While we are still horrified by the invasion of Ukraine, we today marvel at the barbarism of the leaders of a country that has paradoxically been the cradle of the greatest contributions to the artistic and cultural heritage of humanity.
Among the various Russian influences on Western culture, and at the dawn of the educational reform advocated by the Russian revolution of 1919, it is worth highlighting the Moscow State Higher Artistic-Technical Workshops, better known as VKhUTEMAS (later renamed VKhUTEIN). VKhUTEMAS emerged in 1920, at a time when the Bauhaus had just been opened in Weimar by Walter Gropius; In fact, the possible influences between Bauhaus schools and the Russian laboratory are illustrated in both the teaching experiences and the contacts between the knowledge and teacher exchange that takes place in the two institutions. In both, Kandinsky’s presence represents the most important truth.
But undoubtedly one of the most relevant pedagogical experiences was the VKhUTEMAS Psychotechnical Laboratory, led by the Russian architect Nikolai Ladovski.
In 1927, Ladovsky set up a “black room” at the school for the Psychotechnical Laboratory, in which all sides were painted black to remove any stimuli that might affect the perception of people exposed to the experience. Ladovsky’s spatial course was based on the study of perception and experience as a framework for a new syntax of plastic forms. This goal – or “psychoanalytic methodology” as Ladovsky calls it – was achieved through four types of formal features: geometric, physical, mechanical, and logical. These were developed through study and experimentation with form, space, volume, rhythm, structure, balance, mass and weight.
The basic idea was to provide a scientific basis for architecture, especially focusing on various aspects: the study of the influence of architectural elements on the psyche, the analysis of the properties of these elements, the effect of light, color and form, and the study of the composition of architectural systems. The Psychotechnics Laboratory encouraged its students to use this study model as a design tool and as a teaching tool. The method used in the lesson forced the students to think spatially and work directly in three dimensions: when starting a model, the students did not need to be aware of the end result, they activated the concept of learning by doing.
Rationalists led by Ladovski developed a series of devices that not only allow the assessment of perceptual abilities, but rather serve to improve them. Such instruments measured attention, memory, eye sensitivity, spatial sensitivity, spatial coordination, orientation, imagination, spatial composition ability, and motor skills. The tests were carried out with the help of questionnaires and the use of didactic tools made by Ladovski and colleagues. These include LIGLAZOMETR (Linear Eyemeter), UGLAZOMETR (Corner Eyemeter), PLOGLAZOMETR (Plane Eyemeter), OGLAZOMETR (Volume Eyemeter) and PROSTROMETR (Spatial Eyemeter). Students simultaneously served as test subjects and data providers to instructors. This resulted in an interesting case study, as the subjects of the study – the students – became both the main agents and experts in defining the research object of architectural form. Psychotechnical research measured, among other things, whether a student had the ability to visually read the form. At the same time, students were trained in visual precision, a skill that allows them to coordinate the attributes of perceived forms, both objectively and subjectively.
These multi-disciplinary and cross-applications of Moscow workshops, dealing with the sensory aspects of learning and their effects on the psychology of perception, remain one of the richest pedagogical experiences in architecture today, overshadowed by the ineptitude of some vile administrators.