Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

The 1949 exhibition Architecture of the Peoples of the USSR, subtitled "From the Recent Past to the Construction of the Socialist Present," introduced Czech audiences to socialist realism in architecture. The show complemented the exhibition of paintings by four Soviet national artists held by Umělecká beseda (Artistic Forum) two years earlier. The catalogue, designed by Karel Šourek, reflected this continuity, following the graphic design of the 1947 exhibition catalogue.

The organizers aimed to present Soviet architecture in a broad context, covering a range of buildings from medieval times to the present, as well as their geographical diversity, with examples from across all regions of the USSR. Approximately one-third of the 137 exhibits represented historical architecture, with an emphasis on religious buildings. [Rzjanin 1949, pp. 22–30] The exhibition featured photographs of architectural treasures such as the early 18th-century wooden church on Kizhi Island near Lake Onega, the medieval monastery complex of Akhpat in present-day Armenia, and the Mausoleum (mosque) of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Kazakhstan.

Most of the exhibited works, however, originated from the 1930s and 1940s when the doctrine of Socialist Realism gained sway in the Soviet Union. Visitors to the exhibition halls at Prague's Žofín Palace and, later, at Brno's House of Arts, were greeted by a portrait of J. V. Stalin. The exhibition culminated with the design for the Palace of the Soviets in Moscow, created by the architectural trio Boris Iofan, Vladimir Shchuko, and Vladimir Gelfreikh. The exhibition also presented urban reconstruction plans for cities such as Vilnius, Tallinn, Novgorod, Rostov-on-Don, and Moscow; new industrial enterprises like Azovstal and Magnitogorsk; the Moscow water canal and metro system, including Izmaylovskaya Station designed by Boris Vilensky; spa facilities; cultural and sports complexes like the opera house in Novosibirsk designed by Alexander Ginzburg and the theater in Yerevan designed by Alexander Tamanian; and exhibition grounds such as the All-Union Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow.

Socialist realism in architecture was expressed through classicizing style and the typology of buildings designed for the needs, education, and recreation of Soviet citizens. In the captions, the organizers emphasized "national elements" in the exhibited artefacts, while also highlighting the "barbaric destruction of monuments by German fascist occupiers" [Rzjanin 1949]. This anti-fascist narrative and emphasis on wartime destruction provided an effective contrast to the promoted socialist construction system. The new Soviet architecture consciously built upon folk architecture and historical traditions. However, it was also defined by a negative stance against the "pseudo-radical theory" of international modernism – the term used in the catalogue text to describe functionalism and constructivism. [Rzjanin 1949, p. 8] This introductory text was borrowed from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

In his review for Kulturní politika, Jan Rott identified in three fundamental lessons for future socialist realism in Czechoslovakia. In line with the catalogue text, he saw the new style as opposed to avant-garde architecture. According to Rott, the new architecture should draw primarily from national culture rather than copying Soviet models, promote qualities of lasting value rather than provisional solutions, and bring art closer to broad segments of society. [Rott 1949, p. 3].

Stanislav Semrád offered cautious support for functionalism in his review entitled Against Formalism in Architecture. [Semrád 1949, pp. 53–57] Despite his opening arguments about interwar creativity as a reaction to the cultural decline of the previous epoch, Semrád rejected the condemnation of modernism in favor of the new socialist style. "Does this mean [its] liquidation, does this mean going backward, as some frightened souls believe? I answer no!" [Semrád 1949, p. 56] In conclusion, Semrád optimistically assessed the implications of the exhibition for the Czech milieu, stating that Czechoslovak architecture would "learn from the main ideas of new Soviet architecture but move forward on its own path." [Semrád 1949, p. 57]

The Architecture of the Peoples of the USSR was primarily educational. This was reflected in the emphasis on the presentation, with photographic enlargements of building exteriors mounted in golden frames. One of the few criticisms of the otherwise celebrated exhibition pointed to the absence of floor plans, since it was precisely in these that new Soviet architecture, with its classicizing facades, was supposed to differ from historical buildings. [Starý 1949, p. 72]

In his opening speech, Jiří Kroha appealed to the public to study the exhibited works. He stated, "This exhibition deserves to be studied by not only architects, but also the broadest segments of our working population so they can see that, despite its initial difficulties, socialism is capable of achieving environmental transformations that no previous social order could." [Kroha 1949, p. 4] Magazines published articles and laudatory reviews accompanied by photographs from the exhibition, further educating Czech architects about Soviet construction. For instance, Oldřich Starý wrote in Architektura ČSR that the exhibition "was among the most instructive and interesting that the inhabitants of Prague had ever seen." [Starý 1949, p. 68]

The uncritical reception of the Architecture of the Peoples of the USSR corresponded to official policy, leaving no room for open discussion. The Russian historical and classicizing buildings featured in the photographs of this traveling exhibition became mandatory reference material for Czechoslovak architects. Articles reporting on the exhibition and Soviet architecture, accompanied by rich visual material, introduced socialist realism to Czech architecture and established its fundamental conceptual vocabulary.

Magdalena Dědičová

Works Cited

Kroha 1949: Jiří Kroha, Výstava architektury národů Sovětského svazu, Rudé právo XXIX, 1949, no. 114,15. 5., p. 4

Rott 1949: Jan Rott, Trojí ponaučení, Kulturní politika IV, no. 18, 6. 5., p. 3

Rzjanin 1949: M. [Michail] I. [Ivanovič] Rzjanin, Architektura národů SSSR, z nedávné minulosti k výstavbě socialistického dneška (exh. cat.), Praha 1949

Semrád 1949: Stanislav Semrád, Proti formalismu v architektuře (k výstavě architektury národů Sovětského svazu, v květnu 1949), Architekt XLVII, 1949, no. 4, August, pp. 53–57

Starý 1949: Oldřich Starý, Architektura národů SSSR, Architektura ČSR VIII, 1949, pp. 68–72

Further Reading

Pavel Halík, Česká architektura padesátých let, Studie o střetu funkcionalismu a konstruktivismu i ideovými východisky socialistického realismu, Praha 2022

Pavel Halík, Architektura padesátých let, in: Polana Bregantová, Rostislav Švácha, Marie Platovská (eds.), Dějiny českého výtvarného umění V 1939/1958, Praha 2005, pp. 293–328

Jaroslav Pokorný, Obrana architektů 48-68, Architektura ČSSR XXVIII, 1969, no. 2, pp. 106–108

Rostislav Švácha, Česká architektura 1956–1963, in: Ohniska znovuzrození: České
umění 1956–1963 (exh. cat., Galerie hlavního města Prahy), Praha 1994, pp. 241–258

Anonymous author, Architektura národů SSSR, Práce V, 1949, no. 88, 14. 4., p. 2

Anonymous author, Pražská výstava „Architektura národů SSSR“ zahájena, Práce V, 1949, no. 93, 21. 4., p. 5

Anonymous author, Ve výstavních síních Domu umění v Brně…, Lidová demokracie V, 1949, no. 120, 22. 5., p. 2