Suchergebnisse

This article examines the transition from the principle of abolishing the way of life structured around the individual (communal house) to socially stratified comfortable housing (a cooperative) in the second half of the 1920s and mid-1930s. Traditionally, housing cooperatives are interpreted as an instrument of proletarian social stratification. The author studies industrial housing cooperatives of scholars, characterising the specifics of their interaction with the local authorities, clarifying their social composition, and reconstructing the peculiarities underlying the functioning and financial discipline. Using the documentation of the State Archives of the Russian Federation, the author explores the history of several Moscow, Leningrad, and regional scholarly cooperatives. Also, the author separately considers the project of the House for academic staff in Omsk illustrating the publication with an architectural drawing of a typical layout of elite accommodation. The author concludes that a short period of housing cooperation, which unfolded during the first five-year plan, could contribute to the strengthening of social stratification (scholars were taken out of the framework of general civil norms for housing), stratification within the academic community (financially successful categories of scholars were singled out), reducing the severity of the housing problem in the provinces (due to the resettlement of visiting specialists). On the other hand, the brief period cannot be considered successful due to the instability of cooperatives for researchers in the system of working housing, the small number of cooperatives and efforts to increase their administrative enlargement, the vagueness of the boundaries between municipal and cooperative housing, and, finally, the financial burden of cooperatives for scholars (with high state credit costs).

The concept of Soviet science was formed in many ways spontaneously. Initially, under the conditions of the Civil War, science was viewed by the Bolsheviks as a tool and a way to achieve political and military goals. But, as with other objects of social design — socialist economy, culture, education, etc. — they did not have clear ideas about socialist science. Only the opinion about the class character of bourgeois science and its role, subordinate to the interests of capital and the monarchy, was stable. Taking this factor into account, the attitude of the new government to various scientific areas was formed. The Bolsheviks had more confidence in the natural and technical sciences, the achievements of which were supposed to be "taken as they are passed on to us by the bourgeois heritage". The social sciences and humanities were judged sharply critically as, on the whole, hostile to the socialist idea. The Soviet model of science finally took shape in the 1930s. It was distinguished by some specific features that largely determined its achievements and failures. These include a hierarchical, open-ended organisational structure that includes 3 sectors of science (departmental, academic and university). In addition, it is necessary to note such features of Soviet science as decentralisation, complete dependence on the state and the planning system. The tactics of state support for strategically important areas of science and the lack of alternative mechanisms for financing scientific research contributed to the rapid bureaucratisation of Soviet science, deformation of the structure of scientific knowledge (imbalance between the exact, natural, technical, social sciences and the humanities in terms of the pace and level of development) and the priority of applied research over fundamental. And one more feature is the strict ideological control of scientific knowledge, supplemented by repressions against "bourgeois" science and its representatives, as well as the prohibition (explicit and implicit) on direct contacts, which led to the isolation and low level of mobility of the scientific community.

In 1924, the German aeronaut Walter Bruns turned to the Soviet government with a proposal of cooperation in the field of aeronautics. He suggested creating a concession company for the transportation of passengers by airship from Europe to East Asia, granting the bases of airships the right of extraterritoriality, making them "free harbours". The aim of this study is to present the results of Soviet-German cooperation in the development of aeronautics and the tasks that were planned to be solved with the help of airships in the development of the Arctic territories. Analysis of the sources demonstrates that V. Bruns' project was seen by the Soviet officials as dubious in terms of recoupment, and they were not ready to allocate funds for its implementation. The authorities were interested, first of all, in obtaining German technologies and localising the construction of airships at Soviet shipyards. In this article, special attention is paid to how Bruns' project was evaluated by experts, among whom the military played a leading role. They opposed regular flights of airships with foreign crews across Soviet territory, as they considered them a potential threat to the country's defense. Bruns' other project on the organisation of an international scientific expedition to study the Arctic was of greater interest to the authorities. The practical result of this project was the flight of Graf Zeppelin, a German airship, in 1931 whose crew included Soviet specialists. However, after that, the cooperation with the Italian aeronaut Umberto Nobile became more significant for the Soviet authorities and he began building airships in the USSR.

This article considers the phenomenon of the authors' signatures of Vladimir Grinberg (1896—1942) and Alexander Vedernikov (1898—1975), two representatives of the Leningrad Landscape School community in the 1930s—1940s. During this period, they entered a single circle of friendly and professional communication and experienced mutual influences. The artists' work is considered more broadly and goes beyond their participation in the community. The goal of the article is to single out the most significant periods of their activity, trace changes in the authors' handwriting from decade to decade, pay attention to the period of apprenticeship and formation of the artists, and focus on controversial issues in the attribution of their paintings and drawings. A study of all the works by Grinberg and Vedernikov currently identified in museum and private collections, makes it possible to trace the changes in the authors' styles and discover the artistic landmarks of the masters. Grinberg's manner repeatedly transformed. The neoclassical stylistics of his works of the late 1910s and citation of paintings by the old masters gave way to modest still lifes in the 1920s. After landscapes and scenes of everyday life on a black background in the early 1930s, there was a lightening of the colour scheme during his work on the New Leningrad series in the middle of the decade. In the early 1940s, Grinberg began to paint very broadly, generalising and simplifying the images. This scandalising manner has parallels with the style of the 1960s. Vedernikov was influenced by the art of French post-impressionists. Also, he took interest in the art of Russian folk crafts in the post-war period, more particularly, in Gorodets painting. The article pays much attention to Grinberg's and Vedernikov's lithographs. A significant part of their works has been catalogued and published, which facilitates dating and attribution, but much remains unknown (for example, an episode in Vedernikov's work associated with the unification of the Masters of Analytical Art). In the article, the author describes the marking of works in detail, the placement and outline of the signatures, and traces the changes in them, which will help determine the range of works and authorship more accurately.