(google images)

Golomstock’s article, “Totalitarian Art”, focused on how Hitler and Stalin’s regimes incorporated the role and function of architecture into their respective totalitarian systems. After reading and discussing this article in class, it became clear that each dictator incorporated architecture into each of their societies very similarly, but that Hitler drew upon some lessons learned from Stalin. Another concept that stood out for me was that each regime had a very centralized control on the development, implementation, and functionality of architecture. It was also apparent the effect that the post-war environment had on the development of architecture, for example the Soviet Union had grandiose plans to rebuild the several thousand buildings destroyed during the war, in order to “reflect the sense of pride of the Soviet people in their Socialist State” (275). I found it interesting that at the center of each rebuilt town was intended to be the tallest building in the city, and the height of this building would reflect the importance that Moscow thought the city held (277). Personally, I didn’t understand how these regimes put this enormous amount of time, effort, money, and sacrifice into the aesthetics of their totalitarian architecture, and then having indifferent feelings about them being destroyed. For example, Hitler said in 1941 that it would be to no great loss if English bombs destroyed the German capital (280). Perhaps this indifferent mindset towards the architecture points towards his psychological decline and ultimate demise of Nazi Germany, for how could all this focus on returning to the Greek roots be all for waste?