Quote:
Originally Posted by aic4ever
We can't be having uncredited images floating about the intertubes, after all. ![Roll eyes](images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
|
My fault: drowsy posting=forgetting to cite images (which are likely in the public domain but who knows)—we were referring to the never-completed Palace of the Soviets (from
muar.ru, drawn by Boris Iofan desperately hoping Stalin would appreciate it):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy
^Well, weirdly, after Gropius, Le Corbusier and Mendelsohn proposed timely designs, the Comintern chose this Neo-Classical concept.
Perhaps, the new Bankster Land Barons will choose a Neo-classical design for the Chicago Spire site after rejecting Calatravas design as counter-revolutionary. I recommend Daniel P. Coffey or Antunovich for this important task.
|
The official line was actually that the Communists were liberating past historical styles from their oppressive contexts, just as they had liberated the masses from their oppressive social conditions.
![Worship](images/smilies/worship.gif)
(Of course, the real reason is that radical politics ≠ radical style, and even if it did the likes of Stalin were pretty regressive anyway).
It is really weird how they anticipated postmodernism—never thought of socialist realism that way before…