Academic literature on the topic 'Neoclassicism (Architecture)'

AbstractThe article explores the morphological evolution of China’s 20th-century architecture chronologically. Chinese Neoclassicism has played a major role in forming the 20th-century heritage buildings surviving today. The phenomenon of Neoclassicism emerged because of the late arrival of China’s modernisation and industrialisation process compared with the West. In turn, in accepting and contesting Western culture, the Chinese elite have consciously relied upon architecture as a vehicle to uphold visible symbols of national Chinese identity and traditional Chinese culture. Meanwhile, in the foreign settlements of the treaty ports such as Shanghai, the Western Neoclassical style, along with other imported construction trends, also forms part of China’s 20th-century architectural heritage. Western Neoclassicism’s influence on China’s new architecture became even more evident in the mid-20th century, with the modern architectural heritage in Tiananmen Square as its exemplar. Nevertheless, the impact of Western modernist architecture on China’s architecture was minimal. It was not until the 1980s, as China reopened to the world, that various schools of thought from the post-industrial West flowed into China, which significantly enriched the types and sources of China’s 20th-century architectural heritage. Modern Classicism, late Modernism and Postmodernism all found their way into China’s contemporary architecture.

Baroque and classicism were called a binary star. In the national architecture, the avant-garde and neoclassicism can be also called a binary star. The model of succession of styles in architecture does not reflect the real situation in the 1920-1950s. Neoclassicism and different movements of “contemporary architecture” run parallel to each other both in the West and in the USSR. In the 1920s, the avant-garde was brighter, while In the 1930-1950s in the USSR – neoclassicism. “The new world of socialism” was observed in the patterns of “contemporary architecture” by party ideologists headed by Lev Trotsky. In the 1930s, the political situation changed, and the patterns of the “new world” came down to earth and acquired historical roots. The interaction of the avant-garde and neoclassicism produced a unique style of the epoch. Unfortunately, the monuments of that epoch decay very quickly.

The article discusses the process of switching temporal regimes in Soviet culture at the turn of the 1920s - and during the 1930s on the material of architecture. The concepts of time in constructivism and neoclassicism are compared since the struggle between them determined the main vectors of artistic development in the reconstruction period. The author analyzes the discourse of the official position in relation to the main trends in the development of architecture in the context of the periodization of socialist construction and elicits the reasons for supporting the reference to the classical heritage. The change of political agenda (the transition from dismantling the old order and the rectification of the consequences of the collapse of the social fabric as a way to build a new social order) set new requirements for architecture as the most important way of social representation. The new society - socialism - was interpreted in constructivism, which was the leading direction of 1920s architecture, in the modus of the future. In the neoclassicism of the 1930s, socialism was placed in the modus of the present. Constructivism was aimed at the pragmatics of restoring social fabric and solving current problems (mass housing, a new social infrastructure), as well as at constructing a future society and human. At the end of the first five-year plan, the authorities set other goals for culture in general and architecture in particular: the representation of achievements and the expression of the greatness of socialist construction. Neoclassicism was called upon to perpetuate the present state of affairs in the modus of real perfection and superiority of Soviet socialism over any other formats of social life. Between the time of creation (constructivism) and the time of completion (neoclassicism), there is formed a gap that must be hidden. As a way of hiding the temporal gap were chosen classical principles of form-making and examples of the Renaissance and Russian classicism, that were designed to convincingly demonstrate, on the one hand, the possibility of accelerating and compressing time, the swiftness of achieving the ideal, and on the other hand, tp depreciate innovations, make the idea of the movement of time into the future unnecessary. The theory of the leading neoclassicist I. Zholtovsky is discussed as an alternative to the utopian interpretation of time in constructivism, as materializing the mythological time, in which the source and end of creation are given simultaneously in the modus of eternity.

The problem of preservation of the historical and architectural environment in Russian cities is currently rather relevant. Research and popularization of the different architectural styles play an important role in preservation of the unique historical environment of the city. Architectural styles of buildings in Tyumen are from Siberian Baroque to large-scale buildings of neoclassicism, which is characteristic of the architecture of this period.The paper describes the buildings the construction of which is financed by the merchants. The building architecture belongs to a particular stye typical for the period of Art Nouveau and neoclassicism. The architecture of Tyumen buildings is of regional color scheme represented by the decoration of window trimmers and other architectural details.The research implications include a study of historical and modern photographs of buildings of various types, namely from educational institutions to residential buildings. The paper utilizes historical and archival and bibliographic data and field research.Research findings: the significance of the studied buildings is preserved in the modern urban environment and architecture of Tyumen. At the turn of the 19–20th centuries and today, these objects retain their role in urban planning and function.

Статья посвящена третьей волне русского неоклассицизма, охватывающей период с 1990-х по 2020-е годы, крупные реализованные проекты которого приходятся на XXI век. Цель статьи – теоретически осмыслить направление, определить генезис, этапы эволюции и формальную концепцию стиля; уточнить круг архитекторов и основных построек; провести сравнение с двумя предшествующими волнами русского неоклассицизма – начала и середины ХХ века.

Purpose: The aim of the paper is to study the history of Soviet architecture, associated with changes in its stylistic orientation, when instead of the previously dominant constructivist forms other forms began to prevail, namely Art Deco, neoclassicism and eclecticism. The paper explores the processes in architecture of that time, identifies the main prerequisites for the formation of that architectural style.Methodology/approach: The methodological approach includes a comparative analysis of scientific publications and buildings of Soviet architecture of the 1930s. A comprehensive study is conducted to identify the prerequisites, processes and features of the architecture of this period.Research findings: The main results concern the period under study accompanied by both evolutionary and cardinal changes in architecture associated with the general architectural policy of the government and the creativity of architects. All this determines the peculiarities of the controversial, transitional style of Soviet architecture. The analysis of the controversial architectural style considers the individual genesis. This style is formed under specific conditions and has its own history. Architectural competitions of the 1930s demonstrate the stylistic diversity of architecture and the evolutionary transition from constructivism to Soviet neoclassicism observed in the works of those architects who previously designed the style of constructivism. The term post-constructivism means both a purely chronological concept, that is a period in the history of architecture following the epoch of constructivism and the specific architectural and stylistic phenomenon which still combines constructivism and elements of the subsequent style. A search for individual architects determines the style of the 1930s. In this regard, the term post constructivism best reflects the diversity of architecture of that time, taking into account the historical era and national identity, and the use of elements typical to Art Deco, Neo-Renaissance, or Classicism.Practical implications: The research results can be used to further studying the architecture of this period as well as in the preparation of courses on the history of Soviet architecture of the 1930s. This study makes it possible to realize historical, artistic and cultural value of this style, thereby preserving it in the future.Originality/value: The history of the architecture of that period is still not well understood and is of particular interest for researchers. This study considers both well-known and insufficiently studied buildings of Soviet architecture of the 1930s, compares the obtained facts and opinions of other authors‟. As a result, the paper combines, compares and analyzes interesting information on this topic and investigates concrete facts. Also, a comparison is given to the architecture of the studied and previous periods.

The appearance of the "style moderne" in Russian architecture at the turn of the century reflected not only the assimilation of the new European architecture (Secession, Art Nouveau), but also the movement toward an urban environment that would accommodate a social order based on private capital and the ascendency of Russia's nascent bourgeoisie. Claims for the democratic basis of the new style acquired distinctly political overtones in critical articles published between 1900 and 1905. After 1905 (a year of widespread revolutionary disorder in Russia), a reaction against the modernist aesthetic can be traced in the work of architects and critics who supported a revival of Neoclassicism. Although the new classicism provided the means to apply technological and design innovations within an established tectonic system, it was also widely interpreted as a rejection of the unstable values of individualism and the bourgeois ethos. Neoclassical architecture became the last hope for a reconciliation of contemporary architecture with cultural values derived from an idealization of imperial Russian grandeur. Yet the revival of Neoclassicism quickly manifested the same lack of aesthetic unity and theoretical direction as had the moderne, thus leading certain critics and architects to question the entire social order within which architecture functioned in the decade before the 1917 Revolution.

The article presents a comparative analysis of some key objects of German and Kyiv architecture of the early twentieth century to determine the corresponding trends. Parallels and identities are shown and noted. An analysis of the background and context is given, as well as the author's conclusions of the respective styles. In particular, German Werkbund, international Art Nouveau, Ukrainian architectural Art Nouveau, "New Objectivity", Bauhaus, functionalism, constructivism, post-constructivism, German and Soviet neoclassicism are mentioned.
 Were analyzed in detail: The Fagus Factory (1910-1911) by Walter Gropius and Adolf Meyer, Centennial Hall (1911-1913) by the Max Berg, the Kyiv district power plant (named after Stalin), (1926–1930) by Mikhailo Parusnikov with the participation of George Goltz and Andrey Burov, Rolit (1932) by Vasul. Krychesky, Ehrentempel (1933–1936) and The Haus der Kunst in Munich (1933 - 1937) by Paul Ludwig Troost, competitive proposals for the construction of the Government Quarter in Kyiv (1934 - 1935) and the hotel within the Government Quarter (1939). Mentioned Esposizione Universale Roma (EUR) by Marcello Piacentini, projects by Albert Speer and others.
 The article summarizes a series of author's researches devoted to a detailed analysis of international context and parallels of Kyiv architecture which is represented in the background of the consistent artistic transitions (from eclecticism and historical reminiscences to modernism, from Art Nouveau to avant-garde, from constructivism to Soviet neoclassicism and, finally, from Stalinist empire to modernism).

The article highlights the almost unexplored issue of the classification of architectural heritage sites. The authors define architectural heritage as a complex of buildings and structures that form the surrounding space and reflect the art of creating these buildings and structures. Pursuing the goal to create a regulating system of Russian architecture monuments, the authors of the article use the architectural style as the main sign of monuments. Reliance on scientific research, written and visual sources allows identifying and characterizing large typological groups of monuments. The first group includes monuments of Russian architectural tradition, created in the period of 11th and 17th centuries on Byzantine and Italian architectural basis. The Baroque style was introduced into Russian architecture in the 18th century. It is characterizes by the magnificence and decorativeness of the details, includes columns, pilasters, sculptural decorations. About a century later, the Baroque was replaced by a style of Classicism. An obligatory element of Classicism monuments is a triangular gable, which rests on columns. Such compositional components as bays, risalitas, and balconies characterize the style. Monuments of classicism form architectural ensembles in Russian cities. The most famous of them is Palace Square in St. Petersburg. Since the mid-19th century, architectural monuments of the Eclectic style have been created. It combines elements of Gothic, Classicism, and folk Russian architecture. Wooden monuments of eclecticism, richly decorated with carvings, make the main pride of Tomsk. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, modern architectural monuments with their characteristic asymmetry of the layout, plant decor in the design of facades are created. Under the influence of the changes brought by the Revolution of 1917, the style of Constructivism spreads in Russian architecture. In the early 1930s, the laconic Constructivism was rejected, the order system returned to the composition of the buildings. They are decorated with stucco moldings and sculptural images. For a long time unnamed, now this style is known as Soviet Neoclassicism. In the late 1950s, monuments of Soviet Neoclassicism were accused of unjustified pomp and parade. In the second half of the 20th century, the trends of Neo-Functionalism and Postmodernism prevail in Russian architecture. The regulating system of architectural monuments proposed in the article allows to characterize objects of architectural heritage, provides continuity of cultural experience.

The buildings constructed in Chisinau after year 1991 propose a diversified architecture. The stylistic range is quite various: neoclassicism, modernism, postmodernism, high-tech, deconstructivism, neominimalism, brutalism, etc. The influence of neoclassical architecture is felt upon the multistory building of S.A. “ASCOM Group”, and modernism is illustrated by the building of the “Kentford” Business Center, the building of the “Infotag” Information Agency, etc. Among the most illustrative examples of postmodernist architecture is the „Coliseum Palace” residential complex, the “Moldincombank” commercial bank building, Center Branch, etc. High-tech architecture is illustrated by the “SKYTOWER” International Business Center building, the “Shopping MallDova” shopping and entertainment center building, the “Chisinau Arena” multifunctional complex, etc. The buildings of the Business Center “SG Business Centru” and the International Business Center “Le Roi” belong to the architecture of deconstructivism. An architectural premise with elements of brutalism and neominimalism is the Creative Industries Center ARTCOR. The contribution of architects Gh. Telipiz, Gh. Jinkin, I. Apostolov, V. Modârcă, A. Gordeev, M. Calujac and others could be highlighted during the reference period.