Soviet Mosaic in a Modern Russian City. How Can a Monumental Heritage Become Valuable Again?

  • Nikolay A. Studenikin HSE University
Keywords: soviet mosaic, monumental heritage, preservation of cultural heritage, symbolic capital, territorial capital, city brand

Abstract

In the Soviet Union, the practice of decorating the urban environment with works of monumental art was widespread, thanks to which objects such as mosaics significantly influence the visual image of many cities of the post-Soviet space. Despite their rich history and cultural value, such mosaics are no longer considered as a heritage worthy of maintenance or restoration. They have become dilapidated or have been destroyed, they were dismantled, plastered, or painted over during repair work.

This research explores how Soviet mosaics can once again become a public value and a significant element of local territorial identity. In order to understand more deeply the issues of the Soviet monumental heritage in modern Russian cities, the author considers the Soviet street mosaic as unique symbolic capital of territories, which can become part of their brand and help in revealing local identity. The analysis of several precedents in which mosaics were integrated into the economy of the city or became a vivid visual symbol is provided.

The research shows that the Soviet mosaic heritage can be revitalized in modern Russian realities, determines the conditions and ways of returning public value to the mosaics as urban environment objects, reveals the existence of a clear public demand for the preservation of such objects, and outlines directions for further research on this topic.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Nikolay A. Studenikin, HSE University

Bachelor’s Student, Vysokovsky Graduate School of Urbanism, Faculty of Urban and Regional Development, HSE University

Published
2024-05-22
How to Cite
StudenikinN. A. (2024). Soviet Mosaic in a Modern Russian City. How Can a Monumental Heritage Become Valuable Again?. Urban Studies and Practices, 9(1), 55-79. https://doi.org/10.17323/usp91202455-79