In the second half of the 20th century, Soviet architecture has spread a common aesthetic across highly diverse environments, being an integral part in promoting the totalitarian ideology that disregarded local cultures, envisioning a unified, homogenous society. Nevertheless, in practice, the architecture proved itself susceptible to adaptations and local influences, perhaps nowhere more than in Central Asia. The article looks at the architectural heritage of a geographical area largely excluded from the Western-centric narratives on Soviet Modernism, encouraging a re-reading of a layered and nuanced urban landscape, with images by Roberto Conte and Stefano Perego.
Born in post-war United Kingdom, Brutalism reached Soviet architecture in the 1970s, replacing the Stalinist classicist style with a built form defined by functionality and mass production. What is generally referred to as Soviet Modernism is an architecture characterized by massive volumes and raw textures. However, more than an aesthetic, the term encompasses a specific ideology attached to the resulting architecture. The Soviet state wished to create a consistent architectural image and standard of living throughout the Soviet republics. However, the regime was open to compromise and to a re-contextualization of local history, as is the case with the Soviet architecture of Central Asia.
In a new photographic essay titled Soviet Asia, and published by FUEL, Roberto Conte and Stefano Perego explore the Brutalist heritage in the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, detailing the regional variations of Soviet modernism in Central Asia. The photographers document this architectural legacy constructed between 1950 and 1991, the year of the USSR’s dissolution. Much of this architecture is mainly unknown to the broader audience, with several buildings included for the first time in a photographic documentary of Soviet architecture.
The urban development in Soviet Central Asia took on a specific form, drawing from the Persian and Islamic influences which shaped the region’s identity and architecture long before the assimilation into USSR. Architects from Kyiv, Moscow and Leningrad were brought to the capitals of Soviet Central Asia to unfold architecture and urbanism in the spirit of the Soviet Union. However, local architects took liberties with the state-prescribed style. The Soviet architecture of these Asian republics is infused with Eastern architectural characteristics, visible in the patterns and mosaics, in the use of colour and ornaments, creating a brutalist aesthetic specific to this context, where European and Asian influences intertwine.
The dome-like shaped concrete structure of the Chorsu Bazaar in the Uzbek capital Tashkent is typical for market places all across the Soviet Union. However, what sets it apart is the building’s colourful tiled exterior, which showcases the Eastern influences. Along the same lines, the circus building in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, features an ornamented façade, whose motifs set the generic building type within its local architectural context.
An example of the re-contextualization of the local history is the mosaic in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, which depicts the Persian philosopher Avicenna next to Soviet astronauts. Throughout the European Eastern Block and Ex-Soviet republics, space travel was an important theme in the art and architecture of the Cold War, often included in questionable contexts. It was, however, designed to express the ethos of a progressive society that builds on its history but surpasses the past.
Over the last two decades, many of these Soviet buildings were torn down in Dushanbe, Tashkent and Almaty, in an attempt to break away with the totalitarian past and restate the regained sovereignty. Nonetheless, in many cases, there was nothing to replace these constructions that housed public functions, and instead, the sites remain undeveloped for the time being. However, like in some other ex-Soviet states, there seems to be, if not a newfound appreciation for the structures, an acknowledgement of their part in recent history. As such, citizens have started advocating for their preservation. In Dushanbe, a local initiative seeks to preserve the murals and mosaics of Soviet architecture. In Tashkent and Almaty, efforts are being made to catalogue and document this built heritage.
The photographic essay of Soviet architecture in Central Asia questions the idea of a homogenous Soviet Modernism and brings into the spotlight the nuances of this highly recognizable built heritage. What remains of this legacy is illustrative for the prevalence of local culture within a seemingly generic architectural style.
Roberto Conte (b.1980) is a Milan-based photographer whose work focuses on the architecture of the twentieth century, documenting rationalist, constructivist and avant-garde projects, Brutalism and Soviet modernism.
Stefano Perego (b.1984) is an architectural photographer also based in Milan, Italy. He collaborates frequently with architectural studios as well as artists. His interest in the architecture of the second half of the 20th century has been the focal point of his photography capturing Modernist, Brutalist, and Postmodernist works.
