Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Demolishing Soviet Modernism

tribunemag.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#21

Post by stereolambda »

keiferski wrote: post #18
stereolambda wrote: post #16

I don't know if I should be disappointed by the pretty philistine reactions here. In the MDM in Warsaw I find so satisfying the fact that monumental reliefs show office and factory workers, mothers etc. instead of political leaders or so-called great people. I'm well aware that this is Stalinist 1950s architecture but to some extent you can enjoy art in abstraction from its historical context. I would likely agree th…

Disliking Soviet architecture doesn’t make one a philistine. Especially when much of it was forced upon the populace at the point of a gun. Regarding Warsaw specifically, most of those monuments are still in existence because they didn’t depict actual people, only generic workers. There were plenty of other monuments of individual political leaders that have been torn down since the collapse of the USSR. In any case,…

> Disliking Soviet architecture doesn’t make one a philistine.

Surely not - what does is declaring one's taste the main test for demolishing stuff or not. It may not be strictly architecture, but for a long time in the 20th century folklore scholars refused to document things that weren't "pure" enough in their folkloriness, but were "contaminated" by references to the urban/modern culture. We lost quite a bit of cultural history because of that. There should be some humility here, the generations after you can have different tastes.

> Especially when much of it was forced upon the populace at the point of a gun.

I can sympathize in some of that logic - that's why I said that we should have the right to move or alter things that are blatantly against our values. It's good that the monuments of Lenin and such were torn down. But if we follow that to the extreme, maybe the whole historical city of St. Petersburg should be demolished (if you know how it was built), and the Pyramids, and maybe even most of the old royal residences and castles around the world.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#22

Post by keiferski »

stereolambda wrote: post #21
keiferski wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disliking Soviet architecture doesn’t make one a philistine. Especially when much of it was forced upon the populace at the point of a gun. Regarding Warsaw specifically, most of those monuments are still in existence because they didn’t depict actual people, only generic workers. There were plenty of other monuments of individual political leaders that have been torn down since the collapse of the USSR. In any case,…

> Disliking Soviet architecture doesn’t make one a philistine. Surely not - what does is declaring one's taste the main test for demolishing stuff or not. It may not be strictly architecture, but for a long time in the 20th century folklore scholars refused to document things that weren't "pure" enough in their folkloriness, but were "contaminated" by references to the urban/modern culture. We lost quite a bit of cul…

The question isn’t really what “we” should tear down, it’s what the specific country wants to do. And I don’t think most people would agree with your designation of what “good values” are supposed to be.

Warsaw is filled to the brim with Socialist Realist architecture, which itself was far, far more political than basically any form of pre-20th century architecture like that found in St. Petersburg. It was explicitly designed to convey an ideological program that was forced upon the country.

It’s also the remnant of a state which terrorized and oppressed the country for half a century. Not to mention that Warsaw was only rebuilt because the Soviets let the Warsaw Uprising fail and then let the Nazis destroy the city block by block.

It’s a false equivalence.

All that aside, I’m sure there will be plenty of the buildings preserved for posterity. I wouldn’t worry too much about that...there are simply so many of them.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#23

Post by stereolambda »

keiferski wrote: post #22
stereolambda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disliking Soviet architecture doesn’t make one a philistine. Surely not - what does is declaring one's taste the main test for demolishing stuff or not. It may not be strictly architecture, but for a long time in the 20th century folklore scholars refused to document things that weren't "pure" enough in their folkloriness, but were "contaminated" by references to the urban/modern culture. We lost quite a bit of cul…

The question isn’t really what “we” should tear down, it’s what the specific country wants to do. And I don’t think most people would agree with your designation of what “good values” are supposed to be. Warsaw is filled to the brim with Socialist Realist architecture, which itself was far, far more political than basically any form of pre-20th century architecture like that found in St. Petersburg. It was explicitly…

> The question isn’t really what “we” should tear down, it’s what the specific country wants to do. And I don’t think most people would agree with your designation of what “good values”

I'm not saying what the good values are, this is purely your invention. The only thing I assume is that maybe people want to be led by some coherent logic in what they do, regardless of the specific values that they have. Aside from pointing out that destruction, well, destroys things.

The old architecture wasn't built because it was just "pretty" either. If you don't see oppressive politics and an ideological program that was forced upon the country in tsar Peter I's works it just means that you 1) are forgetting some history, 2) aren't reading the architecture close enough (as mainly art historians are taught its deeper idioms) or 3) just care less about things than happened a sufficiently long time ago. Which is what will also happen with people's perception in the future, sadly or not.

edit: I didn't see your last paragraph when writing my response, and maybe wouldn't be prompted to write if I did. All I can say is, maybe.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#24

Post by wwosik »

stereolambda wrote: post #16

I don't know if I should be disappointed by the pretty philistine reactions here. In the MDM in Warsaw I find so satisfying the fact that monumental reliefs show office and factory workers, mothers etc. instead of political leaders or so-called great people. I'm well aware that this is Stalinist 1950s architecture but to some extent you can enjoy art in abstraction from its historical context. I would likely agree th…

MDM in Warsaw is fine - at least from outside, no idea how comfortable it is inside. But it is a regular city built for humans.

BTW I find the centres of some US cities with their very dense skyscrapers and always shadowed streets as much bad and distopian.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#25

Post by wwosik »

shakow wrote: post #20
wwosik wrote: post #4

There's a good reason to demolish much of that. It is overwhelming [1] in scale very ugly and not even painting it would help much. This building on the photo of Elista is nothing to look at. But that photo from Makhachkala looks rather pretty and on a human scale. I imagine when the trees are green it must be a nice place (judging only from this one photo, don't know it IRL). [1] The Ship https://www.google.com/maps…

> It is overwhelming [1] in scale very ugly I agree it's indeed pretty ugly, but if you want to destroy every building looking that ugly, you will have to tear down half the cities in Europe -- and probably also many other places. Honestly, without the written cyrillic, this could be many places in e.g. France or Italy.

I can only say I've been to a few cities here and there and nowhere did I feel as overwhelmed by the scale as in Moscow. Many of the cities remained not that high, London or Paris do not have such buildings in their city centers.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#26

Post by blacktriangle »

esyir wrote: post #14
ibotty wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe & elsewhere use the term freely without any negative connotations. You are wrong, some do, some don't. I would debate that its reduction is usage is because of the negative connotations, but let's leave it at that. Edward Said has been hugely influential also in Europe's academia and intellectual discourse. I would also be astonished if there had been no influence in "the orient".

I'll go one step further against this idea that "oriental" is some offensive term. Where I am, smack dab in Asia, oriental is used without an issue, being included in the names of buildings and companies. I'm betting that the "offensiveness" of the term, if it ever takes root here, would likely be a invasive American import than homegrown.

America used to export culture, now we just export outrage and microagressions.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#27

Post by smogcutter »

shakow wrote: post #15
smogcutter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re talking past each other. Parent is referencing Edward Said, but mixing in an Americanism about “taming the frontier” that doesn’t really apply. Said’s talking more about colonialism. > Orientalism is an artistic current from the 18th to the early 20th focused on taking inspiration from the faraway, exotic, attractive Eastern cultures. You’re not wrong, but Said’s work really changed the way that moveme…

> Said’s work really changed the way that movement is generally understood. With all due respect to Said, I'm not yet willing to accept the complete redefinition of a term well-anchored in European art history for over two centuries on the basis of a book by a single American scholar -- book which is, moreover, highly debated by other academics of the field.

Do you think that the usage in TFA that started this dumb thread was about art history?

Your original response to parent was “I haven’t heard this before, so it must be wrong”. That’s a very boring way to approach the world.

Now you’ve pivoted from saying the usage is unfamiliar to dismissing it as “highly debated by other academics in the field”, implying that you are familiar with it after all! Okay.

Anyway, what a weird hill to die on.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#28

Post by shakow »

wwosik wrote: post #25
shakow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is overwhelming [1] in scale very ugly I agree it's indeed pretty ugly, but if you want to destroy every building looking that ugly, you will have to tear down half the cities in Europe -- and probably also many other places. Honestly, without the written cyrillic, this could be many places in e.g. France or Italy.

I can only say I've been to a few cities here and there and nowhere did I feel as overwhelmed by the scale as in Moscow. Many of the cities remained not that high, London or Paris do not have such buildings in their city centers.

> Paris do not have such buildings in their city centers.

Because you were lucky enough to avoid the worst parts:

- Paris: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.8235336,2.3674101,3a,75y,342...

- Marseille: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2890541,5.437606,3a,75y,185....

- Toulouse: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5804085,1.4105313,3a,75y,287...

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#29

Post by shakow »

smogcutter wrote: post #27
shakow wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Said’s work really changed the way that movement is generally understood. With all due respect to Said, I'm not yet willing to accept the complete redefinition of a term well-anchored in European art history for over two centuries on the basis of a book by a single American scholar -- book which is, moreover, highly debated by other academics of the field.

Do you think that the usage in TFA that started this dumb thread was about art history? Your original response to parent was “I haven’t heard this before, so it must be wrong”. That’s a very boring way to approach the world. Now you’ve pivoted from saying the usage is unfamiliar to dismissing it as “highly debated by other academics in the field”, implying that you are familiar with it after all! Okay. Anyway, what a…

> “I haven’t heard this before, so it must be wrong”

It's rather that all of the definitions of orientalism I have been taught both at home, at school, and in the literature revolve about culture, all the uses of it I have witnessed talk about culture, I have read Salambo, Zadig, and other classics, I have visited museum filled to brim with European paintings from the period depicting odalisques, harems, bedouins, tuaregs, mosques, fantasia, Turkish baths, city drooling of sun on the Mediterranean, I have assisted to Les Indes Galantes, Der Entführung aus dem Serail and the Italian in Algiers, and the only mention I heard of Orientalism being used in this meaning comes from a few Americans, and a mention in the US wiki stating “Since the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism in 1978, much academic discourse has begun to use the term "Orientalism" to refer to a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African societies”. So no, I don't intend, for now, to replace the semantic of this centennial word because of a controversial publication.

> implying that you are familiar with it after all!

Familiar with it, as “I just read the wiki page of the author, which is extremely critical against the book”.

Re: Demolishing Soviet Modernism

#30

Post by Dracophoenix »

kstenerud wrote: post #12

I for one will be glad to witness the demise of modern architecture, and a return to human friendliness. I'm tired of being crushed by some grand architect's great ego piece, or "utilitarian" philosophies of living spaces.

What constitues human friendliness to you? The Memphis School?
Post reply on HN