2019_4_257-400_Symmetry-Culture-and-Science

THE COMING OF HEAVEN ON EARTH AND THE BAUHAUS 355 to design low cost housing estates and later accepted a city architect position in Magdeburg. “Neues Bauen”, which was the title of the exhibition that brought about the kind of public criticism that called Taut “a mediocre architect… devoid of inspiration” (Whyte 1985, p. 11) was adopted in naming the new stance Taut begun to advocate in late 1920, towards the end of the Crystal Chain correspondence. Instead of the “studio art”, for architecture to take the lead, a straightforward and functionally-minded approach to construction was to be taken up to embrace the immediate demands of the populace. The same path was beaten by painters who turned away from the romantic idealism of Expressionism and their term, “Neue Sachlichkeit” (New Objectivity), denoted the new attitude progressive intellectuals in the Weimar Republic came to embrace. This shift in attitude is perceptible within the Bauhaus, which at the start was a melting pot of all sorts of stances. Gropius was a leader of extraordinary quality whose main objective was to maintain a cooperative high spirit and saw that a lesser flux of ideas would solidify the school into a conventional academy. In this aim he was inclined towards Scheerbart’s insistence on the flexibility of the mind as the key to creativity and harmonious existence. This lack of clearly defined directionality allowed for antagonisms among both students and masters, sometimes resulting in final breaks with the school. Among these the most memorable was the Gropius-Itten conflict; and Itten’s resignation in 1923 marked the end of the Bauhaus’ ‘Expressionist phase’ that concentrated on the individual’s search for meaning and his integration into the cosmos. Oscar Schlemmer (1888–1943) described the polarities of the Bauhaus spirit as “Indian cult” on one end and “Americanism” on the other, the latter representing a strong drive towards mechanization and standardization. It seems that with time the latter stance came to be more dominant among students. In 1922 Lothar Schreyer (1886–1966), the newly appointed master for the theatre workshop, who interpreted the theatre space as the representation of cosmic space and saw the tools of theatre in elementary mathematical forms, attracted a strong student protest. Schreyer handed in his notice and Oscar Schlemmer took over his course. Whereas the Bauhaus theatre projects visually seem to formulate a coherent whole, the stance of the masters and that of the students were polar opposites. Schlemmer’s work, the Triadic Ballet (Fig. 8) was spiritually grounded and closer to Expressionism; the students’ formal solutions represented a Zeitgeist of mechanization.

356 K. MÁTHÉ Figure 8: Triadic Ballet costumes (1926) by Oscar Schlemmer and Bauhaus student Kurt Schmidt’s scene design, “The Man at the Control Panel” (1924). Political and economic pressure put an end to the Bauhaus’ version of the intuition versus abstraction controversy. From the beginning, the conservative forces in the Weimar Republic opposed any institutions from the education reform movement, and with the victory of the right-wing parties at the 1924 elections in Thuringia, the fate of the Bauhaus in that state was sealed. Gropius attempted to place the school on a private-enterprise basis, as after the first Bauhaus exhibition in 1923 the market viability of the Bauhaus products seemed to be ensured; but his undertakings were turned down in Weimar. Dessau at that time was under social-democratic leadership and suffered from an acute housing shortage due to the influx of the workforce for the leading industries that settled in the surroundings. Gropius’ ideas on the rationalization of architecture came to be not only the solution for Dessau’s housing shortage, but provided the Bauhaus school with a future. The City of Dessau commissioned Gropius not only to erect housing estates for the city’s purposes, but to complete the Bauhaus school complex: a mini-universe of an ideal community working towards the betterment of human existence. From 1924, the entire Bauhaus was set to labour exclusively on this project and the ideals proclaimed in the 1919 manifesto became rendered into built form by the end of 1925. In one regard, Scheerbart’s conviction that his glass-structure Eden was soon to become reality was verified. The Bauhaus complex became a point of pilgrimage and the visitors’ account on their experience was, as one of them noted: “The eye is drawn to a dazzling beam of light … Glass, glass and more glass, radiating dazzling white light from every wall. I have never seen such a light reflector” (Droste 2006, p. 122). Although stripped from its

THE COMING OF HEAVEN ON EARTH AND THE BAUHAUS 357 metaphysical backing, the glass-dream came to be realized and was indeed responsible for many creations that elevated the human spirit. 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS Once scientists in the 17th–18th century started to narrow down their scope of interest to purely physical properties, they became truly successful. Something similar happened to architects during the second decade of the 20th century. As soon as they committed themselves to take the industrial, economical-political and material reality as their prime consideration for design, and exiled their higher goals of creating into the realms of virtual reality, the hitherto lacking resources and social support — although within limits — started to flow in. The ultimate merits of this reductionist drive received criticism already from the outset. Its globe-around architectural application, the International Style, did not stand the test of time or brought about the desired salvation for all. Neither did scientific activity in its pursuit to find a unified theoretical synthesis of all phenomena fulfil its original mission; although today’s construction of particle accelerators likely exceeds the resources earlier societies spent on cathedral buildings. Questions on space and matter are not purely scientific or architectural questions, they are human questions. Both science and architecture are profoundly human and culturally dependent activities and not the neutral advancements toward an absolute truth or salvation. There is nothing in mathematics per se that determines the purpose of its use. Choices were made by intellectuals about what to accept as reality and consequently what territory to allow for imagination. Since the Scientific Revolution, the senses ceased to be considered as legitimate means to comprehend the world. The concerns raised here are not to question the value or viability of abstract thinking, but to challenge its fundamentality, and whether it should formulate the exclusive basis of human existence. The heavy presence of virtual reality in our present day social bonding suggests that

358 K. MÁTHÉ something beyond the abstract-material wants to claim its position, if not on the material plane, then in that of the psyche. REFERENCES Bortoft, H. (2012) Taking Appearance Seriously: The Dynamic Way of Seeing in Goethe’s and European Thought, Edinburgh: Floris Books. Droste, M. (2006) Bauhaus 1919–1933, Köln: Taschen. Gruson, F. (2019) The spirit and the symbol in architecture: The divine proportion, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 30, 1, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2019_1_005 Haag Bletter, R. (1975) Paul Scheerbart’s architectural fantasies, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 34, 2, 83– 97. https://doi.org/10.2307/988996 Haag Bletter, R. (1981) The interpretation of the glass dream: Expressionist architecture and the history of the crystal metaphor, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 40, 1, 20–43. Haag Bletter, R. (1983) Expressionism and the New Objectivity, Art Journal, 43, 2, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043249.1983.10792213 Hajnóczi, G. (1999) The concept of symmetry in early Renaissance art theory, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 10, 1-2, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_1999_1-2_007 Katona, V. (2018) Symmetries and proportions in architecture, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 29, 3, 325– 327. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2018_3_325 Kruft, H. (1997) A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present, trans. Taylor, R. et al., New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Lefas, P. (2018) The strict and the broad sense of symmetry in Vitruvius’ De Architectura, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 29, 3, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2018_3_353 Miller, T. (2015) Paul Scheerbart and the Utopia of Glass, Serbian Architectural Journal, 7, 1, 85–94. Noble, D.F. (1997) The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention, New York: Alfred. A. Knopf. Salingaros, N.A. (2018) Applications of the golden mean to architecture, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 29, 3, 329–351. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2018_3_329 Sanvito, P. (2018) The rules of symmetry and proportion in Michele Sanmicheli’s design methods, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 29, 3, 389–407. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2018_3_389 Vitruvius (1931) De architectura, F.S. Granger, ed. and trans., Loeb, London: William Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.4159/DLCL.vitruvius-architecture.1931 Wertheim, M. (1997) Pythagoras’ Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Wars, London: Forth Estate. Wertheim, M. (1999) The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace: A History of Space from Dante to the Internet, London: Virago Press. Whyte, B.I. (1985) Crystal Chain Letters: Architectural Fantasies by Bruno Taut and His Circle, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Symmetry: Culture and Science Vol. 30, No. 4, 359-372, 2019 https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2019_4_359 APPENDIX WHITE CITY: A COLLECTION OF MODERNIST BUILDINGS FROM TEL AVIV Éva Lovra* * Department of Civil Engineering, University of Debrecen, 2-4 Ótemető utca, Debrecen, HU-4028, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] In 2003, the UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization) World Heritage Committee added the White City of Tel-Aviv — the Modern Movement (Israel) to the World Heritage List based on the criteria of (ii) and (iv): Criterion (ii): “The White City of Tel Aviv is a synthesis of outstanding significance of the various trends of the Modern Movement in architecture and town planning in the early part of the 20th century. Such influences were adapted to the cultural and climatic conditions of the place, as well as being integrated with local traditions. Criterion (iv): “The new town of Tel Aviv is an outstanding example of new town planning and architecture in the early 20th century, adapted to the requirements of a particular cultural and geographic context.” (WHC decision: 27 COM 8C.23) The original master plan of the White City (nowadays the Old North area of Tel Aviv) was created according to the pioneering New Urbanism principles by Sir Patrick Geddes and his team between 1925 and 1929 (revised in 1938). The town was imagined on a human scale with decreased motor car traffic, larger urban blocks with central public

360 É. LOVRA spaces, gardens and verdant greenery along the boulevards and narrower streets — taking hints from the British Garden City Movement. The carefully placed series of urban blocks and the street network let the cooling breeze from the Mediterranean Sea refresh the inner districts. The architectural style was not directed in the planning documents. The built environment of the White City, the functional design, white and pastel façades, balconies, flat roofs and smaller openings, was assimilated into the climatic and regional building requirements. The specific aesthetics dominates the streetscape and met both artistic and functional ambitions that were adopted by the Bauhaus and other Modernist architects. Figure 1: Habima Theatre, Northern end of Rothschild Boulevard – Habima Square Sir Patrick Geddes had already envisioned the square as the cultural core of the White City in 1925. The national theatre of Israel (Habima Theatre) was designed by Oscar Kaufmann in the International Style (1934) and the building period lasted from 1935 to 1945. The project was given to Erich Mendelsohn initially, but he resigned and it was then offered to Kaufmann, a well-known theatre designer by his time. He teamed up with Eugen Stolzer and built the Habima. The circular frontage of the theatre lost its resemblance to circular temples after the reconstructions when the frontage was covered by large glass panels. Ram Karmi was commissioned to redesign the original building interior and the main façade as well, and the theatre reopened in 2012. Figure 2: 1 Montefiore Street The villa was designed by Yehuda Magidovich and built by Isaac Schwarz between 1932 and 1935 (the exact year is not known). The supposed period is according to the previous records of the architects’ building practice, as they designed Israeli eclectic buildings in the 1920s and from the 1930s their style turned towards Art Deco. Originally the building under 1 Montefiore had a ground floor and two upper floors and was built for the Havoinik family, but during the refurbishment three storeys were added (Ammon Bar Or Architects, 2011). The initial features such as the long and narrow volume of the building, the rounded loggias facing to the Montefiore street and the rounded balconies with metal railings were kept. Figure 3: 117 Rothschild Boulevard, at the corner of Bar Ilan Street The building was designed by Yizhak Rappaport based on International Style principles and built by Zion Aharonovitch in 1933–1934. The first owner was Nahum Yoelson, and the family retained ownership. The building went through changes in the past decades; the coat of the façades became chipped. The façades mostly got back their original frame and volumes after the restoration, which was completed in 2017. The building has open

WHITE CITY 361 porches facing Rothschild Boulevard and Bar Ilan Street. The initial design defined two attached buildings with two stairwells. The two thermometer windows are running towards the entrances and showing the stairwells behind. The building was preserved by Amnon Bar Or – Tal Gazit Architects in 2017. Figure 4: Soskin House, 12 Lilienblum Street The listed International-style building was designed by Ze’ev Rechter and constructed in 1933. The two-winged house was originally the family residence of the Soskins and Soskin Zincography until 1951. The façade of the building is divided into two structural elements, which are following the rules of the Golden Section proportions. The first east- located element has a vertical accent as the second is horizontal and pulled from the vertical rectangle. The house was renovated in 2005 by conservation architect Nitza Szmuk. Figure 5: 61 Rothschild Boulevard Figure 6: 142 Rothschild Boulevard Figures 7–8: Hotel Cinema Esther, Dizengoff Square The circle with three-storey buildings and uniform facades was designed by a 25-year- old female architect, Genia Averbuch in 1934. The Dizengoff Square’s most significant Bauhaus building is the former Esther Cinema, nowadays a boutique hotel (from 2001). Yehuda Magidovitch (Magidowitz) developed a modern architectural language in the White City and designed the Esther Cinema in 1938 in the manner of Averbuch with curved structure and façade to create the fine line of the circle. During the refurbishment, new ceilings were erected into the former cinema hall, but the spiral staircase and the foyer remained in its old frame. Figure 9: “Fire and Water Fountain”, Dizengoff Square The kinetic sculpture, dedicated in 1986, is the work of Yaacov Agam Israeli-French artist. Figure 10: 5 Frug Street The so-called Thermometer house was built by Yehuda Lioka. The slatted opening along the stairwell was designed for functional purposes. These give a unique look to the building. The openings allow the light to penetrate the staircase during the daytime and keeps the natural lighting as long as it is possible. The raised bannisters along the balcony, besides their original function, also serve as shade for the social space (flat roof and

362 É. LOVRA balconies). The flat roof is a White City Bauhaus feature, as it is a common property for all the tenants and serves as a private-public place. Figure 11: 12 Shlomo Hamelech Street, at the corner of Zamenhof Street Figure 12: 11 Shlomo Hamelech Street, at the corner of Tel Hai Street The rounded corner building was built to resemble a ship, a symbol of modernism at the time. The cubic shape of the corner was intended to redefine and soften the urban landscape with the additional elongated narrow balconies (so-called Mendelsohn balconies after the architect Erich Mendelsohn). The exterior of the rounded corner buildings reflects on the interior arrangement — the rounded living spaces were considered less functional. Figures 13–14: Bauhaus Museum, 21 Bialik Street The building represents the „International Style”, and was designed by Schlomo Gepstein Israeli architect, journalist and urban planner in 1934. Figure 1: Habima Theatre, Northern end of Rothschild Boulevard – Habima Square (photo by the author, 2017).

WHITE CITY 363 Figure 2: 1 Montefiore Street (photo by the author, 2015).

364 É. LOVRA Figure 3: 117 Rothschild Boulevard, at the corner of Bar Ilan Street (photo by the author, 2015). Figure 4: Soskin House, 12 Lilienblum Street (photo by the author, 2017).

WHITE CITY 365 Figure 5: 61 Rothschild Boulevard (photo by the author, 2015).

366 É. LOVRA Figure 6: 142 Rothschild Boulevard (photo by the author, 2015).

WHITE CITY 367 Figure 7: Hotel Cinema Esther (interior), Dizengoff Square (photo by the author, 2015).

368 É. LOVRA Figure 8: Hotel Cinema Esther (façade), Dizengoff Square (photo by György Darvas, 2008). Figure 9: “Fire and Water Fountain”, Dizengoff Square (photo by György Darvas, 2008).

WHITE CITY 369 Figure 10: 5 Frug Street (photo by the author, 2015).

370 É. LOVRA Figure 11: 12 Shlomo Hamelech Street, at the corner of Zamenhof Street (photo by the author, 2015).

WHITE CITY 371 Figure 12: 11 Shlomo Hamelech Street, at the corner of Tel Hai Street (photo by the author, 2015).

372 É. LOVRA Figures 13–14: Bauhaus Museum, 21 Bialik Street (photos by György Darvas, 2008).

Symmetry: Culture and Science Vol. 30, No. 4, 373-399, 2019 https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2019_4_373 GALLERY GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES. TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS. Exhibition Curators: Vitaly Patsyukov, Zsuzsa Dárdai Venue: NCCA1, Moscow, ul. Zoologicheskaya, dom 13, p. 2. Dates: Part I, October 24 – November 24, 2019 Part II, December 3, 2019 – January 26, 2020 Abstract: There have been devoted many exhibitions worldwide to the centenary of the foundation of the Bauhaus this year. The exhibitions (and the related event series) organised at the Russian National Centre of Contemporary Arts (NCCA) are particular among them. They combine the Russian suprematist and constructivist roots of arts with the best European impacts on the Bauhaus school and reflect the works of contemporary followers. The exhibitions are organised in two consecutive periods, to exploit better the premises of the NCCA.1 The first part of the large-scale exhibition “Geometry in the Culture of the XX-XXI Centuries. Towards the Centenary of the Bauhaus” opened on 24 October 2019. The first part was realised with the promotion of the Hungarian Cultural Centre in Moscow. 1 The National Centre of Contemporary Arts was founded by L. Bazhanov and a group of artists around him in the early nineties. Its headquarter, including a research institute and exhibition spaces, is situated in the heart of Moscow next to the Zoopark. Until today, the NCCA developed to a nationwide network (ROSIZO) with provincial branches in many cities throughout the Russian Federation.

374 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES The second part of the exhibition was opened on 3 December and can be visited until 20 January 2020. A culture built on structural imagery has the rare gift of finding equilibrium points in those moments when the world loses visible stability and its essence is on the verge of defenselessness. Art, in this position with a pulsating progressive perseverance, begins to ask questions, provoking cultural memory. Its signals, like flashes, destroy the stability of the clichés of past visual strategies, while returning to those artistic evidences that have the ability to determine the coordinates of existence. It was then that the suprematism of Kazimir Malevich, the Bauhaus art system, its educational form and traditions, enshrined in the diagonal optics of MADI, the constructive search for the balance of social life and art in the GINHUK (State Institute of Artistic Culture), the integral vision of the post-war culture, became actualized. Looking from the present time to the 20th century, we discover a new context that affirms the radical internal change in our existence. Today's geometric culture reveals particular points in non-equilibrium changes in reality, in pauses, shifts, breaks in the historical fabric, where the past and future gather and meet, as if in focus. One layer of this unique chronotope shines through another, merging and at the same time separating, emphasizing, revealing the formation of the actual, still being born, without refusing at the same time the desire for contact with the departed in the depths of memory. The artists participating in the project need this multilayered imagery as a radical plastic toolkit that can detect tremors, swaying, and oscillating states of our formalized virtual civilization. The cultural memory concentrated in the project is as polyphonic and filled with context as the art technologies themselves. It is naturally present, constantly manifesting itself in Malevich’s suprematical paradoxes, right angles of the Bauhaus school, polygonal projections of MADI, constantly returning to the traditions of Pythagoreanism, to endless nostalgia for the ideal, as happens in the albums of Ilya Kabakov, and in mirror recognition of ourselves in integral structures Lajos Kassak and Alexander Rodchenko. This memory lives by a palimpsest, the mutual overlapping of its layers, vibration of the ebbs and flows of visual-semantic states. Two vectors, two opposite trends of mindsets are quite distinctly revealed in it, both of which are designated by the term “avant-garde”, where the artistic consciousness gains its integrity in geometric imagery. One is optimistically coloured with revivalist expectations and the whole is directed from the past to the future; in the other, postmodern values and an archaeological understanding of culture dominate. The first is overgrown with numerous projects and update strategies. The second indicates the inevitability of

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 375 awareness of the limits of culture, its crises and catastrophes, where artistic consciousness gains its integrity in geometric imagery. The exposition of the project \"Geometry in the culture of the XX-XXI centuries. Towards the centenary of the Bauhaus\" has a double structure. The first part opens with references to the artistic systems of Kazimir Malevich, Vasily Kandinsky and Alexander Rodchenko, who turned plastic ideas of geometry into a manifesto, further linking the personal philosophy of artists with the ideas of the Bauhaus. In addition, further artists like, among others, El Lissitzky, Gustav Klutsis, Lajos Kassak, Victor Vasarely, Laszlo Mohoy-Nagy, Viktor Hulík, Janos SAXON- Szasz and Varvara Stepanova opened up in the energetics of the project as the names of stars - but not like in Hollywood plates, but in the texts of eternal culture, in a deliberately indicated posthistoric font, where respect and significance border on a wider context than cultural memory. In this new coordinate system, in the textual dramaturgy of geometry, the project participants reveal their personal existence, entering today in the image of a mythology hero of independent culture and independent artistic thought, a person walking through time - a pilgrim, an enchanted wanderer. The images of the Bauhaus continue in compositions from the collection of the Hungarian MOBIL MADI Museum, in the installation “Blues on the Roof” (workshop “Moving Pictures” by Andrei Suzdalev) and video projections of German avant-garde cinema of the 20s of the last century (Hans Richter, Viking Egg, Walter Ruttman). The organic completion of the first part of the exposition is extended by classical works of Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Gustav Klutsis, Valentina Kulagina, El Lissitzky, Natalia Goncharova, Mikhail Matyushin, Ivan Klyun, Alexei Kruchenykh, Varvara Stepanova from the collection of the \"State Museum V.V. Mayakovsky\" dedicated to the ideas of geometry in Soviet Russia and the formation of a socialist culture. The visual meanings of these images are clearly confirmed by fragments from the films of the outstanding Soviet film director Dzigi Vertov. The second part of the project is devoted to the development of geometric systems in post-war culture, and then during the \"thaw\" and in the following phases of our history. This part of the project is based mainly on works from ROSIZO-NCCA and private collections: Eric Bulatov, Vladimir Yankilevsky, Sergey Reznikov, Valery Yurlov, Vladimir Nemukhin, Francisco Infante-Arana, Yuri Zlotnikov, Boris Turetsky, Alexander Pankin, Igor Shelkovsky, Ilya Kabakov, Dmitry Prigov.

376 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES The images of geometry in this phase of the project naturally pass into our century, actualizing the “new sincerity”, mastering the ideas of fractal geometry and the geometry of “new stability”, proclaimed in the discoveries of Russian physics (Vladimir Kobrin). The final section of the second part of the exposition (Ivan Gorshkov, Alexandra Mitlyanskaya) is devoted to presenting how does the project, it soars within the boundaries of the future, in its aesthetic ecology, predicting the further development of geometry ideas in modern art, like the search for sociocultural harmony and the formation of a universal artistic language of harmony meet its aims. On November 17, 2019 a full day “Festival BAU100HAUS” was organised in the NCCA, connected to the exhibition, with the inclusion of the public, with participation of students from schools of Moscow, conducted by an international (Germany, Hungary and Israel) team. (After the text by Darya Zavialova.) In summary, there are exhibited works by the following, classical and contemporary, artists: Vladimir Andreenkov, David Apikyan, Carmelo Arden Quin, Milia Belich, Beppe Bonetti, Eric Bulatov, John Cage, Rimma Gerlovina, Alex Goncharenko, Natalia Goncharova, Ivan Gorshkov, Aleksander Drakulic, Viking Eggeling, Sergei Eisenstein, Oscar Fischinger, István Haraszti, Andrei Hrzhanovsky, Viktor Hulik, Francisco Infante-Arana, Ilya Kabakov, Vasily Kandinsky, Sergei Katran, Lajos Kassák, Anna Khomyakova, Gustav Klutsis, Ivan Kliun, Vladimir Kobrin, Anna Koleichuk, Viacheslav Koleichuk, Tamás Kovács, Andrey Krasulin, Aleksei Kruchenykh, Valentina Kulagina, Vladimir Lebedev, Andre Van Lier, El Lissitzky, Kazimir Malevich, Mikhail Matyushin, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Alexandra Mitlyanskaya, Petr Miturich, László Moholy-Nagy, Vladimir Nasedkin, Vladimir Nemukhin, Boris Orlov, Valery Orlov, László Ottó, Alexander Pankin, Mikhail Pogarsky, Dmitry Prigov, Sergey Reznikov, Hans Richter, Alexander Rodchenko, Olga Rozanova, Walter Ruttmann, Vladimir Safarov, Varvara Stepanova, Vladimir Sterligov, Andrey Suzdalev, Artem Surkov, Janos Saxon Szasz, Vladimir Tarasov, Boris Turetsky, Alla Urban, Victor Vasarely, Dziga Vertov, Igor Shelkovsky, Eduard Steinberg, Alexander Yulikov, Valery Yurlov, Vladimir Yakovlev, Vladimir Yankilevsky, Arseny Zhilyaev, Yuri Zlotnikov. The editor expresses his thanks for the photo and text documentation to V. Patsyukov, Zs. Dárdai, J. Saxon Szász, A. Goncharenko, M. Baranova, A. Urban and V. Hulik.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 377 Figure 1: Poster of the exhibitions.

378 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 2: L. Moholy-Nagy, Untitled, silkscreen, 60 x 70 cm. Figures 3-4: L. Kassák, Picture Architectures, silkscreen, 60 x 80 cm both.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 379 Figures 5-8: L. Kassák: Title pages of journal „MA”, silkscreen, 30 x 30 cm each.

380 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 9: L. Kassák, Picture Architecture, silkscreen, 60 x 80 cm. Figure 10: L. Kassák, Picture Architecture, silkscreen, 60 x 80 cm.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 381 Figures 11-12: Milija Belic, left: Hommage á Piet Mondrian, 2014, 40 x 40 x 17 cm; right: Glissando Blanc, 2016, painted wood, 41 x 40 x 15 cm. Figures 13-14: V. Vasarely, Untitled, 1950s, silkscreen, both.

382 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 15: V. Hulik, Small Geo Mover, 2003, painted wood, 40 x 40 x 6 cm. Figures 16-17: I. Harasztÿ, 2 „Logonces”, painted wood, cords, wooden balls, 2012, 40 x 122 cm both.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 383 Figure 18: T. Kovács: 3-dimensional Hebrew letters, 2018, painted steel hanged. Figure 19: V. Patsyukov.

384 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 20: J. Saxon.Szász, Poly-Dimensional Tower with Spaces, 2015, compacted wood, oil-paint, 32 x 30 x 60 cm; Poly-Dimensional Negative Planeta, 2015, compacted wood, oil-paint, 60 x 50 x 75 cm. Figure 21: Curators, Zs. Dárdai and V. Patsyukov.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 385 Figure 22: A. Goncharenko, Bauhaus 100, 2019. Figure 23: A. Goncharenko, Lea ( ‫ )לאה‬From the cycle Biblical Names, 2019

386 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 24: A. Pankin, Object 2 (Geometry of Zero Points in the Digital Structure 2), 2002.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 387 Figure 25: A. Pankin, The Constant of Max Planck, 2003, Pencil and tempera on paper.

388 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figures 26-35: I. Kabakov, Lists from the Album „Anguished Surikov”: The cycle „Ten personages” 1972, Litographs on paper. Figure 36: V. Koleichuk, Two Cable-stayed Rings, self-stressed tensegrity construction, 1975-2008, polished steel and steel cable.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 389 Figure 37: V. Koleichuk, Constructive Bells, acoustic sound object, self-stressed tensegrity construction, 1981-1995, duralumin, steel cable, locking elements.

390 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 38: V. Koleichuk, Structure with Ring, self-stressed tensegrity construction, 2008, steel pipe and steel cable.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 391 Figure 39: V. Safarov, Object No. 6, 2019, mixed technic. Figure 40: V. Safarov, Object No. 8, 2019, mixed technic, metal, plastic, wood, neon.

392 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 41: V. Nemukhin, Composition with circle, 2010, oil on canvas. Figure 42: Yu. Zlotnikov, Untitled (from the series „Signals”), 1959, ink and watercolors on paper.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 393 Figures 43-44: B. Orlov, Untitled (from the series „Surplus Elements”), 2001, phototype, enamel, both.

394 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 45: V. Andreenkov, Color Construction VI, 2014, paint on wood. Figure 46: V. Andreenkov, Brown Relief, 2014, paint on wood.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 395 Figure 47-48: V. Orlov, Untitled (from the series „Road”), 1986-2019, phototype on paper.

396 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES Figure 49: D. Prigov, Untitled, Sketch for an Installation, 1990s, litograph on paper. Figure 50: V. Nasedkin, Geometry, 2009, oil on canvas.

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 397 Figure 51: A. Zhilyaev, Untitled (from the series „Working Movement”), 2007-2019, pencil on paper. Figure 52: A. Koleichuk, Matter-and-me [Матер-и-я], 1998, video, based on motives from Vyacheslav Koleichuk’s „Grey Square”, „Music of Wood and Metal” by Stanislav Kreichi, Rhythm and movement by Lena Lukyanchikova.

398 GEOMETRY IN THE CULTURE OF THE XX-XXI CENTURIES . Figure 53: E. Steinberg, Composition (dedicated to Giorgio Morandi), 1973, oil on canvas. Figure 54: A view on one of the exhibition spaces, (photo: M. Baranova).

TOWARDS THE CENTENARY OF THE BAUHAUS 399 Figure 55: F. Infante-Arana, Untitled (from the cycle „Suprematic Games”), 1968, color printing on plastic and photo paper, with light box. Figure 56: F. Infante-Arana, Untitled (from the cycle „Suprematic Games”), 1968, color printing on plastic and photo paper, with light box.

400 AIMS AND SCOPE SYMMETRY: CULTURE AND SCIENCE provides an interdisciplinary forum for representatives of the various fields of art, science, and technology. According to its established tradition, it publishes papers by scientists addressed to their colleagues active in other disciplines, or even in different fields of the arts; and also papers by artists addressed to the representatives of the sciences and diverse fields of technology. Symmetry appears in articles of the various disciplinary and art periodicals, however those tend not to reach scholars in other fields of study. The journal SYMMETRY aims at conveying to them knowledge, methods, and novelties which are applicable to their main fields of interest and creative work. Its basic goal is building bridges between various fields of the arts and sciences, between various disciplines, and between different cultures. Symmetry is suitable for such a bridging function. It is a concept, a phenomenon, a class of properties, and a method. It is present in almost all disciplines and fields of art and technology. As a concept, it has roots in both science and art. As a phenomenon, symmetry or its lack is present in all fields of art, science, and technology. Finally, properties and methods, based on the application and the investigation of symmetry (and symmetry breaking) are transferred from one field to another. Symmetry is understood here in a broad sense, and approach to its study will be referred to as symmetrology. In contrast to the common geometric concept, one can speak about a more general scientific meaning of symmetry if: (i) under any kind of transformation (operation), (ii) at least one property, (iii) of an object is left invariant (intact). This generalised concept of symmetry makes possible the application of symmetry to both animate and inanimate material objects, as well as to products of our mind. In addition to geometric (morphological) symmetries (such as reflection, rotation, translation, etc.), the scope of the journal covers functional symmetries and asymmetries (e.g., in the human brain), gauge symmetries (of physical phenomena), and properties, like color, tone, shading, weight, and so on (of artistic objects). The journal focuses not only on the concept of symmetry, but also on its associates (asymmetry, dissymmetry, and antisymmetry) and related concepts (such as proportion, harmony, rhythm, and invariance) in an interdisciplinary and intercultural context. SYMMETRY publishes original papers on symmetry and related questions which present new results, or new connections between known results. The papers are addressed to a broad non-specialist public, without becoming too general, and have an interdisciplinary character in any of the following senses: (1) they describe concrete interdisciplinary ‘bridges’ between different fields of art, science, and technology using the concept or related to the phenomenon of symmetry; (2) they survey the importance of the application of symmetry (antisymmetry, etc.) in a concrete field with an emphasis on possible ‘bridges’ to other fields. The journal also has a special interest in historic and educational questions, as well as in symmetry-related methods and processes.