, V. I. Znobaia, V. M. Klokov, A. A. Kovalev, M. G. Lysenko, A. P. Oleinik, and O. A. Suprun in the Ukraine, Z. I. Azgur in Byelorussia, L. I. Dubinovskii in Moldavia, F. Abdurakhmanov and P. V. Sabsai in Azerbaijan, and N. Kandelaki, K. Merabishvili, Sh. Mikatadze, Ia. I. Nikoladze, and V. Topuridze in Georgia. Equally noteworthy were similar sculptures by S. Bagdasarian, E. Kochar, A. Sarksian, S. Stepanian, A. Urartu, and G. Chubarian in Armenia, Kh. Naizbaev in Kazakhstan, F. I. Grishchenko in Uzbekistan, O. M. Manuilovaia in Kirghizia, P. Aleksandravičius, R. Antinis, J. Kédainis, J. Mikénas, N. Petrulis, B. Pundzius, and P. Rimša in Lithuania, A. Briede, J. Zariņš, and E. Melderis in Latvia, and E. Roos, A. Starkopf, and R. Timotheus in Estonia.

Decorative applied art was especially characterized by works made expressly for various exhibitions, such as porcelain and glass vases, multifigured ceramic compositions, and large carpets. At the same time, applied artists devoted increasing attention to improving the artistic quality of everyday items. Particularly outstanding were the ceramics of N. I. Bessarabov, P. V. Leonov, A. A. Leporskaia, S. M. Orlov, V. G. Filianskaia, and S. E. Iakovleva in the RSFSR, D. F. Golovko and E. S. Zhelezniak in the Ukraine, and G. Kartvelishvili and D. Tsitsishvili in Georgia. Noteworthy were the art glass of E. M. Krimmer, E. I. Rogov, and B. A. Smirnov in the RSFSR, the bone carvings of S. P. Evangulov in the RSFSR, and the textiles of S. A. Zaslavskaia, N. V. Kirsanova, T. K. Ozernaia, V. K. Skliarova, K. A. Shtikh, and E. Ia. Shumiatskaia in the RSFSR. A prominent place was occupied by items of the art industry of the Baltic Region, works distinguished by refined national originality. They include ceramics and glass by L. Dzeguze, G. G. Kruglov, R. Pancehovska, and Z. Ulste in Latvia, I. Mikénas and L. Strolis in Lithuania, and E. Piipuu, M. Roosma, and V. Eller in Estonia, embossed leather goods by E. Adamson-Eric and A. Reindorf in Estonia, and jewelry by E. Kurrel and H. Pihel’ga-Raud in Estonia. In the production of artistic handicrafts, examples of outstanding works were the lacquered miniatures by such masters as T. I. Zubkova and A. A. Kotukhina of Palekh, I. N. Morozov, I. A. Fomichev, and E. V. Iurin of Mstera, V. D. Lipitskii, S. P. Rogatov, and I. I. Strakhov of Fedoskino, and V. A. Belov and V. D. Puzanov-Molev of Kholui. Also outstanding were the embroidery of V. N. Kosnova and G. M. Dmitrieva-Shul’pina of Mstera and the rugs of N. E. Vovk in the Ukraine and L. Kerimov in Azerbaijan. Fine carved items of bone and expressive small-scale sculptures of bone, horn, stone, and other materials were created by the Kholmogory, Tobol’sk, Chukchi and other masters.

A new stage in the evolution of Soviet art was engendered by the implementation of the great program for the construction of a communist society. The main direction in the development of the artistic culture of a developed socialist society was defined by the Program of the CPSU as “the strengthening of the ties with the life of the people, the truthful and highly artistic reflection of the richness and diversity of the socialist reality, the inspired and vivid representation of what is new and genuinely communistic, and the exposure of all that which opposes the forward movement of society” (Programma KPSS, 1976, p. 131). Soviet art of the 1960’s and 1970’s was characterized by the intensive creative mutual enrichment of the national schools. Developing the method of socialist realism, the masters of the various republics, krais, and oblasts of the USSR combined international elements with forms that assimilated the richest traditions of the national artistic cultures. A marked trait of Soviet art of the 1960’s and 1970’s was the harmonious coexistence of various genres and art forms, ranging from the decorative applied arts to art forms that address major ideological problems. As a result, the prerequisites were created for the formation of an integrated aesthetic environment, encompassing all aspects of the spiritual and material life of the Soviet people. Along with artists who had consolidated their place in art as far back as the 1920’s, 1930’s, and 1940’s, outstanding new artists emerged, which resulted in a diversity of individual styles. A growing trend emerged toward the creation of significant archetypal images and a maximum utilization of the expressive possibilities of artistic form. In interpreting life, the artists combined romantic generalization with dramatic or intensely lyrical images. The decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU On Working With Creative Youth of Oct. 21, 1976, called attention to the necessity of further focusing the attention of party, state, and public organizations on the professional and ideological training of creative youth (Pravda, Oct. 21, 1976, p. 1)

The paintings of the 1960’s and 1970’s reflected the struggle of the people for communist ideals, the spiritual growth of the various peoples of the socialist community, the heroism of labor, and the diversity of life-styles in the USSR. They revealed a growing tendency toward vivid emotional imagery and greater artistic impact. The psychological expressiveness of rhythms and color also increased. Original developments were attained in historical-revolutionary and genre paintings, in paintings devoted to Soviet industrial development and urban and kolkhoz daily life, and in portraits. Outstanding representatives of these genres included D. D. Zhilinskii, V. F. Zagonek, V. I. Ivanov, L. V. Kabachek, G. M. Korzhev, Iu. P. Kugach, E. E. Moiseenko, D. K. Mochal’skii, P. P. Ossovskii, V. E. Popkov, D. K. Sveshnikov, A. P. Tkachev, S. P. Tkachev, and Iu. N. Tulin in the RSFSR, V. F. Zadorozhnyi, A. L. Nasedkin, V. V. Tokarev, K. V. Filatov, A. A. Khmel’nitskii, and V. A. Chekaniuk in the Ukraine, M. V. Dantsig and M. A. Savitskii in Byelorussia, M. G. Greku and V. G. Russu-Chobanu in Moldavia, N. Abdurakhmanov, A. Dzhafarov, T. Narimanbekov, and T. Salakhov in Azerbaijan, and A. Bandzeladze, G. Gelovani, E. Kalandadze, G. Kutateladze, Z. Nizharadze, and G. Toidze in Georgia. Equally noteworthy were M. Avetisian, L. Bazhbeuk-Melikian, A. Melkonian, S. Muradian, and M. Petrosian in Armenia, S. Aitbaev, S. Mambeev, and N.-B. Nurmukhammedov in Kazakhstan, R. Akhmedov, N. Kuzybaev, M. Saidov, G. Ul’ko, and R. Charyev in Uzbekistan, B. Dzhumabaev in Kirghizia, Z. Khabibulaev and Kh. Khushvakhtov in Tadzhikistan, D. Bairamov and I. Klychev in Turkmenia, S. Džiaukštas, V. Karataius, A. Savickas, and L. Tuleikis in Lithuania, B. Bērziņš, I. Zariņš, and E. Iltners in Latvia, and E. Allsalu and L. Muuga in Estonia. Among the finest landscape paintings were those by B. F. Domashnikov, E. I. Zver’kov, V. F. Stozharov, and V. Ia. Iukin in the RSFSR, V. K. Tsvirko in Byelorussia, and J. Švažas in Lithuania.

The intensive development of urban construction and architecture in the 1960’s and 1970’s opened up new artistic possibilities for monumental painting, whose techniques were enriched. Mosaics, compositions of majolica, wall paintings, and other monumental works, characterized by a symbolic generalization of images, played an ever-increasing role in the visual organization of wall surfaces, interior spaces, and sometimes even the overall architectural composition. The finest examples of monumental decorative painting were created by N. I. Andronov, A. V. Vasnetsov, Iu. K. Korolev, A. A. Myl’nikov, and B. A. Tal’berg in the RSFSR, E. I. Kotov, V. V. Mel’nichenko, and A. F. Rybachuk in the Ukraine, and N. Iu. Ignatov and Z. Tsereteli in Georgia. An important contribution to monumental decorative art was made by such masters of stained glass as K. Morkūnas and A. Stoskus in Lithuania. The development of new ways of designing museum exhibits and exhibitions and the emergence of new forms of visual propaganda were actively facilitated by masters of artistic design. Especially noteworthy were the Soviet pavilions at the world’s fairs in Brussels (1958, principal artist K. I. Rozhdestvenskii), Osaka (1970, principal artist K. I. Rozhdestvenskii), and Montreal (1967, principal artist R. R. Kliks), and the Soviet pavilion at Expo ’74 in Spokane, Wash. (1974, principal artist R. R. Kliks).

Stage design of the 1960’s and 1970’s was characterized by an awareness of spatial categories, an emphasis on the individual elements of a set, and exploitation of the emotional possibilities of color and lighting. This could be seen in the work of N. N. Zolotarev, E. G. Stenberg, and S. M. Iunovich in the RSFSR, A. Saidov in Azerbaijan, T. Mirzashvili and I. Sumbatashvili in Georgia, G. Ismailova in Kazakhstan, M. Iuldashev in Uzbekistan, A. Almamedov in Turkmenistan, and G. Zemgal in Latvia. In motion pictures, an intensification of the psychological and plastic expressiveness of the frame was facilitated by the motion-picture set designers B. K. Nemechek and K. A. Cherniaev in the RSFSR, F. A. Gamurar’ in Moldavia, and V. Kalinauskas and A. Ničius in Lithuania.

The graphic arts of the 1960’s and 1970’s were characterized by great ideological and philosophical complexity and by intense drama, sensitively responding to all the diverse phenomena of the surrounding reality. Prints occupied an important place not only in exhibitions but also in daily life. The book graphic arts, having overcome the gap between illustration and typographic design, strove for the internal unity and the mutual influence of all of a book’s elements. Many fine works in easel and book graphic arts were created by A. V. Borodin, D. S. Bisti, V. A. Vetrogonskii, I. V. Golitsyn, V. N. Goriaev, B. N. Ermolaev, G. F. Zakharov, N. V. Kuz’min, T. A. Mavrina, I. P. Obrosov, and A. A. Ushin in the RSFSR, A. G. Danchenko, V. S. Kutkin, N. A. Rodin, and G. V. Iakutovich in the Ukraine, E. G. Los’, G. G. Poplavskii, and N. N. Poplavskii in Byelorussia, I. T. Bogdesko and L. G. Grigorashenko in Moldavia, T. Kubaneishvili, M. Lolua, R. Tarkhan-Mouravi, and D. Eristavi in Georgia, E. M. Sidorkin in Kazakhstan, K. Basharov and T. Mukhamedov in Uzbekistan, V. Valius, R. V. Gibavičius, J. Žilyté, S. Krakauskas, A. Makūnaite, A. Skirutýté, and A. Steponavičius in Lithuania, G. Krollis and D. Rožkalns in Latvia, and V. Tolli and H. Eelma in Estonia. Poster art also continued to develop successfully, as exemplified by the works of S. I. Datskevich, V. S. Karakashev, O. M. Savostiuk, B. A. Uspenskii, and E. S. Tsvik in the RSFSR, E. Shakhtinskaia in Azerbaijan, L. Dundua in Georgia, and J. Galkus in Lithuania.

The best works of Soviet sculpture of the 1960’s and 1970’s were noted for the scope of human problems they sought to convey, by increased interest in the specific characteristics of the material, by the frequent use of romantic symbolism, and by strict constructivism of forms. In monumental sculpture, along with numerous traditional monuments, increasingly more majestic architectural and sculptural memorial structures were created in memory of the Soviet soldiers and the victims of the fascist terror. Consisting of complex, spatially developed groups of structures, sculptures, and landscaped areas, they include the memorial in the Piskarevskoe Cemetery in Leningrad (1960; sculptors V. V. Isaeva, R. K. Taurit, and others, architects A. V. Vasil’ev and E. A. Levinson), the memorials to the victims of fascist terror in Pirciupis (Lithuanian SSR, 1960; sculptor G. Jokûbonis [Iokubonis], architect V. Gabriunas), Salaspils (Latvian SSR, 1961–67; sculptors L. V. Bukovskii, J. Zarinš, and others, architects O. N. Zakamennyi and others), and Khatyn’ (Byelorussian SSR, 1968–69; sculptor S. I. Selikhanov, architects Iu. M. Gradov and others), the memorial complex at Mamaev Kurgan in Volgograd (1963–67; sculptors E. V. Vuchetich and others, architects Ia. B. Belopol’skii and V. Demin), the complex of memorial monuments and ensembles known as the Green Belt of Glory on the outskirts of the heroic defense of Leningrad (1964–67; overall design by the architects G. N. Buldakov, V. L. Gaikovich, and M. A. Sementovskaia), the Brest Hero-Fortress complex in Brest (1966–71; sculptors A. P. Kibal’nikov, A. O. Bembel’, and others, architects V. A. Korol’ and others), and the memorial to the defenders of Leningrad (1975; sculptor M. K. Anikushin, architect S. B. Speranskii). Major freestanding, monumental, and decorative sculptures were created by P. I. Bondarenko, L. N. Golovnitskii, V. V. Isaeva, O. K. Komov, G. F. Lankinen, Iu. G. Neroda, A. G. Pologova, I. A. Teneta, A. P. Faidysh-Krandievskii, and D. M. Shakhovskoi in the RSFSR, V. Z. Borodai, G. N. Kal’chenko, and D. P. Krvavich in the Ukraine, L. N. Gumilevskii and G. I. Muromtsev in Byelorussia, I. D. Kitman and K. S. Kobizeva in Moldavia, T. Mamedov and O. El’darov in Azerbaijan, and B. Avalishvili, E. Amashukeli, M. Berdzenishvili, E. Kakabadze, D. Mikatadze, and V. Oniani in Georgia. Also outstanding were the sculptures of A. Arutiunian, A. Grigorian, S. Manasian, and K. Nuridzhanian in Armenia, Kh. Naurzbaev in Kazakhstan, M. Musabaev in Uzbekistan, T. Sadykov in Kirghizia, K. Zhumagazin in Tadzhikistan, V. Vil’džiūnas, B. Vyšniauskas, and G. Jokūbonis in Lithuania, and V. Albergs, L. Bukovskii, and L. Dāvidova-Medene in Latvia.

The decorative applied arts were characterized by the intensive development of new forms and groupings of everyday objects, as well as by the development of the best possible methods of designing public interiors. New, simple, and formally refined small-scale furniture and other objects of everyday use were designed. The expressiveness of color and the variety of design of decorative fabrics were increased, as were the diversity and richness of rhythm, color, and form in decorative ceramics and art glass. The rich aesthetic possibilities inherent in the material and the technological process were revealed in various types of ceramics (V. S. Vasil’kovskii, I. E. Liass, V. N. Ol’shevskii, and V. N. Tsygankov in the RSFSR, N. Kiknadze, Sh. Narimanishvili, Zh. Pochkhidze, and R. Iashvili in Georgia, J. Adomonis and M. Vrubliauskas in Lithuania, and S. Ozolina in Latvia), art glass (G. A. Antonova, S. M. Beskinskaia, D. N. Shushkanov, L. N. Shushkanov, and E. I. Rogov in the RSFSR, M. A. Pavlovskii in the Ukraine, and V. S. Murakhver and S. Ia. Raudvee in Byelorussia), metal stamping, particularly developed in Georgia (K. Guruli, M. Kutateladze, and I. Ochiauri), and tapestry (A. A. Andreeva, N. M. Zhovtis, and A. L. Zabelina in the RSFSR, J. Balc̄ikonis, R. Blustova, E. Vīgnere, Z. Vogelene, and R. Jasudýte in Lithuania, R. Heimrät in Latvia, and M. Adamson, R. Reemets, E. Hansen, and L. Erm in Estonia). Along with new types of articles, traditional artistic items that retained elements of hand manufacture continued to be produced (the ceramics of Dagestan and Transcarpathia, the porcelain of Gzhel’, the painted items of Khokhloma, Dymkovo clay toys), imparting an individual expressiveness and warmth to contemporary residential interiors. Of great importance for the creation of favorable conditions for the further development of the traditional forms of decorative applied art was the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU of Feb. 27,1975, On the Folk Arts.

The artistic design of industrial products also developed fruitfully, facilitated by the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of Apr. 28, 1962, which obligated all ministries, departments, and organizations to “ensure the systematic improvement in the production quality of machine building and goods of cultural and everyday use by means of the extensive utilization of artistic design methods, allowing for the creation of inexpensive and beautiful items suitable for use.” The artistic design of industrial products was also encouraged by the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of Oct. 18,1968, On Improving the Utilization of the Achievements of Engineering Aesthetics in the National Economy, which served as an additional stimulus for the introduction of design methods into the art industry.

The party’s decisions have facilitated the strengthening of Soviet art’s ties with life, with the process of the construction of a communist society, and with the struggle for peace. Artists have focused on the moral ideals and ethical problems characteristic of the period of a developed socialist society. The importance of art in the people’s creative activity was manifested in the work of various artistic groups working in important sectors of the national economy and on thematic exhibitions. Among the most important such exhibitions were those held in Moscow: Fifty Years of Soviet Power (1967) and Glory to Labor! (1976), the latter devoted to the Twenty-fifth Congress of the CPSU. Similar exhibitions were organized in various cities and at enterprises, construction sites, kolkhozes, and sovkhozes.

The international ties of Soviet art have been expanding. Joint exhibitions have been organized, and exhibitions have been exchanged. The creative contacts of Soviet artists with leading artists of other socialist countries have been strengthened, as have been the ties with the representatives of progressive trends in art in the capitalist and developing countries.

1917–41. The Great October Socialist Revolution abolished private ownership of the tools and means of production as well as land and large-scale urban home ownership, and it laid the foundation for state planning of the national economy. In doing so, it shaped a radically new stage in the development of architecture and urban planning that corresponded to the interests of the people as a whole. The socioeconomic conditions engendered by the Revolution made it possible to solve major problems in urban planning and occasioned a need for the development of types of residential and public buildings that had not existed previously in the country—palaces of culture, workers’ clubs, kindergartens, and the like. The first architectural workshops in Moscow (under the direction of A. V. Shchusev) and Petrograd (under the direction of I. A. Fomin) were founded as early as 1918 and 1919; they provided centers for work on projects to standardize city plans and structures. Work was also begun on general plans for Yaroslavl and other cities. However, during the difficult years of the Civil War (1918–20) the creative activity of architects was limited primarily to design work, efforts to fulfill a plan calling for propaganda monuments, and the creation of competition projects for large-scale public buildings with new social purposes. Such projects vividly reflected the revolutionary scope and romanticism of the first years of Soviet power.

The end of the Civil War and the transition to the restoration of the national economy paved the way for implementation of the GOELRO plan, drawn up in 1920. Major construction projects of the period included the Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant (1918, 1921–26; architects O. R. Munts and V. A. Pokrovskii; engineers G. O. Graftio and others), the Zemo-Avchaly Hydroelectric Power Plant in Georgia (first stage, 1923–27; architects A. N. Kal’gin and others), and other electric power plants. These projects were among the first wprks of Soviet industrial architecture. The Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant represented one of the first examples of complex construction, with hydraulic engineering structure and an attached workers’ settlement.

In the mid-1920’s considerable housing construction was undertaken in the country’s major industrial centers. Such construction helped resolve an important social problem by transforming poorly organized workers’ suburbs into beautiful, comfortable districts with kindergartens and nurseries, schools, and medical, cultural, and educational facilities. An example is the reconstruction of part of the Narva Gate district in Leningrad. There, on Tractornaia Street and in other sections, the years 1925–27 witnessed the building of multistory apartment houses (architects A. S. Nikol’skii, A. I. Gegello, G. A. Simonov) and a school (architects Nikol’skii and others); between 1929 and 1931 a large restaurant and department store complex was added (architects A. K. Barutchev and I. A. Gil’ter). Workers’ districts were also reconstructed in other cities: in Moscow—apartment complexes in the Dubrovskie Streets district (1926–27; architects M. I. Motylev, D. N. Molokov, and A. V. Iuganov) and the former Dangauerovka area (1929–35; architects Motylev and B. N. Blokhin; engineers V. Kardo-Sysoev and others); in Baku—the S. Shaumian Settlement (1921–30; architect A. V. Samoilov); and in the Donets Coal Basin. In 1923 the All-Russian Agricultural and Domestic Industrial Exhibition was opened in Moscow. Under the direction of architects I. V. Zholtovskii and Shchusev, a bright and festive complex of wood pavilions and structures was created, in which the imaginative use of wood structural components was combined with traditional forms drawn from the national architectures of the peoples of the USSR and with new architectural devices.

In the course of socialist industrialization during the first five-year plan (1929–32), intensive construction projects were begun on numerous industrial enterprises, mines, and large-scale hydroelectric power plants. Prominent examples include the Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical combines, the Volgograd, Cheliabinsk, and Kharkov tractor plants, the Moscow Ball Bearing Plant, and the Urals Heavy Machine-building Plant. It was in these early years that a fundamentally new genre of architecture used for industrial buildings was formed; the new manner of execution devoted greater attention to building areas designed for everyday use, such as dining rooms, shower rooms, and the like, thus improving working conditions. An important achievement of architecture and construction technology was the construction of the V. I. Lenin Dneproges (1927–32; architects A. A. Vesnin, K. A. Vesnin, L. A. Vesnin, S. G. Andrievskii, N. Ia. Kolli, and G. M. Orlov; engineer I. G. Aleksahdrov). The laconic, functional architecture of the power plant presented a striking image of a mighty, hydraulic engineering structure. As large-scale industrial construction continued, a number of large, specialized design organizations were established, including the Institute for the Design of Machine-building Plants (Gipromash), the Institute for the Design of Metallurgical Plants (Gipromez), and the Gidroproekt Institute. Such organizations facilitated the rapid professional growth of staffs of engineers and architects working in industrial construction (I. S. Nikolaev, E. M. Popov, A. S. Fisenko, and many others).

Industrialization brought about rapid growth in old cities of medium size, with the result that often their former appearance was almost totally changed. Typical of such transformation were Dzerzhinsk (architect O. A. Sergeev), Zaporozh’e (architect 1.1. Malozemov), Karaganda (architect A. I. Kuznetsov), and Novokuznetsk (architect B. E. Svetlichnyi). Komsomol’sk-na-Amure (architect B. I. Danchich) was only one of many new cities that arose during the period of industrialization. Along with Moscow and Leningrad, a great deal of reconstruction work was done in Sverdlovsk (in accordance with the general plan of 1926–27; architects S. V. Dombrovskii and others) and Yerevan (general plan of 1924; architect A. I. Tamanian).

The reconstruction of old cities and the construction of new ones was carried out on the basis of general plans for the future development of population centers, as calculated for a period of 20–25 years. The development of such plans necessitated the establishment of large institutes for urban planning, such as Giprogor in Moscow and Leningrad and Giprograd in Kharkov, together with architectural planning boards located in a number of major cities. Areas offering the most favorable public health conditions were selected for new construction projects. Similar requirements were also taken into account in the planning of cities on the basis of compiled standards for structural density and in the landscaping of minimum intervals between apartment blocks and industrial enterprises. In addition to new housing, other construction projects included schools, kindergartens, stores, clubs, and other cultural establishments and service facilities; parks and squares were created, and new water-supply and sewerage systems were constructed. Apartment houses with a total area of 56.9 million sq m were built during the first five-year plan.

Major public buildings constructed during the period included the M. Gorky Palace of Culture (1925–27; architects Gegello and D. L. Krichevskii) and the building of the Kirov Raion soviet (1930–35; architect N. A. Trotskii) in Leningrad; the V. I. Lenin Institute (now the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, 1924–27; architect S. E. Chernyshev), the Izvestiia newspaper building (1925–27; architect G. B. Barkhin), the Pravda newspaper complex (1929–35; architect P. A. Golosov), the first stage of the Palace of Culture of Proletarskii Raion (now the Palace of Culture of the I. A. Likhachev Automotive Plant, 1930–1934; architects the Vesnin brothers) in Moscow; and the Gosprom Building (1925–29; architects S. S. Serafimov and others) and the Palace of Culture of Railroad Workers (completed 1932; architect A. I. Dmitriev) in Kharkov. Increased attention was devoted to the construction of industrial plant and village clubs; considerable inventiveness in their design can be seen in K. S. Mel’nikov’s Rusakov Club (1927–29) and Kauchuk Plant Club (1927) and in I. A. Golosov’s Zuev Club (1928, all in Moscow). Many of these buildings demonstrate a contrasting and at times somewhat schematic juxtaposition of large, geometric blank wall planes and glass surfaces; the asymmetrical, functional arrangement of spaces is a trait of constructivism, one of the trends in Soviet architecture during the period. An outstanding work of Soviet architecture was the Lenin Mausoleum (built of wood in 1924 and replaced with stone during the period 1929–30; architect Shchusev). The mausoleum has become integral to the architectural ensemble that arose in Red Square in the course of several centuries, and it defines the new ideological and artistic content of its setting.

The new path of Soviet architecture was crowned with achievements, but it exhibited some shortcomings as well, such as monotonous rows of buildings in new residential districts and an urban management in old cities that failed to keep pace with the rapidly growing needs of the population. In 1931 the Plenum of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) adopted a broad program of measures for the reconstruction of the urban economy of Moscow and other cities. Its decisions exerted a positive influence on the development of urban planning.

Soviet architecture developed amid an acute struggle between architectural factions, the most active of which were ASNOVA (Association of New Architects, founded 1923) and OSA (Association of Contemporary Architects, founded 1925). Members of ASNOVA (N. A. Ladovskii, V. F. Krinskii, and others) proclaimed the necessity for a complete change in the formal structure of architecture on the basis of newly available building materials and structural elements and a synthesis of the arts; in practice, however, many adhered to formalist views. Members of OSA proposed what they termed the functional method, based on a comprehensive consideration of the functional purpose of building and the use of new structural components and materials. In their work, the leading members of OSA (the Vesnin brothers, M. Ia. Ginzburg, and others) ascribed great importance to the ideological-artistic aspect of architecture, but many other followers of constructivism undervalued this aspect and ignored their architectural heritage—the national originality of architecture. At times they also failed to consider the economic and technical requirements of construction. Some architects of the older generation (Zholtovskii, I. A. Fomin, V. A. Shchuko, and others) strove to make creative use of the heritage of classical architecture. Such efforts usually led to archaisms and contradictions between the form and the new content of buildings.

The decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) On the Restructuring of Literary and Artistic Organizations (1932) put an end to the factional isolation of the architects, by bringing them together in the integrated Soviet Architects’ Union. From 1931 to 1933 competition for architect’s plans for the Palace of Soviets in Moscow played an important role in defining the creative thrust of Soviet architecture. A decree of the Council on the Construction of the Palace of Soviets regarding the second stage of the competition called for creative use of the best approaches of classical and modern architecture and the achievements of modern construction technology. The design submitted by architects B. M. Iofan, V. G. Gel’freikh, and Shchuko, which was subsequently accepted for construction, drew extensively from the heritage of world architecture. These design traits exerted a great influence on the formation of Soviet architecture from the second half of the 1930’s to the early 1950’s.

The 1930’s were marked by the intensive construction of new cities and the reconstruction of old ones. Among the new cities that arose during the period were Elektrostal’, Moscow Oblast (general plan 1938; architects Kuznetsov and A. N. Karnaukhov), and Monchegorsk, Murmansk Oblast (general plan 1937; architects S. E. Brovtsev and others). Representative of the new urban planning is Dushanbe, the capital of the Tadzhik SSR, which was rapidly transformed from a hamlet into a large, modern, well-landscaped city of great beauty (general plan 1937; architects N. V. Baranov and V. A. Gaikovich).

Of vital importance to the development of urban planning was the decree of the Central Committee of the ACP(B) and the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR of July 10, 1935, On the General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow, which laid out the basic principles of the socialist reconstruction of cities. The general plan (architects V. N. Semenov and Chernyshev) called for limitations on the city’s growth, reduced construction density in heavily built-up districts, and a new planned organization of residential districts, with nurseries, parks, schools, and other service facilities for residents. Retaining the city’s historical radial-ring street plan, the new plan included extensive reconstruction of existing streets, the creation of new thoroughfares, landscaping, and general improvements for the city. A forest park belt was planned to extend around Moscow. The water supply and sewerage systems were almost completely reconstructed. The construction of the Moskva-Volga Canal (now the Moscow Canal, 1932–37; architects A. M. Rukhliadev, Krinskii, and V. Ia. Movchan) solved the problem of the capital’s water supply and rendered the Moskva River navigable. Bridges built between 1936 and 1939 included the Krymskii (architect A. V. Vlasov, engineer B. P. Konstantinov), the Bol’shoi Kamennyi (architects Shchuko and Gel’freikh, engineer N. Ia. Kalmykov), and the Moskvoretskii (architect Shchusev, engineer V. S. Kirillov).

Old Moscow, with its chaotic construction along narrow streets, was transformed into a city of spacious thoroughfares, squares, and esplanades. Manezhnaia Square (now the 50-letiia Oktiabria Square) was built, and Okhotnyi riad (Hunters’ Row) was completely reconstructed (it is now part of Marx Prospect) to incorporate the Hotel Moskva (1932–38; architects Shchusev, O. A. Stapran, and L. I. Savel’ev) and the building of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR (now the State Planning Committee of the USSR, 1932–36; architect A. Ia. Langman). Major thoroughfares reconstructed during the period included Gorky Street (architects A. G. Mordvinov and others), Bol’shaia Kaluzhskaia Street (now part of Lenin Prospect, 1939–40; architects G. P. Gol’ts, Mordvinov, and D. N. Chechulin), and Pervaia Meshchanskaia Street (now part of Mir Prospect). Between 1935 and 1941, Moscow witnessed the construction of housing with a total area of 5.2 million sq m, kindergartens and crèches with a total capacity of nearly 50,000, and more than 400 schools. Major buildings erected during the period included the new buildings of the Lenin Library (construction begun 1928, completed 1958; architects Shchuko and Gel’freikh), the M. V. Frunze Military Academy (1937; architects L. V. Rudnev and V. O. Munts), and the Theater of the Soviet Army (1934–40; architects K. S. Alabian and V. N. Simbirtsev). The construction of the city’s subway (the first section went into operation in 1935) represented a great achievement. Among the system’s finest stations are the Krasnye Vorota (now Lermontovskaia, 1935) and Sverdlov Square (1938; both by architect I.A. Fomin and others), Palace of Soviets (now Kropotkinskaia, 1935; architects A. N. Dushkin and Ia. G. Likhtenberg), and Mayakovsky (1938–39; architect Dushkin). The complex of the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition was also built during the period.

The general plan for the reconstruction of Moscow prompted elaboration of a general plan for the development of Leningrad (1935–36, architects L. A. Il’in and V. A. Vitman; 1938–1940, architects Baranov and A. I. Naumov). In Leningrad there was no need for a radical reconstruction of the center of the city, and the new construction developed on vacant sites in the southern and eastern districts: Moscow Prospect (architects Gegello, G. A. Simonov, and Trotskii), Malaia Okhta (architects Simonov and B. R. Rubanenko), Shchemilovka (architects E. A. Levinson and I. I. Fomin), and Avtovo (architects A. A. Ol’ and S. M. Brovtsev). Between 1933 and 1941, housing construction in Leningrad totaled 1.6 million sq m. Other projects included 221 schools, kindergartens, and crèches with a capacity of almost 30,000; the House of Soviets (1936–40; architects Trotskii and others); and the buildings of the Moscow Raion soviet (1930–35) and the Nevsky Raion soviet (1937–40; both by architects I. I. Fomin and others).

In all, hundreds of cities underwent reconstruction, including the capitals of the Union republics and major industrial centers. General plans were implemented for the development of Kharkov (1934; architects A. M. Kas’ianov and others), Tbilisi (1934; architects Malozemov, E. Kurdiani, and G. Gogava), Baku (1937; architects Baranov, V. A. Gaikovich, and Il’in), Yerevan (1936; architects Malozemov, N. Zagarian, and S. Klevitskii), Gorky (1937; architects N. A. Solofnenko and others), Yaroslavl (1936–37; architects Baranov and V. A. Gaikovich), Kazan (1936–37; architect I. S. Nosov), Cheliabinsk (1937; architects Vitman and others), Minsk (approved 1938; architects Vitman and Iu. M. Kilovatov), and Tashkent (1938; architects Kuznetsov and others). Projects were also undertaken to transform the resorts of the Caucasus and the southern shore of the Crimea.

The amount of housing construction was increased. During the second five-year plan residential projects undertaken totaled 67.3 million sq m. In 1936 the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the ACP(B) passed the decree On Improving Construction and Reducing Construction Costs. Industrial methods of erecting buildings were developed, based on the manufacture of standardized structural elements (stairways, roof sections, and the like), the use of high-speed assembly-line methods in construction, and the concentration of apartment houses in large complexes; the new methods made it possible to shorten construction times and reduce costs. The number of apartments served by a stairway landing (formerly only two) was increased (to four-six), as was the depth of apartment buildings, and utility equipment and finishing were improved. In Moscow and Leningrad construction of large apartment complexes began during the second and third five-year plans.

Between 1933 and 1940, construction of large public buildings assumed major proportions–24,103 schools were built to accommodate 7,169,000 students, and new kindergartens and crèches offered a total capacity of 420,000. Prominent among the many large-scale public buildings erected during the period are the building of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR in Kiev (1936–39; architect V. I. Zabolotnyi) the building of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR in Kiev (1934–38; architects I. A. Fomin and P. V. Abrosimov), the Georgian branch of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Tbilisi (1938; architect Shchusev), the administration building in Sochi (1934–36; architect Zholtovskii), Government House of the Armenian SSR in Yerevan (1926–41; architects A. I. Tamanian and G. A. Tamanian), the Nizami Museum in Baku (completed in the 1940’s; architects S. A. Dadashev and M. A. Useinov), Government House of the Byelorussian SSR in Minsk (1930–33; architect I. G. Langbard), and Government House of the Tadzhik SSR in Dushanbe (completed 1948–49; architects S. L. Anisimov and others). The architecture of the Soviet Pavilion at the 1937 Paris Exposition impressively reflected the greatness of the first country of socialism (architect Iofan, sculptor Mukhina).

It was the exteriors of public buildings that gave fullest expression to the era’s characteristic striving for an ideological and artistic expressiveness in Soviet architecture, based on the classical heritage and the traditions of national architecture. However, careless treatment of historical architectural forms often led to archaism, extremes of monumentalism, the mechanical use of excessive decorative elements, ponderous facades, a schematization of functional solutions for public buildings, and, as a result, to inconvenience of use and increased construction costs.

During the second and third five-year plans there was a growing volume of construction of new, large-scale industrial enterprises and transportation and hydraulic engineering facilities. Radical reconstruction work continued on the Moscow Automotive Plant (architectural plans, E. M. Popov and others), and new construction projects included the Gorky Automotive Plant (architectural director A. S. Fisenko), the Stalingrad Tractor Plant (architectural director I. S. Nikolaev), the White Sea-Baltic Canal, and a number of hydroelectric power plants. Metal structural components and precast, reinforced concrete enjoyed wider use, the layout and landscaping of factory premises were improved, and better solutions were found to problems in urban planning. Such advances facilitated a synthesis in the planning and construction of industrial enterprises together with the surrounding urban districts.

New types of residential, public, and farm structures came into use in rural areas in the 1930’s. Design bureaus created standardized plans for livestock buildings. The Gigant Grain Sovkhoz (designed 1928; architects E. I. Ermishantsev and Golosov) was one of the first complexes to include structures for large-scale agricultural production together with a well laid-out residential settlement.

After 1941. During the initial period of the Great Patriotic War of 1941–45, the principal tasks of architecture were to accelerate the construction of industrial buildings to house production enterprises transferred to the East and to produce housing for the workers. Soviet architects shifted to the use of locally available building materials and developed economical, standardized housing sections and lightweight wooden and stone structural components for buildings. Wooden housing construction was also improved. In Moscow, despite wartime difficulties, two new subway lines were put into operation in 1943 and 1944. During the war fascist invaders destroyed hundreds of cities and more than 70,000 settlements and villages. Approximately 25 million people lost their homes, and such major cities as Stalingrad, Minsk, Sevastopol’, Novgorod, Vitebsk, Pskov, and Velikie Luki were left in ruins. Leningrad, Kharkov, Rostov-on-Don, and Kiev were subjected to especially heavy destruction. In all, 82,000 schools and 40,000 hospitals, polyclinics, and other medical institutions were destroyed, together with 44,000 theaters, clubs, and houses of culture. Many architectural landmarks were destroyed in Leningrad and its suburbs, Moscow Oblast, Novgorod, Pskov, Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, Riga, and Vilnius.

Restoration of the cities and settlements, which began even before the war’s end, marked a brilliant stage in the history of Soviet architecture and urban planning. In 1944, after the siege of Leningrad was lifted, the State Defense Committee promulgated high-priority measures for the restoration of the city. The State Committee on Architecture of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR was established in 1944 to provide better organization and execution of construction projects. In 1945 the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR passed a decree on urgent measures required for the restoration of the 15 largest and oldest Russian cities; the development of general plans for these was entrusted to such prominent Soviet architects as Alabian, Baranov, Vlasov, G. P. Gol’ts, Iofan, Kolli, Rudnev, V. N. Semenov, and Shchusev. General plans for 250 other cities were also developed. The ruined structures and building complexes were not simply to be rebuilt. Rather, the reconstruction process was a creative one, as a result of which the cities were made more beautiful and convenient for the population, landscaped areas were increased, and improvements were made in the organization of city traffic, transportation, engineering equipment, and other facilities.

As early as the second half of 1942, Leningrad architects, under the direction of Baranov, began developing a plan for the restoration and further development of their city; the plan was essentially completed in 1944. New architectural complexes were created on the sites of ruins, improving the city’s appearance; the center of Leningrad was developed along the Malaia Neva River to the Gulf of Finland and upriver as far as the former Alexander Nevsky Monastery; the Finland Station area was also reconstructed. The Lenin Square complex was created on the bank of the Neva, and Revolution Square was rebuilt (both by architects Baranov, N. G. Ageeva, and O. I. Gur’ev). Other reconstruction projects included the Smolny area (architects D. S. Gol’dgor, M. K. Benua, and I. I. Fomin), the Inzhenernyi Zamok district and the Arts Square complex (architects Baranov, E. I. Katonin, and V. D. Kirkhoglani), and the Hippodrome district (architect Gegello). New housing districts sprung up where Primorskii Prospect (architects Baranov, Gur’ev, and Ageeva) and Engels Prospect (architects A. K. Barutchev and V. F. Belov) were constructed, and construction on Stachki Prospect (architects V. A. Kamenskii and others) was completed. Large parks created under the plan included the Victory Parks—the Primorskii (architects Nikol’skii and others) and the Moscow (architects Katonin and Kirkhoglani). By 1955 the first section of the city’s subway was finished. As early as 1944 and 1945, 1,568,000 sq m of housing area had been restored; between 1946 and 1955, 5.4 million sq m of housing was built or restored.

In Volgograd, the general plan for the restoration of the “city (1945; architects Alabian, Simbirtsev, and N. Kh. Poliakov) provided for broad access to the Volga (the city had previously been cut off from the river by industrial enterprises and landings). Beautification projects included the artistic, well-landscaped complex of the Square of Fallen Fighters (Pavshie Bortsy) and the main esplanade, with its parade descent to the Volga (architects Simbirtsev and I. E. Fialko). The city’s central district was built up with a complex of multistory apartment houses and public buildings. Similarly, in Sevastopol’, which was rebuilt almost from the ground up, new architectural complexes of squares and streets were successfully integrated with the landscape and given excellent siting from the sea side (detailed plan for the city’s center by architects L. M. Poliakov and others; general plan of 1946 by architects V. M. Artiukhov and Iu. A. Trautman). Minsk was completely transformed by new planning approaches and construction in the central district. A system of impressive architectural complexes and a large park (in the Svisloch’ River valley) were created along Lenin Prospect, and a new square was built in front of the station (architects M. P. Parusnikov, V. A. Korol’, and B. R. Rubanenko).

Large-scale projects were carried out to restore Kiev and completely rebuild the Kreshchatik, the city’s main thoroughfare. The new Kreshchatik (1947–54; architects Vlasov, A. V. Dobrovol’skii, V. D. Elizarov, B. I. Priimak, and A. I. Malinovskii) lent great beauty to the city and enhanced the city’s center. Major landscaping projects in Kiev included the Botanical Garden (architects Vlasov and others).

In Moscow new integrated housing, combining apartments and buildings providing cultural and living services, was primarily concentrated in large, vacant areas, in the Peschanye Streets district (architects Z. M. Rozenfel’d and others) and in the southwestern section (architects Vlasov and B. S. Mezentsev). Moscow was also the site of the country’s first high-rise buildings: the administration building on Smolensk Square (1948–52; architects Gel’freikh and M. A. Minkus), apartment houses on the Kotel’nicheskaia Esplanade (1948–52; architects D. N. Chechulin and A. K. Rostkovskii) and Vosstanie (Uprising) Square (1950–54; architects M. V. Posokhin and A. A. Mndoiants), the administration-apartment building on Lermontov Square (1948–53; architects Dushkin and Mezentsev), the building of Moscow State University (1949–53; architects Rudnev, Chernyshev, Abrosimov and A. F. Khriakov), and the Hotel Ukraina (1957; architect A. G. Mordvinov). Situated at key points in the city, the new high-rise buildings blended naturally with the planned structure of the capital, emphasizing the city’s radial-ring street plan and contributing a general form to the city’s architectural layout. The erection of high-rise buildings facilitated very rapid progress in construction techniques; however, some buildings exhibited fundamental shortcomings with respect to function and economy.

Beginning in 1948, as brickyards and other enterprises in the building materials industry were restored, there was an increase in the construction of multistory apartment buildings and a development of large-block construction. These trends, which began in the prewar years, were in evidence both in Moscow (architects A. K. Burov and B. N. Blokhin) and in Leningrad (architects S. V. Vasil’kovskii and I. M. Chaiko). The first multistory, large-panel apartment buildings, erected in Magnitogorsk and Moscow in the mid-1950’s (engineer G. F. Kuznetsov, architects L. M. Vrangel’ and others), lent impetus to the subsequent industrialization of housing construction. Between 1946 and 1955, restored and newly built apartment houses totaled 441 million sq m of living space. During the same period wide use was made of the principles of standardized design, on the basis of which complex series of standardized plans were developed for one-, two-, and three-story apartment houses (architects D. S. Meerson and S. P. Turgenev). The introduction of standardized plans made it possible to accelerate the restoration of ruined cities and the construction of new ones. The fourth and fifth five-year plans saw the construction of 10,164 schools with a total capacity of 3,093,000 students, kindergartens and nurseries with a capacity of 518,000 children, and hospitals and polyclinics with 140,000 beds.

During the postwar decade construction work was completed on a number of large public buildings and structures. Work also commenced on several new projects: the S. M. Kirov Stadium in Leningrad (capacity approximately 100,000 spectators, 1932–50; architects Nikol’skii and others), the A. Navoi Theater of Opera and Ballet in Tashkent (1,200 seats, 1938–47; architect Shchusev), Government House of the Georgian SSR in Tbilisi (1938–53; architects V. D. Kokorin and G. Lezhava), Government House of the Azerbaijan SSR in Baku (1952; architects Rudnec and V. O. Munts), the large, enclosed Central Market in Yerevan (1952; architect G. G. Agababian), and the building of the S. Aini Theater of Opera and Ballet in Dushanbe (1939–46; architects D. I. Bilibin, V. D. Golli, and A. A. lunger). The V. I. Lenin Volga-Don Ship Canal and the Tsimliansk Hydroengineering Complex (1948–52; architectural design by L. M. Poliakov and others) were quickly completed, and in 1951 construction began on the immense V. I. Lenin Volga Hydroelectric Power Plant near Kuibyshev (architectural design by R. A. Iakubov and others).

The restoration of rural populated areas was essentially completed by 1950. Individual one-story houses made of precut logs were used for early construction projects, and construction on kolkhozes and, particularly, sovkhozes was gradually organized according to specially developed general plans. In some villages, such as Nekrasovo, Kalinin Oblast (architect V. S. Riazanov), and the Karavaevo Sovkhoz, Kostroma Oblast (1945; architects V. A. Ostroumov and others), residential, public, and agricultural buildings were built from individual designs. The production areas of the Adler, Gagra, and Khosta sovkhozes (1948–51; architects T. I. Makarychev and others) successfully combined functionalism with architectural aesthetics. The increased construction of schools and clubs (usually according to standardized plans) had a noticeable influence on the general appearance of rural populated areas.

The first phase of restoring the country’s 6,200 largest industrial enterprises was completed by 1950, and the results reflected the level of engineering progress attained at the time; the first phase also included transportation facilities and the major share of ruined apartment houses and public buildings. New cities came under construction: Rustavi, Georgian SSR (begun 1944; architects M. N. Neprintsev and others), Kohtla-Järve, Estonian SSR (begun 1946), and Angarsk, Irkutsk Oblast (begun 1948; both by architects E. Ia. Vitenberg and others), Sumgait, Azerbaijan SSR (begun 1949; architects O. M. Isaev and others), and Novaia Kakhovka, Ukrainian SSR (1952; architects A. D. Motorin and others). The postwar decade was also marked by large-scale projects for the restoration of architectural landmarks, and many city kremlin complexes were restored.

The immense projects devoted to the restoration of populated areas marked a new, more mature phase of development in Soviet urban planning and architecture; they brilliantly embodied the principles of socialist urban planning and construction. Despite such achievements, however, the general artistic trend in architecture came increasingly into conflict with genuine socioeconomic needs and with the achievements of technical progress in construction. The ubiquitous, often automatic use of historical and ostentatious architectural forms was alien to the purpose of modern buildings and structures. It impeded the introduction of standardization for residential, public, and industrial buildings, and it retarded the development of large-panel construction for apartment buildings. There was an increasingly urgent need for a decisive restructuring of the stylistic direction of architecture and for establishment of the prerequisites necessary to shift construction to an industrial basis. The All-Union Conference of Builders and Architects (December 1954), the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR On Eliminating Superfluity in Planning and Construction (1955), and the Second All-Union Congress of Architects (1955) were devoted to the problems of restructuring the creative work of architects, and they outlined the further development of architecture on the basis of an extensive industrialization of construction. An important role in the theory and practice of architecture was played by the All-Union Conference on Urban Planning, held in 1960 on the initiative of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR. The conference discussed the most essential problems of urban planning and construction and determined progressive solutions.

There ensued a new period of development in urban planning and architecture, based on wide-scale application of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution. The most substantial successes were achieved during the 1960’s and 1970’s. During the period long-range forecasts were drawn up for the development of urban planning, a basis for regional planning was worked out on a country-wide scale, and the methods of group settlement were introduced, especially in regions where large-scale production and energy complexes were under construction. In the cities, newly conceived principles of spatial planning found application in the creation of combined industrial-residential districts and a graduated system of organizing housing construction in neighborhood units (mikroraions). Consideration was given to the dynamic, long-range development of cities through long-term projects to reconstruct old city centers and create new ones, and more effective measures were taken to preserve valuable architectural and natural environments. A great deal of attention was devoted to the problem of improving public health and maintaining healthful air quality, especially in the major cities (Moscow, for example, ranks very high among world capitals with regard to public services, amenities, and air quality).

The extremely rapid development of the country’s productive forces led to the intensive construction of new cities (99 cities were built between 1971 and 1976) where industrial, mass housing, and civil construction developed. Among the new cities were Bratsk (architects Kh. A. Butusov and Ia. G. Grozdovskii), Zelenograd, near Moscow (architects I. E. Rozhin, and I. A. Pokrovskii), the research community of the Siberian Division of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Novosibirsk (architects M. A. Belyi and A. S. Mikhailov), Navoi, Uzbek SSR (architects A. V. Korotkov, I. B. Orlov, and N. I. Simonov), Shevchenko, Kazakh SSR (architects I. B. Orlov, N. I. Simonov, and G. M. Vylegzhanin), Tol’iatti, Kuibyshev Oblast (architects B. R. Rubanenko, V. A. Shkvarikov, and E. I. Kutyrev), Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatar ASSR (architects Rubanenko, and Kutyrev), Ust’-Ilimsk, Irkutsk Oblast (architects V. I. Smirnov and others), and Nizhnevartovsk (architects E. V. Chapkin and others) and Nadym (architects E. S. Kuntsman, and V. I. Laponogov) in Tiumen’ Oblast.

Greater attention was also paid to natural climatic conditions. For example, Navoi and Shevchenko border on the deserts of Central Asia and thus have a hot, dry climate; there the urban areas were landscaped with greenery and were irrigated, and large installations for the desalinization of seawater were built in Shevchenko. Architects explored various new approaches to strengthening structures to protect them from high winds and snow loads; the new methods were used in areas with a very cold climate—in Surgut, Nizhnevartovsk, and Nadym, in the northern part of Tiumen’ Oblast; and on the banks of the Angara in Ust’-Ilimsk and other northern cities.

In urban planning the principle of creating mikroraions proved valid. The approach made it possible to plan the most suitable conditions for the everyday lives of the residents, their way of life, and the care and education of children of preschool and school age. The planned size of mikroraions depends on the size of the city, the population density, and the number of stories in apartment buildings: mikroraions ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 residents are planned for small and medium-sized cities, and those in larger cities have 20,000 residents. This allows housing to be situated near preschool institutions, schools, stores, and other facilities providing everyday services, and at the same time the mikroraions can be isolated from the flow of urban transportation.

The new construction exhibited a heightened aesthetic expressiveness. The monotonous stringing together of standardized designs and the piecework appearance of individual designs gradually gave way to the formation of architectural complexes in which equal consideration is given to large residential buildings, smaller apartment houses, and industrial buildings.

Extensive urban-planning projects were carried out in Moscow, where annual housing construction reached 5 million sq m (113,000 apartments) during the period 1961–75. In the 1960’s housing and civil construction proceeded at a rapid pace in the districts of Severnoe Izmailovo (architects Iofan and others), Fili-Mazilovo (architects Gel’freikh and others), Khimki-Khovrino (architects Alabian and N. N. Selivanov), and Iugo-Zapad (architects Mezentsev and E. N. Stamo).

In 1971 a new general plan was approved for the development of Moscow (architects Posokhin and N. N. Ullas) within the bounds of the Moscow Beltway—an area of approximately 80,000 ha. Since approval of the plan, almost all new housing construction has been carried out on the vacant sites. From the standpoint of architecture, the most successful districts are Davydkovo (architects Gel’freikh, A. V. Afanas’ev, and E. A. Raevskaia), Veshniaki-Vladychino (architects V. V. Lebedev and others), Matveevskoe (architects Stamo and Ullas), the areas along the Dmitrovskoe Highway (architects I. I. Loveiko and others), and Teplyi Stan (architects Ia. B. Belopol’skii and others). Other projects specified in the plan included Kalinin Prospect in the city’s center, with its large complex (architects Posokhin and Mndoiants), and Komsomol Prospect (architects Mordvinov and E. G. Vulykh). Construction work was also completed on Lenin Prospect in the Iugo-Zapad district (architects Vlasov, Mezentsev, Stamo, and Belopol’skii).

New construction projects in Moscow included the Kremlin Palace of Congresses (1959–61; architects Posokhin, Mndoiants, and Stamo), the sports complex of the V. I. Lenin Stadium in Luzhniki (1955–56; architects Vlasov, Rozhin, Ullas, and Khriakov), and the Sheremet’evo (1964) and the Domodedovo (1965) air terminals (both by architects G. A. El’kin and G. V. Kriukov). Work was completed on the architectural complex on Smolensk Square (architects Gel’freikh, Minkus, and V. P. Sokolov) and on the reconstruction of the Zariad’ie district, where Europe’s largest hotel, the Rossiia, was built (1970; architects Chechulin and P. P. Shteller). Other major projects included a large television center with a 533-m tower of reinforced concrete—an outstanding achievement of structural engineering (architects D. I. Burdin and others; engineers N. V. Nikitin and others). New subway lines, bridges, and pedestrian overpasses were also built.

The new general plan for Leningrad (1966; architects V. A. Kamenskii, A. I. Naumov, and G. N. Buldakov) constituted a creative development of the fundamental concepts of the previous general plan for the restoration and development of the city. The great amount of large-scale housing and civil construction gave rise to new residential districts on the Vyborg Side and in Malaia Okhta (architects V. A. Vasil’ev and others), on the right bank of the Neva (architects D. S. Gol’dgor and others), and in Moskovskii Raion, where Izmailovskii Prospect was laid out (architects Speranskii and others). An extremely important phase in the urban planning of Leningrad was the extension of construction to the seashore on Vasil’evskii Island, where a large area was built up to create a seaside district with a system of new architectural complexes along the shore (architects Baranov, S. I. Evdokimov, Kamenskii, Naumov, and I. I. Fomin). A number of large, public buildings were built, including the Finland Station (1960; architects P. A. Ashastin, Baranov, and Ia. N. Lukin), the Oktiabr’skii cinema and concert hall (1967; architects A. V. Zhuk and Kamenskii), the Hotel Leningrad (1970; architects Speranskii and others), and an air terminal (1974; architects Zhuk and others). Construction work was begun on Victory Square, with its memorial to the defenders of Leningrad (architects Speranskii and others), and the third section of the city’s subway line was put into operation.

A new general plan for Kiev was approved in 1969 (architects Priimak and others). The city, construction of which had for centuries centered on the right bank of the Dnieper, was further developed on the left bank, in Darnitsa. The city’s center is now being expanded on both banks of the river, and includes a large island park in the Dnieper with extensive beaches—a place of rest and recreation for the inhabitants of Kiev. The beauty of the city has been enhanced by new public buildings: the Palace of Pioneers (1965; architects A. M. Miletskii and E. A. Bil’skii), the Ukraina Palace of Culture (1970; architects E. A. Marinchenko and others), and the air terminal in Borispol’ (1966; architects A. V. Dobrovol’skii and others). Between 1960 and 1971 new subway lines were also put into operation.

In Minsk many new residential districts were created, including the uniquely structured housing complex on Tolbukhin Street (1966; architects Iu. V. Shpit and others) and the housing group along the Moscow Highway. The center of the city was extended along the Svisloch’ River, where the park was expanded and the Palace of Sports was built (1966; architects S. D. Filimonov and V. N. Malyshev).

In 1966 a powerful earthquake destroyed a considerable portion of Tashkent, the capital of the Uzbek SSR. The entire country came to the aid of the city, and within a few years the earthquake damage was repaired. The general plan for the restoration and development of Tashkent, approved by the Council of Ministers of the Uzbek SSR in 1970, was brilliantly executed in the city’s center (1966–74; architects L. T. Adamov, S. R. Adylov, and E. G. Rozanov), which now has a new street plan and contemporary architecture befitting a southern city. Tashkent has benefited from new residential districts and large public structures: the buildings of the Council of Ministers of the Uzbek SSR (1965–67; architects Mezentsev and Rozanov), the Tashkent Branch of the V. I. Lenin Central Museum (1970; architects Rozanov and V. N. Shestopalov), and the building of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan (1964; architects V. E. Berezin and others). Construction is currently under way on the city’s first subway line.

Major urban planning projects carried out in Alma-Ata include the reconstruction of Lenin Prospect and a new complex built on the square of the V. I. Lenin Palace of Culture (1970; architects V. N. Kim, Iu. G. Ratushnyi, N. I. Ripinskii, and L. L. Ukhobotov). Major projects in Ashkhabad include the Karl Marx Square complex with the building of the Karl Marx Republic Library (1965–76; architects A. Akhmedov and others). Urban planning projects have also been undertaken in Baku, Tbilisi, and Yerevan.

Major projects of great ideological and artistic importance were carried out in the reconstruction of Ul’ianovsk. The center of the city was transformed, and the Lenin Memorial complex was built to mark the centenary of V. I. Lenin’s birth (architects Mezentsev and M. P. Konstantinov). Much industrial, residential, and civil construction was carried out in Gorky. A considerable portion of the districts on the far side of the Oka River was reconstructed, and the architectural complex of Lenin Square is under construction (architects V. V. Voronkov and others). In Perm’ construction work on the main square is nearly finished, and the House of Soviets has been completed (1975; architects Mezentsev and A. I. Pilikhin).

The appearance of Vladivostok was transformed by the creation of a new and extensive residential district in Vtoraia Severnaia Rechka (architects T. N. Druzhinina and others). Rebuilt districts include Koreiskaia Sloboda (Korean Quarter; architects E. L. Iokheles and others) and the Minnaia Gavan’ (architects V. S. Dubov and others). Other new projects include the building complex of the main square on the shore of Zolotoi Rog Bay (architects Rozanov and others). Major construction work was also undertaken in Khabarovsk, Krasnoiarsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Sverdlovsk, Cheliabinsk, Ufa, Volgograd, Kuibyshev, Yaroslavl, Pskov, Novgorod, Arkhangel’sk, and Murmansk.

The amount of residential and civil construction undertaken in the USSR has been growing annually. More than 100 million sq m of usable living space has been introduced each year since 1966. Between 1966 and 1975 the housing conditions of more than 111 million people have improved; every year approximately 11 million people receive apartments in new buildings or are able to expand the apartment space they occupy in existing buildings. The quality of available facilities has also been improved considerably. The USSR is a world leader in the volume of housing construction undertaken. The increase in the volume of housing and civil construction stems from the constant growth of large-panel, totally prefabricated housing construction. The proportion of such construction reached 48 percent throughout the country by 1975 and attained even higher levels in some cities (78 percent in Moscow, approximately 84 percent in Leningrad, 70 percent in Tol’iatti, and 97 percent in Bratsk).

Achievements in large-scale housing and civil construction have been accompanied by some drawbacks—a monotonous uniformity of construction, many examples of construction of poor quality, and, in a number of cities, obsolete engineering equipment and facilities for residential areas and a lagging behind in the construction of buildings to provide cultural and everyday services. In order to overcome such shortcomings, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1969 passed the decree On Measures to Improve the Quality of Housing and Civil Construction. In compliance with the decree, prefabricated-housing combines are being refitted with new equipment, making it possible to produce various types of apartment buildings, standard block modules, or individual engineering components. Design methods for standarized planning have been changed so that various types of block modules can be obtained in many ways and the dimensions and number of stories of apartment buildings can be varied. Development possibilities for individual designs have also been expanded.

Improved types of apartment buildings have been developed and were first introduced in 1973; total apartment space, room dimensions, and the size of kitchens and bathrooms have been increased. Such measures have helped overcome monotony in building designs. Individualistic, artistic, and historical motifs in architecture and the individual appearances of cities have not been suppressed by such approaches, but have been brought to the fore. Great successes have been achieved by the architects of Vilnius, who designed new residential districts in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The most important of the new districts is Lazdynai (architects V. Čekanauskas, V. K. Balčiunas, V. Bredikis, and G. Valiūškis), with its brilliant use of volume and space and a natural integration of construction with the existing landscape and newly planted areas. New residential districts in the city of Tol’iatti offer excellent cultural amenities and public services (architects B. R. Rubanenko, E. L. Iokheles, and G. A. Gradov).

Progressive, more distinct architectural designs have been developed for medical-treatement and health-related buildings, which have been better integrated with their natural environment. Outstanding examples include the Sochi Sanatorium in Sochi (1965; architect Iu. L. Shvartsbreim), the hotel in Pitsunda (1959–67; architects Posokhin and Mndoiants), and the new complexes of the V. I. Lenin Artek All-Union Pioneer Camp (1960’s and 1970’s; architects A. T. Polianskii and D. S. Vitukhin).

Since the mid-1960’s there has been a rapid growth in capital construction in rural areas. Regional planning is going on in all agricultural regions. The general plans now being drawn up for the rebuilding and future development of individual villages take into consideration all prospects for the gradual enlargement of the villages and their eventual transformation into urban-type settlements with good housing, cultural and everyday services, and public utilities (water supply, sewerage, and central heating). The 1968 decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR On Regulating Construction in the Countryside constituted a major step in the reconstruction of rural populated areas. There has been considerable expansion in the construction of modern, well laid-out settlements with comfortable apartments in one-, two-, and four-story buildings as well as schools, clubs, polyclinics, and stores. Representative settlements include Kuznetsovskii (1970; architects A. M. Kaminskii, S. K. Kapskii, and Iu. F. Stefanchuk) and Voronovo (1970; G. G. Gotsiridze, S. K. Ismailov, and Iu. V. Lopatkin) in Moscow Oblast; both settlements have been laid out with a functional combination of residential quarters, a public center, and an industrial zone.

Many rural urban-type settlements have been built in the Ukraine, Moldavia, Byelorussia, and the Baltic republics. An example of reconstruction of an older village is Kodaki in the Ukrainian SSR (1966–70; architects V. Ia. Kriuchkov, M. M. Mel’nikov, B. A. Pritsker, and L. L. Semeniuk), where the main square now has a trade center and a club. Typical of the new rural settlements is the village of Vertilishki in the Byelorussian SSR (early 1970’s; architects V. N. Emel’ianov and G. V. Zaborskii). In the village of Saku, Estonian SSR (begun 1958; architects V. Herkel and others), where the Estonian Scientific Research Institute for Agriculture and Land Reclamation is located, a zone of one-story and two-story garden apartments has been integrated with research and industrial buildings to create a pleasant environment of architecture and space. In the settlement of Dainava, Lithuanian SSR (architects R. Kamaitis and V. Šimkus), rational planning has produced a convenient integration of residential and industrial zones, with attractive residential and other buildings. The large volume of work on the reconstruction of rural populated areas has made it necessary to create specialized construction organizations under the Ministry of Rural Construction of the USSR.

The architecture of industrial buildings and structures has undergone an important creative restructuring. New types of industrial buildings have been designed (including general-purpose and modular buildings), as well as industrial centers; new urban industrial districts have been built, and standardized, series-produced shop sections and administrative-service buildings have been developed. Precast, reinforced concrete is now used virtually everywhere, and large-span structural members with dimensions of 24 × 12 m and 40 × 40 m have been introduced (as at the Ia. M. Sverdlov Silk Mill in Moscow, 1960–61; architect S. I. Burdo; engineers S. N. Dobrynin and A. S. Shevelev). Landscaping and service facilities in industrial districts have been improved and better integrated with the surrounding construction. The architecture of many projects is marked by a simplicity of composition and the logical use of structural components and finishing materials that individualize the exterior and interior of buildings and structures. Prominent examples include the 50th Anniversary of the USSR Volga Automobile Works in Tol’iatti (1967–72; architectural design by M. M. Melamed and I. O. Kurkchi) and the complex of truck plants in Naberezhnye Chelni (1970–75; architectural design by L. K. Diatlov, Melamed, and A. P. Stepanets). The architecture of many hydroelectric power plants displays similar traits: the 22nd Congress of the CPSU Volga Hydroelectric Power Plant in Volgograd (1951–62; architectural design by R. A. Iakubov and A. F. Belov), the 50th Anniversary of the Great October Revolution Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Plant (architectural design executed 1960–68; Orlov and Iu. N. Gumburg), and the Krasnoiarsk Hydroelectric Power Plant (completed 1972; architectural design by M. I. Brusilovskii and A. I. Goritskii).

Major work has been carried out on the reconstruction and restoration of architectural landmarks to preserve their role as delineators of urban landscapes and to ensure their efficient use. In city centers of historical note or those with important individual complexes (Moscow, Riga, Tallinn, and Baku), individual buildings and complexes have been preserved as well as those historical districts and streets that create the unique architectural character of the city. Every effort is made to achieve an organic synthesis of new construction and existing architectural landmarks. Many projects undertaken have been of unprecedented scope and complexity, such as the restoration of the Winter Palace, the Admiralty, the Cathedral of St. Isaac, the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan, the Smol’nyi Convent, the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Elagin Palace, and many other buildings and complexes in Leningrad (architects Benua and N. N. Belekhov). Major projects were also undertaken in Pavlovsk, Petrodvorets, and Pushkin (I. I. Varekina, A. E. Gessen, A. I. Zemnova, E. V. Kazanskaia, A. A. Kedrinskii, L. P. Libedinskii, S. V. Popova-Gunich, V. M. Savkov, and others), where parks, fountains, palaces, and pavilions were restored, including building interiors created by outstanding architects and masters of the decorative and applied arts.

Brilliant examples of comprehensive architectural restoration include Suzdal’ (A. D. Varganov and I. A. Stoletov), the St. Sergius Trinity Monastery in Zagorsk (V. I. Baldin), and the registan in Samarkand (A. Zainutdinov, P. Zakhidov, and K. S. Kriukov). Other large-scale restoration projects have been carried out in Moscow (P. D. Baranovskii, L. A. David, E. A. Deistfel’d, E. P. Zhavoronkova, and V. Ia. Libson), Pskov, Novgorod, Vladimir, Gorky, Tula, Astrakhan, Bukhara, Kiev, Chernigov, Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius, as well as in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The USSR statute On the Preservation and Use of Historical and Cultural Landmarks was adopted in 1976 to ensure the best possible conditions for preserving the historical, artistic, and architectural heritage of the peoples of the USSR.

The success of construction programs on such a large scale has necessitated the establishment of a production base of construction organizations. More than 450 large-scale prefabricated-housing organizations have been established, together with numerous plants and on-site works for the production of precast reinforced concrete. Major construction organizations have been formed in the major cities (Glavmosstroi in Moscow, Glavleningradstroi in Leningrad, and Glavkievstroi in Kiev), together with a system of other large organizations, subordinate to the all-union and republic-level ministries of construction. There has been improvement in the major design organizations at the municipal level (Mosproekt, Lenproekt, Kievproekt, Donetsgrazhdanproekt, and others), as well as those at the oblast level, the republic level (Giprogor and Giprograd institutes), and the all-Union level (the Central Scientific Research and Design Institute of Urban Planning and the Central Scientific Research Institute of Standardized and Experimental Housing Design). Several major new industrial design institutes of various types have also been founded.

Various state bodies have been established to direct industrial construction, urban planning, and architecture: the State Committee for Construction of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Gosstroi SSSR) and the Committee for Civil Construction and Architecture attached to Gosstroi SSSR (Gosgrazhdanstroi), the state committees for construction of the Union republics, oblast boards for construction and architecture, and the boards and departments of the chief architects of the cities. Soviet architects have developed fruitful international ties by participating in international congresses, competitions, and the like.