The Symbolism and Paradox of Tatlin’s Tower

The discussion in today’s class about Tatlin’s Tower really got me interested in this style of art, architecture, and the artist himself. More specifically, I began to undergo some deep thinking about what the symbolism and paradox of Tatlin’s Tower could potentially have stood for. As we discussed in class, the tower consisted of a double helix that acted as the structure’s primary support system. Within this helix structure, existed four stations: the base for conferences/meetings, above that a pyramid for executive activities, above that a cylinder that was to transmit messages onto clouds/a radio for broadcasting, and finally radio equipment would sit at the top of the structure. Each of these levels would rotate at different speeds: the base would rotate once a year, the pyramid once a month, and the cylinder once a day (Wikipedia.org and class notes/discussion).

After doing some deep thinking, I believe that the structure and function of Tatlin’s Tower was full of symbolism. On a broad scale, I believe that the futuristic design and technological purpose of broadcasting messages onto clouds was a symbol for the Soviet Union’s ambition for the future. This could have been a symbol for the country’s ambitious outlook for the future in terms of art, architecture, and engineering. As we discussed in class, Tatlin’s Tower was planned to be twice the height of the Eiffel Tower. At the time, the Eiffel Tower was the tallest structure in the world and I believe if Tatlin’s Tower was ever completed that then in would have been a symbol for the Soviet Union having the most modern culture (class notes/discussion).

On a smaller scale, I believe that each level of the tower contained symbolism for government function. For instance, the base was constructed to function as a place for legislative meetings and conferences and rotated only once a year. This could symbolize the function of broad government policy and how it was slow to change (thus only rotating once a year). Above this base rested the pyramid used for executive activities. This level was to rotate once a month. I think this symbolizes how executive decisions can move through processes quicker and thus be implemented faster (thus rotating faster than broad policy and once a month). Above this was to exist the cylinder that housed an information center that issued news and manifestos by radio, telegraph, and projection onto clouds (Wikipedia). This was supposed to rotate once a day and I believe this was a symbol for Soviet Union propaganda. This is because propaganda needed to be presented to the public frequently and in many forms in order to influence the most people possible.

While obviously full of symbolism, Tatlin’s Tower also existed as an interesting paradox. In order to build this massive structure that was to be the tallest in the world, an extreme amount of steel and supplies was needed. This proved to be the stopping point in the construction of Tatlin’s Tower because steel was a very rare commodity in the post-war Soviet Union. While the idea of this futuristic tower was a symbol for Soviet modernity, ambition, and aspiration, the actual construction and completion of the tower was essentially impossible in the current conditions of the war-ravaged country. Thus is the paradox; the young Soviet Union had the ambition to become a world power and leader in multiple aspects, but didn’t have the capability or capacity to achieve these goals.

Below is a video that I watched to get a better overall understanding of Tatlin’s Tower. While the video is short, it provides an adequate over-view of Tatlin, his Tower, and the period of constructivism. The most interesting piece that I took away from the video is that Tatlin’s Tower served as an inspiration for many other artists, architects, and engineers and ultimately forged the way ahead for a new form of artwork and architecture.

The Bargaining Model of Conflict: Applied to USA and USSR

This artifact concerns the US and USSR relations during the Cold War and how this applies to the bargaining model of conflict. In terms of perceptions, the United States had malevolent preferences towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The US sacrificed much of its income and resources in order to reduce the Soviet Union’s income/resources. This was essentially done through a conventional and nuclear arms race between the two nations. In this case, the level of malevolence between the two countries was extremely high, so the allotted area and chance for mutual settlement was very low; hence the 5 decade long “Cold War”. This application of malevolent preferences can be seen in figure 1 below.

 

ECON GRAPH

 

 

Lenin’s Mausoleum and Contemporary Protest

This particular post covers the information from Chapter 2: Lenin’s Cake. The major takeaway that I garnished from this reading was the fondness that Soviets and Russians alike had for their leader, Lenin. The reader was implanted with this image that the people loved Lenin from the beginning of the chapter. The author describes a fable very similar to that of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree, where a morally sound Lenin eats his mother’s apple cake, but owns up to his crime. The moral from this story was honesty, and serves as an example of the way people thought Lenin conducted his life.

Flash forward to the year 1924. Lenin is dead and his magnificent mausoleum is being constructed. The author describes the long lines at his tomb, once it is finished being built. “But here you encountered the mausoleum line. It was longer than the lines at GUM for Polish pantyhose and Rumanian ski boots combined. No matter how early I’d trudge over, thousands would already be there in a mile-long orderly file” (Bremzen, 34). This quote describes how busy the tomb was with spectators, several decades ago. In all actuality, the tomb today is far from one of Russia’s top attractions. We learned in class that Lenin’s tomb is not even in the top 100 places to visit, according to trip advisor.

Interesting enough, Lenin’s Mausoleum also serves as a stage for contemporary artists to protest various aspects of Russian politics or the government. The link embedded below shows a video of one of Russia’s most famous contemporary artists nailing his genitalia to the cobblestones outside Lenin’s tomb. The man’s name is Peter Pavlensky.

In an interview, he says the reason behind his stunt is that “A man sitting on Red Square and staring at his balls nailed to the cobblestone is a metaphor of fixating on one’s helplessness. It’s about political indifference that is very dangerous and accelerates the transformation of the country into a police state. The idea came to me when I was taking a stroll in Red Square and saw a huge number of snoops from the Federal Security Service (FSO). This is the very heart of Moscow, people come there from all over the world, but it’s always under surveillance from the snoops, security cameras, snipers and policemen. If the country turns into a police state, it will be filled with snoops, policemen and security cameras. And the permanent Police Day will come. The only thing left would be to stay nailed to the cobblestones by your balls, infinitely fixating on your helplessness” (http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/17937/1/meet-the-artist-who-nailed-his-testicles-to-the-red-square).

I thought this stunt to be very interesting, as it shows that there in fact Russian citizens who are unhappy with the government. I also believe that his stunt could serve as an example for other people to speak out against the government, and not to be afraid of the punishment.

The video is posted below. Just a warning, it is very graphic and the man’s private parts are not blurred out.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=BpLYl9osjMc&x-yt-ts=1421914688