1Totalitarianism of the architectural thinking in the 20th century is not at all the begetting of Bolshevism or of fascist regimes, or, more precisely, not exclusively their begetting. Totalitarianism is primarily inherent to Modernist art thinking. The architectural education in Europe in the period between two world wars, during two decades from 1920 till 1940, has fully experienced the influence of this totalitarianism. Totalitarianism of the architectural Modernism follows from its technicism, from scientist and positivist methodology, which from the first steps of the Modern Movement aspired to assimilate architectural creativity to engineering designing. On it directly insisted Louis G. Sullivan, and Russian Modernists of the 20-th - both 'rationalists' of ASNOVA and constructivists of OSA have developed this programme, by adding to it the requirement of "laboratory work" with the form, function and construction, aimed at formation of the scientific basis of new architecture as the block of technical and natural disciplines.
2Coming down upon constructivists for technicism and trivial utilitarianism, one of the leaders of 'rationalism' N.Dokuchayev writes at the same time: "Architecture should cease to be anarchy of individualistic tastes, interpretations and feelings, it should become scientific value, which had distinctly found out its laws of composition and constructive principles of organization of architectonic forms and space (similarly to an art of music). These basements of architecture must distinctly combine both formal, and social-ideological and material sides, from which each architectonic form is composed. For this purpose the architectural education should be widely put, concerning its attitude towards the study of social-economic and technical disciplines, as well as art disciplines, based on biological and physiological principles of our perception of the visible <...>These ideas were formulated in a new psycho-analitic method of study of an art of architecture. The method was based on the experimental analysis of the properties and qualities of architectonic form and of formal architectonic principles and laws". [2, 206-207]. It is, in effect, the same scientism (and, accordingly, technicism), as that one of Ginzburg: architectural form creation should become a technical discipline, the basis of which is the fundamental theory, similar to natural sciences.
3"Constructivist" pathos of the scientific-engineering methodology was so strong, that the appeals to scientification and technisation of art resounded even in literature scholarship: "...Constructivism steps on a crest of a huge wave of energetic rise and unknown growth of engineering. From here constructivism calls for many related phenomena of culture in the most various areas. <...> Through constructivism dawns an opportunity of morphological, methodological rapproachement between science and art and, in particular, poetry. Goethean dream - the unity of poetry and science - by the run of culture is now put forward again and again under the most various names and in the most various areas" [3, 193]. The completely similar line in Germany was carried out by the ideologists of Bauhaus in Dessau, among whome, by the way, the persons and ideas of Russian avantgard were very influential. In effect, similar quasi-scientific doctrine was Piet Mondrian's "Neo- plasticism" concept, set as principle for the Dutch "De Stijl" group's activitiy - the third most influential centre of European art and architectural vanguard.
4The scientific laws, which ought to be opened and set as principle for productive methods of new architecture, were conceived as universal and eternal, i.e., namely, as total. It is clear, that this approach left no space either for the professional tradition, which was announced hopelessly technically out-of-date, or for the values of historicism, which was rejected in virtue of the basic ethic and aesthetic settings of the Modernist doctrine. A natural consequence of the same settings was the internationalism of the Modern Movement, inclined to take into account national or regional peculiarities of architecture only in a measure of the difference in climatic conditions, the character of local building materials and in the level of technological development. In the strategy and tactics of the "struggle for new architecture" Modernist trends, in virtue of the logic of the accepted approach, acted precisely in the same way as totalitarian political movements and parties. This coincidence is so much the more natural, for in the basic ideas of architectural Modernism there definitely were numerous consonances with the ideals of socialism, as them describes, for example, Fridrich Hayek: "<...> people, being proud of the world built by them, as if it had been created after their project, and reproaching themselves for the fact, that they had not designed it better, just conceived the intention to begin the latter. The purpose of socialism is to completly reconstruct our traditional norms of moral, rights and language, and on this basis to eradicate the former order and ostensibly severe, not justified state of affaires, withholding the accession of reason, self-realization, true freedom and justice" [5, 118].
5In its organizational strategy the early Modernism, exactly just as its political doubles - socialists - pretended an absolute monopoly, and not only ideological, but also from state one. In the eyes of adherents of functionalism it looked quite naturally and lawfully, because the movement ("International Front of Modern Architecture") acted, as they thought, in the name of the only true - for the only scientific - doctrine. Precisely the same chain of reasonings justified during 70 years the Party monopoly on the truth and demolishing of any heterodoxia in the countries of the 'real socialism'. From scientist orientation of the Modern Movement followed the hyperbolisation of its' own importance in the life and history of the profession - as of carriers of true knowledge, discoveres of the 'eternal laws' of Architecture. But the monopoly is always and in everything hostile to freedom. The appropriated monopoly on the truth led the architects -Modernists- from Soviet constructivists up to Corbusier- to nihilism in regard of the views on the one hand, and to design megalomania on the other hand. This is precisely formulated by Rappaport in application to all the period of Soviet architecture: "There appears a hypothesis about conformity between design enthusiasm and pretensions on total designing, and totalitarian systems and absence of democratic institutes or their underdevelop- ment. The more freedom is there in the society, the less total pretensions are presented in the design initiatives. The violation of individual consciousness, carried out by totalitarian system, causes, as the reaction of individual consciousness, the projects of forced change of the social and cultural system. Having no opportunity of existential designing and free self-realization, individual consciousness transfers personal intentions on socium, because it's just socium that suppresses these personal intentions" [4, 36-37].
6So, design megalomania itself is a sign of designer's intentions to restriction and suppression of freedom in the society. These intentions predominated in settling Modernism as an architectural phenomenon, independently of individual social and political preferences of particular representatives of the movement. The Modernists' relation to bourgeois democracy was suspicious up to animosity. On the contrary, they showd no immunity to dictatorship, and from the very beginning constructivists demonstrated their full disposition for cooperation with the communist party on the common ideological and theoretical basis and readiness for joint development of such a basis in the field of architecture, town building, and wider - in formation of public service systems, new culture and education. But in the USSR, in difference from Germany, where Speer has become one of the first persons in the state-party hierarchy, architects were not admitted to the rudder of the state machine - eigther constructivists in the 20-th, or neoclassicists in the 30-th - 50's. 7Antitraditionalism of the Functionalist doctrine in a strange way associated with feudal romanticism in the field of organization of professional activity and in the organizational structure of schools. Cult of the Master became the extreme expression of aspiration of 'Modern' professional ideology to monopoly and dictatorship. From the 20-th thinking became the central ideologem in all Modernist architectural schools. Thinking was taken in its scientized (naturalistic, experimental and engineering) forms. Thus just the soviet innovators - Dokuchayev with Ladovsky, as well as Ginzburg, - were inclined here to go up to the Pillars of Hercules, subordinating all the creative processes to the sciencewise methodical scheme and driving back to odd corners creative intuition and professional tradition - with all their art experience and cultural symbols. The methodological consequences of that were, on the one hand, basic antitraditionalism, verging upon complete exception of the history of art and architecture from the educational programmes, and, on the other - open search, for the first time raised to the main regulation of educational and pedagogical work. The search was not limited by anything, except for the procedure of the "correct", i.e. scientific-engineering method. Both of them wonderfully agreed with the cult of individuality: "if among a dizzy change of 'manifestos' we nevertheless catch some basic currents, they should rather be put on the account of our incli- nations to classifications.
8In effect, each Modern artist is the special current. It is important to note thus, how each new current aspires to begin from the beginning, to announce all the previous either a decline, or an error, or preparation; how each group requires an ex- usatory manifesto, reconsidering anew all ill questions of art. The aesthetic password of our time - to rescue art, to remove it from a heavy crisis on a new road. <...>Both Plinius and Reynolds, complaining on Modern art, search for refuge in the past, wait for rescue from tradition; and our revolution in art is built on destruction, on total denying of all, that existed" [1, 260-261].


1. Vipper, B.R. Iskustvo bes kacestvo. Is istorii sovetskoj esteticeskoj mysli. 1917-1932: Sbornik materialov. M.: Iskustvo, 1980, str. 255-263.

2. Dokucaev, N.V. Arhitektura i nasa skola. Mastera sovetskoj arhitektury ob arhitekture. Izbr. otryvki iz pisem, statej, vystuplenij i traktatov. T. 2. M.: Iskustvo,1975, str. 205-207.

3. Zelinski, K.L. Konstruktivizm i socializm Is istorii sovetskoj esteticeskoj mysli. 1917-1932: Sbornik materialov. M.: Iskustvo, 1980, str. 59, 60.

4. Rappaport, A.G. Granicy projektirovanija. "Voprosy metodologii". M.: 1991,Nr. 1, str. 19-38.

5. Hajek, F.A. Pagubnajy samodejannost'. Osibki socializma. M.: Novosti pri uc. Catallaxy. 1992, str. 304.


Positionen Positions positii