VI Lenin and Palace of Culture Mosaic – Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

VI Lenin in Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

VI Lenin in Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

More on Moldova – on the Post-Socialist Countries – Eastern Europe and Asia page

Soviet Mosaics – Bălți – Moldova

VI Lenin and Palace of Culture Mosaic – Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

VI Lenin and Palace of Culture Mosaic – Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

The statue of VI Lenin in Ribniţa is located in a square that still bears his name (after all Ribniţa is in Pridnestrovie, a part of the territory that doesn’t want to be dominated by European diktats) in front of the Palace of Culture.

Vladimir Ilych is standing, wearing an open overcoat, the right hand side of which has been caught by the wind. (Quite a few statues of VI Lenin have him depicted with his coat being blown by the wind and I sometimes wonder if his early demise might not have been due to standing outside in adverse weather conditions.) He wears his normal flat cap and his hands are clasped behind his back. A quite informal stance as he looks out over the town and in the general direction of the steel works across the valley. As is, unfortunately, normally the case I have no information about the artist or when the statue was inaugurated.

During the Soviet period this square would have been the most important public space in the town. Outside celebrations of, for example, the anniversary of the October Revolution, would have taken place in the area surrounding his statue and any community events of a city wide importance would have taken place in the building behind him.

Palace of Culture mosaic - Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

Palace of Culture mosaic – Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

The mosaic, although not ‘overtly’ political (that is, with any representation of past or current Soviet leaders) still makes a political statement. On the left hand side of the huge mosaic you will see representations of science in general (with the atomic symbol) and the electrification of the country (one of the initial aims for Socialism established by Vladimir Ilych in the early days of the revolution) represented by the pylon.

Then we have a representation of the family (indicating stability but not really challenging the bourgeois relationships that were posited by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels); then we have industry – the maquette held aloft – and it’s important to remember that to date Ribniţa is the centre of Pridnestrovie’s steel industry; then there’s chemistry with the woman holding a glass Erlenmeyer flask; next is architecture/building/planning with the image of a street plan; then we have something I’m not sure what it represents, this is a male figure with what looks like sparks coming from his hand (any ideas?).

The two different narratives of the mosaic are separated by a large, oval head and shoulders of a female figure with a smiling face – I’m not sure if this is not to represent Moldovan folk heritage.

The right hand side of the mosaic represents various forms of culture, and also indicating the sort of events that would have taken place in the Palace of Culture. There’s a female violinist and standing behind her a male – this is music and he could possibly be a singer; next is a male with an open book in his left hand and his mouth is open as if he is reciting, he’s also gesticulating as his right arm is outstretched above him – so this is theatre; behind the actor a male stands behind an easel, with a paint brush in his rights hand which is gathering paint from the palette held in his left hand – so here we have the plastic arts; the last figure shown is a seated female figure (in classical dress) – I think she might just represent the artistic Muse in general rather than anything specific.

The extreme right of the image includes a huge bunch of grapes to illustrate the importance of the production of wine in the country – something which is obvious if you travel out of the main cities and pass vast areas of vines – and finally a factory belching out smoke. At the time of the production of this mosaic chimneys belching out smoke were considered a sign of progress and industrialisation. Images of factories from Britain, for example, during the hey days of the industrial revolution often showed such images (although often with a reference to Hell) and the Soviet Union was seeking to reach the same level of industrial production. In hindsight, whether such a policy was the best is, perhaps, questionable. However, these smoking chimneys reference steel production in Ribniţa.

Location;

In Lenin Square, at the junction of Biruintei Boulavard and Strada Kirov.

GPS;

47.76599 N

29.00760 E

More on Moldova – on the Post-Socialist Countries – Eastern Europe and Asia page

Soviet Mosaics – Bălți – Moldova

VI Lenin and Palace of Culture Mosaic – Ribniţa – Pridnestrovie

Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) Metro – Avtovo – Line 1

Avtovo - Alex 'Florstein' Fedorov

Avtovo – Alex ‘Florstein’ Fedorov

More on the USSR

Moscow Metro – the world’s biggest Socialist Realist Art Gallery

Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) Metro – Avtovo – Line 1

Avtovo - 04

Avtovo – 04

Avtovo (Russian: А́втово) is a station on the Kirovsko-Vyborgskaya Line of the Saint Petersburg Metro. Designed by architect Yevgenii Levinson, it opened as part of the first Leningrad Metro line on November 15, 1955. In 2014, The Guardian included it on the list of 12 most beautiful metro stations in the world.

Avtovo - 02

Avtovo – 02

Avtovo’s unique and highly ornate design features columns faced with ornamental glass manufactured at the Lomonosov factory. Although the original plan envisaged using glass on all of the columns in the station, white marble was substituted on some due to time constraints. This marble was supposed to be temporary, but it has never been replaced. The walls are faced with white marble and adorned on the north side by a row of ornamental ventilation grilles. At the end of the platform a mosaic by V.A. Voronetskiy and A.K. Sokolov commemorates the Leningrad Blockade (1941-1944) during the Second World War.

Avtovo - 03

Avtovo – 03

Unlike the other stations on the first line, Avtovo is a shallow-level station, constructed using the cut and cover method. It belongs to the shallow column class of underground stations.

Avtovo - 01

Avtovo – 01

Avtovo has as its entrance vestibule a large Neoclassical building with a domed cupola, located on the east side of Prospekt Stachek.

Text from Wikipedia.

Location:

Kirovsky District

GPS:

59°52′02.37″N

30°15′40.87″E

Depth:

12m (39ft)

Opened:

November 15, 1955

More on the USSR

Moscow Metro – the world’s biggest Socialist Realist Art Gallery

Sayil – Yucatan – Mexico

Sayil

Sayil

More on the Maya

Sayil – Yucatan

Location

The archaeological area of Sayil is situated 25 km south-east of Uxmal, Yucatan. To reach it, take federal road 180 and then state road 131 to the site. The Puuc region is characterised by karst landscape and uneven topography, with no sources of surface water, only cenotes and aguadas, natural wells and depressions. One of its principal cultural traits during the pre-Hispanic period was the development of a technology to store rainwater in chultunes or cisterns dug out of the rock. The vegetation in the Sayil area is at different stages of growth, giving rise to a thick layer of secondary vegetation that makes it relatively inaccessible. This vegetation is the produce of the last 400 years of seasonal farming characterised by the cultivation of small plots of land which are rotated every so often when the nutrients of the soil have been depleted. This modern farming method, combined with the low levels of population it sustains, is a stark contrast to the high population levels in the Puuc region during the pre-Hispanic period, especially the Terminal Classic (AD 750-950.)

Pre-Hispanic history

The size of the civic-ceremonial precinct at Sayil was only eclipsed in the region by Uxmal. Near Sayil are various minor sites, including Kabah and Labna. These civic-ceremonial cities are situated at regular intervals of between 10 and 12 km, with dense human conglomerates between larger centres. The density of the pre-Hispanic population was such that in certain areas of the Puuc region it was continuous, leaving very few places without any human presence. The growth of Sayil as an important centre was probably the result of the collapse of other centres and the population decline in the southern lowlands during the 8th and 9th centuries AD. Over the course of the following centuries, the majority of the population in the southern lowlands probably moved to areas with a greater stability in terms of resources or to less populated regions, such as Puuc. The rapid population increase in northern Yucatan is therefore almost certainly related to the decline in importance of Peten in the political and economic history of the Maya area, but also to a major change in rainfall levels and improved farming potential in the Puuc region at the end of the Classic period. Based on the capacity of Sayil to accumulate water in chultunes and on the number of rooms per building, some historians estimate a population of between 4,000 and 8,000 during the Terminal Classic (AD 750-950) and a possible area of influence of 70 sq km with a total population of 16,000.

History of the explorations

Sayil was first visited and its ruins presented to an international public in 1841, after it had been recorded by John Stephens and Frederick Cartherwood. Although numerous travellers and researchers have published their impressions about their respective visits, relatively little is known about this archaeological site beyond the architecture of the core area. Until recently, the most complete perspective of this site, and indeed of any other site in the Puuc region, was the map drawn up by Edwin Shook in 1934 showing the layout of the buildings and documenting some of the most notable structures. Evidence of the principal period of occupation was limited until a few years ago to the existence of certain calendric dates on inscriptions and on the ceramics uncovered during minor excavations conducted at the site by Brainerd in 1958. Most of these pots correspond to the Cehpech ceramic group, which dates from between AD 800 and 1000. Between the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, the University of New Mexico conducted a longer and more detailed archaeological project at the site.

Site description

At its peak, Sayil may well have comprised four architectural groups of varying sizes and importance: one to the north, another two along the causeway running north-south through the site, and the largest to the south-east. The main settlement is concentrated in the bottom of the valley, where five main groups are arranged in an approximate north-south axis along the main causeway. The location of the settlements not directly associated with the causeway is determined by the presence of limestone rocks, which were required for the construction of chultunes. The site continues, practically in all four directions, to the foot of the hills that form the valley

Palace.

This is the best known building at Sayil, being noted for its sheer scale and decoration. In certain publications it is referred to as the Great Palace or the North Palace. It was built on ground that had been levelled and adopts the form of a vaulted group on three stepped tiers comprising over 90 rooms; its basic function was to serve as the residence of the governor’s family and closest circle. The main facade faces south and rises from a platform which also marks the beginning of the causeway that leads to the other groups that form the urban landscape of Sayil. The first two levels are defined by ‘tripartite’ entrances which eventually lead to each of the rooms inside the building. The width of these opening was achieved by a novel technique in the Maya area: the use of modestly decorated, monolithic columns, which permitted the creation of large, well-lit surfaces covered either by flat roofs or corbel vaults. The facades display a harmonious and balanced combination of various decorative panels: on each level, the facades have a different type of decoration, the most notable being the middle section with its complicated mosaic designs, typical of the Puuc style. On the bottom level, the west facade once displayed medial moulding combined with zoomorphic masks, the latter no longer visible. On the east facade, the smooth panels are combined with a frieze decorated with colonnettes. The second level offers a magnificent example of Puuc architecture at its height, combining simple entrances with much wider ones and a decorative repertoire defined by the use of colonnettes on the lower frieze. Medial and upper mouldings decorate the short sections of these same elements which alternate from wall to frieze between the doorways, the portico openings and the sculptural decoration. The walls are decorated with colonnettes with ataduras or moulded bindings in the middle and at the ends, while the frieze, simple and bare, serves to accentuate the wall decoration. On the frieze above the central openings are robust stucco masks representing the front view of a long-nosed deity, flanked by serpents shown in profile. The decoration of the lower levels of the Palace contrasts enormously with that of the top level, which is much simpler. This level was added at later date and part of the lower levels must have been filled in to support the weight of it.

Mirador.

Situated next to the south end of the causeway and built on a stepped platform, the reconstructed building we see today is defined by its high corbel vault and an equally high roof comb. Nowadays, the facade is bare and simple, with medial moulding that must have contrasted with the roof comb which still displays traces of butts for stucco anthropomorphic figures. The building originally contained five rooms, of which only one has survived.

Temple of the Hieroglyphic Lintel.

This forms part of a small quadrangle. It is poorly preserved, with only three of its original rooms still visible today. The north room displays an interesting doorway from the architectural point of view and relatively rare in the Maya area: a band of 30 glyphs, many fairly well preserved, decorates the jambstone and lintel of the main entrance to the building.

South Palace.

This is a fairly simple, three-room structure with a central portico defined by two columns, lintels and capitals with carved figures and anthropomorphic deities. It is the largest building in the south group. A two-level structure, its main facade faces east. On the ground floor the rooms are arranged around a solid volume. The central room on the facade has three doorways. Nearly all of the decoration is articulated by horizontal lines of colonnettes.

Rodrigo Liendo Stuardo

From: ‘The Maya: an architectural and landscape guide’, produced jointly by the Junta de Andulacia and the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, 2010, pp 375-378.

Sayil

Sayil

1. Palace; 2. Temple of the Hieroglyphic Lintel; 3. Mirador; 4. South Group.

How to get there:

Not easy if you don’t have your own transport. There are no buses or colectivos that run along this road. Although the three sites (Labna, Xlapak and Sayil) are all within a 15km stretch of the road unless you hire a taxi from Santa Elena (expensive) you have to depend upon your wits, imagination and good luck.

GPS:

20d 10′ 47″ N

89d 39′ 16″ W

Entrance:

M$70

More on the Maya