Vladimir Tatlin’s “Monument to the Third International,” (1919-1924), seen above, was a model for the headquarters of the International Communist Movement. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the government searched for artists to create appealing Bolshevik propaganda. Tatlin responded to this need with a design for the “Monument to the Third International”, an avant-garde piece intended to display Russian prowess and convey the force of the Revolution. The spiraling nature of the design gives the work an inherent dynamism and suggests a strong, Russian revitalization after the Revolution. According to Talin, “The spiral is the most effective symbol of the modern spirit of age: the spiral which rising from the earth, detaches itself from all animal, earthly and oppressing interests, and forms the purest expression of humanity set free by the Revolution,”1. Tatlin envisioned his creation as a reminder of Russian vigor, straddling the Neva River of St. Petersburg and standing twice as tall as the iconic Eiffel Tower. The monument met both aesthetic and practical demands. Floor one of the building was intended to be a grand revolving auditorium for meetings of the International Communist Movement, movie presentations, and parking; floor two of the monument was to house executive leaders; and floor three was to accommodate a telegraph press and radio station that would broadcast to all countries of Europe. Additionally, Tatlin planned to adorn the top of his monument with a projector used to project communist slogans onto the clouds. This constructivist project was modeled to serve the new Bolshevik regime led by Lenin and was a prime example of Utilitarian Architecture, which, according to John Bowlt, a professor of Slavic languages and literature at the University of Southern California, “relied on the functional harmony of purpose and design,”2. While the practical purposes of the “Monument to the Third International,” are clear, the source of the underlying sense of power conveyed by the design is slightly less perceptible. While the spiraling nature of the design is important, this piece also references and was inspired by the French Eiffel tower.
In the early 1900’s the Eiffel Tower was a powerful symbol of modernity and French might. The Eiffel Tower and “Monument to the Third International” were structurally analogous, both relying on similar girder styles and cross branching. While Tatlin did not rely on symmetry around a central axis, based on the appearance of the two designs it is clear that he was attempting to create a Russian version of the renowned French monument in order to convey a sense of Russian political might. Despite similar structural designs, the Eiffel Tower and “Monument to the Third International” were designed with slightly different purposes in mind. William Hutchings, a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, writes “commissioned in 1919 as a monument to the revolution and new regime, Tatlin’s tower was to have been far larger and more obviously Utilitarian than the Eiffel Tower, which had been constructed twenty years earlier to commemorate the centenary of the French Revolution,”3. Overall, while Tatlin’s design and attempts to draw upon visual culture were admirable, his work was ultimately deemed too modern and ambiguous, and was never built. This failure came to be symbolic of the failed utopian aspirations of the Bolshevik regime.
1. Klotsky Beujour, Elizabeth and Zamiatin.1988. Zamiatin’s We and Modernist Architecture. The Russian Review: 47: 49-60.
2. Bowlt, John. Moscow and St. Petersburg 1900-1920, Chapter 2, pp. 67-97.
3. Hutchings, William. 1981-1982. Structure and design in a Soviet dystopia: H.G. Wells, contructivism, and Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “We”. Journal of Modern Literature. 9 (1): 97.
No comments:
Post a Comment