This thesis proposes a theoretical framework for spatial inquiry into conditions of radical social gregariousness, through probing the crowd design problem in the work of the Soviet Rationalist architects (1920s-30s) - particularly their submissions to the Palace of Soviets competition (Moscow 1931-3). Legitimizing the crowd construct as an index of collective consciousness, and examining the early-modern revolutionary crowd's struggles for proclaiming its self-consciousness, this thesis investigates the interwar political phenomenon of amassing large crowds within buildings as a device for constructing collective social relations. The research project is divided into two main parts. The first is concerned with the crowd design problem, identifying this problem not just as the technical task of accommodating large political crowds, but as the basis of the formulation a new kind of conceptual intent in architecture. Finding the competition brief inadequate to in-depth formulation, the thesis investigates three primary sources for the crowd design problem: mass-events, revolutionary-theatre and revolutionary-art. Four components comprise the Crowd Design Problem each seeking legitimacy in the mass of crowd-bodies: i) the problem of crowd configurations; ii) challenges from the kinesthetic-space conception evoked by theatrical director V.E. Meyerhold's Biomechanics; iii) the legitimacy of 'the object' within a spatial-field of intersubjectivity; and iv) the challenge of 'seeing' crowds from immersive viewpoints counteracting representational filters of class privilege. Part-II focuses on the response of the Rationalists--one of the groups participating in the competition--to the crowd design problem. The study unearths in their designs a logic of space-making founded in the construction of inter-subjective states of consciousness radically different from prevailing individualistic conceptions of social space. To explain this logic of space-making, it proposes the notion of Gregarious Space--a theoretical framework of inquiry into what Marx called "species-being", taking radical gregariousness as the primary, generative condition of society. Besides drawing on morphological principles, social theory, historical analyses, and philosophical reflections, the notion of Gregarious Space is found to be particularly amenable to design propositions. Within the proposed theoretical framework, the Rationalists' design-proposition of curved-grounds, dense notations, textured co-visibilities and empathetic graphic conventions - all comprise a founding spatial-principle trafficking in rhythmic fields between subjects and against non-commodified objects: a principle which challenges the material domain of Productivist Constructivism as well as Historical Materialism's canonical constructs of alienation. Moreover, its uncertain kinesthetics sustain dynamic, aleatory states of consciousness which subvert prevailing disciplinary techniques of Panopticon inspection.

No description available.

Cette thèse analyse les échanges artistiques entre la France et l’URSS durant l’entre-deux-guerres, leurs rouages et les avantages mutuels qu’ils présentent. Cette période connaît quatre phases successives, ce qui permet de découper la recherche en autant de parties. La première étudie la période d’avant la reconnaissance de l’URSS par la France et la mise en place des relations diplomatiques (avant 1924) ; la deuxième se penche sur les premiers liens officiels qui suivent ladite reconnaissance (1925-1928) ; la troisième s’intéresse aux années 1928-1934, période du « Grand Tournant » dans l’économie soviétique, et enfin la quatrième englobe les années qui suivent l’instauration du réalisme socialiste en 1934 et se termine avec la guerre. Notre projet tente d’évaluer la pertinence de l’approche stéréotypée portant sur le lien entre art et idéologie, de voir si la peinture soviétique, telle que présentée lors des expositions en France, était similaire à celle exposée en URSS et constituait un outil de propagande à part entière. Sous quelle forme l’art soviétique est-il présenté en France et quel est le rôle des instances dans la mise en place de ces manifestations ? Il s’agit d’étudier le rôle des acteurs de ces échanges : instances étatiques, associations, galeries, spécialistes d’art, intellectuels, collectionneurs ou enfin les artistes eux-mêmes. Nous nous intéressons également aux expositions d’artistes français et à l’organisation de leurs voyages en URSS. Ce travail montre que les maillons de la chaîne « politique-idéologie-finances » sont intimement liés entre eux et que l’argent a souvent un rôle décisif pour les instances soviétiques. / This dissertation focuses on artistic exchange between France and the USSR in the interwar period, its mechanisms and the benefits it presented. This period can be divided into four successive phases, accounting for the four parts this research falls into. The first part studies the years leading up to the recognition of the USSR by France and the setting up of diplomatic relations (prior to 1924); the second part deals with the first official links following the recognition (1925-1928); the third part focuses on the years 1928-1934, a period of economic change also known as « the Great Turn » in Soviet economy and the fourth and final part spans the years after socialist realism was established from 1934 on up to the outbreak of the war. This research questions the stereotypical approach to the link between art and ideology and asks whether Soviet painting, as shown during exhibitions in France, was similar to that shown in the USSR and whether it was, or not, a sheer tool for propaganda. Under what form was Soviet art presented in France and what role did authorities play in organizing artistic events? The role played by the actors of this exchange is studied: state authorities, associations, art galleries, art specialists, intellectuals, collectors, intellectuals, and last but not least the artists themselves. Also studied are the exhibitions of French artists and how their trips to the USSR were organized. This research shows that politics, ideology and money are tightly linked together and that money played a decisive role for Soviet authorities.