(at meetings of the full members, corresponding members and asset
USSR Academy of Architecture)
The focus throughout the architectural community matters now stand closer and more organic connection of architecture with the building industry. the fight against an abstract form creation. architectural extravagances.
These key problems of modern architecture and has recently been discussed in the USSR Academy of Architecture. He was devoted to a meeting of full members and corresponding members of the Academy, as well as meeting its asset scientists.
President of the USSR Academy of Architecture A. Mordvinians in his report at the meeting of the members of the Academy has recognized the validity of the serious claims that are made by the people to the architects. In practice, there are many architectural frills, architectural composition of buildings largely ns-justified, cubic capacity of buildings is increased artificially, not economical, and suffers many errors layout of the premises.
The party has repeatedly given us valuable guidance on the development of Soviet architecture, said t. Mordvinians, but not all architects are properly understood. There are deviations from the only correct line. It comes even before that architects decorate decoration ….
While acknowledging that he, as author of the excesses committed in the construction of high-rise hotel on the waterfront Dorogomilov. A. Mordvinians focused on mistakes made by Vlasov, V. Gelfreich. G. Zakharov, Leonid Polyakov, K. Alabyanom, M. Useynonym and others.
In the first homes built in the Vlasov Kreschatiks in Kiev, an incredible amount of jewelry. Tragically, he stressed t. Mordvinians. misdirection, as reflected in the grandiose architecture of these homes, as a result of imitation is widespread in Ukraine. Conspicuous pretentiousness his last major works of L. Poliakov — metro station «Arbat and the high-rise hotel on the Komsomolskaya Square in Moscow. B. Gelfreich made significant excesses in the layout and decor of the projected their hospital. Residential buildings built in Baku M. Useynova the so-called «Oriental style» affects not only the embellishment, but also eclectic. Larger excesses are in the architecture of high-rise apartment building on Kotelnicheskaya embankment in Moscow. D. It was built Chechulin Alabyan designing Forks area on the Leningrad Highway in Moscow, puts it quite unreasonably high rise building. Very big mistakes made in the design of G. Zakharov Lyusinovskaya and Tula streets. All those mistakes all the more serious that masters equals youth.
The Party teaches us, continued t. Mordvinians. master the artistic heritage. to create a new architecture based on the new technology. But apparently, this formula in our minds most imprinted the first part; we lose the sense of the new path-breaking in their creative practice with modern technology. Decorativism, excesses are a great danger to the Soviet architecture are a brake on the development of our construction industry, brake in typing and industrialization of construction. The creative practice of architects must be given space industrialization of construction, the new technique of n new methods of construction works. But we can not avoid and oversimplification. to constructivism. The direction of our architecture is generally true. It is about overcoming the major mistakes made by the architects of the turn to modern! technology, the full use of its capabilities.
A. Mordvinians in its report criticized the State Committee for Construction, which stressed the speaker, long time engaged in the design model, I lost precious time. The Committee for Construction Projects approved health centers and stations with major excesses in the architectural composition.
Planning and construction of residential areas are now in a state of homelessness. Republican control architecture allows for this work big mistakes, but nobody corrects. According t. Mordvinova is necessary that all the work on architecture and construction heads the single central institution, otherwise there will always be accidents and errors in the work.
A. Mordvinians acknowledged that the USSR Academy of Architecture is largely to blame for the major shortcomings that exist in the architectural practice. We take the initiative, he said. develop proposals in the economic field of design and construction in the area of technology, but very little engaged in an ideological and artistic problems. questions the direction of architectural creativity. Institute for the History Theory of Architecture Mr. lagging behind, does not create the necessary theoretical work. For all this is responsible the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Architecture.
Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Architecture A. Burov said in his speech that the report of the president did not satisfy him, as it did not contain a deep analysis of the situation in architecture. Many writers said so on. Burov, the public criticized for the lack of conflict theory, we have the same architects who need to be criticized for the fact that we are his creativity came into conflict with the requirements of the era in respect of architecture. Socialist era and architectural images, content and form, material and shape, the construction of n shape, architectural structure and convenience for people — all these fundamental problems are often solved incorrectly. Socialist realism is referred to us as the spell. All that we have done in the architecture, the critics declared socialist realism, A. Mordvinians quite recently attributed to the works created by the PA based on the method of socialist realism are quite dissimilar. fundamentally opposed architectural structures, like Lenin’s mausoleum, and the new building of the Moscow City Council.
I was one of the few who had the courage to point out. that there has been a gap between architecture and engineering, but my performance in the built environment were met sharply critical.
Architecture should help in the organization of the socialist way of life of people, the general movement to help the country to communism. Instead, the architects focused on the search for forms of n-catch from Chechulina to Zholtovsky.
If we direct our criticism only against architectural excesses. He said t. Burov, we will not achieve effective results. All our work must be based on a scientific basis. But now an architectural science is far from true science. The USSR Academy of Architecture is no clear understanding of the role of modern technology.
It is necessary that the USSR Academy of Architecture has realigned its work, it is closely connected with the technique.
Member of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR N. Colley said in his speech that in the academy one-sided approach to the problems of architecture kak to the phenomena of a purely artistic order. When the academy was scheduled to discuss the high-rise building, designed by V. and M. Minkus Gelfreich on Smolenskaya Square in Moscow, we have expressed a persistent belief that this structure should be considered not only from the architectural composition, but also in terms of technical his perfection. However, the Presidium of the Academy rejected the proposal district decided to limit ourselves to a discussion of the composition of the building.
J. Colli made some critical remarks about the work he headed the Institute of Architecture of industrial district public buildings. We at the institute. he said, stand up for innovative architecture, but they also develop projects of buildings with archaic architecture.
Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Architecture A. Zaslavsky showed pas examples of creative practices that architects of many strong trends decorations, archaic. He acknowledged that many of the projects of building highways, developed workshops Mosproyekt, lifeless.
Situation in the Academy of Architecture, criticized in his speech correspondent member of Academy of Kuznetsov. In the bowels of the Academy of Architecture issues are resolved in isolation from the technical problems. It affects the very structure of the Academy. Of the six its institutions only one works directly in the art of construction. A. Mordvinians, which initiated the thread-fast construction methods. it would seem, it was to take on construction machinery deserved place in the work of the Academy. But it stressed Kuznetsov. President of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR did not.
Dissatisfaction with the report of the president expressed full member of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR N. Streletsky. He also believes that the construction equipment does not occupy its rightful place in the Academy, the Institute of the construction equipment is not enough scientific in its activities. The main reason for the lack of scientific work in the Institute — is a limited method of investigation, the underestimation of the experimental method.
On matters of reconstruction of Moscow he stopped in his speech, member of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR V. Babur. According to him, there is a wrong doctrine and in respect of building highways that gave negative results. It is believed that because the workshops are Mosproyekt trunk, then we must first build up their own project pipeline. Architects busy. that are arranged on the highways s peculiar screens and solve complex problems in the reconstruction of the city as a whole.
B. Baburov believes that it is necessary to create a single urban planning authority. We must continue to held competitions for the position of chief architect of a city.
Referring to the state of architectural science. m. Baburov stressed that the Academy of Architecture of the USSR has not developed a scientific concept of development hub architecture. Instead it bases its work on a purely quantitative basis, by increasing the number of institutions, the expansion of state researchers.
Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Architecture V. Svetlichny talked about. that the best architects — the color of our architecture — work on individual projects and almost s involved in the development of types of buildings. Ou imposing on criticism of the style of work of the Architectural Board of Moscow. The members of this council, for example. L. Rudnev.
B. lofan and others in analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the projects did not clearly express its opinion, the meaning of such assessments are very difficult to grasp; do not act masters of architecture and in the press with his assessment of the major events in the life of our architecture.
I. Bylinknn, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Architecture, said the Academy, as a scientific institution, has taken a position of non-interference in the life and in the development of architecture, she passed progressive and negative trends in architectural practice, has not stated its attitude to those processes. committed in architectural life of the country. The Presidium of the Academy failed to organize and direct the work of members of the academy for the solution of its statutory objectives. For this reason, the Presidium does not represent the combined opinion of full members and corresponding members of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR, their peer point of view on the development of architecture in the country.
Member of the USSR Academy of Architecture V. lofan said that the creative activity of architects gap between developed by architectural forms and the requirements of the new construction machinery deepened so that the architects were unprepared to address such a big problem, as the industrialization of construction. Negative role played here invalid «archive» attitude to architectural heritage. In. What creates this situation is largely to blame for the Academy of Architecture of the USSR, the workers which glorify bad work of architecture. Unsuccessful works and glorify the magazine «Architecture of the USSR.»
The Academy is also suffering because its leaders are overloaded, work in many places.
I. Magidin, corresponding member of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR stressed.
that the work of the Academy is largely idle. Sessions are convened infrequently, their materials are not made public. change in the architectural practice sessions do not create solutions.
Presidency fenced off from the team of researchers, its meetings are held in secret.
Member of the USSR Academy of Architecture II. Blokhin said in his speech that the institutions of the academy could be of great assistance to business model design, but the State Committee for Construction poorly uses the capabilities of these institutions. Scientific-methodical management business model design is organized badly.
In science, related to the construction, operation can not be built only on laboratory experiments and experimental verification is necessary. Our home Institute of Architecture, concluded his speech P. Blokhin, strongly in favor of the experimental work on a standard design, which is not carried out by the Academy.
D. Arkip, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Architecture, focused on the issue of the significance of the artistic perspective in architecture. Misconceptions about the beauty, the style of Soviet architecture were one of the causes of ornamentation in architecture, all that tinsel, so that all the jars. Unfortunately, the artistic problems of the USSR Academy of Architecture is not engaged, providing design them to individuals. as they solve these big issues are not under force.
In total there is neglect and develop artistic problems of the interior public buildings, while this is an area of architectural activity subject to serious errors; Many interiors of public buildings are examples of copying ravine samples or examples of eclecticism.
In conclusion, ie. Arkin said that the Academy of Architecture of the USSR is the only scientific institution, which is not conducted a systematic analysis of what is happening in the international practice.
The question of excesses in architecture, said in a speech full member of the USSR Academy of Architecture D. Chechulin. — It is not only a question of artistic merit, but also a political issue. Each of us. making mistakes in his creative work, succumbing to trends decorations, very soon convinced that the shortcomings were primarily disadvantages caused by poverty, content design, the principle of poverty; then it becomes clear and the alleged «modern» sound of the architectural work, the imaginary its novelty.
The style of architecture is generated not by one person, he stressed t. Chechulin, but we are. Academy members do not speak out on the subject of style, do not give evaluation of architectural work until then. until it is given the official public assessment. This leads to the fact that architects are deprived of their work timely assistance, timely criticism.
Keldysh, member of the USSR Academy of Architecture, noted that s architectural science pet general direction. dedication, academic institutions working in isolation, and yet in their activity observed adverse parallelism. Another major drawback — the isolation of science from the architectural practice. USSR Academy of Architecture must come to grips with the introduction in the design and construction excellence, it is necessary, perhaps by creating a special office.
Not published literature on architecture and construction, manuscripts lie around for years in publishing.
Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Architecture Mikhailov said that the creative practice of a number of masters of architecture was in contradiction with the requirements of industrialization of construction. The Academy also has fallen behind with the formulation of the question. This lag Academy has its reasons. One of them is. that the Academy did not launched work on criticism and theoretical generalization of architectural practice, not an assessment and theoretical writings on architecture. Eighteen months going Academy Tsapenko discuss the book «On a realistic basis of Soviet architecture», but he did not. In the magazine «Architecture of the USSR» published an article by Boris Mikhailov, «On the style of the architecture,» demanded, because of its content, a serious debate, but also on the work of the Academy has not responded. Institute of History and Theory of Architecture lagging behind, engaged uvrazhey. Management of the Institute does not use any scientific authority.
Speaking of the fight against the excesses. against decorations is the most important task, that is. Mikhailov, however, warned against the deviations in the direction of constructivism, alien to Soviet architecture.
Corresponding Member A. Arefiev pointed out in his speech that there is a caring young architectural frames — immediately after graduation — for scientific research in the academy. although they are a truly scientific work has not yet been prepared. A lot of the time. when architects spent on administrative work. All this suggests. that the well-known architects of the project breaks away from the work of construction.
One of the reasons for this phenomenon, according to t. Aref’eva, is. it is wrong to arrange payment pile of designers, researchers in the field of architecture are paid higher than the architects involved directly with the architectural and construction practice. Improper remuneration designers objectively leads to a decrease in productivity and quality of their work.
J. Sawicki, a member of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR, in his speech pointed out the reasons which, in his opinion, led to a reduction in the role of scientific academies.
Some argue, he said that the academy is too much concerned with architecture as art. This thesis is completely wrong, Academy, on the contrary, too little involved in these issues, and this has affected the condition of the architectural Prace-tnkn.
Excesses in architecture, he continued. harmful not only because they cause economic damage. If the architectural details were very cheap. and even then the architectural community would act against excesses. as the — it’s a matter of principle, the question of the direction in architecture.
The Academy does not achieve that its estimates and judgments are effectively influence on the architectural works of masters, the quality of the architecture. The Presidium of the Academy correctly pointed out at the time the shortcomings of Architecture building in Kiev Downtown. What is the fate of the decision taken by the Bureau? It turned out to be under a bushel. Regular recommendations have not been implemented.
All of this leads to the fact that the Academy of Architecture of the USSR ne plays the role in the development of architectural ideas, which she is an architectural research center, to play.
Continued on the meeting of the active researchers Academy of creative discussion of questions of architecture made it possible to identify significant gaps in architectural science and wrong, divorced from the demands of life direction of scientific work of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR.
After the speech, the president of the Academy A. Mordvinova, which is widely read and commented on the draft resolution, drawn up by the Presidium of the Academy posle’provedennyh institutions in meetings of scientists, with sharp criticism of the project and the activities of the Academy staff were Schetinin I., H. Grad, K. Trapeznikov . Ivanov. G. Prozorovsky. A. Mikhailov, N. Bylnnknn and others.
Candidate of architecture Shchetinin noted that embellishment appeared in Soviet architecture is not the fault of architects and approving departments, as formulated in the draft resolution, but primarily as a result of the backlog of architectural theory, the detachment from the practice of the Academy of Architecture.
According t. Shchetinina, Academy leaders are dismissive of party orientation of architecture, proof of which is the tolerant attitude to lag behind the presidium of the Academy of architectural theory, the lack of criticism and patronizing attitude to all indiscriminately works by leading architects.
Tov. Schetinin noted that embellishment in architecture is under a well-known theoretical base. The collection of articles on the issues of creative architecture. released in 1945 under the editorship of A. Mordvinova, in his article, and in articles by Prof.. Boris Mikhailov, prof. Bunin and others. misunderstood the importance of architecture as an art activity. Professor Bunin, for example. explicitly calls for the embellishment, the construction of entire buildings that do not have a utilitarian purpose.
The article by Mordvinova task of creating facilities for a man pushed pas wayside, industrial and rural buildings from the classification of works of architecture in general excluded. In a report at the IX session in 1950. A. Mordvinians glorify buildings with architectural extravagances, such as high-rise building on the Komsomolskaya Square in Moscow and its own high-rise building project in the Dorogomilov waterfront.
The Presidium of the Academy of Architecture, went on to say t. Schetinin forgot indication MI Kalinin, VM Molotov and Khrushchev about. that in Soviet architecture, there should be no pretense. false monumentalnzma that need to build economically and architecture must be strict, without any frills.
Instead of fighting with the embellishment, the bureau praised pompous buildings, promoted fasadniche-tion (Rybyatskogo architect house on the street Chkalov in Moscow), theoretically justifying artistic excesses and neglecting a matter of convenience.
Presidency patronizing attitude to the publication of these «works» as H. Kornfeld book about the masters of Soviet architecture, which is sycophantic flattered many large buildings in recent years. At the same time inhibits the Presidium of the publication of books with a critical analysis of post-war construction.
Deputy Director of the Institute of Urban Development K. Trapeznikov said. that the draft resolution does not affect the basic question — about the direction of architecture, about the relation of art to reality.
The Presidency, said t. Trapeznikov does not enjoy the authority nor the design organizations, either within the academy. The reason for this is a vicious style of work of the Bureau, which is less than the distance nude. fenced off from the greater number lektiva.
The draft resolution properly labeled to reduce the number of members of the Bureau from 11 to 5-7 people. Collective leadership does not interfere with work, and helps her, but t. Mordvinians, commenting on the resolution stated the opposite. Collegiality is absent in the discussion, at a meeting of the staff of institutions are not invited.
Noting that the work of the institutes of the Academy many shortcomings, that is. Trapeznikov critically said that the Urban Institute has not led the fight against the ostentatious beginning in the building of cities. .
In our cities, he said, screens, ribbons are built highway overlooked improvement work quarters. This question was discussed at the institute back in 1949 .. But the conclusion we did, while the practice of terraced houses for a long time should be condemned. The Institute examined individual cities (such as Stalingrad). but decisive conclusions on these cities are not.
In general, said t. Trapeznikov, Institute timidly approaches to assessment practices. We know that in the design of the south-western district of Moscow allowed waste and embellishment in planning and architecture, but the battle of Moscow architectural and planning management of our institute gave.
Architects believe us. Academy employees, and we are on the wrong path. It should be clearly stated in the resolution causes decorations.
Who Soviet architecture is facing a crucial stage of development. It is necessary to find a general line in architecture in connection with the widespread introduction in the construction of industrial methods. It is causing the need for new compositions and new architectural forms. It should, however, not to be the art of the technology.
Corresponding Member of the Academy of Y. Sawicki said that there is no need to revise all architectural theory, Soviet architecture as a whole is on the right track.
Recognizing that need a serious debate about the nature of architecture and its purpose, ie. Sawicki at the same time declared that the statute of the Union of Soviet Architects is given in the general definition of the correct architecture. The definition states, inter alia, the appointment of the material architecture. But functional solutions, due to inattention to the matter of convenience, are inferior, as exemplified by t. Sawicki led the old residential section, designed by architect 3. Rosenfeld. and the House «a sandy street in Moscow.
Origin decorations tons. Sawicki explains the theory behind not only of Soviet architecture and other causes. as weak-willed as the architects who indulge sometimes bad taste of the customer projects.
Lenin’s slogan about the development of the world’s cultural heritage has played a huge role in the fight against constructivism, now it is necessary to apply creatively to the new conditions of building highly industrial methods. Innovative designs require artistic interpretation. But it should not be forgotten, said t. Sawicki that the brick and tufa are still widely used.
The fact that the formalism we became widely available, said the architect G. Grads indicates serious trouble in the architectural and construction business. From the draft resolution, it can be concluded that there is nothing special about the practice does not occur and the Presidium of the Academy is going to work in the old way.
Presidency s just not interested in construction, but even the work of its institutions. In five years, ie. Mordvinians never visited the Institute of architecture of public buildings.
Now the time is ripe strongly condemn restorative formalism in architecture. Meanwhile tonnes. Savitsky is the theory of architecture, we continue to think: should we abandon those theoretical assumptions. which, according to t. Gradova. and spawned embellishment.
The question around which sparked controversy in ascertaining the nature and essence of architecture — it’s an old philosophical question: what is considered the main architectural structures — material (utilitarian) or spiritual (aesthetic) start. Home — material. But in many plants, which heads the academy considered successful, see the primacy of the decorations, the primacy of form over content. There are very expensive homes and sanatoriums. cost is often several times higher than permissible. That is why the formalism has become a dangerous trend, although it is not typical for the whole of Soviet architecture.
Impact Academy to practice very weak, as can be judged from the fact that almost all of the 500 scientific papers academy far removed from practice.
Resolution of the Presidium of vagueness, it is dominated by the words of uncertain shape, «effort», «schedule» and so on. N. The institute is widely believed theory that technology is only a means to express artistic ideas, but the resolution is not given to rebuke this formalistic teoriyke.
In conclusion, ie. Grads invited the Bureau to speak clearly on architectural direction.
Deputy Director of the Institute of Architecture of public buildings Ivanov stressed that the draft resolution is not the main thing. You can not shift the blame for the hobby embellishment to architects, as they follow the instructions in the work of the Academy of Architecture and the Union of Architects n watch closely. have built these organizations are evaluated positively and put forward pa bonus.
Formalism and eclecticism in practice are the result of distortions in the idealistic theory and monopolistic practices Arakcheyev leadership by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Architecture.
Presidency at the time praised the report Matsaev the nature of architecture in the light of labor Stalin’s «Marxism and Problems of Linguistics», although the report on the situation of the nature of language mechanically transferred to the dogmatic architecture artistic ideals declared eternal, transcending class .
Tov. Ivanov cited several forfeits to suppress criticism by the presidium. In particular lia meeting to discuss the architecture of high-rise building pa Smolensk Square, was not given the floor to members-cor-respondent Academy K. Antonov, who produced a lot of material about the architectural and structural excesses in the building.
In the evaluation of the architectural and construction practice, said t. Ivanov, the Presidium of the Academy stands in the orthodox line — all praise.
Deputy Director of the Institute ‘rural architecture building and construction Ryazanov pointed out that clear evidence of the withdrawal of the Presidium of the problems of mass construction is the lack of attention to the issues of its rural architecture.
AkademYYa architecture, said t. Ryazanov. It could do much to the standard design for the countryside, but the presidium did not take measures to implement the decision XII session of the Academy on the subject.
To enhance the work of the Institute of architecture of rural buildings tons. Ryazanov considers it necessary to increase its staff.
Noting that Shchetinin and Ivanov rightly criticized if presidium tons. Ryazanov said that statements tons. Ivanov’s address and so on. Mordvinova places was too excited. About inadmissibility of the current critics also said the candidate of architecture 10. Yaralov.
Deputy Director of the Institute of Building Technology G. Prozorovsky spoke forcefully about the underestimation of the Presidium of the engineering issues of building. as well as fragmented activities of the Institute Academician.
The draft resolution noted, said t. Prozorovsky. that the Building Research Institute is a pioneer in the introduction of advanced finishing (tiles, concrete block). But it happens in addition to wanting tons. Mordvinova that long did not agree to include these issues in the plan of scientific work of the Academy, considering that the development of manufacturing techniques of materials should only branch institutes ministries.
Good Declaration The Bureau covers the bad activity. But his insistence, were eliminated are important to the practice of complex scientific work. The staff of the Institute of construction machinery does not know what to work on other institutions, the general meetings are not conducted at the academy.
In conclusion, ie. Prozorovsky noted that the work of the Institute arhntistury rural buildings and structures at the last session was flattered, good suggestion for the introduction of the practice of rural construction developed very low construction of residential houses complex mpogodelny.
Researcher at the Institute of architecture of public and industrial buildings IV and V. Magndni Bazaar in their statements indicated the unacceptable indifference Presch-USSR Academy to industrial architecture.
Many of the shortcomings in the construction industry, said t. Magidin, are due to start in the art of ignoring these structures, s causing a significant portion of factories looks unsightly once outside. and inside.
Industrial architecture is «arhipasynkom» at the Academy. The resolution of the presidium of the drink s nothing said.
Tov. Magndni also criticized the instructions for projects and budgets approved by the Committee for Construction. According to the instructions for the approval of projects of sufficient to provide a plan and sectional buildings; architecture facades approving authority is not interested.
Corresponding Member of the Academy of Mikhailov stressed that the resolution is necessary to specify on what art should be developed based on the mass construction of housing and public buildings.
The Soviet architecture. Mikhailov said, there is a struggle between two trends: realism and formalist. Formalistic course was constructivism, now it appears a new type of formalism — on the basis of pseudo-classicism.
In construction practice there are two extremes: a grand and massive architecture. The Academy of Architecture overlooked the importance of this phenomenon; she rebuffed false embellishment.
Architectural theory, said m further. Mikhailov, could not create formalistic direction. But it can contribute to its development, exacerbate it. If you mistakenly wrote one Matsaev — it s still dangerous; but if you write several prominent architects and art historians. it creates a trend. The direction in architecture can also create a dozen health centers, two dozen stations plus hundreds of houses.
Backlog of T. Mikhailov explains. that the staff at the academy formally selected, resulting in research positions at the Institute for Theory sometimes take a person unable to write a single article.
Candidate of architecture Yu Yaralov. entered into polemics with t. Schetinin of least use neutnlitarnyh volumes in architecture, he presented the case well. that m. Schetinin criticizing Professor Bunin, allegedly claimed that in the composition of public buildings are always redundant even porches.
Tov. Yaralov said that the Institute of History and Theory of slipping into aestheticism. As t. Mikhailov, t. Yaralov said the staff of the Institute of History and Theory of s few and that all employees are able to engage in theory.
11a of the meeting were made by scientists Academy Alekseev.
Zmeul S., M. Makotinskny and others.
Tov. Alekseev, speaking about the origins of formalist perversions in architecture. noted in particular that contributed to the development of embellishment criticism weakness in the Union of Soviet Architects. Section criticism of the Union (the head member of the Academy B. lofan) is idle. It. T said. Alexeyev, does not express an opinion on the projects, but only officially approves all construction.
Speaking at the end of the debate, the scientific secretary of the academy I. blade said. that the shortcomings of architectural science stifle progress in all architectural and construction business.
The problem of reducing the cost of construction — one of the main problems the solution of which contributes to faster meet the material needs of the people. Therefore, issues of industrialization, typing construction and architectural theory are inseparable.
The Academy, a research body, does not head the progressive movement in the building. Academy overlooked the contradiction between industrial technology and architecture, not studying the experience of the construction.
The right to speak, said t. A blade of grass. who noted that the draft resolution did not emphasize the fact that the Bureau was in the tail of the architectural and building practice. But it is wrong to say that the Bureau called for embellishment; the Presidium of the error is. that he has not expressed its attitude to this.
The Academy did not give a theoretical evaluation model design, not formulated scientific requirements to it. The Presidium of the Academy has become isolated in its own shell, the last meeting of the asset was held in 1952. Rights tons. Schetinin in. that there is no scientific academy of creative criticism.
Material conditions of scientific research in the laboratories meet the increased tasks s Academy.
The discussion about the essence of architecture, ie. Blade considers it wrong to spend only at the Institute of Theory. This discussion should lead the Presidium of the Academy. It is also necessary to organize a debate on the main issues of Soviet architecture.
In conclusion, he delivered tons. Mordvinians, who said that he fully associates itself with the statement made by t. Bylinkina and that criticism has been deep and fair.
Tov. Mordvinians acknowledged that the most important part of the draft resolution and that there is no need to condemn the formalistic trend: it is flawed, it is-a departure from the principles of socialist realism.
It should be. He said t. Mordvinians, enhance resolution criticizing the presidium, who overlooked this phenomenon. During this Presidency and is responsible in the first instance, I as president. Tov. Mordvinians also said that he agreed with A. Mikhailov about the state of architectural theory.
By finalizing the resolution Academy considering the critical comments made at the meeting of activists of the academy, he was involved in the speakers in the debate.