Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T21:27:45.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ruins and History: Observations on Russian Approaches to Destruction and Decay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Andreas Schönle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article surveys theories of ruins and discusses their applicability to Russian history and culture. It identifies four major approaches to ruins: the ruin as a site of freedom from social norms and practices (Denis Diderot, Peter Fritzsche, Tim Edensor), the ruin as a reconciliation with nature (Georg Simmel), the ruin as the affirmation of modernity at the expense of the past (Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno), and the ruin as the emblem of on-going historical decay (Walter Benjamin). In contrast to western approaches to ruins, Schönle identifies a reluctance to aestheticize ruins in Russian culture. Yet ruins acquire a distinctive meaning in Russian culture, be it that they occur and disappear as a result of political will, that they serve as exemplars of imperial legitimacy and might, that they reveal the vulnerability of Russia's identity between east and west, or that they betoken the crushing of Utopian projects and the magnitude of historical devastation.

Type
Forum
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , Winter 2006 , pp. 649 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Diderot, Denis, “Salon of 1767,” in Goodman, John, ed. and trans., Diderot on Art (New Haven, 1995), 2:199.Google Scholar

2. Ibid. By mistranslating the pronouns, the English translation mysteriously conceals the fact that the friend invoked here is a woman.

3. Ibid., 2:200.

4. Simmel, Georg, “The Ruin,” in Wolff, Kurt H., ed., Essays on Sociology, Philosophy, and Aesthetics (New York, 1959), 260.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., 262.

6. Ibid., 265.

7. Ibid., 266.

8. Benjamin, Walter, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, trans. Osborne, John (London, 1998), 92.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., 178.

10. Ibid., 178-79.

11. Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W., Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. Cumming, John (New York, 1994), 12.Google Scholar

12. See also Jameson, Fredric, A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present (London, 2002).Google Scholar Jameson explores the wide-ranging ramifications of the notion of modernity, the ways in which it produces its own narrativized past, yields to historical periodization, preempts subjectivity, and enshrines the ideology of an autonomous aesthetic sphere.

13. Edensor, Tim, Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality (Oxford, 2005), 15.Google Scholar

14. Ibid.

15. Fritzsche, Peter, “How Nostalgia Narrates Modernity,” in Confino, Alon and Fritzsche, Peter, eds., The Work of Memory: New Directions in the Study of German Society and Culture (Urbana, 2002), 76.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., 77-81. Fritzsche further develops his ideas in Stranded in the Present: Modern Time and the Melancholy of History (Cambridge, Mass., 2004), 92-130.

17. Fritzsche, “How Nostalgia Narrates Modernity,” 81.

18. D. O. Shvidkovskii claims that the original double-palaced Tsarytsino displeased the empress because by the 1780s her son, with whom she was to share the complex, had fallen into her disfavor. Shvidkovskii writes of a “battle of palaces“: when Paul ascended to the throne, he ordered the meticulous destruction of Pella, a majestic rationalist neoclassical palace Catherine had erected for her grandson Alexander. Stones from Pella were used to construct the Mikhailovskii castle in St. Petersburg, Paul's new residence, where he was assassinated. Shvidkovskii, D. O., “'Bitva dvortsov': Arkhitektura i politika v tsarstvovanii imperatritsy Ekateriny II,” Tsaritsynskii nauchnyi vestnik (Moscow, 2002), 167-85.Google Scholar

19. Shvidkovskii, Dmitrii, The Empress and The Architect: British Architecture and Gardens at the Court of Catherine the Great (New Haven, 1996), 102.Google Scholar

20. Shvidkovskii, “'Bitva dvortsov,“’ 175.

21. Schönle, Andreas, “Prostranstvennaia poetika Tsarskogo Sela v ekaterininskoi prezentatsii imperii,” Tynianovskiisbornik, vol. 11 (2002): 51–66.Google Scholar

22. Schönle, Andreas, “Garden of the Empire: Catherine's Appropriation of the Crimea,” Slavic Review 60, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Karamzin, N. M., “Istoricheskie vospominaniia i zamechaniia na puti k Troitse,” Sochineniia Karamzina (Moscow, 1804), 8:312.Google Scholar With novels such as the Mysteries of Udolpho (1794), Ann Radcliffe became one of the most famous authors of gothic novels, tales of horror and victimization that take place in decrepit castles and dramatize the plight of predominently innocent female virtue. Radcliffe was particularly renowned for her vivid descriptions of settings and landscapes.

24. Ibid., 8:318.

25. Ibid., 8:329-30.

26. Fritzsche, “How Nostalgia Narrates Modernity,” 66-67.

27. Stendhal, ‘Journal, 14-15 septembre 1812,” Oeuvres complètes (Genève, 1969), 4:22.

28. See Andreas Schönle, “Modernity as a ‘Destroyed Anthill': Tolstoi on History and the Aesthetics of Ruins” (unpublished manuscript, 2006).

29. Zorin, Andrei, Kormia dvuglavogo orla … : Literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v Rossii v poslednei treti XVIII-pervoi tretiXIXveka (Moscow, 2001), 241-66.Google Scholar

30. Gogol', N. V., “Poslednii den’ Pompei (kartina Briullova),” Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Leningrad, 1952), 8:107.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., 8:110.

32. Ibid., 8:111.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid., 8:112.

35. Ibid.

36. Moeller-Sally, Betsy F., “No Exit: Piranesi, Doré, and the Transformation of the Petersburg Myth in Mstislav Dobuzhinskii's Urban Dreams ,” Russian Review 57, no. 4 (October 1998): 554-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Gusarova, A. P., Mslislav Dobuzhinskii: Zhivopis'. Grafika. Teatr (Moscow, 1982), 32.Google Scholar

38. For a beautiful essay highlighting the self-canceling streak of the Russian avantgarde, see Clark, T.J., “God Is Not Cast Down,” Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism (New Haven, 1999), 225-97.Google Scholar Clark quotes Kazimir Malevich's pronouncement that “the earth has been abandoned like a worm-eaten house” (278), which suggests that for Malevich the earth is the ruin that must be cast off in pursuit of a new totality. In this reading, Malevich's Black Square could be construed as the ruin reduced to its enabling nonexistence. It is not an image of breaking away from the earth, but the image of a “material place where forms can be made to negate their usual connotations—of uprightness, density, scale, self-support, interdependence, equilibrium, imminent collapse” (285, my emphasis). The Black Square is the ruin turning on itself to deny what remains of its form, while not yet abandoning its materiality.

39. In a fortuitous parallel, the angel seemingly flying off the column and surveying the destruction recalls Benjamin's angel of history, modeled after Paul Klee's Angelus Novum. With his face “turned toward the past,” the angel “sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage.” See Benjamin, Walter, “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” in Arendt, Hannah, ed., Illuminations (1968; reprint, New York, 1986), 257.Google Scholar

40. Moeller-Sally, “No Exit,” 564.

41. Boym, Svetlana, “Peterburg umer. Da zdravstvuet Peterburg! Ruiny revoliutsii u Shklovskogo i Mandel'shtama,” Sankt-Peterburg: Okno v Rossiiu, 1900-1935 (St. Petersburg, 1997), 171—82.Google Scholar On Shklovskii, see also Kalinin, I. A., “Istoriia kak iskusstvo chlenorazdel'nosti (istoricheskii opyt i meta/literaturnaia praktika russkikh formalistov,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 71 (2005): 103-31.Google Scholar

42. Lotman, Iurii M. and Uspenskii, Boris A., “Binary Models in the Dynamics of Russian Culture (to the End of the Eighteenth Century),” in Nakhimovsky, Alexander D. and Nakhimovsky, Alice Stone, eds., The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History (Ithaca, 1985), 34.Google Scholar

43. Wortman, Richard, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, 2000), 2:235-70.Google Scholar

44. The construction of the hotel led to the destruction of several churches, but the few that survived produced a stark stylistic contrast. Likewise, after the fall of the Soviet empire, the many statues of Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet officials were not simply destroyed but were first thrown together in a park in a haphazard collection of Soviet sculptural trash, then progressively museified. Now they are partly available for reinsertion in the urban landscape as a sign of Soviet revival. See Yampolsky, Mikhail, “In the Shadow of Monuments: Notes on Iconoclasm and Time,” in Condee, Nancy, ed., Soviet Hieroglyphics: Visual Culture in Late Twentieth-Century Russia (Bloomington, 1995), 93–112 Google Scholar; Boym, Svedana, “Postcommunism, Postmodernism,” Common Places: Mythologies of Everyday Life in Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 1994), 215-38Google Scholar; and Mulvey, Laura, “Reflections on Disgraced Monuments,” in Leach, Neil, ed., Architecture and Revolution: Contemporary Perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1999), 219-27.Google Scholar

45. Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, trans. Richard, and Winston, Clara (New York, 1981), 56.Google Scholar

46. Paperny, Vladimir, Architecture in the Age of Stalin: Culture Two, trans. Hill, John and Barris, Roann (Cambridge, Eng., 2002), 17.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., 18.

48. Yampolsky, “In the Shadow of Monuments,” 97.

49. Paperny, Architecture in the Age of Stalin, 252.

50. Paperny interestingly claims that Stalinist ideology could not aestheticize destruction either, contrary to the Nazi celebration of war as a sublime spectacle, because it could not liberate itself from the identification of the signifier with the signified. Ibid., 254-56.

51. Grigorii Revzin, “Modern dolzhen byt’ razrushen,” Kovimersant-vlast', 14 June 2004.

52. Ibid.

53. Fritzsche, “How Nostalgia Narrates Modernity,” 81.

54. Boym, Svetlana, The Future of Nostalgia (New York, 2001), 83–119.Google Scholar

55. For a brief discussion of the polemics around the reconstruction of Tsarytsino, see http://www.rg.ru/2005/08/08/a74291.html (last accessed 5 September 2006).

56. Yampolsky, “In the Shadow of Monuments,” 110.

57. For a rich discussion of the evolution of mass nostalgia in postcommunist Russia, see Boym, Future of Nostalgia, 57-71.