и его немецкому коллеге, вкусы которого в молодости тяготели к стилю Баухауза. Третий адепт управляемого вождём общественного строя, итальянец Бенито Муссолини следовал смеси классики и идей футуристов.
As is often the case, the style under discussion eludes precise definitions and must be described in comparative terms. Directed, according to its creators, to reduce the cost of construction via rational architecture, it sought to get as far as possible from the canons of the bourgeoisie, embodied in the Art Nouveau and Modern styles, which fascinated the cultural layer of the newly rich – merchants and industrialists of the early 20th century. Mosaics, stained-glass, window frames resembling lotus flowers, and fanciful balconies were replaced with concrete buildings and several new (or modified) architectural elements in the form of multi-story half-cylinder bay windows suspended in the air, windows built into the corners, continuous balconies along all apartments on the floor, protruding from the wall parts of the rooms in order to achieve three-dimensionality instead of flat surfaces facing the street. Fortunately, constructivism, born of the revolutionary, anti-bourgeois impulse of European-oriented idealists, avoided the pernicious intersection with the dead-end archaism of the Russ and Neo-Gothic styles, examples of which are still found around Moscow built by the order of newly baked rich patriots from all periods of the Russian 20th century. At the same time, it cannot be denied that many of the discoveries of the preceding style of Modern found their place in constructivist designs. The main difference for me comes to the fore with a closer look at the arrangement of living quarters – the realization of the dream of the utopian socialists of all times: the rejection of the family as an autonomous unit of society, and replacing it with a collective, where everyone is under a close attention by the neighbors and governing bodies (even if it was the case of the self-management). “Constructionism must become the highest formal engineering of all life,” – was said in the first issue of the "LEF" magazine – the mouthpiece of the writers of the "Left Front of the Arts", assumed to be, as it then seemed to them, the spokesmen for the ideology of the people in power.
On the other hand, despite the proclaimed ideals of the constructivists, their designs did not look like badly needed economical apartments for the workers which were supposed to be relocated from huts and barracks after the victory of the proletarian revolution. Instead of benefiting the masses, the authors rather cared about embodying their new aesthetic ideals akin to the art of the Russian avant-garde – the forerunner and, at the same time, the product of the Russian socialist revolution. Ideology required them to introduce elements of scientifically justified rational life into architecture and interior decoration. But this whole superstructure, regardless of how the authors themselves treated it, served as a pretext for the realization of their dream of a future utopia in defiance of naturally conservative tastes (like Lenin himself, for example), and, often, aesthetic ineptness of most of the new customers, in this case, the military-revolutionary party elite. Of course, among the latter there were some people who could relate to the new aesthetics born by the revolution, but for one reason or another, their influence, initially strong in the field of artistic education and social construction, literally faded away in just a decade, and they “accidentally " turned out to be political opponents (and, accordingly, the victims) of the real owners of the country of victorious socialism, led by a mustachioed leader in polished boots. The latter liked the classics, as, indeed, did his German colleague, whose tastes in his younger years gravitated towards the Bauhaus style. The third adept of the leader-controlled social system, the Italian Benito Mussolini followed a mix of classic and futurist ideas.
Классика в её наиболее помпезном выражении победила в СССР, когда идея управлять людьми с помощью создания нового коллективистского и морально безупречного быта оказалась откровенно утопической и была заменена старой, как мир, идеей репрессий против подозреваемых в нелояльности слуг режима, запугивания населения физической расправой или отъёма средств к существованию и возвеличивания мегало маньяков вождей. Таким образом жилые и административные здания последнего десятилетия перед войной, и еще какое-то время после неё (до XX съезда КПСС) в Москве, в столицах союзных республик и некоторых стран народной демократии, несут на себе печать сталинского стиля со шпилями, колоннами, скульптурами и пирамидальным профилем.
Снова повторю, что ни конструктивизм, ни вытеснивший его сталинский ампир, не были достаточно приспособлены да, впрочем, никогда и не предназначались для массового расселения рабочего класса, таким образом методы строительства и вкусы архитекторов были использованы для размещения более полезного режиму слоя советских служащих и преданных власти представителей творческой интеллигенции. Судя по всему, их потомки до сих пор обитают в домах, заполнивших центр Москвы взамен сгоревших или снесенных одноэтажных кварталов мещанских домов, оставшихся от предшествующих исторических периодов. С той лишь поправкой, что всей этой массы домов не хватило для экспоненциально растущей массы слуг режима, в том числе неисчислимых военных, включая преподавателей и курсантов военных училищ. То есть, за редким исключением к концу 50-х весь жилой фонд центра Москвы состоял из коммунальных квартир (вот когда осуществилась мечта идеологов коммунистического быта!). Не знаю как Вы, но переехав в западный мир в самом конце 70-х я заметил, что упоминание многосемейных коммунальных квартир в разговоре с местными, часто требовало объяснения этого экзотического феномена.
Classicism in its most pompous expression won in the USSR, when the idea of controlling people by creating a new collectivist and morally impeccable way of life turned out to be flat utopian and was replaced by the world-old idea of reprisals against suspected of disloyalty servants of the regime, intimidation of the population by physical violence or deprivation of livelihood and exaltation of megalo-maniac leaders. Thus, residential and administrative buildings of the last decade before the second world war, and for some time after it (before the XX Congress of the CPSU) in Moscow, in the capitals of the